When the House adjourned yesterday evening I was expressing my disappointment that the Minister did not see his way clear to give the farmers the assurance that the meat scheme would be permanent. I want to tell the Minister that he will regret the day that he was not prepared to make this statement. He will discover that there are certain people who are intent on wrecking this scheme, namely, the auctioneers and the merchants. The farmers want this scheme, but they want the assurance that it will continue after the war. Today the farmers do not know where they stand because the Minister is not prepared to make the statement that this scheme will continue after the war. I want to tell the Minister that I am in close touch with the farmers in my constituency, and they are already beginning to sell their cattle because they allege that this scheme will be a failure after six months. I want to tell the Minister that if he cannot make this statement he will not have the co-operation of the farmers and this scheme will necessarily be a failure. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the meatless day. I just want to mention a few figures to show that it is unnecessary.

It is unfair discrimination against the Jews.

The Minister himself quoted these figures. In 1938 there were 38,000,000 sheep in the Union. In 1943 there were more than 37,000,000. There were 345,000 less. But the Minister will see, if he reads the report of the Meat Commission, that in the last six months of 1943 we slaughtered 360,000 less sheep, because convoys no longer called at the Cape. There is therefore no danger that our stock will be unduly depleted. In 1930 the sheep in the Union numbered more than 48,000,000. There was not another census until 1935; then there were 35,000,000, according to the year book of 1935. There were therefore 13,000,000 less sheep. The position in connection with cattle was as follows: The number of head increased from 1930 from more than 10,000,000 to 13,000,000 in 1943. Why, therefore, this senseless measure? If the Minister were to say that there is any danger in connection with the supply then I could understand it, but he must not tell me that there is any danger of depleting the stock. There is a good market today and the farmers have an opportunity of getting a higher price for their stock. In connection with the number of cattle, I had an opportunity of seeing the number of cattle that were slaughtered during the last three years. A few more head of cattle were slaughtered than normally; but I say that that does not matter. There is no danger of unduly depleting the stock. I just want to mention one other matter. The Minister unfortunately, or let me rather say fortunately, comes from the same district from which I come, namely, Calvinia. He knows that there are certain parts which are fenced off, but there are also large parts which are not fenced off. It is almost becoming impossible for one to carry on farming. One simply cannot get shepherds. When a shepherd leaves one has to take one’s car, in these days of scarcity of petrol and tyres, and drive for days looking for a shepherd to replace him. In short, it is becoming impossible to carry on one’s farming. I want to ask the Minister to get into touch with his Department and to ask them to investigate this matter thoroughly, so that these people can get wire to fence off a portion of their farms at any rate. Wire is being manufactured in South Africa; the Minister cannot deny it; but it is used for purposes other than farming, and I want to ask the Minister to see to it that the farmers obtain a reasonable quantity of wire. Before I sit down—I know my time has nearly expired—I just want to ask the Minister this. I do think that the farmers of South Africa are entitled to know what price they got for their wool during the past few years. In Australia the farmers know what they are getting for their wool. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot tell us what the average price is that the farmers got for their wool. We entered into a contract with Great Britain, and at first we were going to get 10.75d., later we heard that it would be more. But to this day we do not know what price we received. The Minister is here to protect the interests of the South African farmer. The Government entered into this contract with the British Government, and the farmers are entitled to know what the average price is which they received for their wool in the past few years.

I want to say a few words immediately in connection with my statement in regard to the meat scheme. I cannot for a single moment see how the statement which I made can possibly lead to anxiety or fear on the part of the farmers. I do realise that the interpretation which my hon. friend put on it and the fact of his suppressing what I said, namely, that I had already referred this matter under the Marketing Act ….

On a point of personal explanation; yesterday evening when I was discussing this question the Minister was continually talking to the Minister of Finance. If he reads my speech he will see that I said that the Minister did say that he would introduce this scheme under the Marketing Act.

You did not say that this morning.

No, I did not say it this morning, but I said so yesterday evening.

I accept it that the hon. member stated that I had asked the Meat Council to make a recommendation. But I repeat that what I said ought not to cause anyone anxiety in connection with this scheme. How can I be expected at this stage to say that a scheme which is not yet in operation will continue after the war? It would surely be unreasonable to make such a statement. What I did say and what I repeat was that we would see what experience we gained in connection with the scheme which is being introduced. My hon. friend now infers from that that if the scheme is a failure, it means that there will be no permanent scheme. I do not think that is a fair inference; we are going to introduce this scheme. We are going to learn from the experience we gain, and in the meantime the Meat Council is making a recommendation under the Marketing Act, and our intention is to create something of a permanent nature. That is what I said yesterday. Why put this matter in the wrong light, and cause the people anxiety in connection with this scheme? I deprecate that. My intention is to reassure the people that we are determined to do our best for all sections affected by this scheme.

We have been discussing agriculture for days. When I was a young lad I always heard the people talking of the active farmer (boerende boer); they did not speak of agriculture, and the active farmer was always regarded as the backbone of our country. In my short lifetime I have seen how that backbone has been strained and sometimes nearly broken. During the past few years the farmers have been in a position to make a little money which, in my opinion, they deserved. As the son of a farmer I want to tell the House that I do not think everyone in this House realises on how little the farmer and his family sometimes have to make ends meet. The time has therefore arrived when the farmer should not be begrudged the little profit he makes; but even amongst the farmers there is a tendency today to treat with contempt some element or other which is connected with agriculture, and to make it the hobby horse which will eventually act as a boomerang against the farmer himself. One can divide agriculture into three sections. One gets the producer; one gets the consumer, and one gets the man who is being made the hobby horse, namely the middleman.

The speculator.

You can call him the speculator; you can call him what you like. But I want to say this to the House, that whatever we do we cannot dispense with the services of the middleman. When people attack the middleman it always reminds me of the man who in a great hurry ran down the street. One of his friends stopped him and asked him where he was going. His reply was that his wife was very ill. His friend then told him that there was a doctor just across the street, and asked why he did not go to him. He replied : “I do not want to have anything to do with middlemen; I am going direct to the undertaker”. Do not let our agriculturists adopt that attitude. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture realises that one must have the necessary channels of distribution and that we cannot do without the middleman. If the producer wants to sell his products, one must employ the services of the middleman.

Within limits.

I am fully in agreement with that. That is another point with which I want to deal, namely, that the time has arrived when we have to realise that we need the control boards, and I fully agree that the profits of the middleman or the speculator must be fixed by the Department. But what I absolutely disapprove of is the manner in which the farmer himself gets up in the House and describes the middleman, who renders a service to the country and to the people, as a parasite and an exploiter. There are many people in this House who call the middleman a parasite and who are, in my opinion, perhaps greater parasites than the middleman whom they accuse. I personally am a farmer and grew up as a farmer’s son, and I think I have every right to talk in this House on farming. Where does one get a more complicated business today. than the farming industry? The farmer is the backbone of the country. Compare him with any other section and you will find that the active farmer is the backbone of the country. The consumer constitutes the second link; the active farmer is still the first link. If you have not got the active farmer to make a success of farming you cannot make a success of anything. We farmers want the services of the middleman to be used in marketing our products. An hon. member made an attack here on the wool scheme. I do not think there is any farmer in this country today who can say that the wool scheme was not to his advantage. I think it was one of the things which led to the salvation of the farmer. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to a few points. I have already brought them to the notice of his Department. There is a tremendous shortage in our country of horse-shoe nails. They are almost unprocurable today, and with the shortage of tyres and petrol one finds that farmers are making greater use of horses than formerly, but they cannot get horse-shoe nails. I wrote to the Department and asked them to do their best in connection with this matter. They promised to see what they could do, but I do not know whether they brought the matter to the notice of the Minister. The second question I want to raise is in connection with the establishment of storage facilities, places where in times of plenty we can store our surplus grain to be used in times of scarcity. That is absolutely essential. At the moment it may seem to be impossible to do that in practice, but I want to emphasise that it is absolutely necessary to have such storage places in our country for our surplus fodder and grain. Then I want to say a few words in regard to another matter, and that is in connection with our new Meat Control Board. There was a great deal of wire-pulling in connection with this matter, but it seems to me that in the end we are agreed on this point that it is necessary; and what I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is the question of the administration of the Control Board. The difficulty in connection with all control boards is that it is extremely difficult to obtain a permit when one wants anything. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to simplify the control system. On that will depend whether we make a success or a failure of the Control Board. I want to make a plea that the system should be simplified. Even in connection with the grading of meat one never knows in which grade one’s sheep or cattle will be classified. In that part of the country from which I come the farmers go in on a large scale for Persian and Afrikaner sheep farming. Under the old grading system Persian sheep had no hope of reaching the prime grade, and even if they are very fat there is little prospect of their reaching the first grade. I want to make this request to the Minister in the interests of the active farmer: In view of the fact that the Persian and Afrikaner sheep cannot fall under the prime grade, the difference between the prime grade and the first grade should be made as small as possible, so that it will not affect the farmer. In this country the farmers go in for Persian sheep farming on a large scale. As far as sheep are concerned, we have found in the past that the ewes usually fall under the second or third grade. We farmers on the platteland use second or third grade meat, and the meat has always tasted good to me. In the past the grading was applied on an export basis. The carcass of the animal had to conform to export qualifications before it could be classified as first grade. I want to ask the hon. Minister so to alter the system of grading that there is less difference between the prime grade and the first grade. The same applies in the case of cattle. In the past we have found that a cow is never classified as a first grade beast. When a cow has had one or two calves the grading is even poorer. I hope the Minister will give his attention to these matters. The last point is this, that at the moment the department fixes all the prices more or less on the basis of the ruling prices, so as not to cause confusion in the supply to the markets. I personally would very much like to see this system of meat control 100 per cent. successful. I am equally in favour of its being a long term policy of this Government. At the moment I realise that it is no use insisting on that. The Minister cannot give us the assurance that it will be a long term policy because he does not know what experience will teach us. But I hope that this scheme will be introduced as a long term policy. Just another word or two; the most important thing in this meat control system in our country will be this: Under the old system of grading we had six grades of beef. I now understand that it is the intention to reduce it by one grade. I would like to see the grading simplified to an even greater extent, and that there are four grades only. I would like to see the margin between the price of the first grade and the second grade made smaller so that the farmer’s loss will not be so great when his cattle do not fall under the first grade. A beast may be classified as a second grade beast simply because it happens to be old. It may also be regarded as a second grade beast because it has not got the right build. Those are the points which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and I hope he will give his attention to them.

I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, and the most important part apparently, according to himself, was the simile he used in regard to the doctor. I just want to say that one can take that simile a little futher. If it is the function of the doctor to act as the middleman between the patient and the undertaker, the sooner one gets rid of that doctor the better. I remember that there is an old saying to the effect that one must do as the worst doctor does, namely, to bury one’s failures. That simile is also applicable to the middelmen whom he mentioned and whose only function is to ruin other people. I hope he will take that simile a little further, and bury the middlemen as failures. I just want to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister, but before doing so I want to bring home to the Minister what the position is which he occupies. It has not yet been moved that the Minister’s salary should be deleted. It would seem that to a certain extent he occupies a singular position. His department was discussed in this long debate, and the Minister received a sentence of one year’s hard labour with the retention of his salary. In that respect he has certain obligations, since he is going to do and wants to do hard labour, but with the retention of his salary, and that is to give his attention during the next year to the matters which have been raised in this House. I saw the Minister personally in connection with the question of a subsidy in respect of lucerne seed. He gave me a very friendly reception and told me that it was a matter in connection with which he did not need conversion. The Minister is apparently converted to many points in the policy of this side of the House. It is not a question of politics, but a question of the sound attitude adopted by the new Minister. He says that I need not convert him in connection with the question of the sowing of lucerne, but I do want to bring one aspect of the matter to his notice. When the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) spoke here so forcefully in regard to the preservation of the fertility of our soil as a matter of national importance, I gained the impression that the Minister was deeply impressed by his speech. In applying systematic measures to preserve the fertility of the land, this question of the growing of lucerne as part of a system of rotation of crops, is one of the most important measures which can be taken to preserve the fertility of the soil and to make the exhausted soil fertile once again. I would therefore like the Minister to make this statement, that he will make the fullest use of the subsidy for lucerne seed during his term of office in order to regain the fertility of the soil, where it has already become exhausted to a certain extent by the planting of the same type of crop. I do not want to try to convert the Minister, since he is already converted, but I should very much like him to make a statement in this connection.

What sort of statement am I expected to make?

That you will subsidise lucerne seed throughout the whole country where it is necessary to make the soil fertile and to keep it fertile, and not only in one part of the country.

It is not limited to one part. But it is not applicable to irrigation lands. I cannot go as far as that.

But then it is limited to certain lands. I want to say this to the Minister, that enormous State schemes have been created costing millions of pounds, and the land has been exhausted by planting the same type of crop year after year. That is a practical suggestion we want to make to the Minister, namely, to give the subsidy in respect of lucerne seed so that the lands under the scheme can be made fertile and kept fertile. That is not the only aspect of this matter. I strongly want to urge the Minister that we in South Africa must follow the doctrine of Joseph, namely, to make provision for the lean years. In South Africa we have a variable rainfall. This year we have a drought and next year we have excessive rains. The Minister must give his attention to the question of making provision in the fat years, by means of stores, for the lean years which lie ahead. That is not impracticable. If we in South Africa want to prevent the dying of cattle on a large scale in times of drought, the State must make provision for the necessary fodder in times of drought. I want to tell the Minister that it will be necessary for him to give his attention to the storage of mealies and mealie products, and also to the storage of lucerne. It is not enough to store only mealies. We must also store lucerne. We know that lucerne can be kept for years without impairing its quality, and when there is a drought and the farmers are faced with this difficulty that thousands of their cattle die, that fodder can be released. In this connection it is necessary that the farmers be encouraged not to sow lucerne merely for the purpose of improving the land, but also for the purpose of having lucerne hay available which can be stored by the State against a time of drought, so that it can be used together with mealies and other products to prevent the dying of cattle on a large scale. I shall be very glad if the Minister will tell us what the prospects are in this connection. We have now had a period of excessive rains. We regard that as a sign that in the near future there will be a drought, and we should like to know from the Minister what the prospects are of meeting the farmer in this respect. Then I want to say this to the Minister also. The position of the farmers on the platteland as far as labour is concerned is daily becoming more critical. It will be necessary for the Minister, in co-operation with the other departments concerned, to give his attention to this problem. Steps must be taken to enable the farmer to get the necessary labour on his farm, and to get back the labour where there is no labour today. There are members in this House who, while they have been in Cape Town, have been notified that every nonEuropean labourer on their farm has deserted. It has been announced that a subsidy is to be paid in respect of native labour on the mines; there is an influx of labour from the platteland to the cities, a state of affairs which has been aggravated by the war. The farmers cannot produce if they have not got labour. This is a very serious matter, and it must be dealt with seriously. It is necessary for the Minister to go into this matter properly in all its aspects, and to ensure that sufficient labour is made available for the farmers on the platteland. [Time limit.]

Last evening, just before thé House adjourned, I endeavoured to persuade the Minister that it was in the interest of all concerned to postpone the introduction of this new meat scheme. I pointed out that the scheme had not been submitted to Parliament, and I pointed out that very strong representations had been made on the subject. If Parliament is going to delegate its authority to officials nominated by the Minister, then I say we are rapidly on the way to something even more grave to South Africa than the Hitler regime. I want to endeavour to convince the Minister that it should be the intention of everyone concerned with the new scheme to get more co-operation with the distributive trades. I am trying to get the full co-operation of the whole industry, so that when the scheme is put into operation it will be a success, and not as great a failure as price control has been. We have had enough trouble as it is, and one would have thought that the new Minister would have been only too pleased to profit from the experience of his predecessor. We find that instead of the Minister making up his mind that there shall be co-operation he simply says: “I am advised that the new scheme cannot be held up.” We don’t ask for the new scheme to be held up. All we ask for is that a little more time shall be given. We know that officials are careering about the country, and that they want to bring the scheme into operation; there is no urgency for it. And I say that if this policy is pursued we shall have more chaos than we have had for some considerable time. The country is wondering what is the matter with this Government.

We can tell them that.

Well, we know that the country has lost confidence in the Government—it is seething with discontent which is due chiefly to the control boards and to the Food Controller. The Minister should call a halt before it is too late. I want to help the Minister in his scheme.

It looks like it.

I say that if he will agree to this scheme being held over until the necessary financial adjustments are made and then bring it into force, say in May, it may prove a magnificent success. We hope it will be; we want to help him.

What is the object of the delay?

Because financial arrangements are necessary to prevent people being driven out of business. These things cannot just be arranged in a few days. And that is the trouble. There has been a lot of trouble in the meat industry so what do a few extra weeks matter? Of course, if the Minister wants to adopt the dictatorial attitude of his predecessor and brush aside every suggestion made to him, then we can look forward to another colossal failure being foisted on the public of South Africa.

What about wool?

There is not a single man in the street who has a good word for the Minister—and all this has been brought about by the inefficiency of the Department.

You don’t like the Government?

Let me give the Minister an instance—perhaps this will also appeal to the hon. member for Woolfontein— or wherever he may come from—because wool is the only subject that interests him.

Does it not interest you?

I have just received a telegram from the Meat Traders’ Federation. This may even interest my hon. friends of the Nationalist Party—

Perhaps even my friends of the Nationalist. Party, with their colour bar complex, will quite agree that this sort of thing is wrong—that natives should not be used for trapping Europeans. It is a new doctrine for the Government to employ natives for trapping Europeans in this way.

Who sent that wire?

The Communist Party.

Will the hon. member show a little intelligence by way of a change? The interruptions of the hon. member are so childish—they are even more childish than he looks. I draw attention to this practice and I hope the Minister will give instructions immediately that such practices shall cease and that he will try and prevent the ill-feeling which is growing up in connection with this meat scheme. Let me be frank.

That will be nice.

And let me endeavour to tell the House very briefly what I and the people I represent feel on this subject. We feel that the farmer should not be expected to produce the food of the country at a loss, and if there is any way of dealing with this question, that way should be followed. From 1930 to 1935 we spent about £25,000,000 in the subsidisation of foodstuffs going overseas. If we can afford to spend that money why not let the farmers have it? Subsidise them for internal consumption. [Time limit.]

We did know that the Government was actually tottering but we did not think that the position was actually as acute as the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) told us it was. He says that the whole country is tottering in consequence of the hopeless policy pursued by the present Government. I do not really believe everything I am told but there is a certain amount of truth in it— no doubt about it. Now, a few words about matters concerning the farmers. First of all let me say a few words about business men who start farming. The number of these men undertaking farming is increasing alarmingly. A huge number of business men are exploiting agriculture in this way. Not in their tens but in their hundreds business men are buying up farms, and we know who those business men are. The object they have in view is not a noble one—because all they are concerned about is how to evade income tax. I say that the Minister of Agriculture must take notice of it. I don’t say he must take steps now—but let me tell him this, that what is going on today constitutes a menace to the future of the agrarian population. And it is not only business men who do these things, but also professional men.

They are taxed more heavily than they used to be.

It is a menace to farming. The business man like the shopkeeper makes his money out of the platteland. He takes the farmer’s money and invests it in a farm, and there he develops along progressive lines. He skims the cream off the rural districts and on the other hand he makes money out of his shop. I feel it is most alarming; it handicaps farming and it is a menace to the farming industry in South Africa. I consider that the bona fide farmer must devote all his attention to farming. He is the only one who should be allowed to farm and the professional man and the business man must devote their attention to their profession or business. Now, let me say a few words about barley culture for the breweries. I am sure the Minister must know that barley growers have gone on strike because of their high costs of production as compared with the price they are getting. Barley cannot be grown on dry land. Expensive water has to be used for that purpose. The breweries are making £5 out of a bag of barley and the farmer only gets £1 per bag. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in those circumstances it is absolutely impossible for the barley growers to go on growing barley, and unless the price is increased to £1 10s. per bag—that is the minimum price—the farmers will have to produce at a loss; I therefore feel that the barley growers will go on strike and will no longer put themselves out to produce barley. I also want to say a few words to emphasise what has already been said about fertilisers, fencing material, tractors, cutting machines, lucerne presses, farming implements and so on. This matter has been fully discussed in this House but I want to draw the Minister’s immediate attention to the fact that we are unable to carry on unless proper provision is made to supply these requirements which are so essential to the farmers. We have no labour to do our work on the farms—in that respect the farmers are helpless today. If they cannot carry on their farming with the aid of machinery it is almost impossible for them to continue. I shall be glad if the Minister will take up this matter and regard it as urgent. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) is in his seat. Now let me tell him that we have a lot of complaints about the farming implements which have been manufactured today. They are very poor and ineffective. I do not know what the hon. member for Vereeniging can do to assist the Minister to get better articles manufactured.

Are you sure they were manufactured there?

Yes, I am sure. I shall be glad if the hon. member will go into this question to find out why farming implements are so particularly bad. We need those things, but they are hopeless. They are inferior in quality and they are an insult to South Africa. I shall leave it at that. I know the hon. member for Vereeniging will give his attention to this matter and that he will help the Minister in the right direction. There is a tendency to leave the countryside to the mercy of fate. I say emphatically—to leave the platteland to the mercy of fate, and to leave it to get on as best it can. If we want to make a success of the farming industry in South Africa the Minister of Agriculture must give all his attention—in fact he must give his whole soul, his whole being—to the development of the farming industry in South Africa. If that is done, and if we have a sympathetic Minister who goes carefully into everything and assists us wherever it is possible to do so, life will be put into farming. Farming itself is lively and inspiring, and because it is a livelihood in which there is life so many farmers are prepared to make great sacrifices. To all intents and purposes they surrender themselves to slavery—night and day—because they love their work and because there is life in farming. But that does not mean that the farmer is not suffering agonies today and is not passing through the greatest hardships under the present conditions. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) called on me personally about the subsidy on lucerne seed. I told him that I had been converted but not converted to the idea of paying the subsidy on all lucerne seed.

I thought it was a complete conversion.

Yes, to the extent that the subsidy is necessary. I just want to tell the hon. member that since this question was raised, when the additional estimates were under discussion, I immediately got my technical people to enquire into the request made in this House by hon. members. I did not allow the grass to grow under my feet— nor the lucerne—but the advice I got is not in favour of a subsidy for seed for irrigation lands. My experts went carefully into the matter and their opinion is that we cannot subsidise seed which is sown for the purpose of growing hay. I am prepared, however, to give an undertaking that the matter will be further looked into.

I raised this question in connection with a fodder bank. It serves a double purpose.

There is something in it, and I shall go further into the question, but where my conversion is complete is where I agree that we must continue the scheme in order to restore the fertility of the soil, to get the soil back to its normal condition now that it has become exhausted over all these years. In that respect I require no conversion. In regard to the other point about farm labour I want to say that this is a matter which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). I am quite aware of the difficulties there are and I shall give the matter my attention.

What about the establishment of fodder banks?

That question will also be considered. In fact it has been considered for some time but so far no decision has been arrived at as to who should take the responsibility, whether it is a question of personal initiative for the farmers. Is this not a matter where the farmer himself should make provision? I believe that many of them are in a position to do so themselves. Still, we shall go into it. The preservation of surplus produce in times of plenty, so that we may have them available in times of scarcity and drought, is an important matter.

†I do not know, Sir, that I ought to react to the extravagant language that was used by the member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) except to say that as far as the question is concerned which he mentioned, I understand it is a price control matter and it therefore falls under the Minister of Commerce and Industries. I think it is a matter that ought to be investigated. I have no doubt that if he puts the question on the Order Paper or approaches my colleague it will be investigated. If the hon. member shows me that it is a matter in which my department is concerned, I shall be quite prepared to investigate it.

I had not intended speaking again on this debate but the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) will realise that he has forced me to say a few words. I think it was most unfair on the hon. member’s part to say what he did say here about the quality of the articles manufactured at Vereeniging. I doubt very much whether the hon. member can show me one article of the kind he referred to because the articles manufactured at Vereeniging are perhaps not used in his area. I feel that in all fairness I should say a few words. In time of war a factory was established at the Government’s request and we started there with the training of Afrikaners, sons of the country. I think when factories are established and developed in this country we should show a little more patience than the hon. member has done. We are keen on training Afrikaners so that we will not have to import people from overseas, and we want to give the Afrikaners a chance to do the work. That being so I want to ask the hon. member to exercise a little patience and eventually we may be able to produce goods which will be just as good as those we can get from overseas. But what is happening today? It is generally known that the factory at Vereeniging manufactures agricultural implements, and that being so people forget that throughout this country there are others also producing agricultural implements, and any old implement the people get hold of is at once assumed to be a Vereeniging product. No matter how bad it may be, Vereeniging gets the blame. I want to issue an invitation to the hon. member to come and see what is being done at the factory at Vereeniging. He will find that the articles manufactured there can hold their own with any imported article. But the importers, of course, are intent on killing the factory. The hon. member is perhaps only under the impression that the articles he saw were manufactured in Vereeniging; they may have been made by some blacksmith or other. I want to tell the hon. member that we can manufacture steel in South Africa today as good as that manufactured in any other part of the world, and our experts know how to produce the very best article required. The days have gone when we could not make steel. If we have the necessary machinery we can manufacture articles which are just as good as any imported article, but if we are unable to get all the necessary machinery in the meantime one expects true Afrikaners who want to assist in the development of the country to give us a little more encouragement. Now the overseas man comes along; he gets hold of a member like the hon. member for Namaqualand and tries to destroy our industries by the sort of talk which we have just listened to. The particular implement which the hon. member has seen may perhaps not have been made at Vereeniging at all. People accept any implement—it may have been manufactured by Dick, Tom or Harry, and the hon. member knows no better and thinks it was made in Vereeniging. The hon. member listens to that sort of talk and unconsciously he is doing incalculable harm to our own industry. I want to issue an invitation to the hon. member to come and visit the factory and see how many young Afrikaners are employed there, and see the class of article manufactured there, and if he does so I hope he will let it be known publicly that what he said here this morning has no foundation and is not justified.

We want good things and that is why we criticise.

Yes, by all means, but the hon. member should first of all make sure of his facts. I just want to mention a few figures to show what has already been done between 1941 and today. Any hon. member will then realise that if these goods are as bad as the hon. member tells us they are we would not have been able to make the progress we have made. Let hon. members remember that there is a Controller of Agricultural Implements who pays special attention to the quality of the goods produced, and he will not confirm what the hon. member said here. In 1941 we made a start with a tonnage of 1,600—today we are producing over 6,500 tons. In 1941 we produced 11,000 single furrow ploughs. Today we are producing 30,000. per year. We did not produce any double furrow ploughs originally, now we are producing 2,000 per year. We used not to produce any ridgers—now we are producing 8,000 per year. In 1941 we produced 1,000 cultivator weeders. Today we are producing 15,000. And so I could go on and mention other progressive figures. These are interesting figures and show that the quality of our product is good, otherwise there would not have been such an increase.

We cannot get along without these things.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he has any proof of what he says. He says “certainly.” I just want to ask him to give me an opportunity to see the particular article either here in Cape Town or elsewhere. Then, if I can prove that it has not been made in Vereeniging I expect the hon. member to withdraw what he has said.

We have had practical experience; to look at these things they look very fine.

But are they made in Vereeniging? Has the hon. member looked to see whether the trade name of the Vereeniging factory is marked on the particular article?

I can produce lots of proof.

I shall be pleased to accompany the hon. member, but if the hon. member is given proof that these goods are not made at Vereeniging he must admit it. What particular article is he referring to now?

All kinds of articles; ploughs and cultivator weeders.

What is the name of the cultivator weeder? The hon. member does not answer. I do not think it is fair on his part to make such remarks when he cannot even produce any evidence or mention the name of the article. He sees me all day long and often passes me in the lobbies. Why could not he have shown his good feelings towards the South African factory by seeing me personally? Why does he not give us a little encouragement? He could have told me that the quality is not good. I would probably have been able to prove to him that the articles which he speaks about were not made in Vereeniging. Instead of stating here that these articles are no good he could have discussed the matter with me.

Don’t you make wire?

No.

You should start making it.

We can make wire, but wire is now being sent to the farmers made of wire intended for nails. It is not intended for fencing but for a totally different purpose. And then people say that the wire which is manufactured is of no use.

We can get none at all, so we cannot say it is of no use.

The type of steel used for nails is different from that used for fencing wire.

Give us wire—fencing material.

There is no machinery in this country to make barbed wire. If the hon. member can get the machinery we shall be only too pleased to make it.

The Premier Gate Company has the machinery here, and they can make wire at any time if they can get steel.

I am talking of barbed wire now. They have made mesh wire. Steel is used for more important purposes at the moment, but that is something which will come after the war. But so far as the hon. member for Namaqualand is concerned he should make enquiries before making assertions such as he made here today. He cannot mention the name of the articles; he has never approached me personally in connection with it. I felt I should give this explanation in defence of our new industry.

I hope things will improve and that is why I mentioned it.

The hon. member did not give us any encouragement, but he went about things in the right way to destroy industrial development in this country.

†*Maj. P. W. A. PIETERSE : I just want to ask the Minister whether he will be prepared to meet the farmers again in regard to wheat prices for the future? Last year farmers were given some encouragement by the price being raised by 2s. 1d. and I want to ask the Minister to give them a further encouragement. I have a telegram here from the Heilbron Farmers Association in which better representation on the Meat Control Board was asked for. There is considerable confusion and misunderstanding in regard to this matter. I am getting letters and telegrams in regard to the meat scheme. Is it not advisable that officials should be sent out to explain the position to people? I think a misunderstanding should be removed.

I want to add my appeal to that of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) for relief to be granted to the farmers in the Vryheid district whose cattle were slaughtered in consequence of the widespread outbreaks of East Coast Fever. The farmers concerned are a very deserving people. They have had a blow which has robbed them of their livelihood, as I anticipated it would. I drew the attention of the late Minister of Agriculture to this matter during last session in the form of a question which I put to him on the 13th April, 1943, pointing out that the loss of their means of livelihood was a very serious matter, and that they would be unable to use their farms or draw capital whilst the policy of slaughter was being carried out, and I addressed further questions as to their plight and of their native tenants both to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture. So I hope although the Minister of Finance said it is not a matter for him to deal with in the first instance, if the new Minister of Agriculture approached him, in view of the facts brought forward by the hon. member for Vryheid, there would be a favourable decision.

I have undertaken to do that.

I thank the Minister for that. I think the same observation applies to those men who lost their stock by reason of the slaughter of cattle with a view to eradicating foot and mouth disease. On the occasion of the outbreak in 1938, on the 19th August, I drew the attention’ of the Minister to the position in a question as follows—

1. (1) Whether he has received a resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Natal Agricultural Union requesting the Government to provide some form of relief, so that those farmers both European and native, whose cattle had been destroyed in connection with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Northern Natal, need not draw upon their capital during the period of quarantine; and
2. (2) Whether he will take this matter into favourable consideration at an early date in view of the urgency for relief.

That I think has become a serious matter; it has hit a very deserving class of farmer. Then there is the question of the establishment of a Faculty of Agriculture at the Natal University College at Pietermaritzburg.

I think the hon. member should bring that up under the following vote.

We have been listening attentively to what the hon. the Minister has said from time to time about lucerne seed, and I just want to revert to the subject. I want to advocate that lucerne seed should also be subsidised for irrigation lands. Artificial fertilisers are very scarce, and so the seed could be used for dry lands. That is my first reason. My second reason is that it will assist us to build up fodder banks for difficult times which we can reasonably anticipate. Thirdly, I have had reports from my constituency to say that the mealie crop is going to be still smaller than we had expected. I represent a very large mealie producing constituency and the reports I get are very unfavourable. One farmer, for instance, who has no fewer than seven farms and who produces mealies on a very large scale, reports that he does not expect 20 per cent. of his normal crop. First of all the worms ate all the mealies when they were still below the ground, and now they are eating the mealies above the ground, and he is powerless and unable to do anything. The more lucerne we produce the more cattle food we shall have, and the more mealies the Minister and the Department will then be able to save. The green fodder which we can produce in the way of lucerne is necessary for the dairy production for the towns, and I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to give this important matter his serious consideration. Let him also subsidise lucerne seed for irrigation lands. Now we who represent cattle districts are continually getting representations from people who are concerned about the new meat scheme. One farmers’ association after another asks us to oppose the scheme. Cannot the Government make a serious attempt to make the position perfectly clear? We appreciate the efforts the Government is making to cope with the problem which has arisen but I want to ask the Minister to handle this question very carefully. This is a matter which can easily get out of hand, with serious repercussions to the farmers. We are pleading especially for a proper standard of meat grading. The principle of grading breeding stock lower for instance—small or big stock—is opposed by the farming community because you cannot put cattle on the market, or only kill cattle which is not breeding cattle. With machinery getting more and more scarce you need oxen for ploughing, more trek oxen than before, with the result that a large quantity of oxen are kept off the market, and we are therefore compelled to kill a certain number of our breeding stock. In regard to the increase of our herds our farms could carry more stock if only we could get fencing material. There is a lack of scientific grazing with the result that we are compelled to put superfluous stock, whether it is breeding stock or not, on the market, in order to make it possible for us to keep on our other stock. A third point is the price of mealies. Representations reach us from all parts of dur constituencies asking that the price of mealies should not be fixed at less than £1 per bag. The farmers do not want prices to go up too high. They feel they are entitled to more, but they want to be fair to the consumers and they feel that if the price is fixed at £1 per bag this year it will be fair to the farmers and also to the consumers. I am glad the Minister has promised to give his attention to the question of our labour forces. The problem is becoming very serious and very critical to the farmers and it should definitely have some attention, otherwise we shall not have the food which the country needs in war time—or even to continue ordinary normal life. The labour problem cannot be emphasised strongly enough, and the Minister must give it his immediate attention. Now I also want to say a few words about transport facilities. We are pleading for more effective farming methods—we want to do away with ineffectiveness in order to make the final costs of a commodity as low as possible to the consumer. One of the essential measures in the economic life of our people and in the life of the farming industry is transport. Last year we had the assistance of military transport. We were helped a lot in that way but it was not very economical. It was not a cheap method of transport. The best means of transport so far as we are concerned are the Railway buses, and we want to ask the Minister to use his influence with the Minister of Railways and Harbours in order to have adequate Railway buses made available for the transport of agricultural products. I myself discussed this matter privately with the Minister’s predecessor and he promised me that he would attend to it. It really is a very important problem. Then some of my constituents have asked me to draw the Minister’s attention to the number of thefts going on on farms.

That question comes under Justice.

I want to ask the Minister to use his influence with the Minister of Justice. We shall raise the subject when the time arrives. This is a serious matter— natives roam about and thefts are committed on farms. A farmer’s cattle is no longer safe on the farm. A man from Zoutpansberg wrote to me that natives had caught four thoroughbred Afrikaner head of cattle and had taken them away into the forests. Some of those animals were killed. I want to ask the Minister to use his influence also with the Minister of Railways to give cheaper rates to farmers who want to take their cattle to the shows. Surely we want to improve the quality of our stock. That is the Government’s permanent policy.

The farmer does everything in his power to improve the quality of his stock but there is no better way to draw attention to the desirability of doing so than to have those shows. The shows, in the smaller towns are just as important as those in the bigger towns. If there is one important matter in regard to which the Department continually has to assist, it is in connection with the improvement of the quality of stock, and shows are one of the means in that direction. That is why we ask for the concessions which we had in the past to be restored to us. In conclusion I want to ask the Minister to abolish the meatless day. We do not all belong to the same religion, and we do not all eat pork. I belong to the race which does not eat pork, and I shall be glad, and thousands of us in this country will be grateful, if the meatless day, which surely is an unnecessary institution, is abolished. It is unnecessary and we should no longer enforcé it on the public. We have cattle in the country which can be put on the market, and there is no necessity to continue the meatless day. Before I sit down I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider the question of having the bakeries inspected, to investigate the hygienic conditions there. We are not quite satisfied that the bread supplied to townspeople is treated as effectively, as cleanly and hygienically as it should be. [Time limit.]

I don’t want to detain the House for any length of time and I do not think I need say much about the subject I want to raise, viz: the question of making lucerne seed available to those in the country who need it. I don’t think I have to convince the Department that it is desirable to produce lucerne, and I believe that even the Minister has been converted to a large extent so far as this question is concerned. In the report of the Department of Agriculture we are clearly told that lucerne in particular is the crop which should be used for the restoration of our soil. I just want to quote paragraph 116 of the Report—

I don’t think I have to convince the Department that so far as irrigation areas also are concerned this very essential crop must not be ignored. In South Africa only a small part of the country is available for irrigation and the soil must be preserved like a jewel; we must do nothing in any way to harm our irrigation land. I know that the Minister has now fixed the price of lucerne seed on a fairly high level. We know that that has been done for the sake of a section of our farmers who last season, and before last season, had to contend with many setbacks. We have no objection to those people getting that high price. We are even less opposed to those areas receiving preference in regard to the subsidising of lucerne seed. I visited those parts during the last few days, and I can tell the Minister that I myself was astounded to see the way lucerne answers in these winter rainfall areas. But I further saw this, that while in those areas under irrigation people sow three morgen of land with one bag of lucerne seed, in those winter rainfall areas 50 morgen are sown with one bag and the lucerne stands just as high as in the parts where one bag has been used for three morgen.

What do you attribute that to?

The climatic conditions of those parts. You get a better germination of the seed. Not only is the fertility of the soil restored, but those parts which produce wheat are also given the opportunity of going in for the fattening of stock. I am not opposed to those higher prices being given for lucerne seed, but we should not lose sight of the fact that there is no excessive quantity of lucerne seed in the country today. There is not enough. What is the result? The result is that where farmers in the past only paid £4 per bag and the Government paid £6 people rush to the market now and buy up all the lucerne seed that is available. I know of cases—and I can prove that what I am saying is correct—where traders quoted lucerne seed shortly before the session at £9 per bag. I can show instances where lucerne seed has been sown in large quantities at £7 and £8 per bag. There are not many farmers left who sell lucerne seed today. It is mostly the traders who have got hold of the lucerne seed. I assume that the Minister and his department have been converted to a large extent in connection with this matter, and I therefore want to suggest a scheme to show how lucerne seed may be made available for the whole country. Make it an open market where anyone can buy. I have two instances of people who have given me instructions to buy lucerne seed for them and to pay up to £8 and £9 per bag. They do not see their way to pay £10 per bag, and they have now wired me not to pay £10. Wheat prices are good, wheat answers well under the irrigation schemes, and the result will be that these farmers will now sow wheat, which will further exhaust the soil. With a view to making this seed available to everybody I want to put this to the Minister: I do not think it will cost his Department very much more. Fix the price at £7 per bag so that the irrigation farmers will also have a chance. If the man wants to sow lucerne on dry land, pay him a subsidy of £3 instead of £6, and give the other £3 to the producer. The subsidy was intended to meet those people. It will then mean that the producer will still get £10 per bag but the man in the winter rainfall area will only pay £4, and the man who needs the seed for the irrigation lands will then be able to buy the seed for £7. I feel we must be very careful and that the Minister of Agriculture in particular must be very careful not to come forward with class legislation and class regulations by which one section of the farmers will be stirred up against the other section. The only result of such a policy will be to create a state of discord among the farming community. Not only will they be divided among themselves but instead of co-operating with the Minister they will oppose the Minister. We do not want that sort of thing, and I hope the Minister will see his way to place this matter on a sounder basis. He will agree that the present scheme is impossible. You cannot give a thing to certain people to the detriment of others, and I can prove that that is the case. As there is a limited quantity of seed the scheme should be devised in such a manner that the other people will also have the opportunity of getting something. I also want to deal with the question of wire which was raised here very casually. Not only on the irrigation schemes but throughout the length and breadth of the country there is what I might describe as a wire hunger. If we study the Department’s report we find it stated clearly that the greatest evil in South Africa is the tramping out of the veld, which causes erosion. This is going on on a tremendous scale as a result also of our having no wire. The Minister may perhaps tell us that we can get wire, but the wire which the farmers get is of a kind they don’t want. In the winter rainfall areas the farmers do not want it as a present because it rusts very quickly. In the Northern parts it does not rain so much but we find that when the wire arrives it has turned red already. We know that there is galvanised wire. We only have to go from here to the Cavalcade and look at the fencing there. Why can good wire be used for those purposes while in those parts where wire is really needed people have to do the best they can with inferior wire. [Time limit.]

There is one other matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice in connection with his staff, viz., the position óf the stock inspectors and assistant stock inspectors. As the Minister knows these people are appointed at a small salary and they are on a month’s notice. They feel that the time has arrived when they should be put on the permanent staff.

That question has already been raised and I have already dealt with it.

It is a very important question, because it affects the livelihood of these people, and it must be brought to the Minister’s notice again. In the North West these people work under the most difficult conditions, and I feel that their pay is inadequate. When they hear that some members in this House take an interest in their position they are encouraged because at the moment they are dissatisfied. Some of them have to travel long distances and they are shown very little consideration.

Their position has been improved, in that they have been given an extra allowance.

That is only a drop in the ocean. The Minister does not want to have a dissatisfied staff and these people occupy responsible posts. They have to cover large distances and I want to know why they cannot be put on the permanent staff. I have letters here, not only from the stock inspectors of the North Western Cape, but also from inspectors in the Transvaal.

I did say in my reply that some of them would be put on the permanent staff.

Only some of them. A number of them have been working on the temporary establishment for ten years and more.

In some areas they only need it on a temporary basis.

In my part of the country we always need inspectors. We are on the borders of Bechuanaland and South-West Africa, and cattle suffering from infectious diseases enter the country there from time to time, and the inspectors always have to be on their guard. I know that some of them take up positions on the border over night to watch against cattle being smuggled in. They get a very trivial salary and their service conditions are by no means of the best. The time has now arrived to place them on the same basis as ordinary officials in the Public Service. Now I come to another question and you may possibly say, Mr. Chairman, that it has nothing to do with this vote, but I received a letter this morning from the farmers in my constituency stating that wild dogs, baboons, jackals and lions are causing serious depredations among their stock. The farmers have no rifles and I want to ask the Minister to approach the Prime, Minister and tell him that this matter has been raised and ask him to accede to their request to be issued with rifles in areas where farmers are exposed to these dangers. This farmer writes that wild dogs last year killed and ate twenty of his cattle. He also points out that jackals are causing serious losses among sheep. We cannot allow that condition to go on. Surely there is no need today to refuse these people the right to have rifles, and the Minister should use his influence with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to meet the needs of these people; if he does not do so, the Agricultural Union of the North West may at its next meeting pass a very strong resolution of protest against the action of the Government.

I shall see what I can do.

I shall not detain the House. I have a few instructions from Farmers Associations in the district of Kroonstad about the meat scheme which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. As the Minister is going to apply this scheme I want to ask him to be very careful in the way he handles it. The success or the failure of the scheme will depend entirely on the price paid to the farmers. I have received a number of requests in which it is urged that the Minister should see to it that the price which is fixed is not based on the lowest level the market has reached in the past few months, but is based on last year’s average price. The farmers are of opinion that last year the market generally speaking gave them a fairly reasonable price, and that for the future the price should be fixed on the same basis. Another factor which the Minister will have to watch very carefully is the permit system. The farmers insist on the Minister giving an assurance that where permits are issued provision will be made so that the farmer will immediately, or at least within fourteen days, get the trucks to take his stock to the slaughter poles. We know that the farmer prepares his stock, fattens it and so on, and when the stock is in the right condition it has to be sent to the market, and if the farmer has to keep it longer it means unnecessary expense and loss to him. The other question in regard to the issue of permits is the distance the cattle have to be moved to get to the slaughter pole. If the Meat Board instructs the farmer to send his stock to a specific place provision has to be made to compensate the farmer for the loss of time and for the additional Railway and transport costs, all of which have to be considered. Now, let me also draw the Minister’s attention to the position in regard to the cattle brought into the Union from the native areas. We, as farmers, are concerned that the Government is able to give its consent to cattle coming in from the native areas, as those cattle will compete on our markets with the result, that there may be over-production. I want to associate myself with other members regard ing the figures the Minister has mentioned here, to show that there has been no decrease in the number of our cattle. As a matter of fact I have never believed that there was a shortage of cattle in the country.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was drawing the Minister’s attention to the danger of allowing cattle to come in from the Native Territories which might cause a surplus on our markets. This does not only apply to meat but it also applies to other agricultural products. I am quite satisfied that there is ample meat in this country and I therefore want to ask the Minister to abolish the meatless day. That also applies to mealies. We should not take up the attitude that mealie stocks must be accumulated so that in future we may have a surplus. Now, just one final point which is also raised in the resolution of the Kroonstad Farming Association. It is this, that the Minister, in applying the meat scheme, must see to it that no undue profits are made in the distribution of meat. When I speak of undue profits I want hon. members to understand clearly that we stand for the principle that the distributor who renders very essential services must receive proper compensation for the work he does. Without these people the distribution cannot be carried out smoothly, and the man whose services are needed must be compensated for his services, but it will be a matter of importance, and will contribute to the success of the scheme if the Minister stops undue speculation. Undue profits are made if meat is unnecessarily handled by a second and third person. The scheme can only be a success if the distributor is placed in a position where he can easily get his supplies and if he receives reasonable compensation for his services. Only in those circumstances can the scheme work smoothly.

I just want to say a few words about the question of lucerne seed, which has again been raised. The Department is very anxious to have lucerne lands used for the growing of lucerne. As I have explained before we cannot give a subsidy on the seed used for lucerne land because the growing of lucerne there is a commercial proposition for the production of hay. The idea of the scheme is to get farmers to grow lucerne for consumption on their own farms. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) appears worth while enquiring into, and I shall ask my department to go into it In regard to the other point on the subject of the meat scheme and the points raised by the hon. member who has just sat down I want to say that they will have our attention and that we will go into them.

I do not propose retaining the House but there are two important points which I feel it my duty to raise. I asked the Minister the other day what the Government’s policy was in regard to the construction of grain elevators. In the Western Transvaal there is a great scarcity of storage accommodation, and in Lichtenburg especially there is a great need for a grain elevator. The Minister’s predecessor encouraged the farmers to produce mealies. He wanted to see how many mealies the farmers really could produce. Lichtenburg is a large and progressive town. The Western Co-operative Association, which is a big organisation, has its headquarters at Lichtenburg. This organisation handles about 1,000,000 bags of mealies per year, and there is no elevator at Lichtenburg where the mealies can be stored. I would therefore be glad if the Minister would make a statement telling us what his intentions are in regard to grain elevators. I have another question with reference to a higher subsidy for artificial manure. Artificial manure has developed into a problem. It is very expensive and people are urging that a larger subsidy should be granted. I shall be glad if the Minister can give us an answer on these few points.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 20.—“Agriculture (Education and Experimental Farms),” £248,000,

We don’t want to detain the Minister unduly. I think he has had a good deal of experience of the agricultural vote during the past five days, but there are certain matters in regard to agricultural schools which I want to bring to his notice. The Minister knows very well that the policy of every previous Government has been to do its utmost to train people for agriculture to enable them to make a success of agriculture. For that reason every Minister of Agriculture so far has always paid great attention to agricultural schools and seen to it that those schools were full of young students every year. And not only that, but provision was made for short courses in wool, dairy farming, poultry farming, etc. Now this has been practically stopped in the last four years. Some time ago, however, we read in the newspapers that there was an extensive scheme for the re-opening of the schools. Returned soldiers are to be allowed to go to those schools and the sons of farmers, too, if I correctly understand the position. But when I study the Estimates it seems to me that no provision is made for that kind of thing, so I wonder if this is another case of a bomb which is not going to explode. We are so accustomed to this type of paper bomb that we are anxious to get some specific information. But we do not want to have the usual sort of excuse that these things will have to stand over until after the war. There are a number of returned soldiers who have had to be discharged from the Army because they are not quite fit, but who are none the less fit for farming. Now, why cannot those people be sent to the agricultural schools at this stage; why cannot our young men, who are anxious to go in for agriculture now, go to those schools too? The accommodation is available; the officials are there, and all the necessary equipment is available. No, these schools are simply locked up, the sole object being to see whether, these young men cannot be induced to join the army. These people are intended for farming, and they are not going to join the army. They want to be trained for farming and I therefore hope that the Minister, éven if he does not do it on these Estimates, will make provision for the re-opening of the agricultural schools this year by putting money on the Additional Estimates, and I hope a start will at once be made with this matter. Now I want to ask the Minister a few questions, specifically in regard to agricultural schools. How many students are there still at the moment? Perhaps there were a number of students left who had not finished their studies when the agricultural schools were closed. How many of them are still at Elsenburg, Glen, Cedara, Potchef stroom and Grootfontein? The agricultural schools in all the provinces have done excellent work. Does the Minister intend re-opening them this year? Is he prepared to re-introduce the bursary system for indigent children who will otherwise not be able to get the necessary training? Is he prepared to give the necessary support in that direction? Is he prepared to re-introduce courses for sheep breeding, for the dairy industry, for poultry and other things in connection with agricultural schools? Does the Minister intend re-introducing the extension work which is so important to farmers? Just one other question about the agricultural college at Stellenbosch. I notice that there are only eight professors now, while there used to be nine. Is this a matter of economy, or is there a vacancy? If eight can do the work we, of course, have no objection, but what is the reason for this reduction?

In view of the fact that agriculture is vitally concerned with all our food, all our clothing, and in a large measure our housing materials, it has rightly been described as the basic industry in the country. But farming practice, and I venture to say present conditions have tended to destroy the fertility of the soil, and thus I think wé can assume that agriculture is at present not on a sound basis of economy. Unfortunately profit production has taken precedence over national necessity. But the report of the Agricultural Reconstruction Committee gives hope that the future augurs well for the agricultural industry. I have started on these lines because I do feel, and it is obvious from the references in this House, that the House appreciates the importance of a scientific approach in agriculture. It would appear that technical efficiency is necessary if agricultural economics are to be placed On a sound basis. In view of this one cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of agriculture being associated with a food economy, and that implies that we must in our, agricultural planning take cognisance of soil conservation and utilisation, and that can only be done through the medium of sound education. We have several agricultural colleges, but I do feel that the status of agriculture could be increased by offering the highest form of education, and that is through the medium of the Faculties of Agriculture at Universities. We have Stellenbosch and Pretoria; and Stellenbosch and Pretoria provide for a specialist training concerned with environmental conditions. Pretoria deals with and gives a training in relation to the peculiar forms of agriculture concerned with the high veld, sweet corn, maize, cattle and citrus. Stellenbosch has a winter rainfall, and it provides knowledge in relation to viticulture, grain and the soft fruits. I venture to say that if a graduate from either of these two Universities came to East Griqualand, Natal or Zululand with the theoretical training he had received, that it would take him three years before he could adapt his specialist training to the conditions prevailing in those particular areas. That point I think emphasises very strongly the need for the creation of a Faculty of Agriculture serving the peculiar environmental conditions of Natal, East Griqualand and Zululand. I would emphasise this point, a very important point especially as farming in those particular areas is concerned very largely with the production of our essential protective foods and is wrapped up with, interlinked very closely with our food economy, which should be the basis of any sound agricultural economy. I refer to dairying—to milk, butter, cheese, etc. In view of that I would also like to stress that the facilities exist concerning those particular areas to provide the practical training for the establishment of higher education through the proposed Faculty of Agriculture stationed in Pietermaritzburg in association with the Natal University College. I refer to Cedara, and in relation to Cedara I have a memorandum on my desk which I am prepared to show to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, emphasising the viewpoint of the principal, Dr. Fisher, for the establishment of the faculty I propose. In addition to that I am armed with a memorandum from Dr. Denni son, the principal of the Natal University College, emphasising the importance of the establishment of this faculty. In addition to Cedara, with its amenities, there is Baynesfield of 24,000 acres with an established bacon factory and creamery. Apart from this we have the veterinary research station at Allerton. The two farms, Cedara and Baynesfield, are served by hard macadamised roads and are approximately ten miles from the city, while Allerton is only two miles from the city. I do feel that with all these facilities—the Agricultural College at Cedara, the Baynesfield Estate, which I understand was left more or less in trust to the nation, with its creamery and bacon factory—I do feel that all that is needed now is this Faculty of Agriculture. Let me stress. I am not endeavouring to be parochial; in fact I am regarding this from a purely national viewpoint. I have tried to diffentiate the various types of farming; farming has its special ramifications. The high veld is served through the faculty in Pretoria. The area with the high winter rainfall is served through the medium of the faculty at Stellenbosch. In Natal we have different climatic conditions, a winter rainfall and a dry summer, with agricultural conditions differing from those in the other centres in the Union. I feel strongly that in the national interest it is essential that we establish further technical training based on the peculiarities of soil and climate in relation to Natal, East Griqualand and Zululand. This is not a new suggestion in this House. It has been referred to by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett). I do appreciate his representations because he speaks as a farmer, and I believe as President of the Natal Agricultural Union. I speak as a townsman who appreciates the significance of health. My theme in this House will be the importance of health, and I shall stress that on every possible occasion—health in its every ramification. I feel that the health of the community goes right down to the soil, and that soil security is so wrapped up in our national health that we must emphasise the importance of production in relation to the essential foods. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister was approached just prior to the war by a representative deputation, and he viewed this project very sympathetically. To the present Minister I would also state that the project had the sympathy of his predecessor, the late Col. Collins. The point I should like to emphasise is that the existing facilities at Cedara, Baynesfield and Allerton can be integrated into one powerful whole for the benefit of agriculture throughout the Union, to afford an opportunity for the training of professional officers, which is so important, and it will, I feel, be in the interests of the people of South Africa as well as in the interests of the Agricultural Department. I would urge most sincerely that the hon. the Minister gives this his sympathetic consideration and that he will not use the circumstances of the war as a means to delay this project, which is in the interests of the national welfare.

There is an old saying that new brooms sweep clean, and I hope the hon. the Minister will use his new broom to do something which we regard as being of great importance. One of the most serious blunders of the present Government was to close down the agricultural schools in its war frenzy. There are certain things which one can perhaps forgive them having done in their war frenzy, but it was inexcusable on their part to have closed the agricultural schools. Agriculture and agricultural education have received a serious setback as a result, which they will feel for quite a number of years. The Minister perhaps does not realise the true value of the agricultural courses for the farming population, as well as of the ordinary diploma courses and the special short courses. The Glen Agricultural College is in my constituency and the farmers have used that college to a very great extent. They have particularly availed themselves of the short courses. The fact that young farmers, and sometimes older farmers too, could go there for a course in wool, poultry farming, dairy farming etc., was very much appreciated. Suddenly all these opportunities were done away with and I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in asking the Minister to re-open the agricultural schools and re-introduce the short courses as well as the diploma courses. It is most encouraging to find in the report on the reconstruction of agriculture in Item 292 that the Commission itself realises the importance of this being done. The Commission says that more attention should be devoted to the instruction of adults by means of short courses, and then the Commission goes on to say—

The Commission regards this as a matter of the utmost importance. They revert to the question in Item 295 and they say that the diploma courses in the agricultural colleges are of the utmost importance, and the Commission expresses the hope “that these courses will be re-started ere long”. I hope the Minister will take note of the fact that they say “ere long”. The re-starting of these courses is absolutely essential in the interest of the future of the agricultural industry. The farming section of the public deeply regretted the fact that those courses were stopped at the beginning of the war. We hope the Minister will give his serious attention to the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission could not report anything else. In its report it represents the feeling of the public generally. There is a strong desire for the courses to be re-started, and such a step will in no way interfere with the war effort. The staff is there, the magnificent buildings are there, the farms are there, everything is ready for the re-starting of the courses. Today these institutions are not being used. I think it should be admitted that there was no necessity to close these schools. It was not even necessary for the sake of the Government’s war policy. We do not know how long this war will last— it may last for years. People who should be receiving training today are not getting any training. The practising farmers cannot now take these short courses when they want to know something about certain subjects. They have been deprived of the opportunity and it is essential that those opportunties should again be created. We cannot be sufficiently in earnest about this matter. There are other recommendations, too, which cannot perhaps be carried out immediately, but this matter can be tackled at once. There is no reason whatsoever to delay, and on behalf of the farmers in my constituency, and on behalf of the Free State, which is served by the Glen Agricultural School, I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister not to delay and not to wait, but to adopt the attitude that this report will eventually have to be carried out in its entirety. This part of the recommendations can be given effect to at once. The longer it is delayed the more losses will the farming population suffer. I therefore hope the Minister will use his new broom to put matters right.

I heard hon. members talk about the fine buildings connected with these agricultural schools. Unfortunately the best and biggest agricultural school in South Africa, Grootfontein, has the worst buildings. There is only one decent building there and that is the building which the Wool Council has given them as a research laboratory for wool. When I speak about Grootfontein I always connect it with wool. Grootfontein is the principal centre in South Africa for wool research, but we have no buildings. When we started a promise was made to us, or we were told, that if we put up the buildings—which we did at a cost of £15,000 or £17,000—the Department would supply the furniture, equipment and staff. Unfortunately we have so far got nothing because the Government committed the crime at the beginning of the war of closing the agricultural schools. I do hope, however, that the Minister will now see to it that we get the implements and the staff to continue this valuable work. What I am saying is not said in opposition or against Onderstepoort. Onderstepoort, of course, is the best research station in the world so far as stock diseases are concerned. That is admitted throughout the world. We have even had people coming here for training from other countries, for instance Mr. Carter from Australia, who is the Chief Officer dealing with wool in Australia. We have nothing against Onderstepoort, but we feel that the home of the wool sheep, the place where the sheep are bred, must have a research station to do breeding research work. In that respect we must have expansion at Grootfontein. The buildings there are a scandal. When the Australian Delegation was in this country they visited the place and they said that the best work in the world is being done at Grootfontein, work equal to that being done in Australia, but they agreed that the buildings were very poor. Some of these old buildings are the old khaki buildings from the Boer War—bungalows—the wind blows through them, and in winter the young fellows have to have blankets underneath and on top of them. In the dining room the lizards run about, and look at one through the cracks. The buildings are a disgrace. Then the Government thought, fit to close the school. There is an opportunity now of providing the necessary amenities—proper housing, decent halls and also water supplies. The old pipes were laid on forty years ago and they are leaking; the staff have to pay for water, and they lose nearly half the water because the pipes leak. From year to year we have had promises made in regard to Grootfontein but the position is just as bad as ever. I hope the new Minister will do all he possibly can to improve the position. I also want to ask whether it is not possible to give the agricultural schools a higher status. Today their status is not even that of a high school. The examinations of agricultural schools are not recognised by the universities. There is no connecting point. In Australia there are connecting points. We realise that a pupil must have reached a certain stage of education. For the universities for instance the student must have passed his matric, but we feel that when students at the agricultural colleges have taken the practical course and want to take the B.Sc. degree at the university, their training in the agricultural school should be taken into consideration. You get students who have taken the diploma course at the agricultural school, but it counts for no more than a foreman’s certificate. It is not possible to get a connecting point with the universities and to give the agricultural schools a higher status? There is another point I want to mention and that is that I feel the principals of agricultural schools have not got sufficient power. Say for instance an application is received from a wool-growers’ organisation for an extension officer to visit them, that request first of all has to be sent to Pretoria and it has to be decided there whether or not somebody is to be sent. It means a lot of loss of time. I think the principal should have greater powers in that respect. I also feel that we should do a lot more research work on the subject of parasites. The blow fly plague is a terrible thing. It gives the farmers a lot of trouble and more research work is required. Unfortunately we are only realising now, after seven years of research, that we have followed the wrong course all these years. Certain types of flies have been killed which should not have been killed, and a totally different system is now pursued. The matter is so serious, however, that I feel the Minister must provide a lot more money for combating insect plagues. It is not only the blow fly but also the cut worm which is becoming a problem. The cut worm is becoming a serious menace, worse even than the locusts. In the Karoo we have the ordinary cut worm and in the North they have the army worm, which they say carries a V on its head, and which destroys everything and eats everything in its way. We hope the Minister will give his attention to that as well.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. members on this side have said about the closing of the agricultural schools. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that already there are more applications for admission to the agricultural schools than there is accommodation, and I think that by the unforgivable deed committed by the Government in closing the agricultural schools at this stage great harm has been done to the farming community. The farming community will suffer for many years as a result. I want to ask the Minister immediately to re-open the agricultural schools. Secondly, I want to advocate the appointment of additional extension officers. There are far too few of them. We need them in almost every constituency, but particularly in the North-West with its far-flung areas where many farmers require instruction and help. I therefore urge the appointment of additional extension officers. Another question I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is that of the short course, the five days’ course in wool and sheep. If we go to those distant areas, to those farmers who did not grow up in the days when the agricultural schools were so very popular, we find that these people have benefited considerably from what they have learnt at these short courses. I want to ask the Minister, even if he does not open the agricultural schools, at any rate to make provision for these short courses in wool. Our wool is sold on a type basis and 80 per cent. of the farmers do not know how to classify the wool. That is where these short courses are so useful—the farmer can be taught in his own surroundings how to classify his wool. I want to ask the Minister very earnestly to give this matter his attention.

In regard to the questions which were asked by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) about the number of professors at Stellenbosch, I want to say that so far as we are concerned there are still nine. The number has not been reduced. Only eight are mentioned on this vote because one of them has become Director of the Viticultural Institute. His salary is therefore not accounted for as that of a professor. So far as the agricultural colleges are concerned, the short courses have also been stopped. The only short course which is held is that for grain graders and that only lasts a few months. As to the question of re-opening the colleges, which was raised by a number of hon. members, they will realise, of course, that that is a question of Government policy. The decision was arrived at after the Government had gone into the whole matter. It was done during the time of my predecessor. All I can say at this stage is that I shall go very thoroughly into the whole matter. That is all I can say. I agree with what appears in the report of the Committee on the reconstruction of agriculture—that it is a matter which we should give our serious attention to. They advise us to do so and they also advise us to give more instruction in those colleges. I promise to go very carefully into the matter. The hon. member also asked how many students there are in the colleges now. There are no students. As regards the specific plea of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) regarding the Grootfontein College I shall go into the whole position. I cannot make any promise at this stage. The matter will be enquired into and we shall see whether anything can be done.

The position there is worse than I have even told the House.

I am surprised to hear it, but I accept what the hon. member tells me. On the question of extension services, mentioned by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) the Department fully realises the importance of those services, but we are somewhat short of staff. We will also give that question our attention and as far as possible we shall provide extended services.

†Then the question raised by the hon. member for Maritzburg (City) (Col. O. L. Shearer) is one which has already been raised on the previous vote by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett). I said in reply to the hon. member that I was impressed by the case made out for an agricultural faculty in Natal and that the matter would be fully investigated during the recess. Should I come to the conclusion that there should be a faculty in Natal I cannot, however, hold out any hope that that faculty will be provided while the war is on. My hon. friend will realise the difficulties there are—it will require a considerable amount of financing and other things, but the matter will be thoroughly investigated with a view to seeing whether Natal should not get its own agricultural faculty.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 21.—“Agriculture (General)”, £3,364,000, †*Gen. KEMP : Just a few questions to the Minister. He knows that we on this side have advocated the abolition of the meatless day. There is a small amount on the Estimates—a nominal amount—for the export subsidy on meat. If there is still any idea of exporting meat then I feel the Minister can comply with the request made by this side to do away with the meatless days. I do not think we can think of the export of meat in times like these. Only £10 is put on the Estimates for the purpose but we first of all want to provide for the needs of our own country before we proceed to export meat. Then there is an amount of £1,100 on the Estimates in regard to Railway Rebates for meat in the Protectorates and Rhodesia. I feel that those people have had such great advantages in regard to the sale of meat that I doubt whether it is desirable to continue paying this subsidy. This amount can be done away with and can be used for local purposes. The third point I want to raise is in connection with the amount of £45,000 for the purchase of stock for the improvement of our herds. This amount was £60,000 and has now been reduced to £45,000. I don’t want to go into the whole subject but I want to say to the Minister that he should expand this scheme instead of curtailing it. I hope he will see to that because the scheme has worked well in the past. I also want to advocate the proper application of the scheme. It has cost the State hundreds of thousands of pounds and it is no use neglecting the work and not having it applied properly now, if people are allowed to keep bulls which are not well bred. If that is done we will get a worse type of cattle. Then I come to the crossing of cattle. The department should go into that because I am afraid that the crossing is being tackled from the wrong end. There is another question I want to raise—it is in regard to the dairy products coming into this country from South-West Africa in respect of which a subsidy of £20,000 is being paid. I know that this is connected with a former agreement but the question arises whether we are justified in continuing this in view of the fact that there is actually a shortage of dairy products; the report of the Committee appointed by the Minister has pointed out that more dairy products are needed in this country, in spite of which we are continuing with this scheme under which we are paying out £20,000 in respect of dairy products imported from South-West Africa. I feel the time has come to delete this amount from the Estimates. I am only putting these few questions because I do not want to take up the time of the House.

There are only two features to which I want to draw the notice of the Minister. The first is in connection with bull subsidies. The position has become rather difficult so far as we are concerned and it is one which we do not understand. Up to a point those who are in charge of the districts that have been proclaimed under the Cattle Improvement Act were vigilant as far as the introduction of unapproved bulls was concerned, but today we have the position whereby those districts which were proclaimed in the earlier days received practically no attention at all, with the result that numerous and undesirous bulls are coming in. Now, this is the position. The expense in connection with these cattle improvement areas has run into quarter of a million pounds, and all that money is going to be lost unless you have prosecutions and you make it a criminal offence for a person to harbour any bull which has not been approved of. I would urge the Minister to take the matter in hand. I don’t know who is responsible but it is common talk that no one is responsible, and it is suggested that a policeman cannot take action. If that is the case I hope the Minister will investigate the position at once and make it a criminal offence for bulls to be allowed to roam about at large. It should be made a criminal offence for anyone to harbour these bulls. There is one other item and that is the question under (g) Subsidy in respect of Railway rates. It is a matter which has agitated my mind for a considerable time, and when you look into the matter you find that this subsidy represents a subsidy to the platteland only in that in those far-flung areas the wool growers get what practically amounts to a 90 per cent. subsidy on wool by way of Railway Rebates. You find at the same time that the bulk of the products produced by these far-flung areas are delivered at a flat rate at the coast. You have those areas sending their products down at very low rates, whereas the other areas such as the one I represent, if they send any pro ducts to the interior, have to pay the full rate. In view of the fact that a meat scheme is about to be introduced I would ask the Minister to consider the introduction of some equalisation scheme whereby those areas such as the ones I represent, and other Border members represent, might also enjoy the privileges of subsidies on the products which we are producing. Today these privileges are enjoyed by one section of the community — the amount set down is £1,159,000 and that amount goes to the benefit of those far-flung areas which enjoy low Railway rates whereas areas such as the one I represent have no such advantages. I would therefore ask the Minister to consider the introduction of an equalisation scheme whereby we can all enjoy the privileges of these subsidies and the other benefits which these other areas are today enjoying.

There is just one matter I want to raise—the question of the meatless day. I know that this side has already made representations to the Minister about the abolition of that day and I want to ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the position of those areas which are far away from the coast.

Which item is the hon. member discussing?

I am discussing it under general expenditure.

The hon. member cannot discuss it under that head.

Cannot I discuss it under the subsidy for the export of meat?

The subsidy on meat has no connection with the meatless day.

It is a general question.

No, the hon. member cannot pursue that point.

I wish to discuss the subsidy on butter fat. I want to make it plain that that is not a subsidy to dairy farmers, it is purely a subsidy to the consumers to keep down the price of butter. We know that this is a war measure and is not likely to continue after the war. What we are anxious to do is this: We don’t want subsidies but we want to be able to reduce the cost of production of butter fat. For that reason the Minister and the Department have introduced a scheme of official milk recording of all dairy herds. The trouble is that the official milk recording cannot cover all the dairy herds in the country and we have been asked by our societies—not only the Friesland Breed Society, of which I am a member, but also the Jersey Breed Society and Ayrshire Society which are interested in the production of dairy products, that the milk recording scheme should be extended so as to enable us to test practically all the dairy herds in the country. That can only be done if it is done at a nominal cost, but we find today that we cannot get these services because there are not the necessary men available. There are not men available because men will not take these posts. The pay is inadequate and there is no provision made for them for the future. They are on a temporary basis and cannot make a career in the department as milk recorders. My Association at the last annual meeting passed a unanimous motion that we ask the Government to improve the position of our milk recorders so as to make it more attractive, so that we can get better men, men who have to be skilled to undertake this valuable service in the interests of the producer. Now, what I want to point out is that unless we can have universal milk recording we can never get at the position of improving our cows as producers—which cows produce at a profit and which produce at a loss. And if we could raise the production of our dairy herd by one gallon per day it would go a long way towards reducing the cost of milk in this country. Unless we take steps such as I have indicated there is very little prospect for the industry reducing production costs. I hope the Minister will consult his Dairy Division and see if more cannot be done to make this service more attractive to the men who do this work, and also to make this recording scheme universal. The position today is that many farmers are keeping cows in their dairy herds which are costing them money instead of giving them a profit, and that, of course, raises the cost of production. It is not that the farmers are inefficient, but the cattle are, and it is only by a service of this kind that you can make your cattle efficient. We are always told that we must reduce our costs of production and this is the only way it can be done by raising production, and I hope the Minister who is interested in cheap foodstuffs for the townspeople will help us to reduce our cost of dairy production by giving us an adequate service for milk recording and a suitable staff, who will work under better conditions than they do at present, to encourage good men to take up that valuable work. I think the Minister is sympathetic and is likely to do something in this matter. If he does then I feel that a good service has been done by my raising this matter in the House to improse the production of our dairy herds.

I just want to reply to a few of the questions which were asked since I last spoke. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) asked me a question about the export subsidy on meat. There is an amount here of only £10 to keep the item alive. No meat is being exported. In regard to the subsidy or the rebate on meat from Rhodesia I want to say that that is part of an agreement. The £20,000 on the butter from South-West Africa is put down for the purpose of compensating Union farmers for butter imported from South-West Africa.

No butter is being exported now,

No, not at the moment, but South-West Africa still has a small market in the Union. I shall reconsider this whole matter. This is in terms of an agreement with the Dairy Board which we cannot just lightly put aside.

Will you reconsider the matter?

Yes.

†The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) has raised this question of the inadequacy of staff for the milk recording scheme. I don’t know that it comes under this Vote, but as he has raised it I can tell him that we shall go into it and see if we can get any additional staff. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown in connection with bull subsidies and the fact that bulls are permitted into improved areas—not the better type of bulls, but serub bulls—I mentioned earlier on that owing to the shortage of good bulls the Government as a purely temporary measure, decided not to continue with the prosecutions and permitted other bulls to be used.

That’s very wrong.

Yes, but in these times of emergency one sometimes has to do things which in normal times are not permitted. But the matter will be considered again with a view to seeing when a tightening up can take place. Insofar as the subsidies on Railway rates are concerned, the position is that there is a rebate of 50 per cent. on slaughter stock as well, and that accounts for a great portion of this amount. I think that covers the points raised.

In regard to the bull subsidy I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that very important and excellent work has been done so far and that it would be destroyed by the withdrawal of this subsidy. As the Minister knows, there is a severe shortage of good bulls in the Union, and also in areas to the north of the Union, and those areas will come to the Union to find good bulls here. We are destroying our own future by allowing farmers to use bulls which are of such a quality that they will deteriorate our herds.

We are looking into this question.

Yes, we appreciate that. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the shortage of bull graders. We have not got sufficient officials to do this work. In my constituency many highly bred bulls are supplied, and we sometimes find that there is considerable delay in getting inspectors or graders to come and approve of these bulls. The breeders prepare the bulls for the inspector and the buyers want the bulls because they need them, and then we find that there is such a scarcity of inspectors that the breeders are kept waiting from three to five months. The Minister will realise the heavy losses this sort of thing causes and we shall be glad if he will give it his attention.

I don’t feel satisfied with the reply I got from the Minister. The country has benefited considerably by the introduction of this Cattle Improvement Act and by the expenditure of £250,000. And the introduction of a high quality bull into these areas for the improvement of South Africa. Where you have a community grazing such as you have in many of the areas with which I am concerned, the introduction of scrub bulls from the Transkei is all wrong. They come in just as they like. We are merely asking that you should make it a criminal offence.

I have promised to go into it again; it is not my policy to let that go on.

Very well, if the Minister will take steps then I am satisfied.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22.—“Agriculture (Forestry),” £398,900,

The Department of Forestry is the biggest employer in my con stituency. It is by far the biggest employer, and the happiness and welfare of the people in the whole area therefore depends on how the Department of Forestry treats its workers. If the Department of Forestry pays decent wages to its workers and takes care of their health the people in that area are healthy, strong and happy. If it treats its workers badly they suffer from diseases, malnutrition and other ailments. I want to make this statement, that if anything is wrong with the health of the people in my constituency, the Department of Forestry must bear the blame, and the Department of Forestry principally. Anyone who has visited those parts will tell you that it is one of the most beautiful parts which nature created. There is not one part of the Union where the scenery is so beautiful, and on the other hand, where the people are so impoverished and so neglected. It is a part of which one can say with justification that “every prospect pleases and only man is vile.” The fact that “man is vile” is the fault of the Department of Forestry. That is the first proposition I want to put, The Department of Forestry cannot escape that responsibility. Extenuating circumstances may be pleaded for the manner in which those people were treated in the past. Forestry is a long term investment. One has to spend a great deal of money, and one gets a return only after many years, and the Department of Forestry has therefore had to spend a great deal of money over a series of years, over 20 or 25 years; no revenue came in, and it stands to reason that there may have been complaints within the Government and outside Government circles in regard to the amount of money spent, but as the result of that position, a spirit crept into the Department of Forestry, a spirit under which the worker in its employ was treated not as a human being, but as an animal. If the Department of Forestry can in any way wrong its workers, it does so. That is a terrible accusation to make against the Department, but I accuse the Forestry Department of being the hardest department of all State departments. It does not take care of the health of its workers. The Department gives them nothing while they work, and in their old days after having given their strength and health to the Forestry Department, the Department simply washes its hands of these people. Thank God, today there is a Department of Social Welfare which can take care of these people in their old age; and when after 24 years’ service they are entitled to a gratuity, the Forestry Department tries in every way to avoid paying the gratuity which is due to those people. There is no semblance of sympathy or kindliness in the actions of the Department. That is the reputation of the Forestry Department, not only amongst its own workers. That is the reputation it has with everyone who has a knowledge of the conditions. As I have said, perhaps there was an excuse for that type of action in the past, because a great deal of money had to be spent and no revenue came in. But that excuse can no longer be advanced today, because Forestry is becoming one of the best paying Departments of the State. We notice that the income of the Forestry Department is £1,250,000; the expenditure amounts to only £300,000; in other words, here we have the beginning of a new chapter in the history of Forestry; that is to say, where Forestry will now be in a position to treat its workers decently and will not be able to say that they have not got the money or anything of that sort. Now I want to ask the Minister this. We ask only this: In the first place, Forestry must start to treat its workers well as other State Departments do. I want to ask the Minister whether we are asking too much in asking that. Last year we raised the question of wages, and the Minister admitted in this House that the difference between the wages and the general treatment of the railway workers and the workers under the Department of Forestry was too great.

Not the present Minister.

“The King never dies.”

Everyone understands that we are referring to the previous Minister.

The present Minister is responsible for what his predecessor did. The Minister admitted last year that the difference between the wages of the railway workers and of the forestry workers was too great, and I want to admit frankly that during the recess an improvement was brought about. Five years ago the commencing wage of these people was 4s. 6d. per day. After a year’s service they could progress to 5s. per day. It was then raised by 6d. The initial wage was raised to 5s. per day; after a year’s service the worker can then go up to 5S. 6d., and there the poor devil remains until he dies. During the recess a slight improvement was brought about. The wage has now been increased to 7s. after two years’ service. But, when the worker received 5s. 6d. per day, he could get a free house when it was available, and a free house is reckoned at 6d. per day; in actual fact, therefore, he received 6s. per day. Now he gets 7s. without a house.

Or 6s. 6d. per day with a free house.

It amounts to this, that the man who lives in a house belonging to the Administration received an increase of 6d. I would like the Minister to know that the majority of the houses in which these people live are houses which they themselves put up. The Forestry Department did not build these houses. The houses in which they live represent their own handiwork. I want to put this to the Minister : The Forestry Department can afford it; let the Forestry Department decide to turn over a new leaf. [Time limit.]

We have listened to hard words from the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). Partially I can agree with him, but with regard to the one portion of his speech, where he intimated that George is the most beautiful part of this country, there I cannot agree with him. He must come to Barberton. What the hon. member said here is absolutely true, and no one can deny that the Department of Forestry is the hardest employer in the whole country. We must face that fact. I want to ask the hon. Minister how one can expect the forestry worker to live and to rear his family, even on the increased wages which have been granted during the recess? We are dealing today with a baby which was brought into this world by someone else twenty years ago, and at that time the forestry settlements were established to create voting material; not to give a decent livelihood to Europeans but to use them as voting material. And the State derived the benefit from it.

Is that not an unfair accusation?

The settlements were established to serve as voting material.

How do you know that?

I know it.

Twenty years ago the present Prime Minister was also Prime Minister.

Whatever the position is the fact remains that those people cannot live on these wages. We must face that fact today. Those plantations are today yielding a profit to the State. It is a profitable business, and the plantations in my constituency are worth millions and tens of millions of pounds to the State today, and we must give those people decent wages and decent conditions of employment. They are unable to live on the wages which they receive at present. I want to explain to the Minister what happens. Those people have to do a certain amount of work every day, and it is laid down in terms of cubic feet. It is very strenuous work. The worker’s health suffers. When he is promoted to the position of lorry dirver his salary is increased by 1s. per day, but then he loses the privilege of getting a free house; he does not get free medical treatment, and taking everything into consideration, he is in a worse position than the ordinary forester. And now I want to say a few words in regard to the houses of these people. Does the Minister realise that there is not a single house which has a bathroom on those settlements in my district? I do not think the officials of the department live under those conditions. Surely it must be realised that those people are at least entitled after a day’s hard work to come home and take a hot bath. They must be able to have a hot bath in the evening, especially during the winter months. But there is not a single house which has a bathroom. The man has to walk to a place where baths have been put up, and there he has to wash himself. At one time I, too, had settlements in my constituency, and without a single exception not one of the houses had bathrooms. Then the houses are far too small for the families of these people. It means that boys and girls have to sleep in the same room, and we can no longer allow Europeans to live under those conditions in South Africa.

But you are still a Nationalist!

Then I come to the saw mills. Saw mills are erected at Elandshoek and various other places. The people at the saw mills do very strenuous work, but their pay is absolutely scandalous. We have one foreman there, a trained forestry official, and his wage is £11 per month; and I want to ask the Minister whether any young man who starts out in life and who has the training which this man has, has any future at a wage of £11 per month. We have repeatedly spoken in regard to the saw mills. Two of them are situated within the malaria belt, but the workers at those mills do not receive any climatic allowance. Because the saw mills are in a line with another farm, they cannot get the climatic allowance. Then I want to touch upon a matter to which reference is made in a report to the department in regard to the reconstruction of agriculture. On page 28 we read—

I hope the Minister will go into that position very seriously. The obstruction of our water sources is a very serious matter. Effect is not being, given to the legislative policy. It is absolutely scandalous to see how the plan tations in the ravines which have to provide our water burn out year after year, and nothing is done to combat it. The position is very serious, and our water sources are threatened. Then there is the planting of trees. That is a question which must be investigated with a view to seeing whether the trees which are planted by the Forestry Department do not draw out the water. If those trees draw out the water we shall be faced with a serious threat in the future. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to invite the Minister to visit that constituency during the recess, and it will be a pleasure to me to go round with him so that he can see the conditions at those settlements and at the saw mills, so that he can see under which conditions those people have to live. It will be a pleasure for me to do so. Then I want to point out to him the poor business lines on which the Department of Forestry has proceeded in connection with the establishment of their saw mills, miles from the railways. Then there is something which I forgot to mention in connection with the workers, and that is the leave which is granted to the people at the settlements. These people work from January to December, and they are only entitled to four holidays during the year, which are laid down. That is the only leave to which they are entitled, and I want to ask whether the time has not arrived when these people are entitled to fourteen days’ leave on full pay.

The people who are in the employ of the Department of Forestry in the constituency which I represent and in the constituency of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) are not in the same position as those who are in the employ of the department in the constituency of Barberton. In Barberton you have the worker who is usually known as the forestry settler. That is a man who lives on a forestry settlement and who receives a certain fixed wage which is higher than that received by the people in our constituencies. Furthermore, they are entitled to certain benefits such as medical aid and nursing, and they are entitled to various other privileges. The people who work in the constituencies of George and Knysna are those who are usually referred to as plantation labourers, a type of casualpermanent person in the employ of the department. I say casual-permanent, not because he works one day and stays away the next, but because he is really in the permanent employ of, the department, but the department does not regard him as being on the fixed staff, but as a casual worker, and he does not get the privileges given to the permanent worker. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer), in complaining about the wages and working conditions of the forestry workers in Barberton is quite correct. I also had one or two of those settlements in my constituency. The hon. member is correct, but if he is correct in advancing the plea that those people are labouring, under difficulties, we are doubly entitled to say that the plantation workers are working under difficulties. I accept everything which the hon. member said, but in the majority of cases the plantation labourers that we have in our constituencies do not get a house to live in. They get no medical treatment. And in the third place, they get no nursing. There are nurses at the other forestry stations and the forestry settler is entitled to a certain number of days sick leave every year, which these people do not get. There is a fiction that the plantation labourer can get leave, and the fiction is this, that if he has worked the whole year without being absent from his work for a single day, he is entitled to sick leave; but the reason is this : He does not work on the day after New Year because when he arrives at his station there is no one to give him work, and there is a fiction, therefore, that he is entitled to sick leave. I saw a very interesting thing in my constituency. We want to uplift these people; and in that connection I would very much like the Minister to read the two reports which were brought out in regard to those areas in the past six or eight years. The first is the report of the Stals Commission, which made very thorough investigations and a large number of recommendations.

When was that?

I think it was in 1936. The second report is a departmental report. An investigation was carried out by the Secretary for Agriculture and the Secretary for Social Welfare. The Minister must read those two reports, because I think the Minister wants those people to be uplifted. Today there are private individuals who are doing that work. There are private individuals who are engaged in taking these Europeans who work for the department, housing them properly, giving them proper medical and dental services and paying them decent salaries. I would like to take the Minister to those people who are today employed by private employers, and then to the people who are still in the employ of the department, and then he will see what a great difference there is. The private people who employ these workers and give them these services are paid back over and over again for the services which they provide to these people. One cannot have a decent worker if one does not pay him decent wages, if one does not give him sufficient food, if one does not give him health services, if one does not house him properly. Our plea is that these people should receive as a minimum the same as the railway workers; and it is a poor comparison to contrast them with the railway workers. They are not treated as well as the railway workers, and the work which they do is much more detrimental to their health. I shall tell the Minister why I say that this work is detrimental to their health. A great deal of this work is done in damp conditions. These people are often sopping wet from the waist downwards. They do not even get rubber shoes from the Department. They have to work the whole day in these damp conditions. I think probably 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the people above the age of 50 years suffer from rheumatism or asthma or bronchitis, and. That is primarily due to the conditions under which they work. Let us give them sufficient food; and we can only give them sufficient food if we pay them enough. Those people can work. The Secretary for Social Welfare who thought that he was dealing with a type of poor white, told me and the hon. member for George at the end of the tour that it was a revelation to him. These were his words: “These people are not a burden to the country. They are a great asset to the country.” But we must make use of that asset, and the first step which we must take is to give those people an adequate wage with which they can buy sufficient food. And the second is this, that these people must be enabled to live decently. The Department must provide for housing for these people, and houses which are fit enough for a European to live in, and to retain his self-respect and to rear his children, The third is that we must take care of the health of those people, and we must do so by making available medical and nursing services. But what is even more important is to give them adequate leave. Fourteen days’ leave is not enough for that arduous work. I know of one man who has to rise at 3 o’clock in the morning in order to get to his work, and at the end of the day’s work he reaches home between 9 and 10 o’clock, and the only time which he has to rest is between 9 or 10 o’clock in the evening and 3 o’clock in the morning. These people have to walk to their work, or go by bicycle. They have to go down hill and up hill; they have to walk for hours deep down in the ravines.

They are tired when they get to their work.

When they get to their work they are already tired. We must give those people a proper holiday. We must give them a chance to rest properly, and we must pay them for that rest, because they need it. They need that rest in order to enable them to carry on with their work. Then we must give them sick leave. Those people of whom the hon. member for Barberton spoke are entitled to sick leave over a period of two or three years; I am not quite certain. Perhaps it is two weeks in a period of three years. But these people who work in the plantations do not get any leave. We must give them that sick leave on full pay. Furthermore, we must make it possible for those people to receive medical treatment. The medical treatment which they get at the moment is nil. This poor man has to send for the doctor himself, when anything goes wrong with him. Because he has to pay for medical treatment himself, he waits until he has one foot in the grave before he sends for the doctor, because he cannot afford it. In many cases it takes two months’ wages to pay the doctor’s bill. This is a long extended coast line, and the doctors are at the two points. The doctors are 60 or 70 miles away from these people. The position is so serious that private people are now establishing clinics and collecting money so that they can engage doctors to treat these people. This is not the work of private people; it is the Department’s duty. Private people now have to erect clinics because they are ashamed of the conditions which exist there. We cannot allow that type of thing. The position is different today. In the old days there was a certain amount of justification for treating these people so badly, because there was only expenditure and no income, but today it is a Department which makes nearly £1,000,000 profit per annum on sweated labour.

This is only the beginning.

This will be the position for at least ten years. They are only beginning to cut down the trees. There will be more trees every year, and the profits will become greater every year—and that on sweated labour. The Government of the country must set an example to the private employers. It has not got the right to go to the private employer and say: “You must create this or that condition for your employees.” The State only has the right to say that if it sets an example. [Time limit.]

This question of the pay, and the working conditions of the labourers in Government plantations, which hon. members have raised, is an important orie. I have a mass of information here to show the extent of the improvement effected since last year when the matter was brought up in this House, and to show how the position of these people compares with that of other labourers employed on Government work. I would prefer, however, not to go into that and not to defend the mattér from that point of view today. I am prepared to go into the whole question during the recess, but I would say this, that I would not feel very happy if I arrived at the conclusion that the position is as hon. members have said it is, namely, that I am in charge of a Government Department whose workers are paid worse than those in any other Government Department. I don’t think I need say any more at this stage. I shall carefully study the two reports referred to by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and I hope to have an opportunity of personally seeing at any rate some of the settlements, and of seeing for myself under what conditions those people are working. I am anxious to see what facilities they have and so on. After that has been done I shall be in a better position to decide whether these people are being properly paid or not, and if they are not adequately paid I shall certainly take steps to get better pay for them. I think that is all I can say about the matter at this stage.

I am sorry the Minister has replied, because there are a number of points I wanted to raise over and above those raised by previous speakers. However, as the case has been represented, I shall not waste time on those particular items by making further representations. There is, however, one item that I think important, and that is in respect of those large estates, where saw milling companies are in operation. It would appear that the State is completely exempt from Wage Determination Acts, because men are doing skilled work there, artisans’ work, at anything from 7s. 6d. to 15s. a day. I do not think that this state of affairs should be allowed to exist, and that it requires remedying, particularly in view of the fact that at most of the State’s saw mills there are large areas of timber which will last for the next twenty or thirty years. One thing was very noticeable at the opening of this debate. It was obvious that some members of the House have not yet seen the best part of South Africa.

What do you mean by saying that?

I mean just what I said. The chief item I want to bring to the notice is that the chief forest officers are housed more or less permanently in the areas they control, and I would like the Minister to consider the provision of permanent dwellings for them. In making that request may I assure him there are instances where these officers must be housed in the bigger centres and where rent represents as much as 25 per cent. of their salaries. In those circumstances I think I am justified in asking the Minister to give that item some consideration. It will not involve much expenditure, as the bulk of the material can be provided as the Minister will see when he visits those State saw mills. Lastly, I want to deal with the question of the native employees on those saw mills. The policy is at present that these natives can be housed anywhere in proximity to the Forest Department’s lands, but not on the Forest Department’s lands, with the result that the farming community in those areas are landed with their womenfolk, and this sets up an unhealthy state of affairs which we have jibbed at from time to time, and which we are now making a vigorous protest against. We ask the Minister that these natives be housed in model villages in close proximity to their work, and thus relieve the farmers in the area from that unhealthy form of illegal squatting. There again we are not asking the Minister for a great deal, and if he will investigate the circumstances that justify the adoption of our recommendation he will at least be setting an example to many other Government departments that shift the responsibility of the housing of their native employees on to other people.

I just want to tell the Minister that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and myself -are grateful for the spirit which he has shown here this afternoon and because he has displayed that spirit we do not propose continuing this debate any further this afternoon. We only hope that if the Minister decides to visit those areass he will not only just go to Barberton, but that he will also go to George, because, as the hon. member for Humansdorp has explained, conditions prevailing in our part of the country are entirely different to those in Barberton. The hon. member for Humansdorp and myself want to invite the Minister kindly to come to the most beautiful part of South Africa and we can assure him that the workers will be very glad to receive him. We hope that if he comes there he will particularly go and see the Government Saw Mills. I just want to try to give the Minister some idea of the conditions prevailing there. In order to preserve the timber it is dipped in, creosote or domosite. The latter is the more dangerous of the two poisons; it is so dangerous a poison that if a drop of it touches the skin it immediately creates festering sores; and if any quantity touches a person his whole body becomes covered with festering sores. These people have to work at those tanks and they cannot help coming in contact with this poison. I can tell the Minister that there have been many cases of men who suddenly found their whole bodies covered with these festering sores, yet such a man has not been given a day’s sick leave, and the department has even refused to pay his doctor’s account. The man has not even been paid for the days he was away from work. That, in spite of the fact that that man had been working with one of the most dangerous poisons one can handle. Those are the conditions prevailing at the Government Saw Mills. If the Minister comes to George I shall be able to convince him fully of what the position is there. They refuse to give a man a day’s sick leave and they refuse to contribute a single penny to his doctor’s account. Anyhow, I do not propose going any further into the matter seeing the Minister has given us this promise.

I don’t want to detain the House but I just want to say a word in support of what hon. members have said about the wages of plantation workers. These people get a certain amount per day but if it rains they get nothing. In my constituency, at French Hoek for instance it often rains for a whole week on end, or for four days in a week, and in that case these people only get a few shillings, they only get paid for the days they work. I think one should take this into account. If weather conditions prevent people from going to work when they are willing to go and work they should at any rate get half pay, or something of the kind. I also want to refer to the point which the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has mentioned, that these men sometimes work from four to six miles away from their homes. That is the position in some cases on the La Motte Settlement. Those people have no bicycles, Or if they have bicycles they cannot use them when it rains. The Forestry Department has a lorry, but on rainy days these men have to walk and the lorry goes ahead. I complained to the Minister and the position has since been somewhat improved, but none the less it is by no means what it should be. As hon. members have said, it is perfectly correct that this type of work knocks up these people. If they are there for ten years they start getting cramp and other troubles, and they cannot be employed on any other work. The department cannot keep them there, they get no pension, perhaps they get £50 or £60 out of the fund to which they contribute, and then they are stuck with their family and cannot find work anywhere else. I hope the Minister will also give his attention to these few points.

In view of the recommendations that have been made in the reports of the various Commissions that have sat from time to time on the subject of afforestation I trust that the Minister will consider the importance of affording it the greatest possible encouragement. When we consider that of the total area of the Union of South Africa only 1,500,000 acres are under afforestation I think we must recognise that in this respect we are very backward indeed. Today only 2 per cent of the total area of our country is under afforestation, as compared with South America’s 46 per cent., North America’s 26 per cent., Europe’s 20 per cent., and Australia’s 12 per cent. I recognise, that the arable areas suitable for afforestation in this country are limited to our eastern areas, the Knysna area, the strip between the Cape and Natal and the Drakensberg. Our difficulty in producing timber for commercial purposes is that we have not a commensurate rainfall, namely, 30 to 35 inches. But I would like to ask the Minister to do everything he can to encourage private enterprise. As far as my constituency is concerned it is private enterprise that has taken up afforestation in that area, Zululand. A few years ago we started planting saligna gum. Today there are 40,000 acres under timber. Many other varieties of timber have also been planted. That is one area particularly suited to private enterprise, and it would be quite easy to put down another 100,000 acres of timber. But what the pioneers in Zululand are concerned with particularly is whether the timber growers will get a fair chance in the post-war period. We realise that this country is a big importer of timber, and I should like the Government and the Minister to know that if private enterprise in this area reacts to the encouragement recommended in these reports their anxieties will be removed. In a few years’ time they may need protection on the South African market for their timber. Otherwise their money will be going down the drain. I hope that the Minister will study the matter very carefully, and if the Agricultural Department will put into effect some of the recommendations in this report on agricultural reconstruction, it will go a long way not only to put afforestation on a proper basis, but to put the whole agricultural policy of. the country on a better basis than it is at present. I should like to quote paragraph 151 of that report—

I think we must agree that the question of encouraging private enterprise as far as afforestation is concerned is one of the things that is not only going to create employment, but that will go a long way towards making a contribution to the rehabilitation of our country, and to an increase in our national income. I sincerely hope the Minister will do everything he possibly can to assure these pioneers of afforestation in various parts of the country that they will have adequate protection in the post-war period against imported timber.

There is one question on which we are not quite clear. The Railway Administration had certain plantations which were laid out for the growing of timber for sleepers. During the past few years the Forestry Department has taken over some of these plantations. What we want to know is why the Forestry Department has not taken over all the plantations : Surely it is the Forestry Department’s work, and although the Railways originally started certain plantations for the purpose of producing sleepers, we shall be glad to hear why only some and not all of those plantations were taken over by the Forestry Department. Afforestation surely is not the work of the Transport Department. I am sorry the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) is not here, but he made a few remarks which to my mind are not quite just, and which should be answered very briefly. He accused this side and gave the impression that we were responsible for the low pay of the forest workers. The hon. member must admit that twenty years ago, when the work was started, it was an experiment—it was only a beginning. The work was started on the scale which the authorities could afford at the time. But the step taken at the time has been more than justified by results. The hon. member himself has admitted that we are only at the beginning of the development in regard to the cutting of trees, and that already it is giving a profit of £1,000,000 per year. That goes to prove that the party which was in power twenty years ago initiated a very wise policy, but conditions twenty years ago were entirely different from what they are today. In those days there was no profit on which we could carry on, but today there are profits which can be used to help, the workers, because it is the workers who have helped to make those profits. I feel that the hon. member’s remarks were somewhat misplaced. He says that we settled those forest workers there because we wanted “voting cattle.” The hon. member admitted that he was a Nationalist in those days. Perhaps that was his intention, but it certainly was not our idea. We are grateful to the Minister for taking up a more human attitude in regard to these forest workers. They are a necessary part of the population, they are doing good work for the State, and we are grateful to the Minister for the fact that he is considering them and wants to improve their conditions.

The position is not that the Forestry Department has not taken over all the Railway plantations. All these plantations come under my Department, with the exception of a small experimental plantation in the Cedarberg which has been set aside for a railway, but otherwise all of them come under the Department of Forestry.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23.—“Transport”, £262,500,

In moving this I should like to make one or two very brief remarks. I wish to explain that the funds detailed here cover sub-heads A. 1—5, which have become necessary, as this House knows, as a result of the Department of Transport taking over the National Roads Board, the Central Road Transportation Board, the Directorate of Civil Aviation, the South African Shipping Board, the Perishable Products Export Control Board, the Tourist Development Corporation, the office of the Controller of Transport and Government Garages, the Union Motor Transport Board, the National Road Transportation Council, and the National Road Transportation Advisory Committee. In regard to sub-head A.1 I would like to explain that apart from the post of Secretary for Transport no posts have yet been created on the establishment of this department, and the provision of £5,500 is therefore purely nominal. It is provision against the time when the department is formally created. Sub-head A.3 includes the telegraph and telephone service in respect of Road Transportation Boards, the Directorate of Civil Aviation, the South African Shipping Board, and the National Roads Transportation Council. Sub-head A.5 makes nominal provision for the Civil Air Board. That board is in suspense. The functions of the board were taken over by the Defence Department at the beginning of the war. This vote is in case it should be necessary to start some of their activities during the twelve months, and we have made the nominal provision of £1,000. I should like to explain, in conclusion, that provision for the expenses of Road Transportation Board, the South African Shipping Board, the Perishable Products Export Control Board and the National Road Transportation Council and Advisory Committee could not be made in these estimates as the laws governing these organisations provide that their expenditure be defrayed from the Railways and Harbours Fund. The law which this House has now altered and which is now being put into formal effect, changes this, but it will be necessary to bring the expenses of these departments up not in these estimates but in the supplementary estimates later on in the session, when the House will be able to discuss these votes in detail. I now move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again: House to resume in Committee on 10th April.