I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to, and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

When the House adjourned yesterday I was dealing with the licence of the Winterton Dried Milk Factory. The Minister will no doubt get a statement from the Department with regard to that licence, but that is not the only information which he requires. The position with regard to that licence is that the Dairy Control Board failed badly in dealing with that application. The Dairy Control Board did not have the courage to refuse the licence and so close down the Winterton Factory, but they have adopted another way to achieve the same object. They have now granted the factory a restricted licence which only allows a certain number of the settlers to send their milk to that factory. That means inevitably that in the future that factory cannot function in an economic way, and without having refused the licence they will achieve their object of closing down that factory through inadequate supplies of milk. As far as the Bergville Factory is concerned, I realise their claims to milk. We are most anxious that that factory should be a success. It would be a catastrophe if anything happened to prevent the Bergville Factory from being a success. But what I wish to say is that the Dairy Control Board have themselves circumvented the provisions of the Dairy Control Act. That Act provides that no factory can pay the railage on milk forwarded to that factory by the producers. The object of that provision was that milk should not pass a factory in an area and go to a distant factory further away. By this action of the Dairy Control Board they are now forcing the producers not to supply their milk to the nearest factory in their area but to supply their milk to a distant factory right away from the factory which was supposed to function in their interests. I wish to say that in this dispute between the two factories, i.e. the Estcourt Condensing Factory and the Bergville Factory the Dairy Control and the Department have no right to penalise the producers in that area. If it is right that some suppliers should be given the right of supplying their milk to that factory, every producer in that area should get the same treatment, and if they consider that the Bergville Factory—and there is a great deal to be said for it—is entitled to milk supplies from the Winterton area, then they should have refused a licence to the Winterton Factory. As it is at present they have made a terrible mess of the whole thing, and the producer is the man who is going to suffer, and both factories are going to be penalised. I hope that the Minister, before dealing with this matter in his reply will ascertain the true position and not only reply in terms of the reply given to him by his Department which is in defence of the Dairy Control Board and makes no mention of the representations that have been made both to the Department and the Dairy Control Board by the producers in that area. I feel that an injustice has been done to a number of these producers due to the fact that they have not been able to send their supplies to a factory in their midst. Many of these men produced milk on the basis of not having to pay transport charges, and their whole business has been arranged on that basis. Now they are penalised to the extent of ¾d. to 1d. per gallon in having to send their produce to the Bergville Factory. I feel that the Minister should deal with this matter in another way. If these producers are to be forced to send their milk to Bergville, the Dairy Control Board should licence a dépôt for the Bergville Factory in the Winterton area so that these men will have the same treatment as their fellow-farmers in that area, so that they will be able to deliver their milk in that area without the penalty of the extra transport charges. May I say here that I rather object to a member talking to the Minister when I am trying to explain to him a matter of great importance concerning my constituency. I hope that the Minister heard what I have said on this matter, and that at all events in his reply he will give us his reasons and tell us how he is going to deal with this matter.

This debate has been going on for a long time.

It’s going to last a great deal longer.

My hon. friend is very encouraging, but perhaps it is best that I should answer a number of points which have been raised, among others by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). One of the questions he raised was that of wet mealies. I want to tell the hon. member that the Mealie Board recently again made a special investigation and the Board has come to the conclusion that the position is not as bad as it originally feared it would be. It appears that the damage is much less than was expected and everything possible is now being done to get the mealies re-bagged and sorted. In regard to the question of compensation to the co-operative societies that of course, can only be gone into at the end of the season. The hon. member also spoke about the meat graders and he quoted from the report of the Secretary for Agriculture and pointed out that that position is pretty ticklish, that we may have difficulty as a result of the situation as set out in the report. I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that that report deals with last year and that the position has improved considerably since then. We have more graders now and I do not think there is as much ground for that fear as the hon. member seems to think. He subsequently raised another question and perhaps I should reply to that now, namely the report of the Department on the reconstruction of agriculture. I was glad to notice that the hon. member in certain respects reacted to that report in the same way as many others. In other words, his reaction was a very favourable one. His reaction was so favourable that he could not refrain from saying that it really was the policy of the Nationalist Party. I think it is somewhat unfortunate that, the hon. member adopted that attitude in connection with that report.

Why?

The hon. member was not here at the beginning of the debate when a very touching appeal was made to me by hon. members opposite that we should leave politics out of agriculture, and I agreed that we should do our best, and that so far as I was concerned I would do my best to keep politics out of the agricultural industry. I think it is unfortunate therefore that the hon. member should come here how and say that this is the policy of the Nationalist Party, as if his party wants to make capital out of it.

What objection have you to the hon. member saying that that is the policy of this side of the House?

It is not a question of objection; I do not think there would be any need to appoint a commission to determine whose policy it really is. All we want to know is whether it is a sound policy or not. It makes no difference whether it is that side or this side’s policy. Do not let us say that this policy is the Opposition’s policy; rather let us look into the question whether it is a sound policy. This report is going to be considered, first of all by the Planning Council, and then it will come before the Reconstruction Committee of the Cabinet, after which it will be considered by the whole Cabinet; that is my answer to the further point raised by the hon. member, namely whether that report is going to be adopted or not. Very far-reaching recommendations are made in the report, and they will have to be carefully gone into and eventually we shall be able to say which part of the report will be adopted and given effect to. Meanwhile I want again to express my appreciation of the manner in which this report has been received by the various parts of the country and the different sides of the House.

†The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has made various suggestions of a far-reaching nature. Some of them are dealt with in that report which, as I have just indicated, will be very carefully and very fully considered.

Which report is that?

The report of my Department on the reconstruction of agriculture.

Where is that report?

In your box.

It is in my hon. friend’s box.

It is not in my box; it has probably been taken out by the Nationalists.

I only want to say in regard to one of the points that the hon. member for Hospital made, in connection with the agro-economic survey which he suggested, that that survey had been in operation for some time, but the survey had to be suspended for the war period owing to various difficulties, but we hope to start with that service as soon as possible. Then my hon. friend, the member for Pretoria. (East) (Mr. Clark) had a good deal to say about citrus.

Is that all you are going to say about my great speech?

That is a matter of opinion.

I would like to point out to him that the prices which he complained about are fixed not by the Minister concerned but by the Price Controller, and I would like to give him the following further details about these prices, namely, that when the in-season price was fixed at 3s. 3d. per bag retail, it was understood and indeed the farmers were given the assurance that there would be a price increase during the offseason. The previous year’s off-season prices were not fixed and they actually went as high as 8s. per pocket wholesale. From the 6th January the price was increased by 1s. 6d. per pocket and on the 17th January by one-third of a shilling. I do not think these increases can be considered unduly unreasonable for that particular period of the year, because they took place at a time when it is very expensive to gather · the fruit, and I do not think that my hon. friend now that he understands the position, will persist in his complaint and in his criticism.

†*Now I come to the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. De Kock). He spoke about a bull breeding station for dry areas such as Vryburg. We shall go into that matter, but, of course, it is a question of money, and during a time of war I cannot hold out too much hope of our being able to establish such a station. The hon. member also spoke about the bull subsidy question. He asked that the system should be maintained. The position is that the subsidy is being applied for a period of seven years and after that time it will not be continued because the Treasury is not prepared to agree to the subsidy being paid for more than seven years. In regard to the other point he raised, namely that there should be more agriculture in the school curriculum, we agree with him in that respect, and as the hon. member knows a fair amount of progress has already been made in that direction. In the Transvaal we already have a school farm system.

†Then I come to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) who had a great deal to say this session on the subject of eggs, and particularly eggs as far as the South Coast is concerned. I think the hon. member was somewhat unfair or careless in the way he placed his facts before the House. He suggested, first of all, that he saw me five weeks ago. My hon. friend said that he saw the Minister five weeks ago and he rather suggested that he saw me, and when I pointed out that five weeks ago I was not in office he said it was my predecessor. He continued in his remarks to say that nothing had been done. My hon. friend knows very well that it is a question really coming under the Price Controller and not primarily affecting my Department. But when the question was brought to my notice I took steps and I got into touch with the Price Controller and saw that the senior official, who was in Durban, was specially detailed to go to the South Coast, and I personally informed the hon. member that this had been done, and yet he told the Committee that nothing had been done. I think that was a little unfair, to say the least of it. The Price Controller is going further into the question of the maximum price in the uncontrolled areas.

I made a suggestion last night.

I now go on to deal with the point made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson). His main complaint was with regard to fresh milk produce. I told him in an interjection when he spoke that I had agreed to an investigation, an investigation into the prices of all dairy products, including fresh milk, and when the report is available we shall have the necessary information on which to act.

What about Winterton?

Let us leave that for a moment. I also want to tell the hon. member that the producers of fresh milk have made representations to the Marketing Council in regard to a scheme, and they are going into that. Now, as far as Winterton is concerned, it is quite clear that there is a good deal of history attached to this question, and I think it is only fair that I should go fully into that history before I decide what to do.

We don’t want you to reply at this stage.

I shall go fully into the whole question and see what is the best decision to take and if there is any case of injustice which has been done to producers and into which they did not walk with open eyes, I shall take steps to rectify the position so far as they are concerned.

†*Now I come to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) who was concerned about the amount of Government farming that was taking place, especially in regard to the production of potatoes by the Department of Lands at Vaal-Hartz. I agree with him that in ordinary circumstances the State should not compete with farmers so far as the production of agricultural products is concerned, but the hon. member should realise that we are not living in normal times. We are living in times of emergency when it is absolutely essential to use all available land which is suitable for the production of food, and not allow it to lie idle. We are obliged to produce as much food as possible. The food which is being produced is not produced to the detriment of the ordinary farmers. As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Lands, reminds me, so far as potatoes are concerned the Department of Lands was asked to produce mostly seed potatoes at Vaal-Hartz, and my hon. friend will realise that the production of potatoes by the Government has not affected the potato market, as my hon. friend, the member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) has already intimated. There is no danger of the market being handicapped or the farmers being detrimentally affected as a result of the production by the Department of Lands. The hon. member also mentioned another matter—he referred to water being pumped out of the Vaal River, and he made a request that we should assist the farmers in that connection by placing power engines at their disposal. On that subject I must refer my hon. friend to my colleague, the Minister of Irrigation. This matter does not come under me and I would advise him to direct his remarks to my colleague.

†The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Connan) has asked me to make a statement on the present position of agricultural implements. I must explain in this connection that this is a matter which really falls to be dealt with by my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, since the Controller of Agricultural Machinery, Implements and Requisites is under his control. However, it may not be inappropriate if I make a few general remarks on this question. During the past year the imports of agricultural machinery, implements, etc., remained considerably below the normal requirements of the Union, mainly as a result of the shipping position. Since the middle of last year a welcome increase in importation has taken place particularly from the United States and Canada. The cumulative effect of four successive years of subnormal importation has made itself strongly felt on the agricultural industry. On the whole, it may be stated that the importation of agricultural implements, machinery and spare parts during 1940 and 1941 was about 20-30 per cent. below normal, and during 1942 and the first eight months of 1943 about 60 per cent. below normal. It is clear, therefore, that had it not been for the immense progress made with local manufacture, the present position of the farmers in the Union would have been most alarming and food production would have suffered very seriously. The fact that the position has hitherto not become very grave is, therefore, largely attributable to the success achieved in local manufacture. Whereas in 1942 the local production was less than 2,000 tons. the total last year amounted to 4,000 tons, and the total for 1943 was 13,000 tons, which, on a weight basis, covers roughly 50 per cent. of the Union’s total requirements. This quantity represents a large variety of articles manufactured at numerous widely scattered machine factories. It does not, however, include such items as barbed wire baling wire and piping. It is natural, of course, that up to the present local manufacture has had to be confined mainly to the simple and lighter types of articles which can be turned out economically and in large quantities. Production was concentrated mainly on articles like ploughs, cultivators, ploughshares, harrow teeth, hand hoes, sickles, horseshoes, etc. The greatest difficulty is being experienced in connection with the manufacture of spare parts for tractors, but even in this respect satisfactory progress can be recorded. It is important to mention that the manufacture of large numbers of milk and cream cans has been successfully carried out in the country. As hon. members know, the position has eased considerably as a result of the improved shipping position, and with the Controller now in America, it is hoped that we shall be able to improve the position still further. On the whole, therefore, I think the Committee can be reassured by the present position and the position immediately ahead, with regard to agricultural implements. The hon. member also raised the question of the establishment of a research station in the Western Cape. I am afraid that it will not be possible to accede to his request during the war period, but the whole question of the establishment of additional research stations will receive attention in conjunction with the reconstruction plans of my Department, and although I can make no promise it might be possible that a station will be erected in that area, not only to study pasture and veld problems, but also to enable us to deal more effectively with such diseases as he mentioned, including Dikkop. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) also raised certain points, and he rather suggested that a measure of discourtesy was done to the Food Control Advisory Board. That, of course, is a matter which took place, as he quite realises, long before my time. The information I have available is that there was no question of discourtesy. The Board was found to be very useful to the Department and Food Control and it assisted them with many important matters. During the latter part of last year when the Government had appointed the Meat Commission—while that Commission was busy—the Board was not called together, and later on, after the Commission had reported, the Government decided to proceed with the appointment of a separate Food Controller, and the appointment of a new Advisory Board is still under considération. Then the hon. member for East London (Mr. Christopher) raised various matters of national importance, to one of which, namely, the conservation of our soil, I replied earlier on in this debate. He also dealt with the question of the protection of our water sources, and there I can tell him that the Government is taking steps through the Department of Forestry to look after our natural water resources, and holds large tracts of land, for no other purpose but to protect our water resources. We are taking steps.

†*Then the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) advocated the institution of a drying apparatus for mealies and wheat. The hon. member also wrote to me on this subject and I can tell him that I am going into the matter. As he will realise there are certain difficulties in connection with the whole matter. An apparatus of that kind can only be used for a few months every year and sometimes it cannot be used at all. To be effective it has to be a fairly large apparatus. It will cost a lot of money, and the drying fees—he said that the farmers would be prepared to pay them —will have to be fairly high. It is a difficult question, but I shall go into it in consultation with the senior officer for dehydration and we shall see what can be done in regard to this matter. Then the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) raised the question of East Coast Fever and although he expressed his appreciation of, and his thanks for what had been done in that regard for the farmers in those areas, he went further and raised certain points in respect of which he said the farmers were entitled to more assistance. I only want to say that so far as the farmers in those areas are concerned more is being done for them than for any other section of the farming population which has suffered from this visitation of East Coast Fever. The Department has never before gone so far as to do the ploughing for the people, as was done there.

They paid for it.

Did you expect it to be done for nothing?

No.

The fact of the matter is that the Department went out of its way to do the ploughing for those people. The Department realised that the sacrifices they had to make in the slaughtering of their cattle, were not only made for the sake of those areas but they were made to a certain extent also in the interest of the whole country, and that was why the Department went out of its way to help those people. I must therefore ask the hon. member to bear in mind the concessions that have been made and not to expect too much. We shall go into this question. Now in regard to the question of the tax on the payment for cattle which have been slaughtered, that is a question which rests with the Hon. the Minister of Finance. I have had some provisional talk with him on the subject and I shall go further into it. I also understand—and the hon. member did not tell the Committee that—that my hon. colleague has already gone far to help those people by not demanding excess profits tax. Those people will not have to pay excess profits tax on the money they have received for their slaughtered cattle. In regard to the question of income tax, as I have already said, I shall discuss this question further with my colleague. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) raised the question of artificial fertiliser and kraal manure, and he quoted very fully from a letter he had received from one of his constituents. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would give me that letter with all the details so that we can go properly into the matter to see what can be done.

Thank you very much.

In regard to this point of the writing off of loans for seeds that is a matter the hon. member should bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance on the Vote of the Office for the Collection of State Advances, and I would advise him to do so.

†Now I come to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) who dealt with our old friend, the Deciduous Fruit Board, whose affairs were very fully discussed on the Additional Estimates, and on which, as he has reminded the Committee, my predecessor gave an undertaking that he would go into the whole question of the re-organisation of that Board. The position is that as a result of last year’s dissatisfaction a responsible Committee had been appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. MacDonald, the previous Price Controller.

And also a large canner.

And the whole position is being gone into now as a result of his report, and I should also like to tell my hon. friend that the undertaking given by my predecessor will be honoured, but of course, it will not be done in the middle of the season—it was not his intention that it should be done in the season.

Cannot you find another chairman?

Will the Minister lay on the Table the previous report made by the MacDonald Commission?

Mr. MacDonald is very much interested himself; he is a director of the Rhodes Fruit Farms.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) raised the question of the milk processing factory at Winterton. I have already told him that I shall go fully into this question. On the question raised by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend), namely that the Defence Department should be approached in good time regarding material which may be necessary for the agricultural industry. I fully agree with him. With him I consider this a matter of the utmost importance, especially in view of the fact that the farmers for many years have had to make do without that material which they needed so badly for the farming industry. My information is that the question has already been brought to the notice of the Minister of Defence but I propose to go further into it myself to see that the farmers get their share of that material. I think I have now dealt with all the points that have been raised. May I just say that several members have discussed the question of the fixing of the price of mealies, and have expressed the hope that the price would be fixed at 20s. per bag. I have already dealt with that point, but I just want to tell them that the facts and representations which they have made in this House will have due attention when we come to the final fixing of the price of mealies. More than that I cannot say at this stage.

I am sorry that I again have to talk about the control boards. I don’t want to give the other side the opportunity of saying that we should abolish the control boards simply because I have some complaints about them. As we have said repeatedly we are satisfied with the system of control boards, provided the Minister appoints the right people to those boards — people who are able to do their work properly. I have already discussed this matter with the Minister of Agriculture and I told him that I was going to raise the subject again. I hope, therefore, he will be able to give us a complete answer. My contention is that so far as raisins are concerned the farmers have been scandalously treated by the control boards. In addition to that we have had this unfortunate position to contend with, that there has been a change of Minister, and I therefore feel I am entitled to ask the present Minister to remedy the position. At the end of last year the Dried Food Control Board met the raisin farmers and the prices of currants and raisins were discussed at that meeting. On that occasion the farmers convinced the chairman of the control board that the price of 8d. per lb. for middle class currants would be a reasonable price. There are three classes. The first class applies to only about 1½ per cent. of the currants. The second class called the middle class, comprises about 80 per cent. — more than 80 per cent., and the third class comprises 15 per cent, of the currants. I am now talking of the middle class — the Four Diamond — and I say that those farmers convinced the Chairman of the Control Board that 8d. per lb. would be a fair price.

He denies it. I know the hon. member told me personally that that was the position, and I went into it.

I should like the Minister to give us a complete reply to this matter. The correspondence which I have here deals with that point, and these people say they don’t want to see him again. I myself have had some dealings with this matter and I know what happened. But when the price was finally fixed we found that it was not 8d. The price recommended to the Minister, and suggested by the Dried Fruit Board was 8d. per lb. They would not have done this if they had not been convinced that it was a reasonable price. When the price was provisionally fixed at 7d. I let the people know what the position was, and they approached the Department and the Acting Minister by way of a deputation. He, the Acting Minister, came to consult me in regard to this matter and I was personally present at that interview. The Chairman of the Dried Fruit Board was present and the Secretary for Agriculture was also present. The Minister on that occasion agreed that 8d. was a fair price and he gave instructions that they should act along those lines. The Chairman of the Dried Fruit Board said they would have trouble with the Price Controller. The Minister asked me to accompany him if it should be necessary. The facts I am mentioning are not just my facts. I specially wrote to those people and asked them to write and let me know what their impression of the interview was. I have their replies here and the Minister can see from those replies what language those people use and how annoyed they are. I myself went to the Price Controller and he told me that he had nothing to do with the fixing of prices for the farmers. It was argued that the sale price of currants would be 14d. per lb. and if the 1d. was added to the farmer’s price the sale price would be 16d. The Minister then said that that would not be fair to the farmer.

You mean the Acting Minister said that?

He said it was an impossible position, that the farmer should get 7d. and that the retail price should be 14d. Last year a profit of 30 per cent. was allowed on currants in the retail trade, and the Acting Minister then said that that price was to be brought down. In regard to cheese 12½ per cent. is allowed in the retail trade. Cheese is a commodity which one cannot cut. If one cuts half an ounce too much one loses it because if you cut it off you cannot do anything with it; but so far as currants are concerned you can weigh the correct weight and you can even bite a currant in half if it is too heavy. Nor is there any question of a drying out because the currants are dry already, and if they are too dry one just wets them a bit and then they are still heavier. There was no justification for the retail traders to get a profit of 30 per cent. Now I also want to say this — that 75 per cent. of the currants go straight to the bakers, so there is no trouble in regard to the sale of currants. But the Price Controller himself Will confirm what I am saying here. This year he allowed a profit of 23 per cent. He brought it down from 30 per cent. to 23 per cent. On third grade currants he allows a profit of 11 per cent To all intents and purposes he has three prices for the three different classes On the first class he gives the retail trader a profit of 24.3 per cent.; on the Four Diamonds, which constitute the bigger proportion, a profit of 23 per cent., and on the third class, the Three Diamonds, a profit of 11.2 per cent. He himself distinguishes between the various classes. If he had allowed 11 per cent. on the second class the farmer could have got his 8d. without the price having gone up. The Chairman of the Control Board said that if a farmer was to get 8d. the price for the consumer would have to go up to 16d., but that would have been unnecessary if the amount of profit had been reduced to the extent laid down. But what do we find now? The Price Controller has fixed the price of currants at 12.5d. If it is a fact that the Board was convinced that 8d. would be a fair price, then that price should have been fixed for the farmer. I want to point out that currants are weak bearers, and the result is that the costs of production are such that 8d. is a reasonable price. The Acting Minister realised that. I just want to say that so far as currants are concerned this was the position — I am a grower of currants myself — that before the war I never got less than 5d. per lb. In 1934 the price was 6½d.; in 1935 it was 5½d. I never got less than 5d. But the first year after the outbreak of war the Control Board fixed the price at 3.09d. In 1942, after considerable agitation and after the Chairman had met the currant farmers, he fixed the price at 4.84d. In 1943 he fixed it at 5.88d. and in 1944 they intend fixing it at 6.835d. That is the price which the farmers got before the war without control. We all know that production costs have gone up, and the Acting Minister, after having heard the deputation, agreed that there could be no question that 8d. was not a fair price. The only trouble was hot to make the consumer pay too much. [Time limit.]

As a result of my talking on certain aspects of the control board system the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) imputed the ulterior motive to me that I was being influenced by considerations of personal gain. I do not intend making any violent or vigorous protest, but I ask this House to judge the criticism. I criticised the inefficiency, the wanton wastage and the delays in regard to matters which are vital to the consumer’s interests. I also criticised the big milling monopoly which has been created by these boards. If I had confined my criticism strictly to the control boards, and not extended it to trade, possibly there may have been some justification for the insinuation that was made by the hon. member; but I would point out to this House that I have too deep a regard for my country and too deep a respect for myself to be influenced by sordid motives.

Is your business sordid?

No matters of a personal kind should, I imagine, be sordid.

Naturally not.

Anyway, he has fought for his country, which is more than you have done.

In a reply made a little while ago by the hon. the Minister, there was one point that struck me. He was referring to the matter of price fixation on certain agricultural products and he was passing the buck on to the price controller. I think the Minister has been misled, because I can assure him that in matters of this sort, the fixation of prices, the price controller is a mere rubber stamp, and therefore it is his department that is answerable for the consequences of price fixation in agricultural products. There is one matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the House, and that is a matter which was raised by the hon. members for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). The Agricultural Department has produced and its boards have produced some interesting and useful statistics. They have brought out certain figures connected with the wheat milling industry and the bread making industry, and they have worked out costs to the thousandth of a penny. These have been done excellently, and I think I must compliment the costing accountant who produced these figures, but there has been a definite lack of vital statistics with regard to the production costs in this country. I cannot understand it, because surely that is one of the most important things in agriculture. I cannot see why these figures have not been produced. I do not ask for figures for 1945 or 1946; I ask for figures for last year and the year before, so we can judge the position as far as production and the cost of production is concerned. In this connection I would also like figures showing quantities. The cost of production has a relation to the quantity produced, and in this country where we have two sections of farming, the small farmers in maize and wheat who comprise over 90 per cent. of the farmers, and the bigger farmers, who comprise about 6 per cent. Both produce equal quantities of the country’s products. Those figures showing the costs of production are vital to the House, and vital in order to satisfy the consumers of the country that we are playing square with them. Without those detailed costs such figures, as the payment of 20s. and 26s. for wheat convey nothing to the consumer. Possibly the small farmer may need a direct subsidy to bring his price for maize up to 25s., whereas the larger farmer may make a profit at 12s. We require these figures and we should have them. There is another matter to which I should like to refer. There is definitely a tendency in this department and in certain aspects of the control boards to drive out the middleman. They are in process of eliminating the middleman, and in his place they are substituting something which does not give the requisite service, which is more expensive, which is bungling, and it is for this House to decide whether a farmer has to be protected by a fixed price, whether the consumer has to be protected by laying down the maximum price which he shall pay, and whether the boards are to be regulatory boards and not trading concerns. With the knowledge I have of commerce I may say that although the Chamber of Commerce has been decried, it does not consist of a lot of black-marketeers and cheap speculators. It consists of sound men and they are formulating and have formulated sound opinions. It is no good decrying them as middlemen. I think that this mentality which has cropped into this department, and not only this department, is one which the Minister must consider very carefully, and it is one that if we do not correct this country will pay very dearly for.

I think it is best that I should reply at once to the question raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) about the price of currants.

I have not finished yet but you can answer in the meantime.

I think I should explain the position at once because the Minister of Lands who was Acting Minister of Agriculture at the time, is concerned in this matter. There were two points which I feel I should go into particularly. I was told that a deputation had waited on the Acting Minister of Agriculture and the first point which I had to satisfy myself about was whether he had given that deputation an undertaking and whether he had given them to understand that they would get 8d. per lb. for currants. If such a promise was made it would naturally be a factor which I would very definitely have to take into consideration. There would have to be strong reasons to induce me not to carry out such a promise. That was the first point and I think the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) will agree with me that that was the correct attitude to adopt. The Minister of Lands, who acted as Minister of Agriculture, assures me however that he made no promise to these people and did not give them an undertaking that they could expect 8d. per lb. So there was no question there of my having to carry out a promise which had been given to those people. Now we come to the second factor which I also had to take into account, and that is what is a fair price to pay these people for their currants. Together with my technical officers, including the Chairman of the Dried Fruit Board I went very carefully into this question, and they assured me most emphatically that the price which the producers are going to get, of about 7d. per lb. is fair and reasonable. So what else could I do in the circumstances but to agree and see that everybody was treated fairly? Now, I want to add something. I do not know whether I followed the hon. member’s figures very clearly, but unfortunately he did not give the figures in regard to the price which the producers got in 1939 and 1940.

The prices mentioned, by the Department are wrong. I have been getting 5d. all these years.

The figures which the hon. member quoted agree with my figures, but he did not give us the figures for the important years of 1939 and 1940 immediately before control was introduced.

I contend that the figures given by the Department are not correct although I quoted the figures which were supplied by the Department.

In 1939 they got 4d. and in 1940 they only got 3d. After that control came in. Of course, I can only go by the figures which the experts have given me. In 1941 the price was 3.09d.; in 1942 the final price was 4.84d.; in 1943 the final price was 5.88d.; for 1944 it is 6.84d; that is the position. I therefore had to convince myself whether my colleague made a promise to these people. I would have attached the greatest weight to it if he had done so. Secondly I had to ask myself what would be a fair price, and my technical advisers tell me that the price of round about 7d. is a fair one. The hon. member personally came to me a few weeks ago and he had a chat with me in this House and said that the Chairman of the Dried Fruit Board agreed with the producers that 8d. would be a reasonable price for currants. I immediately took steps and got into touch with the Chairman of the Dried Fruit Board. He emphatically denies that he had agreed that 8d. would be a fair price. He says that round about 7d. is a fair price. More than that I cannot say on the matter.

The time has arrived when the production of the necessary foodstuffs in this country may perhaps be interfered with by a shortage of tractors. In various parts of the country we hear complaints about tractors getting worn out and being unable to do any more work. The one department which can use its influence in that regard is the Department of Agriculture, and I want to ask the Minister to use his influence with the Department which regulates the importation of tractors so as to get priority for tractors. I am bringing this to the Minister’s notice because if we have to wait another year, it may be too late. This is a matter which should have the immediate attention of the Minister.

The Controller is in America at the moment.

Yes, but will this question receive attention? It is essential for the Department of Agriculture to take steps to see that something is done.

If my information is correct the Minister has made a statement about the Marketing Board to the effect that so far as he is concerned the Marketing Board will remain for ever. If that is so, then I want to assure the Minister that that goes a long way towards reassuring us and I appreciate his statement. But so far as I can remember the Minister has not yet made any statement in regard to control boards.

Yes, I have discussed that question.

If my memory serves me right the Minister said that he would investigate the whole question, but he did not make a definite statement about control boards so far as I can remember. If he is having the whole question investigated I assume he must be having some difficulty about making a statement at this stage. There is a tremendous agitation in the country, not only against control boards but against any form of control, and as a result there is today a certain amount of nervousness among the farming section of the population on account of this agitation having been started against control boards. Let me tell the Minister that all sections of the population have co-ordinated bodies or councils through which they can speak and act—the Chamber of Mines, the Chambers of Commerce, Trade Unions—just to mention a few, which act on behalf of certain sections of the population whom they represent, and when there is talk about the abolition of control boards the Minister can take it from me that it will cause a tremendous agitation throughout the length and breadth of the country on the part of people who will insist on control boards not being abolished under any circumstances. I want to admit that there are anomalies and shortcomings in regard to control boards which can be remedied. Not all of them have answered their purpose, but if that is so the personnel can be changed. We can change the composition of the boards. Perhaps we can change the powers they have or the powers they have not got. Let us put the control boards themselves on the right track, but in any case let there be no question of the abolition of control boards. These control boards afford us a certain amount of protection insofar as they give us security and stability in regard to the production of our products. They at least make it possible for us not to have to feel round in the dark because we know what we may expect to get for our products. They also protect us in this way, that if we have a very good year we can carry over our products, through the control boards, to a less prosperous year. Some people take up the attitude that as a result of the control boards big profits are made, that many people are getting rich as a result of the protection they enjoy from the control boards. That is not so. All we ask for is stability. It is true that a certain section of the farming population has gone ahead under the control boards, but generally speaking we should remember that more have gone backward than have gone ahead. I say that there is room for improvement in the boards, but do not let us take up the attitude that the control boards should be abolished. Do not let us, because of certain shortcomings or anomalies which exist, condemn them. We look for our protection to the control boards, and when I say that my thoughts go back to the agitation which was started against the control boards. In this connection I want to say to my Labour friends that they are protected by their trade unions. They have a very strong weapon in those unions. We are not envious of them because of that strong weapon they have.

We have never yet been against control boards.

I am not talking about the Parliamentary representatives, I am talking about the general agitation which has been started throughout the country against the control boards. We do not begrudge our Labour friends the protection which their Trade Unions give them. But let our Labour friends remember that under this Government and under the former Government they probably had more privileges than they ever before had under any other Government in this country. People talk very glibly about our being able to import a lot of our food requirements more cheaply than they can be produced here. We admit that. We admit that it can be done, but let those people who make those statements also remember that there are many other things which can also be imported much more cheaply than we can produce them here. For instance, you can import your labour more cheaply.

What about the Chinese?

My hon. friend thinks I am attacking him. I am simply trying to remove this ignorance which is driving a wedge between producer and consumer.

That ignorance is not just on this side.

No, I admit that, and that is why I am not only telling the other side about it. I hope these interjections will be added to my time. Great protection is afforded to the essentials which are produced in this country. I have not got the time to go into details, but tyres were mentioned here as an instance. But what I want to say to my hon. friend is that we pay a lot more for our fertilisers and binding twine than they can be disposed of in European countries in normal times. I can go on mentioning many articles which we have to pay more for here than for imported articles. We gladly pay these higher prices. It is in the interest of South Africa that we should encourage and protect our factories. Do hon. members want us to throw open our gates for any imported goods which can be landed here cheaper than our local goods? Do hon. members want us to follow that policy in the interest of this country? Do hon. members want us to make South Africa the dumping ground of the rest of the world? There is an old Biblical saying, “Be sure that whatever thou soweth thou shall reap.” To those people who stand for that policy I only want to say this: Do not let our conversion come too late. We form one community, we form one nation. It does not matter whether we are consumers or producers, we all need each other in this life, and by using our intelligence we can assimilate, we can become one great community like the links of a strong national chain. It is unpleasant when farmers are continually attacked by one or other section in this country, and when I, as a farmers’ representative and as a practical farmer, have to listen to criticisms levelled against farmers, or against any other section of the population, I strongly disapprove of it, and I shall not hestitate to stand up and defend that section. We also have feelings, and people should not always play about and hurt our feelings. We are also fighting for our existence. Everyone fights for his own existence, and we should not be criticised and attacked because we try to make a living. Let everyone fight for his existence, but if anybody has to deprive somebody else of his existence in order to justify his own existence, there must be something wrong with such a person. [Time limit.]

It is a real pleasure to be able to say that a debate concerning the interests of the farmers has never before been conducted so freely as the present debate has been. We on this side of the House feel that it is our duty to stand up for the interests of the farmers, and we are glad to find that the other side is just as anxious to remedy whatever may be wrong. I want to emphasise that there is a lot wrong so far as the farming industry in South Africa is concerned. We cannot get away from the fact that there is a lot of room for improvement. Unquestionably there are a lot of loose links in the farming industry and as soon as we tighten up those links we shall succeed in removing existing shortcomings. We also have the fact that “leakages” occur in this respect, that profits on which the farmers depend for their very existence go to other sources. We want the Minister to go into all these shortcomings; we ask him to assist the farmers to remedy the position. Let us take Australia and America as examples. I do not think that those countries are any better than South Africa is. We have more or less similar rainfall, similar climatic conditions, and yet we find that the position of the farmers in those countries is better than it is here in South Africa. Farming in those countries is better organised and better planned. Let me draw attention to the relations between the producer and the consumer. In those countries the producer and the consumer are closer to each other. They take a greater interest in each other, and in that way their markets are better organised. The control boards function there in the interest of the framer himself and not in the interest of the middleman or in the interest of the man in between the two. The farmers’ organisations work smoothly there and prices are stable. If a sister state is able to arrange matters in such a manner that prices are stable, then I want to know what is preventing us, what is preventing the Minister, from also developing our agriculture in such a manner that the farmer can be assisted in the heavy task which rests on his shoulders? We feel the time has arrived for the Minister to pay attention to expert advice. I want to say that just as much as the magistrate and the police are needed in every district, so is expert advice needed in every district to give guidance to the agricultural industry. I want the Minister to consider this. I shall be very pleased if the Minister will consider the question of stationing a permanent information officer at places such as Vredendal and the Olifantsrivier—where there is valuable ground and where farmers are living close to each other. It would be of great value to those people. Ţhis is something which is really indispensable to us, and the money would be very well spent if the Minister could come to the assistance of the farmers in that way. Now let me say a few words about wool. The wool farmer is really the victim of what has happened in the past. He is getting about 1s. per lb. for his wool while America is paying round about 4s. This is imposing a very heavy burden on the wool farmer.

It has been shown that that is a very misleading comparison.

The wool farmer has a lot of expense. Let the Minister look at the fencing he has to put up, the provision he has to make in regard to water supplies, etc. Some farmers have as many as ten windmills on their farms to supply the necessary water. If a farmer wants to produce good wool he has to have good grazing right throughout the year. This is an important factor, an important requirement so far as the wool farmer is concerned, and under present conditions he really cannot afford to provide these things. That is the reason why large numbers of wool farmers slaughter their sheep to sell the meat. They cannot afford to run their sheep any longer. If we discourage the wool industry it will be fatal to this country because this big industry will disappear. That is the war bonus which the wool farmer will have to pay, yet at the same time he is being heavily taxed for the war. The wool farmer has to pay twice over for the war, and I fail to understand the Government’s attitude in destroying the wool farmer in the way it is doing. Now, there are a few other matters I want to refer to. Along the Olifantsrivier we have a number of raisin farmers. The price of raisins before the war was 3d. per lb. No improvement has yet been effected in that price. The farmers have all the additional expense in connection with the production of raisins—expensive land, water and everything connected with it. Everything has gone up. The prices of practically all products have gone up, but the raisin farmers are still getting 3d. per lb. It is not fair, because if we go to the shops in Cape Town we cannot buy raisins for less than 1s. per lb. [Time limit.]

I want to start off by saying that the farming members who represent farmers must not get the impression that the Labour Party is hostile towards the farmers because we feel that the farmers work just as hard as most of us and in some cases they work even harder. I should like the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) to listen to what I am saying. With the aid of our Trade Unions we have succeeded in getting our working hours fixed at eight hours per day. Most of the farmers I know, and who are worth being called farmers, work sixteen hours per day.

If they do not do so they will soon be ruined.

It seems to me that if anyone wants to be popular in this House he only has to say something or other to the benefit of the farmers. Now let me say that I am also a farmer on a small scale and I should also like to see the price of mealies fixed at 20s. per bag for the first 1,000 bags the farmer produces. According to what we are told the first 1,000 bags would give a profit of £300 at that price. What will happen after that I do not like to say, because if I were to do so I would make myself unpopular. But after the first 1,000 bags 2s. 6d. per bag will be a very good profit. We hear the argument used that 1s. per bag will be too much for the consumer—the consumers being mostly natives. We often hear it said that there is a shortage of mealies and that the natives suffer as a result of that shortage. Well, one of the direct causes of this shortage is the fact that the natives leave the farms in their thousands and go to the big towns. If those natives were on the farm the mealies could be properly grown, the lands could be ploughed in good time and the mealies could be planted at the right stage. One of the principle things in connection with the plantings of mealies is that the mealies should be put into the ground at the right time. Then the mealies could be harrowed and worked at the right time, the land could be cultivated when it should be, and the mealies could be bagged when they should be bagged. But instead of that being the case, according to a report which was recently presented, we find that on the Witwatersrand there are 90,000 natives without a visible means of livelihood. If a man has no visible means of livelihood it means that he has to do something else to make a living, and instead of doing an honest day’s work it means that he goes about robbing people and stealing to make a living. I should like a scheme devised under which only a certain number of natives would be allowed to live in the towns. As things are going now all branches of farming will deteriorate. If the natives were to leave the towns and work for the mealie farmers there would be no need for them to pay 20s. per bag for their mealies because their turnover could be increased and their expenses perhaps reduced. I should also like to see the farmers pay the natives better wages than they pay today. The natives during this war have had their wages improved pretty considerably on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere. I only have to look at the recent increase on the mines, which amounts to £7 15s. per year. If the price of mealies is increased to £1 per bag it will mean that the native will have to pay £1 per year more for the mealies he consumes. One native on an average consumes 90 lbs. of mealies per month, and if he has a family of five it means that if he spends an additional £5 per year to buy mealies he still has £2 15s. left out of his increase to buy clothes, as compared with the past. I therefore hope that hon. members will clearly understand that the Labour Party is not hostile to the farmers. I should like to see the Government have a survey made of the soil of this coutnry—I should like to see a regional survey made so that the Government could tell us what particular class of farming should take place in particular regions.

No.

Definitely. There are areas in the Transvaal which are not suitable for cattle farming or for crop growing but which are extremely suitable for afforestation. People are struggling there with sheep and goats, and those animals die of biliary. I also know something about farming, and my hon. friends over there cannot just tell me any stories. We should have a survey made and regionalisation and strict supervision should be exercised to see that the right type of farming is carried on in particular regions. Now let me say this—the labourers on the Witwatersrand are not there just because they are so anxious to be there. Many of them hail from the rural districts and they have had to leave those districts because of the way they have been exploited there. Now I want to suggest to the farmers that they should see to it that noxious weeds are properly controlled. I should also like to see them tackle some of the pests of which there are so many in this country—there are large numbers of snails and worms, such as for instance “middelmanne.” Most of the money made out of farming in this country goes into the pockets of people who have never seen the foodstuffs out of which they make their money. They sit in an office and the farmers work for them on the farms, and I work for them on the mines, but they get the rich crop.

I want to associate myself with a great deal of what the hon. member who has just sat down has told the House. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring), and the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), are people who are very much concerned at the fact that the Agricultural Department cannot give them figures to show how much it costs to produce a bag of mealies. Now, let me say that if we gave them the figures—and I could work them out—we would predict with certainty that they would run away from their farms like thieves in the night if they tried to produce mealies under existing conditions. In the circumstances prevailing today there is not much fun in producing mealies. Those hon. members have no conception of the actual expenditure and it is because they don’t know what the position is that they come here and talk in the way they do; the minds of the consumers are prejudiced against the Department of Agriculture because it has not given them any figures. If it comes to the point the organised farmers, with the Department of Agriculture, will give them the figures, and when they get them they will be flabbergasted.

We are very anxious to have them.

It’s an easy thing to come and talk big here about control boards and other bodies, and to make them suspect in the eyes of the Minister of Agriculture, but let me remind the House that those are members who come and tell us that they are the people who can supply the products more cheaply to the consumers.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I was telling the House that the hon. member for Orange Grove in his speech stated that trade was the best channel of distribution. I want to prove that that is not correct. The first channel of supply which the consumer has today is the co-operative organisations. They are the organisations which are used under the present system by the so-called brokers. They get permits from the control boards which are sent to the co-operative societies and we have to mark every bag of mealies which is sent to Dick, Tom or Harry. They are the merchants who sit in their offices and make money, and when we say they should be cut out they start an agitation and accuse the Department of Agriculture of not knowing its policy and of being unable to explain what the position is. They are the people who are trying to stir up the consumers against the producers. Our grain producers are very sympathetically disposed towards the consumers, and we are very anxious for our products to go direct from the producer to the consumer. The middleman who sponges both on the producer and the consumer has to go. That is what we are agitating for, and that is the great issue at the moment. I can quite understand that those people are very concerned about the prsent control boards; they don’t want the farmer to control his own products. They think they constitute the best channel for the distribution of the products but I very definitely say that is not so. The position which has been created will lead to the unorganised farmers realising that those people are busy exploiting them. They are the blood suckers in the country, and the sooner we get rid of them the better. They can make their money in other ways. Today they want to live by exploiting the farmersand at the same time they are also getting the better of the consumers. What has happened? The food controller has practically been forced by them to allow a play of 2s. for the trader, with which he can speculate. The co-operative societies merely provide storage accommodation for the Mealie Control Board. They have to keep the mealies and store them, and the control board sells the mealies through the grain brokers, who are allowed a play of 2s., and what benefit do the co-operative societies get? They just get an allowance which is granted to them by the Mealie Control Board of 1s. per bag.

What about the 5d.?

That is why I say that under this system they have had a pretty free hand, and have been able to speculate, and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture in all seriousness to reconsider this matter and give the Mealie Control Board greater powers so as to enable it to undertake the distribution of the grain and not to let that distribution take place through the trade. We have the Wheat Control Board as an example. I want to congratulate the department on having put down its foot and on having given the Wheat Control Board full control as a result of which we have a wheat control system which is one of the best control systems in the country. Why cannot we have a similar system in respect of mealies? No, there are too many bloodsuckers making a living out of the sweat of the farmer. I am glad that there are farming members opposite who look at the position in the same light as we do. I would be the last to drag politics into agricultural matters. It is a national question, but how far have these things gone? The traders are not satisfied with what they get, they have induced the Minister of Finance to appoint a commission of enquiry to go into the question of whether the co-operative societies should not pay taxes. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to protect the co-operative societies. Where is it all leading to? The grain producers are already paying taxes as individuals, and if they take their grain to their organisation to store and handle it, then I want to know why such a co-operative society should also have to pay taxes? It is the traders who are behind it all. They have only one motive and that is to destroy co-operation. Let me predict this, that this kindling of the fires will have the effect of reviving co-operative societies and of making the farmers realise that their salvation lies in co-operation—and it is this agitation which has been started by the traders which is responsible for reviving interest in the co-operative societies. There is one thing which pleases me and that is that the farmers have been awakened. They see the danger, and they are not going to allow themselves to be misled by all these charges which are being made merely with the object of concealing the real issue. We are going to take the bull by the horns and we are going to see to it that the farmer receives justice. We are not going to make this an apple of discord, but as farmers we are going to stand together in this struggle which trade has forced upon us. We are going to see to it that the middleman is cut out entirely. I say that what is going on now is a most unfair thing, and I am very sorry that the Minister of Finance has agreed to appoint this commission of enquiry to look into this matter. I am sorry, and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to use his best efforts to strangle this thing at birth. Commerce and trade are out to make control boards suspect in the eyes of the Minister of Agriculture. They imagine that he is a young Minister who has only held his Portfolio for a short while and they will therefore be able to influence him by their suspicion mongering. I think the Department of Agriculture is much more dependent on the voice of the farmers than on the voice of trade and commerce, and I hope the Minister will use his best efforts and will not allow himself to be deceived and misled by those people who are trying to destroy our co-operative organisations. [Time limit.]

I am afraid that the speech to which we have just listened is not likely to do much towards bringing about understanding between the townspeople and the agricultural community.

Are you talking about the townspeople or about the middlemen?

I greatly appreciate the speech delivered by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). I as a townsman agree with the hon. member for Caledon, and I am sure the majority of the townspeople take the same view that it is essential in the national economy of South Africa that a system of control, whether it be of control boards, as far as agriculture is concerned, or control as far as industries or businesses are concerned be continued after the war if we are not to have a state of chaos when the war is over.

What’s that? Do I hear the hon. member talking like that?

And anything that may contribute to the acceptance of that principle by the people of this country is going to be of advantage not only to the agricultural industry but to every section of the population.

Coining from you that is really something new.

But the point of criticism which I think my hon. friends over there are apt to misunderstand is not the principle of control at all, but the principle that control boards in South Africa, are based on sectional interests, and not on national interests, as they should be. There is a growing feeling that control boards are conducted by people who have a direct interest in connection with the matters they are dealing with, and that there seems to be some conflict between their interests and those of the consumer. The hon. the Minister who has listened so patiently to the discussion and who I know will be able to apply a brilliant and fresh mind to the consideration of these problems, has already indicated his readiness to consider the possible reconstruction of these boards by adding to them adequate representation for the consumer. I am by no means certain that this will provide the solution to the problem that exists. When the Minister considers this question I should like him to consider another alternative, the reconstitution of these boards in such a way that they will consist of a personnel of experts whether they are farmers or townspeople, and economists and some business men, so that the boards may function entirely in the best interests of all sections of the population and not in the interests of particular sections. I believe that it is essential to give a fair return, a fair margin of profit to the farmer, just as it is essential to give a fair wage to the worker. But in doing that do not let us allow the profits to be burdened by inefficiency, or to be burdened by the use of land which is not suited for farming production, or burdened by a policy, an unnecessary policy of unduly heavy protection which brings about a state of affairs under which land that is not suitable for the purpose is being used for the production of certain commodities, not to the advantage of the farmer who uses that land but to that of the farmer who uses better land, and who obtains the same rate of profit as a man who is using unsuitable and unprofitable land. That state of affairs is to the detriment of the public. I suggest that the Minister should consider the reconstitution of these boards along the lines I have indicated, with this additional proviso. I put in seriously to the Minister that we want to avoid getting more and more into the mire of bureaucracy, into the mire of control boards and of price controllers carrying on the affairs of the country without any control by Parliament. When he considers this question I would ask the Minister to consider a provision whereby the affairs of these boards should be subject to examination by the Accounts Committee of this House, so that Parliament may have some measure of control over the manner in which these boards are being managed in this country. I have referred to the use of unsuitable land. That has been brought about in the wheat industry, for example, on account of the very extreme policy in regard to protection. When Mr. Havenga first introduced that system, much against his will—he was forced into it—I made the suggestion to the Minister to the effect that wheat to supplement our own production should be imported into this country—and we have to remember that after the war we will not be able to go on using unsuitable land for the production of wheat; we shall have to confine ourselves to the suitable land and make up the deficit by importation and the wheat that is imported should be placed in the hands of the Wheat Control Board at landed cost, and not charged with any duty, and then the wheat produced in South Africa as the result of growing it on land suitable for its production should be given its reasonable margin of profit and should be averaged with the imported wheat. In this way we will be able to benefit the consumer by selling wheat at a very much reduced price without prejudicing the position of the farmer. We have had the experience that these boards are apt to make mistakes, in some cases glaring mistakes. Last year the price of bread was fixed by the Wheat Control Board at 6½d. for the 21b. loaf. What was the position? When a few members of the United Party approached the late Col. Collins he put us in touch with an official of the Board, and we discussed the position, and subsequently the price was brought down to 6d. We did not know at, that time on what basis the alteration had been effected. He did not reduce the price paid to the farmer or to the miller, but I find at page 135 of the Report of the Secretary for Agriculture that what took place after these representations were made was that a fresh investigation was made by the Wheat Control Board, and it was found that certain ingredients were not available at the time, and were not being used by the bakers in making the bread. The cost of those ingredients was estimated to be equal to the increase of a half-penny, and consequently as these ingredients were not used the Minister was able to reduce the price of bread again to 6d. That in itself shows that prices are being fixed—or at any rate they were fixed in that case— without adequate investigation. The investigation took place after the event, and not as it should be, before the event. The same thing applies to the question of the Wheat Control Board. The public want to know and the public is entitled to know, whether the increase in the price of wheat to what ft stands at today is due to an increase in the cost of production, or whether it is due to a mistake on the part of the Wheat Control Board, or an increase in the profits allowed to the farmers. Those are things we are entitled to know, and although costs may be given by hon. members the fact remains that the Marketing Council has had a cost investigation into the cost of converting wheat to flour, and flour to bread— to the miller and to the baker, and the reports have been laid on the Table of the House. We have no report of such an investigation into the cost of production to the farmer, and I think we are entitled to have a full report as far as the wheat growers also are concerned as to what the actual cost of production is, so that we may know whether they are being paid the increased cost to cover the extra cost of production or for other considerations.

From observations made during this debate. Sir, it might appear that the farming representatives in this House have decided to drop some of their political issues and to join forces for the promotion of their own interests. That may be so.

That will be the end of them.

That being so, I can imagine the amount of pressure that will be brought to bear on the Government by the farming interests. I want to say to the new Minister in congratulating him on his appointment, that he is not envied in this House. The Agricultural Department is a great concern to have to manage, and it really requires the supervision of two Ministers. One is not enough. There are few men in this House capable of undertaking the task. The farming community are known as killers in this Parliament and it will be surprising if the Minister survives in his portfolio.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that the farming members in this House are killers?

The hon. member may proceed.

It is surprising how touchy our farmers are. One has to be very careful in respecting their feelings, which is the more surprising in view of the fact that they extend precious little sympathy to anyone else in the House. May I put it to you, Sir, and suggest to the Minister that if he is going to allow himself to be controlled by the control boards in the future, as previous Ministers have been, then he will be spending a considerable period of time in nursing homes. But if he will as a townsman, and as a man with brains, consider that there must be something wrong with the Control Boards to stir up the feelings of the people of South Africa as they have done, he will realise, and it will not require much investigation on his part, what has gone wrong with them. I am of opinion, and the majority of the people of South Africa are of opinion, that some control, particularly if it is possible to control the farmers, is highly desirable, is in fact very necessary indeed; and if he can only persuade our farming community that it is possible to have control boards in South Africa functioning with perfect satisfaction, I think there will be less heat engendered in the discusion of the agricultural vote next year. I believe the whole cause of the trouble in connection with the control boards is that we have loaded it with producers, while the other sections of the community who are interested have not been given a fair show on these boards. If you have on a control board ten men, nine of them producers and one distributor, with perhaps two others, what concern can those individuals have in the commodity that has been produced; but if we had on the board middlemen who have grown up in the particular line, who are deeply interested in that business and have made a life study of it—and a business cannot be learned in a few months—if we took those individuals into our confidence more there would be no further difficulty in connection with the control boards. If you want to build a house you do not take care about the construction of the foundations and the brickwork and then leave all the rest of the work to incompetent people; you get your specialist men on anything, no matter what you are building; and if you want to build up a sound industry in South Africa in respect of any farming commodity you must go right through the control boards and have your specialist attending to each section connected with the marketing of that product. I do suggest that the failure of these boards has largely been due to them not being staffed by the right men. If we want any evidence of that ask any of our farming friends to show us where one of the control boards has been so efficient, so satisfactory, that it has given complete satisfaction to either the farmer, the middleman or the consumer. They may perhaps be able to point to one isolated instance. But on the whole in view of all the complaints, there is no doubt that these boards have proved an utter failure. Can it be said that these control boards have been the means of providing cheap food in this country?

There is the Maize Board.

I remember the time when the farmers were glad to get 3s. 6d. a bag for maize exported overseas and at 3s. 6d. They were perfectly happy. Today they want 20s. a bag. So from 3s. 6d. to 20s. there is a big margin which they ask us to believe is obtained by the middleman. Can you say in connection with the meat industry that the control board has given cheap food to the consumer? Has it brought any benefits to the industry whatsoever? I say no. Has the Fruit Control Board been beneficial to the producers, the middlemen, the consumers or anyone else? I say it is exactly the reverse. I am sure that the Minister will have to get these boards reorganised and put specialists on the job.

Who is the specialist?

One of the farming community asks who is the specialist? We know we have the specialist in farming; it is the specialist who is making the public pay. It is the specialist who is getting subsidies out of the Government every year. But we want specialists who will be able to feed our population, which the farming community, has not been able to do yet. They have not been able to feed the people of South Africa, let alone export their produce. I merely mention these matters because I do want the farming community to realise all is not well in South Africa; and if they are being blamed for something they are not responsible for, let us endeavour to alter it. Let us try to get people who know something about the job to work on these problems, and if we do that I feel sure that even the farmers will reap the benefit, and that it will be to the benefit of us all. But if you are going to proceed on the lines that have been threatened in this House of forming this farmers’ group of representatives to bring pressure to bear on the Government, I feel sure it will have its repercussions. The people of South Africa have been most tolerant in so far as the Agricultural Department is concerned, they have been very tolerant indeed, but I make bold to say this, that if the control board system is allowed to function as it has been functioning and if the Price Controller is allowed any more weight than he has had in interfering with the business of South Africa, I can very easily see this Government crashing, and one would not like to see that. One would not like to see our Nationalist friends in the saddle, and I hope that any criticism we make will be helpful and in the interests of the people of South Africa. I do urge upon the Minister to take steps to see that the chaotic condition existing in the country in so far as the food position is concerned, is rectified. [Time limit.]

After this very interesting and important speech to which we have just been listening I want to come back to the subject under discussion, namely Agriculture. I don’t want to say much about the private fight which has arisen among hon. members on the other side. What I am concerned with is what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) called the “brilliant and fresh mind of the Minister of Agriculture”. In think it was somewhat mean on his part to stigmatise the Minister in that way, but when I finished my speech yesterday I actually warned the Minister that we were expecting a lot from him, and now the hon. member for Troyeville tells us what we are expecting. I mentioned a number of the difficulties yesterday with which the Minister will have to contend. We don’t know him, but anyhow we know now that he has a brilliant and fresh mind, but how he is going to apply that mind is something which only the future can tell. We don’t really want to criticise him, but we want to give him a suspended sentence. We are prepared to give him a year, and if he behaves we shall not critiicse him at the end of the year. It depends entirely on his own conduct. When yesterday I was enumerating a number of the main problems with which he would have to contend while he was in charge of the Department of Agriculture I warned the Minister. Today we have again seen the fight that is going on around him, the fight between the producer and the middleman. The middleman is doing his utmost to keep the consumer and the producer away from each other—to prevent the thing we want, namely to bring them closer together. This is one of the greatest tests the Minister will have to face. We are going to watch him and we are going to see whether that fresh and brilliant mind is going to be used on the side of the farmers or whether he is going to succumb to the onslaughts made upon him by the middleman with the object of driving asunder the producer and the consumer. In regard to the arguments which were employed here today I want to say that the two people who are mostly interested in the farmer’s products are the farmer on the one hand and the consumer on the other hand. Any sensible and intelligent person will do his utmost to bring those two elements, which have the most interest in the product, closer together. It is in the farmers’ interest to bring their products to the consumers in the cheapest possible manner. It is only by getting the farmer on the one hand, and the consumer on the other, to work in harmony that they will achieve something to their mutual advantage. But we are not prepared, as the hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. P. W. A. Pieterse) has said, to allow the parasites, as he called them—the people in between the farmers and the consumers—to keep them apart. Another question with which the Minister will have to deal is that of fertilisers. This is a serious matter so far as the farmers are concerned because it affects us in a special way. The Government made an appeal to the farmers some time ago asking them to produce more, and I think the Government will have to admit that the farmers have done their utmost during the past few years to increase their production, but you cannot increase production if you have not got the necessary fertiliser. Our great shortage is phosphates. We also have a shortage of nitrogen but we are particularly short of phosphates, and Without phosphates we cannot increase our production. The preservation of our soil fertility is dependent on that. I want to congratulate the Minister’s department on a publication of the Agricultural Journal a few months ago in which this matter was dealt with. That was one of the best issues of this very good journal. We are not building up our soil fertility but on account of the shortage of fertiliser we are lowering the fertility. We have to produce our crops without being able to put back into the soil what we are taking out of it. The Minister will ask us how he is to supply us with fertiliser. Last year we were told by one of the Ministers that there were mountains of phosphates lying at Casablanca, and that there were also large quantities in Egypt where we used to get our super-phosphates, but we were told at the same time that the only obstacle in the way of getting those phosphates was a shortage of shipping space. This shortage of phosphates is not only a temporary drawback but it means reducing the fertility of our soil for years. I am speaking from personal experience. I produce crops on my land but I know that the soil is deteriorating and that it will take years to get it back to the standard I had built up. Every farmer knows that. You can go on producing on the land but you are doing so by living on the capital of the soil; you exhaust the soil. We know that in Germany they have special soil; they found there that if lime was added to the soil it rendered the phosphates in the soil available for the plants, and generation after generation applied lime and in that way used the phosphates. A saying thereupon originated in Germany to the effect that a rich farmer always had a poor son because the father lived on the capital of the soil and the son was left with the exhausted soil. We are afraid that that may happen in South Africa and we now ask the Hon. the Minister to use his influence with the Prime Minister’s Department to see whether we cannot get the necessary shipping space to bring phosphates to South Africa. Some time ago they took coal from Durban to Aden and the ships came back empty. When we asked that they should be allowed to go to Port Sudan to load up phosphates there—those phosphates are not of the best quality but they can be used— we were told that those ships could not travel the extra four or five days to Port Sudan. They returned empty to Durban. Was that economical, seeing that we are actually exhausting the capital of our soil? Cannot these ships travel an extra four or five days to go and fetch phosphates? We have our own ships. What has become of them? They have not all been sunk. We have quite a number of them, and for the sake of the preservation of the fertility of the soil and the preservation of our production we should use those ships to fetch phosphates where those mountains of phosphates are lying, as one of the Ministers told us. I spoke a few words yesterday about the unsatisfactory state of affairs of the marketing of vegetables in South Africa. I want to go a little further into that question. I think that that subject should be thoroughly enquired into. If you want to make a success of any industry, or if you want to get people to invest their money in an industry, there must be a reasonable amount of certainty as to the price you are going to get for your product. That is the position in regard to all industries with the exception of a number of branches of agriculture. You have not the slightest idea what price you are going to get when you plant a particular commodity. That is the first point. Secondly, especially in the line of vegetables, we unfortunately produce more at certain times of the year than at other times, and the market is subject to tremendous fluctuations—fluctuations which make it very payable during one period of the year to produce certain articles, and which make it unpayable to produce them at another time of the year. But with all these fluctuations which take place in regard to the farmers’ products the consumers always pay the same price. Take a simple thing like potatoes. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) sits over there. He buys potatoes. He pays the same price right throughout the year, but I as a farmer get 6s. per bag at one time of the year and at another time I get 24s. per bag. [Time limit.]

I should like to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in regard to carrying out a full investigation with reference to the marketing of vegetables, particularly in the Cape Province. The price to the consumer since the outbreak of the was has not varied to any considerable extent whether there has been a glut or a scarcity. That is due to many factors. It may be partly due to the fact that certain quantities of vegetables produced have had to be supplied to the military, to convoys and so on. But at the same time we do know that when the Cape Town market has been glutted, and convoys have not been here, that rather than give the consumers the benefit, large quantities of vegetables have been allowed to go to waste. I only know—I may be wrong in saying so—but I only know of one co-operative organisation of vegetable growers in this area—the Cape Flats Farmers’ Organisation. Through their organisation they have been able to make satisfactory arrangements with regard to the marketing of the products of their members. I want to point out that the farmers themselves should encourage consumers to form consumers’ co-operative societies. In my own constituency, Pinelands, we recently started a co-operative vegetable market, and this market is already proving a great success. The body running the market are doing it on a voluntary basis, and the result is that while the farmer is getting top prices for his product the consumer is getting that same product at reasonable prices. What I want to speak about particularly, however, is the matter which was also referred to by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) yesterday—the question of farm labour. There is no doubt that labour conditions on farms will have to be very materially improved after the war if we are to retain any large labour supply in those areas. In the past it has been proved conclusively—and if members care to read the report of the Coloured Fact Finding Commission of 1937—they will find all the conditions set out under which coloured farm labourers were living, and under which they were trying to bring up their families, and as the Minister of Commerce and Industries pointed out, it was a damning indictment of our whole system in regard to farm labour. And I suggest that if the Government wishes to assist the farming industry, it will have to investigate the position very thoroughly in regard to labour supplies and, to ensure that labourers will remain in farming areas they will have to see that better housing facilities are provided, also better educational facilities and recreational facilities, and also that farming labour is paid an adequate wage. It may be said that the farmer cannot pay a higher wage for economic reasons. If that is so then the time is coming, or has come, for the Government to subsidise farm labour in the same way as on the mines. We have a very sparsely populated country, and we have to maintain our labour sources but we cannot expect the coloured labourer to remain on the land if the wages are uneconomic and sub-economic, and if the facilities I have referred to are not available for him and his family. There are two classes of farm labour—the permanent class and the seasonal class. The one is permanently employed on the farm—these people are employed the whole year round, but there is a larger section, the casual labourer, who is only employed for a time, in the harvesting season, in the packing season, and unless proper facilities are given to them for employment at slack times there is no doubt that they will migrate into the towns. That is one of the reasons why I personally have always favoured industrial development in some of our rural areas, so as to retain a large percentage of the coloured population in those areas. I hope this problem will have the serious attention of the Minister during the recess because one thing is absolutely certain and that is that the coloured man who is growing up in the urban areas and is earning in the army an economic wage for the first time in his life is not going to be satisfied to go back to the farm under the same conditions as before the war. That is the position which will no doubt cause the Minister a good deal of worry, but I suggest that if he gives consideration to those points he will be able to deal with quite a number of the difficulties which I have mentioned— I am sure if he does that he will also be able to satisfy a number of these members who have told him that they are out for his blood. I want to refer to another matter but I don’t know whether I am in order in bringing it up here. It is in connection with the statement issued to the Press in regard to the training of agricultural labour.

No, I am afraid the hon. member would be out of order.

Very well, then I shall raise it on some other occasion.

I first of all want to congratulate the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) on the speech which he made here today. We welcome that sort of speech because we feel that agriculture, as a primary industry, and factories as a secondary industry, have to work hand in hand. Agriculture produces raw materials which the industries have to process. I feel that there is one thing where we as representatives of the farmers want to assist industries and that is by getting the Government to tell us what its attitude is going to be towards industries in future. When I speak of industries I also speak of agriculture. So far as I know the Government has not yet made any statement on this point. We feel that factories should be started and that those factories must be protected, and I hope that although this is a matter which comes under the aegis of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, the Minister of Agriculture will discuss the subject with him, and that a statement will be made of the amount of protection which will be granted to the industries started during war time so that they will be able to continue after the wár. We know that after the last war a great many of our industries collapsed; that is why we now want the Government to tell us whether it is honest in its intentions with the establishment of industries because it is not only in the interest of the industries themselves but also in the interest of the farmers. Now let me come back to our friends opposite who are middlemen. They want to pretend that they are the townsmen. No, we know that they only represent a very small section of the townspeople. A large proportion of the towns— the consumers in the towns—are not middlemen. We want to assure them that we know what the position is, and that we fully realise that those middlemen want to pretend here that they speak on behalf of the consumers and on behalf of the townsmen simply in order to plead their own cause. We as farmers also plead the cause of industries in the towns on behalf of those consumers whereas the middlemen, as traders, oppose the starting of industries.

I think the hon. member should discuss that question when the Vote “Commerce and Industries” comes up for discussion by the Committee.

Yes, I realise that this comes under commerce and industries, but I want to show the connecting point between industries and farming. We want the middlemen to realise that they are not the townspeople. We want them to realise that they only constitute a very small proportion of the urban community. If we fail to afford protection to our secondary industries thousands of people will be thrown on the streets, just as happened after the last war, and we as farmers will also suffer as a result. That, however, is a point which I shall discuss further on the other vote. I felt, however, that I should like the Minister of Agriculture to understand our attitude in regard to this aspect of the matter. Now there is another point on which I want to say a few words. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) made a few remarks with which I agree—I am referring to his remarks about the principle of control boards. We on this side of the House have stated that we stand by the principle of control boards, but we do not say that the control boards have been constituted in the best possible way. An improvement can be effected. We feel that the producers and the consumers should be brought closer together. The consumer should have more representatives but the people in between the consumers and producers should have less representation. We do not say that we want to cut out the middleman entirely; we want to pay him adequately for his services but we do not want him to exploit both the producer and the consumer, or either of them. We only want him to be paid for services which are justified. That is what is done in other countries, and I hope it will be also be done in this country. I want to emphasise that what we want for the farmers is a satisfactory standard of living, a standard of living to which they are entitled. Although the middlemen on the other side of the House pretend that they are the representatives of the towns, I say that they are the people who are actually exploiting the townspeople. A few personal attacks have been made on me and I want to reply to them. The first attack made on me was by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon). He is a great friend of mine, and I hope he will not feel hurt if I hit back. He said that my object was to stir up the towns against the rural districts. If the hon. member can read and if he is able to hear what we have been saying here, he must realise that I did nothing of the kind, and that I did not try to stir up the two sections against each other, but that he did so. He spoke here as a representative of the rural districts. As the representative of Fort Beaufort he represents the rural districts, but he did not speak on behalf of the farmers, he spoke on behalf of the middleman, and he also spoke on behalf of the auctioneers, whom he also represents. He will now go back to Fort Beaufort and tell the farmers there that he stood up for them and that he is their friend. No, I did not put my foot into it, but the hon. member did. He put both his feet into it, because instead of representing the farmers here he spoke on behalf of the middlemen and on behalf of the auctioneers, instead of protecting the farmers. Now let me come to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). He, too, is a man who represents the platteland. We heard him make a plea against statutory powers being granted to the Wool Council. We also know that he is opposed to the establishment of certain factories in this country, and now we ask this: How can a man who puts up a plea against the establishment of factories be a friend of the farmers? He is not a friend of the farmers, he is a friend of the traders.

I did not do so.

He is the man who put up a plea here on behalf of a lot of brokers who are up against the farmers, and that is his whole attitude. I now want to ask him whether he is doing the right thing to the farming population?

I did not say that.

And now I come to this frontbencher over there, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), the man who talked about “scientific farmers.” I just want to tell him that I am sure there is such a thing as a scientific journalist and I can tell him this, that if we read the type of article published in some of those papers written by the so-called scientific journalists, and if we see the way the English language is abused, if we see it brought down to a level to which those journalists bring it, then I want to tell my hon. friend that apparently there is a great need for the training of scientific journalists. He also said that I had turned a somersault in regard to the wool question. I don’t want to discuss the wool question all over again because we have done so on previous occasions. But the hon. member made certain allegations against me which are devoid of all foundation. He sits in his bench and writes, and does not know what is going on. When the Minister of Agriculture told him that he should go and read the report of the Department of Agriculture he wanted to know where he was to get the book. He has been in this House a long time but does not yet know that he has a letter box to which those books are delivered, and where he can find them. Yet he wants to get up here and pose as an expert on agriculture! He does not even take the trouble to read the report of the Department of Agriculture, yet he is the man who wants to prescribe to the farmers what they should do, how they should behave on the platteland, and how they should conduct their farming operations. And he is the man who tells us that we pay our natives too little.

I spoke about the workers in the rural districts.

I agree that we should pay those people more, but then we must help the farmer so to establish his industry that he will be in a position to do so. If the hon. member wants us to pay our labourers more he must first of all assist us to stabilise the farming industry. Once he has assisted us to stabilise the industry the time will come to go into the question of whether we can pay our natives better than we are doing. These things go hand in hand. He made all sorts of funny remarks about the farmers but I can assure him that he at any rate is not an expert on the subject of wool. Let me tell him what the mistake is that has been made in that connection and let me tell him what my attitude has always been. During the first year we pleaded for an open market plus the British agreement. We were granted that, and we got £12,000,000 for our wool. The second year we again asked for that but some people were cleverer than we were and they entered into the wool contract on the basis of 10.75d. per lb., but they forgot to see to it that we were guaranteed that price. What was the result? The result was that the price of our wool clip dropped from £12,000,000 to £10,000,000. Am I wrong then in asking that our wool farmers should get the additional £2,000,000? No, my hon. friend over there knows very little about farming. We are now in this position, that we simply have to accept things as they are and we have to do the best we can in the circumstances. The Government saw fit to make this agreement. I am not going to criticise it again. The agreement is there and the result is that there is no competition on our markets and after the war we shall be in a hopeless position because our markets and our competition will be gone. The contract does not protect us for even a year after the war. We want to have that protection, and in those circumstances, in view of the fact that our market and our buyers have gone, we ask for some scheme to be devised to provide for two years after the war.

With the exception of the attacks made on the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and on the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon), the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) said very little that is contentious. Well, those hon. members can defend themselves, but I am sure my hon. friend for Fort Beaufort has fully expressed the views of the farmers he represents. With regard to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) I as a representative of farmers, as well as of city dwellers, consumers, have on occasions differed from him because he has on such occasions advanced entirely a farmer’s point of view. In regard to the hon. member for Hospital may I say that on two occasions some of my papers have disappeared from my locker, and it is nothing new for that to happen.

Oh, never mind about that. It was probably taken out by some hon. member over there.

Before bringing a few matters to the notice of the Minister I want, on behalf of my constituents, to convey their good wishes to him on his appointment as Minister. I represent not only farmers but also town dwellers, consumers, and we feel that we have in the Minister a man who will at all times be approachable to us, and with his background as a farmer’s son, and his highly trained legal mind we know that all matters will be considered, and we know that we shall always get considerate treatment from him. There is a question I want to touch upon, and that is the question of soil erosion. In my own area the people of the city especially are very concerned about this matter, and to me and the country generally it is very gratifying that these people are taking that interest, and not only the ordinary man in the street, but the hard boiled business man, the man who is footing the bill for constructive work—he is also very concerned about the position. Now I want to read a telegram from the South African Voters Association which puts the position very clearly. They say this—

Now here you have the case where these people are prepared, or indeed they are very keen, that sums of money shall be spent on soil erosion. We appreciate that during the war years we cannot expect too much to be done, but I would urge the Minister to put his house in order, to get his machinery in order, so that when peace comes, we can tackle this menace.

We are going to spend £120,000 this year.

I am glad to hear that. And I would suggest that the Minister should consider the advisability of getting mobile camps of labour that can move from one part of the country to another where they may be used most fruitfully. At the present the farmers are allowed the expenditure on the A scheme, that is a scheme where the farmer provides the labour and he is then subsidised on this work, but we find it very difficult, with the limited number of erosion officers, to do that work; they come round perhaps once in ten months or once a year, and we would like to see the number increased to facilitate the starting of these works. Then there is the question of the prickly pear. As you know, that is, one of the greatest menaces we have ever had, but some relief has been brought about by the introduction of the Cochinelle, and the Cactoblastis insects. Unfortunately each of these have their own natural enemies and they have not given the results which we had hoped for. For instance, in regard to the Cochenelle, at one time we thought that all the prickly pear would be destroyed, but the lady bird came along and upset everything. What I would like the Minister to do is to consider the advisability of subsidising farmers who on their own will get rid of the prickly pear on their farms, and in this way do away with the menace. Some farmers have already done this with great success, but they cannot carry on and they would like to have some assistance from the Government. Now the hon. member for Cradock has again referred to the question of wool. I do not want to enter into a controversy with him again, but again I say that he is quite wrong when he maintains that the farmers were guaranteed a price of 10.75d. for their wool clips. 10.75d. was based on the proceeds of the previous clip, but there could have been no guarantee, because as we all know from year to year the quality of our wools vary—the clean yields vary.

What about Australia?

We are now dealing with South Africa where conditions are entirely different from Australia. On account of varying climatic conditions we are not always able to shear wool in twelve months, and if you shear in six or nine months …

What has that to do with it?

I would just like to say this, that it is absolutely essential that we should get the co-operation of all wool producing countries and also of the trade and the consumers, and of everyone interested in wool, and I would suggest that timely steps be taken to have a conference of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia and have representatives there of all interests in wool. Wool will always hold its own, but we have come to the point that wool must be boosted and where the wool farmer is prepared to do the boosting, as far as he can, I hope the Government will also assist. There is another matter which I want to touch on and that is the question of kraal manure. Kraal manure is being taken to various parts of the country where it is required for the soil. I think the Minister and the Department should go into the question of finding out what is the most profitable way of having this kraal manure taken to the railroads and from there for distribution. At present because it is more paying to the contractors, they bag the manure and the Department of Agriculture and the Defence Department with their lorries carry the manure at a very low rate indeed, and this manure in bags is sold at very prohibitive rates to the farmer.

At tremendous profits.

Yes, at tremendous profits. I was told that an 11 ton truck costs something like £7 delivered at the station. In bags they have to pay at least 35s. per ton for the fine stuff.

Having listened for several hours to this debate, I have learnt at least a little bit and I am grateful. I would say that I greatly enjoyed the cross talk between the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett). I did not gather quite what it was all about, and as a matter of fact the hon. gentlemen themselves did not seem to be quite clear on this point either. But it was interesting to them, anyway. I was a little bit worried by the statement made by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) as to the future. He said we need not look for any brotherliness between producer and distributor. I want to tell him and this House that we are looking for a great deal of brotherliness in the new world for which we are fighting. There is no inevitable conflict between the grower and the distributor.

What about the consumer?

The consumer is best regarded as a third partner, not as an enemy. I want to say that in the United States already there has been a good deal of unification of interests. I do not know whether the hon. member has heard for example of the Farm City Co-operative Association in the United States by which the farmers supply their products to the city distributors, and in return they receive from their city associates household goods, such as clothing and furniture, and farming requirements of every description. It is an illustration of direct and effective co-operation between farm producers and city sellers. And it can be done elsewhere than in America. We must not say that things are going to be exactly the same in the future as they were in the past. We must not go back blindly to the old style of muddle and mismanagement. We must go forward, and there must be much more of human goodwill in economics and commerce and in politics too. The consumer wants to see the producer and the distributor regarding their occupations not merely as a matter of making private personal profit, but as a public service. The production and the distribution of food is a vital national service, and it has to be so regarded by all of us; just as the destruction of food is a national disservice, if not a national betrayal. We urgently want to know from the hon. Minister whether the fact is that the Government is absolutely and resolutely set against destruction of foodstuffs in the future. I have not heard from the Minister any definite answer to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) on that question. The public wants a reply. We wish to know whether the people can be absolutely sure in the future that no more food will be ploughed into the soil to maintain high prices. Something has been said about the scientific farmer. It would be splendid if all farmers were truly scientific, but I submit it is in any case the duty of the Government to place the resources of science at the service of the farming community, not merely for their advantage but the advantage of the whole people. The power that is going to develop both town and country in the future is electric power. Here is an example of that. The City Council of Dumfriesshire resolved to supply electric light and power to every hill and valley in all their jurisdiction, comprising about three-quarters of a million acres. The density of the population is 55 to the square mile, exactly the same as in Natal in the year 1936. The results were in the fullest sense of the word electrifying. The number of electric consumers rose from 736 to 8,430 within four years. The amount of units supplied increased from 175,000 to 8,100,000. And most stupendous of all is this—the factories, the works, and the corporations processing farm products, increased in the four years from 4 to 70. To that whole county has come relative prosperity through scientific distribution of electric power by the governing body because increase of food and manufactures coincided with increased purchasing power. It was proved then that this could be done over a wide area without loss to the organisers. It was proved that the majority of farms, insolated houses, and tiny villages, could be supplied without loss, and that it was not necessary for the consumers to contribute anything towards the establishment of those lines. It was not even necessary to get them to guarantee a minimum consumption. We have in our own country a well established and efficient Electricity Supply Commission, and I believe a very great deal depends on them. Electricity is the power we have to inspan. Already throughout Great Britain 67 per cent. of the farming families have electric light and power; in France 95 per cent. have these benefits, and in Holland 100 per cent. If we do not look ahead and plan for the future instead of bickering at one another, remembering that farming and industry are finally complementary each to the other—unless we do that we shall be out of the race altogether. There is one further thing I would like to suggest and it is this, that with small farms we may possibly follow the example of other pioneer nations with regard to grouping and planning, leaving the local control as it is. I want to quote Lord Addison, who is very highly qualified, being the Labour Party leader in the British House of Lords. Perhaps I had better detail additional qualifications! He was in 1930-’31 the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the British Government. Before that he was Secretary for Agriculture, and he has written the best analysis on agriculture that is known in Britain. By massing little farms that did not pay under divided management, success was wrested from failure. To save the time of the House and my own I want to quote from this work of his, “Programme for Agriculture.” He wrote—

Then he goes on to say in detail how that has been done, and he concludes this way—

If perhaps the impression has been created in this debate that the Nationalist Party wants to eliminate the middleman and the trader altogther, I just want to say that that impression is not justified. The Nationalist Party adopts the attitude that all three sections have the right to exist; that all three sections must enjoy protection, and that the businessman, the middleman, is and always will be a useful link in the community. The Nationalist Party wants to maintain the balance between the producer on the one hand and the businessman and the consumer on the other hand; that is the policy of the Nationalist Party. I would like to read to the House how it was put in the Nationalist Party’s social economic plan, which was published recently. It is put as follows [Translation]—

Perhaps the tendency today is to describe the position as a struggle between the farmer and the trader, which is a misrepresentation. Perhaps that tendency is the result of the fact that in South Africa there are certain traders and middlemen who are undesirable elements. Even today we have to contend with those undesirable elements. This proposition may be the result of the fact that there are certain traders who have abused their position and taken advantage of the abnormal circumstances which were created by the war. There is no doubt that there are middlemen and traders who have abused their position and who have made abnormally high profits at the expense of the producer on the one hand and the consumer on the other hand. A case was recently mentioned by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) where a sheep was sold by the middleman at a profit of 15s. It is things of that nature which have perhaps given rise to the proposition that there is a struggle between all traders and the farmer. In actual fact that is not so. What must be done in our country and what this side of the House advocates is that a sound balance must be maintained between the various sections. We adopt the attitude that all three are indispensable, that the consumer and the businessman and the producer are indispensable factors in the economic and social life of South Africa, and that all three are useful links which cannot be dispensed with. What we on this side are against is exploitation, the exploiter and the parasite, and those people will have to pay as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned. This debate more specifically deals with agriculture, but I cannot refrain from saying that the wrong impression must not take root that this side of the House wants to eliminate the middleman and the trader as such. All three sections are indispensable in the community. There are businessmen and middlemen of an honourable type in our country. Those are the people who require protection. There are middlemen and businessmen in South Africa who have remained the friends of the farmer and of the consumer because they have behaved themselves decently, but we want to eliminate those people who, in a scandalous way, exploit the consumer and the producer, and it is those people who were attacked by members on this side of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Minister does not regard this important report as seriously as we should have liked—the report on the reconstruction of agriculture—this important report of his department which is perhaps the most important report which we have had for many years in connection with this matter. We are sorry that he dismissed it so lightly.

I did not dismiss it lightly.

It would be a pity if the Minister were to make a football of this plan. It would be a pity if he were to send it from one commission or committee to another commission or committee. It would have been so much better if the Minister could have made a more definite statement. His department has had this report in its possession for a considerable time. It would have been a great encouragement to the country, especially to the agricultural industry, if he could have made a more definite statement.

That will be done at the appropriate time.

I hope that appropriate time will be in the near future. This is intended as a long term policy.

This is a report which must be thoroughly investigated.

Agreed, but I say that the Minister has had a considerable time to do that. This is a long term plan, but while it is a long term plan it is surely not the intention to keep it in long term captivity.

You are speaking as though I have occupied this post for years.

The Minister could in any case have caused a few of these principles to be investigated, and he could have made a more definite statement, especially in connection with the principles. There are certain recommendations in this report which cannot be supported, but there are a couple of outstanding principles in connection with which it should not be difficult for the Government or for the department to make up its mind, especially since there is such a beautifully worked out plan. I want to mention two principles. The one is in connection with the Bureau of Farm Values. The other is the principle in connection with the conversion of the Land Bank into a mortgage bank so that that bank can in the future take over all farm mortgages. Those are the two principles in connection with which it should not be necessary to take days or weeks to come to a decision. This report lays down certain important basic principles in connection with agriculture which are very promising. I think in spite of everything that has been said in this debate by certain interests, the voice of the agriculturist can be heard clearly and certain principles in connection with agriculture stand out very clearly. It seems to me that this agricultural reconstruction plan is the first to give the agriculturist, the farming community, its true place in our national economy. The report indicates in a very striking manner the contribution of the farming community economically as well as otherwise to our national welfare, and I think it is useful to indicate that. I want to point out a few impressive figures which are mentioned, figures which ought to convince those who may be sceptical in regard to the place of the farming community in our national economy. For example, it is mentioned that 64 per cent. of the population of the Union performs profitable work in the service of agriculture. I think it will generally be accepted as news that the percentage is so high. [Time limit.]

I am concerned as to the future food supply in the Reserves. I understand from information I have received that this year’s crop will be 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the normal crop. We have been told that the production in the Union will also be considerably smaller this year owing to losses estimated at several hundred thousand bags owing to flood damage. That is bound to have its effect on the food supplies in the reserves, and we are naturally concerned, about the situation. Some time ago I asked the Minister’s predecessor if he could not tell us anything about the estimated crop for this year. Unfortunately it was not possible at that stage to supply this information. We were also anxious to know what price is going to be fixed, and I want to make a plea that no levy should be placed on mealies for human consumption. The price of mealies has gone up approximately 100 per cent. in the last four years. I would emphasise that the question of food supply is closely allied to the incidence of typhus which is raging in the Transkei at the moment. The doctors themselves state that the lack of food is a contributory factor, and that is an additional reason why we should do everything in our power to ensure an adequate supply of food for the Reserves this winter. I hope that the Department will keep in close contact with the Department of Native Affairs to ensure that an adequate supply of food is available in the Transkei. May I add my plea to that of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). I am not sure whether the hon. Minister has replied to it so far. I refer to the question of eliminating the reserves from the mealie control board system. The Africans of the Transkei are not primarily producers; they are producer-consumers and I do not think that any quantity of mealies worth discussing has ever been exported from the Transkei.

On the contrary, the importation of mealies into the Transkei runs into thousands of tons. The native people in the Transkei rely on maize as their staple food; and in all these circumstances I hope that steps will be taken to ensure an adequate supply, and that there will be close co-operation between the Department of Native Affairs and the Minister’s Department in that regard.

I just want to say that the Minister’s reply to my request in connection with currants was that there were only two things which he had to establish, the one being whether the Acting Minister had made a promise, and the other whether the price of 8d. was justified; and his reply to that was that according to the department 7d. was enough, and that the Acting Minister had told him that he had not made a promise. I saw the Acting Minister and told him what had happened, and he then said that it did not amount to a definite promise. What he said before the commission was quite clear. In the first place he said that 8d. was justified, and in the second place that we should arrange the matter with the Price Controller, and that it was for him to deduct 1d. from the profit of the retailer. The assumption then was that the price would be 14d. per lb. They said that if they were to give another penny, the price would be 16d. and the Acting Minister then stated that the price must remain at approximately 14d.

The retail price?

Yes. He said the Price Controller must then arrange to deduct ld. I just want to read to the House what the commission writes. I did not act on my own initiative. I think the department treated me scandalously. They did not at any stage say what they were going to do. They never saw the deputation. They left it to one of the Under-Secretaries—I shall not mention his name—and he simply says that he knows nothing about it. I spoke to the Secretary and I also told the Minister I would raise the matter. They did not notify me what they proposed to do. When I next heard about the matter the papers had already been sent to Pretoria. Unfortunately I could not see the Minister. I interviewed the department, and they said that they could do nothing in the matter. I thought they would at least hold this matter in abeyance until the Minister returned. I want to state here this afternoon that the request of the Minister was not complied with, and that he did make the promise that the farmers could get that price provided we could arrange it with the Price Controller. I interviewed the Price Controller and he stated that he had nothing to do with the fixation of the price. I wrote to the deputation and stated that I did not want to act on my own initiative, that I wanted to have their opinion. This man writes as follows on behalf of the whole commission [Translation]—

That is the position. The Acting Minister accepted that. He accepted that price as a reasonable price; and I go further. I say that Dr. Marais went into this matter together with the currant farmers, and he told the farmers that 8d. was a reasonable price, and that he had recommended 8d. But now we have one of the officials telling the Minister that 7d. is a fair price. He told me that before the deputation came, and it was for that reason that I got the deputation to come. What the Minister told me this morning this official had already told me before the deputation arrived. The Control Board recommended 8d., but the Department refuses to give more than 7d. The Minister then returned and they placed all the facts before him in the form of a memorandum. He told us when we left: “This is the position; I think it is reasonable; we must rectify it; the profit which goes to the retailer must be reduced.” I do not want to read the rest of the letter. I shall give it to the Minister, and he can read it himself. I want to make it clear to him that both the deputation and I feel that we were treated badly. I admit that before that time the secretary was away; there was a change of Ministers; but I have not to this day heard from the Minister or from his Department what the position is. The deputation is furious. They feel that they have been insulted. I just want to say this for the Minister’s information. He has the figures in his possession. Can he tell me why the profit on five-diamonds is 24.2 per cent.? That is the percentage of profit, not the profit in pennies. It cannot be said that a greater profit should be allowed because the man pays more. This is the percentage figure. The profit in respect of the four-diamonds is 23.5 per cent. Why is it less? Why is the one higher than the other? Now I come to the three diamonds, and there the profit was fixed at 11.2 per cent. As far as the Dairy Control Board is concerned, the retailer gets a profit of 12½ per cent., and the Minister has stated that that is reasonable. Surely it is unreasonable to say that in the one case a profit of 12½ per cent. is allowed and a different percentage in another case. The Diary Control Board decided that the retailer could take a profit of 12½ per cent. The position is simply that they did not want to give the farmer 8 per cent. The Department would not give it, and they evaded what the Minister had undertaken and had promised.

The Acting Minister.

I am speaking of the. Acting Minister. I did not say that the Minister had made any promise. That is the position. From the very beginning the Department would not give more. When I raised this matter the first year they gave 3d. The import duty on currants is only 3d. It was because of that that we got 6d. because they could not deliver in this country at less than 3d. from the countries on the Mediterranean Sea or other countries. We got even more than 6d. because we received preference as far as conveyance, etc., was concerned. The reason why certain people reduced the price was because they said there was a surplus. But that does not apply in this case. There is no surplus. When they spoke of a surplus the farmers said that they would carry the surplus. The demand was there; only the Department refused. The chairman of the Control Board, because he was an official and was under other officials, was afraid to stand his ground, and we were left in the lurch. I say that if the farmers had got 8d. They could still have sold the currants retail at 12½d.; in that case they would have made more than 12½ per cent. profit. That is the position, but we have had to fight from the very beginning. They have now increased the price from 3d. to 7d. They could have done that the first year, because it was not possible to import, and even when one can import, the import duty is 3d. They have given us nothing, therefore, because the import tax is 3d. In the past when there was no control we got 1s. per lb. The buyers went round to buy currants, but they could not get any. [Time limit.]

I should like to deprecate in the strongest terms some of the speeches that have been made in this House, particularly from the side of the Opposition, with regard to the fight between the producer and the consumer. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) and the hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. P. W. A. Pieterse) reminded me very much of Honiball’s Oom Kaspaas. They got up in this House and threw their weight about telling us what they were going to do and what they were not going to do. If you want to destroy South Africa quicker than it is being destroyed by soil erosion, have a fight between the producer and the consumer. May I say this to my friends on the farming side, we have all the greatest respect for the farmer and the producer. In the American Congress today the farmers are being advised strongly by the farming newspapers and by their agricultural leaders, and by everyone else, to smash the farmers’ bloc. The leaders of the farmers are saying: “Let us stop our Lobbyists in the Congress Lobbies, and let us stop our Farmers’ Bloc.” I do hope that whatever happens in South Africa, we will never have a farmers’ bloc or an industrial bloc. What surprises me about this House is this: For years and years we carry on a great discussion in regard to agriculture, but we have not had an agricultural standing committee. I should like to ask the Minister one thing—and I think the Minister has a great future as a Minister; I say so and I have always thought so from the day he came into politics. I hope the Minister will impress upon the Government that we should have a standing committee on agriculture where the gentlemen from the Opposition side can meet the gentlemen on the Government side and work out an agricultural policy for South Africa. There is no agricultural policy for South Africa politically. Although the department strives hard, it is like a strong man struggling with adversity. To assist it we must have an agricultural policy. For many years I have been hearing members get up in this House and ask questions of the Minister that they could have got answered, and answered more satisfactorily if they walked across the road and saw Dr. Viljoen. During all my time in the House I have never heard any scientific debate on farming. An hon. member wanted to know when there woud be a scientific journalist. I have never heard of a scientific journalist. We have no scientific debates. I tried to bring before the House in a small way something that should be done. I was sneered at, sneered at even by the Minister, who said: “You will find it all in this book.”

I never sneered at it.

Then I apologise. I did not find very much of what I said in this book, but I found a lot that I have been pleased to see. I have not read the document through, but I believe it is going to be a great document in South Africa in the future. I hope to read it on Good Friday. May I add this, that the farming industry all over the world is one of the few industries that has not progressed since the Industrial Revolution. Every other industry has progressed except farming, because they are still keeping it as a cottage industry; and we have to remember that we cannot go back to August, 1939, but that the whole of our economy is changed, whether the middleman likes it or whether he does not like it. I am not a middleman, but an industrialist. I have never been a middleman; and whether he like it or whether he does not like it, the State will have to come and take a hand in distribution in the future. Not only will the State have to take a hand in distribution in future but it will have to take a hand in farming in the future. I think it was Samuel Butler who said that the hen is only an egg’s way of making another egg. I think the farmer is only a mealie’s way of producing another mealie. It is the food that counts, not the farmer. That it is the food that counts we have found out more in this war than before. The farmer is the instrument; it is the food that matters and the consumers and the people generally demand that they get proper food. What do we find in South Africa and not in any other country? We find certain things grown on certain lands, but at the same time we have bad teeth and crooked bones and malnutrition from that bad food and that is why I sympathise with the public when they say that the farmer must use the Agricultural Department, and he is not using it. I have never yet heard a farmer get up who has criticised the Agricultural Department and say: “Why do they not use the Agricultural Department more than they do?” Politics is entering into our farming as into everything else. There is far too much politics and not enough scientific farming, and I implore the House that we must get away from this thing altogether; that our farmers should get down to the essentials, and get down to scientific farming in this country. I visualise a time—I may not see it myself as I am getting “into the sere and yellow leaf”—when the farmer will tie himself to industry in this country, when he will tie himself to the industrial workers, and become a portion of a future great industrial South Africa, when the State will take over much of the land in South Africa and engage in collective farming on a very large scale under the Agricultural Department of this country; when the inefficient man will go off the land, when there will be no middeleman, and when we will get back to Communism not as known by Lenin but Communism as known in Russia today. Otherwise there is little future for us, because we cannot carry on as we are doing today under a system where, for instance, a sausage has to pass through six or seven hands before it reaches the consumer, and citrus has to be handled by half-a-dozen people before it gets to the consumer or is buried. Food is the most sacred thing of the people, and it has got to reach the consumer at the price that is paid to the producer. The producer will have to form part of a big co-operative body which will attend not only to farming but to clothing. But when you put this before a House of intelligent peopls as ours is supposed to be, they merely exclaim “Communism.” But it is nothing more than Communism that we have heard preached for the last three days. Hon. members have been arguing for the elimination of the middleman; that is exactly what the Communists did. They eliminated the middleman. They said : “The food will go direct from the producer to the consumer”. If we adopt that policy we are agreeing with Communism in that respect. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) made a long speech about “rosyntjies”. He is a farmer and he made a great speech about his raisins. He complained and complained about his raisins, but there was never a word about these important issues.

I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, but I did not talk about raisins.

His raisins are as sour as his own grapes. I should like to see us go back to the procedure that was followed in the old Volksraad in the Free State. When I was a reporter in the Free State Volksraad our fathers and grandfathers sat there and they brought into the House men who were experts, men like Dr. Viljoen and they asked them questions and listened to their replies. They had their experts in the House and these experts replied tp their questions and taught them something. We should have something like that system in this House, where we could call in our experts and they could teach hon. members how to carry on the business of the country when it comes to mining and farming and industry.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke as though he had a lien on all wisdom. But let me tell him that the farmers do avail themselves of all the scientific assistance which is placed at their disposal. From time to time we ask for more extension officers. The farmers are very interested in the system of employing extension officials, but today there are not enough available to meet the needs of the farmers. I rose, in fact, to ask that more advice should be given to the farmers. Where this request is made to the Department of Agriculture, I hope the Minister will investigate whether it is necessary to place extension officers in the various places where application is made. In the North-West it is absolutely essential to have more extension officers. The country is spread out and there is one extention officer for a very large area. He has to work himself to a standstill, and I want to ask the Minister to investigate this matter. He must please not say that there are not enough people available. He should send out more extension officers amongst the farmers. The farmers have always been willing to follow the advice of these officers. I want to refer, however, to another matter. I think the Minister is aware of it. It is in connection with an international food controller who is stationed in Washington, and who interferes with the Food Controller in our country. I have been informed that there is an international food controller in Washington who represents all the Allied Nations, and that it is his duty to ascertain where food is available, and where it should be exported. If there is over-production, he decides to which country it should go. I have in mind a case which took place last year. I was informed that last year we had a surplus of raisins and sultanas. It was necessary to export, and we had to export to the British Food Controller at a very low price. The prices which have been given to me are as follows: 2.401d. from the Orange River and 2.342d. from the Western Province. That happened at a time when the Dried Fruit Board had an order for 300 tons of raisins from Rhodesia, but we could not supply Rhodesia, because the order came from Washington that Rhodesia had had her full quota. Now we are saddled with the raisins which we produced, and if there is a surplus we have to export it at a lower price to the Food Controller in England, although we received an order from Rhodesia. We were informed that if Rhodesia wanted a bigger quota for 1944, Rhodesia must apply for it. I think if that is true it is one of the matters which should really receive the attention of the Minister. As far as South Africa is concerned, we should not have an international food controller who will determine where we in South Africa have to send our goods, especially when there is a demand for that commodity from a neighbouring State. But the hon. Minister will still learn that if there is one section of the farming community which does not flourish, it is the sultana farmers. This is the place where we must raise matters of this kind, notwithstanding what other hon. members may say. It is a fact that before the war the farmers received a higher price for that product than they are getting today. Before the war they received more than 4d. per lb. and last year the crop was bought at 3.185d., and this year the guaranteed price for sultanas is 3.4d. per lb. A deputation saw the Minister’s predecessor and asked that the State should subsidise this industry to the extent of 6d. per lb. We found, after the Control Board had fixed the price, that that hope was not realised. I think the price is only two-fifths of a penny higher than last year, and the farmers say that in these circumstances they cannot produce. It may be said that these people can produce something else. In Gordonia especially, these people who live on small holdings, were assisted by the State to plant the vines and before the war they made a good profit. I know of cases, for example, where farmers received 4½d. per lb. for their sultanas, and when the Control Board intervened and fixed the price, they had to cancel their contracts and sell to the Control Board at 4d. and less than 4d. per lb. The Minister will probably know that the best sultanas are produced in this part of the country. Approximately 4,000 tons are produced there, and the majority of the producers are small farmers. Last year the surplus production which we could not use here was declared to be 2,500 tons. This tonnage was exported and prices are now being fixed which are lower than the prices which were obtained before the war. The small farmers now ask that the Government should subsidise them. At the beginning of the war it was stated that this war would be of great advantage to us, but a section of the farming community is farming at a loss today and it is the duty of the State to help these people. Notwithstanding the fact that the price has already been fixed by the Dried Fruit Board, I want to make an urgent appeal to the Minister on behalf of these people to investigate this matter thoroughly. There are no less than 1,050 of those small farmers who derive their income almost exclusively from sultanas, and the Minister surely does not want them to go under. They are also in this unfortunate position that they had to go hat in hand and ask the K.W.V. for a contribution. Last year the K.W.V., without being under any obligation to do so, contributed £16,000 to £20,000. But the farmers say they have nothing to do with the K.W.V. They are sultana farmers and before the war they made a success of it. Their products fetched the best prices for products of that type in the international market. This war has dislocated their industry, and they ask that they should be assisted. There are other people who are being assisted. The Chamber of Mines was assisted to enable them to pay better wages to the natives. Here we have 1,050 farmers who made a fairly good living before the war, and today their position is critical. They are small farmers, and they live on Government holdings. They were told what they had to farm with. They are not at liberty to take out the vines just as they please. They have to obtain permission from the Minister of Lands, and in the transition period through which we are passing today they ought to be assisted. After the war they will probably be able to make a good living again. [Time limit.]

I feel disappointed with two aspects of this debate as it has developed in the past few days. The one aspect is that the debate may quite possibly be responsible for an impression being created in this country that there is an actual conflict between the producer and the consumer. So far as the interests of those two sections are concerned there unquestionably is no conflict. I also want to deny that the debate which has been carried on here reflects the feelings of this country. There is no question of the consumer in South Africa not being friendly disposed towards the producer, or the producer not being friendly disposed towards the consumer. I think that in this regard I can speak with as much authority as any urban representative in this House. I also represent the consumers. I represent more than a 1,000 votes of people who are exclusively consumers, and then I am not talking of farmers as consumers—in that sense, of course, there is nobody who is not a consumer, but thousands of people who are purelly consumers are represented by agrarian members, especially on this side of the House, and in the rural districts one does not find any conflict between the consumer and the producer. Now, I am also disappointed in this debate in another respect. I say it with all due deference. We have a most important report at our disposal, the reconstruction report of the Department of Agriculture, and it seems to me that very little attention has been given to that report. It seems to me that a special effort was made by the Department to have this report available in time for this vote and I had expected that it would have had much more attention than has been the case.

And that it will be given effect to.

I do not only regard it as important from the point of view of the recommendations, but because I believe that it is going to be given effect to, to a very large extent.

I don’t share your belief.

On the contrary I believe that in the immediate future our agricultural industry will to a very large extent develop along the lines indicated in the report. I think that this report can rightly be regarded as one of the most important reports which for years has seen the light of day, in any case so far as agriculture is concerned. When the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), and to a lesser degree perhaps the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), say that this report reflects the policy of the Nationalist Party, then I want to ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad which Nationalist Party? The present Nationalist Party has bitterly opposed and fought the hon. member for Wolmaransstad as Minister of Agriculture and surely he does not want us to believe that the agricultural policy of the present Nationalist Party is only four years old? I don’t think it becomes him to describe it as the policy of the Nationalist Party. It is impossible, of course, to go at length into the report, but I want to avail myself of this opportunity to bring a few significant figures to the notice especially of hon. members who are perhaps under the impression that the farming industry is so particularly flourishing. Under the abnormal circumstances today farming may be in a favourable position, but I am speaking of normal times to which we expect to return. I am taking these figures which I am going to mention from the returns appearing under the various headings of Net National Income. These figures are given in respect of various industries in this country—farming, factories, mines, commerce, etc. These figures will be found on page 2. What is so significant to me in these figures is that if we compare the highest pre-depression figures under any of those headings with the highest pre-war figures (that is to say the figures after the depression and before the war) it appears that agriculture is in a very difficult position. If we compare those figures they are very striking. I don’t want to take it upon myself to explain these figures. I am only mentioning the figures to indicate the position. In regard to a number of smaller industries there is very little difference between the pre-depression figures, the depression figures, and the 1939 figures for instance. One finds a steady improvement there. But if one takes commerce and finance for instance one finds that the net national income under those heads pre-depression amounted to £51,000,000, and the highest pre-war figure is £76,000,000. In regard to mining the highest pre-depression figure was £50,000,000 and the highest pre-war figure was £81,000,000. In regard to factories the highest pre-depression figure was £39,000,000 and the highest prewar figure £70,000,000. But if one takes farming one finds this that the highest predepression figure was £49,000,000 and the highest pre-war figure in 1939 was £50,000,000. What does that mean? It means that farming went through the depression, it went through all those periods during which all the other industries in South Africa made progress, and it had just reached the stage of making up what it had lost in the depression—it had just reached the figure at which it stood before the depression, and at the same time the depression figure was very much more unfavourable so far as farming was concerned than it was so far as other industries were concerned. I say that these figures should have the attention of this House because they prove that the farming industry requires special attention. I am quite sure the Minister realises that he has taken over at a most important stage. We are on the eve of development; we are facing a policy of development in regard to agriculture which will prove of the utmost importance. I want to congratulate the Minister on his appointment, but on the other hand I sympathise with him. He has a very difficult time before him, but I have full confidence in his ability and in his good intentions, and I feel sure that in days to come we shall have cause to thank him for the services he will have rendered to the public in connection with this matter. During this debate we have found that the Opposition have a considerable amount of good feeling towards the Minister. That is an attitude which we can, and want to encourage, but I hope they will not take it amiss if I ask them to show the same spirit which they have shown in this House, outside the House as well. When we say that it is in the interest of farming to tackle matters in this House in that spirit we are fully entitled to ask that that spirit shall also be displayed outside the House.

Let me reply to a few points which were raised since I last spoke. First of all let me take the difficult question of currant prices. This is a ticklish subject which was dealt with more or less during the transition period of my hon. friend who was acting Minister in this department until I took over myself. The whole business took place while he was there and it only came before me after the new notice had appeared in the Government Gazette. Now we have this trouble, that apparently there is a misunderstanding, because my hon. friend says that the Chairman of the Dried Fruit Board agreed that 8d. was a reasonable price.

He was asked to deny it but he kept quiet.

I spoke to him about this matter and he has assured me, and so have other officials in my department, that 7d. is a reasonable price. I don’t know what else I can do at this stage to satisfy my hon. friend. I am prepared, however, to call in the Chairman of the Dried Fruit Board again and to go into the whole question with him, and I am prepared to give my hon. friend the opportunity of discussing the matter with him again. I cannot promise more than that. One of the speeches which I think we can appreciate was that made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and I say so in spite of the fact that he has given me, or wants to give me, a suspended sentence. I appreciate his contribution because he spoke about general matters so far as the agricultural industry is concerned. I fully agree with him that we should do our utmost to see that the farmers do not live on their capital by exploiting their soil. I can assure him that whatever I can do to prevent that will be done. Where we are dealing with a farmer who realises that he must not live on his capital in that way, that in itself is an asset to the country because we know that there are farmers who do not realise it, who have not yet learnt the lesson that they must not rob their soil from year to year. So far as the fertiliser position is concerned I want to make a brief statement on it, so that the farmers may know exactly what the situation is. There is no need for us to get the fertiliser which is at Casablanca. I rather think that we should study the position as it is in this country at the moment, and in that connection I want to make the following statement—[translation]—

Of this about 70,000 tons (50,000 of which from Morocco) are already in the Union, that is to say equivalent to 100,000 tons phosphate fertiliser. We have been promised that up to the end of March about another 60,000 tons (37,000 tons from Morocco) will be shipped. According to our latest information there will be a certain amount of delay with the importations from Morocco.

The quantity of 200,000 tons of rock is the maximum which can now be processed by our two superphosphate factories. There is no possibility of the Union’s quota of phosphates being increased during 1944.

Although we have reason to expect that the permits which have been issued, and will still be issued, can be fully carried out, no guarantee can be given because the dates of importation cannot be guaranteed, and because factory difficulties may arise. For that reason only 255,000 of the expected 300,000 tons of phosphate fertiliser are being distributed for the time being (220,000 to farmers).

Generally speaking the farmers are getting only about 50 per cent. of their approved requirements. This percentage cannot be increased because the requirements of farmers, largely as a result of the campaign for greater production, and the increased prices of products, have gone up to about 500,000 tons as against 300,000 tons before the war and 400,000 tons last year.

While the basis of allocation can be placed at an average of about 50 per cent. of the requirements, distinctions have been drawn according to the National importance of the crop, the soil and climatic conditions of the area.

At the beginning of the year there was some trouble about getting the manufactured superphosphate and super rock quickly enough out of the factories. On account of restricted storage facilities it would have become necessary to stop production if the distribution could not have taken place rapidly. Those difficulties, however, were overcome by a system of advances before the permits were issued. The distribution is now taking place comparatively smoothly.

Permits have already been issued in respect of all timely applications. In view of the fact that the normal demand in the first three months is comparatively small, part of the applications for the second quarter have been moved forward to the first quarter. Farmers are also requested to send their permits immediately to the manufacturers so that the distribution can be properly arranged and is not delayed.

At times difficulties are experienced to supply the fertiliser factories with sufficient trucks and buck sails to remove the necessary quantities of 1,000 tons per day. Generally, however, there has not been any serious delay, and the Railways have so far succeeded in maintaining the regular transport. If farmers do not send in their permits in good time an accumulation may arise which will make transport very difficult. If necessary it will be proposed that trucks used for the transport of Karroo Manure be transferred for the transport of artificial fertiliser.

The relationship between supers and mixtures has again been investigated and it appears that about 95,000 tons of mixtures will be required to meet farmers’ demands. For this purpose 70,000 supers are needed, that is to say 30 per cent. of the 235,000 supers which remain after deductions for Rhodesia, cattle food and rock supermixture have been made.

On account of the necessity to avoid unnecessary transport high grade supers are only made at Somerset West from Morocco Rock, while the lower grades are manufactured in Natal, and also rock supermixture.

It appears to be impossible to allocate to farmers who take the 15 per cent. supers the full equivalent of 19 per cent., as we would be 20,000 tons short if we did so. An additional 10 per cent. is, however, allowed to all farmers who ask for it, and who have received 15 per cent. of rock supers. Generally speaking it can be said that the farmer gets the same value for his money for all three types of phosphate fertiliser.

The allocation for separate crops has been somewhat changed in consequence of the increased supply. The demand, however, has also increased, so that the wheat farmer who last year already got full 50 per cent. of his requirements, will now receive the same quantity, but he will get 19 per cent. superphosphates—consequently, nearly 20 per cent. more. The improved position will particularly benefit the mealie farmer, and his allocation has been increased on an average from 40 to 80 lbs.

The production of Langebaan rock until recently has been very disappointing. The estimated figure of 3,000 tons per month or 100 tons per day is only being achieved now. It is expected, however, that not all the difficulties will be solved yet. Consequently the estimated production is now 75 tons per day. The total production for 1944 will therefore be in the neighbourhood of 20,000 tons, the great majority of which will be allocated to fruit, citrus and lucerne.

Can you tell us something about the prices?

No, I am not in a position to say anything about prices now but I shall go into that. I thought; as the hon. member had raised this important question, it would perhaps be interesting for me to make a full statement to the Committee about our fertiliser position. The other question I raised is also important and I shall go into that. It will have my own and my Department’s full consideration. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) urged me to say what my attitude is in regard to the report of the Agricultural Reconstruction Committee. I don’t think the hon. member can be very serious when he urges me to make a statement now. Let me say that this report first of all has to go to the Planning Council which was specially set up for that purpose. This is an important report, and serious attention will be given to it; it cannot be dealt with in the course of a few days or a few weeks, nor can we say offhand whether we are going to accept it or not. We shall have to go very carefully into the matter and a statement will be made at the appropriate time. I do not expect it will be done during this Session and I am telling hon. members this now, so that they may know what the position is.

We trust it will not take a few years.

The hon. member will be here to crucify me if it takes a few years. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) discussed the prices of saltanas. He is not present at the moment but I shall give the House the information. The position in regard to the prices fixed for the past few years is as follows: For the year 1941-’42 the price was fixed at 2.6d. per lb.; for the year 1942-’43 at 3d. per lb. and for the year 1943-’44 at 3.4d. per lb. So that from year to year there has been a gradual increase. That price is the average price calculated over all the grades. In the first two years it was actually more because I understand that the grade in those two years was particularly good. If we take that price into account the increase this year may be looked upon as being reasonable. The hon. member raised a further point on the subject of food control and he asked whether the Inter-Allied Food Control at Washington has control over our fate in South Africa. That is not so. There is an Inter-Allied Food Controller at Washington. The people who gave my hon. friend that information must have had in mind the Combined Food Board which makes arrangements in regard to the classes of food available for the various United Nations. It is in the interest of us all, and we co-operate with that organisation at Washington.

†Then some points were raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward). He raised first of all the question of soil erosion, with which I dealt fairly fully earlier in the debate when I think he was absent from the House, but I can assure him that the matter is receiving the most earnest attention from the Government, and although only £9,000 appears on this Vote, actually £120,000 will be voted under various heads during the present Session, and will go to the conservation of our soil. The globular figures suggested by the body which approached him could not be economically and usefully spent at present because we do not possess the staff and the equipment, but we are doing as much as we can in the circumstances. With regard to the other matter, the prickly pear subsidy, the position is that the experiment to which he referred in connection with the use of prisoners of war, that experiment will be pursued by means of the use of locally recruited labour, and it is only after we have had an opportunity of seeing the results of that experiment that a definite decision can be taken with regard to the continuation of that method on an extended scale. There is the matter raised by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), to whom I have replied, but since I replied I have received certain further information and while I am not prepared to defend the past actions of the Deciduous Fruit Board—far be it from me to do so—my predecessor has promised that he would go into the constitution of that Board and he promised a re-organisation of the Board, and I have said that I would honour that undertaking, but in the interest of truth and accuracy I would like to tell the Committee that the facts given by the hon. member for Pinetown were misleading. The letter for instance to which he referred—when he was asked what the date of that letter was he said April, 1942. Well, that was old enough, but I find now on investigation that the letter actually is dated 23rd April, 1941, and in addition to that the history of that consignment of pears is somewhat lengthy. I don’t want to go into the full history. But these pears were consigned to the Imperial Cold Storage in Port Elizabeth, where eventually they were taken over by the Deciduous Fruit Board; they were placed in cold storage where provision was made for apples. The container where they were placed was continually opened, with the result that some of the pears went bad, and the cold storage company obtained the services of an inspector of the section of Economics and Marketing, and after condemning portion of the consignment, passed the balance as fit for marketing. That balance was then sent to various markets including Grahamstown and Johannesburg. The consignment to Grahamstown arrived in Grahamstown before the other which was despatched to more distant destinations. It arrived there in a state of collapse and unfit for sale, and as soon as the agent in Port Elizabeth heard of the fate of that consignment to Grahamstown he took what I think was a not unreasonable step, of notifying the more distant destinations what the fate was of the Grahamstown consignment, and as appears in the letter he says that this fruit was apparently in an overripe condition “and has probably reached you in a state of collapse and unfit for sale. In which case we shall be pleased if you will dump the fruit and send the empty boxes to the Imperial Cold Storage Company.” Now, in the interest of accuracy I thought I should mention that, and that I think places a totally different complexion on the matter from what it appeared to be when the hon. member mentioned it.

Is that practice stopped now?

I have told the Committee that I would honour the undertaking of my predecessor. I said that we are going into this question, with a view to reorganising this Board. I don’t think my hon. friend is entitled to call this a practice; this is a particular consignment of pears which for various reasons went bad.

Will you reorganise the system?

I have told my hon. friend that I am going into the whole question. That brings me to the other points made by various members with some considerable degree of consistence, particularly by the hon. member for Krugersdorp and by other hon. members, namely, that I should state my policy with regard to the ploughing under of citrus fruits and with regard to the waste of food and of fruit generally. Well, I have had no time or occasion yet to go fully into these matters, but I can tell the House at this stage that I am as anxious as any other hon. member to see that no fruit of food in this country is wasted or that fruit which is fit for human consumption is ploughed under. I shall study these matters fully, and I may be able to come forward with a policy when the House meets again. At this stage I can only say that I yield to no one in my anxiety to see that there is no destruction of food.

You cannot do it under the present system.

Then the same question was raised by various other hon. members, particularly by hon. members who represent the natives in this country, namely, the question of a subsidy on food for the poorer sections of the country, particularly the natives. That question is being carefully considered by a committee which has been appointed. The question was dealt with by the Prime Minister on his vote when the hon. member over there raised it. A committee has been sitting under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Social Welfare, and that committee has represented on it the Secretary for Agriculture, the Secretary for Public Health and the Secretary for Native Affairs, and that it all I can say on that question at this stage. With regard to the suggestion made by two other hon. members, namely, that the maize produced in the native areas should not fall under the control, that is a question I shall have to go into carefully and which I shall have to study. I cannot commit myself definitely on it at this stage. I must thank the hon. member for Hospital for the interesting suggestion he has made, that there should be a standing committee on agriculture. That is also a matter I should like to go into and consider carefully. I think that covers the points that were made since I last replied to this rather lengthy debate.

The Minister during the course of this debate has to my mind made a very unfortunate statement about the meat scheme. We have brought it to the notice of the Minister that the organised farmers outside who constitute the great majority are prepared to accept price control ….

I have already replied to that.

I only want to say that I think the Minister allowed himself to be led into a trap by making that statement. As the hon. Minister has gone out now I prefer to wait with my statement until he returns.

I hope the Minister of Native Affairs will make notes of what we say here and will pass our remarks on to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister said that it was impossible for him to say what his Department’s policy was in regard to the agricultural reconstruction plan. We assume that to put that report as a whole into effect will take up a good deal of time. But there are certain outstanding recommendations which this side of the House feels should undoubtedly be carried out, and it should not be impossible for the Minister to say now that they are going to be carried out. Why can this side of the House see at once that these parts of the report can be given effect to immediately? It is because we have been busy for years with the reconstruction plan for farming and if the Government had given that subject its attention for years it would also have been in a position to tell us which part of the report could immediately be carried out, and which part could not be carried out. There is another subject, however, which I am anxious to bring to the Minister’s notice. I refer to the question of fencing. The hon. member for GraaffReinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) has already discussed that. I want to invite the Minister to pay a visit to those parts in the North West where the farmers still have to have their sheep guarded, and where they cannot get the necessarry fencing materials. And I also want him to visit the immediately adjoining parts where the farmers have jackal proof fencing. If he goes there he will see the tremendous difference there is in the way the cattle and stock have grown, the difference in the yield of wool, how much longer the veld can stand and how much better it is able to resist drought—and if the Minister had seen these things he would realise that his first duty was to provide for the needs of those farmers. He would go to the Government then and tell the Government that half of the material given up for war purposes for fencing must be used for those parts of the country which have already deteriorated so much.

We only have this black wire which is no use.

We have the Iron and Steel Factory, and they can manufacture wire there. I go further than that. The Minister tells us that they only have black wire; well, we are satisfied with that. In the North West we constructed ostrich camps of black wire which was not galvanised fifty years ago, and it is standing up well. We shall bear in mind that the Minister is going to give us that wire. We don’t have rain there which causes the wire to rust. If that is the position then we say that the Government is responsible, and must supply us with that wire. The Minister has just said that black wire is available. The Iron and Steel Factory should now supply us with that wire, and I can tell the Committee that the farmers in the North West will gladly accept that black wire. We have the admission from the Minister of Native Affairs that the wire is there.

Why don’t you put up electrical fences.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who knows nothing about anything talks like a man who should be put into hospital. I also want to advocate the establishment of cold storages in central places. Under the War Regulations the Government, with its meat scheme, can secure cold storage accommodation from private concerns, but when we return to normal conditions and we have to send our meat to the markets, it will be essential to have cold storage accommodation at suitable centres in our country. The State will have to help there. Another question which I raised before, and which I want to deal with a little bit further now is that of the price of wool. The hon. member said that my figures were misleading when I stated that the wool farmers on an average got 13d., whereas wool in America was sold for 5s. per lb. The Minister said that it was washed wool which obtained those prices but the Minister is only guessing when he says that. Let the Minister prove that it is not grease wool, because the Chairman of the Wool Growers Association in America in his evidence before the Select Committee appointed in America compared prices and he did not speak about washed wool. If the Government has ever robbed the farming population it has done so under the wool schemes which means a loss to the farmers of between £40,000,000 and £60,000,000 in two years. Hon. members can talk about wool prices but let them come along with facts. I am going to give a few facts. For the 1940-’41 season when buyers were still available they were instructed to pay between 30d. and 40d. for our wool. That was the instruction they had from their factory. That would have meant an average price of 25d. Every penny extra means £1,000,000 more in the pockets of the farmers. Where we have now got £10,000,000 we would have got £25,000,000 in that one year for our clip. We lost at least £15,000,000 that one year. When prices dropped again after the war the farmers will be justified in demanding the prices which were forced on them during the war under this agreement. The farmers in the course of a couple of years have lost £50,000,000. The British Government gets 5s. per lb. for our wool in America, while we get 13d. And now the Minister says that our farmers get half of the profit which the British Government makes on our wool. Is it Great Britain’s wool, or does the wool belong to our farmers? Why should our farmers only get half? Why should we not get the whole price for our wool ? And what is more, the wool which England uses for herself—of that we do not get 1d. extra. We only get half of the profit on wool that is resold. Let the Minister, if he wants to deny my figures again, come forward with facts.

There is just one other matter which I want to touch upon today because this question of over cultivation—of exhausting the soil through over cultivation—has been discussed both in this House as well as outside. It is getting rather objectionable when people who know nothing about the matter at ail, who do not understand it at all, who have never been in touch with it, attack the farming population in the Press as though the farming population is deliberately deteriorating its soil through over cultivation. Where over cultivation and soil exhaustion have taken place in the past it was due in the first place to ignorance, and secondly it was caused by necessity; it was never deliberately done. It is very easy to say that the land must retain its fertility. We are all strongly in favour of it and any farmer realises the necessity of preserving the fertility of his soil, but when the price of products is so low, or the yield is so low that the man cannot come out if he has to keep his family going, has to pay taxes, has to pay interest, has to pay his debts, while he has not got the funds to do so, then hon. members will realise that a condition of affairs like that may lead to over cultivation and exhaustion of the soil. Rather let us try as sensible people to give these farmers the necessary guidance and assist them to have a certain degree of security in regard to their income so that they will be able to produce at reasonable profits. If that course is followed there will be less soil exhaustion, less over cultivation. It is not just a question of over cultivation but also of soil erosion. If one hears the frivolous remarks here sometimes and the ill-considered attacks and criticisms in regard to soil erosion, one must get the impression that soil erosion is deliberately caused by the owners of the land. May I point out to those critics that the same condition of affairs existed in America, that great and powerful republic, with a population of 150,000,000 souls. There they went along in the same way, until a large part of the country had almost been washed away into the sea as a result of dust storms. Then they woke up and took precautionary measures to combat the evil. In this country, too, of late years, people have been awakened. Here, too, we have found it necessary for the sake of our national existence to combat soil erosion as well as over cultivation. We are tackling that matter now. I want to assure the critics that nobody is more conscious of the necessity, and nobody is more in earnest about fighting these evils, than the land owner and producer himself.

Only part of them.

I admit that some people still have to be educated. Ignorant sections are found among any population. There are some people who do not realise the seriousness of the situation. But you may just as well say that we should have anticipated this war and that we should have taken precautions. Why did we wait until the bombs burst? Why did the nations only wake up then? They should have prevented these things, and the same thing applies here. We have suddenly woken up with a start, and now we realise the seriousness of the position and we are taking the necessary precautions. Don’t let others who know nothing about this question say that the farmers are deliberately over-cultivating and exhausting their soil and are consciously fostering soil erosion. I also want to revert to a question which I raised earlier on in this debate—and that is the question of a suspended guardianship fund based on the amount which before the war was paid out for fertilisers which are not obtainable today. When I say that, I want to add that this does not only apply to artificial fertilisers but to all the needs and equipment of farmers. The farmers cannot get lorries, equipment or implements. All his materials become antiquated, and wear out, and the money which should have been spent on these things goes into the farmer’s profits today and on these profits he has to pay a war tax now. But when the war is over he will be obliged to repair his obsolete machinery and implements and he will have to replace them out of the funds on which he now has to pay a war tax. That, of course does not apply only to the farming population. It probably also applies to other sections of the community. I cannot speak with any authority so far as they are concerned, but I know what the position of the farming population is. Hon. members will realise the injustice of it. They will realise the injustice of the farmer having to pay excess profits simply because he cannot renew his implements and cannot replace them. Today he pays 15s. in the £ war tax on the money which he should be spending on new implements which are today unobtainable. After the war he will have to buy these things. I want to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the question whether something cannot be done in that connection because it is unjust. In spite of the difficulties connected with this question I think we should not expect those people to pay extra taxes on money which they should really be investing in their business.

That is a question for the Minister of Finance.

I hope the hon. the Minister will make representations to the Minister of Finance to convince him of the necessity of something being done. I don’t want to take up any more of the time of the Committee at this stage. I know that the debate is coming to an end but I must ask the Minister not to treat this matter too lightly. He will realise the reasonableness of my request if he goes into it. I am surprised that the Farmers’ Associations have not yet brought this matter seriously to the notice of the Minister because it is essential for such a fund to be established to enable the farmers after the war to buy their implements and also to restore the fertility of their soil, seeing that today they cannot get hold of the necessary fertiliser.

There are just one or two points which I have not had the opportunity of bringing to the Minister’s notice sooner. The one is in regard to the bull station at Mara in the Northern Transvaal. On the Estimates last year there was provision for £2,500, and this year only £2,300. I should like to know from the Minister under what conditions those bulls are supplied? The original intention was that the bulls would be supplied to people in that area—at any rate that they would be given preference to get bulls from that station. They are bred there and they are bred under circumstances which make them particularly suitable for the conditions in the Northern Transvaal. I should therefore like to know what the conditions are under which the bulls can be obtained. I understand that sales are held from time to time where those bulls are sold. I hope that that is not the case because those bulls should not just be sold to people who can offer the highest prices. Some people can afford to buy bulls whenever they want to. There should be a fixed price for these animals, a price which the farmers who need them can afford. The prices at which they are sold are so high that the small farmers there do not get an opportunity of buying them. I hope the Minister will explain that it is not the intention to do that, and that the people who cannot afford to pay those high prices will also be able to get these bulls. Perhaps it can be arranged that they are not to keep the bulls for ever but that they can be sent out from time to time and afterwards handed to another farmer. They should not be able to sell the bulls to the first buyer who turns up and wants to buy them. Then there is the question of the Extension Officer, which we have raised before. Pietersburg is the capital of the Northern Transvaal and we have no Extension Officer there.

I have already replied to that.

I was not here unfortunately. Then there is one other point. I have received letters from various cooperative societies in which they strongly protest to the Wage Act being applied to co-operative societies. I believe the Minister in his reply stated that this was a matter which should really be brought to the notice of the Minister of Labour, but we should like the Minister of Agriculture, who really is the guardian of the farming community, to stand up for the farmers, and put the farrmers’ case to the Minister of Labour.

I promised that I would do so.

Very well, I accept that because the position is critical. They have been given time until the 1st April; that time has now lapsed. They have been told that unless they come to an agreement with the Wage Board concerning the native working there the Wage Act will be applied. I am glad the Minister will put the case of the farmers before the Minister of Labour and I hope provision will be made for the Wage Act not to apply to natives working for co-operative societies.

I make no apology for rising again at this late stage of the debate to refer to a matter that I tried to impress upon the attention of the Minister at a much earlier stage. I am raising the matter again partly because I am convinced of its essential importance, partly because I feel that the Minister is not yet sufficiently persuaded of that and partly because the progress of the debate has shown at intervals that a good section of the farming community would be glad that we should continue in that state of mind. The point I want to impress upon the Minister again is the essential necessity for our practice of price fixation being based on sound and scientific accounting. That I think is fundamental to any planned economy, that any price fixation should be based on scientific accounting. It is quite clear, to me at least, that so far as our Agricultural Department is concerned this has not been the case. There is certainly no evidence, least of all in the reply to a question put by me in the House the other day, that the price fixed for maize has been so fixed on the basis of careful and scientific accounting. I am quite aware that it would be difficult to achieve completely scientific accounting in this country in the absence of an agronomic survey, but it should be perfectly possible on the basis of established experience in the areas suitable for maize production to get an average of the costs of production upon which to base a reasonable price level. If you cannot do that, as the question by my hon. friend for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) to me seems to suggest—and I am surprised at it coming from him as an industrialist—then our whole basis of price fixation is mere chance and we may as well make up our minds to the fact that the interest that pushes the hardest will get the price they want. The farmers will press for a price as high as they can possibly get, and the consumer will do his utmost to keep the price down. I do not, however, accept the hon. member’s implied suggestion; I contend that it must be possible for us, that it is possible for us, to get a basis of accounting on which to establish a fixed price. Of course it must be possible. Otherwise the situation is perfectly ridiculous. Now I want to make it clear here that in this proposition I am not making any attack on the farming community; I am not suggesting that they are making an excessive profit. Far from it. But I am completely convinced that the very worst thing we can do for the farmers is to allow them to get prices fixed at a time like the present, not on economic factors but on political factors in a period of expanding prosperity and then to be unable to maintain those prices for them when the contraction in business comes. Surely it is a reasonable thing to do at any time, to find what is the economic basis of any industry, to try to establish that, and then to put the weight of the community behind that as we are doing now with this planned economy. A planned economy such as we have embarked upon, and such as we apparently intend to maintain, necessites a responsibility on the Government that it has never carried before. It must be surer of its ground that it has ever been before. It is in the position of cost accountant to the whole community. If it does not do its job well, it is giving away not only the money but the life blood of the community. Now what I am proposing to the Minister is that his Department should be immediately increased by the addition of a number of cost accountants.

Will you produce some for me?

If they can’t be got, we must plan our university training so as to produce them.

That will take some time.

I understand that the Department of Commerce and Industries has just secured the services of some cost accountants, and I am absolutely sure that they are to be had if they can be tempted into the Government service. Anyway, we have to get them. We cannot afford to go on planning our economy, putting the weight of the Government’s authority behind prices which have no scientific basis. That way leads straight to ruin. Now there are two other points I want to make in connection particularly with the price of maize, which I choose as a commodity that I know a little more about than I do about some others. In addition to the fact that there has obviously been no scientific accounting behind the prices which have been fixed for maize, there have been, so far as I can see, two other weaknesses in the process of the price fixation. One is that there has been a tendency to fix the price on the demand of the man who is not farming on economic land. Let me put it another way. The price has quite clearly not been fixed on the level of the costs of producing maize on the sort of land we should be using for producing maize. I contend that the basis of price fixation should be the cost of producing economically on suitable land and on a suitable unit of production. That is the only type of production for which we should be planning in the first instance. That is the economic side of the situation. We should guarantee the farmer a fair return when he cultivates suitable land and on suitable units of production. But there may come a time when we want more maize than can be produced in those suitable areas, a time such as the present, for instance, when owing to the conditions prevailing the demand has rapidly increased. It may then pay us to take into cultivation sub-marginal lands. But I contend that when that situation arises, it is a social situation and not primarily an economic situation, and that in bringing those lands into cultivation we would be unbalàncing our economy if we did, what we are doing at the present time, fixing the price on the basis of the costs of the man who is cultivating sub-marginal lands on an uneconomic unit and giving that price to the man who is cultivating suitable land under economic conditions. The result of that is that the big farmer who is operating on suitable land gets a high rate of profit with little advantage to the other man while the consumer pays all the time. That is how to unbalance your economy. I contend that wherever we bring sub-marginal lands into cultivation it should be for social reasons, either because we need more local production, or because we want to keep people on the land. But we ought to plan on that basis and give them what is practically the cost-plus basis of production in order to keep them there. Then the community, when it pays, knows it is paying for a social service and accepts the cost with that knowledge. The second point we wish to make is this. My impression again is that when the Maize Control Board fixes its prices, it fixes its price on a rough balance of what will pay a man with the possibility thrown in of losing one crop in so many. As one farmer said to me : “I can produce at this maize price, but last year my crop was a failure.” Now prices should not cover risks to that extent. Prices should be based on an estimate of the average misfortunes over a period; that, of course, would involve scientific costing. But special misfortunes are not a matter that should be included in the factors considered in fixing prices. That is a matter for insurance; it is insurance that should cover special risks of that description. Those are factors which I think we have a right to ask that the department should take into consideration in the process of price fixation. Unless it does so, and unless by that means it proves to us that the prices fixed are justified, then there is bound to be continual dissatisfaction with the procedure of price fixation. As I said, I am not at the moment challenging the prices that have been established, but the incapacity of the Government to establish that those prices are justified. If those prices can be shown to be justified we have nothing more to say, except that we shall have to have a policy of subsidising the poorer consumers. But if they are not justified we should have a check up. I beg the Minister to consider this matter seriously and do his best to fill the gap in our information.

In principle there is no disagreement whatsoever between the hon. member and myself. I agree with her that we should not fix prices on the basis of an estimated figure. It should be a calculated figure carefully worked out by cost accountants so that one might have a reasonable guide as to the cost of production as accurately as you can get it. The hon. member will, however, appreciate that it is very difficult; I should think, to get a scientifically accurate cost of production figure. We know the vicissitudes experienced in agriculture. You may have something in a Certain part of your maize-growing area that will upset all previous calculations, and there are various other factors which are difficult to assess. But in principle I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. We shall have to get the necessary staff to go into this question very carefully, and that would mean a policy for the future. I do not know what the basis has been in the past. I answered a question to the hon. member the other day, and on that she has based a lot of the criticism she has levelled against the department. I know that it is not easy to find the staff to carry out this kind of investigation, so I do not want to raise any false hopes. During the next week or two I shall have to get the price fixed—the price of maize that will have to be settled very shortly. But this must be very much a future policy. I hope I have reassured the hon. member on that point.

†*In regard to the Bull Station at Mara to which the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) has referred, the position under the existing arrangment is that the bulls are sold by public autcion. That is the system which is in force, but I can see that there are shortcomings in that system and I shall go further into it.

When I was interrupted by the time limit I was attempting to draw the attention of the Minister to certain matters in connection with the new meat scheme that has been evolved by the Food Control Department. I hope the Minister will take very serious notice of this matter, because once this vote is passed I feel that the House will not be able to discuss this question. It is a matter of major importance involving the future of thousands of business people in South Africa. It may be that a scheme is brought into being in regard to which this House has not even been consulted. I say that if we are going to delegate the powers of Parliament to departmental officials, if the Minister is to have the right to delegate his powers to departmental officials, it is time we cease calling Parliament together. Previous schemes have been brought into being by various control boards. Control boards are evidently in disfavour today, so they must, not be trusted with anything of this nature in the future. Here a new organisation, the Food Control Organisation, has been brought into being, and this organisation may attempt to perform the duties of the Control Board. I would like to read to the House a telegram which I have received from the Meat Traders’ Federation of South Africa. It is rather strange that in this House the people who represent the farmers are allowed to talk all day on questions affecting the interests of the farmer, but when it concerns the livelihood of thousands of business people in this country there are members of this House who will not pay any attention to the matter until the damage is done. I want to tell the hon. Minister that all the trouble that has arisen in South Africa through the meat muddle has been because the Minister of Agriculture did not take into consideration the suggestions which have been put forward to him by the distributor’s section. I say without hesitation that there would have been no meat muddle in South Africa if the late Minister of Agriculture had allowed himself to be guided by people who know something about the matter. He did not take advantage of the co-operation that was offered to him by the distributors’ section. I want to warn the hon. Minister that there will be as great a muddle in the future if he does not pay attention to the advice of the people who are directly concerned with the matter. The telegram I have received from the Federation of Meat Traders reads as follows—

What about the public?

That is what we are concerned about. We are concerned about the public and we do not want anything inflicted on the public if it has not been fully discussed and agreed to by their Parliamentary representatives. I would like to ask the hon. Minister if it is not possible to defer this scheme for a few months to enable further enquiries and further adjustments to be made so as to bring about a scheme that will be in the interests of the farmers, the distributors and the consuming public. I want to cell hon. members that this scheme will come into being ….

Why did you not put it up to the Commission?

It has been put up to the Commission. And let me tell hon. members that that Commission was another waste of money. The Commission discovered nothing that has not been known to agriculture for the past ten years. My point is this, that if this scheme is rushed into, it will bring chaos into the industry. Everyone knows what the experience has been during the past year. The meatless day was brought into operation, quite unnecessarily, and the whole muddle was brought about by reason of the fact that the Government did not act in conjunction with the meat trade, with the people who have specialised in this industry and who know something about it. They have sent a questionnaire to the distributors and forms for them to complete. They now have to be registered with the Food Controller’s Department; each distributor has to be registered. Perhaps there is something to be said for that point of view. But under this scheme all credit facilities are being taken away, and it simply means that people who have been in business for many years, men of integrity will be forced to have their supplies cut off. The framers of the scheme have suggested that reference should be provided or they want money in advance. This recommendation is going to cause unnecessary complications. I would like to know from the Minister how he expects those people to be able to continue in business. The Food Control Department will not say to the consuming public that in future this distributive trade is to be carried on on a cash basis and the distributors will not be allowed in future to give the consuming public credit facilities. Ninety per cent. of business today is conducted on a credit basis as hon. members know, and in South Africa the people are in the habit of paying their accounts monthly. Some of them, in fact, may take six months before they pay up, and some of them do not pay up at all. Under this scheme contemplated by the Food Control Department the distributors are forced to draw their supplies without any facilities whatsoever. How are they going to cater for the public? How are they going to give the public credit facilities if they have to pay cash for their own supplies? They are given no credit facilities at all. I do say that this is going to have a very serious effect on the distributive trade. The Commission came to the conclusion that the distributor must remain in business in the interests of the farming community and every one who knows anything about this matter confirms that view. Everyone who has made enquiries is satisfied that the distributive trade must remain. If that is the position, then the Minister, through the Food Control Department, must make some provision to enable those people to carry on. [Time limit.]

On Friday I was pointing out under this vote what the value of a bag of mealies was. Since then a great deal has been said in this House in regard to mealies, and especially in regard to the costs of production. We heard the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) insisting that proof should be furnished as to the costs of production. The Minister stated that he would go into the matter; but I -want to say this to those hon. members. They are pleading for something which they do not want. They are not aware of the fact that the mealie farmer is placed in such a position today that he simply cannot or will not produce that product at a price which is uneconomical. I indicated that the farmer was engaged in liquidating his assets, that he was engaged in selling or giving away the fertility of the soil to those people at a price which does not pay him. I want to warn the hon. Minister that if he accepts the suggestion of that side with a view to providing cheaper mealies to the natives, he will be responsible for the fact that this country is faced with starvation. There will be a shortage of that product in this country every year. What is the position today? If the Minister accepts the advice of that side he will in the near future be compelled to introduce rationing, and he will have to do so drastically; and once the Minister applies rationing the blame will again be put on the Mealie Control Board. Today the Mealie Control Board has absolutely no say. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) and also the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) made a statement here in connection with the mealie position in the native territories. Are they not aware of the fact that there are advisory committees in those territories to advise the control board? Those advisory committees deal with the issue of permits. It is not the Mealie Control Board which is responsible for the shortage of mealies in those territories. The responsibility lies with their own advisory committees. They want to bring the House under the impression that the control board is responsible. They do so because it suits them. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is inclined to put the wrong construction on the words of hon. members. He tries to bring the House under the impression that this side wants to set the consumer and the producer against each other. I maintain that the hon. member for Hospital has not got that right; what right has he to try and cause mischief? Do we not read those red letters of his? Do we hot know what his motives are? We know him; and now he wants to tell the producers what they have to do, and that we are engaged in setting the producer and the consumer against each other. That is not our wish at all, but the type of person we want to eliminate is the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). There is no more room for speculation. There is no more room for paper merchants. That is the type of man we want to eliminate, and that is the type of man who definitely will be eliminated, and the cries which are going up on the other side are the last gasps of the brokers. Their days are numbered as far as we are concerned. I want to leave the subject of mealies for a moment and make a request to the Minister of Agriculture. I am glad to see that his colleague, the Minister of Commerce and Industries, is in the House. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the policy which was laid down by the Minister of Commerce and Industries, and which is applied to the farmers and carried out by the Director General of Supplies. Is the Minister aware of it? A great deal has been said in this debate in regard to costs of production; Hon. members have accused the farmers of exploiting the people. But does the Minister of Agriculture know what the policy of the Minister of Commerce and Industries means? It means that the farmer cannot obtain any accessories, any implements, unless he is prepared to pay a premium of 20 per cent. to the wholesale merchant. I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to discuss that matter with his colleague, the Minister of Commerce and Industries. Open the door to the organised farmers; give them access to the factory on an equal footing with anyone else in this country. The farmer is expected to keep his prices within certain limits, but daily more burdens are being placed on the producer, whether he can bear them or not, by the Government, by trade, by our friends. I want to ask the hon. Minister to go into this matter and see that the farmers, and especially the organised farmers, are enabled to buy those requirements direct from the factory through their organised bodies. Then there is another matter to which I want to refer. It has been raised in this House on previous occasions. The Minister gave a reply which in my opinion was not satisfactory, and that is in connection with the lessees of land. It is that section of the population which roams about, living in one part this year and in another part next year. During the past year it has practically not been possible for that section of the people to obtain land. What is happening today? Those people are being exploited in the very worst degree. There is no control. They are not granted any assistance. They have no place where they can live unless they want to become bywoners or unless they go back to the cities. Unless they are prepared to do that they are called upon to pay most heavily. Let me tell the Minister that these people pay unheard of prices for the land they hire. Land which in the past was leased at 7s. 6d., 8s. and 10s. is today being leased at £1 or even more. They are paying 200 per cent. more. I shall be glad if the Minister will see what he can do in this matter. [Time limit.]

I should like to associate myself with what has been said here by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) in connection with the Mara experimental station. I think the time has now arrived when something should be done in connection with the experiments which are taking place there. I just want to say this to the Minister as far as that experimental station is concerned. It was established there at the time so that the farmers in that area, since they were far removed from central places, could, buy acclimatised bulls there. They have been busy with experiments for nearly twelve or fourteen years. They crossed Aberdeen Angus and Red Polls and other bulls with Afrikaner cows. We have always been taught that we must have a good bull of one strain. When this experimental station was established the farmers hoped that they would be able to buy suitable bulls there; and I want to ask the Minister to expedite this matter so that we may know which is the best bull for that particular area. They are not certain even today. I do not know whether they will be certain in fifty years’ time. Another matter which causes me concern is the large number of cattle which are today being bought by the large companies and kept on their farms— one might almost say frozen on their farms—in the hope that the Government, when the soldiers return, will buy those cattle from them at an increased price so as to give the returned soldiers an opportunity of starting to farm. I am very concerned about the fact that the large companies are being allowed to keep thousands of cattle on their farms. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter. These companies should not be allowed to freeze large numbers of cattle. Their object, of course, is to sell those cattle at a later date at an increased price to the Government when the soldiers return. Then there is another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and that is in connection with the question of bags. We who live in distant parts, far removed from grain elevators experience great difficulty in connection with bags, and I do think that something should be done in those areas where there is a large population of natives, to place grain elevators at the disposal of the farmers so that they will not be faced with this difficulty as far as bags are concerned. We have no grain elevators and we cannot get our bags returned as in the case of people who live near grain elevators. There is a shortage of bags in the native territories every year. Then I want to ask the hon. Minister to afford protection to the native consumers. The Minister would be surprised to see how the merchants sometimes remove a whole tin of mealies from the bags which are sold to natives. Those people are being cheated in a scandalous way. I hope the Minister will see to it that the mealies which are sold are full weight and that the natives are not deceived in this manner. Then I want to express the hope that something will be done for the farmers as far as wire is concerned, especially those farmers who live in distant parts and who cannot get labour today. We must come to the assistance of those people by making available cheap wire. I should like the Minister to visit those parts. If he does he will see that the veld is being tramped out because there is no wire to fence off these places, and this leads to soil erosion on a large scale. I think the Minister would be rendering a great service to South Africa if he allowed the organised farmers to buy wire at the same price as the wholesale merchant. Something happened in this House today which surprised me. From all sides we were given advice by experts who are not farmers themselves as to how we should conduct our farming operations. We heard that we can only grow certain products in certain parts. I, just want to say this to those hon. members. In a district like Potgietersrust the farmers went out of their way to build up the wheat industry, and today 70,000 bags are being grown where a few years ago not a single bag was grown. I hope the Minister will encourage the farmers, not only as far as wheat is concerned but also as far as other products are concerned. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) can be cited as an example of what has been done in that area as far as citrus is concerned, and I think the Department of Agriculture will give him every credit for what he has done towards the establishment of the citrus industry in that area. There are other examples. There are the two Schoeman brothers who built up a tobacco industry in Potgietersrust, and they too deserve the praise of the Department and of the country. I think the Department owes them a great debt of gratitude. When one makes one’s living out of farming one has the right to talk about farming. We do not want the so-called Wednesday afternoon farmer to tell us how to farm. They live in town and on Wednesday afternoon they rush out to the farm, and then come and tell us how to farm. And here I want to give the Department of Agriculture every credit for the assistance which that Department has given to the farmers in the past. The Department of Agriculture has given us every opportunity of making a success of our farming, and as a practical farmer I am very indebted to the Department for the assistance and advice they have given us.

When my time expired I was referring to the pressure which was being brought to bear on the Department of Agriculture in connection with the composition of the control boards. The business people today are not satisfied that the farming industry should be controlled exclusively by the producers. They want to have a certain amount of say and they want greater representation on the control boards. I just want to ask the Minister what his policy will be in the future; and if the Minister wants to introduce a sound policy he must do so now. He must give the agricultural industry full control so that they will have a say in regard to the products which they produce. Then I would like to know from the Minister what the function of his Marketing Board is. I want to know whether the Marketing Board is still functioning or whether it has been replaced by the Food Controller. The Marketing Board was established under the Act, but today it would seem that the Food Controller has the sole say in this country, and if that is the position I am afraid that a condition of chaos will be created in this country. The time has arrived for the Minister to take the bull by the horns and to see that justice is done to the farmers. I remember that in 1932 we held the first big congress of organised farmers at Kroonstad. On that occasion I said that the time had arrived when the active farmer should be given his rights and that we should have full control of our products. At that time we insisted on a control board system, and today every effort is being made to kill the control board system, and I hope the Minister will not pay any attention to the propaganda on that side. These people want to create the impression that we as producers are causing what might be termed an industrial struggle between the consumers and the producers. That is not the case at all. We want to see that the consumer gets the products direct from the producer. We are not intent on exploiting the consumer, but we want to ensure that we obtain our full and rightful share of the proceeds of the product which costs us not only sweat but also blood. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) correctly said that they have a chain round our necks, that we can hardly breathe. The Minister of Commerce and Industries has no mercy for the farmer. Today we have to get all our requirements by means of permits. If we want a spare part for a tractor or anything else, we have to get a permit. One practically has to go on to one’s knees and pray for a spare part of a plough, when one needs it. If this state of affairs continúes I am afraid it will lead to thé greatest chaos. I have pointed out that the food of the country ought to be protected. It is no use continuing with the war effort, having soldiers, guns and tanks, if there is no food. If we allow our food supplies to be neglected we may be faced with an even greater catastrophe, namely starvation, and we cannot fight starvation with soldiers and tanks. That is one of the greatest dangers to the country. We have always said that sheds ought to be erected. I have repeatedly made a plea for that in this House and drawn the Minister’s attention to the fact that additional room should be provided in our grain elevators. Surely, cement is cheap. The same machinery which is today being used to operate the grain elevators can be used tor the enlarged grain elevators. There must be more storage facilities. But we find that nothing is being done in that connection. The Minister of Agriculture said that there was not a large quantity of mealies lost If we go into the figures I think we will find that probably 5,000,000 bags of mealies became hopelessly rotten and unfit for consumption. The co-operative societies are the bodies which will suffer the greatest damage, if the Government does not take steps to assist these people. No, we would like the Minister to give his attention to this matter, and to ensure, where necessary, that proper stores are created and that grain elevators are constructed so that we may have sufficient storage for our grain. We must conserve our food supply and we cannot allow it to be wasted. If we do not do so we shall be faced with a shortage which will hit the country very hard. The farmer will be the suffering party. We therefore want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to give his attention to this matter. It is not only this party which is pleading for that. Pleas have been made on all sides of the House for better protection for the food of this country, and we would like to see that the Minister acts in the matter. Then there is another question which I brought to the Minister’s attention in all seriousness. The Minister of Finance appointed a commission of investigation with a view to imposing higher income tax on the co-operative societies. The Minister of Agriculture did not reply to me. I am still waiting for a reply, and I hope and trust that his department will have the courage to point out to the Minister of Finance that the individual farmers are already paying taxes on their grain and that no additional tax should be imposed on them.

When the Agricultural Vote was being discussed two days ago I took occasion to invite the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Fawcett) to explain what was the meaning of a statement he had made in this House to the effect that the Baynesfield Estate, of which I am a trustee, was a thorn in the side of the farmers in Natal who were trying to co-operate. I saw the hon. member ten minutes ago and notified him that it was my intention to reply. He cannot blame me for speaking in his absence. I challenged him to produce any evidence whatsoever in support of his statement, and pointed out that many hundreds of farmers had dealt with the Estate for over 5Ö years, and that the estate was paying to the farmers not less than £250,000 per annum for their dairy and pig products at maximum prices.

Here is the hon. member for Griqualand East now.

Yesterday he explained that his statement was based upon the fact that while he was president of the Natal Agricultural Union he had spent the whole of one day in “trying to bring about an agreement between these various interests that were cutting each other’s throats and were trying to get a better system of marketing.” It is difficult to see how these unnamed people could be doing two such contrary things at the same time but that is a matter for the hon. member to explain. No clue was given by the hon. member as to the people who were at the meeting nor is the cause of dispute so much as hinted at in this bald statement. I have this morning been in telephonic communication with the Baynesfield Estate and the general manager assures me that on no single occasion has any communication, verbal or written, been received from the hon. member for Griqualand East by the Baynesfield Estate about “interests cutting each other’s throats,” or on any matter whatsoever, nor has the hon. member so far as he is aware, ever visited the estate.

I often visited the estate.

Evidently the hon. member did not make his visit known. The general manager adds, moreover, that throughout the war period the Baynesfield Estate has adhered strictly to the controlled prices of products laid down by the Price Controller and has never on any single occasion been guilty of cutting prices or attempting to “cut the throat” of any competitor. The same policy of adhering to agreed prices was followed by the estate even before the prices were controlled by Government Regulation and the estate has never meditated or been concerned in any attempt to interfere with co-operation among the farmers. Yesterday the hon. member also stated “that a large sum of money has been left for public purposes and in my opinion the wishes of the testator are not being carried out and the estate has actually been operating in a manner deterimental to the marketing of milk in Natal.” Is this a suggestion, as was interpreted by certain hon. members of this House who are my friends, that we, the trustees, have in any way been guilty of maladministration of the estate, or with failure to account for the large sum of money referred to? How dare he make such a statement in this House? The hon. member apparently does not know that under the will no part of the capital sum belonging to the estate may be expended, except on the purposes specified in the will. The auditor has to certify the accounts in conformity with the will and he has done so regularly to the last halfpenny. I can only interpret the hon. member’s suggestion that the wishes of the late Joseph Baynes are not being carried out as being due to his ignorance of the facts, and I certainly challenge him to produce a shred of evidence in support of his case. I doubt very much whether he knows anything about the terms of Mr. Baynes’ will or that he could stand up now and give this House an intelligible account of the policy laid down by the late Mr. Baynes. Will the hon. member tell me what the policy of the will is? Complete silence.

You won’t let him speak.

Oh, yes, I have repeatedly asked him to be more specific, but he has not done so. The hon. member knows very well that I am a member of the board of administration and though opportunities have not been lacking, he has never once mentioned to me any misgivings which he has evidently entertained about the default of the trustees now alleged by him to carry out the terms of the will. Mr. Power, a prominent member of the Provincial Executive Committee for Natal, is another trustee and I am assured that he has never heard from the hon. member any hint of the entirely vicious charge which he has made in this House without a tittle of supporting evidence. He is evidently on a fishing expedition.

He is evidently learning from you.

[Time limit.]

Before the atmosphere becomes too heated in regard to the private fight which has arisen, may I reply to the point which was raised by the hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. P. W. A. Pieterse). He is somewhat concerned about the question of additional taxes on the co-operative societies, and he puts it down to a desire on the part of the Minister of Finance to get a little more money from the co-operative societies. That is not the true state of affairs. The initiative came not from the Minister of Finance but from the Minister of Commerce and Industries. He was concerned about the volume of trade carried out by the co-operative societies, and it was agreed to have the whole matter investigated. That investigation was undertaken by representatives of three departments, namely, the Department of Finance, the Department of Commerce and Industries and my own department. The report was unanimous, and I can give my hon. friend the assurance that no additional taxation is being imposed on the co-operative societies as far as trading with their own members is concerned. There is not the slightest additional taxation, and I can reassure my hon. friend on that point. I do not know that there is anything else to reply to. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) raised certain points which we shall investigate carefully.

†There is the question raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) with regard to the proposed meat scheme. I am afraid I cannot undertake at this stage to hold that scheme up for several months in the hope, as he suggests, of producing some perfect scheme. Every opportunity has been given by the Food Controller to interested people to make suggestions. I have asked the Food Controller to hear everyone who has reasonable suggestions to make about the proposed food control scheme. I am afraid therefore I shall have to disappoint the hon. member. That, I think, covers the points raised in this somewhat lengthy debate.

The Farmers’ Association of George asked me to make a very urgent request to the Minister of Agriculture. Up to a few years ago the Department of Lands had an extension officer in those parts. This officer served a very big and important area. He was responsible for a large portion of Mossel Bay, George, Knysna, and a large portion of Langkloof. As the Minister knows, Langkloof is a very important fruit area. The other area, namely George, Knysna and a portion of Mossel Bay, consists of small farmers who farm intensively on small farms of 10 to 40 morgen. It is intensive farming, and intensive farming is scientific farming. It almost requires more knowledge than farming on a large scale. As I have said, we had an extension officer, but when the war broke out this officer enlisted and since that time the vacancy has not been filled. That whole area, an important fruit area, an important agricultural area, where the farmers concentrate on vegetable growing especially, is without guidance of any kind. It is a pity, Mr. Chairman, that that should happen at this particular time. The country wants vegetables and food and the farmers would like to produce because the prices are high, and at this particular time, these people are without the services of an officer who can advise them. That area is subject to diseases, and the people require the advice of an official of this kind. One of the most important things is to know what is the right type of vegetable, pea, bean, etc., to plant. The Farmers’ Association has therefore asked me to ask the Minister to appoint an extension officer as soon as possible. I would like the Minister to remember that those parts have for years been dependent almost exclusively on forestry. I think I can say that 75 per cent. of the people originally lived on the income derived from forestry. But forestry is beginning to yield less and the people are compelled to switch over to agriculture. The majority of them have not got the necessary capital. Many of them have not got the necessary experience, and it is those very people who now require the assistance and the guidance of an extension officer. They have asked me, therefore, to make this urgent request to the hon. Minister.

Let me at once reply to the hon. member and say that I fully agree with him in regard to the importance of the area of which he spoke. He will however, realise our difficulties owing to the shortage of officers. The officer in this cose enlisted, but I shall investigate the matter very thoroughly, and if possible assist my hon. friend. He can notify his Farmers’ Association that I shall immediately go into the matter.

With the indulgence of the House I should like to conclude my remarks in reply to the allegations made by the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Fawcett). I can only advise the hon. member that unless he is able to substantiate so serious a statement as he has made here by the evidence of somebody who may claim to know more about the subject than he does, he will emerge from this matter as a fit object for public contempt. With regard to his allegation, that the Estate has been operating in a manner detrimental to the marketing of milk, I asked him by interjection, this direct question: “In what respect has the Estate interfered with the marketing? You are unable to reply, sir.” The reply was: “I do not think one can judge a matter of this importance of means of answers to interjections.” This is the reply of one who claims to have spent a whole day in trying to bring about an agreement between various interests—and he is unable to tell us in what respect the Estate interfered with the marketing. On so flimsy a case the hon. member asks the Minister of Agriculture to agree to the appointment of a commission. The hon. member has a great deal to learn if he imagines the appointment of a commission can be secured for the satisfying of petty curiosity or vindictiveness.

Who is vindictive?

Under the terms of the will no member of the Baynesfield Board draws any remuneration for his services, and though there is one paid office on the Board—that of Chairman—the duties of that office have been performed during the war period without a penny of cost to the Estate. There are members of the Board who for a period of twenty years have not even drawn travelling expenses for their visits to the Estate.

I have sat in the House since last Friday endeavouring to bring one or two matters to the notice of the Minister which are of vital importance to a large number of people. I have been delayed in my efforts—I am sorry. It is not altogether my fault. I am sorry the Minister finds it impossible to delay this scheme, the new meat scheme, which it is contemplated bringing into being in the next few weeks. I see no reason for this sudden hurry. People come from all parts of the world endeavouring to teach the people of South Africa how the meat industry should be run. I have been interested in it myself for close on fifty years, and I claim to know something about it. I say again that if this scheme is proceeded with at the present moment and the Government attempts to foist this on the country in the next few weeks we shall have a meat muddle again, and that is what I am trying to avoid. Hundreds of people will be forced out of business and the Minister is prepared to allow this to happen when a delay of a few weeks might save hundreds of thousands of pounds and might save the department considerable anxiety. This scheme cannot be run with any semblance of success unless it has the full support of the distributive trade. I am not against the scheme. There has been so much criticism in this House of the distributive trade—the so-called middleman—that I welcome some change of policy that will enable the distributive trade to prove that they have not been the exploiters of the public. I say that if the consuming public think for one moment that by this scheme they will get their meat 1d. cheaper, they will find that they have been living in a fool’s paradise. Price control could have worked satisfactorily, had the departmeint co-operated with the people interested in the trade—we would not have experienced the chaos which South Africa has seen. South Africa has been put to endless inconvenience and had the war not been the major plank in the last elections I am sure the Government would have suffered a serious reverse, and would not have been in office, today. All this has been brought about chiefly by the Agricultural Department as a result of the horrible muddle into which they have forced this country. A few months ago when the meatless day was introduced the country was experiencing all kinds of difficulties, there was a shortage of supplies. The Meat Federation of South Africa told the Government exactly how the problem could be solved. When the country was experiencing the meat shortage the Meat Federation of South Africa told the Government the exact solution of the problem. It said while you have your uncontrolled markets you will have difficulty in getting your supplies to the chief centres of the Union and you will be creating a black market, and that is exactly what happened. Representations have been made to the department in connection with the poultry industry. We had exactly the same difficulties there as they had with meat through it not being properly controlled. Representations were made to the Government to control live poultry as well as dead poultry. They have been considering this for some considerable time, but a solution has not been brought about even today. Just prior to the Christmas trade thousands of pounds were lost by hundreds of people in South Africa. Distributors made their purchases and made provision for the supply of poultry to the people of South Africa, and they found it was necessary to buy weeks and sometimes months ahead to enable a supply to be brought on to the market. They found that owing to having to buy previous to the December month and owing to not having been informed in any way by the Government that they intended to introduce price control through their not giving the trade any idea or suggestion as to the likely control price, all these distributors were faced with the position of having bought in a high market, and when the December trade came round they found the Government stepped in and controlled the price of dead poultry but left the live poultry uncontrolled. The result was that hundreds of businesses throughout South Africa were working at a loss during December month, and no attempt was made to help the industry to avert these losses; and the same thing is continuing even today. There are people in various parts of the country who in the ordinary way would by selling their poultry, ducks, fowls, geese.

What about turkeys?

Yes, turkeys as well. A large amount of money was lost in December through turkeys having a controlled price at the last moment. That is my grievance against the Government. Whenever any section of the community endeavours to save the Government from the headaches they get in these matters they just turn round and tell us: We are sorry we are not prepared to give you even a few weeks delay to enable the scheme to be perfected. That is the complaint. The whole country is being run by a lot of inefficient officials, and unfortunately the Government has to suffer for that. In many ways we endeavour to help, but we are not allowed to help, until the people are just seething with discontent, and then the Government sits up and appoints a commission or do some other stupid thing. In connection with this poultry business, I want the Minister to control not only live-weight but dead weight. If you are going to admit the principle of control of any commodity, you must control it throughout. It is no good saying : Here is a crate of poultry and you can offer what you like for them, and they can pay any price for them; they can charge and demand £1 or 25s. a head for these fowls. [Time limit.]

When I spoke this afternoon the Minister was unfortunately out of the House for a little while. I said that I was sorry that he made the statement which he did in connection with the meat scheme. We asked him that the meat scheme should be introduced not only for the duration of the war but also for the postwar period, and the Minister replied that it would depend only on whether the scheme was carried out successfully. I was sorry to hear this statement, because within the scheme which the Minister now wants to carry out there are persons who are opposed to the scheme, namely, the auctioneers and the wholesale merchants. The hon. Minister has now given them an opening. He has stated that if the scheme is not a success we will not continue with it after the war.

Not necessarily.

I do not know whether the Minister comes into touch with the people who are opposing this scheme, and whether he is fully acquainted with the position. The scheme is tantamount to this, that in the large cities the auctioneers are eliminated. Sheep and cattle will no longer be sold by auction but now they have been given a different avenue. They can collect cattle and sheep at a certain commission, and they know as well as I do that if they cause the scheme to be a failure they will once again have free scope. They will, therefore, do their best to make the scheme a failure. The Minister may not know it, but is it not a fact that the price of mutton was never as high as 13d. and 13½d. in March or April; yet today that is the price of mutton. Why? The auctioneers and the wholesale merchants in the large cities are driving up the market as high as possible. If the Minister’s scheme comes into operation in a few week’s time the prices will suddenly fall, and then they will tell the farmers: “Look, you are now getting 8/- or 10/- less for a sheep.” They will say that it is the fault of the scheme. Perhaps the Minister has not had the time to go into the report of the Meat Commission, but all four agricultural unions of the Cape, Natal, Transvaal and the Free State said that they were willing to accept control provided the scheme could go on after the war. What does the report say? On page 20 it is stated—they Speak of the four organisations—

The commission then came to the following decision (Paragraph 121)—

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 6th April.