I move—

Mr. SPEAKER called upon the members who were willing to allow the motion for the adjournment to be put, to rise in their places.

Upwards of fifteen members having so risen, the motion for the adjournment was then put.

I feel that both sides of the House are grateful that you found it possible to allow discussion in this manner on this important matter this morning. I think hon. members on both sides of the House felt, after the Minister of Agriculture had announced his policy yesterday in regard to this important subject, that it was necessary for the House to consider this matter, and do so quickly, not only insofar as it affects members of the House with regard to their interest in the matter, but also insofar as this is a question which intimately affects large sections of the population in South Africa. I think I am putting the matter correctly when I say that, in regard to this matter, not only outside, in the country generally over wide areas, is there a feeling of alarm, or there will be a feeling of alarm when the reports reach the public, but that there is alarm also on the part of members inside this House who represent farming constituencies. I therefore say that we are glad and grateful that you found it possible to allow this discussion to take place here this morning. Before I go any further I want to lodge a serious objection against the manner in which the Minister of Agriculture brought this matter before the House. He did so by way of a reply to a question which was placed on the Order Paper to be answered yesterday. It is unusual to place a declaration of policy of such a serious character before the House in this manner and not only is it unusual, but everyone will admit that it is undesirable and that it amounts to an injustice to this House. The Minister of Agriculture knows—I think he has been in Parliment long enough to know—that when a question is put on the Order Paper asking the Government to declare its policy in regard to an important matter, here, as well as in the Parliaments of other countries, it is not customary to deal with an important declaration of policy by way of question and answer; in other words that in a matter of this kind, that when the Government declares its policy on such an important matter, the House must be given a proper opportunity to discuss and consider the matter.

He is young still. He will come right.

The Minister preferred to follow a different course. He did follow a different course although he had every opportunity to follow the ordinary course which is followed on such an occasion. The Minister’s vote, “Agriculture,” under which this question resorts and on which a number of matters of policy were discussed, was under consideration in this House not so long ago. I believe the House took a full week in considering the Agricultural Vote. The Minister allowed that opportunity to pass. But there were other opportunities before that when financial matters were under discussion; there was ample opportunity to discuss any subject and to deal with any question of policy. This matter with which we are now dealing would have called forth a very important and far reaching discussion in this House if the Government had announced its policy. But the Government allowed all these opportunities to pass, and, as the Acting Prime Minister stated yesterday, the first opportunity which the House will now have after this announcement of policy in regard to this important matter by the Minister of Agriculture, will be the Appropriation Bill, and, as usual, that will only come before the House right at the end of the session. What makes this matter even more important is that this scheme which the Minister announced comes into operation at an early date. It comes into operation next Monday, the 15th May, and according to the statement by the Acting Prime Minister that the first opportunity to discuss this matter will be on the Appropriation Bill, it is clear that we shall not have the opportunity of discussing this matter until a considerable time after the scheme has come into operation. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture had any excuse for bringing a matter before Parliament in this way. He should not forget that the announcement of the scheme is based on the report of the commission, the Meat Commission. That report was placed in the hands of the Government early in December, and therefore it was also in the hands of the Department of Agriculture. The Government had the opportunity from that time already of considering the matter. The report was released for publication and for the information of the public as far back as the 16th of January of this year. Consequently nearly four months passed before the Minister made his announcement and he now makes his announcement at a time and in a way which make discussion and consideration of the whole matter very difficult. There have been ample opportunities ere this for making the announcement and for facilitating a discussion. But even if the Minister were to plead as an excuse that he is new to his ministerial office and that he has only recently assumed responsibility for the Department of Agriculture, he always had the way open to him of giving an opportunity for discussion by placing the report before the House for its consideration, in the same way as has often been done in the past. The way was also open, and the Minister, when announcing the policy yesterday, could simply have given the assurance that he would, by way a motion, ask the House to give its approval to the scheme. And he could have created an early opportunity for the discussion of the matter. Hence this motion for the adjournment of the House in order to enable us to discuss this matter. I think it will be generally admitted that this course is fully justified. I am sorry that the time had to be made available on the motion of a private member of this House. I am sorry the proposal didn’t come from the Government side. Undoubtedly the statement of the Minister of Agriculture on the subject is one of the most important statements made this session, at least on agricultural matters. It affects the interests of a wide circle of interested individuals in this country. In view of the fact that this matter concerns an important foodstuff, meat, in importance equal to grain, it affects the interests of the consumers in this country, the interests of practically the whole population, and it also affects the producers in a wider circle than the farming community could have been affected in respect of any other agricultural product. The major part of this country is meat producing, and almost exclusively meat producing, but apart from that, farmers whose main production lies in a different direction, also have an interest in this because the greater part of their farming, in a lesser or greater degree, also concerns cattle which they have to market from time to time. One can therefore say that almost the whole of the farming population, in particular, is affected by this matter. The farmers and the consumers generally had an expectation raised in their minds that something to their interest was going to be done. They have been looking forward to the report and during the last few months particularly they have been looking forward to action by the Government on the basis of the report. The farmers expected an improvement in their position, but the very least they expected was that any action on the part of the Government would not put them on the losing side, wouldn’t cause them to suffer damage as compared with the existing position. We should not forget that all classes of the population are suffering today from the increased cost of living. The townsman, the man who is interested in industries and the farmer too suffer from the disadvantages connected with the increased cost of living. The farmer is not exempt. Consequently the farmer must also be taken into account in connection with the increased cost of living, just as much as any other section of the population. The farmer, if he wants to carry on his farming operations, requires all kinds of commodities which have gone up in price just as the requirements of other sections of the population have gone up. But now we come to the question of meat. A Meat Commission was appointed and the underlying idea was this, that the marketing system which had prevailed so far was in a condition of chaos and that it was neither in the interest of the consumers nor in that of the producers and that it should be rationalised. The Meat Commission was appointed to look into all aspects of the matter and to produce a scheme to rationalise the industry and the marketing system connected with it. Everybody hoped that if rationalisation did come about it would be in the interests on the one hand of the producers and on the other, of the consumer. That was the expectation which was cherished. But what will be the result of the scheme which the Minister has announced? The consumer hasn’t, to all intents and purposes, gained anything by this rationalisation. The price which the consumer will have to pay is practically the same as it was before, so he has gained nothing. But the farmer, on the other hand, the producer, has suffered a great setback by it. I don’t think anybody in this House or outside of it who has any sympathy for the farming population can reasonably maintain that the farmers are not going to suffer damage as a result of this scheme and I don’t think anybody had expected that. It was stated in this House yesterday that on the face of it the farmers under this new fixation of prices, the meat producers, would lose at least £2,000,000 per year. But a more careful calculation, based on the figures that are available, shows that it will be anything between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000. Those are the facts in connection with that matter, and hon. members can therefore realise what a shock this announcement means to the farmers. We can quite understand how shocked they are, and it is clear, therefore, why this side of the House has felt the necessity for going very carefully into this matter, and that is why we, in view of the responsibility resting on us, have proposed this motion. Hon. members will also realise how seriously the meat market may be affected and may be shaken as a result of the announcement made yesterday, and how the cattle buyers who go through the country toddy and who visit farms, and are prepared to pay certain prices, ruling prices, for cattle to the farmers, are going to be induced by rhe announcement of this scheme to offer very much lower prices than before, with the result that the farming population will immediately be exposed to the danger of heavy losses in consequence of this proposal of the Government. I hope, therefore, that both sides of the House will discuss this whole question fully on its merits. And may I express the hope that that discussion will not merely be one of criticism and defence, but that it will be a fruitful discussion and that the Government will proceed immediately to withdraw the announced meat scheme and propose a better one instead.

It is an honour to me to second the motion of the Leader of my party. When the Vote of the Minister of Agriculture was under discussion here recently we gave him this good advice that he should put the interests of the farmers in the very forefront and that if he did so he would be assured of the support of the farmers. He is the Minister of the farmers and he must put their interests in the forefront. And may I also say that at that time we suspended his sentence for one year. I am afraid that after what he has done to the farmers we can no longer suspend his sentence—not after what he has done to the meat producing section of the farmers. This report of the Meat Commission was mentioned in a speech from the Throne and it was said there that the Government had accepted that report. Since that time the meat market has been steadily dropping, and now when the meat market has reached the low water mark the Minister of Agriculture comes here and with a stroke of the pen fixes the prices at an even lower level than today’s low water mark prices. We hope to give the House all the facts. If the Minister remembers the prices which prevailed on the market from October, 1942, to November, 1943, he will find that for that period prices were more or less stable and there was no great variation, and that being so we fail to understand how the Minister has arrived at this low level price which he has now fixed. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to page 37 of the Meat Commission’s report where the meat prices are shown as follows—

These prices increased up to the 12th April, 1943, as follows: Prime: medium 10.2d., and inferior qualities 8.3d. If we take these prices over the period from October of 1943 we find that they amount to this, that 10¼d. to 10½d. per pound was the average price. If we take the inferior grades, second grade, first grade and prime, the average price was round about 10d. per pound. How does that price compare with today’s lowest market price? I am giving the figures quoted by the Meat Board in Johannesburg on the 8th May, 1944. Prime mutton was sold at 12¼d., first grade at 10½d. and second grade at 7¾d. Compare that with the prices which the Minister has fixed on the basis of a sheep slaughtering at 40 lbs. weight. In the case of a prime sheep, it is 11s. 7d. less than the price which was in force on the 8th May, and first grade 8s. 9d. less. In the case of second grade mutton it is 6s. 3d. less. If on the basis of the Minister’s figures we assume that the skin and offal amount to about 1d. per pound then we have the following figure—that the Minister’s prices in respect of a prime sheep are 8s. 3d. less, in the case of first grade 5s. 5d. less and in the case of second grade 3s. 9d. less. In 1942 we sold 4,645,000 sheep for slaughter purposes, and that means therefore that the sheep farmer on that basis under the Minister’s scheme will lose 2¼ million pounds on the prices fixed by the Government. For the moment I am leaving beef out of account. If the consumer had got the benefit of it we would have been reconciled to the Minister’s proposal at any rate to a certain extent. But what do we find now? The Minister has told us that the consumer is guaranteed that he will not have to pay more for his meat. Into whose pockets will that 2¼ million pounds go then? I want to prove into whose pockets they go. Let us take the prices to the consumer as published in yesterday’s Government Gazette, and let us take the prices which the farmers get under the scheme. We find that the producer gets £1 9s. 7d. for a prime sheep on the basis of 40 lbs. For that the consumer has to pay £2 3s. 4d. a difference of 13s. 9d. Then take first grade. The producer gets £1 6s. 3d. The consumer pays £1 19s. 7d. for it; so the middleman gets 13s. 4d. Take No. 2. The producer gets 19s. 7d. and the consumer pays £112s. 1d., a difference of 12s. 6d.— calculated per carcase. If the producer gets the advantage of 1d. per pound for the skin and the offal, the middleman still makes 10s. 9d., 10s. 7d. and 9s. 6d. But if the skin and the offal are not added to the carcase prices, the middleman on an average gets 13s. per carcase. If we take the difference between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays, we find that about £2,900,000 on sheep alone goes into the pockets of the middleman; and we ask whether a greater scandal has ever been perpetrated against the community than is now being perpetrated against the meat producers. The Minister has received letters, and I have also received letters from my co-operative society in which this report was welcomed and the Government’s policy to provide a scheme on the basis of the grade and weight of meat was also welcomed. But the Farmers’ Organisations must have felt very uneasy this morning and yesterday when the report containing the Minister’s announcement was published. I can assure the Minister that the organised farmers are fighting tooth and nail on this matter. I am familiar with the Farmers’ Organisations and the Agricultural Unions, and the Minister can be sure that he is going to be fought tooth and nail unless he revises these prices. We told the Minister that we were getting suspicious when he appointed one of the leaders of the Chamber of Commerce as Food Controller and this is the result of it all. Our expectations have not been proved wrong. The Minister appointed that man as Food Controller and these are the results of that appointment. The Minister knows perfectly well that there was a feeling of distrust in the grading system, so far as the farmers are concerned. Two weeks ago I sold a small lot of sheep. I couldn’t get a single one of them passed as first grade, but the Cape Central thereupon sold them for me outside as first grade. Those sheep would have been marked as second grade and third grade otherwise. I want to say this that under the Government’s grading system, hardly 25 per cent. of our sheep will be classified as prime.

You’re putting it far too high.

Yes, I agree with the hon. member that less than 25 per cent. will be graded as prime. And what is the position now? For first grade the price is 7⅞d. and for second grade it is 5⅞d. I ask the Minister why this tremendous difference of 2d. between two grades of meat? And we find that when the meat has been graded, even the shape of the sheep is taken into account. A man who goes to buy his pound of meat, doen’t look at the shape of the sheep. If the Minister buys mutton and he wants prime meat he doesn’t worry about the shape of the sheep. We have no confidence in the Government’s grading system. That is why we find that the Meat Commission too in its report states that the grading system has to be considerably improved if the farmer is to have any confidence in it. On page 26 of the Commission’s report we find this—

We have no confidence in the grading system as applied by the Government so far. We are afraid that if we produce fat sheep the Government graders will grade them as second and third grade. We have had experience of this kind of thing—of fat sheep being graded as second and third grade. It is clear that this system has been drawn up by people who do not produce sheep, and the result is that the system is full of gaps and anomalies. There are all sorts of rules in connection with the spread of fat and all the rest of it and those rules are made use of to bring down the grade of the meat. I want to conclude with a word of well meant advice in the interests of sheep farmers, by asking the Minister immediately to change this announced price scheme so that the prices will be fixed at 11d., 10d. and 9d. for the three grades of mutton respectively.

I was expecting something very much more emphatic and direct than we have heard from the Opposition.

From your Minister.

I feel rather disappointed.

So are we.

I expected something much more serious to justify a motion of this importance. The Leader of the Opposition talked round and round the subject for a long time, but he said nothing about it. He didn’t justify his proposal for the withdrawal of a scheme of this nature and it will certainly require very much stronger arguments than we have heard so far.

Oh, you will get them.

I was very pleased when this matter was discussed previously to find that members of the Opposition were agreed with members on this side of the House that the main principles of the scheme as recommended by the members of the Meat Commission were acceptable. I was hoping that we would have a fine spirit of co-operation along non-party lines in order to put the meat marketing of South Africa on a firm and stable basis. But unfortunately the Minister gave the Opposition an opportunity yesterday, which they just could not resist. They felt that there was a possibility of making party capital out of this question and they could not resist it.

Are you satisfied with the prices?

I shall explain how I feel about the scheme if hon. members will give me an opportunity. The appeal which the Leader of the Opposition made to discuss this question on its merits, was in the right spirit—I hope hon. members will bear that appeal in mind and discuss it on its merits. I haven’t got up to defend the Minister or anyone else. I have made a strong stand in the country in support of a scheme of this nature. I have, on many occasions supported this principle, and I intend to do so today and if there are any points in this scheme with which I do not agree, I shall express my opinion on them. As far as I can gather, the main objection on the part of the Opposition to this scheme was that the price announced for prime mutton shocked them to such an extent that they thought they had lost everything. An hon. member said they were all ruined, and it was clear that the price of prime mutton was the last straw which broke the camel’s back. Now I think that after hon. members have had an opportunity of examining this scheme more thoroughly, they have found that it is not nearly So bad as they thought it was. That is why we have heard so little to justify this motion. Their principal objection is to the prices fixed. I have not heard a word in regard to their objection to the principle. Their great objection is to the prices fixed? Is not that so?

Yes.

So far as I can gather, the whole object of this scheme is to introduce stability. Hon. members are making wild assertions that the sheep farmers have lost two or three million pounds or even four million pounds. But they are basing their whole case on the difference between the prices fixed under this stable scheme and the prices they might get if there was uncontrolled marketing.

On today’s market price.

They are comparing the guaranteed fixed prices with the black market prices.

No, the ruling market prices.

My objection to the scheme is that the Minister has not indicated clearly the period for which these prices operate. The whole basis of the representations which I have made and which organised agriculture has made, is that this price should be a guaranteed price for a considerable period; we feel the price should be indicated 12 months in advance, and with that object in view the Meat Control Board went thoroughly into the question and made various recommendations to the Minister and those recommendations were all based on an indicated price 12 months in advance. Now it was felt that these prices must obviously fluctuate. Certain times of the year are more expensive to produce beef than other times, and in order to indicate how the prices should be adjusted, we put a scheme to the Minister indicating that these fluctuations should take place in order to encourage a farmer to feed during the time when feeding is more expensive, and we indicated that falls should take place when the plentiful season arrived. All these prices should be on a gradual basis so as not to encourage people to withhold supplies. One of the main points made by the Leader of the Opposition was that the Government and the House had had the Meat Commission’s report for four months and that we should have had the scheme much earlier. I do not think hon. members realise the tremendous amount of work necessary to bring this scheme into operation. This is a scheme operating in nine principal centres of the Union. The staff has to be engaged, everything has to be ready to take over, to bring the thing into operation straightaway, and the Deputy Food Controller, who is responsible for the operation of the scheme, made it clear at meetings which he addressed that he would not recommend that the scheme should be brought into operation until he had his staff and everything ready to make a success of it. Then there was another big work to do. In order to bring this scheme into operation it was necessary to fix prices for certain services to be rendered by agents, by retailers, by wholesalers, and various other people who have to help to operate it. These prices could only be fixed after an investigation was made into the cost. Cost accountants and various other people have been investigating this closely, and these things take a considerable amount of time. As a result of that investigation—a point not stressed by any hon. member opposite—the Commission which the agent will receive for handling the stock has been fixed at 2½ per cent., a big saving to the producer. We know that in the past many agents were operating on a 5 per cent. basis and the Government some time ago, in order to help the producers, fixed the maximum commission which the auctioneer was to charge. I do not agree that a reduction helps only one section or the other. Any reduction is shared by both the consumer and the producer. But there is another point and that is that as a result of this scheme the auctioning of meat in the big centres will be done away with and the Provincial Auction Tax will not apply. That is a saving of a further 1 per cent. to the farming community. I wonder whether hon. members know that these savings have been made. In Durban where this dead meat system has been in operation for many years, the producer is debited with 3 per cent. for shrinkage. If you send a carcase of 600 lbs.; you get 18 lbs. knocked off. Under the new scheme you get paid for the full weight. I am certain that once the farming community appreciates all these advantages in the new scheme, it will have a much better reception than hon. members have given it.

It has serious disadvantages too.

I haven’t heard any of them. If you concede the point that the scheme does not give as high prices as were obtained in October, November, December and January, then I think that that is the principal argument that can be used against it. I feel certain that the farmers did not expect to get these high prices under the scheme. They expected to get prices under the scheme which the Government had been guaranteeing for some time. These prices are well known. I have taken the trouble to check up these prices with the prices fixed by the Minister and I find that on the beef prices the average is approximately 5s. per hundred lbs. below those previously indicated prices, but as I pointed out, the Meat Control Board recommended a sliding scale.

Are you dealing with beef prices now?

Yes. The recommended scale fluctuated by 10s. per 100 lbs from the lowest point to the highest point, and the Control Board with the figures available found that the lowest point for beef prices over a number of years was in April and May. Now if we find that the present prices are 5s. below the average of the previously indicated prices, obviously they are practically on a par with the indicated prices. I think hon. members are also losing sight of the fact that under the new scheme the number of grades has been reduced from seven to five. That was done largely as the result of public demand. Retail butchers, blockmen and everyone felt that it was wrong to have seven different grades, and different cuts for each grade, so in order to make the thing simpler the number of grades was reduced. But if you reduce your number of grades from seven to five, obviously the price difference between one grade and another must be larger. I think it might be worthwhile if I mentioned the basis on which the Meat Control Board made its recommendations. Take the first two grades, super and prime, which were amalgamated together with 10 per cent. of the old No. 1 grade. Those three grades amalgamated made an average price of 71s. Then the next grade was an amalgamation of 90 per cent. of No. 1 and 30 per cent. of No. 2. So the farmer will find that the grade now to be known as prime was in the past lower. That is an indirect advantage. There is one point which we should bear in mind and that is that the price of meat has been very high for a considerable time. The actual figures as worked out by the Division of Economics and Markets show that all meat prices have advanced something like 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. above pre-war prices.

Producers’ prices?

Yes, producers’ prices for January and February. Those producers’ prices are 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. above pre-war prices.

Hoggenheimers.

A lot has been said about the cost of production and about the depreciated value of money, but I do feel, and I think the farming community will support me in this, that we have to be reasonable in all our recommendations for price fixation. A very important principle is at stake. We have pinned our faith to the whole system of Control Boards—we have pinned our faith to fixed prices based on a reasonable cost of production, and a fair margin of profit. Now that system has been in force—it has been in force in all the price fixations which we have started. We have felt that there was a strong attack on this price fixation system and I have always felt that we have to be absolutely reasonable and put our case in a reasonable manner. If these prices are not sufficient, and people are finding that their cost of production has gone up so that their prices should be increased, I feel certain that the Minister would be prepared to meet these increased costs.

What about the price of your requirements?

In regard to all costs of production, I say that if we can show that there has been a definite increase in price, we shall find the Minister reasonable.

Was that not investigated by the Minister and his department before he stabilised his price?

There is another point I should like to mention. In connection with these prices on which the scheme was based, the prices recommended by the Meat Control Board were taken over a period of nine months, that is from July to the present time. As hon. members know, the Government dropped the price of meat in March of last year for a period of four months, and that period was not taken into consideration by the Meat Control Board in arriving at its recommendations. I think the Minister has taken it into consideration and he has dropped his price a little on that account. My main appeal is to give the farmers the definite assurance that this is a price fixed for a considerable period, so that they can go on breeding and feeding their stock and buying stores, knowing that they will get a decent price for that produce when it is ready. Hon. members have based their case, as far as I am aware, principally on mutton. I think the Minister could have made a very much better show if he had had a propaganda agent to put his statement across. What made the House gasp was the price of 8-7/8ths of a penny for first grade mutton. That really knocked the stuffing out of hon. members. The actual figures are: For Johannesburg, prime mutton 10¼d., Cape Town 10¼d.

Where do you get the 10¼d. from?

Those are the figures any producer will receive. The Minister stated that the figure of 8-7/8ths of a penny was the price for the carcase. That, however, was the price at Bloemfontein, Kimberley and East London. To that must be added ⅜d. for Cape Town, Johannesburg and Pretoria, and ⅞d. for Durban and Pietermaritzburg. Then a further penny is added for the value of the offals.

Against that you have the slaughtering fees.

That is in addition to the price after the slaughtering fees have been paid.

I think you had better read it again. That was clearly stated by the Minister, and that is undoubtedly the fact.

No. Your carcases are being paid for on a certain price basis, and the offals are sold for your account. So obviously it is in addition. I have had considerable experience, though not so much with mutton as with beef, and I have checked up the figure the Minister says we can receive. I have a number of account sales that were posted to me from Durban, and I find the actual increase I receive after paying all expenses except railage amounts to from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per 100 pounds of meat. In addition, I am getting three per cent. more with warm weight than I did with cold weight, which is equivalent to 1s. 6d. per 100 pounds. I have not had the same experience in regard to the selling of sheep and have not been able to check the price in connection with that, but I accept the Minister’s assurance. I am convinced that this scheme is in the interests of the producer. I feel that it is absolutely essential that the Minister should give producers the confidence they have the right to expect by indicating that these prices are fixed for at least twelve months. Though they are on the sliding scale, I think he should indicate to the House on what notch of the scale he has commenced. I think there is a feeling, and I share that feeling, that these lower producers’ prices and the elimination of certain costs should have resulted in a slightly lower price to the consumer. The Minister, I feel, is being a little extra cautious on that heading. I think he is holding a very big amount in reserve in order to see whether his scheme balances, and to ensure that he has not a big shortage at the end of the year. Probably the Minister of Finance has said to him that he does not want to see a big deficit of a million or two, and that accounts for him being unduly cautious. There is another advantage that the consumers of South Africa have in my opinion a right to expect. The retail butchers today are being put on an absolutely sound basis; they are being given a guaranteed margin of profit, and on that basis they will be able, I hope, to sell many cuts at slightly less than the fixed price. I hope that will be the case. The retail butchers have never had a square deal before. They have been ground down by forces over which they could exercise very little control. Under this scheme they will have a fair share of supplies and a fair margin of profit, and the guarantee that they will be able to come out and make a decent living. With that guarantee I think many of them will be able to work on a smaller margin than that fixed for them, and in view of the fact that certain of the present expenses have been eliminated the consumers in South Africa will be able to get the benefit. I hope the House will treat this matter seriously. I feel that this is a critical stage in the industry, when we can make or mar a system of marketing farmers’ products. If hon. members can put forward a case for the revision of prices, no one will support it more heartily than I shall. That case can, I feel, be gone into after the scheme has been started, very much better than by holding up the scheme for the time being. If the Minister was to accede to the request that has been made, and if the scheme was withdrawn, can hon. members visualise what the effect would be on the country? All the interests that have been doing so well out of producers in the past would regard such a step as a tremendous victory, and we would find it much harder to re-introduce the scheme. I conclude by saying that I hope all sections of the House will support the Minister in trying to make a success of the scheme. I feel, Sir, that those people who expected to get prices on the basis of the black market prices that operated a few months ago, are not patriotic; their patriotism is entirely pocket patriotism.

There is one point on which I am heartily in accord with the Leader of the Opposition, and that is that I want to express my appreciation to you, Mr. Speaker, of the ruling you have given allowing an opportunity to discuss this matter. I also want to express my appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition for having made this proposal. I feel that it is particularly necessary to discuss this matter, on account of what appeared in this morning’s paper, and on account of the contention that was made in this House too, that millions of pounds would go into the pockets of the middlemen. I think it is necessary that the people and the country should know what the actual position is. I had thought that after this special opportunity had been asked for to discuss the matter, the Leader of the Opposition would have made a devastating attack on the scheme, an attack which would echo throughout the country and would also be heard at Wakkerstroom. But what do we find? An attack with blank cartridges. The Leader of the Opposition devoted three-quarters of his speech to the fact that I had not created an earlier opportunity to enable the House to discuss this scheme. But he forgets, or perhaps he has never known that the scheme was already announced in the speech from the Throne, or at any rate it was announced there, that the Government was going to accept the main recommendations of the Meat Commission, nor does he mention the fact that the scheme was announced by the Food Controller as far back as February, and the Leader of the Opposition set out to mention the occasions on which I should have raised this subject in the House. First of all he referred to the debate on the Agricultural Vote, but I could not discuss the scheme before it was ready.

But you said the Food Controller actually had it ready in February.

The main outlines were announced then. Let me explain that point. The main point on which the attack is made today is not against the scheme as such. The question of grading has been referred to, but the main point of the attack is the prices. I could not announce the prices weeks and months before the scheme was finally ready to be put into operation. Nor is it just a question of working out the scheme, but the staff had to be ready, the practical sides of the scheme had to be prepared, and, so far as the staff was concerned, we had difficulties until the last moment. Consequently it was not possible to discuss the scheme on the Agricultural Vote or on any other occasion. The attacks so far have been directed against the prices, and I want to go into that aspect. I want to tell the House on what basis the prices were fixed. We cannot take this case on the position as it is today alone. We must take the position in the way it has developed during the past few years and I want to draw attention to the way in which the price level of meat has gone up in this country. I give the index figures for 1934 to 1942, and I shall take 100 for the years 1936-’37 to 1938-’39. I shall first give the index figures for cattle and then for sheep. In 1934 they were 78 and 109; in 1939, 78 and 95; after that there was a steady rise in the price level until 1938 when the figures were 108 and 102. The following year 106 and 100. In 1940, the figures were only 108 and 105, but when we come to 1941, we find an increase to 124 in regard to cattle and 119 in regard to sheep. In 1942, we had a big increase, namely to 156 in respect of cattle, and 160 in respect of sheep. It was not to be wondered at that the Price Controller then felt that steps must be taken to get a fixation of the prices to the consumer. The position, however, was that my Department was opposed to the Price Controller’s proposal because we felt that you could not fix a price on a live basis, that it was only possible to fix a price on the basis of dead weight. It is not possible to estimate the quality and the weight of an animal. You can only go by dead weight. Consequently they opposed it, but the Controller went on and in 1942 fixed wholesale and retail prices. This eventually happened in October of that year. Maximum prices were fixed for the wholesale trade and the retail trade. The producer price was not fixed but an indicated price was given. From the price fixed to the consumer we should work back to the price for the producer and we could therefore give an indication of what the producer should get. Those prices were also indicated in the Government Gazette along with the controlled prices for the wholesale trade and for the retail trade. My department’s fears were however realised, that it was not possible to maintain the price which was given as an indicated price for the producer, with the result that the price went higher and higher and it was in those circumstances that the Government afterwards decided to appoint a Commission. The Commission was appointed in July, 1943. Hon. members already know the Commission’s report. It made the recommendation which my Department had urged, namely that the producer’s price must be based on the dead weight basis. Now I come to the question of the fixation of prices under this scheme, and I think hon. members will agree with me that in regard to this question we should take two sides into account. We cannot take the producer’s price only without taking into account the essential interests of the consumer. Even the Leader of the Opposition this morning quite correctly pointed out that we must maintain the balance between these two interests, and that both the producer and the consumer must be considered. The object which we had in mind was to fix an amount which would give the producer a reasonable price, bearing in mind his increased production costs and also bearing in mind his own increased cost of living. We also had to take into account that the price which we fixed for meat must have some relation to the price of other agricultural products. Several of our agricultural products are under price control and we could not in regard to meat which was not controlled until recently, fix the highest price, a price which had been made so high by the black market and then give that price to the farmer while at the same time he was getting the benefit of stabilisation. Where the farmer is getting the benefit of stabilisation it would not be fair to select the highest price in the country and stabilise prices on that baisis.

What do you mean by the black market?

I shall come to that. I am dealing with another point now. The position is that the prices were fixed for the first time in October, 1942, and at that time the producers’ position was very definitely taken into account. From that time onwards we had a controlled market price which even then was already on the high side and that was taken as the basis at that stage. What hon. members opposite keep silent about is that that level which was accepted at the time was a basis with which farmers, generally speaking, were satisfied. Even the agricultural unions accepted those prices. I was told here this morning that organised agriculture is going to fight me tooth and nail. No, the organised farmers were consulted at that stage, and with small amendments which were accepted by the Department—those prices were accepted and fixed. The farmers welcomed stabilisation on that basis.

What were the prices with which they were satisfied in 1942?

They were the market prices in those days. I haven’t got the figures with me but hon. members cannot get away from the fact that the controlled price of those days was accepted by the agricultural unions and by the farmers generally. The hon. member wants to know what these figures are. Well, anyone can get those figures. Now, let me mention another example ….

Have the farmers been consulted about these new prices?

I hope hon. members will let me speak—I didn’t interrupt them. Let me first of all deal with the question of beef, and let me test the position on that. The price of No. 2 grade in October, 1942, was fixed at 55s. per 100 lbs. I should like the House to bear in mind that that was at a time of the year when meat is scarce, viz. October, and that the market price at that time was at its highest. In February, the market dropped to such an extent that the price was fixed at 50s. That price was raised in October, last year, when meat was scarce, to 56s. 6d. It was not raised to 55s. as it should have been on the basis of October of the year before, but it was made 1s. 6d. more in order to encourage the farmers to send supplies to the market. Supplies had not been coming in as smoothly as was necessary and consequently this encouragement of 1s. 6d. was given. In February of this year that price should have dropped by about 5s. That is to say it should have dropped to about 51s. 6d. It should have remained at that until June or July. But the scheme which I announced yesterday came in in the meantime and in addition to that there was a change made in the grades of meat. If we take that change into account, No. 2 should now have stood at 49s. 3d. as compared with 51s. 6d. That figure, however, was not accepted, but the Government decided to make it higher for the farmer, viz.: 51s., which means an increase of 1s. 9d. per 100 lbs. and in the case of Cape Town there is an additional 2s. 6d. making the increase 4s. 3d. per 100 lbs. I mention beef in order to point out that the farmers’ price can be regarded as a reasonable price, and that it even shows an increase on the 1942 price level which as I have already said was a fairly high level. In regard to that price level I furthermore say this, that we are now starting this scheme at a time when the price of meat is more or less at its lowest level. In this connection I want to say to the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) that the farmers may expect, so far as beef is concerned, that a gradual improvement will set in in the time of scarcity which is ahead.

†I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, I can accede to the request of the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) to the extent of announcing in advance what these various increased for the off-season will actually be. I think there are good reasons for not doing so but the farmers can be assured that the increases will be reasonable, that they will take into account the extra cost of feeding animals in the off-season, that prices will take account of these factors, and the farmers can expect a reasonable increase on the prices that have now been announced.

Tell us something about the consumer.

I will deal with that in a moment.

They don’t benefit.

The question has been asked whether the consumer is going to benefit in any way. If hon. members will study the statement which I made yesterday they will notice that I did not say that the consumer would not get any benefit. What I did say was that the consumer price would not be higher than the fixed price. The trouble is that the consumer in the past has not been able to buy at the fixed price. As we all know, and if we don’t know it yet, we should know it, there has been a big black market in connection with the meat trade, with the result that the consumers have had in many instances to pay more than the fixed price, and in some cases much more. The Controller has been powerless to carry out his scheme properly and to prosecute people. It is hoped that under this scheme the consumer will be in a better position than he was in the past. In any case he will not have to pay more than the fixed price. If we can eliminate the black market entirely the consumer will be based on a very much better basis. Let me also tell my hon. friend on this point that there is no basis whatsoever for the attack he made here when he said that 2½ million pounds would go into the pockets of the middelman. Hon. members will know that in Durban, for instance, where the Commission was 4 per cent. we have already brought it down to 2½ per cent. As far as the middelman there is concerned he is in a less favourable position that he was before. But the major part of this money will benefit the consumers who will not have to pay the black market prices in future. A little earlier on I made some remarks about the relationship between the price of meat and the price of other agricultural products, and as rising out of the report of the Meat Commission I should like to show what the position is. I am taking the prices for the year 1942-’43. I am again taking as a basis the price index of 100 for the years 1936-’37 to 1938-’39. These figures will be found on page 14 of the report and the prices of eight different agricultural products are shown. We find in the first place that the price for summer grain in that year stood at 160, while the price of winter grain stood at 149; hay at 144; agricultural products at 159; pasture products 122; dairy products 147. Then we come to the two commodities with which we are dealing here, namely, slaughter stock, poultry and poultry products. So far as slaughter stock is concerned, the figures there are the second highest. The only higher figure is that for poultry and poultry products, which is 173, as against 167 for slaughter stock. That proves, therefore, that these two products were the highest of all. Now take the other tables contained in the Commission’s report where there is a comparison between the price index of beef, mutton, wool and butter fat. Let us take the 1936/37/38/39 basis. We then find this: Wool is 124; butter is 144; beef is 166; and mutton is 174; so that we find that those two commodities, viz., beef and mutton are a great deal higher than all the others, and I think that that is a fact which we should bear in mind. If we fix the price of one agricultural product, we have to fix it in relation to the prices of other agricultural products. We find that those two articles, beef and mutton—and mutton particularly—are higher than any other agricultural product. Let us take mutton, for instance, and analyse Grade 1. When the price was fixed in 1942 Grade 1 was still 9½d. per lb. and it remained at that basis until February, 1943, when it was brought down to 9d. per lb. During August, 1943, the price of mutton along with that of beef was increased and was fixed at 9⅞d. per lb. When the price of beef in February, 1944, had to be reduced, that same reduction was also to have been effected in the price of mutton, which would have brought the price down to 9d. per lb. In the meantime, the new grades have been introduced and the price of the equivalent grade is now 10¼d. per lb. in Cape Town. I think that is a figure which was mentioned by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett). That is quite correct. The figure he mentioned is 10¼d. per lb. in Cape Town. I therefore want to make this point that the price fixed under this scheme is higher than the price level which was fixed in 1942.

To what extent has the cost of living gone up from 1942 up to the present?

What about raisins?

We are not going to discuss the question of raisins now. I can assure the hon. member that the price that is fixed here can be justified on the basis of the increased cost of living and on the basis of the increased cost of production. But the increase which has been effected is a reasonable increase. Let me also say that the policy which has been followed here is that of applying the prices indicated in the Government Gazette, and I want to go further and say that a recommendation has been made by the Meat Board in the same direction. And after all the Meat Board is a body on which the producers have a majority, and they have made the recommendation. The only difference is that they consider that the fixed price should vary according to seasonal changes, but we did not accept that recommendation because where sheep are concerned it is not a question of feeding in the off-season, and it has consequently been felt that there is no sound basis for a variation in the price of mutton. The position there fore is this that since the announced price was made known, that price as a result of the black market which we have in this country, has far exceeded the announced price. I am now being attacked, and the Government is being attacked, because we have not followed those high prices—and when I say that the Government and myself are being attacked let me add that this meat scheme, while I am taking full responsibility for it, is a scheme which has been before the Food Committee of the Cabinet, and has been approved of by that committee. The basis for this attack is this—because the prices have gone up because of the black market we are told that the farmers are going to lose millions of pounds, but hon. members of the Opposition cannot say how many millions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, for instance, started with £2,000,000, afterwards he got to £3,000,000 or £4,000,000.

Listen to that.

It is not a question of the producers losing millions of pounds.

Don’t be unreasonable. It was found to be 3 or 4 millions on investigation.

I don’t want to be unfair to the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

This seems to be an instance of an advocate with a bad case. He is now attacking his opponents.

The case is so good that it doesn’t require my defence. The soundness of my case was proved by the weakness of the attacks made on it. The farmers will quite appreciate that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect to have the benefit of price stability and at the same time expect to get the highest open market prices. If we are to have that position with regard to meat, I feel that wheat farmers, and other farmers whose prices have been fixed for a period of years, will be entitled to come to me and to say: “We want a free market: we want to be able to see how prices rise and then fix our price at that level.” That is in essence, the objection to this scheme. I hope that I have now shown that this is a fair and reasonable scheme and that our object is to assist the producer as well as the consumer under this scheme. I also hope that the farmers will feel that it is in their interests to have a permanent price stabilisation.

If it is permanent.

But it is not going to be permanent.

In my announcement I stated that that was what we aimed at. May I just quote from my announcement to refresh my hon. friends’ memory? I said this—

It should be possible.

I shall go further into that if my hon. friend will just give me a chance. I shall put it more positively. I said this—

What more can I say than that? That it is our intention in the interests of the farmer as well as in those of the consumer, to bring about stability, and lasting stability, if only people will allow us to do so. But I ask hon. members this, and I do so very seriously: Do not by misrepresenting the position, do not by making unfair demands, make it impossible for this scheme to be carried out smoothly and successfully. I am not going to depart from this scheme. This scheme will come into operation on the 15th of this month; and it will come into effect on that date. If a good case can be made out this morning here for the scheme to be withdrawn, I would be the first to do so. But to my mind no criticism whatever has been levelled here which can be regarded as fair and reasonable.

The debate has hardly started.

We have not yet had a chance of speaking on it.

The debate has only just started.

Take the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) for example. He has not made any objection whatsoever to our grading.

We’ve always been in favour of it.

Today, because he is disappointed with the prices which I have announced, he makes an attack on the grading system. We have made provision to arrange for an appeal if mistakes should be made when animals are graded.

May I ask the Minister ….

Please give me a chance. Provision is made for appeals and I want to say this, that if in the working of this scheme which is going to come into operation on the 15th of this month, our experience shows that improvements or changes can be effected we are not going to be unreasonable. I want to assure hon. members that I shall listen to any constructive criticism, and I shall listen to any representations they make to me. But let us give the scheme a chance. Don’t let us condemn it before it comes into operation. Don’t let us try to torpedo it at the start by telling the public that they are going to lose millions and millions of pounds.

Do you admit that under this scheme the farmers are going to get less than they are getting today?

I have dealt with the way the prices have been fixed. The scheme which has been announced has been adopted as a guide. I hope hon. members will realise that they will not be acting in the lasting interests of the meat farmers if they torpedo this scheme. Let us give this scheme a chance, and if experience teaches us that improvements or changes can be effected, I shall be willing to listen to representations and to effect changes wherever necessary.

Having listened to the last two speeches, that of the hon. the Minister and that of the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) who is now in such a great hurry to get out of the House, I can only say that so far as he is concerned, he has treated us to a real egg-dance. The hon. member knows that the attitude of this side of the House until late yesterday afternoon was his attitude; he knows that he himself made remarks to indicate that the figures announced by the Minister were wrong.

What happened to him last night?

After the Minister had had them together in caucus—and I don’t know what he tried to explain to them there—the hon. member comes here today and gives figures which are more than 100 per cent. higher than those which he agreed to yesterday. No; the hon. member made an appeal to us not to drag politics into this question, because it is a serious question. Exactly, it is a serious question, and at this very juncture, the hon. member for East Griqualand comes in and brings in politics by leaving his own people in the lurch for the sake of a political party. And when we come to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, all we can say about him is that we have had today the privilege of listening to a man who is taking part in his own funeral.

He is the chief mourner at his own funeral.

Because I want to predict that the announcement which the Minister made yesterday means the funeral of the Government, and more essentially the funeral of the Minister of Agriculture.

He is dying very young.

If we go back into our agricultural history we are faced with one fact and that is this, that control of agricultural products has been introduced for one reason only, namely, that the farmers of the country were not doing too well. That is why control has been introduced. Control was introduced in the meat market and also in the permit system. We would be pleased if the hon. member over there would postpone his caucus talk with the Minister until a later occasion. We are discussing serious matters and we would like to have the Minister’s attention. This permit system was introduced for this very purpose of regulating the market because there was a surplus in the country, but that is no longer the position today. I say that control was introduced because the farmers wanted to get some of their products into their own hands. This development in the agricultural industry, viz., to get the products under the control of the producers with their control boards, created a tremendous agitation not only behind the scenes, but also publicly, by the Chamber of Commerce—there was a tremendous agitation against co-operative societies in this country, against the control of agricultural products. Now what will be the result of the announcement which the Minister made in the House yesterday? The result is going to be that your co-operative movement is going to suffer a tremendous setback. We know that a very large section of the community is even now opposed to control; for instance the Chamber of Commerce is strongly opposed to control; a large section of the consumers is opposed to control; and the Minister, by his announcement, is creating also opposition on the part of the producers to the control system. We on this side of the House have always stood for control, and that is why we are putting up such a strong fight on this question, because we feel that great harm is going to be done to the cause of control—tremendous harm—by this announcement which the Minister made here the other day. But perhaps we can understand the Minister taking up this attitude, because I think the Minister knows as well as anybody else that he is only going to hold his post for five years, and even then only under certain conditions; that is the longest he will hold this post. But we told the Minister when we were discussing his Vote that he would have the full support of this side and also of the farmers on condition that he acted in the interests of the farmers. He has now given us proof that he is not occupying the post in the interests of the farmers but in the interests of the commercial community of the country.

Of the middleman.

Who has been lobbying among you people?

If one studies the announcement which appeared in yesterday’s Government Gazette one must come to the conclusion that the interests of the middleman are being protected. I want to say first of all that we are having another instance here of what we have been having of late, namely, Government by proclamation. In the Government Gazette the existing law is simply changed by way of proclamation. We are supposed to be fighting for democracy, but our Government is the biggest dictator we have ever known. Further, if we study the announcement, we find that the prices are being fixed for nine big centres in the country, but in the rest of the country, prices are not interefered with, and we find that the permit system is still maintained. What is going to be the result? The natural course of events causes any product, be it meat or anything else, to go naturally to the highest market. If there is sufficient demand on the platteland, in the various centres, the price there will perhaps be higher than in the nine controlled areas. The natural flow of sheep and cattle will then be away from the nine controlled areas. The Minister must therefore not be surpised in the near future to experience another meat famine in the big towns of the country as a direct result of his policy. And as a result of what he did yesterday, he must not expect us on this side of the House, and he must not expect organised farmers to come to his assistance if he finds himself in a difficult position. Then if we study the Minister’s announcement more closely we find that everywhere there is reference to “warm” and “cold” weight. Quite correct. But when he comes to the consumer, the words “warm weight” disappear and the only reference is to “cold weight.” Quite possibly the consumer may be buying “warm weight.” The butcher, who is up to all these things, is not going to sell the meat if it is not yet quite “cold.” The Minister laughs at my remarks; I can quite understand, because these things are Greek to him. He doesn’t know much about the butcher business, and, in fact, he doesn’t know much about farming.

He knows a lot about the black market.

Yes, he knows a lot about that. In reply to an interjection, he said, with a lot of commotion, that he was going to say something about the black market; we are still waiting to hear from him on that point. He never got to it. Now let us follow this scheme, from the producer to the consumer, and let us take the prices in Cape Town which are the highest prices in the country. Let us take the price of prime meat. It would take too long, step by step to go through all grades. In Cape Town the producer of beef gets 65s. per 100 lbs. In addition to that he gets the value of the offal and by-products. As I say, yesterday there was a tremendous difference between the prices mentioned by the Minister and those mentioned by members on the other side of the House supporting the Minister. We don’t know what these prices are. They vary and experience will have to show us what they are. But what we do know is that the amount is not very big. Take the additional amount which the producer gets as X; that means that the producer gets 65s. plus X. But what has to be deducted from that? First of all one has to take off the possible transportation costs; secondly, the municipal levy to be paid at the slaughter abattoirs; and thirdly, the cost of feeding; fourthly, kraal fees; fifthly, slaughter fees; and in the sixth place one has to deduct from the price the levy which used to be paid by the buyer, but which according to the Minister’s announcement will now be taken off the price which the farmer gets. In the seventh place there is the commission which is to be deducted, viz., 2½ per cent. on 65s. plus X. All that has to be deducted from the 65s. plus X. I am convinced that those seven items I have mentioned, and which have to be deducted from the price of the product, are much more than the additional amount which the farmer is to get—the X. Now, take this 100 lbs. of beef in Cape Town for which the farmer gets 65s. First of all the meat is handled by the agent and the expenses I have mentioned are deducted. Then the meat gets to the Food Controller, or in other words, the representative of the commercial community. He has to sell the meat to the wholesale butcher. The Food Controller receives for “warm weight” 66s. Let me say, in passing, that all these figures I have mentioned have been taken from yesterday’s Government Gazette. The wholesale butcher pays 66s. “warm” weight and 68s. “cold” weight per 100 lbs. to the Controller. The wholesale butcher then has to sell the meat to the retail butcher, the channel through which the meat has to be distributed among the consumers. What does he pay? He pays to the wholesale butcher 69s. 2d. for “warm” weight, and 71s. 2d. for “cold” weight. And now the retail butcher has to sell to the consumer. And what are his prices? The consumer, for beef for which the producer gets 65s. plus a fraction, pays 9-5/10d. From the time it leaves the hands of the retail butcher the profit made is the difference between 71s. 2d. and 95s. 10d.— a colossal profit.

How do you know that?

If the hon. member studies the Government Gazette, he will see what the position is. Now let us take prime mutton. In Cape Town the producer gets 9¼d. per lb. The wholesale butcher pays 9s. 5/16d. “hot” weight, and 9⅝d. “cold” weight; the retail butcher pays 10s. “hot” weight and 10¼d. “cold” weight, and the consumer will have to pay 12½d. Now what do these figures show us if we study the scheme in all its consequences? Just one thing, and that is that all the interests in the meat trade which are operating today between the producer and the consumer still remain. We had expected that certain interests between the producer and the consumer, who were making undue profits, would be eliminated. But instead of those interests being eliminated, they still remain. Not only do those people keep their profits, but their profits are guaranteed to them. They don’t stand to lose anything. They buy at a price fixed by the Food Controller, and there is also a fixed price at which they have to sell.

Their profits are stabilised.

Absolutely. Those people’s profits are stabilised. But I go further than that. I don’t want anyone to conclude from my words that I regard the retail butchers and the wholesale butchers as the only middlemen, as the only vultures, as they have been called here. But we know that all the other interests, the agents who act in between, are all going to remain. We are now getting a price fixation in nine big centres, but on the Platteland there is no fixation of prices and no control. What is the position going to be there? As the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) has already told us the farmer has no confidence in the grading system. We know that that is so. There is an old saying: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof.” The farmers have that experience of it and we can mention any number of instances of meat, which could not be sold here in Cape Town according to specific grades being classified outside Cape Town, as higher grades. That is the position that we are going to get, and we know it. In all branches of agriculture we have the phenomenon of the producer continually complaining that he is being done down in the grading. Rightly or wrongly the farmers have that feeling. And what is going to happen now under this scheme? Those vultures will go along to the Platteland again to buy cattle cheaply and they are again going to make their profits in between the producers and the consumers. If we go further and ask where the money goes, which the farmer loses, we find that all that money goes into those in-between channels which will arise and which actually are there already, and which are not going to diminish in any way now. The Minister hasn’t told us how many officials he is going to appoint under this scheme. But we know that their number is going to be legion. They all have to be paid. Instead of reducing the number of people in between the producer and the consumer their numbers will be increased.

Must I not employ anyone to carry out this scheme.

I say that the number of middlemen is going to be increased more and more and the farmer will have to pay for them. The Minister told us that he started off from the view that the farmer must get a profitable price, but I say that that is not the point of view which the Minister started off. He started the other way round. He started off with the price to the consumer, and from that point he worked backwards. He has looked after all the interests which already are in the trade and he has also looked after the “boeties” whom he is going to appoint, so that they can get their profits—and only after that has he got to the price for the farmer. The Minister made a long speech here. I must say that we didn’t understand too much of it, and, judging by the attitude of hon. members opposite, they either didn’t agree with him, or they gave no signs of what they felt about the matter, or otherwise they didn’t understand him either. We on this side of the House have learned that one is one and two is two—that is a fact one cannot get away from. I have the prices before we which the Minister announced yesterday, and I also but the control only applies to certain articles. If the Minister wants to talk about a black market, he’ll find that black market in the bosom of his own friends. I want to mention one instance—it is an instance of certain materials which before the war could be bought here in Cape Town at 2s. per yard.

Are you talking about Uniewinkels?

Go to the big shops owned by the Minister’s friends, and you will find today they are charging 15s. and 16s. for the same material. That is the way these people’s prices have been regulated. And we can mention any number of instances of that kind but this one instance is enough. The Minister himself knows that that is the case. He knows that on the one hand the farmer in South Africa has been pinned down—every product he produces is pinned down; he is not allowed to get more. The Minister knows what the position is. Take wool for instance. Here we get 12d. In America they get three times 12d.

Five times.

And we have to be satisfied with this reduced purchasing power of our money, and if we have to take into account the position as it is today we can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the hon. the Minister and his department are out to see to what extent they can torture and oppress the producer. If the Minister cannot satisfy us as to the two essentials which I have mentioned, viz., to give us a permanent scheme, a scheme which will eliminate more of the people who are today preying on the farmers’ labours—if he cannot work out a scheme under which the consumer will also derive some benefit, then I must agree with the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) that the organised farmers will fight the Minister tooth and nail. I have told the Minister, and I have stood for it all my life, that we want controlled prices in this country so far as agricultural products are concerned. But with the best will in the world I cannot support this meat scheme in the way it has been put into operation. But what is more, I cannot advise or encourage any cattle farmer or sheep farmer in this country to support the scheme.

In any case they won’t listen to you.

If this scheme therefore turns out to be a failure, the Minister must look for the cause only in himself and his Controller—the representative of commerce.

It is perfectly clear now that the objection to this scheme is based on one thing only and that is the price. The objection is based only on the fact that the price fixed here is too low in the opinion of hon. members opposite.

Do you admit that it is too low?

I do not admit it.

Then you didn’t listen very carefully.

That is the only argument raised against this scheme, and yet the Leader of the Opposition proposes to scrap the scheme. I don’t want to go into the question of prices now. The Hon. the Minister has done so. The prices have been fixed in consultation with the Department and I am prepared to accept them. I must admit at once that to my mind the prices are a little on the conservative side. I don’t say that they are too low, but they are too conservative in my opinion.

You’re getting nearer.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the farmers would lose £2,000,000. Afterwards he said they would lose £3,000,000 and £4,000.000 and now it has gone up to £5,000,000.

You don’t understand Afrikaans.

Don’t talk nonsense.

I am quite convinced that if they go on in that way the loss will be £10,000,000 before the debate is over. Those contentions are devoid of all foundation and not a single member opposite can prove what the loss is going to be.

So you admit that there is going to be a loss?

Everyone recognises that there is going to be a loss.

A loss for whom?

A loss to the farmer.

Who will get the benefit?

The consumer does not get the benefit.

I say that I admit that at the moment the farmer is going to suffer a loss, but it is not going to be a permanent loss. The fixed prices are in the long run going to be beneficial to the farmer.

Who gets the benefit in the meantime? Don’t you know?

A lot of assertions were made here this morning, but if we take the published figures of the prices ruling on the Johannesburg market last week and we compare them with the prices as now announced, including the price for offal and skins the difference is hardly 2s. on 100 lbs. The price isn’t 5 per cent. lower.

How do you reckon that?

The hon. member can reckon it out for himself.

You are wrong.

If I am wrong the hon. member can get up and tell me what the position is. The Opposition nas declared repeatedly that it is in favour of control. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) said so again this morning. He said it was his Party’s policy, and it is my policy, too. And now we hear that the organised meat farmers are going to fight the scheme tooth and nail because, so it is alleged, they are going to lose two or three or four million pounds, and because they cannot have the benefit of the high prices of the Black Market. I want to ask hon. members how much the wheat farmers lost in 1941 because they could not sell in the open market?

We are also fighting for the wheat farmers.

It must be a false love now to come and fight only for the meat farmer. Can hon. members opposite tell me how much the mealie farmers lost in 1942 as the result of the price of mealies being controlled?

This year they lost £5,000,000.

Why do hon. members over there favour the control of the products of the mealie farmer and the wheat farmer? And why are they kicking now against the control of the wheat market?

It seems that you have joined the Chamber of Commerce completely.

We can go further. How much is the potato farmer losing today as a result of his being unable to sell on the open market?

If you admit that the farmers are suffering heavy losses you should talk to your Minister.

What are the farmers to do? Not all of them can become politicians.

I am not talking about political farmers now. I’m speaking on behalf of the agriculturist, and if we are in favour of control we should carry out that policy consistently. The position is perfectly clear that the only thing behind this agitation is that certain hon. members opposite have kept back their cattle for the black market and they are now getting afraid of price control. I ask again what justification has the Opposition to take up the cudgels against this scheme if they are in favour of control?

We are against the prices, the low prices which have been fixed and not against control.

We are against bad control.

He is doing his best.

I don’t want to go into the question of the prices any further.

You had better leave it alone.

The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) asked why the rest of the community was allowed to get off scot free. The Minister stated very clearly yesterday that if it became necessary he would extend the control to the platteland as well.

He is only going to lock the stable door after the horse has gone.

And that on a Sunday.

My main argument in supporting this scheme is that I consider it a scheme for the future which will stabilise prices. Today we are faced with increased land prices, and it is high time to call a halt before it is too late. If we allow the prices of land to go up as they are doing today, I predict a disaster after the war when prices will necessarily have to come down. We had the experience after the last war, and we are going to have it again after this war. In my part of the country the price of land has gone up as much as 300 per cent. If we use our common sense, we must know that the prices we are getting for meat today cannot continue. Prices will drop and the result will be collapse and bankruptcy on a large scale. I therefore say that I stand for the policy which the Minister has laid down and although it will be at the expense of the farmer, it will in the long run stabilise prices, and even stabilise the price of land. But we have also heard the Minister tell us that the price which is now being fixed constitutes the lowest notch. After this prices will gradually go up during the winter months. We have been told that the consumer is not going to get any benefit from this fixed price. He gets this benefit, that his price will not go up; it will remain stable throughout the year. I know that the hon. members opposite will kick up a lot of dust over this matter, but I think it is more their own interests than the interests of the country that causes them to do so.

We listened carefully to what the hon. the Minister had to say when this motion was brought up for discussion in the House this morning. When he finished his speech and he resumed his seat he said with an excited mien, and adopting a defiant attitude: “Whatever you may say in this House or outside, in the country, I am going to apply this scheme, and that is the basis on which I am going to apply it.” If that is his attitude then I tell him this, that if at this early stage in his ministerial career, he wants to declare war against the farmers, his wind will have to be very good because otherwise he will not stay the course. The Minister must not try and obscure the issue by saying to us that we are out to torpedo the scheme. We don’t want to torpedo this scheme. That is not what we want, but although we are in favour of control we want stability, and although we want to control the farmers, we don’t want to destroy them by means of control, but we want to keep them alive and see that they have stable prices under the scheme laid down by the Minister. And when we protest, when we are convinced that he is not benefiting the farmers, he must not take it amiss if we take exception to his defiant attitude. We have been sent here—and I particularly—by rural constituencies. My constituency is a cattle area; I represent cattle farmers and sheep farmers; I am going to stand up for them and act in their interests, and their interests are at stake to such an extent this morning that I expect my post-box to be full of telegrams this afternoon telling me to give the Minister “what for” on account of the hopeless steps he has taken here. I have already had a telegram telling me that we should have a full-dress debate on this subject; and I am grateful that we are having this opportunity today to express ourselves on this subject. We support the principle of price control; it is our policy; we want it; but while we support it we cannot just support anything the Minister submits to us and tells us: “This is price control and you have to be satisfied with it.” He must listen to our arguments and the arguments put forward here this morning were thoroughly well founded. The Minister says that he was induced, after consultation with the various agricultural unions in the country, to accept and fix this price control. Is the Minister going to get up and tell us that the agricultural unions have told him to apply these prices to beef and mutton? Now he was guided by them to this extent that they agreed to the control scheme and to the report of the Meat Commission. That was what they approved of and that was all they did. A statement was made here this morning—and I associate myself with the statement—that henceforth if he insists on his scheme the organised farmers’ associations would oppose him in a way he had never expected. The hon. the Minister’s arguments sound most peculiar to me. One would have expected that the Minister, after having put off things for such a long time, would have come forward here with sound arguments. The only argument he has produced is that today’s price level for mutton and beef constitutes the prices obtained on the Black Market. Have we ever heard anything like it? Here we have a public market and we are referring particularly to Johannesburg and we are now told that it is a Black Market. We want to support the Minister as far as this scheme goes, but we cannot agree with the type of prices he wants to fix because we feel that the farmer is being unjustly treated. For years the farmer has had to contend with unfavourable economic conditions, conditions over which he has had no control. The farming community has deteriorated to such an extent that the Government has had to step in to keep it alive and to keep it on the land. Today there is a bit of a revival, and practically every section of the community has a chance of making a little money, but the Minister wants to deprive the farmers of the opportunity of getting back onto their feet. I want to tell the Minister that his difficulties as Minister of Agriculture would be fewer if he were to take steps as a result of which the farming community were placed on a lasting sound footing. The farmers have been in a humiliating position for years. They have constantly been accused of sitting on the Government’s doorstep begging for help to make a living. The farmers don’t want to remain in that humiliating position. And that is why we ask the Minister to make it possible for the farmers to make a decent living Why are they to be deprived of their chances to get onto their feet, at a time when all other sections of the community are making money. The farmers do not want to enrich themselves at the expense of other sections, but they want to be economically sound so that they may be able to face the difficult times which are perhaps ahead of us. The farmers perhaps in the future will again have to be the country’s backbone and if they are to be the backbone let them be a strong one and not a broken one. On the agricultural vote I told the Minister that so far as the scheme was concerned, the farmers, generally, were prepared to support the Government’s policy in order to give the scheme a chance to pass through the experimental stage. But I want to ask whether, now that the farmers are being pinned down so far as their prices are concerned, they have been given any guarantee, any security for the future? It is an important point whether there is going to be stability. Has the Minister in his speech this morning reassured us in any way by saying: “You are going to suffer losses at the moment as farmers, but you should be satisfied because you are going to have stability for the future; your prices have been secured for the future.”

I gave that reply when my vote was under discussion.

When the Minister’s vote was under discussion he said that the Meat Board was discussing the matter, but what did he tell us here yesterday and this morning? He said: “It should be a post-war scheme.” We cannot be satisfied with such a vague promise. The Minister should give us his specific assurance that he will see to it that this measure will be in force after the war as well.

I have no other opportunity of speaking in this debate.

The Minister knows perfectly well that other sections are making money and that today’s commissions are not going to continue. In Cape Town recently the Prime Minister stated that those who are looking forward to a paradise after the war, both in this country and in the rest of the world, were going to be disappointed. These are true words. The farming community must expect that after the war they are going to have a very hard battle economically and what we are pleading for is that the Minister and the Government will make it possible for the farmers to face the monster of depression which is rushing up—that monster which has so often beaten them in the past. He must give them the opportunity of entrenching themselves to resist the depression. He should do nothing to make that impossible. But in fixing prices in this way the Minister is weakening the position of the farmers. The Minister has told us that these millions of pounds which have been mentioned as the farmers’ probable losses are magic figures. The Minister said that those figures were used with a view to the Wakkerstroom election. The Minister is a small man physically, but he should not be small in all respects. We do not play with the interests of the farmers and the Minister should not be frivolous either. He should be the father of the farming community. It is deplorable that so many members on the other side look at farming interests through political spectacles.

Did you not immediately telegraph the prices to Wakkerstroom?

And did not you send a correction and a denial?

Why didn’t you tell them what the prices were going to be when you were there?

We are not talking about Wakkerstroom. Wakkerstroom expressed its opinion on the merits of the Government. We are discussing the interests of the farmers. The Meat Commission in its report states that in 1942, round about 863,000 head of cattle were slaughtered in this country. These are not imaginary figures. These are figures from the Blue Book. And on the Johannesburg market, not on the black market, the price last week was 75s. per 100 lbs. Is that so or is it not so? The farmers sold their cattle in the open market at that good price. The Minister is now fixing the price at 62s. 6d. for the same grade. Is it not a fact that on the open market 75s. was paid? Are we not entitled to draw a comparison between the price on the open market and the price the Minister is now fixing? If so, my leader was correct in saying that we were losing about £4 on a head of cattle. But if we take an animal of 600 lbs., then we lose on an average £2 per head which means a loss of £1,700,000 in comparison with the Johannesburg prices before the scheme came into operation. Is there anything magic about that, or is it reality? And in regard to sheep you have the same position. During 1942, 4,600,000 sheep were sent to the market. On the Johannesburg market the price was 12¼d. or l½d. per lb. more than the price announced by the Minister. If we put the weight of a sheep at 40 lbs. it means a loss of 17s. 2d., and on a sheep reckoned conservatively the average loss is at least 10s. About 4,600,000 sheep have been sold and the loss in respect of sheep would therefore be £2,300,000, making a total loss of more than £4,000,000. These figures are well founded. We don’t want to use these figures to stir the farmer up against the Government; we are anxious to help the Minister, but then he should give

I shall tell you. The fixed price for prime mutton is 8⅞d. per lb. For the offal and the skin 1d. a lb. is reckoned. That brings the price to 9⅞d. That is very close to the 10d., so near that it really makes no difference. One-eighth of a penny on a sheep of 40 lbs. weight come to about 5d. a sheep. Then hon. member opposite must not forget that 3½ per cent. is allowed for shrinkage, and then the farmer also has other privileges. Where in the past he often had to pay 5 per cent. commission to the auctioneer he will now pay 2½ per cent. These are all things that count. If all these things were put together then I believe that the farmer will now always get 10d. per lb. for prime mutton.

You must do that sum again, because no one can understand it.

The sum is so easy that any fool can understand it. The farmer get 8⅞d. per lb. plus the penny for skin and offal which brings the price to 9⅞d. per lb. And then there are the other things that I have mentioned. There is the 3½ per cent. for skrinkage, which is added to the other factor, and 2½ per cent. commission instead of 5 per cent. So I reckon that the price will work out at at least 10d. per lb. I therefore maintain that the farmer still continues to get 10d. a lb. We are told that the farmer has been getting 1s. per lb., and we know that he often did get that. But we know how it goes with the sale of sheep. When the butcher or the buyer comes to buy the sheen he and the farmer argue over the weight of the sheep. The buyer says perhaps the sheep will turn the scale at 43 lbs., while farmer says that the weight is 46 lbs. On that basis they bargain, and from both sides give way a bit. If one takes into account that the sheep perhaps weighs more than 43 lbs. then it works out that the farmer has not got 12d. a lb. but only 11d. although he imagines he has got 12d. In other cases, there is also the question of the higher commission, and it is to be doubted whether the farmer, on the average, receives more than 10d. The position is not so bad as members opposite make out. The other argument that has been employed here nearly frightened me. Hon. members opposite said that the farmer would have to surrender 25 per cent. He will not give up as much as that. It will be from 16 per cent to 20 per cent. That means between 5s, and 6s. on an average sheep that weighs 40 lbs. And then it is said that the consumer does not receive any proportion of that reduction because his price remains still on the higher basis. Well, I had almost gone with members opposite, because if the consumer is going to derive no advantage why should we meddle with the position? But the consumer does get certain benefits. In the first place, the black market will disappear. In the black market meat was sold at 1s. 6d. a lb. and even higher in Johannesburg. That black market will disappear and the consumers will pay less for the meat. In my opinion there is also another factor, if the wholesale price of meat comes down then the butcher will be able to make a profit, and then we can take it that there will be more competition in the trade. In this respect perhaps I am only guessing, but I do believe that this may be a factor. The black market, however, will definitely disappear. I understand that recently there have been many butchers who could not make a living. A few years ago a deputation arrived here, and they stated that in Johannesburg there were about 470 retail butchers who were practically all on the verge of bankruptcy. The retail butchers could not make a living. The wholesale butcher could still make ends meet, but the majority of the retail butchers could not come out. If we have this price of 10d. for good fat mutton, then we give the butcher a chance to make a living. We know that he has big expenses. He must pay his blockman from £1 to £1 6s. a day. He must employ bookkeepers. He must have a cooling chamber. He has his distribution costs. How accurate the figures are I do not know, but I think they are fairly accurate; a butcher must make a gross profit of 27 per cent. before he can make a net profit of 6 per cent. That is a big factor, and accordingly I say that if we think over the subject calmly, I believe that the farmers will be well off with 10d. a lb. for mutton and the butcher will be better off and the consumer also will be in a better position.

It appears strange to me that every speaker on the other side who has got up admits with us that under this announcement of the Minister the farmers are going to lose, and to lose heavily, and that is our objection. It has been pointed out here that millions of pounds will go out of the farmers’ pockets. The question is, where will those millions go to? When this scheme was instituted we applauded it. We believed that from it something good would be born. We thought that under it we would eliminate the middleman entirely, the person who has always lived on the sweat and the blood of the farmer. But what has happened? The middleman is given a guaranteed sum of money; the farmer loses money and the consumer does not get the slightest benefit from it. The only benefit that the consumer has is that the so-called Black Market has now been eliminated. The consumers will be able to buy meat, but they will still have to pay the dearest price for it. That is the objection from these benches. The trade has the control today in their hands. The chief Price Controller is a strong business man. He looks after his people; he takes care that they don’t lose a penny. But the farmer is the person who will have to make the sacrifices, and that is what hurts us. It emerged clearly here that every person who stood up in the benches opposite felt on this matter just as we feel. But there was a crack of the whip, and now the one pulls forward and the other presses back, but eventually they must admit that the farmer is going to lose. This is our objection, and this is why we are protesting so strongly against this announcement. The mealie farmers and the wheat growers have to be content with allowing things to go on. An hon. member has stated here that the mealie farmers are this year losing a colossal sum.

And the wheat farmers?

The wheat farmers also lose, and here comes the Minister now and he knee-halters the farmer almost to the ground. No, under the circumstances of today the farmers must make all the sacrifices. Whether we are for the war or against it, every farmer has contributed his share.

He has also got his share.

And what he could make out of it has now been taken from him. We must be honest. If there is one section of our population who we have to protect today it is the consumer and those people get no benefit at all out of this scheme. Who are the people who are deriving the advantage? It is those people who I stigmatise as nothing else but blood-suckers. They have always lived on the fat of the land and on the sweat of the Boer, and here comes the hon. Minister and he again plays into the hands of these people. We had hoped that the Minister would encourage the farmers and help them and protect them. But I can see no advantage for the farmer in this announcement of the Minister’s, but only for the middleman, who is going to make the profit.

In connection with this question of the rationalisation of the production and distribution of meat there are some figures to which I think the attention of this House should be drawn. The figures are the indices of the prices of meat on the basis of the 1926 to 1929 level. On that basis these are the figures. In 1929 the index of the price of meat in the United States was 89.3; in New Zealand 95.3; in Australia 95.3; and in South Africa 89.5. Now in 1943 the index for the United States of America was 143.6—a jump in price of 44 per cent. For New Zealand the index for 1943 was 98.9, an increase of only 4 per cent. For Australia—I have the figure for 1941 only—the figure was 83.6, showing no increase but a fall over the previous figure. And now if we consider the index price of meat in South Africa in 1943, it shows 168.9, an increase of 69 per cent. The same rate of increase occurs in connection with a number of primary products. Wheat shows an average fall for other countries of 30 per cent., whereas in South Africa it shows an increase of 12 per cent. With regard to maize, in the United States there is an increase in price of 8 per cent.; in the Argentine there is a fall of 60 per cent.; whereas in South Africa there is an increase of 18 per cent.

Are these figures comparable?

Yes, they have been reduced to one common denominator. All this goes to emphasise how slow we are here in South Africa in achieving a measure of stability in the interests of the farmer and the consumer. It is a pity that we had no stabilisation council set up in the early stages of the war. If that had been done we should not have been faced with the position with which we are faced now; nevertheless I think that is no reason why we should not endeavour to give all the support we can to this attempt on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to rationalise the production and the distribution of meat. I say that for another reason; here I want to put in a plea for the ordinary consumer, and particularly the poor consumer of this country, because it is essential that the full co-operation of the farming industry be obtained to engage in the urgent and essential attack on mass poverty. It is estimated that in this country there are 40,000 European families, 45,000 coloured, 10,000 Indian, and 150,000 native families who are unable to provide out of their income the minimum requirements of food for their families. I want to make a plea for an extension of the Government policy of subsidisation of food in order to meet the needs of these families; it is necessary to engage the support of all sides of the House in the national fight against malnutrition and disease. That policy is in the interests of the farmers; it will mean an extension of their markets and an increase in their nett incomes. We all realise that there can be no real reconstruction after the war unless food subsidies are built up on a wide and extended scale. That is to say they are absolutely indispensable not only to post-war reconstruction; but also, to maintaining a proper level of agricultural activity. It will only be possible if we get the fullest co-operation between the farmers and the State. I want to appeal therefore to the farming representatives in this House to give their fullest support to this attempt, this honest attempt, to rationalise the meat industry. We in Natal know the advantage of having rationalised production and distribution in the case of the sugar industry. Some of us have chafed at the price levels, but we realise that a steady price level, and the security it has given generally, has been in the interest of the people themselves as well as in the interests of the industry. Now this subsidisation, this plan of rationalisation, represents, I believe, a great gain for the farmers. I hope they will give it a trial, and that the Nationalist Party will not give the country the impression that they are not sympathetic to this scheme; and certainly not sympathetic to the wider plan of subsidisation and social uplift of the large masses of indigent people in this country.

It is remarkable in that case that our hon. friends opposite arrogate to themselves to speak on behalf of the farming community, and especially in the name of the organised farming community. They have themselves hurled threats at the head of the Minister and said that if he wanted war he would get war from the farmer organisations that they represent. But I want just to explain that there are also representatives of the farmers on this side of the House. We want to present the matter to the Minister from a reasonable standpoint with an eye to the future. We do not want to look merely at the interests of today; we want to look at what the future of the farming industry is going to be in so far as concerns the meat market. It appears to me that on the benches opposite it is a question of immediate profit and the obtaining of higher prices. This engenders the suspicion that some of the hon. members opposite have now suddently been hit by the fixation of prices and perhaps they will lose a certain amount of capital, because they have held back stock. We have here the case that all agree that the scheme in itself is an excellent scheme. The question is only this, whether the price is adequate for the farming industry. We have been inundated with a flood of figures here. Many of the figures contradict each other. But after one has heard the figures that were given by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett), by the hon. Minister himself, and now by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), there is no doubt left as to whose figures are acceptable.

Those will be of course the figures of the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys).

The figures from the benches opposite were irresponsible figures.

You admit there will be a loss?

They said there would be a loss of from £3,000,000 to £10,000,000.

You were dreaming.

Water down that £10,000,000 a bit.

There are certain anomalies. One of the hon. members opposite asked the Minister to raise the price to the producer, and in the same breath he said that he must ask the Minister to reduce the price to the consumer. I ask, how in heaven’s name is the Minister going to manage that.

You do not understand it.

The matter that we are talking about now is Greek to you.

It is beyond him.

The Minister has only been married a little while ago to his new post. He has only given birth now to his first little baby, and he is still feeling the labour pains.

Who is suffering from labour pains?

Here are figures mentioned by both sides of the House, figures which in my opinion cannot be borne out by the other side, and figures on this side which can be confirmed and were confirmed by the hon. member for East Griqualand. He has made a study of the subject. I think his figures may be accepted, and when he says today that the price of the offal and the price of the skin will increase the amount by 5s., then he is speaking from conviction and after proper enquiry. I am certain that I am speaking in his name when I say that he reached the conclusion that 5s. was correct. I would just give this advice to hon. members opposite, that they should go a little more thoroughly into the figures. There is only one more observation that I wish to endorse, and that is that if stabilisation is provided, it should be permanent. We who represent the farmers consider that it will be one of the solutions of the agricultural problem to have stabilisation of prices. There is one further thing that I wish to endorse, and that is when there is stabilisation it must be permanent. We as representatives of the farming industry consider that is one of the farmers’ difficulties, and the first step in the direction of social security for the farmers. We hear a lot about social security, and I believe that the farmer can only achieve his social security through permanent fixation of prices, so that he can have certainty regarding the price he will get for his product. There is the further point which has already been mentioned, that the producers are in many cases also consumers. In my constituency, where there is a considerable number of cattle farmers, it is the case that many farmers during the seasons when they do not sell cattle, also buy their meat from the butchers. Thus it cannot be regarded as a duel between producer and consumer. In many cases the producer is also the consumer and gets back on the one hand what he has lost on the other. But I will readily agree that the farmers will suffer a small loss as a result of the fixation of prices. I think, however, that it can be borne if in return for it there is obtained the stabilisation of prices on a permanent basis. On the other hand, it is stated that the middleman is going to make large profits. Hon. members have stated that the producers are now going to receive less for their stock while the consumers are going to pay the same price. How is it possible then for the middleman to make so much more? Where is it going to come from? In the past the farmer obtained fluctuating prices, and then the middleman could make profits. But that cannot happen today. The charge levelled at the Minister that he is protecting the middleman has no foundation. Who is the middleman making the enormous profits? The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) quoted figures here. He took the price at which the product was sold in the market to the consumer, and if the figures are gone into it will be seen that the wholesale butcher can make a profit of 10 per cent. at the highest and the retail butcher, according to hon. members’ own figures, 30 per cent.

Without any trade risk.

Is there no trade risk in connection with the retail dealer’s business? There are the expenses that he has, the high rent that he has to pay, the people he must employ, the losses that he sustains on meat that he cannot sell, as well as bad debts. I cannot understand how the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) can say that there is no trade risk. There is one thing that I remember well from after the last war, and that is the fact that overnight the prices of cattle fell. In many cases the prices fell from £25 and £30 to £6 and £7 and as the result of that many farmers in those days went bankrupt. It was not only the fall in the price level, but the sudden fall of the price of stock that occasioned that position. If the Minister can prevent that after this war by his scheme, then he has conferred a great service on the country, and has taken a step in the direction of social security. I am prepared to accord the Minister my full support, and I am prepared to answer for my constituency. I ask only three things of the Minister. Firstly, that he must make the stabilisation permanent, on a fixed basis. Secondly, I ask that the fixed price must be at the lowest level. It is admitted today that the price of cattle is at the moment at the lowest level at which it usually is during the year, and I agree. If an alteration is made the Minister must proceed from the standpoint that this will be the lowest price. Thirdly, I want to ask the Minister that if an alteration is effected he must think especially of the lowest grade, the grade 4 meat. If one compares the fixed prices with the prices that ruled in Pretoria a few weeks ago, one finds that the difference for prime quality, Grades 1, 2 and 3 are not so great, only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent., but in regard to Grade 4 the difference is greater, and this is exactly a reduction that is received by the small farmer and the poor farmer. I am not speaking in the interests of the Hoggenheimers in the meat world, but I am speaking for the small farmers. If an alteration of prices is made in the future, let the Minister take the lowest grade especially into consideration.

Listening to the last speaker, it appeared to me as if there was little difference between us. I hope that he was talking as a farmer. The first part of his speech gave one the impression that he was not a farmer. He characterised the arguments from these benches as loose and irresponsible. I will leave it to the House to judge whose arguments are loose and irresponsible, and I will also leave the hon. member to his constituents, who will be able to judge if he has acted rightly. But the most interesting feature was that he concluded with three points, three conditions. He came along then with his “buts” and then he demanded practically the same as what we are asking. Then he pleaded that it should in any case be a long-term scheme. We also pleaded for a long-term scheme.

The Minister agrees with that.

I have already explained that on my vote.

Then tell us that outright.

It was discussed on my vote and you were satisfied with my announcement.

Yes, but yesterday’s announcement from the Minister fell like a thunderbolt amongst us. I must honestly say that I was so upset that I could not settle down again yesterday, for the simple reason that if one compares the prices that the Minister announced yesterday with those we received a week ago, one spots at once the weak points in the Minister’s announcement. His defence was about the weakest of the lot. I want to congratulate the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) with the defence he put up for the other side. He tried to bolster up a very weak case. He did his best but he did not succeed. Then the Minister came along and his defence was extremely weak. To sum up: From what point of view does the farmer regard this matter? Only from the viewpoint of the price that he gets for his article. According to our reckoning, the farmers are going to lose £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 as the result of this price fixation. One of the hon. members opposite called this into question, and said that perhaps this evening we would state that it was £10,000,000. But if you reckon it on a sound basis it will be at least £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 less that the farmers will get under the indicated prices compared with what we were receiving until a few days ago. The hon. Minister and the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) took an index figure of 100, and they reckoned on that basis that the increase in prices in our country was large. Well, the day before yesterday if I sold a 40 lb. hamel I could expect at least 12d. per lb. That is the price which we actually received, and there were no complaints. A butcher told me recently that since high prices came into vogue, he has never made so much money in the butchery business as now. There is money in abundance. We view the matter from that standpoint. The day before yesterday I could still get 12d. per lb. We would be satisfied with a little less, but what will I get under the Minister’s scheme? If I now have a 40 lb. hamel for which I could get 12d. per lb. I shall be lucky if I get 8d.

Ten pence farthing.

If the Minister would give me that I will sell all my stock to him.

I shall tell the Minister where the difficulty comes in. If he can guarantee the price we will sell everything to him. Our calculation of a loss of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 is absolutely correct. According to the report of the Meat Commission we slaughtered last year about 4,500,000 sheep. Now I challenge the Minister and his department to explain this in any other way. We are losing from 10s. to 15s. on each sheep. On 4,500,000 sheep, to take the number we slaughtered last year, we shall now lose 10s. to 15s. a sheep. Then as regards cattle, I understand that last year we slaughtered about 1,000,000 cattle. Under the plan announced by the Minister we shall receive £1 to £3 less on each animal. Will hon. members now ell us that this is irresponsible talk? There are the figures showing what we are going to lose as a result of the scheme. The Minister has stated that the farmers have accepted the scheme in principle, and that they are only looking to the stabilising of the market. But when the Minister says to us: “Look, we are going to adopt this scheme and it is going to come into force on the 15th of the month, and on the basis that I laid down here yesterday in the statement that I made”; then I don’t want to use any threat against him, but I want to tell him that the farmers are going to fight him to the last ditch. I do not think that it was right to do this at a stage when the farmer’s living costs are higher than previously and when the farmer’s costs of production have also mounted. He is bringing the farmer back virtually to prewar prices, and that is not right. The farmers will be justified in resisting them to the last ditch.

It is as a farmer that I extend my full support to the Minister of this scheme that he has presented to the country. I have listened with attention to the speeches from the benches opposite, and what immediately struck me was who had been selected on the opposite side as the first to talk on this matter. It appears to me that the axis on which everything revolves is nothing more nor less than the prices that have been indicated. That is the axis round which everything revolves. Now I want to say a few words in terms of the report of the Meat Commission. On page 24, paragraph 133, we find that the Commission has the following recommendation—[Re-translation ]—

Efficient price control, we agree with that. Members opposite are also in agreement with that. Then we come to the second point—

It is exactly on this point that I disagree with the Opposition. It is all very well to stand up here and to grumble about the profits. But has the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) given a thought to the point that if he gets 12d. per lb, for his sheep, what is the value of the land on which his sheep run? Is it possible to continue with that? That is a pertinent question. Did we not after the last war reap the bitter fruits of land speculation and the breaking down of land prices. Now I put this further question. Who brought the price of sheep and cattle to the price they stood at last year? Who stimulated the prices for the farmer and for the general public on that point? Was it the agriculturist, the man who must make his living from the soil, who forced the prices up to that level? No, it was our friends who now sit on the Opposition benches, those friends who remain silent and who have not received the order to stand in their places. It is that professional element in the country who sprang up and who forced the prices up at the auction sales on the platteland.

Mention one of them on this side.

You can’t mention a single name.

That scored a hit, and now they are raging. Now they are squealing. I say with emphasis that it is the professional element that sprang up and bought cattle to evade taxes. They accumulated money and forced up the price of land, and then the price of cattle also, because they had bought cattle to evade taxes. Those are the spokesmen that we have on the benches opposite.

I think that you should have a crack at some of your own people.

Yes, there are also some of them on this side. I have on a previous occasion told the Minister of Finance that he must reckon with these people who have caused a dislocation of the whole economic structure of our country, and if we continue, and if we do what the Opposition here today are advocating, then we shall eventually be overtaken with complete bankruptcy for many of the people in the platteland. It will not be a case of a loss of two or three million pounds, but it will cost a hundred million pounds or more to be able to return to a sound economic basis. I have never seen bigger advocates and pleaders for the wholesale butchers and speculators than we have seen here in the House today. It was not for nothing that those people visited Cape Town and had interviews. They secured advocates here, and the result is going to be that the farming community are going to be led to bankruptcy, so that after five years they will have a group of dissatisfied people in the country that they can take to the polling booths, and then they certainly will want to teach us how to govern the country. I say again and I repeat, we have never had better advocates and pleaders to lead the farming community to bankruptcy. If the farming community are to give effect to the threats that have been employed in this House that they are going to fight this scheme tooth and nail, if the organised farmers are going to fight it and are going to hold back their cattle, it will lead to bankruptcy if the Minister gives in. We cannot get away from that. We have already had a taste of that. I was one of those who was misled by the uneconomic prices of land after the last war. I learned my lesson. I was misled in those days when I was in the ranks of the Opposition. In the long run it will pay the farmers to give in a bit now and to lose a little so that they can preserve their industry and keep the value of their land on a sound economic foundation.

You admit then that they are going to lose by this.

What do I admit? This step that the Minister of Agriculture has taken here now is in the interests of the cattle farmers and the sheep farmers—of the meat farmers. It is being done to save the farming population against itself. The farmers outside are not so stupid as to listen to the speeches that are delivered on the opposite side of the House.

Your voters only plant tomatoes.

The hon. member can come to my district, and then he will be able to see how intensively they farm with cattle. I challenge him to find in the veld any better stock than are to be found in the Barberton district and at Nelspruit. We have large cattle farms there and we are proud of them. But we are not going to sell our souls for a few pence. We shall rather receive a reasonable price because there are people to eat the meat. The consumer is there, and he must be taken into consideration as a citizen of the country. Under the system of price control and of grading meat according to quality, he will be able to buy better meat at a lower price, and the whole country will in the long run enjoy the benefit of this wise step which the Minister of Agriculture has had the courage and the manliness to take, and which will mean that he will still be our Minister of Agriculture after the lapse of five years.

When the Minister of Agriculture made this announcement yesterday I immediately asked whether we would be accorded an opportunity to discuss this matter. Fortunately we have now been given the opportunity to discuss this important subject. We know that it has taken a great deal of time to bring the scheme to this stage. We on this side have always striven for our meat market to be controlled. We shall continue with such a scheme because we feel that it is the right thing. We want to control and stabilise our products. We can thus forget that particular point. We realise further that it must take much time to get the officials to put the scheme into operation. Certain people must be selected throughout the length and breadth of the country and be brought in in order to make a success of the scheme. Many mistakes may yet be made, and as the scheme develops those matters can attended to. But what we feel is this, that the Minister of Agriculture ought not just to have sprung this announcement on us. He ought to have given us a proper opportunity to consider the matter before he stated to the House that these were his prices and that he was going to do this or that. We as the highest council in the country ought to have discussed the subject. This is where we clash. Furthermore I feel this, that he has based his price fixation on a period during which the prices gradually decline. You can just investigate it. It is not a question here of self-interest. It is a question of the future interests of the farming population. We are not merely looking to today. It has always been pur policy that we must provide for the time when the war is over, after ten or fifteen years, so that the farmer may know that if he has produced a sheep or a beast, he will get a reasonable price for his product. Where the Minister has erred is this. He is still a young man, and I am talking frankly to him, because he has still got a lot to learn. If he cannot learn anything more then he knows nothing. Where he is making the mistake is this. He ought to have given us an earlier opportunity to discuss the matter. No. 2 is this. To give his scheme a good start he should not fix the prices on the lowest level. He has taken the moment now just before the winter to fix the prices. I represent districts like Barkly and Dordrecht, where the carrying capacity per morgen of sheep and cattle is the highest in the country. Members can just look at the figures. What I now feel is this. The Minister has fixed the prices at the lowest limit during this period. The farmer is losing ground because the prices have steadily fallen. The farmers are not so flourishing as is generally thought. They merely look at the bright side of things. The prices are too low, and I hope that the Minister will review the matter and that he will bring the prices to at least what they were three months ago. Then he will give a proper chance to his people. We want to give the scheme a proper chance, and we want to help the Minister. He requires our assistance in this, the biggest scheme that we have yet undertaken, in order to make a success of it. I can give you the assurance that this side of the House will make its contribution and will do everything to make a success of the scheme, provided the Minister does not adopt the attitude that he has taken up here of saying that he has said the last word. I do not like that, that he should have stated here that he has nothing more to say, and that he cannot again reply; in other words, we may present any argument but he is not going to change his opinion,

Under the Standing Orders I am not entitled to reply again.

The Minister replied to the debate too soon. We were given the opportunity here that we struggled to get. All of us in our simplicity, contributed something. If the Minister will learn perhaps he will also be able to learn from me, a back bencher, but he replied before he heard what the difficulty was.

But I replied to your Leader’s address.

We are democratic. We all contribute to make a success of the party and of the people. Let me tell the Minister this, that after this discussion he will notice many things where he has gone wrong, and I hope that he will make the corrections as soon as possible, and before I sit down I want to say this. What has struck me as a mistake which was made here is this. There are many of the wholesale dealers and butchers who are also speculators—the majority of them, and the majority of them buy cattle in my area. Virtually the whole control is under them. Now the speculators are buying up the sheep and the cattle, and all the time they are making profits. One butcher said to me: “Today I am in great trouble. I do not belong to that big concern; six or seven of the butchers have joined in together. I am independent and I cannot compete with those people.” That element financially is very strong. We must rake care that they do not make a monopoly and obtain further profits. I shall close with these few words. We as farmers want a reasonable economic price for our products, and we also wish that the consumer should pay a reasonable price. We do not want to be unreasonable, but we want to have a stable price for our products and we hope that along this way we shall get a stable price.

It is a pity that the hon. member who has just sat down (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) did not introduce the criticism of the scheme this morning. If the criticism had been delivered in that manner, on the basis the hon. member advanced it, the debate would no doubt have contributed more to the furtherance of the scheme.

Who criticised the scheme?

I also have been a member of organised agriculture for quite a number of years, and for at least the last ten years organised agriculture has urged the Government to come forward with a proper meat marketing scheme.

That is right.

No one protested against that.

I want to assert today that the scheme that has been announced is actually the child of organised agriculture.

Yes.

Who contradicted that?

I shall tell the hon. member who contradicted that. It hurt me very much this morning when one of my hon. friends on the other side, a member of an organised agricultural union, voiced a threat and said that organised agriculture would fight the scheme.

I did not say that; I referred to the prices.

Organised agriculture will not follow the policy of hon. members opposite to murder their own child. I am not going to say that this scheme is 100 per cent. perfect, but I will maintain that it is a sound beginning, and it is a beginning that the farming community can rightly welcome.

And they did welcome it.

Who denied it?

If we welcome this scheme and if we want to co-operate to make this scheme efficient as we want it to be, then I want to give hon. members opposite the assurance that the manner in which they have offered their criticisms against the scheme is calculated to wreck it. I make this allegation that the whole argument against the scheme—excluding the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom)—had one object, and one object only, and that was to wreck the meat scheme.

That is a misrepresentation.

That is a skittle that you have set up to bowl over yourself.

It is known to everyone that especially during the last few weeks certain interests have done everything in their power to prevent this scheme or any scheme seeing the light of day.

Have they been to you?

And if we listen to the criticism of the Opposition against this scheme, then it ought to be clear to all that the negotiations that have taken place in the Lobby with certain interests, with the object of wrecking the meat scheme have been successful in respect of our Opposition friends.

That is a very cheap remark to make.

You know that it is cheap.

Wild allegations are being made. Play is being made with the millions of pounds that the meat farmers are going to lose. I won’t go into this £4,000,000 or into the £5,000,000 which it became later. But it was alleged here by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) that the sheep farmers alone would lose more than £2¼ million.

More than £2 million.

That was his allegation.

Why don’t you controvert it?

It was alleged by him that the sheep farmers are going to lose about £2¼ million. He based his calculations on black market prices.

Are these really black market prices?

These are not only black market prices now. But they have been for the last two years. This is based on it. And I ask mv hon. friends opposite what percentage of farmers received those black market prices. These are prices that the speculators received, and the farmers who really got them are speculators. These are the people for whom they are pleading today, and the small farmer’s interests are altogether lost sight of. They are pleading only for the big farmer and the speculator, for the black market must be preserved for him. But what has surprised me most of all—I know mv hon. friends opposite also represent agriculture, I do not dispute that—but why must the meat farmer only be placed in that position of having uncontrolled markets? They have had the privilege already for the last three years to sell in an uncontrolled market, a privilege that no other producer of stable products has had. If we calculate the prices in respect of other products on the basis that hon. members opposite have worked out the loss to the meat farmer, I wonder what the loss will be to the potato grower; I wonder what the loss will be to the maize grower; I wonder what the loss will be to the wheat grower. Everyone agrees that we want control. I readily admit that hon. members on the other side are also in favour of control, but whenever it affects them personally then control must be brought to nought. No, if you want control for all staple products, then it must not be merely applied to the one class of farmer; we must also be prepared to accept it ourselves; otherwise we are not honest; we are also not logical in our pleas. This scheme can only be a success if everyone co-operates to make it a success, the farmers as well as the consumers and the trade; and I make an appeal to all that we should work together and help to make the scheme a success; and where there are faults, let us help the Minister and his department to improve the scheme. If the price level is too low, let the Minister’s department show us their calculations; let us co-operate with them. But to pass criticism and to proclaim it through the country that the farmers are being robbed of millions of pounds doesn’t help matters at all. In conclusion I want to repeat that there is only one object in all this, and that is to wreck the next control scheme.

That is not true

The threat has already been made by hon. members opposite that the stock farmers will not market their stock. Well then it speaks for itself that the scheme cannot be a success. But then we shall be entitled on this side of the House to lay the blame on hon. members opposite for having been the instruments of interests that according to them are going to derive the greatest benefit out of the scheme, to wreck the scheme, and I want to give them the assurance that agriculture will have an account to settle with them.

The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) who has just sat down, has made the allegation against this side of the House which I regard as nothing less than cheap.

An allegation that is well founded.

He says that there are certain interests which aim at wrecking the scheme and that we have been their instruments, and he states that during the last few weeks certain interests came here ….

And you don’t know it.

No, he did not say that we did not know it. He says that certain interests came here and that they successfully contacted us. I challenge the hon. member to name those interests.

Ask the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn). He will give you the names.

The hon. member should not now pass the buck to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. He has made a cheap accusation here against us. I challenge him to name those interests with which this side has negotiated. We have already learned that the hon. member is in the habit of making allegations which he cannot substantiate.

Tell us about the policy of the Government.

I shall say this to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow): The policy of the Government is this. There are two big interests who seriously look forward to this scheme, namely, the farmers and the consumers, and the upshot of the Minister’s scheme is that the consumers will, as from Monday, pay the same price for meat as they are paying today and the farmer will get less for his product. That is the crux of the Minister’s scheme, and the Minister gives only one answer to this House, namely, that there is a black market. He has hit the farmers and he has not helped the consumers. He has only had one thing on his mind, and that is the black market, and he now hopes that the activities of the black market will decline. As the Minister has made such a weighty resolve on account of the black market, the Minister should have stood up and explained to us what the black market is. Can one imagine that a man is honest only from Saturday to Monday? I have never heard a more stupid allegation than this. That is all that the Minister can tell the House. He is now going to wipe out the black market. The consumer pays the same, and the seller gets less. Wonderful! The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) has at any rate admitted that the farmers are going to lose between 5s. and 6s. That is at least an admission. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has stated that amongst us there may be people sitting who have bought up stock that they want to sell in the black market. Let me now tell hon. members that I believe in the principle of this scheme. I have had sheep that I could have sold two or three weeks ago. For years I have been selling to Cape Central, and I have believed so much in the scheme that I still have got my sheep. But to my sorrow I shall have to sell them at 10s. to 12s. less than what I could have obtained two weeks ago. No one will be able to tell me that I will not get 10s. less, not even the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett). I want to turn to the hon. member. As a farmer’s representative I have always had a considerable opinion of him, but his address this morning shocked me. In spite of what he must feel in his heart about this scheme and the prices, he accuses this side of waging battle against the scheme for political reasons. He, however, is willing for political reasons to step into the breach on behalf of his party, although he knows in his heart that this plan is all wrong. He is ready to leave the farmers in the lurch for the sake of a political party, and then he stands up here and accuses other people of dragging the matter into the political arena. The hon. member knows what my attitude is. The farmers’ associations stand for the principle of the scheme.

What then are you against?

I shall tell the hon. member. The farmers welcome the scheme in principle for two reasons; in the first place because they hope to obtain price stabilisation, not only for the period of the war, but also after the war. I must say that I take exception to the Minister’s action. On his vote I told him that he should make the scheme a permanent one. But what did he reply? He says now that we twisted his words. He repeated the same thing today. He said on his vote that the Meat Board was busy working out a scheme under the Marketing Act, and if the scheme was a success he would apply it. This morning he came here again and said that if certain interests allowed it the scheme would be made permanent. To what interests is he referring? What interests is he afraid of that they must allow him to make the scheme permanent?

I never said that.

That is the first point. The farmers are in favour of the scheme, provided that it will continue after the war, and the Minister will not give us that assurance. In the second place the farmers are in favour of the scheme, because they want to narrow the gap between the producer, the farmer and the consumer. But what is the effect Of the scheme? He makes the gap wider; he brings in another middleman. Formerly the procedure was this that the farmer sent his produce to the auctioneer, and when it was auctioned the wholesale trader bought it and the wholesale trader sold it in turn to the retail trader, and the retail trader sold it to the consumer. Now under this scheme the position is that the farmer sends the stock to the auctioneer, and the auctioneer hands it over to the controller.

Not necessarily.

In certain circumstances he can also consign it direct to the controller. The point is that the farmer now sends it to the auctioneer who acts as agent, and if he has got his commission he passes the stock on to the controller. The controller takes 6s. in respect of every beast weighing 600 lbs. He is an extra middleman. Then it goes to the wholesale trader, and next to the retail trader, and from him to the consumer.

Not necessarily.

I do not think the hon. member understands the scheme. We want to narrow the gap between producer and consumer, but this scheme brings him an extra party.

Is that your whole objection? That is no reason.

Then I will tell the hon. member what the effect of it is. It comes down to this, that while we are in favour of the principle of the scheme, the Minister has gone out of his way to reduce the price so that we get 10s. less for a sheep and £2 less for beef.

Then that is the second reason.

That is the third important reason. The hon. member takes so much interest in the position. There are hon. members who say that we produce figures that we are unable to prove. I can prove them. For prime beef the price fixed by the Minister is 62s. 6d. Now hon. members say that this is the same price as we would have got otherwise. The Minister now fixes the price of prime beef in Johannesburg at 62s, 6d. per 100 lbs. and here in Cape Town he fixes it at 65s. per 100 lbs. Now I want to ask him, if I consign my stock before the end of the week to the Food Controller, what shall I get for them? I shall get the Government’s fixed price, namely, 69s. 6d. per 100 lbs. for primes. This is not snatched out of the air. The Minister fixes the price at 65s., a difference of 4s. 6d. Grade 1 was 64s. 6d. and is now fixed at 56s.

Plus “X.”

A difference of 8s. 6d. Grade 2 is today 56s. 6d. and the Minister is fixing it at 48s. 6d., a difference of 8s. Grade 3 is 50s. 6d. today, and the price fixed by the Minister is 40s. 6d., a difference of 10s. Grade 4 is 45s. 6d. today, and the price fixed by the Minister is 27s. 6d., a difference of 18s. per 100 lbs. Are there still people on the benches opposite with commonsense who will stand up and maintain that the farmers are not getting less for their cattle and their sheep. How can they argue in that way?

The grades are not on the same level.

I know how the grading is done. They made the grade lighter, and I have taken the grade in your favour. I will now turn to the other point, sheep. If today I load up my sheep until Saturday, then I will get for prime mutton 10⅜d. That is if I consign direct to the Controller. Now the Minister is fixing the price at 9¼d., a difference of l¼d. Grade 1 is today 9⅞d. and the Minister has fixed the price at 8¼d. or 1 5/8d. less. Grade 2 is today 9⅛d. and the indicated price is 6¼d., practically a difference of 3d. Are there still hon. members who want to assert that the farmers are not getting less?

We know that they are getting less.

These are the prices that I got this morning at Maitland from the Minister’s own buyer, and then they say that we cannot verify the prices we quote and that we have taken them out of the papers. What does the Minister’s own Department say? I have here the April number of “Farming in South Africa,” published by the Department of Economics and Markets. There they say that the average price of beef in Johannesburg throughout the year 1942-’43 was 63s. 2d. The Minister has now fixed it at 62s. 6d., a small difference. But now we come to the year starting on the 1st July, 1943, till today. What is the average price? Seventy shillings. Now the Minister will say that this is for the six months to the end of February, and that for March, April, May and June the prices were lower. I have taken them on the lowest basis, at 62s., and then it still works out at 70s. What does the Minister’s department say about sheep? The Minister has fixed the price in Johannesburg for prime mutton at 9¼d. Do you know what the average price was from 1st June to the 31st May? It was 11½d., 2d. per lb. more. And if the Minister will take the year 1st July, 1943, to the end of February, he will find that the average price is 12½d., a difference of 3d. These are not my figures. These are the Minister’s department’s figures, and that is the price that I obtain today if I consign my cattle or my sheep to Cape Town. Then I just want to put this question to the Minister. I understand that the Food Controller is a certain Mr. Keegan, and that he does not get a salary.

He does receive a salary.

Does the department pay it to him?

The State pays it.

What is it?

It is the same salary as the head of a department receives.

I am glad to hear that, because I understood that Mr. Keegan did not draw a salary. I want to go further and say in connection with the figures I have quoted, that if I send cattle or sheep to the Food Controller in Cape Town I should not be required to pay a penny commission. In the future I shall have to pay 2½ per cent. commission. The local controller receives the sheep, and he sells it then to the wholesale dealer, and the wholesale dealer pays 6s. on a beast weighing 600 lbs. On a sheep he pays 2½ per cent. I want to know from the Minister where that money goes to. The wholesale dealer then sells that beast to the retail dealer, and the wholesaler makes a profit of 18s. 6d. on it. The retail trader sells it to the consumers, and on that 600 lb. beast which is priced at £18 15s„ he makes a profit of £6 18s. Consequently I should like to tell the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that we can understand very well why this scheme has been a failure from the beginning. The price that has been fixed for the farmer is too low, and on the other side the consumer pays the same. If the hon. member goes into that then he will see how much the farmers in South Africa are going to lose. There are people here who would like to refute these facts, but the farmer will himself see how much less he will get, whether it is 15s. or 10s. or 12s., when he receives his cheque. He will then see what damage this scheme has wrought on him; and I will conclude by saying this. We on this side of the House are in favour of the principle of the scheme, and a proportion of the members opposite are also in favour of the principle. But the Minister of Agriculture has in the application of his scheme met with failure. The Minister of Agriculture is not young nor is he yet old; he is about as old as I am. But if he allows this scheme to fail then he will wreck not only the scheme, but he will wreck himself and his party together with the scheme.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in this debate on behalf of the man who has been largely forgotten, the consumer in the controlled areas. It is a fact, as has been suggested by several speakers, that the consumer in the controlled areas has not been able to obtain meat at controlled prices because the price to the producer has not been controlled and the reason for that has been in order to placate the farming community in South Africa. I have before me a report of a case in Johannesburg where ten retail butchers were charged with selling mutton above the controlled price and the defence was that if they had sold at the controlled price, they would either have gone bankrupt or they would have been obliged to close down their business. The magistrate said this in the course of his judgment—

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that has ben badly managed and inefficiently done in this country it has been the control of the price of meat, and where I wish to congratulate the Minister is that he has now come to this House with a scheme which at any rate seeks to control the price to the producer. I am disappointed that this scheme does not go a good deal further than it does, and I want to say that if the scheme is confined to controlled areas, I do not believe that the control of prices to the producer in the controlled areas only is going to have any very great beneficial effect. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) drew a parallel between the case of the controlled grain farmers and meat farmers, but there is this basic difference that in the case of the grain farmers the price of grain is universal throughout the Union, whereas in the case of meat it is confined to certain controlled areas, and that seems to me to be a weakness in the whole scheme. Until this is removed, I don’t think we are going to have a very effective system. It seems to me that the idea which the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) suggested, namely, rationing, has a good deal to be said for it, but unfortunately the Meat Commission dealt with that very point and this is what they said after going into the position—

I don’t know whether the Minister has adopted the latter portion but it is quite clear that he has decided not to adopt the recommendation as far as the first portion is concerned. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is another point which the Commission dealt with and it was a point which undoubtedly has created increased prices in the Union and that was the action of the farmers themselves in withholding supplies from the market. This is what the Commission says in connection with that in Section 44—

Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is a fact that the farmers are actually refusing to sell their products to avoid taxation it seems to me a very hollow and very unworthy action of the farmers to come along and plead that they should not be controlled. The Minister should have gone further and should have taken some power under which he could compel the sale of livestock so as to enable the market to be adequately supplied. I am disappointed that the Minister has suggested that it might be advisable at a later stage to revise prices. I think we in the towns are paying so high a price for meat that we are entitled to say prices should not rise above the present level. I don’t think we in the towns are prepared to pay more, I don’t think we should be called upon to pay more, and I say that the existing prices in the towns are due entirely to the fact that advantage has been taken of the non-control of the producer. I don’t think the producer is to be pitied, he has never had better conditions than he is enjoying in this country at this moment, and as long as those conditions are maintained it is perfectly fair to say that he will not be allowed to increase prices and that prices as far as the townsmen are concerned should be stabilised. I hope the scheme the Minister has now brought in will have the effect of enabling the townsman to buy at controlled and not black market prices in the controlled areas, though I doubt very much that that will be the effect of it. That would be some benefit in the controlled areas to the townsman from the scheme which the Minister has put before the country.

Mr. Speaker, when the subject was brought up before I felt certain that if the scheme was hurried it would bring about a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction throughout the country and that has been borne out by what has happened today. There is very little support for the scheme at the moment. I am glad the House has had an opportunity of discussing this because I had been perfectly convinced that an attempt was being made to steamroller this scheme through without Parliament being able to have any say in the matter. I think the country will be very pleased that Parliament has had an opportunity of stating its approval or otherwise of this scheme. Price fixation of meat, which is what this scheme intends to do is one of the most difficult matters. I know of no industry in the world that has caused so much trouble to the people who have endeavoured to control prices. That has been found in every country in the world which has dabbled in this particular business and South Africa has been no exception to that. I said previously in this House that if there were consultations with various bodies interested, a scheme could have been formulated that would have been acceptable to every section of the community, provided they were all prepared to be reasonable. I asked the Minister previously to delay this scheme for a while and I think he would have been well advised had he done so instead of having individuals chasing around the country in aeroplanes bringing something into being that will be due for failure if it is not handled on the right lines. When I was asked why the scheme should be delayed I told the Minister that there were certain financial reasons and implications as far as the distributive trade was concerned which there would be some difficulty in meeting. I would like to ask the Minister now—I see he is not in his place.

He is coming back in a minute.

We certainly want the Minister to take some notice of what is said in the House. I mentioned that the distributive trade had certain financial arrangements to make which they would not be able to make if this thing were hurried. I have a form here which the trade will be called upon to sign and which is a guarantee of payment for supplies. The Food Control Department is asking for a guarantee to ensure that these payments are made. In all enquiries that have been made we have always been told that someone must be eliminated between the producer and the consumer. And they start their elimination by bringing in the Food Control Board which must be inefficient. How can it be anything but inefficient? It knows nothing about these things. And that is why I ask for the postponement of this scheme. They start their process of elimination by bringing in someone who is definitely not required. What do you want a Control Board for with all its extravagances and inefficiency, the sort of thing which always goes with a State department. You cannot have efficiency if you have a State department and State control.

Tell us something about the British navy.

I said that there was no necessity to bring in the Food Control Department. You have all the channels which have been used for generations, and if they were not satisfactory they could have been improved without introducing further State interference. If it was felt that the auctioneers got too much benefit from the meat industry, there was no reason why their rates should not have been cut down. They were working on 5 per cent., now they have been cut to 3 per cent. Why that arrangement could not have been made before I don’t know. If the wholesalers were making too much surely that could have been dealt with by the Price Controller. So I see no necessity for bringing in this control organisation. If the Government felt that drastic alteration should be made in the meat industry, well the organisation was there and restrictions could easily have been introduced under the present system. I am convinced that this scheme will not be the success it is hoped to be. I am appealing to the Minister on behalf of the smaller man in the distributive trade. These men have put their life savings into their businesses; they are a very hardworking section and there are no millionaires among them, and if hon. members think you can do without these people let them tell us so. We have had many commissions investigating the meat industry, but no commission has ever said that the distributor is not a necessary cog in the wheel of the industry. That being so, the whole of this scheme is dependent on the goodwill of these people, on the co-operation of these people to work the scheme. If you don’t get that co-operation the scheme will collapse. People say: “Let it collapse. We have the Imperial Cold Storage which can work the thing.” Well let them try it. The farming community have spent large sums of money in forming their own combines and in trying to bring the producers and the consumers together and run the distributive trade together, and in every instance the concern has gone bankrupt in a very short space of time, and that is proof that you cannot bring inexperienced people into a highly skilled industry such as the distributive trade. Unless they have had that experience, you are looking for serious trouble. I appeal to the Minister to do what I suggest in the interests of the smaller man in business. I do not think that there is any doubt that a number of people will eventually be eliminated. I have raised this question before in this House and I want to ask the Minister to delay the scheme. There are a large number of people in the trade who cannot meet the obligations which the Food Control Department is asking them to meet. You are taking away from the distributor an establishment which has been there for years, which has been able to supply him. Now you are going to alter the whole position. The Government is taking a very serious step, because it is going to interfere with people it cannot do without. I appeal to the Minister to safeguard the interests of the smaller people who have spent their whole life in the business. But now. I don’t wish to condemn the scheme. All my criticism is that the Department has not taken the trouble to get cheap advice, free, gratis and for nothing from the people who understand this business. We have the hon. member for East London (Central) (Mr. Latimer) who is an expert in this trade. I have been in the trade for many years, and I know as much about the distributive trade as anybody else.

Why do you say the advice is cheap and gratis?

You can always have it for nothing, but the agricultural department always asks for advice from some one who knows nothing about it. They do not go to someone who knows something about the things, they go to people without experience. Now these other people are always anxious to help. Now I tell the Minister that if his predecessor had taken the advice which was tendered by the distributive trade in Pretoria this meat muddle would never have occurred. Let me also tell the Minister something else. I said I was not wholly against the scheme. I believe with the feeling which you have in South Africa today in connection with the food question, some sort of control is absolutely necessary. We advocated that when the Federation of Meat Traders was first consulted, and they said: “If you must have price control we shall help you to formulate it.”

You said they never asked people who knew anything about it.

It is all very well for members representing the farming community to indulge in cheap jibes. They cut no ice with me. The people of South Africa are tired of being held up to ransom by the farming community, and anything that will tend to allay that public feeling should be welcomed. No one says that the farmer should not get a fair deal for the produce he brings to market. But when people say that the consumers must have cheap food, and the farmers say we must have dear food, how can you give cheap food if it cannot be produced? I want to ask the Minister how the public will get cheap meat? How will it be done if you take these prices? Take the wholesale price of lamb and mutton. Super prime lamb 1s. 3¾d. That is what the farmer is getting. Can you give it to the public at 4d. or 5d. as they are expecting? If you take the price of pigs you find that the cheapest rubbish, stuff that is not really fit for human consumption, Grade 4 stands at 29s., approximately 3d. a lb., as it is there, dressed weight, bones and everything. Where I ask, are the poorer people of South Africa going to get cheap meat from? You cannot do it. I am sorry to hear that some of the farmers are disgruntled over the prices laid down in this scheme. Honestly I can see no reason for that unless it is that the farming community of South Africa expect to be kept in luxury for ever. If it is impossible for us to produce cheap food as is done in other countries, let us face up to the position. We do not want the farmers to be working for nothing; but on the other hand let them not always be talking about producing cheap food. This scheme is not going to help the public of South Africa one iota.

Hear, hear.

The representatives of the farming community can say “hear, hear.” I challenge them to bring forward a scheme that will give the people of South Africa cheap food. They say they want to eliminate this, that or the other. I say eliminate the whole lot. All the means of distribution that are employed at the present moment represent a mere fraction of the cost; the cost is a producer’s cost. If you are a producer and it costs you 8d. a lb. to produce reasonably good meat in South Africa, as it is dressed and hanging there, what prices do you expect the consumer to be charged? The meat has to be processed. The Labour Party insists on high wages to be paid to the men in the distributive trades; and of course they are quite right, no man should be working for nothing. That has to be added to the costs. Then there are all the other people employed in the industry, people that are absolutely indispensable. To bring the price of the producer and to the consumer nearer is a physical impossibility—and you can have all the schemes you like. There is only one solution for cheap food in South Africa, and that is the eternal subsidisation; and if the farmers must have these prices, if it is costing approximately 9d. a lb. to rear a decent bullock in South Africa, let the country pay for it. We have spent £25,000,000 in about five years in subsidising external markets in feeding these poorer countries throughout the world, so let us spend a little of this money in subsidising meat. We have been doing it in respect of milk and butter, and I see no objection to applying the same principle to the meat industry. If the Government is convinced that the farming community in spite of climatic conditions, and all the pests that affect the agricultural industry—they probably include the Minister as well—if after contending with all these things it is impossible for the farmers to produce foodstuffs more cheaply than is being done at the present time, there is no alternative to these prices. There has been a lot of talk about importing people into South Africa. I think that a few good Scottish farmers, or some farmers from Australia, New Zealand or Canada would do our farmers a lot of good. Some of them appear to be living in the fourteenth century atmosphere. I really believe it would be in the interests of South Africa if we had an interchange of representatives of the farming community with farmers from the rest of the world, so that our farmers here may see how farming is really carried out.

What about some German farmers?

Yes, the German farmers could teach us something in this connection, too. I hope that the Minister will not suffer through having hurried the scheme. This is the sort of thing you get in South Africa and probably nowhere else in the world. The Government suddenly says that they are bringing in the scheme on the 15th May. People can be thrown into the streets and irreparable damage may be done, but that does not matter; good, bad or indifferent the scheme will have to come into effect on the 15th May. We shall, of course, do whatever we can to help to make the scheme a success. If it is something that is absolutely essential, something that is vitally necessary in connection with the food question in South Africa. Given goodwill on the part of the department and of the Price Control Board and of the Food Control Board—well, if all these people cannot make a hopeless mess of anything they undertake, I do not know how many more people you want. We are not enamoured of these dictatorial reforms they have in the Agricultural Department, and which are being copied in the Food Control and Price Control offices; if they would only let this scheme slip into position, and allow it a little time before endeavouring to inflict some of the penalties, I feel sure that it would be possible to achieve something that may help the people of South Africa to understand that there is no such thing as cheap food in South Africa. If it requires schemes of this kind to convince them, they will have the figures before them, and they will know what the producer has to receive for his stock, and I think the public will be more convinced than ever that it is not the distributive trade that has been making the money out of the food of the people of South Africa. I have endeavoured to draw the attention of the Minister to several of these points, and I feel sure that if he will take them into consideration and endeavour to secure the full co-operation of everyone concerned in the industry, that he will arrive eventually at something that may bring good to us all. What I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is how the poorer people are going to continue to get their supplies of meat. It is rather tragic when you look at the prices that have to continue. Whatever may be the cost of producing meat in South Africa, this scheme is not going to help the poorer people one fraction of a penny a lb. What is going to be done? I suggest to the Minister that he gets the interested parties together, and see if it is not possible to do something, particularly for the non-European section of the community. It ought to be possible to formulate a scheme similar to that which operates in respect of butter and maize, and other foodstuffs that the people are enabled to get at a cheaper rate. It ought to be possible to do that in regard to meat, and I hope the Minister will take that into consideration, and try to see that at any rate the lower paid people of the country will be enabled to get meat at a cheaper rate than is set down in these prices. In conclusion, I wish to assure the House of this, that the distributors of South Africa are not to be blamed for these prices. I can produce the books, if necessary, not of one but of hundreds of distributors in South Africa who are experiencing the greatest difficulty in carrying on business at the present time, and have been ever since price control came in. So they cannot be blamed for any exorbitant prices the public are asked to pay under the scheme. What the future will hold I do not know. I assure the Minister that as far as the distributing trade is concerned, they are not the people who will derive any great benefit of the schemes outlines; but I feel sure that the country has demanded some control scheme, and we must accordingly do all we can to make it as successful as possible under the present conditions.

I am sorry that an important question such as this, which evidently affects every farmer in the country, whether he is a cattle farmer or a sheep farmer or any other farmer, should be brought before the House to be discussed in this manner. It is a matter in which party politics should not be considered, and I want to express the hope that party politics will be excluded. The Minister could have avoided all this, he could have avoided the discussion of today if he had acted differently. He admitted himself that he was indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for having brought this matter under discussion. And why is he grateful? He could have brought this matter under discussion in a much better way. He had it in his power to discuss the matter with the interests concerned.

I said that I was grateful for the opportunity he gave me of refusing misrepresentations.

The misrepresentations would never have existed. But if the Minister talks of misrepresentations then I agree with my Leader that the misrepresentations are on his side. He could have avoided all this by first discussing the question with the various groups. There is an Agricultural Group on the Government’s side and also an Agricultural Group on this side, and the Minister also has his experts and he could have called all these interests together and have discussed the matter thoroughly, even if it did take a lot of time. Even if it took a week longer, what difference would that have made? Why could he not have done it in that way?

I could not make known the prices beforehand, could I?

He could have brought the matter under discussion without disclosing the prices. I do not think the Minister will easily find another instance where there is such a measure of unanimity on one important aspect of this matter. We are all agreed that the price for the consumer should be stabilised on the level of today. It has not been suggested from any quarter that the price should either be increased or decreased. We have all been looking forward to the price for the consumer being reduced without the price for the farmer being reduced at the same time.

If such a scheme could have been instituted and middlemen could have been eliminated, then we expected that the consumer would have to pay less for his meat without the interests of the farmer being affected detrimentally, so that the farmer will still be receiving a decent price. That is an aspect of the matter on which we are all agreed. The price to the consumer will then be taken as the basis. The Minister admits that there is practically no difference between the existing and the proposed prices. He did say that the question of the black market will now be eliminated, which had the result that the consumers had to pay more than the fixed price. Let us now assume that the price for the consumer remains the same and that it is the right price. Then it should not be impossible to work from that basis. We could then determine how much A, B or C would receive until eventually we would arrive at the price for the producer. But now there comes the difference. Members on the opposite side contend that the difference in the price which the producer will receive is so much, and members on this side of the House, on the other hand, say that it will be so much. Where members on this side say that in the case of beef the difference will amount to a reduction of 18s., members on the opposite side say that it will amount to 5s. I hope that in future the Minister will not again tackle this question in the same manner, but that he will, in view of the large measure of unanimity existing amongst all parties, bring the various interests together in order to discuss the matter thoroughly, and that he will not act in this manner, which gives rise to the position that accusations are made from both sides. The farmers on this side of the House are expressing their honest convictions, and I want to assume that that is also the case with the farmers on the opposite side. The farmer does not want an unreasonable price for his products. Neither does the farmer expect the consumer to pay an unreasonable price. It should therefore be possible, where such reasonable elements exist, to come to an agreement, which would make a discussion of this nature unnecessary. What I fail to understand is this. The prices for the consumer remain the same. The farmer’s price is reduced, whether by 5s. per 100 lbs. or by 18s. per 100 lbs., the fact remains that the farmer’s price is reduced, and what becomes of the difference?

You will find that in the black market.

No, there is no question any more of a black market. There is now a fixed price for the consumer and a reduced price has been fixed for the farmer. Everybody is agreed therefore that we should look for the difference between these two. The farmer does not get the difference and neither does the consumer get the benefit of the difference. There is only the middleman who could get it, and that is why we feel that if there had been an opportunity of threshing out this matter and discussing it in all its aspects, we would not have had a scheme which in this respect is a failure. We must practically have the co-operation of everybody in order to make such a scheme a success. The farmer should be satisfied and should feel that he is not being done wrong. Now the farmer’s attitude is this: my price has been reduced, but the consumer does not get the benefit of the reduction. If the consumer had received the benefit, the farmer would not have been dissatisfied; but the consumer does not get the benefit. And why is that? Because the middleman is getting the benefit and that is where the difficulty arises. We have heard that certain middlemen were being eliminated; in other words, that the costs of distribution were being reduced. We expected, therefore, that a larger amount would be available to benefit the consumer, that he would be able to pay less while the farmer could even get a higher price. But now neither of them is getting the benefit. Even the saving is going into the hands of some or other middleman. That is why I say that it is such a pity that this unfortunate position has arisen that the farmers are feeling dissatisfied, now that they are getting a controlled market price, about the fact that this price has been fixed at the level it has, while the consumer is not getting the benefit thereof. It has never happened before that when any price is fixed, that it is fixed at a lower level than the ruling market price. When the price of gold was fixed, it was not fixed at a lower level than the existing market price. The market price was 168s. That price was not reduced and the price was fixed at 168s. But in that case, of course, the Chamber of Mines was involved and not the farmers. Now that we have to deal with the price to be fixed for the farmer in a scheme of this nature, the market price is being reduced and that has been done notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Agriculture himself told us that the market price at present was fairly low in comparison with the price of three months ago.

This is the time of the year when the market price is low.

That may be so, but then the Minister could have accepted that market price in view of the fact that it is now the time of the year when the price is low. But even so, in spite of it being the time of the year when the price reaches a low level, the Minister did not accept that price, but reduced it even further. That is why I can quite understand that the farmers have reason to be dissatisfied and to feel that they have not been treated equitably in this respect. We all looked forward to this scheme. The farmers all desire stability in respect of meat prices, so that when they fatten their livestock they may know on what price they can rely. But even now we have not yet got a fixed price. The Minister told us that the price may vary. It is being fixed now, but the price may be altered in future. The farmers have every reason in this connection to draw the attention to the position with regard to other products. The price of potatoes has now been fixed at 25s. per bag, while the farmers know that they could have benefited very largely from an open market. They have now to be satisfied with the reduced prices, but later in the year when the price falls to 7s. and 8s. per bag, then the Government does not see to it that they still receive 25s.

I said that we are going to continue with that system until November.

Yes, but after November the price will not be fixed. If the Minister allowed the scheme to continue until next year, then we would know where we stand. Now he only fixes the price for potatoes until November. It is not necessary for the Minister to ensure that price for the farmer until that time. It is only after November that the prices fall, when the market is loaded with potatoes and that is why we want the Minister to fix the price until the end of the year. Give the farmer the assurance that he will receive a reasonable price. That is all he wants. He does not want an unreasonable price. But I am dissatisfied, not only because of the low prices that have been fixed, prices from which the consumer will derive no benefit, but I feel dissatisfied because this scheme which has been under the consideration of the Minister and his department for months now, is being applied only to certain parts of the country. I can well understand that some time was needed for the training of officials to administer this scheme. But why is the scheme being applied only to nine large centres and why are the rural areas being excluded? Now I would like to know from the Minister what the position in the rural areas is going to be and what the farmer may expect to get for his cattle there? The small farmer who does not send his cattle directly to Cape Town or Johannesburg will be getting still less than the other farmers because he will have to sell his cattle at the auctions in the smaller centres and there they will be sold to speculators and others. In the first instance the farmer has to pay the auctioneer’s commission. That has not even been fixed and that is another matter which the Minister may go into.

It has been fixed.

I am glad to hear that. The farmer then has to pay commission and the middleman buys the cattle and sends it away to the large centres. He has to make his profit and consequently the farmer receives less.

Why does he sell the cattle at the auction?

Because he only carries on farming on a small scale and he does not consign cattle directly to the large towns.

Where are the farmers’ unions?

Does the hon. member mean to say that no cattle are sold locally? Why are there auctions then? We have to face the facts. The cattle are sold there in many instances. In the first instance the commission has to be paid. The middleman buys the cattle and when he sends the cattle away to the market he wants to make his profit. Why could not this scheme be worked out on a proper price basis and be applied to the whole country so that the people in the rural areas may know what the price is and where they stand? If the Minister had done anything in that direction it would have done a lot to create more satisfaction with this scheme. But again we find that as far as this point is concerned no provision has been made. Then I come to another question which is of great importance both to the rural areas and to the towns and in this connection my views are based on my experience of what happened in Pietersburg. According to the announcement of the Minister, I understand that provision is being made for some kind of insurance system in connection with measles amongst cattle. A farmer will be compensated when it appears that an ox is infected with measles which, as we know, is only discovered after the ox has been slaughtered. Is this going to apply only to the towns? Of course, that is the case and it is very unfortunate that it should be so. Only these nine large centres will receive the benefit of that system and they have no difficulty. The people of Cape Town and Johannesburg may not know it but they are consuming measly meat from one year to another. I am not saying that it is doing them any harm. We find measles in the best of carcases. In centres like Johannesburg and Cape Town the meat is frozen before it is sold. That is not done in the smaller centres where they have no apparatus for freezing the meat. In the large towns the public consumes the meat and they pay the full price for meat and why should only the large centres which do not have the disadvantage of measly meat, be covered by this insurance scheme while the smaller places like Pietersburg where these difficulties exist are not covered by this scheme? At a place such as Pietersburg the butcher buys his stock from the farmer or from the natives—and if he did not buy from the native where would the native sell his stock? And when his cattle are slaughtered, he finds that they are infected with measles to an extent of 10 per cent. It cannot be dealt with there, which means that the butcher suffers a loss of 10 per cent. He naturally raises the price to the consumer which means that the consumers in those places have to pay abnormally high prices for their meat. That is one of the reasons why meat is more expensive in a place such as Pietersburg than it is in a place such as Johannesburg or Cape Town. That is not an equitable arrangement and we would like to know what the Minister intends doing in that connection. If he had a scheme which was applicable to the whole of the country then all these matters could have been arranged. We would like therefore to have a scheme which applies a reasonable price level to the whole of the country. That would be an effective scheme. It is such a pity that a scheme such as this should now be a failure, as we have been looking forward to it for such a long time. It is a pity that the scheme proposed here by the Minister is so incomplete, that it only applies to the large centres which will derive certain benefits from it whereas the smaller centres will get no benefit from it whatsoever. While I am on this question of measles amongst cattle, I would just like to add this in regard to the position in the smaller towns and in the large cities. Until a few months ago a place like Pietersburg was allowed to send its measly meat to Johannesburg. It is conveyed to Johannesburg, it is treated there and is then sold to the public at the ordinary price. First of all the ox has to be slaughtered, then the carcase is conveyed to Johannesburg in refrigerator trucks. Only a limited amount can be sent. Actually the one who suffers is the consumer because he has to make good the loss of the butcher. But then this meat is sold in Cape Town or Johannesburg or elsewhere at the grade into which it has been graded. If it is first grade, the meat is sold at the price for that grade after it has been treated. We are very thankful that Cape Town and Johannesburg consume all the measly meat from the smaller towns. I understand that it is not actually unhealthy, but even if it was quite healthy, one does not feel happy to think that one is eating measly meat while one paid for first grade meat. I would like to see that proper provision is made for the rural areas, particularly as far as measly cattle are concerned. Let us devise an insurance scheme which will also apply to smaller centres, so that the butchers in the small towns, as well as the consumers, may derive the benefit therefrom. The consumers have to pay increased prices today because the measly cattle are being rejected. I want to ask the Minister why it is not possible that cattle can be graded also in the rural districts before being consigned to Johannesburg or the other large markets? It will be said that they have to be slaughtered first. But that is not so. We know that the Rand Cold Storage and the Imperial Cold Storage send their buyers to the various small towns, and when they buy an ox from the farmer or at the auctions they know exactly what grade that ox will be. They also know to within 10 lbs. what the weight of that ox is, If they can do this, why cannot the farmer get the benefit therefrom? The farmer does not know today what he will get for his cattle. He does not know in what grade it will be classified, and that is why he is compelled to sell his cattle at the auctions. He would also like to send his cattle to Johannesburg or Cape Town or the other large markets, but he cannot do that because he does not know what he will get for them. I think that it is possible, with all the experts we have today, to apply that system to the small towns. Then there is just one other point which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. There are many farmers who buy cattle in order to fatten them for the market. Many farmers have bought cattle with the object of fattening them. Some farmers have even gone so far as to buy mealies to feed their cattle with, with the object of selling them on the market. The farmers have bought these cattle at the higher price, whereas the market price is now being reduced. These are also people who will be hit very severely by this measure. I am sorry that a matter of this nature was not first of all discussed with the representatives of the farmers. In this House there are farmers’ representatives on both sides. We have our farmers’ group. It would have been an easy matter to have called them together and to have said to them: Let us fix the price; the price for the consumer should remain on the level of today; let us now work from that basis and see what price we can fix for the producer. Then one would not have had the accusations that are being made here today, namely, that the middleman is going to make undue profits. I am convinced that the middleman is going to make undue profits because even the mouthpiece of the hon. the Minister on that side the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) states that there is a difference of 5s. on 100 lbs. Who is going to derive the benefit from that difference? It will surely go into the pockets of the middleman. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) made an appeal to the farmers on this side of the House to see to it that the consumer got his meat at a cheaper price. We are working in that direction. That is what we want. But whereas it is stated that the consumers will in any case not get the benefit, we maintain that the farmers’ interests should not be injured in this manner.

It is noteworthy that we should be discussing the question of meat on a meatless day. We hope that when this scheme has been put into operation and has proved to be a success, we shall not have any more meatless days and that the supply of meat, not only to the markets but to all sections of the population, will be controlled in such a satisfactory manner that every section of the community, every family, every person, will be able to afford having meat every day. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) for the spirit in which he approached this thorny question. The hon. member for Aliwal said that the Minister had made a mistake. If the Minister has blundered, then I think that the hon. member for Aliwal has also blundered this afternoon, but in respect of his own party. His party will probably call him to account because of the reasonable and moderate manner in which he discussed this matter this afternoon. We want to concede the point from our side that the Minister in his sincerity has also blundered. Perhaps he was too anxious to take the people into his confidence and to make known the details of this scheme as soon as possible. As we know, the hon. Minister returned from the North only yesterday after a tiring campaign.

Where he received a motion of no confidence.

At the very first opportunity he had he took the House into his confidence. I maintain that the Minister made a mistake by announcing this scheme yesterday. Perhaps he did not take into account that there would be some of our friends who would not be able to resist the temptation held out to them by the Minister. Perhaps he did not expect that the atmosphere of Wakkerstroom would have spread even to Cape Town and that there would be certain of our friends who would not be able to resist the temptation of trying to make political capital out of this matter, even if as the result of their action they would cause general unrest throughout the country. If my hon. friends have succeeded in making political capital out of the discussion on this matter they will still reap the bitter fruits, because any scheme of this nature must fail unless we have complete faith in it and give it our support. When we talk of prosperity or of depressions then on the one hand it is a lack of faith and on the other hand it is a question of having faith. I am very grateful, therefore, that the hon. member for Aliwal has viewed this scheme from the right perspective. He approached this scheme in the right spirit. We will have to see what the effect of this scheme is going to be. No person is perfect and hon. members on the opposite side who have so violently and emphatically attacked this scheme this morning, should just pause for a moment and consider the fact that the Meat Commission who consisted of all sections of the population, gave their serious and undivided attention, to this very difficult problem. If we read their report it is clear that organised agriculture made very strong representations to them to the effect that for the sake of the stabilisation of prices the agricultural industry was prepared to forego a measure of temporary benefit; in other words, they are not going to insist very emphatically on a temporary advantage if the safeguarding of that temporary advantage might have the result that for the sake of one pound that we might gain today, we might have to pay ten pounds afterwards. It is hardly necessary for us to remind the House today of what happened during the last depression. Do hon. members want to see the same position again, that on one day we receive 5s. for our wool and the next day almost nothing; that the price of a sheep falls from £3 to 4s. or 5s. and the price of an old ewe to 2s. Do we want those abnormal times again when prices rose sky high and shortly afterwards fell to an unprecedented low level, and here I would like to say in passing to the consumers: Did you ever in those times of depression bewail the distress of the farmer?

They themselves suffered.

They were able to buy meat for something like 4d. per lb. at that time. We do not want a repetition of those conditions. We know that a fattened ox could be sold in those days for £40 or £50. The very same ox may six months later have been sold for £10 at a public auction. A bag of mealies was sold in those days for 3s. and why? We were all pleased when the prices were high; we considered that the farming industry was flourishing. So the price of land was forced up and we all got mad, but the aftermath came and today we want to guard against a repetition of that kind of thing. Hon. members on the opposite side mentioned a loss of £2,000,000, £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 which the farmers are going to suffer. Supposing now that losses are going to be suffered, have they ever tried to work out what the depression cost the farmers in 1922-’23 and again in 1930-’31?

Why should the farmers lose again?

Why should the farmers suffer a depression while we enjoy prosperity in the country?

At that time it was estimated that the depression cost the farmers round about £300,000,000 and how many farmers are there not today who are still struggling under the burdens that were imposed upon them in those days? We admit that the producer will have to make some concession. We admit that he will have to make some sacrifice and the question is this: Is it fair that we should require of the producer, for the sake of stability, to forego some measure of temporary gain? Comparisons have been made here and figures have been quoted. But there are some people who are very crafty and who are able to conjure up anything with figures. We feel, however, that we can accept the figures given by the hon. member for East Griqualand as representing the actual state of affairs. Hon. members on the opposite side are too prone to forget that in working out the prices received by the producer, they should include the price of the offal and the hide and it is estimated that this will provide the producer with an extra 5s. per 100 lbs. Then they also referred to the prices for the wholesale dealer—the present price as well as the proposed price. Under the ruling prices the wholesale dealer gets the benefit of the offal and the hide but under the new prices the producer will get that benefit. We admit that the farmer will not get more under the new scheme than he is perhaps getting in the open market today according to prevailing prices—which are not always the same as the prices indicated. The prices indicated are not necessarily the prices obtaining on the market. That is why we have a black market today. Hon. members are challenging the assertion that the black market today is affecting the price to the consumer, but I wish to quote from the report of a case tried in the court in Port Elizabeth last week. A butcher was convicted there of having sold a leg of mutton for 8s. 9d. instead of 6s. 3d. The difference was 2s. 6d. In mitigation of the sentence it was submitted that in order to obtain the meat he was compelled to pay more for his slaughter stock than the price fixed by the Controller. So there we have the black market. That kind of thing happens every day. This is not an isolated case. It happens throughout the country that in order to obtain meat the butchers are prepared to pay more than the price fixed in the various notifications of the Controller. As a result of this it is impossible for the butchers to sell to the consumers at the fixed maximum retail prices and it is to be expected that they would try in some or other way to cheat the consumer out of something, either in respect of the grade or in respect of the weight or they will demand a higher price than the fixed price. But with this new scheme we hope that all these malpractices will be eliminated. We can say to the consumer that he is now reasonably safeguarded in that he will be able to buy the fixed grade at the maximum price and that he should not pay more than the maximum price. The producer on the other hand is also assured of a minimum price and this is the first time that our producers are being guaranteed a minimum price. Towards the end of the year before last, in December, 1942, I spent a few days at the Durban abattoirs to see how the scheme worked there. It so happened that just at that time large consignments of cattle arrived at the market. There were more cattle than the market could cope with, there was practically not sufficient room in the cold storage, with the result that the prices were 10s. to 12s. 6d. less than the maximum prices fixed, but under the new scheme it is impossible for the producer to get a lower price than the fixed price. In other words, there is not only a “ceiling” but also a “floor.” The producer knows definitely that he will not get more than a certain price but also that he would not get less. That is something we have been striving for for a number of years now—the stabilisation of prices. Now the sheep or cattle farmer knows exactly what he is going to get, nothing more but also nothing less. In return for this stability we are entitled to ask the producer to sacrifice something from his side. Hon. members have mentioned here that whereas we are demanding a certain sacrifice from the producer, we are not at the same time passing on the benefit to the consumer. My reply to that is as follows. I showed just now that the consumer under present circumstances is not getting the quality of meat to which he is entitled at the fixed price. We want to ensure the position that in future the consumer will be able to get the quality at the fixed price to which he is entitled, and that is something the consumer did not have in the past. The Meat Controller as well as the Price Controller investigated this matter very thoroughly and found that there were certain overhead charges which could not be eliminated. If however the gap between the price paid by the dealer and the price demanded from the consumer is so enormous, we still have the safety valve of ordinary competition. If this gap is so big, the ordinary competition in trade will be so keen that one butcher will always try to sell at a cheaper price than his competitor. We should not forget that the demand for meat is not unlimited. The dealer has to make every effort to retain his custom. We do not have any more large convoys who may take a 1,000 cattle at a time. We merely have our usual markets to fall back on, and we should study and retain them and if there is such enormous profit for the dealer then the ordinary competition in trade will assist us in forcing the dealer to reduce his price. The Minister has told us quite frankly that if it should appear at a later date that unheard-of profits are being made and that we have based our calculations on erroneous data, then nothing would prevent him from curtailing the profit made by the dealers. We do not claim that the scheme is a perfect one. I would still like to see a scheme devised by man, with all his imperfections, that is perfect. But I maintain that a genuine effort has been made to secure a scheme which aims at the desired effect. Even the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) told us that the price of meat in Pietersburg, which is a great producing area, is too high. Why does he not go to the butchers and tell them that they are making undue profits. Did he accuse the retail trade of making undue profits? He has already raised a cry of woe on behalf of his butchers; and in passing let me say this that it is not the butcher who suffers the loss when the cattle are infected with measles; it is the poor farmer who suffers the loss.

No.

It is a latent disease, and according to law it is the farmer who suffers the loss.

You are wandering.

But he brings me to a point where I am in agreement with him. We are now going to fix prices for nine large markets. But what about the rural areas? I feel that if the Minister wants to save the position in the rural areas, then it will be necessary for him to send a representative of the Food Controller to the stock fairs in the country districts. It is easy today for the large speculators of Johannesburg or elsewhere to go to the auctions in the country districts. They are the largest buyers, and they can easily control the prices. Many small farmers are not able to keep their oxen. They may have one, two, three or four oxen that they wish to sell. We should safeguard the position of this type of farmer. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that representatives of the Food Controller will attend all the important auctions in the country districts in order that the prices may remain on a steady level. He may make a mistake here and there, he may err in his estimate of the weight here and there, or he may make a mistake with the grading, but that is nothing, even if one would get purchases here and there which would result in a loss, that would be nothing compared to the advantage attached to such representation on the auctions in the rural districts. That would provide the confidence that we need in order to make this scheme a success. I go even further. I want to ask the Minister to consider the advisability of having in future cold storage facilities, not only in the large centres, but also in producing areas, where we should also have abattoirs. Our aim should be to send all our meat to the large central markets in the form of meat and not in the form of livestock. That would also reduce to a very large extent the ill-treatment of animals, and it will also preserve the quality of the meat and the hides. I know that one objection that will be raised to this, is that the by-products cannot be dealt with as profitably in the rural districts; but provision for that can also be made. I think the time has come that we should not only consider the present, but that we should devise a scheme which could be applied generally, and that is why I maintain that we should have abattoirs at the centres where sheep and cattle are produced. That will also affect the quality of meat to a large extent. We know that particularly in the case of sheep, if the poor animals have to be driven along for a hundred or two hundred yards and are then slaughtered the meat is tasteless, whereas if the sheep are put into the kraal the night before they are slaughtered and are not driven along in the heat of the sun, the meat retains its quality. We feel that in that direction something should be done. Hon. members on the opposite side, particularly the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) have found a new bogy now and accuse us of having created a new middleman. That is not so. There is nothing to prevent any producer to consign his livestock direct to the Food Controller, and in every instance the commission is only 2½ per cent., whether he sends it direct or to the agent. At present some agents in the large markets are charging 5 per cent. It has been reduced by the Minister to 4 per cent., and then there is still the auctioneer’s tax of 1 per cent. that has to be paid so that it also amounts to 5 per cent. Where the costs of sale are now also being reduced to 2½ per cent., it is definitely a reduction. Hon. members should not therefore say that we are effecting no reductions. On the contrary, the costs of handling are reduced and it is not true that we are creating a second middleman. I do not wish to plead for any middleman, but I maintain that in the past the middleman has rendered certain services and that he is still rendering services today and we could not do without the distributors. They are the people who deliver the meat to the consumers and they are rendering an essential service and I do not see why they should not also receive a reasonable remuneration for their services. We know, however, that the cold storage belongs to private concerns and we have to apply to those owners for cold storage facilities, but I hope that if necessary the Minister will use his powers under the emergency regulations to see to it that the prices charged by the cold storage concerns are reasonable, and to guard against our falling into the clutches of the cold storage owners who may use their position of power to ruin the scheme. Another great objection raised here was that the Minister had not discussed these prices beforehand with those interested. Well, we know what the result would have been. If he had discussed the prices will all those interested a few weeks ago, he would have caused an enormous wave of speculation to break loose. He could not do that. We on this side of the House would have liked to have known what the proposals were going to be and what the prices were going to be, but we realised the objection to the information being given. We know that with the fixation of the price of any product, any action taken should be taken cautiously. We have experienced before that, for instance, the price of mealies leaked out before the time and if anything like that happens there are always people who are only too anxious to exploit to their own advantage the knowledge obtained by them. We maintain that if this scheme results in a steady price for the farmers being ensured, not only for the present but also in the years to come, then it is worth the sacrifice we have to make today; then the sacrifice is not unreasonable. We have the assurance of the Minister that he will maintain the equilibrium as equitably and as reasonably as possible. We should not lose sight of the fact that the consumers in the cities who need the meat are our own people. They are people who have been driven to the large towns from the rural areas as a result of economic necessity and they are people who were used to having meat in their diet and now that they are living in the city they cannot afford it any longer. In conclusion we wish to warn our friends on the opposite side that we should not do anything to cause or to aggravate any friction between the producer and the consumer, between the rural areas and the urban areas. The position of political power which has been in the hands of the rural districts for so many years has now been lost by them. We are not in that position of power any longer. The consumers in the large towns have that power now and we should be very careful not to do anything detrimental to the future of the farming industry simply for the sake of temporary gain.

The hon. member who has just sat down, congratulated the Minister on having introduced the principle of mini mum prices. We all admit that the prices of cattle are at their lowest every year towards the end of April and the beginning of May. And here the Minister comes along now and notwithstanding the fact that the market is at its lowest level, he fixes the price at practically 7s. 6d. and 9s. less than the ruling market prices. Is that now the principle of minimum prices for which we have to be grateful? In that respect I differ from the hon. member. Take for instance the determination of the minimum price of potatoes. It has been fixed at a minimum price of 22s. 6d. per bag for the period 1st August to 15th November and the Minister knows very well that during that period not a quarter of the demand can be supplied. That is by the way, however. I find it noteworthy that the Minister together with his supporters fail to give us an answer to the very pertinent question which has been put from this side of the House. We have pointed out that the price for the farmer has been reduced by £1 or £2 per head of cattle and by 10s. to 15s. per head of sheep and that at the same time the Minister tells us that the consumer will still be paying the same price as before.

No, I did not say that. I said that he would now pay the fixed price.

Which is the same as the price he paid before.

He paid more on the black market.

We are now discussing the wholesale trade and not the black market which existed in the retail trade. If there has been a black market in the wholesale trade, then the Minister has failed in his duty. The price to be paid by the consumer is the price he used to pay. Every speaker has tried to explain here that if the consumer were going to pay less for his meat, the producer would have been satisfied with a small reduction of the price. But the consumer is not getting the benefit of that reduction and that question has not been answered by the Minister of Agriculture or by any of his supporters. Another important point is in connection with the price of meat when there is a scarcity of stock. We all know that as far as beef is concerned, the market is very high in October and November. With the little knowledge I have of slaughter cattle, I know that if I can get £20 for my ox in May and I can keep it until October, I could perhaps get £24 and I then have to decide whether it would be worth my while to keep it for the sake of the difference of £4. Personally I would not do it. If the Minister now states that there will be a change in the price, we would like to know in what way the scale will operate. The farmer must know this, so that he may know whether it would pay him to keep his slaughter cattle for four or five months. This is a most important point, and the Minister, having had his turn to speak, could give the information to one of his followers so that the position could be explained here. Then there is another very important point to my mind, and that is in connection with the price of compound meat. In the case of prime meat the reduction is 7s. 6d. per 100 lbs.; in the case of first grade meat the difference is 8s.; in respect of second grade meat the difference is 7s. 2d., third grade 8s., and when we come to compound meat we find that the price has been reduced by 14s. 3d. I would like the Minister to give his attention to this aspect of the matter because this is a most important point. In the latter case it amounts to a reduction of 32 per cent.

How do you arrive at that?

The price has been fixed at 25s., plus 5s., which amounts to 30s. If the Minister studies the market price in Johannesburg, he will see that it was sold for 44s. 3d. I feel convinced in my own mind that there has been some wangling somewhere. It means that the mine magnates are now going to get this compound meat cheaply. I feel convinced in my mind that the intention of the Minister has been to make a further concession to the large mine owners. We have experienced recently how mine labour is being subsidised. They are now getting their mealies by means of a subsidy. The rich mines as well as the poor mines get a subsidy of 1s. 6d. per bag. Now the Minister comes along and he also gives the mines cheap meat, and I maintain that there can be no other object in making this big difference in the case of compound meat. It is most obvious, and I am sure that the Minister will hear a lot about it in future. On a previous occasion I drew the Minister’s attention to the danger we might be faced with that when the war is over there might be a surplus of cattle in the country. The previous speaker pointed out that the convoys have taken thousands of head of cattle, and that we are now coming back to normal conditions. The stock of cattle and sheep in the country is increasing, and I think that it would be advisable for the Minister to abolish the meatless day now. Many other points have been mentioned by hon. members on this side of the House, and I do not wish to repeat those points, but I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the few matters I have raised.

When I heard the statement made by the Minister yesterday I was rather disappointed. It seemed as if there was no improvement as far as the consumer is concerned. We have heard now, however, that the position of the consumer has been improved slightly. Also, it did seem to us at first as if the producer’s prices will be much lower than it used to be. But also in this respect we have the information now that even if the producer’s prices are lower, they are not very much lower than the prices already fixed for the wholesale trade. Of course, it must be admitted that the prices are lower than the ruling prices for the past few months. It is true that they are lower than the prices prevailing on the open market for some time now, but those prices have been caused by what we may call the black market which existed in the retail trade. It is therefore not a price that can be justified. When the wholesale prices were determined, the producers were satisfied. We all felt that the prices were equitable. Unfortunately, subsequently the prices rose as a result of malpractices in the retail trade, and I feel that we could not justify those higher prices. The time will come, and I do not think that time is far away, that the market will be overloaded again. About ten days ago the market was overstocked at Maitland, with the result that the price of sheep was reduced by 10s. per head of sheep. The census has shown us that the livestock in the country has not decreased, and I can see the time coming when the market will again be overstocked and we will receive a lower price for our sheep than we are getting now, namely, more or less 10¼d. per lb. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) quoted figures here of the fixed prices paid by the Food Controller compared with the newly fixed prices. But in every instance he failed to add the figure in respect of by-products, which is 5s. per 100 lbs. in the case of cattle and 1d. per lb. in the case of mutton, which brings the final figure close to the price fixed by the Food Controller. There is thus not a big difference between the price we accepted at the time and the price we are going to get now. This scheme has been tested to a certain degree in Durban. The meat was sold there at fixed prices and certain standards were maintained. The meat was graded and sold according to its grade. We would all like to have our meat graded, even the members opposite who have made this attack on the scheme. This scheme was a success in Durban. It has been in operation there more or less for the past eighteen months and the farmers were satisfied. The scheme is not applied to rural areas, and it is possible that prices may be higher in those areas, with the result that stock will not be consigned to the large towns. But on the other hand we know that the large towns take 80 per cent. of our slaughter stock, and accordingly it is possible to stabilise the price for the whole country on the basis of the price in the cities. With a view to a long term policy I am prepared to support this meat scheme.

The members on the opposite side let the cat out of the bag. They say we have a good case, but that we represent it wrongly. Now I want to ask those members why they don’t help us to represent the matter correctly. If we represent the matter wrongly, why don’t they represent it correctly? If we have a good case and we represent it wrongly then we will sit down if they will represent it correctly.

The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry did.

The Minister of Agriculture said that the Government encourages the country districts to organise by means of agricultural societies and co-operative societies with regard to wheat, mealies and other products, and also meat. We do it; we accept that good advice. The North Western area is organised under the meat co-operative societies. You have the Cape Central, the Namaqua Meat Co-operative Society, etc.; on the good advice of the Minister we are busy organising. It costs much money and sacrifice. Then we expect that where the Minister encourages that we should co-operate, he will consult us when he brings about such a drastic change as this. What happened?

Tell us about the diamonds.

I want to refer the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) to his wrong and unfounded suggestions which he has already made in the past.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am merely thinking of the unfounded and reprehens ble remarks Gf the hon. member against the City Council of Cape Town.

You have not yet heard the end of it.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I will leave the hon. member alone. I do not think that the City Council of Cape Town has improved their opinion of him. I think that part of the House will still find out ….

Order, order! It has nothing to do with this debate.

Very well, I will leave the hon. member alone. He will still efface himself. Just give him time.

Tell us about the diamonds now.

Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that at the commencement of this Session there was a deputation in the city from Cape Central and from the Namaqua Meat Co-operative Society and they met the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Economic Development in regard to this matter. I was personally present and both Ministers satisfied and set the deputation at ease, and they said that after they had elaborated the scheme and after they had discussed the scheme with their experts and devised it, they would again arrange an interview with this deputation. The deputation went back, and it is with indignation that I state that this price fixation came to them as a bolt from the blue. They knew nothing about it. Now I ask: Why do we incur all that expense and why do we go to all that trouble to organise if we are not considered in such a case. I say this price fixation was done without the knowledge of the Directors of Cape Central and the meat organisations of our country. They were overlooked in the matter; and I ask the Minister whether he consulted the Directors and representatives of the organisations. No, I know he did not. He took it upon himself; he fixed the price off his own bat. It is quite different when there is a similar matter in connection with mining or in connection with the Chamber of Commerce. Yes, then those organisations are consulted. But here where such a drastic change is made, where the farmers should have been consulted, their organisations are overlooked. Why do these organisations exist? They are there to promote their interests and to advise the Minister. He did not consult a single Director in connection with this matter. The promsie was that he would do so. Unfortunately it was not this Minister, but he ought to be in possession of the previous Minister’s minutes and he should therefore have known that it was promised.

Who says it was promised?

I say it. I was present at that interview.

Can we believe you?

The defence of the Minister this morning was very vague, weak and really very poor. I feel that he took this step off his own bat and that he ignored the farmer organisations. In other words, he adopted the attitude: “I am Minister; I will do what I like. I have the right to.” Well, he has the right to, but I say is it fair to take the right on one’s own hands?

It is again a disgrace.

If the Minister had a strong case he would have acted differently. By this price fixation he should have in the first instance taken the producer into consideration, and in the second instance, to make a strong case, have taken the consumer into consideration, and neither the producer nor the consumer was considered or has benefited.

What about the poor middleman?

No, he did not do it.

What kind of word is “considered”? You don’t use it in Afrikaans.

Instead of considering the consumer and the farmer he thought of the middelman.

The poor middleman!

Of no one else but only the middleman.

Who is the middleman?

The middleman is no one else but the parasite of this country.

The tick.

The parasite of this country is the man with the soft hands who sits and lives on the blood and sweat of others, and those who bleed and sweat are doomed. The Minister only thinks of the middleman. Then he still comes with large letters: “My meat control welcomed in the city. Butcher’s black market will disappear. Trade and public both benefit.” A downright lie. The public is set at ease with this downright lie. In what way is the consumer considered? All the time it is working into the hands of the black market.

Where it it?

No, the parasites benefit by this price fixation, “as usual”.

What does “as usual” mean?

Order, order!

We know that the future of the meat producer is very critical. Their position is precarious. It is made practically impossible for the meat producer to continue. This price fixation is going to be an awful setback for the meat production of the country. Expensive cattle and farms have been bought, large capital has been invested, heavy debts have been incurred because the Government demands production. I ask what is the loss going to be to the farmers in future? The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) said this morning that he agrees that this measure was very conservative. Well, then, they already declare by mouth of the hon. member that the price fixation is very unfair, that the price is cut too fine.

It is a disgrace.

Where is the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) and other farmers who sit on that side? They held a braaivleis in their caucus yesterday afternoon, and there they were bound and severely warned. Just think in which way they acted. You can see that they spoke contrary to their wish and better knowledge. They speak against their own soul because they were instructed by the whip at the braaivleis function. All the undertakings in this country enrich them. Why can’t the farmer also make some money in these times? Is it fair? I think, for example, of the millers; I think of the mining magnates; I think of the wholesale trade; I think of the building trade; and I think of the industries ….

And the shoe factories.

I think of the shoe factories.

And the attorneys.

They just collect money. They enrich themselves. This measure has now been introduced to prevent the farmer from rehabilitating himself a little. Is it fair?

No, it is very unfair.

I am very glad that the hon. member on the opposite side agrees that it is very unfair. I want to go further and say that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has just said that this price fixation is a disgrace to our country, and it will remain a disgrace till the Minister redeems this disgrace, and I hope the day will soon dawn when he will recognise his mistake and realise that he is not only harming this side of the house, but also a great section of his own side, and they will oppose the measures of the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to keep the House very long. I am sorry the leader of the Opposition has run away. The hon. member for Piketberg has taken it upon himself to move what is probably the most serious motion which can be put before the House. That, Sir, is that the House shall stop all business in order to discuss what the hon. Leader of the Opposition says in “an urgent matter of public importance.” That is only done, Sir, by a leader of a party, and when the leader of a party does that he has to consider very seriously what he is doing. I have been sitting here listening very carefully to what my friends on the opposite side have said and this whole “matter of urgent public importance” is one of price. The hon. member by this motion stops the Customs Bill going from this House to the Senate, which may cost the country thousands of pounds, and the whole matter that he wants to discuss is one of price. It is the question of a small price which the Opposition could have put right by sending a deputation to the Minister or the Controller of Foodstuffs. [Interruption.] I want the country to know that this House is being held up and the business of the country is being held up, not on a question of control, but a small amount of price-fixing. I have gone into this matter and I find that last week the second grade price of beef was 50s. 9d. and the fixed price 3d. less per 100 lbs. So for the sake of a small tickey this House is being stopped from doing the work of the nation, for one little South African tickey this House is being held up. I have been here connected with this House more or less for 50 years, and I have never seen anything like this done before. I have asked time after time from my friends on the other side “what is your point,” and they have said it is one of price; that is the whole thing, the question of price; not the principle of control; they are entirely agreed that control must be exercised, and the only thing they are fighting about is the question of price. That you will find in Hansard tomorrow. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) made the two chief speeches in this House, and the whole tenor of their speeches is this question of price.

They are not even worrying about the machinery to be used.

Some people say the present market price is even lower than the price fixed by my hon. friend. We men who live many miles away from here want to get home. It is very easy for people like the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) because he lives quite close to Cape Town, but we who live nearly a thousand miles away are doing our best to get home, and yet we are kept here a whole day and the work of the country is being held up simoly over a question of price. Mr. Speaker, there is a war on. [Interruptions.] My friends don’t know there is a war on. We have families who are dying on the battlefield, and my hon. friends don’t seem to know that, but we know it. Some of us perhaps have sons whom we want to see before they go away to the front. My hon. friends opposite don’t worry about that, but are content to keep this House a whole day over this question of price. Sir, I think it is one of the most scandalous acts that has ever taken place in this country.

Order, order!

Mr. Speaker, I don’t say the hon. member is scandalous, but I say his act is scandalous.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if it is not a reflection on the Chair because it was with the concurrence of the Chair that this motion was moved, and you, Mr. Speaker, said it was perfectly in order.

I listened very attentively to the hon. member’s remarks, and I found nothing which was a reflection on the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, as one who has deputised in the chair in which you sit, I have the greatest respect for the Chair and always have had and I always shall have, that you can rely on. I would never say anything against the Chair or the hon. gentleman who is in that Chair. I recall an example when vice-president Henry Wallace telegraphed Charles E. Collins, president of the American Livestock Association, asking him to submit a national plan for the cattle industry. It is reported that Collins answered as follows: “If anyone is going to write a national cattle plan it had better be some idiot who doesn’t know a god damned thing about the business.” What has been said shows how difficult is the task the Minister has taken upon himself. In America they have thrown in their hand; they found they could not do it but here we have a young Minister who has put before the House a remarkable scheme and a scheme which may be a success. We have recognised a portion of the scheme in South West Africa, from where meat has been brought into the Union and it is an enormous success. If you don’t have this scheme what scheme are you going to have? Are we going to go on in the same way we have been going for a long time; are we going to have trouble in our great cities when butcher shops are closed and you nearly had riots in Cape Town and Johannesburg, or are we going to tackle this matter? Good luck to the Minister for tackling it. I would like to ask my farmer friends whether they recognise that 500,000 head of cattle and 4,000,000 sheep are destroyed each year on account of malnutrition. Farmers would be far better off if they saved this stock and then there would not be the shortage of food there is in the country today. The farmers are the last people to get up and quarrel about this plan the Minister has produced. I represent a purely consuming population and we have nothing against the farmer. Let the farmer have his fair price; we have allowed him to fix it. But I cannot see where the consumer comes in under this particular section which the Minister read. We have heard about the black market, well, we will always have a black market as long as there is a war. There is no country that is in the war that has not a black market. If the Minister can kill the black market he will be doing a wonderful thing, but I do not think he will be able to stop that. I wish we could tell the consumer that his prices are coming down. The consumer cannot understand why it is that the farmers’ prices have come down and his prices have not come down. It is no good saying they may come down; it is no good the Minister saying he thinks they will come down. The ordinary hard-boiled consumer in Johannesburg will just laugh at that, he will say: “We have heard this before and we don’t want to hear it again.” Put up someone to tell us so we can go back to Johannesburg and say the butchers’ prices will come down. If the Minister will do that he will get the support of the consumers on the Rand and the consumers on the Rand hold the key position in South Africa. The Minister must take care to explain this position. If he cannot explain it he will have an enormous amount of trouble. Our friends on the other side have made a great political display, they were smiling, look at them now, but the speech of the hon. member for East Griqualand smashed them in one minute. I will tell you why, because he was a practical farmer talking to a lot of village attorneys who don’t know anything about farming.

Before I say something on the motion, I would like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus). When the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) spoke, the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland accused us of being lead by a number of speculators, people who want to wreck this scheme, who got us to introduce this motion. When the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg asked who these people were he replied: “The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) knows.” I just want to deny that I had anything to do with any speculator in connection with the matter before the House. I think what the hon. member has in mind, is that I met two persons in the lobby the week before last who were appointed as receiving agents for the Controller and they had a contract with them in connection with which they wanted to know something. They asked me whether I would be so good as to introduce them to the Minister because the contract sent to them is not very clear to them, and they think that they are unable to execute what is asked in the contract. I told them that I did not think that it was necessary for them to see the Minister, but to see the Controller, and if they so desired I would phone the Controller and ask him whether he is prepared to meet them. I got in touch with the Assistant Controller, Mr. Wentzel, and took them to him and merely introduced them to him. I said that it was not very clear to them what the position was in connection with the offal they have to take and that they have an objection against the Commission. I left them there. When I returned by train I met Mr. Wentzel and he said that they understood it well now and that they were satisfied. They were not speculators, but receiving agents of the Government. I did not discuss it with anyone of our party. There was no need for my discussing it. I am merely mentioning it because such remarks are made by the hon. member. He either knows nothing about the position or deliberately represents it wrongly. I am not afraid to say so. In the course of the Budget debate I stated what was going to happen to this scheme. I stated that the Government would introduce a scheme which would be less profitable to the farmer and would still cause the consumer to pay the same or more. It has happened. Members on the opposite side openly admitted here in the House, but especially in the lobby, that the farmers were going to receive less, and why do they want to intimate that we may not take up the time of the House to discuss this matter here. What I cannot understand is that the consumer does not pay less than what he paid in the past. When I raised this matter in the course of the Budget debate, I asked the Minister what his scheme was going to be, and I told him that I was afraid that we were going to have the same thing as we had in the case of wheat and that it was going to be more obvious in this instance. Previously we could purchase a bag of “boer” meal at 3s. and 4s. per bag more than the price of wheat. Now we have to pay 10s. and 12s. more than the price of a bag of the best wheat. What becomes of the money in between? I also ask in the case of meat: What becomes of the money in between? I was really astonished at the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett). He explained that, if we look at the price of meat, potatoes and all such things, then the farmer is receiving roughly 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. more than before the war. He is a representative of the farmers, and he should have pointed out at the same time that the things the farmer has to buy costs him much more than 70 per cent. now. Can the hon. member improve his farm at present; does he see his way to introduce jackal-proof fencing? The price of wire simply forbids it. That the hon. member does not mention. However, he says the farmer must realise that the prices have risen. We admit that the prices have risen. But where the price of all the other things which the farmer requires have increased, have increased considerably, we expect the farmer to receive a decent price. I put the question to the hon. member for East Griqualand, that he must admit that the farmer will receive less for his cattle than what he received in the past. Let it be. The fact is that the farmer will receive less. Here in the lobby the members on the opposite side openly declare that the farmer is going to receive 10s. less per sheep, some say 12s. and others 8s. Let us assume the farmer receives 5s. less per sheep. We sell four million sheep for slaughter during the year and it means that the farmer’s cheque for the slaughter-sheep is one million pounds less per year. It is admitted by members on the opposite side. I take the prices which they give and then it amounts to this: They admit it in the lobby, but they do not want to say it here. Then we come to cattle. It is admitted that the farmer will receive from 30s. to £2 less for his ox. Let us take a pound, then it means £900,000 less per year because roughly 900,000 less cattle are slaughtered. It thus means that the farmers are altogether going to receive £2 million less per year under this price fixation— if we take the figures which are assumed by members on the opposite side. Now I would like to know from the Minister what is going to happen to that £2 million? Are we busy with a scheme to put the Imperial Cold Storage and the National Meat Supply in a position which they occupied before, so that that large combination can squash the other people? Is the Meat Board satisfied with it?

Ask the member on the opposite side what the Meat Board’s decision is.

He won’t tell us. The auctioneers’ commission in Cape Town was fixed at 3 per cent. and then they have to accept responsibilty. I wish I could undertake all my acutions at 2 per cent. if someone else would take the responsibility. These auctioneers get 3 per cent., then they accept responsibility. Now the receiving agents are going to get 2½ per cent. and there is no responsibility whatsoever, because they are immediately paid cash by the Controller. We are again going to have the position in future, that the Imperial Cold Storage and the National Meat Supply is going to control everything and their shares will rise just like the shares of the millers went up. I think we should be told what becomes of the money which is lost to the farmer and from which the consumer does not benefit. That is our objection to this scheme. We have no objection to a scheme as such, but we object to the price fixation and the way in which the matter is handled. I predicted it during the Budget debate and my predicitions have come true. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson), who is one of the biggest farmers on the opposite side, has not yet said a word on this matter. I wonder what he thinks of it.

He said that he could not look his people in the face.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) said that he was in favour of the scheme because we should take the poor people into consideration. Now I want to know from the Minister in what way the poor people are taken into consideration because the price to the consumer remains the same as the price was in the past. The farmers get less and the poor people do not get the benefit. The wealthy combinations are the people who benefit. That is not the position we want. We are all in favour of a scheme but not at the expense of the producer and the consumer. I want to come to another matter. If the farmer is not satisfied with the grading of his cattle he has to deposit £10. If his appeal succeeds then he gets the money back. But supposing he makes objection against ten out of fifteen animals and the court of appeal allows his appeal in five cases but not in the other five cases, then he is merely refunded £5. It is only when his appeal succeeds that he is refunded all the money. It is a case of “heads I win, tails you lose.” The Controller pays nothing. If the farmer loses it costs him £10. Something else is this. Under this scheme we see that the price of beef is fixed in Cape Town at 65s. and in Kimberley at 61s. 6d. Now take a person who lives halfway between Kimberley and Cape Town. The freight charges are more or less the same and he is anxious to send his cattle to Cape Town, but the Controller can tell him to send it to Kimberley. I cannot understand why that difference is made in price. We should have the same price everywhere, because if the rail charges are not too high then it is obvious that everyone will ask to send their cattle to the market where the highest prices are ruling. I am mentioning this matter so that the Minister can consider it to see whether it cannot he remedied. The Minister told us this morning that, no matter what happens, this scheme comes into operation on the 15th May, and he is not going to let himself be stopped. Why is the Minister not so determined to tell us whether we will have this scheme for good? That he does not want to tell us. He is determined that it shall come into operation on Monday; out why can’t he tell us as definitely whether the Government is determined to maintain the scheme. As the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) said the time might dawn again when sheep are sold for 5s. When that condition arises in the country, the consumers and other interested parties will come to the Minister and tell him that they are now going to get sheep at 5s. and that he should stultify the scheme, and then the Minister may yield. We want him to be just as determined now to make the scheme permanent as he is about putting it into operation on Monday, because then we can expect something of it.

I would like to join the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) who said that he did not want to discuss meat on a meatless day. Then, I want to tell the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) that if a member wants to get up in this House and quote figures he should first of all go and make inquiries to make sure that his figures are correct. The hon. member should first of all go and ask what the obect is with Grade 4, and if he does it now he will be prepared to withdraw nis words. He will then know that there has never been prices for that type of cattle on the market in the past. It is cattle which never comes on the market nowadays; old bulls and old cows which one no longer counts. That is why I would like to give the hon. member the advice that he should first of all make inquiries before he quotes figures here. I do not want to quote figures because we had so much of figures this morning, and we heard how members afterwards spoke of millions. Where the friends got those figures from I do not know. We do not want to anticipate the matter. As the proverb says, they want to ride the foal before it has arrived. They have cleaned their spurs. They want to get the foal saddlebacked, and it has not yet arrived.

Don’t talk nonsense.

I have heard more nonsense here today than I have ever heard before. Members get up here and allege all sorts of things when they have not got the facts in connection therewith at their disposal. That is why I again want to give the hon. member for Klerksdorp the advice that he should not quote things here before he has made inquiries. I do not want to dwell too long on figures, but I want to mention the actual facts of what is happening now. It so happens that the present Minister of Agriculture has had to take the place of a man who had a great reputation in the country and also with members on the opposite side. When the new Minister was appointed they hailed him “Hosanna,” and I said that tomorrow they will cry: “Crucify him.” Some of the members gave him a suspended sentence for a year. But they still should “Hosanna” and now they cry crucify him.

You are now busy discriminating.

What is surprising to me is that hon. members of the Opposition, together with their Leader, raised this matter in the House today and are in that way obstructing discussion of other important business. With what object? Just to make political propaganda. It is a pity.

Did not the Minister thank the Hon. Leader of the Opposition for introducing the motion?

Just listen. They started here with parasites. Who are the parasites?

You.

I hear someone saying: “You.” They cannot tell us who the parasites are. I now want to say that hon. members are parasites as regards their own constituents because they do not act in the interests of their constituents.

Stand in front of the mirror and say it again, then you will know that it is nonsense.

Here they come today and want to tell the Minister: “For what reason and why.” Just imagine the hon. Minister must now come and ask the Opposition how to arrange matters for which he is responsible. What is the Minister worth then. Here are members of the Opposition who previously filled Cabinet posts. Would they have tolerated it if they were in power, if members of the Opposition stood up and told their Ministers that they should first ask them what to do?

But they were not such a good Opposition as we are.

Hon. members on that side talk of “reprehensible.” We can also use that word as regards them. We object to the attitude which they adopt to waste the money of the country by wasting the time of the House. The way they act we can also describe as reprehensible.

You must make a note of that word; you will forget it.

You are now talking nonsense.

There has never been a member in this House who talks more nonsense than that hon. member. Why are they so opposed to this scheme today? There are supporters of that side who tried to regain their seats during the last election. They could not do it because the nation lost faith in them. They went back to their stock farming. They invested their money in cattle. Now they are stuck with that cattle. Today they are in trouble. I say that the farmers in this country want to know what their position is going to be in future. They welcome the fixation of prices. We want a position in connection with meat as we have today in connection with wheat. We want to know where we stand. In the past we had to sell wheat at 7s. 6d. to 10s. per bag. The wheat farmers in the Transvaal were helpless. They had their organisations but they were helpless. If we had an open market today we would perhaps also have got £5, but if there is no control, what would the position be of those farmers if another depression should come in future. We do not only want to look after the speculator. Hon. members on the opposite side spoke of parasites. It appears to me that there are quite a number of speculators among those hon. members. They stamped the speculators as parasites and thus they passed judgment on themselves. We have a strong Minister; we have a strong Government and we will continue step by step to stabilise prices.

I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Barlow) in the case he has taken up as representing a constituency, the whole of which is a consuming one.

What do they consume?

They consume the meat that is produced. This scheme which the Minister has introduced is a bold one. I think he has shown considerable courage in introducing it because unquestionably he is stepping into a very dangerous field. I do not think any line of trade or anything is so dangerous to interfere with as the meat industry. It contains features which are quite apart from any other industry, which are not contained in any other industry, and I do hope the scheme will have the wholehearted support of the country, because if it does not, it will be in grave danger of failing. The debate today opened up a very interesting field, and one looked forward to an interesting day, but it is amazing to me that the whole case out forward by hon. members opposite has circulated round the price of livestock to the producer. It has been confined entirely to the price which the producer is to receive. We have heard some very sad stories of what a loss these new prices are going to mean to the producer. That loss is purely a loss of profits, which the producer would otherwise make, and I ask myself how this question of price has been approached. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear to me that the approach has been from a starting point, the starting point being the present retail price under price control. The starting point has been to take the retail price, and from that to build downwards, to make allowance for the retail profit, the wholesale profit, and then to arrive at a price for the producer. That appears to have been the basis employed in arriving at the price which the producer is going to get. Surely that is approaching the matter in reverse gear. Is not the correct way to reckon what it costs to produce the article, what it costs to realise it, and what the consumer should then pay? We appear to have no figures before us as to the cost of production. For all we know the producer may be making a tremendous profit at the price which has been fixed. Whether it is so or not, there is no evidence before us. I have reason to believe that at the price fixed, the producer is making a substantial and handsome profit.

On what grounds do you say that?

On the ground that if you compare the price that has been fixed—I am talking of the producer’s price—with the pre-war price, there has been a substantial increase. Is that correct or not? And the nett effect of that is that the consumer is asked to pay what I consider a very high price for meat. Those of us who represent consumers’ interests had hoped to see under this scheme prices reduced, retail prices reduced, quite substantially.

That is what we all want.

And it is a matter of some regret to us that the consumer is still asked to pay the high prices which were fixed in October, 1942, by the Price Controller. When these prices were fixed the whole livestock market was upset and these prices were fixed at high figures, and there has been considerable resentment about these prices on the part of the consumer. Now apparently these high prices are the prices which the consumer is still expected to pay. The only consideration he is getting is this—he is told that he is not going to be asked to pay black market prices. We know what has been going on, and I am glad the Minister has been honest on that point. We know that when the retail price was fixed the wholesale price was fixed, but the production price was not fixed, and that was the inherent weakness of the whole business. If the prices to the producer had been fixed many difficulties would not have occurred. The black market would not have occurred—not that one can eliminate the black market entirely—but had the price to the producer been controlled in relation to the price to the wholesaler and the retailer, then the producer would have got a fair price, the wholesaler would have got his margin and the retailer too. But who has benefited from the black market? I want to examine that. I say no one else has except the producer. In order to carry out this scheme, a scheme under which the price to the producer was not fixed, an indicated price was provided by the Price Controller. That price was nothing but what the wholesaler should pay. It was indicated that if he paid that price to the producer he could have his own margin. The price rose far higher than the indicated price. One only has to look at page 36 of the report of the Meat Commission to see the extraordinary difference. When the indicated price was 56s. 6d. the producer’s price went up to 85s. That could only produce a squeeze, and someone had to be squeezed. The squeeze was absorbed by the wholesaler, the retailer and the consumer. But the person who benefited was purely and simply the producer. In an effort to control things, however, the Price Controller decided to limit the commission to the auctioneer. Who got the benefit? Again it meant that the auctioneer reduced the charges which he made to the producer and the producer got the benefit. It was not the consumer who got that. So far it is the consumer who has paid every time.

The consumer gets it in the neck.

Yes, the producer in the long run pays nothing, because in the long run it is the consumer who pays. That is what the position is. I hope the Minister will be able to tackle this question of the fixation of prices in a constructive way, not in this way of tackling it from the retail price down, but in a fair way so that the producer can be given a fair return for his services. That is due to him. No one will deny that. Then from that, the next stage can be fixed and further stages can be fixed so that each one rendering services can be suitably remunerated. This question of the middleman doesn’t worry me very much. These middelmen are all performing essential services—their services cannot be disregarded. Anyone who is performing essential service is entitled to a remuneration for his services. The consumer is hoping under this scheme to see the price of meat revert to a figure which is reasonable by comparison with pre-war prices. But the consumer is prepared to pay more than pre-war prices in order to meet the higher cost of exigencies of war conditions, but I do not think the consumer will be happy if the prices that were fixed in October, 1942, under those abnormal conditions are going to be the prices that will prevail under this scheme. I think that this is a very serious matter. Here we find the consumer is not going to get any benefit at all under this scheme. It has been the experience that whenever items have been controlled there has been a tendency to increase the prices. We find considerable agitation on the part of certain farming members—I say “certain”—because it is pleasing to find a number of farming members are in agreement. There has been a very strenuous effort on the part of certain members to resist the price that has been fixed. They want that price increased, and if the price is increased the consumer is the only one who can pay. It is he who will be asked to pay, and I hope the Minister will resist that. I think it would be disastrous if that came about. On the subject of administration I should like to raise a point with the Minister. The scheme is going to be given effect to in nine specified areas only, and the country market is going to be left free, so the sales there will take place on the auction system on the lines that have hitherto existed. I am in this difficulty. There have been auctions in the urban areas and in the rural areas, and these auctions have tended to balance each other. If prices are raised in the urban areas there has been a tendency for the rural areas to counteract that and vice versa. The fact that there have been two types of market operating under the same conditions, the conditions of public auction, has operated so to speak as the two ends of the balance. Now the urban areas are going to be changed over to fixed prices, while the rural areas are going to be left on the auction basis, and I am wondering how a balance is going to be maintained in consequence, because the natural forces that maintained that balance in the past are going to be disrupted now, and if prices in the rural areas rise the urban prices will remain fixed. There is no corrective except that the urban areas will be denuded; they will be starved of supplies.

The urban areas take 75 per cent. of the supplies and they will automatically fix the prices in the rural areas.

there is no automatic fixing. Is the urban area going to govern the rural area? I am not at all sure that it is going to work out that way in practice. It is possible that it won’t. Then the Minister has told us that the direct flow to the urban areas will be controlled by the permit system which has been in force for some time. I think it is definite that this permit system is restrictive only. It is possible by it to stop the flow into any area, but I do not think it can bring to any centre the livestock that may be necessary. Its operation is restrictive. If there is a feeling that prices are going to rise if the producers withhold supplies to the market, it must naturally have a tendency to increase the prices. If markets are going to be served I do not know what methods the Minister can adopt in order to ensure supplies. Certainly the permit system will not produce supplies unless they are sent in. I can understand that as between different markets the permit system can have a useful controlling effect. Supplies can be diverted, if there are ample supplies at one centre, to another point where they are required. But I do not know how the Minister is going to produce livestock unless it comes in voluntarily from the producers. That is a point I find a great difficulty over.

Do you want to vote on this?

There is another point that is exercising my mind, and it is essential to the success of this scheme, namely that there should be ample cold storage accommodation and ample experienced graders. I noticed in the Meat Commission report a reference to the absence of experienced graders. The Minister has not told us anything about these aspects, but one has reason to believe that there may be a deficiency of cold storage accommodation, and also a deficiency in the number of experienced graders. Apparently the Minister is satisfied on that point. Finally, I want to say I do think it is a great pity that this scheme has been introduced as a regulation in the Gazette. It may be that the ground for doing so is that it is intended at this stage to be a temporary scheme, but I do not think it is envisaged in the long run as a temporary scheme. The Minister has told us that the Board is at present acting, and he may be able to work out a permanent scheme under the Marketing Act.

Are you afraid to have a vote on this?

If this is going to be a permanent scheme, I think it would have been more appropriate to have introduced it to this House as a Bill on the same lines as the Fishing Industry Bill we had yesterday. It seems to me a pity that the House should not have been given the opportunity of digesting and considering the scheme before it became an accomplished fact. Today we are merely faced with these regulations in the Gazette which come into force on the 15th May. Today we are able to review this scheme, you might say, in retrospect, so that criticism is of very little value. It would have been far better to have introduced it in the form of a Bill so that the House could have considered it. We have the example of the fishing industry. The fishing industry and the meat industry are very similar in character and are allied in many ways. The one is dependent on the other, and the fishing industry has been dealt with by means of a Bill.

Sit down.

You have told us that before.

Are you afraid to have a vote on the matter?

I at one time felt rather opposed to the scheme, but after hearing the Opposition, I am inclined to the view that it must be a very much better scheme than I once gave it credit for.

It being now twenty minutes to seven o’clock I must interrupt business in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1) and adjourn the House. The question before the House, being one for adjournment, accordingly lapses.