I wish to draw attention to Question No. XXIV on the Order Paper for Tuesday, 30th January by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), in which he asks the Prime Minister for certain information as to the private affairs of members of the Cabinet, viz.: Which of them are members of the “Sons of England Society” and which of them are Freemasons. As it is a fundamental rule that Questions addressed to Ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected (V. & P. 1918, p. 188, and May, 11th ed., p. 248) the Question must be discharged from the Order Paper.

Arising out of your ruling in connection with this question, may I be allowed to say something?

No, the hon. member will have a full opportunity of discussing this matter.

The Committee has to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue and Loan Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1945.

Expenditure from Revenue Funds:

I Move—

I want to do this in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion in regard to the attempt which is being made today to destroy one of the oldest traditions of this House. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition brought a motion before the House. It was a motion of censure, and it is one of the most valued traditions of every Parliament that when a motion of censure is moved by the Leader of the. Opposition, it will have preference in spite of what the Government of the day may think in connection with the matter. It is one of the unwritten laws of every Parliament that there are certain things which a Government cannot arrange to suit its own convenience. There are certain things which it cannot take out of the hands of Parliament without destroying the traditions and prestige and powers of Parliament. Here the Minister of Finance is asking that a motion of no confidence in the Government on matters of the utmost national importance should be postponed. For what reason? I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what reason there is for rushing the additional estimates. The Minister will tell me that the Senate is waiting for work, but throughout the history of Parliament, whenever the Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion of no confidence or censure, it has enjoyed preference, whatever may have happened. I should like the House to consider seriously whether we want to abandon this practice, this tradition which has become part and parcel of our Parliamentary system. There are certain things which the Government cannot take out of the hands of Parliament, and this is one of them. This is not only a motion of censure but it deals with two or three of the most urgent problems of the present day, namely, in the first place, the question of food. The people have no food; it is a matter which affects every family in the country.

The whole nation is waiting to see what Parliament proposes to do and decide in this matter; the people are now expected to wait to suit the convenience of the Minister of Finance. The second subject is the health of the people. The third important question is that of the economic reconstruction of South Africa. In saying that these are three of the most important problems with which we are faced, I think hon. members will agree that that is the case. I hope therefore that they will support me in order to prevent the destruction of the powers of Parliament in this manner. That is the object of my motion.

I do not know whether there is any definite rule that a motion such as that moved yesterday, should at all times receive preference to all other business, but in any event, as far as this matter is concerned, we acted in accordance with a settlement which was come to between the Whips of the two parties.

No.

That is the information which was given me by the Whips.

They pointed a pistol at our heads.

I understood that that was the arrangement, and that it has been agreed that the additional estimates would first be disposed of. The object of that arrangement is, of course, to ensure that members of the Other Place will not have to wait here for a few weeks possibly, without having any work. When we come to the discussion of the motion of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), a great deal of time will probably be taken up by it, and we therefore suggested that we should first dispose of the additional estimates, so that the estimates could go to the Other Place and be dealt with there. I was informed that the Whips had come to an agreement, and on the strength of that the Order Paper was drawn up as it reads today. I regret therefore that I cannot accept the motion of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth).

May I be allowed to say in connection with the alleged arrangement, that I understood the position as follows. The Government Whips approached me and informed me that the additional estimates had to be put through the House in order to be sent to the Senate and that thereafter—I am saying what I understood to be the position—time would be given for the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I was then asked whether we would undertake to pass the additional estimates today. I said that I could not give such an undertaking because I did not know how much discussion there would be. That was the only request on our part as far as I know. The attitude which was adopted was that the additional estimates should first be passed and we were asked whether we would be able to dispose of it in one day.

The Hon. Minister of Finance seeks to create the impression that it is not customary to give preference to a motion of no confidence.

It happens in the majority of cases.

I want to bring this to the notice of the Minister of Finance—for practical purposes he is the Leader of the House because under normal circumstances the Prime Minister, to a great extent, leaves him in charge of the House—that it has happened during the past few years that when the Leader of the Opposition moves a motion, the same procedure is followed as is being followed today. On the other hand may I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to what happened when he was Leader of the Opposition. In 1931, shortly after he had become Leader of the Opposition, he moved a motion of no confidence and that motion of no confidence was given preference without any objections. Nothing intervened; the debate was not interrupted. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister can check it up in Hansard. The following year the Prime Minister, again as Leader of the Opposition, came forward with a motion which, in effect, was a motion of no confidence. He can look at Hansard of 1933 and he will find that preference was again given to the motion and that it was discussed until it had been disposed of; no other business intervened. That is how the present Prime Minister was treated when he was Leader of the Opposition. As against that, we have this treatment of the present Leader of the Opposition. That happened last year, and I think it has also happened on previous occasions that we have had the greatest difficulty in getting preference for a motion of no confidence and censure. We are told every year that hon. members on the other side are in favour of the maintenance of the system of government by the people and the Parliamentary system. I want to tell them that if they act in this way, they are sounding the death knell of the Parliamentary system, because there is nothing which will arouse so much opposition in the country against this so-called Parliamentary system as this type of dictatorship which we virtually have today. The Opposition has to be smothered in every possible way; the Opposition must be prevented from putting its case. What reason is there for this haste? I do not know what hon. members on this side or on the other side have to say in regard to the additional estimates. The Minister’s excuse is that the additional estimates must be disposed of so that the Senate will not be idle. Assuming the discussions take two or three days; in that event the Minister of Finance will succeed in diverting the attention of the people and of the country altogether from this extremely important motion which is before the House. That is obviously the intention. If that is not the intention, that will be the outcome. Is it reasonable towards the people; is it reasonable towards this House? Is that the way in which government by the people, in which democracy is to be maintained? No, I shall support the motion of the hon. member for George.

This is an abuse of power.

Yes, as the hon. member says, the Government side is using the temporary power which it has while it is in power to undermine the Parliamentary system. I protest against the undermining of what we regard as true democracy, as government by the people.

I think it may be expected of me to say a few words in connection with this matter, since it deals with the motion which I moved yesterday. In the first place I want to say that a motion of no confidence or censure is regarded by this Parliament and by the British Parliament, on whose procedure ours is modelled, as a more farreaching matter, as being of more fundamental importance than any other business, because it affects the confidence of Parliament in the Government. It is a far-reaching matter and for that reason it receives preference to all other business of Parliament. It is like a motion of order. For that reason not only the convenience of Parliament but also the business of the Government, no matter how important it may be, takes second place to such a motion, and for that reason it receives preference. The Minister now advances the argument that there is another body to be considered, namely, the Senate, and for their convenience, since otherwise they may have to sit longer, this practice must now be departed from and this motion must be held over. For the convenience of another body, the work of the whole Parliament must be held over. That is an argument which does not hold water. Then I want to point out something else. There is no definite rule in our Standing Rules with regard to this matter but there is one provision which deserves our attention, and that is Section 286 of the Standing Rules, which reads—

My interpretation with reference to the question of this Rule is that where our Standing Orders do not provide that a motion of censure or a motion of no confidence shall have preference to other business, we must in that case see what is stated in May’s Parliamentary Practice, and what he says in this connection is crystal clear. He says that when a motion of this nature is moved by the Leader of the Parliamentary Opposition, that is to say, by the Opposition in Parliament, that motion must receive preference to other business. That is very clear. For that reason I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for George.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has made the suggestion that we on this side of the House are using our position to impose our will on the House.

They are not using it; they are misusing it.

If you like to use that word I will accept it, but this is rather far from the facts. Early yesterday both the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) were approached and they were told of the Government’s intention in this matter, with the idea of discussing the matter with them, and of obtaining their agreement to this procedure. The hon. member for Pietersburg—I am sorry he is not in his place now—actually agreed and saw no objection to the adoption of this procedure when the matter was put to him. As for the hon. member for Humansdorp, the only objection he made was that he could not see that the discussion on the additional estimates could be finished this afternoon, and I agreed that that probably was not possible, but that I would co-operate with him so far as humanly possible to see that we should get through it and then to continue with the discussion on the motion of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). I regret that this apparent misunderstanding has arisen in the mind of the hon. member for Humansdorp, but I think that that could have been removed through the usual channels. We may have had a discussion and perhaps have come to mutual agreement. I do not think it promotes the good working of the House when these things are sprung on the House while there is machinery available for discussing these matters behind Mr. Speaker’s chair. I think that if the business of the House is to go forward harmoniously this machinery should be used, and only when such negotiations break down should we have such discussions on the floor of the House.

Since the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the Standing Orders and particularly to Section 286, I want to draw his attention to the fact that this very matter was raised by him on a previous occasion and that a ruling was given by Mr. Speaker on that occasion. In 1935, when obviously the circumstances were practically the same, because is also concerned the additional estimates which were on the Order Paper for discussion, my hon. friend raised this matter on a point of order and asked, inter alia, whether in view of the provisions of Section 286 of the Standing Rules of this House preference should not be given as a matter of right to a motion of no confidence which is moved by him as Leader of the Opposition.

I know of that case.

Then the hon. member will also know of the ruling of Mr. Speaker on that occasion.

I shall explain the circumstances in that case.

On that occasion Mr. Speaker ruled as follows—

As far as the arrangement of the Order Paper is concerned therefore, there is no ground for objection. It rests with the Government. With regard to the case which we are discussing at the moment, there was consultation between the Whips, and the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) explained the position. We understood that there was no objection. I do not know whether there was a misunderstanding. I think if hon. members had any objection, they could have come before today’s sitting and raised those objections. They could have explained to us that there had been a misunderstanding.

I just want to say that the circumstances under which that ruling was given by Mr. Speaker in 1934 ….

In 1935.

…. in 1935 must not be lost sight of. That was at a time when there was a new Opposition in Parliament, i.e. the Opposition of the Purified Nationalist Party against the Coalition Government. There was a refusal on the part of the then Prime Minister to recognise that Opposition as an Opposition.

That is correct.

And there was a hard struggle during that very Session to get the Opposition recognised as an Opposition. I think we must not lose sight of that background. But apart from that, if one may differ on the floor of the House from a ruling which was given by a Speaker in this House on a definite occasion in the past, I should like to say that that ruling was wrong.

Hear, hear!

Because that section is contained in our Standing Orders with reference to certain days on which Government work has preference—the very same section appears in the Standing Orders of the British Parliament; there it is also stated that the Government will have preference in respect of Government business on certain specified days and notwithstanding that, May’s Parliamentary Practice says that the obligation to give preference to a motion of no confidence or a motion of censure, overrides that section in the Standing Orders. I make bold to say that I differ from the ruling of the then Speaker.

In connection with this matter, I want to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty). From his speech it appears very clearly what the position is. He stated in this House that he told the Opposition what the Government’s plan was. He says: “I told them of the Government’s intention,” namely, to carry on with these additional estimates; in other words, there was no intention on the part of the Government to depart from the practice of giving preference to a motion of censure. As an Opposition we ask for the usual time which must be given to such a motion according to custom; but the hon. member informed the Whips of the Opposition that it was the Government’s intention first to dispose of the other matter. In doing so, the Government departed from this procedure; and the hon. member did not say that the Opposition Whips had agreed, to that arrangement, but simply and solely that he had notified them of the Government’s intention not to give preference to the motion of censure and in addition to that there was the demand that the additional estimates should be disposed of in one day. That is what we object to, the fact that the hon. member tells us as an Opposition that that is the intention of the Government; in other words, the Government has decided not to proceed with the motion of censure but to proceed with the additional estimates, and in addition to that the Government asks the Opposition to dispose of the estimates within a day. Surely, that is not negotiation. It is merely an announcement that the Government had decided to depart from the practice and to say what its plans are. In those circumstances we cannot be held responsible; it cannot be said that we agreed.

But the objection of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) was not to giving up the day; he was willing to have preference given to Government business.

No, that is just what is wrong. The hon. member for Humansdorp was officially informed by the Whip that the Government was going to do this and that we were to dispose of the additional estimates within a day. The hon. member for Humansdorp then stated that we could not undertake to dispose of the additional estimates within a day.

He did hot object.

The Government Whip merely announced what the Government was going to do. That is not a question of assent. Negotiations are not effected in that way, and one cannot simply tell the other side that one has decided to do this or that; that is not negotiation.

I only rise, Sir, for the purpose of dealing with the constitutional point that has been raised by the Opposition. I submit that it is not a sound point. This is no distinct vote of no confidence in the Government. It is quite true it amounts to a vote of censure on their conduct, but the rule laid down in May’s Parliamentary Practice only deals with a motion distinctly setting out that the Government no longer enjoys the confidence of the House. It is quite clear from the edition (i.e. 1906) that existed at the time of Union and is mentioned in the rule he quoted, viz., rule 286. See pages 268-269—

“Amounting to” [Interruptions].

My hon. friend may argue after I have spoken, but not, please, by interjection. My point is this, and that is the way in which it has generally been moved on previous occasions by the Opposition, when they wanted to challenge the confidence of the Government they did not challenge it merely on definite items of policy. They might even have put at the end of the motion “and therefore no longer enjoys the confidence of the House.” But they have left that out, and kept to particular lines of policy. When May lays down that a vote of no confidence means something that the Government cannot interfere with, it distinctly means only motions where the words “no confidence” are put into the motion.

If this motion is accepted, will the Government resign?

No self-respecting government would accept a motion in these terms. A government which the hon. member may support at some time may accept a motion of this sort, but no self-respecting government would. It is an absurdity to ask me what would happen if a government accepted a vote of censure of itself. I am dealing with the constitutional point. [Interruptions]. I know that hon. members opposite are afraid of it. Let us try and deal with the point on its merits. I say, Sir, that a distinct vote of want of confidence in the Government which would be simply expressed if they wanted that, is required, if the motion is to be entitled as a matter of right to precedence. But they should distinctly challenge the confidence of the House in the Government and distinctly set out that the Government no longer possesses the confidence of the House.

Hair-splitting.

It is not hair-splitting. I am using the exact words of May’s Parliamentary Practice, 11th edition. It simply makes it quite clear that it must be expressed in those terms. The mere fact that it says “amounting to” makes no difference whatsoever as these words are followed by “a distinct vote of want of confidence. Otherwise what will be the result? Anybody might put a motion on the Order Paper criticising Government policy, and might say provided it is sanctioned by the leader of the Opposition: “I want precedence.” Who is going to draw the line between those questions of policy, if you do not mention confidence, and to say that one means no confidence in the Government while another is just an item of policy. Why you must state it is a motion of no confidence is that because then and then only you will get precedence. I would like to point out why I think they have drawn up the motion in those terms. They have drawn up the motion in those terms because they thought they might trap a few unwary members on this side of the House, as the question of confidence was not directly mentioned.

What an admission.

Are you suggesting you are such a simple crowd over there?

I am very glad of the commotion I have caused. It shows I have got under their ribs. I say again that in May’s Parliamentary Practice it is quite clear that the Opposition cannot claim precedence as a matter of right unless they distinctly mention that the Government no longer possesses the confidence of the House.

After what the hon. member has just said, it may be interesting to read what is stated in the motion. I do not believe he has read it even now.

He does not understand it.

If one reads the motion and looks at the opening words—

Can one still have any confidence in such a Government? The wording is stronger than no-confidence. If this motion had been a motion of no confidence, it would not have gone as far as the wording of this motion; but I am convinced that the correct explanation is that the Afrikaans of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) is defective. Here it is stated very clearly that the House expresses its disapproval, and if this motion is accepted then, as he correctly stated, no self-respecting Government would dare to remain in power. It is clearly a motion of no-confidence. But that is not really why I got up to say a few words. I just want to state briefly, as far as I am concerned, what happened at the negotiations with the Government Whips. During the course of the discussion in the caucus which we held yesterday, it was not yet known whether or not the Government would regard this as a motion of no-confidence. Now the hon. member will say that that is exactly what he said. But then I want to come back to him. He says there are a few stupid members on the other side who may have been caught. We did not know that they were all stupid, because it is only when they apply his interpretation that they will regard it in that light. I immediately took it for granted that they would accept it as a motion of no-confidence. Immediately after the caucus the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) was good enough to inform me in the Lobby—it was merely an intimation—that the Government had agreed to allow time for the discussion of this motion, provided it was a reasonable time. That proviso was still added. He did not say how much time, and he said that the Government had agreed to give time on condition that they could carry on with the additional estimates tomorrow. It was a bare intimation and he asked whether we would not co-operate to put the additional estimates through the House as soon as possible. There was no agreement. We had nothing to say. It was purely and simply an announcement on the part of the hon. member that the Government had decided to allow time for the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I immediately went to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and a few other members, and they immediately objected and stated that they did not accept it in that light.

You did not inform us of that objection at the time.

We are telling you now.

I listened with surprise to the interpretation which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) placed on this ruling. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) is a “wetsgeleerde” (lawyer). He is what is known in English as a lawyer.

A barrister.

There is an old English expression which says that the law is an ass. After having listened to the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) I believe that. I say that after having listened to the hon. member one can understand why there are some people who say that the law is an ass. He himself quoted from the ruling of the House or from May’s Parliamentary Practice that any motion “amounting to a motion of no-confidence” will have preference. Apparently he has no idea of the meaning of the words “amounting to”, because if ever a motion had that effect, if ever a motion amounted to a vote of no confidence, this motion certainly does. But now the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) comes along and says that unless it is specifically stated that it is a motion of no-confidence, it is not a motion of no-confidence, and he was actually applauded by his side when he said it. Let us test that in the light of what happened in this House. I have three motions before me. The first one was moved in 1931. This is a motion which was moved by the present Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. His motion reads as follows—

It was very clearly intended as a motion of no-confidence in the Government of that time, but nowhere is it stated that it is a motion of no-confidence. But what did the Government do? The Government, having more sense that the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle), regarded it as a motion of no-confidence and as such preference was given to it. There is not a word in this motion to say that it is a motion of no-confidence, but it is clear to anyone with common sense that it is a motion of no-confidence. I come to the next motion. That was moved in 1933. In 1933 the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, moved this motion—

Again it “amounts to”. Nowhere is it stated that it is a motion of no-confidence. The submission of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle), as acclaimed by hon. members on the other side, is that unless it is specifically stated that it is a motion of noconfidence, it is not a motion of no-confidence. Without any protest preference was given to this motion and it was treated as a motion of no-confidence, because it amounted to a motion of no-confidence. Now, I come to the year 1936. In that year the present Leader of the Opposition moved this motion—

Here again there is not a word to say that it is a motion of no-confidence, but the Government of that time accepted it as a motion of no-confidence and without any protest whatsoever preference was given to this motion as a motion of no-confidence; in other words, it has been the custom for years, where a motion is introduced which is tantamount to a motion of no-confidence, to give preference to it. In all the years of this Parliament’s history that has been the practice, and that was the way in which even the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, was treated. He was given every opportunity to move his motion. I hope therefore that the intelligence of members on the other side is on a slightly higher plane that it has been put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle), and that they will realise, together with us, that this motion is indeed a motion of no-confidence, and that preference should be given to it for that reason. Then I only want to make this point. The hon. Minister of Finance apparently laid it down as a condition not only that these additional estimates of his must be accorded preference today, but that they must be disposed of by the House before the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition comes up for discussion again. In other words, this action is equivalent to pointing a pistol at our heads. “If you do not dispose Of these additional estimates today, you will not get preference for your motion tomorrow. If you do not dispose of the additional estimates within one day, we shall carry on with the estimates tomorrow and we shall carry on with them the next day and your motion will be placed in the background until such time as you agree to pass the additional estimates.” I must say that that is the best method which the Minister of Finance could have devised to bring the whole Parliamentary system into discredit with the people.

The hon. Minister is very proud of the fact that he plays cricket. We know what that means in English. It is not necessary for me to say much more. He is more proud of himself when he makes ten runs than he is when he makes a successful speech in this House. He knows what it means when one says in English that a person does not play cricket; he realises the significance of that statement. The reason why a motion of this nature receives preference is that through the debate the country is aware of the state of affairs; it means that the Government is so sure of its case that it is not afraid to have these matters fully discussed. Are these the tactics which are now being adopted. “Very well, we shall allow half-an-hour for the motion today; the day after tomorrow we shall allow it a further half-an-hour and the following week another few hours?” Is it intended to employ these tactics so that the country will not become aware of the true state of affairs? No Government which is honest and upright, which is strong enough, will have any objection to allowing the Opposition to place its objections before the country. That is the reason for that provision and as soon as that provision is not carried out, the Government departs from a procedure which has been followed for hundreds of years and it brings this Parliament into discredit, because it lays down a rule which an unscrupulous Government might use in the future. I want to make an appeal to the Minister therefore. He himself admits that there may have been a misunderstanding. I know what negotiations mean. I know that when one asks for something something is usually expected in return. I realise that. The hon. Minister says there must have been a misunderstanding. I do not know how that came about. I do not want to say that the one side or the other side has told an untruth. There is obviously a misunderstanding. Since there was a misunderstanding, and if the Minister would not have brought these estimates before the House without leave, and if it were in conflict with the ruling, and if he himself admits that there was a misunderstanding—I listened to the statements of the two Whips and it is quite clear to me that the Whip on the other side wanted something, and he simply said that the Government would allow the Opposition time, but that they wanted to dispose of the additional estimates first—then the position is that the Government said: “You must finish as soon as possible otherwise you will not be given time for your motion.” The story about the Senate—well, I do not think the Minister is really serious in putting forward that excuse. The Senate adjourns for fourteen days and three weeks at a time. In all probability they will dispose of the estimates in half a day. The safest course for them to follow is to go home and they can come back when there is work for them; and that is the rule. That has always been done. But I want to say this: I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister for the sake of government by the people and for the sake of sincerity and honesty. If he is convinced that there is a misunderstanding, let him postpone this debate. Do not discard a procedure which has been followed for hundreds of years. You cannot make use of the fact that there was an agreement, because there was no agreement. You yourself admit that there might have been a misunderstanding. Accept this motion and let us discuss the estimates at a later stage. In other words, play cricket.

In discussing the question as to whether or not this motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is really a motion of no confidence, I think we are engaged in splitting hairs. Notwithstanding all the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), we need only refer him to the official spokesman of the Government who replied to the speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The Minister who spoke yesterday left no doubt as to whether or not the Government regarded this motion as a motion of no confidence.

He said it was a motion of no confidence.

If he regarded it in that light, i.e. as a motion of no confidence, we cannot see why the Government is resorting to this unusual step today of trying to promote that feeling of unrest, that feeling of dissatisfaction which exists not only on this side of the House, but also on that side, by making use of its present power. As a young member of this House I also want to make an appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance not to make us feel, as young members that we are rapidly approaching the stage where the procedure of Parliament is becoming nothing but a farce. One cannot accept the reason given by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think that he himself is actually ashamed of it. Just imagine, this Financial Bill has to go through so that the members of the Other Place may be kept occupied. We all know how quickly the members of the Other Place work. As one of them told me only the other day, they sometimes come together only to adjourn. They may take a very short time to dispose of these estimates which the Minister of Finance wants us to put through the House. If that argument can be accepted, that we must see to it that the members of the Other Place have work, what is the Minister going to do if, for example, they dispose tomorrow of this work which we have to put through today? In that case it will mean that the day after tomorrow he will again come forward with excuses to shelve the motion of the Leader of the Opposition so that the members of the Other Place may be kept occupied. No, we say that that type of argument on the part of the Minister of Finance does not hold water. The Whip of the Government Party now states that for the sake of co-operation we ought to follow the correct procedure of meeting behind Mr. Speaker’s chair and negotiating in regard to this matter. It is no usé being a signpost, i.e. to point out the way and not to go in that direction yourself. They never approached the Whips of the Opposition to negotiate in regard to this matter. All they did was to place the Opposition before an accomplished fact. If that is the procedure which is going to be followed by the Government of the day and by its Whips, how can they expect to demand the co-operation of this side of the House?

I move this motion because as a Parliamentarian I do my best to protect the good traditions and rights of this House. The only member on the other side who dealt with the constitutional position is the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) and he admitted that if this was a motion of no confidence, we on this side of the House would have the right to demand that it be disposed of before the Government continues with its business.

That must be stated in specific terms.

The wording of the motion is clear enough. But the fact that we on this side stated that it was a motion of censure and no-confidence, removes any doubt which might have existed. The attitude which we adopt is that it is a motion of censure and no-confidence, and we therefore have the right to demand of the Government that this motion be given preference on the Order Paper. If members on the other side do not want to assist us in obtaining that preference, they are no longer Parliamentarians; in that event they are acting as party followers. Why is this a right which the Opposition has? Because from the very earliest days no government with self-respect wanted to continue in governent if the House had no confidence in it. For that reason it became a tradition to give preference to such a motion. We are dealing now with a motion of no-confidence and censure and the question is simply whether this Government, as all Governments in democratic countries, has sufficient self-respect not to wish to continue in government when it is not sure of its position. It is not too late yet. There was obviously a misunderstanding, and it is not too late yet to rectify the position. We shall not regard it as a sign of weakness if the Minister rectifies it. I want to ask the Minister of Finance to review his decision at the eleventh hour.

Motion put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—40 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieters’e, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nieloerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—98 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Mare, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 2.—“Senate” as printed, put.

I notice in this vote and also in Vote No. 3 that there is an increase in the one case of £2,094 and in the other case of £9,200. I hope that that is in terms of the present agreement and that there is not an amended agreement.

Yes, it is under the existing agreement.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 3.—“House of Assembly”, £10,870, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs,” £21,900.

I should just like to put a question to the Prime Minister in regard to the increase in the item subsistence and transport. We find that members of the public are restricted as far as travelling is concerned. The farmers as well as other people are placed under severe restrictions. But here we notice that there is a great deal of luxurious travelling. The expenditure increased by £7,500. I am surprised to find that there is such a big increase, since proper provision was made in the main estimates. The second item is an increase of £8,800 under incidental expenses. What unforeseen expenditure was incurred? Is this a type of secret service, or was it a sort of smellingout process? We should like an explanation of these two increases.

With regard to the first point in connection with travelling expenses, I want to point out that it has nothing to do with people travelling in this country. But during the past year there have been quite a number of transfers of officians oversea, from Pretoria to Ottawa, etc. It is in that connection that these votes arose. The second point is in regard to unforeseen expenditure. That relates to overseas telegrams. In that respect there has been a remarkable increase. As hon. members know there have been quite a number of international conferences during the year—conferences which were not visualised. We had to send representatives to those conferences, and that gave rise to a large number of communications. In addition to that there is the expenditure in connection with the delivery of overseas postal bags. Formerly that was paid out under the Postal Vote, but the Treasury has now arranged for the cost of sending overseas postbags to different parts of the world through Foreign Affairs to be paid out under this Vote. All these sums added together, produce these results.

The Prime Minister sounded very convincing in regard to the reasons for the tremendous increase in incidental expenses. May I just point out that the total additional expenditure on this vote amounts to an increase of 5 per cent. on the money made available in the main estimates. When we come to the incidental expenses, however, we find that the increase is 150 per cent; The Prime Minister stated that there were certain reasons for it, the most important being in fact that additional telegrams had to be despatched. But telegrams do not fall under this.

But cables do come under it.

Very well. Let me accept that cables come under incidental expenses. The whole point is that incidental expenses should be mentioned more specifically. As it is put at the moment, it means a round sum of money, of which practically no account is being given. I do not know that there have been more conferences during this year than in other years. During the war years there has been a large number of conferences every year. Were there 2½ times as many this year as in previous years? It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs to give such a round sum for incidental expenses in these estimates, because it simply means that the Minister is giving no account of it.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 9.—“Provincial Administrations”, £26,400,

Will the Minister please tell us precisely how this increase has occurred.

Under the present law the subsidies to the provinces are determined mainly on the attendance in the schools, and a final adjustment has to be made on the finally audited figures of school attendance. For that reason we sometimes make errors in the main estimates and have to adjust them on the additional estimates. This year the Transvaal has qualified for a larger subsidy in terms of the law than we provided for on the main estimates. That is the main reason, but in any case it is worked out simply on the basis of school attendance.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 10.—“Miscellaneous Services,” £17,500,

I should like to have some information about this extraordinarily high expenditure of £17,500 additionally, seeing that only £10,150 was provided for in the main estimate. Which were the many commissions appointed by the Government since the last estimate was accepted and about which the Government did not know at the time? What has happened to the reports of those commissions? Were they, as the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has said here, simply discarded into the wastepaper basket? We should really like to know what the position is. We know that some reports are pending, and some of them will perhaps be pending for years. We should like to know whether those reports will be furnised to the House before we vote this money. It is a bit too bad to vote money for commissions in this way.

The Treasury is of course only responsible for the expenditure in connection with commissions. This additional amount is partly due to the fact that there were a few commissions which had already been appointed and which sat longer than we expected, with the result that there were more costs in connection with them. Included in this class of commission there is, for example, the Health Service Commission, which has already issued its report. Then there is the commission in connection with distribution costs, which is still busy. New commissions were also appointed. They are the Judicial Commission in Natal in connection with the Indian question: the Kakamas Commission, which, as my hon. friend knows, was fairly protracted and thus cost quite a lot and which has not yet been completed. Then there is the commission of enquiry into the Public Service which has issued an interim report and which is still busy with its most important work. Then there is the commission regarding the finances of irrigation works, which has virtually only started. That is the reason why the expenditure has been greater than we anticipated at that time.

May I ask the Minister just one more question. He said that the Kakamas Commission took a very long time—that the commission was protracted. I hope that the report will be laid on the Table still during this year in order that the House may discuss it. My second question is this: When the estimate was framed at the time, the Government well knew that the Health Service Commission existed and that a certain amount would be necessary, so why is it now necessary to make provision for the expenditure by means of an additional estimate? As far as the Kakamas Commission is concerned I would like to know whether the report will be laid on the Table during this Session in order that the House might discuss it.

The Health Service Commission was in action but it lasted longer than we expected with the result that the work cost more than we expected. As far as the Kakamas Commission is concerned I understand that the position is that that Commission is now busy considering its report, and I understand that this will be completed within a few weeks. Then there is further work in connection with it as regards the printing of the report, which we will expedite as far as possible.

Mr. Chairman, could the Minister enlighten us as to the reason for the excess vote in this case? The usual vote was the modest amount of £10,000 and we now have to meet an expense of a further £17,500. Is it possible that the Dog Racing Commission may have drawn upon the funds to this extent? I understand that the Commission showed ah endurance and a staying power which have exceeded the record of all other Commissions of Enquiry.

No, the Dog Racing Commission is not one of my liabilities. That Commission was appointed by the Transvaal Province and they are therefore financially responsible.

I thought it could scarcely have been appointed by the Minister.

The new commissions which I have already mentioned, which were not foreseen, were the Broome Commission, the Kakamas Commission, the Public Service Commission of Enquiry and the Irrigation Finance Commission.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 11.—“High Commissioner in London”, £6,300,

Mr. Chairman, I see in this vote the explanatory remark that £500 was payable as a gratuity in the estate of the late High Commissioner. Were this five times as great I would not question the amount, and I say that because it will reflect the spirit in which I want to make the remarks I am about to make. I had the privilege in the last quarter of last year of visiting London, which was quite a definite privilege in a time of war, particularly following a period when a number of Imperial soldiers have been visiting our South African shores and enjoying our hospitality and have expressed to their relatives and friends in Great Britain their high appreciation of the hospitality they have received, all of which reflects itself around the work which the High Commissioner and his office in London is called upon to perform, with an increasing amount of work in the post-war period. Many of the people who visited our shores have expressed the desire, if it is possible, in the post-war period, to take up settlement in South Africa, and there is a stream of people going in and out of South Africa House who are making application to come into South Africa to settle here. Now, during our stay in London, the late High Commissioner, Deneys Reitz, passed away, and it is the shadow of that very distinct loss, the loss of a great South African son, which throws a certain restraint upon me in making any criticism which I have to offer, but as the result of the visit to London and of an examination of the work of South Africa House, in comparison with the work of the other Dominions, I must say that South Africa House leaves very much to be desired and hardly bears comparison with the work performed by the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand Houses.

Order. The hon. member must come back to the vote. He can only discuss the reasons for the increase. If the hon. member wants to discuss the premises of the High Commissioner in London he will have an opportunity of doing so at a later stage.

I will have to leave it until such later stage, otherwise I will feel myself very circumscribed in what I have to say.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 12.—“Inland Revenue”, £30,000,

I should like to ask the Minister a few questions in connection with items E and J.1. I can understand that more money is asked for for officials in the Office for Inland Revenue. We do not begrudge the Minister the officials he needs to collect the highest possible income, but then we come to D, “Cost of Recovering Income Tax, Arbitration Costs, Payment of Interest, Rewards, etc.” Does that mean that rewards are held out under a trap system in connection with the collection of Income Tax?

No, but in case there is nothing under this heading for “Rewards”. There is no increase in this vote.

Does the Minister give the assurance that not a penny is included for that in the additional £3,000?

Yes.

I then come to E, “Refunds and Remissions of Grace or Favour”. Here £774 more is asked for. I think we have the right to ask for a little information.

I am glad that the hon. member has raised this point because as he knows the Select Committee on Public Accounts has determined that where a larger amount than £500 is remitted, it must be submitted to Parliament and must be voted. Here we are chiefly concerned with an amount of stamp duties which became payable as the result of a technical change that was brought about in respect of property of the Missionary Association of the “Church of Scotland.” It was a legal change in the constitution of the body controlling the properties. It was transferred to a Trust and as a result thereof stamp duties were payable. Considering that this was merely a technical change, we felt that it would not be right to try to gain an advantage through it by way of income. We therefore propose to repay the money.

I would like to raise a point under A—“Salaries, Wages and Allowances.” I could just as well have raised the point under one of the other votes. Here we are concerned with additional amounts for salaries, wages and allowances. I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity of making a summary of the total amount which is asked for under this particular heading on this additional estimate, but it amounts to an increase of £359,000 out of a total estimate of £1,686,372. It is more or less 20 per cent. of the total demanded. A number of important questions thus naturally arise, in connection with which we would like some clarification. In the first place we should like to know whether the increased amount is necessary, regard being had to additional appointments, or are we only dealing with an increase in salaries, or is the increase due to the decrease in the value of our money? I do not want to approach this increase critically, but I should like to have some clarity.

The cause is twofold. An additional amount is necessary as a result of the increased cost-of-living. As hon. members know the cost-of-living index figures have risen in the course of the year, and as a result thereof officials are entitled to a higher cost-of-living allowance. This applies to practically all officials. Then also, certain additional appointments were made, and this particular provision is one which also has reference to additional appointments. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has already practically answered the point when he said that the Department of Inland Revenue needed a greater staff because it is today collecting more revenue, and I think that more or less half the amount which is asked for is for new appointments, and the other half in order to cover the increased cost-of-living.

I refer to Vote 12, item “D” “Cost of recovering income tax, arbitration costs, payment of interest, rewards, etc.” My point is in regard to rewards. I am sorry I was not able to follow the Minister when he replied to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in regard to rewards, but I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that if rewards were made widely known it might result in a large accretion of income tax. In Natal in 1940, the period for which I have records, out of 6,000 licences issued to Asiatics 1,806 were general dealers licences, and the value of those in revenue was £10,391.

That was municipal revenue.

That is all right, but that is only a reference. The Umzinto magisterial division returns the largest amount of income tax in Natal outside Durban and Maritzburg, some £78,000, and the three other magisterial divisions in my constituency return in income tax anything between £50,000 and £60,000 each, and yet in those four magisterial divisions, so far as I can ascertain the number of Asiatics paying income tax can be counted on the fingers of the two hands, and the amount is less than £200. I should like the Minister to think over that, less than £200 is returned in a magisterial division which returns the largest amount of income tax in Natal outside Durban and Maritzburg. If the system of rewards were made well known, I am pretty sure information would be forthcoming to the Receiver of Revenue which would put a very different complexion on a number of Asiatic licensed dealers who are liable to income tax and probably to supertax, because none of them pay super-tax and I know that some businesses there are very handsomely rewarding their owners.

May I explain again, there is nothing in this additional amount for rewards. The additional amount is solely required in connection with the payment of interest where decisions have gone against us.

I wish to enquire about the substantial increase for Item J.1.

That is due to two circumstances. One is that there has been a considerable increase in the work of the court, and as my hon. friend knows, the assessors are remunerated according to the number of sittings, so if the court sits for a longer period the costs go up. The second reason is that for a large part of the year the President of the Court was on sick leave, and an Acting President had to act on a basis of remuneration according to the number of sittings.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 16.—“South African Mint”, £39,980,

There is just one little matter I want to bring to the Minister’s attention. I do not know whether he can make provision for it under this vote, but the position is that people, especially in the rural areas, get possession of Rhodesian and English coins with which they can do nothing. Cannot these coins be melted?

The increase in this vote has nothing to do with that matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 17.—“Union Education”, £31,911,

Just one point. Provision is being made here for the first time for an amount of £4,400 for the University of Pretoria.

No, it is not the first time this provision is being made. It is simply an increase.

I just want to say something about C.11, the Northern Cape Technical College.

This is a new college and it takes the place of the extension classes.

I just want to know whether this has something to do with the promotion of bilingualism. It was never there, but the Northern Cape Congress asked that the principle of bilingualism should be introduced there, and I should like to know from the Minister whether this is now being done.

I hope so.

On Vote No. 21.—“Agriculture (General)”, £713,850,

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the amount of £388,000 for the stabilisation of the price of bread. We raised objection in connection with this item but not against the amount which is being paid out. Last year the Minister admitted that this vote should not be included in Agriculture, and that it really is more at home under Social Welfare, because it is not an amount of money paid out for the benefit of farmers, but for the benefit of consumers. We raised the point last year and before, but it still remains under the same vote. This leads to the impression that the farmers are receiving subsidies from the Government. In heaven’s name put this amount, in future, under Social Welfare. The Department of Social Welfare is there to see to the welfare of the nation, but if it appears in this vote the people outside say: “Look at what the farmers are receiving.” I want to protest very strongly, therefore, against the vote appearing under Agriculture every year. Then I want to say something in connection with the £280,000 for the Deciduous Fruit Industry. That also is not money which the farmers are receiving. It is now actually becoming a scandal. We have so often heard about the black market and we have it here inside this House. Here in the House of Parliament one has to pay 6d. for a peach for which the farmer receives 1d. With whom does the other 5d. remain? I think the Minister of Agriculture must put his Board in order or make a change. We cannot let the consumer suffer on as he is doing. Fruit is important for the health of the nation, but the people are being exploited in a terrible manner. I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not dawned to give effect to the report of the Reconstructions Committee of last year. There is another point I wish to touch on and that is in connection with the “Subsidy for Jam Manufacture.” I think the jam factories have a market such as they have never had before. In the report of the head of the Department I saw that according to the estimates they will this year have canned fruit to an amount of 39,000,000 lbs., of which only 7½ million lbs. will be consumed in the Union. As far as jam is concerned, they expect a production of 105,000,000 lbs., of which only 19,500,000 lbs. will be available for civilian use. It is no wonder that we have a famine and difficult times in the country. I am not opposed to export, but then it must be export of surplus. Do not allow our nation and our children to be hungry and export everything. As far as the control of fruit is concerned we are evidently voting amounts just in order to enrich certain people, people we regard as parasites.

The Minister of Agriculture will really answer these points, but I should like to refer to one point which was raised by the hon. member because it touches on a matter which was discussed before the present Minister of Agriculture took over, and also because it really deals with the arrangement of the estimate, namely the first point, “Expenditure in connection with the stabilisation of the Price of Bread.” I think the hon. member is wrong. I never said that it should not fall under this vote. What happened is that originally this provision appeared as “Subsidy to Wheat Farmers,” and then there was protest against that because it was not really a subsidy to the farmer. I then agreed to change the description of it and it is now called “Expenditure in connection with the stabilisation of the Price of Bread.” I cannot however, see how it can fall under another vote. As the hon. member knows, expenditure must appear under the vote of the accounting official concerned, and I think the hon. member will agree that hardly anyone else than the Secretary for Agriculture can supervise the spending of the money. That is why it is included in this vote.

I am glad that the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) is present. On Monday he delivered a very interesting contribution on the Deciduous Fruit Board, and it did not only impress this House, but is is clear that he also made an impression on the press and through the press on the public, and he impressed, I think, for this reason, that one felt that he is a man representing a consumers’ constituency, someone who will defend the interests of the consumer. Now, the public and the consumers have sided against the Deciduous Fruit Board and you could therefore expect it from him, but now he gives the impression that he, after thoroughly studying the subject, came to a realisation of the fact that the Deciduous Fruit Board was faced with great difficulties, and as a representative of the consumer he still appreciates the work which the Board has done. I am sorry that the hon. member for Woodstock did not add that he spoke, not as the member for Woodstock, but as a member of the Deciduous Fruit Board. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he is a member of the Deciduous Fruit Board or not. He nods affirmatively. The hon. member is a member of the Deciduous Fruit Board. Therefore on Monday he did not speak on behalf of the consumers, but as a member of the Deciduous Fruit Board.

He is a consumers’ member of the Deciduous Fruit Board.

He is someone appointed by the Government and in the first place he is speaking not on behalf of the consumers but as a mouthpiece of the Government which nominated him, and he further tried to whitewash the mess made by the Deciduous Fruit Board. I had a very high regard for the hon. member for Woodstock but I must say that I am disappointed. Why did the hon. member not say on Monday that he was a member of the Deciduous Fruit Board? Why did the hon. Minister not publish the constitution of the Board?

It was published.

I have today requested the librarian to examine all the Government Gazettes of September to find out whether the personnel was published. He searched but could not find it. I then told him to enquire from the Department of Agriculture, and their reply was that the names have not yet been published and that it is not yet available to the public. Why is this matter kept secret? We were under the impression that we were listening to the hon. member as a representative of the consumers in his constituency. That is the impression we received and which obviously the public also received. Just read the “Cape Times” of Tuesday morning. There you will find a treble column report headed “New Defender of the Deciduous Board.” To me this appears as unsavoury tactics which I did not expect from the hon. member. They refer to the hon. member for Woodstock as a “New Defender from an unexpected quarter.” If the “Cape Times” had known that the hon. member for Woodstock is a member of the Deciduous Fruit Board then the defence would not come “from an unexpected quarter.” I wonder whether the “Cape Times,” when tomorrow it reports this debate will give the same publicity to the fact that it was the Deciduous Fruit Board which spoke and that the hon. member for Wood-stock is a nominated member of the Government on the Board. In the first place he spoke on behalf of the Government and in the second place in order to exonerate the Deciduous Fruit Board. I have not the least objection against a member of a board rising to defend his board. That is expected from colleagues. But let him admit that he is a member; why must it be kept a secret? I made enquiries amongst members on this side of the House and there was not one who knew that the hon. member was a member of the board. I asked members on the other side of the House but they also did not know. If one acts in this manner one is acting under false pretences. I have the feeling that I was the victim of a bit of unsavoury tactics. I thought that he was a man who stood outside and yet was a friend of the Deciduous Fruit Board. That was also the impression that the public outside gained. Now I have to discover that it was the accused who was attempting to exonerate himself. I made a study of the hon. member’s speech or tried to, but I must say that his figures are not quite clear to me. He must give me some assistance. In the first place he said—

34,000 tons.

Then the hon. member says—

The 32,000 tons is fruit that has been exported up to now. Thus last year the Deciduous Fruit Board had to handle the normal consumption plus 32,000 tons. Must we then infer from this that the normal consumption of South Africa was only 8,000 tons?

Naturally not.

What has happened to the rest? I cannot control his figures. He is in a privileged position. Yesterday I said that the books and balance sheets of the Deciduous Fruit Board were being kept secret. We wish these to be documents of the House. But if what appears here is correct, it means that we exported 32,000 tons of fruit and that there was a little more than 11,000 tons available for South African consumption. Then fruit was plentiful and cheap. But when we could not export, what happened to the fruit then? It disappeared from the markets and prices rose to such an extent that no poor man could buy it. And then the hon. member says that the good work of the Deciduous Fruit Board was that it handled all the fruit. [Time limit].

I should like to say a few words. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) believes that he has made a sensational discovery, namely, that the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) is a member of the Deciduous Fruit Board, and he also wishes to imply that I have committed a terrible sin through not having published in the Government Gazette the names of the members of the board as re-constituted.

You said that you had done that.

I did not say that they were published in the Government Gazette, but that the names were published. The Act does not require that publication should be in the Government Gazette.

That is what always has been done.

I had imagined that hon. members opposite followed what went on, and noted what appeared in the newspapers. I have myself seen the names of various members of the reorganised Deciduous Fruit Board, and I do not think that any secret has been made of the names, least of all that of the hon. member for Woodstock. I appointed him as one of the consumers’ members on the board, and I am pleased that he has made such a good impression. I thought that if someone was appointed representing a constituency such as Wood-stock, with the majority of the people belonging to the less privileged classes, the lower wage earners, that it would be a good thing, and that he would be a good consumers’ member. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more on that point. We who have for some time been members’ of the board know that the hon. member for George has developed tremendously in a dramatic direction, and we know that facts, figures and that sort of thing are not always his strong point.

What is your strong point?

In any event, the figures that the hon. member quoted yesterday in the course of the debate are mainly inaccurate. I am sorry that that was the case, but it is my duty to inform the House what the real facts of the case are. May. I go over the various points that have been dealt with by my hon. friend in connection with the Deciduous Fruit Board. The first point that he made was this: Why were the regulations brought in so late? The farmers at George found peaches ripe on their trees and they could do nothing about them, because the regulations only came out on the 19th December. He wanted to give the impression to the House and to the country that the farmers could do nothing, that there were no regulations under which they could work. What was the actual position? The proclamation that was published on the 8th December, 1943, had remained in force, and the farmers knew that. There was nothing to prevent them working under that proclamation. Those regulations dealt amongst other things, with peaches. The proclamation was not confined to the last season, but remained in effect until the regulations were revised or revoked. I do not know whether the hon. member did it intentionally, but in that connection he certainly misled the House and the public. The second complaint that he made was against me and the department. He asked why had the Government shilly-shallied so much in connection with the reorganisation of the Board? Let me place the facts before the Committee. My predecessor gave an undertaking that he would reorganise the Board, and during the last Session I stated that I would carry out that undertaking that was given by my predecessor. I then asked the Board to present to me a scheme of reorganisation, and they undertook to do that as soon as the fruit season had concluded. I could hardly expect that they would take on the job during the fruit season while they were very busy. The season came to an end in June; during July and August the old Board gave the most careful consideration to the matter, which in any case is by no means simple. After they had worked out a scheme for the reorganisation of the Board, it had to be submitted to the National Marketing Board in order to ensure that all interests had been reasonably looked after. During the month of September, finality was reached in connection with the organisation of the new Board and then due notice had to be given for the holding of the election meetings. It was impossible to hold the election meetings before the 4th October for the election of the producers’ representatives. Immediately after those elections I appointed the other members of the Board, namely three consumers’ representatives in place of one as theretofore, as also a trade representative. The first meeting of the Board could not take place before the 23rd October of last year. I instructed the Board that they must meet as soon as possible. They met on that date. During the rest of October, which was only a period of a week, during November and during the first part of December, the new Board met frequently to consider plans which had already been framed by the old Board for the disposal of the fruit for the present season. And this they did; and by the 19th December the regulations were brought into force. May I also inform this Committee that there is no basic difference between the new regulations and the old regulations. And may I just mention another point in connection with this matter. The hon. member created the impression that there was difficulty in connection with a great deal of the fruit. Let me say this, that by that date, namely the 20th December, there usually arrives from the market less than 1 per cent. of the fruit crop, and in any event it could have been handled before that date under the old regulations. Then the hon. member made the complaint that the Board was told that they would not obtain any subsidy from the Government. I think that in answer to an interjection, my hon. friend said that he had arrived at that conclusion by reading between the lines in the evidence that was given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Well, I think that my hon. friend has shown that he is not an expert in the art of reading between the lines. The Board were never advised that they would not receive a subsidy. The hon. member quoted figures to indicate the prices for which fruit had been sold, and the higher prices at which the Board had bought that fruit, and he had said that it was nothing else than profiteering. That also is not the whole story. What the hon. member has done is this He has taken fruit entirely at the begin ning of the season when it is very scarce, and when naturally some people who have the money are prepared to pay high prices for it. But as I already said, less than 1 per cent. of the fruit crop comes on to the market at that time of the year. But if you turn to later in the season when there is plenty of fruit, the price that the Board receives is less, and in respect of the whole season there is a loss which was partially covered by the subsidy of £280.000 that was given by the Government to the Board. The hon. member stated that farmers receive only 1⅛th of a 1d. per lb. for their grapes, and 2s. 5d. per tray for their peaches. Those figures are wrong. The position is that there are three grades of grapes. These are “Selected”, “Choice” and Standard” and the advance paid on “Selected” was 2.4d. per lb. The full price is 3d. a lb. For the “Choice” grade the initial payment was 1.8d. and the full price was 2¼d. For the “Standard” grade the money advanced was 1.2d., while the full price was 1½d.

And if later there was a balance?

The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) was right when he said that they received 94½ per cent. of the price at which they aimed. There was an advance payment and also a final payment, but not one of those prices that my hon. friend mentioned was correct.

We are anxious about the prices that the consumer must pay. Why are they so high?

Those are the prices that the farmers obtain. Out of that money there comes all the expenses that the Board have incurred in connection with the disposal of the fruit. I shall come presently to the prices that the consumers pay. I know that hon. members of this Committee take great interest in this matter, and I shall later say a few words about it. There was a very strong condemnation of the Deciduous Fruit Board, and even the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) stated that if the farmers got that money it-would be very good, but it appeared to the he doubted whether the farmers could get the money. The administrative costs of the Deciduous Fruit Board last year were only 24 per cent. of the turnover of that Board. I do not want to defend the Board if it has not a case to defend, but I feel we must agree that 2½ per cent. on turnover does not represent terribly high administrative costs. So I think the producers have not been treated unfairly or unreasonably by the Board, and they obtained 944 per cent. of the price at which they aimed. The last figure that I want to give the hon. member is in connection with peaches. He stated that the price was 2s. 5d. The full price the producer receives is 3s. and not 2s. 5d.

Threepence for what, for “Selected”, “Choice” or “Standard”, or does your note not say?

I am not conversant with the prices of all the different grades. I do not think that my hon. friend would expect that from me. The price that he mehtioned was 2s. 5d. while the full price may be 3s.

†Now I would like to say a few words about the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) whose speech I was glad to see was appreciated by everyone in the House and I am sure I can agree on this point with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) that it was also appreciated by the public outside, and I think that appreciation will be equally great however much publicity will be given to the fact that he is a consumers’ member of the Deciduous Fruit Board.

Where did you publish that?

I did not have to publish it. The law does not require me to publish

Why should it be assumed that I read it?

I think that I am entitled to assume that hon. members opposite read the Press.

Which Press?

In what paper was it published, and when did it appear?

I saw it in some of the Transvaal papers. My hon. friend on my right may be able to say whether his name appeared in the Press. I want to come back to the speech made by the hon. member for Woodstock, and particularly to the request that he made that I should fix prices for the consumer. I had a meeting with the Deciduous Fruit Board some time ago before I came down for the Session and suggested to them very strongly that I felt that one of the most important things is that the consumer should have adequate protection. The Deciduous Fruit Board then went into the question very carefully with the Price Controller and it has now been agreed that the Price Controller will fix consumer prices, and the proclamation will appear in the Gazette this Friday, fixing these prices. The fruits in respect of which prices will be fixed are grapes, plums, pears and peaches. Apple prices will be Gazetted early next month. The prices as now to be fixed have been devised to give a square deal to both producers and consumers as well as to the distributive trade. The Deciduous Fruit Board will on behalf of the producers dispose of its fruit to the distributive trade at definite prices, and the trade is being allowed a fair distributive margin to bring the fruit to the consumer. In view of the difference in the railage between inland centres and the Cape Peninsula, prices at the other centres will be approximately 1d. per pound more for all fruit than the prices charged in Cape Town. I mentioned 1d. per pound, and I think I should draw the attention of hon. members to the change which is being introduced, namely that all fruit, and not only grapes, as in the past, will be sold on the basis of weight; it will be sold by the pound and not so much for so many plums or so many peaches. That, I think, will also make for greater consumer protection. The actual maximum retail prices will be as follows per pound of fruit. I shall give only the figures for the Cape Peninsula, because as I have said, the prices for the other centres will be 1d. per pound more. The other centres are the Witwatersrand, Pretoria, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth, East London, Bloemfontein, Kimberley and Vereeniging. Firstly, selected grapes—these are maximum prices; 6d. per pound, choice grapes, 4½d. per pound and standard grapes 3d. per pound. Plums in the Cape Peninsula: 5d. for first grade; 4d. for second grade and 3d. for third grade. Pears: 6½d., 4½d. and 3d. respectively. Peaches: 10d., 8d. and 5½d. respectively.

What is first grade?

It depends of course on the size and quality of the peach. I hope that this fact will be appreciated by the consumers and I sincerely trust that the distributive trade will co-operate with the Deciduous Fruit Board in getting its crop of fruit disposed of. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the point made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) yesterday, about having more retail depôts. That is a development that is taking place as far as the Food Control Organisation is concerned. In Pretoria, we now have 17 retail depôts, and the hon. member’s point has been justified there, that having these depôts, certainly has the effect of checking the prices which are being charged. Now, of course, we have gone to the extent of actually fixing prices, and we fix them on a basis where, I think, if there is any misstep by the trade, prosecutions will take place and the trade will be dealt with; but the trade will be used, and as I have said I hope they co-operate, and make this fixation of prices a success.

†*There remains one point that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in connection with the export of jam. After quoting certain figures, he stated that we had not the food in the country, because we exported it. I should like to tell my hon. friend that the canning industry which has progressed in a remarkable manner during the war—I think that production has increased by about 400 per cent.—is one of the best and most excellent things that we have ever had for our farmers, and we have to thank the war for it. If we had not that agreement with our friends, we would not have had the tin to advance this canning industry to the stage that it has reached today, and may I just add this, that we are not exporting jam that is needed by our people. That jam is surplus to our own requirements.

What about butter?

We shall hear more about butter. I think my hon. friend will not feel so happy about it when I give him the figures later. I think at this stage I have said enough.

There are just two points in the Minister’s speech which I should like to touch on. First of all he stated that the inland centres will have to pay a penny per pound extra for fruit. The inland centres referred to, include the Transvaal and the Witwatersrand. The fact of the matter is that on the Witwatersrand we have large numbers of farms where peaches are grown. Almost all the peaches we eat there at certain times of the year are grown in the Witwatersrand, and yet for the benefit of living in the Transvaal, we have to pay a penny per pound more for fruit which is grown in the Transvaal. Again, how is the farmer going to dish out a pound of peaches? I have never seen peaches weighed in any other country. I can foresee that from the very beginning the Minister’s new scheme is going to become unstuck. The Minister should not lose his temper, because this idea of introducing a scheme and saying that this is a scheme, that it will remain in force, whether the people like it or not, is not the proper way of launching a scheme. If some attention had been paid to the early objections, some of the things which have occurred in the past would not have occurred. Surely the Minister is not going to add this extra penny to the price in the case of fruit grown in the Transvaal. It must not be thought that all the fruit which is consumed in South Africa is railed from the Cape—very far from it.

The retailer has to pay for it.

I do not care whether the retailer has to pay for it or not. In the long run the public has to pay for it. Why should we pay 1d. extra for peaches grown in Johannesburg. We have many fruit farms in the vicinity of Johannesburg, not big farms, but nevertheless we have many farms where peaches are grown and I do not think we should be charged an extra 1d. per pound for fruit grown in that area. The Witwatersrand is again being milked in the interest of the rest of the country; that is the whole scheme; but we are getting tired of that, and the Witwatersrand should get as much consideration as the rest of the country. I can foresee that under the present scheme we are going to have a number of the minor prosecutions again, where some small fruiterer will be fined £15 or £25 because he is only giving 14½ ons. for a pound of peaches. Why cannot the peaches be graded? Today we are paying as much as 6d. and 7d. per peach. I agree that the fixation of prices has tended to reduce the price, but I would suggest in connection with peaches that they should be graded and that they should be sold at so much per peach.

There are prices for each grade; each grade is still sold by weight.

I take it that when you grade peaches, they are graded according to size. The public does not demand too much. I want to see this scheme work smoothly. We do not sell oranges by the pound. We sell oranges at so much per orange, according to the grade of the orange. Overseas we used to pride ourselves of putting a penny orange on the market. I should like the Minister to consider these suggestions.

I would like to have a little more information in regard to the subsidy of £280,000 to the Deciduous Fruit Board. I want to know whether that is a producers’ subsidy or a consumers’ subsidy. Presumably it is a producers’ subsidy, because the producers, represented by the Deciduous Fruit Board, handle the distribution. It has been brought to my notice that in the first instance when this subsidy was introduced, it was intended to give relief to those farmers who formerly produced for export only and whose whole business came to a stop on account of the war. That was definitely the intention underlying the payment of this subsidy, But as a matter of fact the grape farmer who produces for the local market and the wine farmer are today very much better off than they were before the war. Actually they are very much better off, but the farmer who planted in the first instance and who equipped his farm for the export trade, is the person who is faced with ruination. I am speaking on behalf of the Constantia grape farmers who represent 50 per cent. of the export grape farmers and there we find that these people are being badly treated; they are absolutely ignored; their representations are being turned down, they are told they have no claim on the Board, whereas actually the introduction of this very subsidy was intended to keep the export fruit farmer on the land. I would like to suggest to the Minister that this division of the subsidy, its distribution should be confined to what the subsidy is intended for, and secondly that the subsidy should be subject to the control of the Public Accounts Committee. We have a report here dated 1944, the third report of the Public Accounts Committee, where they deal with that and say that—

Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the assurance of the Minister that this is going to be put into effect. We have maldistribution of this subsidy amongst its beneficiaries, and I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture in particular to see that something is done for these farmers, because they are going downhill very rapidly and if they are not helped they will be bankrupt before the war ends. Then, Mr. Chairman, I was delighted to hear the Minister’s statement about the sale of fruit by weight in future. I congratulate him and I see no difficulty in it. In fact, it has been on the tapis for twelve months. But to fix the price of plums today, when the season is at its close, sounds ludicrous to me. To fix the price of grapes is all right, but six months ago the plum farmers agitated for a maximum price to the consumer and nothing was done. I may say that plums that ought to sell at 5d. a pound are being sold at 1s. a pound, and the producer’s income on that pound of fruit is 1d. Per pound. So I think it is high time that the maximum price should be fixed and that the gap between the producer and the consumer, the difference between 1d. per pound and 1s. per pound should be bridged.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture resorted this afternoon to a real advocate’s device of using words to conceal things. I put to him a perfectly clear question: Why did you not announce to the public what personnel the Government had appointed to the Deciduous Fruit Board? He said it was published. He has not told us Where it was published. Let him tell us where is appeared.

In Barlow’s Weekly.

Unfortunately it is not everyone who reads Barlow’s Weekly. There is only one place where the Government communicates official matter to the people and to Parliament. There is one medium that the Government employs if it wants to intimate something to members of Parliament and the public, and that is the Government Gazette. Hitherto the personnel of every Control Board has been published in the Government Gazette, and why was it not done in this case? Even this morning when enquiry was made of the department whether the names of the personnel of the Deciduous Fruit Board had been published, the reply was that it had not yet been published.

Did the Minister’s own department say that names of the personnel had not been published?

Yes, that is what the Minister’s own department stated, but the Minister comes here and declares that everyone knows about it.

He thinks he is very clever.

Yes, they excel in elusiveness, and they are moreover always proud of it. Then I come to the second point. When I asked why the new regulations were issued on the 19th December, the Minister’s excuse was that everyone knew that the old regulations were still in force. I think the Minister ought to know that the whole Deciduous Fruit Board has in the meantime been reorganised. A brand new Board was elected and every farmer was under the impression that there would be a brand new organisation and brand new plans in reference to the deciduous fruit industry. Everyone expected that and everyone waited for that, but it did not come along until the peaches were hanging ripe on the trees.

The farmers of your constituency knew that they could send fruit under the old regulations.

Just before I left George for the Session, a delegation of farmers from Langkloof came to see me, and this was one of the accusations that they made. I do not know what people the Department of Agriculture approached. It was the complaint of these farmers that they knew nothing about it. There was a brand new Board, and they waited for the regulations, expecting to have something new, and these only appeared when the peaches had ripened on the trees.

Langkloof has elected a member to the Deciduous Fruit Board.

The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) said yesterday, quite rightly, that the farmers could not be paid less. I admit that absolutely. The farmers are receiving just enough, as the hon. member has stated, to keep them on the land.

The poor old farmers.

Let me tell the hon. member (Mr. Barlow) that according to the figures furnished by the hon. member for Woodstock, in 1943-’44 the farmers averaged 1¾d. a lb. for their fruit.

We have heard that story now for 50 years.

It is a fact that the farmers received on an average 1¾d. per lb. for their grapes, plums, pears, peaches etc. Now the hon. member comes along and says that he has found a scapegoat. It is not the Deciduous Fruit Board—it is the retail dealer. I maintain that if the wholesalers and the retailers were content with a maximum of 50 per cent., the consumers would obtain cheaper fruit.

Have you ever seen a rich fruit dealer?

He asks why these people are not content with a profit of 50 per cent. We now know that that hon. member is a member of the Deciduous Fruit Board, and I in turn ask him why the Deciduous Fruit Board is not content with 50 per cent. Even if the Minister’s figures are correct, that the farmers receive 3s. a case for their peaches and that they are sold for 6s. 6d., what percentage of profit is that? We must remember that this is the climax of the season. It shows that the Deciduous Fruit Board is not content with 50 per cent. I have here a cutting from Die Suiderstem, and that is of course a newspaper which cannot fib. Die Suiderstem tells us that on a good day a farmer got 2s. for a case of plums. It was auctioned through the Deciduous Fruit Board—the Board that should look after the provision of cheap fruit—at 13s. 6d.

With what object?

That is what Die Suiderstem said. We have heard how the hon. member for Woodstock has upbraided the people who have made their profit of 150 per cent. with the high water mark of 500 per cent., but here we find that the Deciduous Fruit Board pays 2s. for a case and auctions it for 13s. 6d., thus making 575 per cent.

Who made that.

The Deciduous Fruit Board.

Nonsense.

There you have it. The Deciduous Fruit Board should have as its objective to control the industry in such a way that everyone should get what is due to him. It must allow a reasonable profit for the dealer, and must itself be satisfied with a reasonable profit, so that the consumer may obtain fruit at a price that he can afford. But that is not what happens Nevertheless the hon. member wishes that we should be satisfied with the Deciduous Fruit Board. I say to the hon. member and to this House that we are in favour of control. We are in favour of control, but we desire that that control should function properly. The biggest enemies of control in South Africa are those people who make such a failure of control. They bring control into discredit, and it seems to me that many people are out to bring control into discredit.

Who are they?

Let everyone search his own heart. [Time limit].

I want to deal with this question of the price of fruit not from the point of view of the farmer, but from the point of view of the consumer. We all know that South Africa is a country almost more cursed with malnutrition than any other civilised country, and we are always being told that what the country needs is an adequate supply of protective foods, amongst which fruit ranks high. I want to say this as a consumer, that it is within my knowledge that before the Deciduous Fruit Board took control the price of fruit in this country was low. We were able to buy good grapes at 1½d. to 2d. per lb. One could buy boxes of peaches of a good quality at 2s. 6d. a box; if you chose to pay 3s. 6d. you bought the best quality, the best peaches that this country could produce. Yet today with a subsidy of £280,000 to its credit, the price of fruit has been raised by the Deciduous Fruit Board to the consumer to almost astronomical heights in comparison. You can no longer buy cheap fruit and you can no longer buy good quality fruit easily, and that is my complaint against the Board. When they take the taxpayers’ money to the tune of £280,000, then I maintain that the consumer should get some consideration for that large sum of money. As it is, I am rather horrified to hear the prices that the Minister after consultation with the Board proposes to fix for the consumer. He has told us that the best quality peaches will be fixed at 10d. a lb. Now 10d. a lb., even allowing for as many as 3 peaches to the pound, which is a good allowance for good quality peaches, means that 24 peaches will cost the consumer something like 6s. 6d. or 6s. 8d., whereas that same quality of peach could beforehand have been obtained for 3s. 6d. at most ! That is an item but in general the prices suggested raises the price of fruit to an incredible height and I do wish to say this that there is no other single article of food which has so increased in price to the consumer as fruit. That is the point. From the nutrition aspect that is a bad thing, because it puts the price of a valuable protective food outside the scope of the lower grade incomes; and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to that because I see the Government is talking of establishing depôts to bring the price of food within the reach of the lower income groups and to bring the protective foods, particularly, within the reach of the lower income groups. Yet here is the Deciduous Fruit Board with £280,000 of the taxpayers’ money fixing the price at such a rate that the consumer will have to pay more than 100 per cent. more than before the Deciduous Fruit Board took control. I would like to know, from the point of view of the consumer, the reason for this extraordinary phenomenon. I understand that the purpose of the subsidy was to allow the Deciduous Fruit Board to make payments to the farmer comparable with the cost that he would have got for export. Most of us hoped that one of the results would be to allow the people in the country to get good export fruit at a reasonble price. In fact, however, good fruit is almost unobtainable on the local market and if you get it, it is at an extortionate price. The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) has said that the villain of the piece is the fruit trader. Listening to him I began to think that the main payers of income tax in the country must be the fruit trader and yet in fact all you need do is to look round at the shops of the poor fruit trader to see that it is obviously not so. The unfortunate trader has to cope with distribution costs, with waste and a hundred and one other risks, so obviously it is not the fruit trader to whom one must look for an explanation of this extraordinary anomaly with which we are faced. Fruit has gone up more than any other single article of food, and in view of the subsidy I would like to get from the Minister a more adequate explanation than has been given here for the extraordinary high price of very indifferent fruit.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear from the Minister that it is proposed to use the present trade channels for the further distribution of this fruit, but when we consider the prices which have been quoted this afternoon by the Minister and the hon. member who has just sat down (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) one begins to wonder how it will be possible for the public to receive any cheap fruit at all. Supposing the prices are fixed, as suggested, in spite of the high subsidy that is being paid at the moment, that has not brought the price of fruit down internally. We were given to understand, particularly last year, when this Deciduous Fruit Board came in for a large amount of criticism, that these subsidies had to be paid because we had lost the overseas market and that some assistance had to be granted to keep the farmers on the land. The fruit would probably have been very much cheaper. Now, despite all this subsidisation for internal consumption, prices have been higher than they have ever been before. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister what has been done in regard to this Deciduous Fruit Board. We were given to understand by his predecessor last year that the Board would be reconstituted. His predecessor told the House that there was something very much wrong with the Board, that there was the greatest dissatisfaction with the Board and that he would see to it that the Board would be reconstituted. We have been told by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) that the members of the Board have re-elected themselves en bloc. If that is so, I do suggest here that Parliament has been trifled with. The members have been trifled with. We had the statement from the Minister that the Board would be reconstituted and that that condition of affairs would not be allowed to continue this year as they pertained on the Deciduous Fruit Board last year. Perhaps he can tell us what the position is and also what has happened to the Committe which was appointed anent the matter. When the report will be ready and what information is available at the present time about this matter. This was a committee set up by the Minister. We want to know what has come out of it. Although there will be a debate on the main estimates it will be interesting to know exactly what that committee recommends. The hon. member for Woodstock the other day said that the public are under the impression that the farmers have not been paid sufficient for their fruit and that the consumers are being mulcted exorbitantly by the middleman. He quoted a case where 500 per cent. profit was made and as much as 900 per cent.

That was in Durban.

Probably that was so in a very small consignment, but surely no-one agrees that fruit should be sold at that price. Traders and hawkers who handle a highly perishable commodity cannot make such a high profit. I do not believe it. I think that the public outside are of the opinion that there is something wrong, particularly as regards fruit. They are paying high prices but that does not mean to say that prices should be higher than ever they have been, when the farmer was still exporting his fruit. The middleman and everyone else is being exploited; and this is all connected with the Board. The Deciduous Fruit Board may be responsible but not any particular section of the people, whether they be farmers or distributors, hawkers, canners, or anyone else. I refuse to believe that they are working on profits of 200 to 500 per cent. I think the Minister will be doing the country a great service if he did make some statement that he was satisfied that there was no profiteering as far as the middleman is concerned. It was suggested by the Minister today that we should dispose of this fruit by weight. I do not say it is impossible to do it, but I think that if the trade had been consulted, as they should have been, and the Minister had taken the opinions of these people, who are experts, and who have been handling and marketing a highly perishablé commodity for very many years, they are the people who could have given the Minister good advice. I hope we will not be faced with a similar position as we had in the meat scheme when the whole thing had to be reorganised because the Minister refused to take the advice of people who could advise him. There is no reason whatsover why the public should not be perfectly satisfied. The conditions existing in regard to fruit are impossible. There are conditions of drought, etc. with which we have to contend, in addition and it is not right that these people should be bandied about. It is always being said in the House that the distributor is making a fortune out of fruit. I have not known of fortunes being made by people handling fruit. It is the general opinion outside that the farmers are exploiting the public. I think enquiry would make it possible, at any rate, to impress the public outside that something is being done to enable the public to get cheaper fruit, and we ought to do all we possibly can to see that the low grade income groups are able to get fruit which they have not been able to get during the past year. I am perfectly certain that if we go through another fruit season at the high prices at present obtaining this Government will be even more unpopular than it is now.

For the benefit of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) I would like to say at the outset that I am a member of the Maize Control Board since a few months ago. I say that because at a later stage he may criticise me if I do not make that quite clear. But I want to deal with the matter from the point of view of this subsidy of £280,000. That was granted for the benefit of 1,700 fruit farmers. Let me say at the outset that I do not think that the deciduous fruit farmer is exploiting the consumer. I feel that on the prices which have been indicated they are working on a very narrow margin. 1,700 fruit farmers, when an amount of £280,000 is divided amongst them, each gets approximately £170. This Board, over a period of three years, has £1,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money. That is sufficient to give each farmer £600. Now we ask for £170 for this year. I do not want to begrudge that average of £170 but I want to say that if it is meant for the producer I want to see that he gets it, and I do not want to feel that that money is being wasted and that the consumer is being exploited by high prices at the same time that the producer is not getting the benefit of the subsidy; and in between the two I perceive the Deciduous Fruit Board. Sir, it is building up a cost structure which is widening the margin between the producer and the consumer, a margin which under the old system of competition was narrowed by that competition. I am quite convinced that if this subsidy had been paid direct to the farmers and if the farmers were given their own fruit and told that they could sell it, and sell it direct from lorries or through agents, the fruit farmer would have got another income from his own produce and would have been much better off than he is today. All these schemes and more schemes lead up to a cost structure which is too high. When one looks at it and sees that the price to the consumer is high and that it is very low to the farmer one says that there must be some middleman making the profit. The ordinary middleman is not the monopolist that the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) has portrayed. He can open a fruit shop but he cannot open a Deciduous Fruit Board and that is the point. The Board has a monopoly power of preventing the farmer from disposing of his stuff as quickly as he can, and as he can, whether it is to one man or direct to the consumer. All that was stopped. Instead of that one finds terrific charges being made for railage. We know the story. One has only to read the Special Committee’s report on the Fruit Board to know that things are not right. The hon. member for Woodstock in my opinion whitewashed the Deciduous Fruit Board. I do mean that. I am only too pleased to know that he is a member of the Fruit Board because now all the members of the House can ask him questions about it.

Where did you find out that he was a member?

I did not know he was a member but I would not have told the House that I was a member of the Maize Control Board if I had not heard the criticism because he was a member of the Fruit Board.

No-one would have believed it.

Do not let us overemphasize that. Let us stick to fixed points. We are continually building up this cost structure and we say it is for the benefit of the consumer to do these things, and it, sounds such a wonderful story that we swallow it ourselves. There is one other point that strikes me, that the hon. the Minister has mentioned that he is fixing the price to the consumer per lb. I am absolutely prepared to consider anything that will help the consumer, but it is no good changing over to some new method of selling fruit and imagining that it is all going to work smoothly. We had the case of fish, the price of which was fixed to the consumer at so much per lb. The hon. Minister of. Commerce will tell you that the plan did not work. I am referring now to inshore fisheries at Kalk Bay and so on. A man went down with his scale and he did not have a good reception; in fact, they threw their fish at him. I know what has been the procedure for years, and I know that procedure would not have developed unless it was probably the easiest and most efficient way of marketing the fruit, because that is the case under a competitive system. Another point is this. The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) has stated that if only a 50 per cent. margin of profit was accepted by the trade, wholesale and retail, then everything in the garden would be lovely. He then went on to quote the figures reflecting profit percentages, 150 per cent. in Pretoria, and right up to a high water mark of 900 per cent. Those are not the sort of figures I want; that is propaganda. That gives an absolutely wrong impression. He tries to mislead members by representing that a fabulous profit is being made. All I can say is that if they are making 900 per cent. and 50 per cent. is an adequate profit, I do not know why more people do not go into the business. Why is the business left to the coolies, who fall in the lower paid income group. Why don’t we all go into the business? That is not the explanation, and those are not the figures we want. I should like to impress on the House that this increasing cost structure that is being imposed on distribution under a monopoly, is going to decrease the price to the producer, and increase the price to the consumer.

I am sorry that under the rules of the House I must now turn to another matter and that I am unable to deal with the case of the Deciduous Fruit Board, about which I should like to have said a few words. I would like to say a few words under “K”, “General assistance to agricultural producers.” I am glad to see that while the original estimate was only £4,000 it has been increased to £153,000, £10,000 of which only is now being voted, while the excess is to be met from savings. I want, however, to remark that even this amount of £153,000 is entirely inadequate when one takes into consideration the serious position in which a large part of the country finds itself as a result of the drought. In the Northern Transvaal, and I understand this applies also to other parts, the situation is more serious than has ever been known in our history, according to what the old people tell us. Now even in January they have to look round for grazing. Consequently I do not think that this amount will be sufficient. In connection with the serious position that has arisen, I have already put a question to the Minister, and I am grateful that he has replied that the matter is receiving attention, but I want to make a special appeal to the Minister to tell the farmers in good time, to tell them now, what they should do. One expects that the Department of Agriculture will give that advice to the people. They are accustomed to planting mealies and kaffir corn and peanuts. The time for that has now passed; it is too late for that. The people are sitting there tearing their hair. Some of them are engaged in preparing the land for the sowing of winter wheat. They say that it thrives well there. Seeing that the rains have kept off for so long, one may perhaps expect good winter rains. In any case they are prepared to take the risk of sowing wheat. But these people are in the position that they have not any seed wheat, and they have not the money to purchase seed wheat. The Department of Agriculture must afford relief and also make provision for seed wheat, and if wheat is furnished for seed purposes it should be of a type that thrives in those parts. We have unfortunately that experience with peanuts from the department which were not suitable. We know that certain wheat thrives in a certain area. Lydenburg for instance, has an excellent type of wheat which they sow there. Perhaps the Government may be able to provide our farmers with seed wheat from there through the co-operative, but they cannot just sow the seed wheat in the lands. The lands must be properly prepared and in that connection I want to make a special appeal to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Defence to be helpful. Fertiliser is not obtainable, but I want to ask them to help the people in the transport of kraal manure, so that the farmers my be able to get it. Hitherto the railways have helped with means of transport. I am glad that just as I left it was announced that the Department of Railways and the Department of Defence have arranged that 20 motor buses will be made available. But they can only be used round about the town of Pietersburg. We are grateful for that assistance, but it is not sufficient. The people who do not live in the immediate vicinity of our town derive no benefit from that. The buses sent by the Defence Department have to be returned to the dépôt every night, and I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister for arrangements to be made so that buses will be available in those districts further away from the town, so that those farmers may also obtain kraal manure. We know that a subsidy is paid through the Agricultural Department to the Railway Administration, that 9-10ths of the freight is paid by the Agricultural Department, I want to make a special appeal for transport facilities to be provided. The situation is so serious as far as the natives are concerned, that starvation will certainly stare them in the face, and definite provision should also be made in respect of the European population. I come now to another point, and it is also in connection with the distress that prevails there. In our district it is of a temporary nature; it is not every year that we have a drought. For a district to be proclaimed drought-stricken all sorts of formalities must take place, and it must be published in the newspapers that Pietersburg, for instance, is a drought-stricken district. Although the position is serious and in fact could hardly be worse, the people are reluctant to have their district declared drought-stricken, because when a district is thus labelled people regard such a district as an inferior one. Consequently, the people would rather remain as they are. Possibly the stock may die, as it cannot be transported at the low tariff, because the district has not been proclaimed; still, the people avoid that. Why should it be necessary for a district to be proclaimed in that manner? The department is, of course, acquainted with the conditions and the local magistrate makes his recommendations, so why cannot the animals be transported under the reduced tariff. Possibly there is grazing in adjacent districts. Give the people a chance to transport their cattle without the whole district being declared a drought-stricken area. That is not necessary. Then I want to ask something else from the Minister. It is sometimes necessary in time of drought, to trek with one’s animals to another district. The Department of Agriculture should advise the people where they probably will be able to obtain grazing, in Waterberg, or Middleburg, or wherever it may be. One expects that the department will help the farmers in this way. Today one finds that the people do not know whether they should trek. They mill round looking for veld, and they do not know where on earth to look for it. The department should be helpful, and advise the farmers where they may be able to obtain grazing. Then there have been many farms which have been purchased by the Native Trust, and which have not yet been occupied, but which offer good grazing. Why has permission been refused to make that grazing available at a period such as the present? The Minister of Lands takes up the same attitude. There are Government farms which are held in reserve, and not allotted, and these should be temporarily made available to our farmers in view of the abnormal circumstances in which they find themselves. Why are they not assisted? A farmer will help his neighbour if he can, and our farmers are entitled to look to the Government for assistance in such an emergency. I hope that the Prime Minister will take this matter into sympathetic consideration. I do not suggest that the farms should be overstocked with cattle. The number can be determined, and the farms can be thrown open for reasonable grazing. It is also in the interests of the farms that they should be properly grazed.

I hope that the new scheme which has been brought before the House today by the Minister is going to assist the consumer in Johannesburg. I do not want to go into the economics of this matter; they have been discussed for some years now. What I do want to find out from the Minister is what has happened to the fruit? That is what I want to know. The fruit is not there.

It is being canned.

If it is being canned and being sent to the convoys we are prepared to accept that position, and there is no more to be said about it. If the fruit has gone to the troops we are glad. But we cannot get fruit on the Rand. The Minister knows that fruit has become a luxury article. Where fruit was an ordinary article of diet for the Afrikaner it is today a luxury article. We are not blaming the farmers. But I want to know where this elusive article has gone to. For many years the slogan has been displayed on our railway stations and elsewhere: “Eat more fruit!” And we have taught the people of South Africa to eat more fruit. This was becoming a great fruit-eating country. But, today, people in the lower income group and even in the middle income group cannot afford to eat fruit, because the price is too high. The other day I was in the home of a young doctor who is not well off, and I found he had paid 9s. 6d. and 10s. 6d. for a box of peaches. These people cannot afford any fruit. When I was a child those peaches used to roll in for nothing, but that was 50 years ago. Even during the last few years, however, peaches were cheap, but today you have to pay 8s. 6d. or 9s. 6d. per box; and then my farmer friends tell me that the peaches fall off the trees and they are not allowed to give them away. I do not know whether they are exaggerating in this case, but I have been told by farmers in this House that they have sufficient fruit to give people but they are not allowed to sell it or to give it to their friends. If I go to a farmer tomorrow and want to get fruit for my grandchildren I cannot get any. I do not know whether that is correct or not. I am just asking that question. This is a very serious point, and I want to put to the Minister that if you go out tomorrow to buy a fruit farm anywhere in South Africa you would have to pay an enormous price for it. You will have to pay £500 an acre in Cape Town and £400 an acre in Johannesburg, and very high prices everywhere else. In the past the Government of the country have allowed these fruit lands to pass into the hands of rich people, who have gone on them to settle down, not to grow fruit; I am talking of areas around the large towns. They have taken up these fruit-growing areas to get homes for themselves. There are only certain portions of the country, I am told, where fruit can be grown, but it cannot be an economic proposition today to grow fruit in the Constantia area or immediately around Johannesburg, because the prices of suitable land are too high. The time has come for a heavy land tax to be imposed which will keep these prices down, so that the wealthy man cannot just come along and buy his land from a fruit farmer at £500 or £600 per acre.

Where are you going to draw the line?

I do not know where you are going to draw the line. That is rather a difficult question. But things are getting very very difficult in a fruit-producing land. In the White River area, where they are producing citrus you do not pay for the citrus lands, but for lands that are desired by rich men from Johannesburg. In the same way around Stellenbosch you have to pay high prices for land because rich men are retiring to that neighbourhood. I am asking the House to take into consideration the facts. I am not blaming anybody. I should like to have a farm myself near Constantia. Around Johannesburg and particularly in the Linden area, where poor people were living and growing fruit the land is being taken up by wealthy people, because it is a nice thing to live in a fruit orchard.

That should not be allowed.

I agree it should not be allowed to happen. They should have their residential stands somewhere else, and these lands should be kept to help in feeding the people. Those lands are now being sold as residential stands. I should like to ask the Minister to ask his experts whether something cannot be done to stop this sort of thing. I come now to the Deciduous Fruit Board, and I ask the same question that I asked before. If it is such a wonderful institution, why is it hated by the famer, why is it hated by the consumer, and why is it dreaded by the distributor?

I should also like to say a few words on one or two subjects. We are here asked to vote for another £23,500 in respect of the subsidy for jam manufacture, consequent on the withdrawal of the Sugar rebate, and I should like to have some information in that connection. As I understand the position, there has always been a surplus of sugar and in order to keep up the price during the war, the price was fixed at a very high figure for the Union, and sugar is exported at a much lower price than it can be bought in this country, but the jam and preserve factories obtain sugar at lower prices. Suddenly my wife has asked me why she cannot get sugar. She wants to make konfyt, but there is a shortage of sugar, so it is said. What is the position? There had been a surplus, and that surplus was the cause of a high price being fixed for sugar and a lower price for the jam factories: Heaven alone knows why the housewife must pay 3d. for the sugar, if she wants to make jam, while the jam factory only pays 1½d. Now it is stated there is a shortage of sugar. What has happened? I have never heard that there has been a failure of the crop. Or has the consumption increased to such an extent that there is now a shortage of sugar? I think the House is entitled to this information. Then I also want to tell the Minister in advance that in my constituency where the farmers always produce a fair amount of wheat as well as oats and barley, the farmers state that at the price fixed for wheat it will pay them much better to produce oats and barley. As the Minister knows, or as he ought to know, a better price is obtained per bag for oats and barley than for wheat, and it pays them better than producing wheat. I do not wish to see a shortage of wheat, or that we should find ourselves in the same position in regard to milk. They refuse to give the farmers 4d. more for their milk. The condensed milk factories are unable to obtain milk, and the production has dropped 50 per cent. Now condensed milk is being imported, and our Government is giving to the American farmers, where the condensed milk is manufactured, not 4d. more but 4s. a gallon. That is the ridiculous position that exists. They receive 3d. in the form of a subsidy and sell the milk at 1s., but our poor farmer can only get 4d. I now fear that as regards wheat we are paying the subsidy to enable, the people to get cheaper bread, but if you do not pay the farmers a price for wheat which will enable them to exist, flour will have to be imported, and then hundreds of thousands pounds more will have to be paid for wheat which we obtain from other countries than for that which can be produced in our own country. I would rather say nothing about the Deciduous Fruit Board. I do not anticipate that matters will really improve. They have never yet exercised control, and they are not in a position to do so. Consequently we can talk as much aS we like. But I do think that we should be honest towards our fruit farmers. I am anxious that the Minister should publish in the newspapers the information as to what the farmers receive for their fruit, what the wholesale prices are and what the retail prices are. Then we can honestly see what the position is. As I understand the position the farmers get for peaches 1⅜d. and about 5s. to 6s. for a bushel basket of peaches. They are not able to sell any cheaper. The farmer receives from 7s. 6d. to 10s. for apricots. Peaches do not bear every year like apricots. I do not know what the position is exactly on the Rand, but when I was there in November I paid 2s. 6d. at Linden, on the road along which I had to drive, for a nice paper packet of peaches, and I thought that was cheap. That is where the farmer is making the sale himself, and that is what he asks. Under the circumstances I do not think that price is too high. I am at present living at Kalk Bay, and I have to pay 3d. for a peach. The trouble is that the present Board and the previous Board have never exercised control. I think that one of the big difficulties is that there are too many fruit shops and there would be less wastage if we had fewer fruit shops. The shops jointly buy more fruit than what the community can purchase, and the result is that some of it rots. Poor people cannot afford 3d. for a peach. If you have a family and children, it is an impossible price to pay, and the result is that less fruit is being eaten. Prejudice is beginning to rise in the country against the fruit farmer, but it is not the fruit farmer who gets the higher price. People are beginning to say that they cannot buy fruit, and that they will just eat bananas and ’pineapples, but not the other fruit, because it is too expensive. I have myself gone to the Johannesburg market in the morning on one or two occasions and bought fruit there, and the fruit was not exceptionally expensive. Here on our market the position is the same. But the public have to pay high prices at their homes. The price of good fruit is very high. A section of rich people may be prepared and may be in a position to pay these prices, but the general public cannot and will not pay them. There is a prejudice against the farmers, and I feel that the Minister ought to make known the prices the farmers receive and the prices that the retailers and the wholesalers get. The thought is now seizing people that the farmers have a soft time and make big profits. I wish I could put some of the townsfolk on the farms and let them work there, and let them find out for themselves the difficulties and the hard work that the farmers have and the losses they sustain. It frequently happens that a farmer gathers from his 500 peach trees only a couple of baskets of fruit on account of one circumstance or another. The farmer has looked after the orchard the whole year, and receives nothing for his trouble. I wonder how the townsfolk would feel under such circumstances. That is why I have already often felt that the prices received by the farmers and the price paid by the consumer should be published, as well as who receives the profits, and they can also determine, with reason how the profits are divided; what percentage is taken for cartage and similar things. I assume that these things are worked out when they determine the price. If the public know what is happening they will know who to blame. It is certainly not the fruit farmer. [Time limit.]

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 25th January.