I move—

I beg to move—

It will be noticed that preference has been given on the agenda today to this Government Bill, it having again been set down before the motion of censure. We have already on two previous occasions protested against this arrangement of the Order Paper, and we have also sounded a warning that it will disturb the relationship between the parties for the rest of the Session. When I proposed my motion last Tuesday I did not leave it in the slightest doubt that it was a motion of censure on the same footing as a motion of no confidence, and then I asked the Government in a very polite way to pay attention to the normal procedure of the House and to pay attention to what according to my opinion is really an obligation that rests on the Government to accord preference over its own business to a motion of this nature. The Government disregarded this friendly request from our side of the House; it did not pay the slightest heed to it, and when we protested against that and discussed the matter here in the House, the Government then—and I say this candidly—had not a leg to stand on in regard to its attitude. The argument it employed on that occasion was, in the first place, that an agreement existed between the Whips on this point. The bottom was knocked out of that. Another argument that they used, namely that the Senate were waiting for work, also does not hold water. Even if it is so, that the Senate would like to adjourn as early as possible to give thenmembers a chance to go home, that does not cut any ice, because the Government has the majority in the Other Place, and the majority in that House, who are supporters of the Government are just as responsible as the members of this House for our having such a Government as we have today. Consequently that is unacceptable. However anxious we are to accommodate them, the majority in the Senate are jointly responsible for the attitude of the Government sitting on the benches opposite. The Government has now for the time being rejected the friendly request that I directed to it. The Government had the opportunity on two subsequent occasions to comply with this friendly request, but even in the face of our protest they did not do that, and again they have given the government business precedent over our motion. In the circumstances we cannot regard this as anything else than a challenge, as a provocation to this side of the House. More than this, we regard it as an insult, and even more than that we regard it as an impertinence—not only in respect of this side of the House but in respect of the outside public who are already beginning to show signs that they will no longer tolerate the state of laxity and incompetence that exists. The Government is simply afraid of the criticism that is directed against it on account of its laxity and incompetence, and is running away. I have stated that the attitude of the Government towards this side of the House affects the entire relationship between the two sides of the House, all the co-operation that is necessary to enable the work of Parliament to proceed smoothly. From both sides there must be a spirit of give and take but when we are challenged in such a way as this, when we are insulted and provoked in this manner, then I say from this side of the House we cannot do anything else but retaliate. There will presently be a division on the motion for the adjournment of this debate, and if that division goes as we expect it to go, and as such divisions have gone hitherto, then it means—I say this frankly—the end of all good relations between the two parties. You must take notice that there will then be an end to all that, and it will not be restored unless we are given clear proof from the other side that a different spirit inspires the Government and its party. I move.

I second.

The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition will, of course, realise, and I think that he also intended that, that after what he has stated here it is totally impossible for the Government to yield to the appeal that he has made here now, and to accept the motion that he has proposed. To come here in face of what I said last week, that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to belittle the Opposition or to slight it, or to be discourteous—I say that to come here in the face of that assurance and to say that it is provocation, discourtesy and impoliteness, and to fasten on to us the words that we are afraid and that we are running away; well, the Opposition is making a very big mistake if its Hon. Leader thinks that on that appeal and on that language that he has employed we can be accommodating. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has made a declaration of war. I am sorry that he has done that. We are anxious to maintain relations on a good footing, and although the Leader of the Opposition has made this declaration of war, I can only say that we do not accept that declaration of war. Well, let him say that we are afraid in that sense One dog alone cannot fight. We are not going to fight on this matter, and if the other side wants to fight about it, well they will simply have to fight. We are proceeding with the work of the House. But I want to say, at the same time, that we shall not allow ourselves to be ridiculed and trifled with. The decision that the Government originally took was perhaps the result of a misunderstanding between the Whips. That decision was, however, taken. We adopted that course and were it not that time was unnecessarily occupied on points which could have been disposed of long ago, we could already have reached the motion of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. But we shall just have to be patient. This is a patient party on this side of the House.

They are all asleep.

It is the little pups who want to fight. We do not want to fight on this matter. I am extremely sorry that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has spoken in such a manner, and that he has made a declaration of war here. We are not going to accept it, but we shall keep to our course and remain calm. We are first going to dispose of this matter and after it has been disposed of I would like to believe that the Opposition will have cooled off somewhat and that they will again accept the hand of friendship that we shall always extend in connection with the arrangements for the business of the House. My hon. friend did not do himself justice in becoming so cross, and in taking offence and feeling offended where that was not meant in the slightest. As I say, I am sorry, but I cannot accpet this motion, and we shall continue on the course which we have taken up.

The Hon. the Prime Minister expressed his surprise that we have taken up this attitude in the face of what he said. What did he tell us last week? He told us that he would accord the Opposition an opportunity to discuss this matter at the proper time. But what happened? He persists in not giving effect to that promise, and he goes on to push this important matter to one side and to divert the time of the House to matters that appear on the Additional Estimates. Day after day we are occupied with this discussion, for those matters are of such importance that they cannot be disposed of immediately. Or does the Prime Minister think that the inportant matters connected with the Additional Estimates ought not to be discussed?

No, they should be dealt with.

The Prime Minister cannot take up the attitude that those matters should have been disposed of in an hour or two. Some days were required for that. Not only have members on this side of the House taken part in the discussion, but a number of members on the opposite side of the House have also participated in the debate. They were very excited about it because these were important matters that came up. But now the Government comes along and with malice aforethought and with intent it shoves the motion of the Leader of the Opposition further and further into the background every day. The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry rose in his place last Tuesday to reply, and the whole country waited to hear what the Minister had to say, whether he could promise any improvement in connection with the serious state of affairs which existed in the country. He and the Prime Minister know as well as we do, that the outside public are complaining and cursing because the Government is doing what it is doing. The Government’s own people are complaining. Police have been stationed at the entrances to Parliament to keep the public away because the Government is afraid of a procession to the Houses of Parliament. They are afraid of the public, and particularly they are afraid of the women in connection with the food position. They are afraid, but instead of giving an opportunity for ventilating the matter in this House they place police at the entrances to the Houses of Parliament to guard against a demonstration. Is there any hon. member on the other side of the House who has the temerity to say,, or who is so ignorant as to say that there is not a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction in the country over the food position. They know that that dissatisfaction is generated on their side.

No, that is not so.

The biggest dissatisfaction emanates from Durban.

You are angry just because you can’t get meat for your braaivleis.

That is the type of answer that we get when we talk over this matter, and when people cannot get meat to feed their children.

Yes, and they cannot get the meat because you use it all for your braaivleis evenings.

This attitude of the Government is provocative towards the people. In indicates an indifference in respect of the conditions of the country when the whole country virtually is in a state of turnmoil and wants to know what thé Government is doing in connection with this. The attitude of the Government is a manifestation of fear. The Government sits there hoping that something will happen. It is waiting to see whether something will turn up. The Prime Minister does not want the Minister of Agriculture to have the opportunity to say what he intends to do. They keep him quiet as long as they possibly can, hoping that something will turn up to give them a measure of relief. The Prime Minister has told us here that one dog alone cannot fight. In this Parliament the Opposition also has rights and is entitled to stand on those rights, but what has the Prime Minister done, although he now says that he is not going to fight? He was the first to bite. He thrust the Opposition aside with this matter and he started on a fight. The Leader of the Opposition then made an appeal to him last week to give the people an opportunity to hear what the Government had to say on this matter. That was in vain, and now that the Opposition has exhausted its patience, now that the Prime Minister after a week still gives the additional estimates precedence over this motion, now that the Opposition says that it is going to fight back, the Prime Minister comes and says that he is not now going to fight. He made the first break with the traditions of Parliament by abridging the rights of the Opposition, and now that the Opposition wants to insist on those rights he says that he will not fight. Well, the Opposition also has its rights, and however small they may be we shall exercise and maintain those rights, and the Government must not come along to us later and say that we are doing this or that. He is himself responsible for that. The Prime Minister is terribly worried and says that he cannot yield to the threats that the Opposition has used. The Leader of the Opposition made a nice appeal almost every day last week to the Prime Minister, and now that our patience has been exhausted the Prime Minister says that he cannot, after those threats, grant our request. How long then must we remtain patient? From all appearances the additional estimates will not be disposed of today, and apparently also not oh Wednesday or Thursday, because there are still a number of members who want to talk on them. There is absolutely no justification for the Government’s attitude when they say that it is necessary on account of business in the other House that the additional estimates should first be disposed of. There is no other work for them to do so why should they remain here? No, I accuse the Government of doing everything in its power to shelve this important matter as long as it possibly can, hoping that something will turn up to give it relief. We demand our rights in that connection. We did not obtain from the Prime Minister those rights to have the opportunity to discuss this matter in the name of the people. The people are all agog over these matters and after the attitude of the Prime Minister he can expect nothing else but that the Opposition from now on will lay claim to the exercise in all respects of the few rights which are still granted to it in this House.

This is a very serious matter that we are discussing here today, and it does not behove members on the other side of the House to make jokes about it. Before this Session commenced they told me that mistakes can be made. That has not only been said by members on this side of the House but by members opposite as well. Various members stated before the opening of Parliament that everything was wrong in the country, and that matters must be set right. They are now dead silent. We do not want to get angry. We are not looking for trouble, but we feel that we here have to do with an urgent matter, and that matter must be thrashed out as soon as possible. Why cannot an opportunity be given for that? It now appears that we have right on our side. Hon. members opposite know that what I am stating is the truth. They know what difficulties prevail in the country, so why should we now remain silent? We are thwarted here whenever we want to investigate difficulties. The important motion of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition emraces all the difficulties which have existed since Parliament adjourned, but here we find that the motion has been indefinitely shelved, and that it has to take second place in this House. The matter is urgent. It is not only the meat question. That is only one small feature. The motion contains other important matters. Let us dispose of the motion first, and the sooner that is done the sooner will the Government be displaced. The position is that the Government is itself beginning to realise that it has made blunders, but it is not man enough to admit that. No, we must come to grips with these matters immediately. I receive telegrams and letters from throughout the country ….

The hon. Member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

The motion is of such an urgent character that we dare not postpone it any longer. We must deal with it immediately, and that is why I am making an appeal to the Prime Minister. I do not believe that we are angry or that he is angry, but if we continue in this way democracy and government by the people will vanish. It is, of course, a fact that the Opposition’s motion should be placed on the Order Paper first, and that has not happened. I do not believe that there was really a misunderstanding. We said most emphatically that this was a motion of no eonfidence in the Government, so why cannot it be treated as such. No, I think that the sooner we return to this motion the better for the general public, and also for co-operation in this House.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—39 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

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.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Noes—93 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. 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.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Cohnan, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock, R.E.

Derbyshire, J. G.

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.

Hare, W. D.

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.

Maré F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

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.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

On a previous occasion I informed the House that I had further information to give the House in connection with the Deciduous Fruit Board, and that in my view the information was of so serious a character that it might be necessary to appoint a Select Committee of the House to go into it. I want this afternoon to submit to the House the information that I have. I am only sorry that it is not possible for me today to move for the appointment of a Select Committee in connection with it. The rules of the House, unfortunately, do not permit of me taking such a course. Such a proposal can only be made by way of a definite motion, and not by way of an amendment. Nevertheless I hope at the end of my speech to say what the Government in my opinion, ought to do further in connection with the matter. The charge that can be brought against the Deciduous Fruit Board is of a dual character. The one relates to the question of the competence of the Deciduous Fruit Board for its work, yes or no. Is the Board competent to do the work allotted to it, or is it incompetent?

It is not competent.

I think that the Hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me that if it can be shown here that the Deciduous Fruit Board is not competent to do its work, that in itself is sufficient reason for a Select Committee to be appointed to go into the activities of the Deciduous Fruit Board. The Fruit Board has full authority over the Fruit Industry. It has in its hands the weal or woe of the whole fruit industry; the prosperity of the fruit farmers is dependent on it. Regarded from that standpoint the Deciduous Fruit Board has a great responsibility resting on it. But fruit is food; fruit is an article of diet. If the Board treats the fruit industry badly, then it is robbing the people of South Africa of its food, and consequently the question whether the Board is competent to do its work or not is one of great importance. In this connection I only want to say this, that whether the Board is competent or not, the Department of Agriculture found it necessary in 1943 to appoint a special committee to enquire into the operations of the Deciduous Fruit Board. That committee made its report, and that report is generally known as the McDonald report. But it was stated in the McDonald report that the committee, when it reported, had available the balance sheet of the Deciduous Fruit Board only to the end of July, 1942. Fortunately I have had an opportunity to peruse the balance sheet of this Deciduous Fruit Board as at 1st July, 1943, that is to say over an additional year, and I should like to communicate a few figures to the House in connection with that. I take the four principal articles controlled by the Deciduous Fruit Board, and I want to give just a few figures in connection with them. The first is peaches. If the Minister of Agriculture again wishes to cast any doubt on my figures then I would ask him kindly, if he does that, to lay the balance sheet of the Deciduous Fruit Board on the Table of the House at the same time. Let us take peaches. I shall only give a few figures to show what the position was. That year the farmer was paid 1s. 6d for first grade peaches per single tray; he was paid 1s. 2d. per single tray for second grade; it was sold to the public at on an average—this is still out of the McDonald report—at 2s. 4d. for first and second grade, and yet the balance sheet of the Deciduous Fruit Board shows that during the year they made a loss on those transactions of £2,364 on a turnover of £19,000.

Is that possible?

I would like to tell the House that when we talk of losses, account is not taken of cold storage costs, railway freight, administration, boxes, interest on mortgages; it is only in respect of these transactions. They buy from the farmer at 1s. 6d. and 1s. 2d. and they sell to the public for 2s. 4d., and then they show a loss of about £2,000 on a turnover of £19,000.

Hopeless.

Take plums. They pay the farmer 1s. 6d. for first grade, and they sell them to the public for 1s. 9d. on an average, and yet their balance sheet shows a loss of £30,000 on a turnover of £63,000, that is to say about 50 per cent.

That is bad business.

It is 47 per cent. to be correct—almost 50 per cent. of the turnover.

Is it possible?

Take pears. They paid 1s. 7d. to the farmers for first grade pears. That too, is out of the report of the McDonald Committee. They sold to the public at 2s. 1d. on an average, and yet they show a loss in the balance sheet of £55,000 on a turnover of £118,000.

What sort of people are these then?

The figures have not yet been before the public. Take apples. There we find a small improvement. The farmers were paid 8s. 6d. for first grade; that is for double trays; and they were sold to the public for 9s. 2d., and they made a profit of £999 on a turnover of £17,000. Now we come to grapes. They paid the farmer for first grade grapes 2s. 6d. and 2s. 1d. for second grade. They sold them to the public at an average price of is. 9d., and the balance sheet shows a loss of £121,000 on a turnover of £150,000.

Bad business.

As I have stated, full power has been given to the Deciduous Fruit Board in connection with fruit control. The big problem that confronts them is what to do with the fruit which we have hitherto exported. If we had lost the money but the public had gained the benefit of cheap and abundant fruit, none of us would have any complaint to make. Our grievance is this, that although the Board had the problem of more fruit, that at the same time they had to sell our export fruit in South Africa, fruit suddenly disappeared from our markets; prices became almost impossibly high, and the public was at the same time asked for £280,000 extra in the way of taxation from the taxpayers’ pocket, in order to assist in financing these operations. Let me just say this. I think that the Minister will admit that it is now almos £l,200,000 that the Minister of Finance has had to take from the. Treasury over the last four years to finance the operations of this Control Board. I can only say this, that the public judges a Board according to the results of its operations. A tree is judged by its fruits. This Board has done its work badly, and all that we can do is to bring these matters to the notice of the Minister. We shall then have done our duty. It is for the Government then to effect an improvement.

You are a year late.

I have put certain figures to the House in connection with the question whether the Board is competent to do its work. Two sorts of charges may be directed against such a Board; the one is of incompetence, but the other goes further than incompetence. Today I will not give a name to it.

But christen it later.

I am now going to divulge things to the House which show that the Board is not only incompetent but that there is something more than incompetence in question.

You are again a year late.

Let me say this. I know that I am now dealing with the reputation of an honourable body, of a public body and one does not desire to play with that. Allow me to say that I asked all the witnesses in connection with this matter to come to Cape Town, and I was not satisfied to question them myself, but in order to reassure myself that what they told me is genuine, I asked two competent people from outside to come and assist me. For two hours these competent people questioned the witnesses—they were under cross-examination as if they were in court—and at the end those competent people told me that I would be neglecting my duty as a member of this House if I neglected to bring this information before the House. I only wish to add this, that in connection with this matter I am not going to mention any names.

Of what use is that?

Because the moment that I relate the particulars to the House the whole Deciduous Fruit Board and the Minister will know what I am talking about. I am not here to hurt anyone. I am not here to attempt to create a sensation. Certain information has come into my possession, and I am going to divulge the details to the House, and then the House will have to decide what else it is going to do. I have been informed that if I do not communicate these matters to the House I would be an accomplice in the matter. The information impinges on the relationship between the Deciduous Fruit Board and a commercial company in our country.

You ought to name it.

I am not even going to mention where this commercial firm is located.

Worcester, of course.

I am going to tell the House about four transactions that occurred between the Deciduous Fruit Board and this commercial firm.

Nine.

The hon. member says that he can add others. He will have an opportunity this afternoon to do so.

Then he naturally also knows about it.

He is then a Crown witness.

I shall tell the House about these four transactions, and placing them in the most favourable light these transactions testify to unfair discrimination and the favouring of one section of the commercial community against the other section. But other circumstances come into the picture, and I think it is desirable that I should say this to the House at the start, that there are members of the Deciduous Fruit Board who are on the directorate of that company.

That smells like dynamite.

There are members of the Deciduous Fruit Board who are on the directorate of that company. Two members of the Board are directors of the company, and I think you will agree with me that in such a case everything should be above suspiciop. There are even laws which forbid a man serving on a public body to enter into a contract with any concern in which he has an interest.

But there are 33 directors.

There are two members of the Deciduous Fruit Board who, when these transactions took place, were directors of the company. I can only tell the House that since that time the company has been converted into a co-operative company, but when the transactions occurred the company was still a purely commercial concern. I am now going to mention the four transactions, and then I shall ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do in connection with this matter. The first transaction was this. This commercial firm had 40,000 baskets for sale. I was informed that the baskets when they are new, can be bought at from £6 to £8 per 100. That is if they were new. The depreciation of a basket is very rapid. In the trade an allowance of 50 per cent. per year is permitted for writing off depreciation. The larger proportion of the baskets were second-hand, and yet this company sold the baskets to the Deciduous Fruit Board for more than twice as much as their value when new.

What was the price?

More than twice their value when new; and the balance sheet of the company shows that on that transaction the company made a profit of £1,925, which had the baskets been new when they were sold would have represented a profit of 50 per cent., and which seeing that the baskets were second hand represented a profit of 100 per cent. This makes only one impression on the man in the street, that an exorbitant profit was made here, and the fact that two members of the Deciduous Fruit Board are on the directorate of the commercial firm imparts an ugly colour to the whole transaction.

What are the names of the two people?

Before this company became the favourite of the Deciduous Fruit Board it was not a big distributor of fruit in its area and its financial position was pot strong. Just after that transaction the Deciduous Fruit Board allotted to that commercial firm 70 per cent. of the distribution of the deciduous fruit in the biggest centre of population in our country—the largest distributors in that centre of population got 15 per cent., and the newcomer got 70 per cent. of the distribution in that area. Then I mention the second circumstance.

What year was that?

1944. I now mention the third circumstance. The Deciduous Fruit Board was apparently not satisfied that that commercial firm should have 70 per cent. of the distribution. What did they do? They wanted to give a distribution that had been allotted to one of the three men whom they had on the panel to that company as well. They passed a resolution to say that no one who was not a member of the Market Agents Association of that centre could handle and distribute the Deciduous Fruit Board’s fruit. As a result of that the one firm lost its 15 per cent. quota of the distribution. What happened? Shortly after that they found that the commercial firm was also not a member of the Market Agents Association. It is no longer a member; it resigned, but it retained its full share of the distribution from the Deciduous Fruit Board in that area. It was taken away from the one because it was not a member of the Market Agents Association, and when the Deciduous Fruit Board discovered that the commercial firm was also not a member nothing was done about it. I have before me correspondence that extends from the 23rd May to the 19th December last year, in which the firm that was excluded from the panel brought to the notice of the Deciduous Fruit Board that that commercial firm was no longer a member of the Market Agents Association. From the 23rd May letters and telegrams were sent to the Deciduous Fruit Board enquiring whether the resolution of the Board which had ejected it from the panel, remained effective. It still awaits an answer. I have here the telegrams and correspondence. These do not state whether the resolution was rescinded or not. That resolution served to remove from the panel the one firm which was the largest distributor in that area, and to give the distribution to a commercial firm. We do not know even today whether that resolution remains in effect, and why it has not been made applicable to that commercial firm. I now mention the fourth transaction. In this connection I must say that my information is not complete, but because it is linked up with the other three I feel that it is my duty to bring it to the notice of the House. This same company imported a great quantity of cane with the object of establishing their own basket factory in South Africa.

Just now they will guess correctly.

As hon. members are aware, the basket industry is par excellence, the industry of the blind people in this country. The owner of this company is a man who has changed his name.

I will bet you he is a Jew.

He changed his name, and I think he had reason to change his name.

Yes, he was a Jew.

He imported a quantity of cane to make his own baskets. Then he found that he could not get the technical staff to make the baskets. The blind people would not enter his service. So he could not make any progress. Then he enquired of the largest firm of basket-makers in our country whether they were not prepared to make the cane into baskets for him. This was 58,000 lbs. of cane. The moment the firm of basket-makers received the cane it advised the commercial firm that this cane was entirely unsuitable, and that a very small proportion of it could be used for making baskets. The next thing that it knew was that the commercial firm had sold the cane to the Deciduous Fruit Board. I cannot tell you why it was sold. That is information that we ought to have.

Does the Minister not know?

He does not know anything about it.

The Deciduous Fruit Board then got into contact with the firm of basketmakers, and said it should proceed with the making of the baskets. It made as many baskets as could be made out of that thick cane, but then it advised the Deciduous Fruit Board that the cane was too thick and that it had to get thin cane and that they would have to set to work quickly, because cane is a thing that perishes and half the cane had already perished. The next thing it heard was that the cane was back with the commercial firm, who endeavoured to palm it off on to the firm of basket-makers for an old song. I do not want to read into these four transactions more than can be supported by the facts. There is the circumstance that two members of the Deciduous Fruit Board are on the directorate of that company. I maintain that that imparts an ugly colour to the thing, and if there is anything that falls under suspicion they are not entitled to lay claim to the benefit of the doubt. I have now presented the circumstances to the Minister. I want to suggest that these aspects of these transactions of the Deciduous Fruit Board with this commercial firm should be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and that we should be asked to make a thorough investigation and report to Parliament, stating whether we think that further investigation by judicial commission is necessary. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister in the interests of purity of administration. I think that we all want clean government in the country. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to follow that procedure.

Seeing that the Bill before the House deals with the expenditure of large sums of money by way of subsidy to the important fruit industry, I regard it as my duty on this last occasion to say a word about this most important matter. My constituency is one of those chiefly concerned in the production of fresh fruit and it is radically affected by the method of marketing deciduous fruit. On a previous occasion I said in this House that I did not have an opportunity of consulting my constituents, who are interested in this matter, and that as a result I could speak only on matters of principle. In the meantime, however, I have had an opportunity of consulting them. I got into touch with some of the most important producers of fresh fruit in the district of Ceres. I immediately want to assure the House that I did not go to supporters of this or of that side. I went to producers. I went to some of the producers who are not my supporters or supporters of this side of the House where I am sitting. But I went to get information and obtained information, and to my surprise found that a greater measure of dissatisfaction and uncertainty existed amongst producers than I had myself suspected before I made contact with them. I think it is very necessary, both for the hon. Minister of Agriculture as well as the Treasury, to take cognisance of the uncertainty and worry that today exists amongst producers, not even mentioning the impossible position that is being created for the consumer, a position which cannot do otherwise but have a deleterious effect on the whole country, leaving aside for the moment the question of the value of fruit as food for the nation. I immediately wish to state that I believe that the attempt which was made by the Minister of Agriculture and which has been announced so far probably will improve the desperate position, but neither he nor I can accept that it will bring about an effective improvement for the producer or for the consumer. For that reason I consider that the House should give serious consideration to the present position. The general impression amongst producers—I must qualify that—the impression among the leading producers with whom I had contact, is that the action of the Board led, and had to lead, to a very serious diminution in the sale of our products. The actions of the Board led and had to lead to very serious decrease in the sale of their products. At present South Africa is enjoying a period of economic welfare. It may be that in a few years the position will be reversed, when money will no more be plentiful, and the depression which will then come will not affect the consumer as much as the producer whose very life it affects. The impression is that the actions of the Board, its method of marketing, led to a handicap, and a serious handicap to sales. I wish to give the House the assurance that one of the persons with whom I had contact, is one of the biggest producers, but before he became a producer he was one of the largest distributors. He has as much knowledge of the sale of fresh fruit, and especially that of grapes, as anyone in the service of the Deciduous Fruit Board can have. This producer tried in his own interest and in the interest of the industry to find a market for his product, and he tried to make contact with an area far away, an uncontrolled area, in order to sell his fruit there. As the House knows, the Board of control does not control all the markets. This person went to look for a market, namely Grahamstown. He knew that there were practically no deliveries to Grahamstown of the article he wished to sell. He applied to the Board for permission to send certain products to the Market Master at Grahamstown, at the request of the Market Master there. The reply was that if he received a firm order from the Market Master at the price fixed by the Board and for a definite quantity, and if he received a prepaid cheque, he could obtain permission but not otherwise. I think that if this House considers the circumstances of the industry and compares those circumstances with the actions of the Deciduous Fruit Board, we will begin to despair at a Control Board having absolute power to handle a product under the existing circumstances and acting in this way. In the second place I want to mention another factor, one which is perhaps less important in its deleterious effect on the producer. I am now referring to grapes, and wish to draw attention to the provision that not more than one basket of grapes may be delivered to a consumer in the area. If a housewife wishes to make a little jam and needs a little more grapes she has to apply for two weeks to buy a basket of grapes. And when a box of grapes has to be transported by road, it has to be endorsed on the form that it is a gift. I do not know whether the Board is so generous that they can make gifts on a large scale, but to a producer of fresh fruit and to somebody who knows what production costs are it is a ridiculous rule. I wish to go further. Due to the method of grading applied by the Board, the marketing of the product is made impossible. I found examples both of producers of grapes and producers of pears. Let me deal with the producers of grapes first. I take the case of one producer who in 1943, before the Board had full control over fresh fruit, sold 15,000 baskets from his vineyards. The baskets weighed an average of 50 lbs. and he received an average of 8s. per basket. In 1944, after the Board had taken control over the marketing of fruit, he could hardly sell 15,000 boxes of 20 lbs. each of his whole crop. Not only were the grading and marketing such that a large proportion was not marketable, but this person, who for many years has had experience of the distribution of grapes—I have known him at least 35 years and know how much experience he has had in this respect—had packed a large amount of boxes, but under the provisions of this Control Board he had to press in order to make wine, 4,000 boxes of Barlinka grapes, which are table grapes. And not only was this the case as far as he was concerned, but 2,800 tons of grapes that had already been packed in the boxes had again to be sent to the cellars in that year to be turned into wine. As the result of the actions of the Control Board this man had to make 350 tons of wine from table grapes, and in the following season 600 tons. Apart from the effect this has on the distribution and on the consumers, hon. members concerned with viticulture will appreciate in what a difficult position the K.W.V. was placed thereby, if they had to handle so many grapes, table grapes, in the form of wine. If the Board of Control continues as it is doing, there will be just one fate also for the K.W.V. namely failure. However tragic the position of the distribution of grapes may be, the results of the distribution of pears are still more tragic. I had no opportunity of getting into touch with many small producers, but I had the opportunity of spending some time with one of them. He is somebody I have known for many years as an honest man. In fact, in the previous century he and I were at school together. His position is more or less as follows : apparently as the result of a statement made by the Board last year when it allowed a grade IV pear to be marketed, which was apparently a hopeless failure, this person has this season been put in a very difficult position. According to my information large masses of fourth grade pears last year had to be carted from the drying kilns owing to the stench of fermentation there. What happened was that they had apparently accepted fourth grade pears which were not useable, and this season we have the reaction. Now they have apparently raised the grade as a result thereof a good grade of pear cannot now be marketed. This person has a good third grade product which now cannot be marketed. I myself had a look at the pears he was drying. Up to now he has taken approximately 38 tons of pears from his trees, and of these 38 tons about 7 tons are first grade, 5 tons second grade, and 6 tons third grade, a position accepted by the Board. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is listening and giving attention to this matter. On the 4th January of this year the extension officer of Ceres was in his orchard, and the orchard was then beautifully clean.’ On 7th January his whole orchard was infected with moth. We have this phenomenon that in three days a clean orchard was totally infected. On 4th January he could have picked thousands of boxes of first grade pears, but after 7th January he had lost this chance. The position is that this unfortunate producer has now marketed 18 tons of the 38 tons he picked. He is a hard-working man and in his back yard were lying 9 to 10 tons of pears, a portion of which was till in boxes as he had taken them to the station to send off. They were rejected. Portion of it was also rejected at Prince Alfred Hamlet for dehydration. I saw the pears myself and he assures me that those were the same as the pears which had been rejected, and I do not hesitate to say that the fruit which I saw being dried is a very good class of pear. He also has insufficient workmen to use in the drying kilns, because the people work for high wages at the Board’s kilns, and the man is landed with approximately 10 tons of pears lying in his back yard which must be dried within the following few days or else must be thrown to the cattle as fodder. This season he sprayed twice for moths. His costs are approximately £160. If he takes into consideration all his expenses, he will make a profit on his whole pear harvest of about £100. These are civilised people; he has a family and responsibilities, and he is faced with a position that he can make £100 per annum as a result of the actions of the Board of Control, in the first place as the result of the muddling and mistakes in connection with grading. I wish to bring this matter to the serious attention of the Minister and I shall be glad if the Minister would send someone to investigate. I shall furnish the names of the people concerned so that the Minister can have the matter investigated. I got into contact with the head office of the Control Board and they told me to come and look at the grade of pears they had received. The importance of the matter is not what they received but what they did not receive. If this is the procedure followed by the Board it can only lead to a serious and steady setback to the industry and to the insolvency of a large number of farmers who are good citizens of South Africa. I do not want to deal with the scheme recently brought to the Minisster’s attention by way of a deputation. I do not want to make his consideration of the proposals more difficult. But I think that he will not take it amiss when I say that the request has been directed to him from an area where there are 138 producers. Of these 138, 118 signed the memorandum, five did not sign owing to other interests and 13 were not at home. It was a protest by the producers concerned against the method of grading. I do not however at this stage wish to voice further criticism because I do not want to make the Minister’s consideration of the matter more difficult, but I will return to this matter at a later stage. An election for the Deciduous Fruit Board took place recently and in this connection I wish to point to an inexplicable phenomenon. On the 25th August a notice was published in the Government Gazette by the Department laying down certain qualifications for producers to be eligible to vote for the election of members of the Control Board. The qualifications determined that in order to be entitled to vote, the person concerned had to be. (a) a European and (b) a producer of deciduous fruit resident in the area where the meeting is held, or in case he is not so resident, the area in which the meting is held must be the nearest one to that in which he is resident; and (c) he must have sold at least 4 tons of deciduous fruit per annum in the two years preceding the date of the meeting. He must have produced 4 tons per annum and sold this as fresh fruit during each of these two years. This notice appeared in the Government Gazette of 25th August, 1944. I accept that these were the qualifications the Minister regarded as being laid down under certain provisions of Proclamation No. 230 of 1939, which laid down the qualifications of voters at the nomination or election of the Board of Control. What happened now? In at least one division I know about, where more than one candidate was nominated for election to the Board of Control, this Proclamation remained of force until the eve of the election. A number of qualified persons were approachced, propaganda was made to elect certain persons, and “people were approached who fulfilled the requirements according to the Proclamation. After this Proclamation had remained in force until the night before the election, which took place on the 4th October, a telegram was received by the magistrate of the main town from the department early in the evening stating that the previous proclamation affecting the right to vote was no longer valid.

It was on the morning before the election.

In this town it arrived the evening before. After the Proclamation had been valid for about 35 or 40 days, a telegram was received at the last moment to the effect that it is no longer valid. I myself did not see the telegram. I was informed that according to the telegram, only people who had sold 4 tons of fresh fruit to the Control Board could vote. On whose authority was this telegram sent, if it was sent? In the first place the Minister will have to inform us whether such a telegram was sent. People have assured me that in fact it was sent. On whose authority? On the Minister’s authority or that of somebody in his Department? Under what regulations could the telegram supersede the Proclamation? I say that if the circumstances are such as I have related them, the existing Board of Control is not properly constituted and is not empowered to function, because it has been constituted in contravention of the qualifications for voting. The Minister owes the House and the fruit producers who could not vote an explanation. I can give the House the assurance that we do not wish to make propaganda out of an industry which affords a means of livelihood to such a large number of people, honourable citizens. But today they are finding things difficult as the result of the manner in which the Board of Control acts. Failure stares them in the face. I wish that the Minister could go to Ceres for three days to investigate matters. He will find that pear trees are being taken out, that orchards are no longer being pruned, and even in some cases that they are no longer being looked after. This is an industry which is in great danger, and if the Board proceeds in the way it has in the past, failure will stare them in the face. I appeal to the Minister.

I rise in order to bring just one aspect of the Deciduous Fruit Board to the Minister’s attention. I have done it before and I feel it is my duty to do it again. We know that as far as concerns the wine farmers’ industry, a surplus of 37½ per cent. was declared this month, and that the fewer grapes are being eaten the more wine is being made and the greater the surplus becomes. I was always of opinion that the Deciduous Fruit Board was there to control fresh fruit, but do you know that they now possess two of the largest distilleries in the country? They are now also distilling wine. Instead of selling grapes and seeing that people get them at decent prices, they are now making wine and brandy. It has become so bad that the directorate of the K.W.V. became uneasy about the position, and the former Minister of Agriculture then told the Board of Control that the K.W.V. had an interest in the matter. But the position is still this, that we as wine farmers are of opinion that if we wish to retain our industry, the farmer must himself make his wine and must press his grapes himself. We do not wish to follow the example of Australia. If we do as they do in Australia, where the farmers are purely grape farmers, we will never retain our reputation as wine farmers. If we allow a body like the Deciduous Fruit Board to receive grapes and press them as in Australia we will never be in a position to retain our reputation as producers of wine. The wine farmer in Australia is simply a grape farmer. He sells to the merchant and the latter makes the liquor. But our country and others who built up a reputation as regards the making of wine and brandy will only be able to retain our reputation if the farmers themselves distil the wine. That is being exposed to danger under existing circumstances. The Board of Control is placed there to control fresh fruit and they ought to limit themselves to that. They are the representatives of the fruit farmers. They, as I thought, had to do only with fruit which they had to make available to the public at reasonable prices. I never thought that they would also press grapes. But they are not even satisfied with that. They now have two large dehydration factories. I saw one of them. It is a beautiful building and they are starting to dehydrate pears and apples and such like products. The Dried Fruit Board then were of opinion that they had control of dehydrated fruit, but the Deciduous Fruit Board said that that was their sphere. I do not know what the actual difference is, but in any case they won and retained control over it. They are today producing dried fruit and the Board concerned, the Dried Fruit Board, does not control the stuff. And as far as concerns this dehydrated fruit, which last year was produced on a fairly large scale, they did not distribute the fruit to be divided amongst the trade. They did not say to a merchant: “This is your portion” and to somebody else “That is your portion,” but they handed it over to one company, another company whose finances before the war were in a very weak state, while today they are reputed to be a very storng company. I understand that they even lent the man money: A member of the Dried Fruit Board did not even know that the stuff was being delivered to this firm. I may say that this is not the same firm as that about which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) spoke, but another company. One would think that if there had to be a body to distribute the fruit they would have gone to the S.A.D., the only co-operative company handling dried fruit. That director of the Dried Fruit Board did not believe that the fruit was at present going to this firm but when he investigated he found that that was the case. They then said that that firm would divide it amongst the other people, but I understand that all the best fruit which is being dehydrated is retained by that firm and the other distributors have no opportunity of getting it. My feeling is that we will not complain when money is necessary to put the industry on a sound basis. I am of opinion that the fruit farmer is entitled to a decent existence. The fruit farmer handles a product which deteriorates very auickly and the production is very variable. The grape farmer possibly has a fairly steady harvest, but if you take other farmers you will perhaps find a farmer who has a thousand peach trees and who in a certain year does not get one box of fruit, and the following year only an average harvest. We have no objection to these people being assisted, and to attempts being made to provide them with a good market. But the Deciduous Fruit Board must confine itself to its own work. They are not capable of performing their own functions satisfactorily but now they also want to handle dried fruit. They wish to sell it to the merchant but they ought to confine themselves to fresh fruit, to the fruit which people eat. They ought not to distil table grapes. It is the duty of the Government to see to it that they do their work properly and confine themselves to their own work. But now they have distilleries and busy themselves with the making of wine and brandy. With that they have nothing to do. Let them see to it that the public are supplied with grapes to eat. With the rest they have nothing to do. It was the original regulation that they would have control over fresh fruit, and not over the making of wine and brandy. The Board of Control ought to confine itself to the work for which it was originally formed, and I want to ask the Minister to see to it that they act in accordance with the original regulation. If they had confined themselves to that we would have had far less trouble. At present they do not care whether the grapes are sold or not. If they cannot sell they make wine. It makes no difference to them. They simply cast the burden on to the K.W.V. I think it cost the K.W.V. about £150,000 or £200,000 every year to pay for grapes which should have been sold as food. I am of opinion that the Minister should see to it that they do not go outside the scope of their own activities.

I should like to reply to the allegations made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). In the first place he charged the Deciduous Board with incompetence. I think that that charge was levelled against the old Board. An investigation was made by the McDonald Commission, and they reported and a reorganisation has taken place—it is no longer the same Board, but a reorganised Board. New members are serving on this Board, but a number of the old members have been re-elected by the producers at the time of an election that took place. Consequently I do not believe that it is necessary for me to go into this matter further. Then I turn to the second question, the allegation that there is something more than incompetence. The hon. member would not give a name to it. As far as I myself am concerned, and as far as the Government is concerned, we have not the slightest intention of white-washing anything or of squashing anything. I have not had the opportunity to go into the details of the matter personally, but I understand that there is a complete reply to all the hon. member’s allegations. We are entirely willing to have the matter investigated. The hon. member may not propose it at this stage, but if he will later move That the matter be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts (of which he is a member) that committee can make an investigation, and we would be prepared to accept that. There are two courses open to the hon. member. He can follow the course I have indicated, or he can lay his documents on the Table of the House, and if a case is made out the Minister of Finance will be prepared to propose that the matter be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. We do not want to suppress or to gloss over anything but we are prepared to investigate it. Then I turn to the other questions that were mentioned by the other hon. members, more especially by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). I am quite prepared to have that matter investigated, and to send someone to see what the position is. As far as concerns the other question that he mentioned, namely, the despatch of a telegram on the day of election in which it was stated that the proclamation was no longer in force, I have taken steps to find out whether such a telegram was despatched. I am not yet in a position to obtain information, but I shall go into the matter. As far as I can recollect one of the election officers at the place where the election took place, that is to say one of the magistrates, had some doubt on some of the points in connection with the correct interpretation of the regulations. He asked the department, by telegram, for guidance. The department’s law adviser then went into the matter and telegraphed in reply to the magistrate what in his opinion was the right interpretation of the regulations. That is what I recall about the case, but I have undertaken to go into it.

But there is still some ambiguity on the matter.

That is what I recollect of the matter, as I have stated. But I shall go into it further and give the House the information.

After the almost sensational revelations that were made today by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) I am somewhat disappointed with the reply of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. It appears as if the Minister wants to deck himself with the fig leaves of an excuse, and as if he wants to push the blame on to the previous Minister of Agriculture and on the previous Deciduous Fruit Board. I will just say this, that after the sensational allegations made this afternoon, I am justified in saying that the present Minister of Agriculture is making the biggest farce of the Control Boards that we have yet known in the economic history of our country. I can add this, that it is clear to me now after these revelations why there is such a terrific gap between the uneconomic prices that the producers receive, and the almost unpayable prices that the consumer must pay. But before I take it amiss that the Minister should have brought these Control Boards into such discredit in such a way with the population of the country as a whole, I want at once to give the House the assurance that the organised farming industry has been a champion and still is, of this ideal structure in which the Control Boards are an outstanding link. But it appears that this Government is not under the impression that these Control Boards are accompanied by a greater concentration of duties and also a greater concentration of responsibilities. The whole of this bunch of errors and blunders that have been perpetrated have happened because the right man has not been appointed in the right place. The first requirement for success was that the right man should have been appointed to assume the concentrated responsibilities and duties, so that blunders and errors would not be permitted. That, however, was not done, and blunders and errors were committed with the result that the whole system has been brought into discretdit amongst the people as a whole. That is precisely what the Government has usually done. It has not appointed the right man in the right place. Take the Minister of Agriculture himself. The way in which he gave his answers here this afternoon shows that he has not the right conception of this economic aspect of our national industries. The manner in which these things have occurred and in which these errors have been made clearly shows that he, instead of holding a protecting hand over the farming community and acting with vigilance in respect of them, has unfortunately permitted the capitalistic traders to cripple the agriculturist by way of assured profits, and even gigantic profits.

That is an old story.

The hon. member says this is an old story. It is interesting to me that we have such a silence now on the benches opposite. It is not an old story that I am relating here. The old story is that whenever a complaint has been made against hardships it has been said that it is due to the Control Boards, but if we had some measure of planning and if we had pursued the right policy in connection with Control Boards we would have reduced the privations in the country to a minimum. But instead of that we have seen the distress increasing in the country in proportion to the degree to which maladministration of Control Boards has increased. The privations have not lessened. The Control Boards as the Government operates them have not had the right results for the people. They have only made for a larger measure of insecurity in respect of both the producer and the consumer.

It is not necessary for me to add anything to what my colleague has already said in connection with this debate. I only want to repeat the assurance that has been given as regards the allegations made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in connection with the Deciduous Fruit Board that we are quite prepared to have them investigated by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It now rests with my hon. friend either to lay the documents on the Table, or to move a motion which will set out his charge clearly. We shall grant the necessary facilities, and we shall co-operate for this investigation to be made.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I object.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 30th January.

This motion of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition furnishes proof of a number of points, a few of which I want to mention in passing. I think the first point it proves is that in the opinion of the Opposition the food question and other questions which are mentioned in this motion, contain better propaganda material to enhance their political prestige than a motion in regard to the Broederbond for example, and the policy of the Government or a motion in regard to a Republic, on the lines of those they introduced previously. That is the first point which this motion proves. The second point it proves is that it would seem that this step was decided upon at the eleventh hour. It may at first have been the intention to introduce a motion dealing with other sentimental subjects, but subsequently this decision was taken or this step was decided upon. That is proved by the fact that we got a fairly short and relevant motion instead of the usual lengthy motion which we have been getting from the Leader of the Opposition in the past—motions divided into numerous paragraphs and those paragraphs divided again into sub-paragraphs—and one asks oneself why it was necessary for the Opposition Leader to move this motion. What was his motive and the motive of his party in taking this step? I think the Opposition Leader himself let the cat out of the bag on this point. He said very clearly at the beginning—and from the outset he tried to exonerate his party—that it was not a question of an effort to make political capital out of the situation.

Because I knew you.

That reminds me of the French proverb that the person who excuses himself in advance accuses himself. That is what the hon. member himself tried to do in advance. This step was decided upon because the Leader of the Opposition and his party are making a desperate effort to make the people forget their actions during the past few years of the war. I think they want us to give the people an opportunity of forgetting it, but we shall not do it. They are trying to fish in troubled waters so as to make the people forget what they did during the war years. We remember that not so long ago the Leader of the Opposition learned from a voice out of the blue—and he got this assurance on behalf of the arch-criminal Hitler—that Germany would leave our form of Government undisturbed and would not touch it. Does the Leader of the Opposition still remember it; does he remember that he gave the assurance to Germany that if Hitler wanted a friendly Government in South Africa, the Leader of the Opposition was the man to give it to him? While we were engaged in one of the greatest struggles which we have eVer known in the history of the world, the Leader of the Opposition and his party adopted that attitude towards the enemy of this country. Now they come along, because they do not see any prospect of that history materialising, and they try in a different way to make political capital out of the food question in this country. They try to move a motion in this House to get some measure of support from people who support the war effort. That is the new delevopment which we find in that party. In addition to that an English weekly journal has now been brought into being of which your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, is going to be the editor, in an effort to deceive the English-speaking supporters of the Government, in an effort to make them dissatisfied with the food question and matters of that kind. We cannot get away from the conviction that this motion of the Leader of the Opposition is designed to catch votes. These are a few remarks which I wanted to make in passing. Let me pause to deal with a few of the accusations or points of criticism which the Leader of the Opposition tried to make in connection with the meat scheme. The first point he made was that the meat scheme was announced without consulting any section of the House and without consulting the farmers. I propose to take his accusations one by one, and I think I shall succeed in proving that one and all they are absolutely devoid of any truth whatever. Let me take the first accusation that the farmers were not consulted, and also that no section of this House was consulted. What are the facts? The main features of the scheme were introduced as a result of the McDonald Commission which travelled through the country and consulted the farmers in every part of the country. The farmers had the fullest opportunity of giving evidence before that Commission. After the Commission had reported it was announced in the Speech of the Throne that the Government had decided to accent the recommendations of the McDonald Report and there was a further opportunity for every interested party to bring forward his views in regard to the matter. In the third place the main principle of the scheme was made known by the Food Controller in February of last year, but the matter did not end there. Thereafter the farmers’ groups of both the major parties in the House were consulted in connection with the scheme, except in regard to prices with which I shall deal later.

That was a big mistake.

But does the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) expect me and the Government to act differently in the case of meat than ih the case of other products which are under control? Must I, before fixing the prices, tell the people that I propose to fix the prices at any particular level, and then invite their views? Certainly not! I did the same in connection, with the fixation of meat prices as I did in every case where the price of a controlled product had to be fixed. The Mealie Control Board, the Wheat Control Board and all the Boards concerned are consulted in connection with the fixation of prices. That was also done in this case. The Meat Board, on which the producers have a large majority of representatives, was consulted and that Board made a recommendation in connection with the price of meat. Let me also tell hon. members on the other side, in reference to all the distorted statements they made in connection with the fixation of prices, that the prices which were fixed in the case of mutton are better than those recommended by the Meat Board—better than those recommended by the representatives of the producers who have the majority on that Board. Therefore, as far as the first charge or criticism is concerned, there is no truth in the allegation of the Leader of the Opposition. In the second place he said that the farmers were robbed and that the consumers were not assisted. He did not furnish the slightest proof in support of that statement. That, however, was the loose charge which he made. Let me deal with the first one, namely, that the farmers were robbed. We all remember that in the period preceding the appointment of the McDonald Commission, there was an indicated price which was announced in the Government Gazette and with which the farmers throughout the country were substantially satisfied. It was not a price fixation, but it was an indicated price. Let me take these prices, for example. I say that the prices which we fixed were higher than those indicated prices with which the farmers were satisfied. In the first place, let me take as an example prime beef and mutton on the Witwatersrand. In the case of beef the fixed price was 62s. 6d. To that must be added 5s. 3d. for the hide and the offal and 1s. 6d. for the 3 per cent. live weight. That brings the price to 69s. In the case of mutton it was 9¼d. plus 1d. for the hide and offal, and there was an allowance of ¼d. for live weight. Let us compare that with the prices which were in force up to the 15th May, 1944, the day on which this scheme came into operation. It was 68s. 5d. for beef and 10⅜d. for mutton. That shows quite clearly that as far as the farmers are concerned, they obtained and are still obtaining a better price under this scheme than the indicated price.

But who took any notice of the indicated price?

It was admitted that that price was a reasonable price. Let us also compare the prices which were fixed under the meat scheme with the average prices of other agricultural products. Let us see what relation the price of meat bears to the price of other agricultural products. Let me take the years 1936/1937 to 1938/1939 in comparison with the year 1942/1943. The price of summer wheat rose by 60 per cent.; winter wheat by 49 per cent.; hay by 44 per cent.; other agricultural products by 59 per cent.; field products by 22 per cent.; dairy products by 47 per cent. and slaughter stock by 67 per cent. It will be seen therefore that the price of slaughter stock rose by a higher percentage than in the case of any one of the other agricultural products I mentioned. It is the highest of all, and it was fixed at that level under the scheme. Let us take another agricultural product like wool. That increased by 24 per cent.; butterbat by 44 per cent.; beef by 66 per cent. and mutton by 74 per cent. Do hon. members want me to take the very highest black market price of meat and fix the price of meat on that basis? If I were to do that, I think the mealie farmers and the wheat farmers would be entitled to come to the Government and say: “You have done this in the case of meat; you took the very highest black market prices; we want you to allow a free market for wheat and mealies too; let us see to how many pounds per bag the price will rise and then stabilise the price on that basis.” No, that type of argument does not hold water,, and we cannot advance it. Let us see what was said by one of the members in this House before this scheme was introduced. He admitted what I said here, and he said that the course which I had adopted was the correct course in fixing the prices. He said that if we stabilised we could not take the very highest prices. It was the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). He said, inter alia—[Re-Translation]—

It was then admitted on their own side that the farmers were prepared to make a sacrifice and to receive a lower price, but subject to the assurance that after the war the farmers would not be left at the mercy of an uncontrolled market.

Was that assurance given?

Let us see how the postion under the scheme compares with the market prices. The other side has often asked: “But what about the market price?” Let us look at the market prices during the weeks just before the scheme came into operation and we shall see how much substance there is in the charge which is being made that the farmers have lost millions of pounds as a result of the scheme, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition told the House in his speech at that time. In the first place, let us take beef for the week ending 1st April—that was a few weeks before the scheme came into operation. During that week there was no difference between the market price and the indicated price which ruled and which, practically speaking was the prices The following week there was a difference of 4s. per 100 lbs.; the week thereafter there was a difference of 1s.; the next week 3d.; and the week thereafter toe market price was 2s. less than the fixed price. What becomes of all those loose charges that this scheme has cost the farmers millions of pounds? On the 6th May it was 1s. and on the 13th May it was 9d. Take mutton for the week ending 29th April .8d.; for the next week it was 6d., and the following week it was again 8d. Again it will be seen that this outcry that the farmer has been robbed does not contain the slightest truth. Let me now deal with the second portion of the charge.

What about the market prices?

What did the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) say?

May I know whether I am to be allowed to give these figures to the House? Let us now deal with the charge concerning the consumers. I want to give the House facts; I do not want to make loose and unsupported statements such as those we have had from the other side. In the first place the consumers throughout the country are getting a stable price today. In the second place the meat is graded and the regulations provide that the prices shall be exhibited in the butcheries so that the public is fully protected. But that is not the full story. Under this scheme the price to the consumer was reduced. Today it is less than it was before the scheme.

Very little.

Here the hon. member for Wolmaransstad now admits that his own Leader did not give the House the correct information. He admits that the consumers have derived some benefit from the scheme.

The consumers would very much like to hear that.

I am giving the retail prices in respect of April. The index figure is taken as one thousand for 1938. In April it was 1,149—that is before the scheme. In May, after the scheme had been in operation for a fortnight, it was 1,418. There was a drop of one point. In June it was 1,393, a drop of twenty-six points. That is for beef. Let us now take the retail price for mutton. It was 1,380 and then again 1,380, and in June it was 1,311, a drop of 69 points.

What is the use of those prices if the people cannot get meat?

I am now dealing with the charges that were made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to prove that there is no truth in them. Let me also quote a note which appeared in the statistics bulletin for July of last year. This note appears under the food prices—

There we have further proof that there was an improvement in every case under the meat scheme as far as the consumers are concerned, while the producers received a reasonable and fair price. Thereafter the Leader of the Opposition comes along with quite a different charge. His charge is that I have introduced one amendment after another in this scheme. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, he thought there were such perfect people on this earth that they could devise a scheme of this nature, a scheme which could not be changed in any way, a scheme of this nature which involves a turnover of a million pounds a month, which controls 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the meat in this country and which places the meat trade on a totally new basis. That goes to show how the Leader of the Opposition, with his unpractical mind, lives in the clouds. I know of no business or of no industry which is established where one improvement after another is not effected. And every amendment which was brought about in this scheme was an improvement, and I should like to know from the Leader of the Opposition, so that the farmers in the platteland may know, whether he wants the amendments which have been made under the scheme to be withdrawn. Let us understand one another. We reduced the trade prices and we gave the producers a ½d. per pound more. Does the Leader of the Opposition expect us to withdraw that? We improved the appeal procedure in respect of grading. Does he expect us to withdraw that? We introduced a super grade for beef and mutton. Does the Leader of the Opposition want us to withdraw that? We want to know where he and his party stand, because the charge against us is that we are continually making amendments in this scheme.

That goes to show how bad it is.

You are now admitting that all these improvements have been made in the scheme.

And every time it is the last.

When this scheme was introduced I said that we were prepared to bring about improvements in the scheme, in the light of the experience we gained. I knew that in a scheme such as this one could not come forward with a hundred per cent. scheme but I knew that in its main features it was a sound scheme. I said that in the light of experience we would be prepared to improve from time to time and I challenge hon. members to say that we should withdraw anyone of those amendments that we introduced. Thereafter the Leader of the Opposition comes along and says that after the scheme was introduced we interfered with the grades. He said we interfered with the grades after the introduction of the scheme, and he accused me of having made second grade meat first grade. It seems to me the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has heard something but he does not know the rights of it. There was nothing of the kind and I challenge him to prove that such an alteration was made in the grades after the scheme was introduced.

You admit that the grades were altered.

That was at the beginning of the scheme. It was a material part of the scheme at the beginning, as all well-informed people know. But the Leader of the Opposition says I brought about amendments in the scheme, and I challenge him and his party to prove where such an amendment was made as he suggested. Then he makes another charge. He says that the people want the scheme to be a long-term scheme and that I originally refused to make it a long-term scheme but that I subsequently agreed. When I asked by way of interjection where I had refused to make it a long-term scheme, a number of members in this House said that I had refused to do so. I am sorry that it is necessary for me to quote from Hansard, but I have to expose the inaccuracy and untruthfulness of the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition. Let me quote what I said as far back as March under my Vote when this scheme was first mentioned. I said—

What can be more plain?

That means that you will still consider it.

The matter did not rest there. The question was further discussed, and I want to quote a further passage to show what happened.

Why did you not say “when” you would introduce such a scheme; why did you say “if”?

In the Hansard of 3 April to 6 April I said this—even at that date hon. members on that side were intent on putting this matter in the wrong light and in trying to make the people believe that I had refused to make it a permanent scheme. Let me quote what I said—

I deprecate that. My intention is to reassure the people that we are determined to do our best for all sections affected by this scheme.

And the matter did not end there. It was further raised when the scheme was announced. On the day when the scheme was announced in Parliament—that was on the 9th May—I said this—

There we have it quite clearly.

But this one was surely not under the Marketing Act?

Thereafter on the 12th May I issued a press statement in regard to various aspects of the meat scheme, and the following sentence appeared in that statement ….

When was that?

On the 12th May—

What can be more clear? But after that statement had been made they were still intent on misleading the people and making them believe that the Government was unwilling to introduce a permanent scheme. What happened the following week? A week after the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) put this question to me in the House; at this stage they were now trying to get the credit, if it became a permanent scheme, for having suggested it—

1. (1) Whether it is the policy of the Government to make the meat scheme permanent; (2) whether he will make a full statement to the House in regard to the policy of the Government.

My reply to that was—

The farmers threatened you.

My hon. friend was still groping in the dark. He had become a victim to the propaganda of his own party. He believed the propaganda which his party made in the platteland, and he actually had the audacity to announce it here.

Who has audacity?

He is furious now; he has had the women stopped at the gates.

You are now speaking under police protection.

My hon. friends are saying this to save their Leader embarassment. Let me proceed to deal with another point of criticism which was made by the Leader of the Opposition. He says I am getting rid of the scheme, including the price fixation, and handing it over to the Marketing Council. One would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition in all civility whether he has taken leave of his senses in suggesting that I have the power under the Act to get rid of this scheme, including the fixation of prices, and to hand it over to the Marketing Council.

You have made such a mess of it!

Does the hon. member not know that the Marketing Act does not give the Marketing Council any administrative powers? They have no power under the Act to take this scheme away from me. They have no power under the Act to fix prices. One would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have known the provisions of that Act which was passed in this House in 1937. If I wanted to get rid of it I could not do so, but that is the type of criticism which we get from the Leader of the Opposition.

I said you were resorting to an emergency regulation to do that type of thing.

But there is no such emergency regulation.

You are making use of emergency regulations to fix prices.

There is no emergency regulation for it. The hon. member should try again; he is wide off the mark. He said the Marketing Council fixed the price. He said I was disposing of the scheme to the Marketing Council; that they have to administer it.

Where were your senses when I spoke?

Then he comes forward with another charge. He says I first accused the farmers, then the speculators and then the Re-United Nationalist Party.

And that is true.

It is absolutely untrue; I never accused the farmers. Right at the outset when this scheme was announced I accused the speculators, and let me quote briefly what I said as far as the speculators were concerned. When this scheme was announced, I said—

That is what I said, and in the same Press statement to which I referred a moment ago, I said this in connection with the same matter, in order to show how I went out of my way to make it perfectly understood that it was not my intention to make any accusations against the farmers, and this is what I said—

That was on the 12th May?

Yes. The Leader of the Opposition was altogether wrong. Right throughout I accused the speculators but I did not accuse the farmers at any time.

At the Bloemfontein Agricultural Congress you threatened the farmers with the importation of meat.

Let us bring that matter to light. I said this—and I did not say it with a view to threatening the farmers, because it cannot constitute a threat to the farmers; they have fixed prices; what does it matter to the farmers whether I import or not? Meat would not have been imported in Order to bring about a drop in their market. But let any hon. member in this House put himself in my position. I am responsible to see to it that there is food for the people.

You don’t say!

Just imagine!

Yes, under the difficult circumstances which we are experiencing, it is my responsibility.

In that case you were a failtire.

There are thousands of our factory workers in the large cities who work hard and who ought to have sufficient supplies of food, and when I import meat for those people, you get the people in this House who say that I am threatening the farmers. Nothing of the kind, it is simply my duty to do so and the farmers know why it was done.

Do you deny that you told the farmers at the Bloemfontein Agricultural Congress that you would import meat?

The charge has also been levelled against me that I accused the Re-United Nationalist Party of being opposed to this scheme. But I ask the House whether I have not got every right to do it? Have they not made propaganda in the Press day after day in the most clever and the most artful way?

Are you referring to Arhtur Barlow’s Weekly—“Strauss must go?”

Did they not nominate a butcher as their representative in the Germiston by-election? They nominated a butcher as their candidate to oppose the meat scheme. Can they deny that they said during that election in their own pamphlet—let me refresh their memory ….

Which election.

He does not even know of it.

The Germiston byelection.

At that time he wanted to go to London.

This is what they said in that pamphlet—

Hear, hear!

How did they vote? That is the test.

We know what the result was. Throughout the country they created the impression that they were in favour of the meat scheme; that it was a good scheme; that there was nothing wrong with the scheme except the prices; and their newspapers in the Transvaal gave the people to understand that I was waging a terrific war against the farmers in an attempt to gain their support, but here the cat came out of the bag. They wanted this scheme to suffer shipwreck, because they would then create a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the people. That is what we got from them—distortion and misrepresentation. [Time limit extended.]

When are we going to get meat?

Then I come to the last untrue statement which was made, by the Leader of the Opposition. He says in the end I accused the officials of sabotage. I ask the hon. member to prove that. That accusation was levelled against me. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition said I had done this, that and the other, and in the end, in desperation, I accused the officials.

That accusation was levelled against the Government.

The accusation was made against me but if the hon. member now wants to get out of it in that way, I am prepared to let it pass.

Do you deny that your fellow-Ministers accused the officials? Do you deny that your “Kakamas” Minister and people of that kind accused the officials?

This is not the sum total of the misrepresentations which came from their side. These were made in the House.

Do you repudiate your friend next to you?

I am replying to the accusation which was levelled against me and I notice the hon. member is trying to get out of it.

In other words there is “bovril” in it!

Towards the end of October I made a statement at a conference of editors, at a gathering of Press representa tives in regard to the food position in the country. That statement appeared in the Press. The whole Press could have got that statement. I want to show how a certain newspaper, the “Kruithoring,” represented that statement.

What does Arthur Barlow’s Weekly say about this?

No, I am dealing with the Kruithoring at the moment.

You should take bovril; it prevents that sinking feeling.

I referred to the canning industry and I indicated the quantity of jam, vegetables and fish which had been canned, what it amounted to and how we had assisted the war effort. I said—

Let us see how this was interpreted in the Kruithoring. This is what they said—[Translation]—

It will be seen that all the vegetables and jam and fish now becomes meat—

Have these people no conscience? Have they no conscience if they present the matter to the public in this light? Let me mention the second case. I said, inter alia—

This is what was said in the Kruithoring in regard to that statement—

In this statement it was clearly set out that we were importing as much as we could, and the grain to which I referred comprised oats and other breakfast foodstuffs. But as it appeared in the Kruithoring the British Government was forcing us to deliver 7,000 tons of wheat. Let me quote another example.

Have you not got Arthur Barlow’s Weekly with you perhaps?

Inter alia, I said this—

Let us see how that was distorted. This is what the Kruithoring says—

Disgraceful!

It is scandalous! The statement which I made was quite clear that, from a national point of view, it was a good thing, but they distorted it to read that the purchasing power of the coloured people had been increased and that it was the coloured people who were buying up the food and depriving the Europeans of it.

But you do not understand Afrikaans.

I think it is better to understand honesty than to understand Afrikaans.

Have you any idea as to the meaning of either?

I do not want to quote any further from this journal. I have shown enough of the type of misrepresentation we get from that side. Why was this motion moved in the House? The Leader of the Opposition and his party have never done the slightest thing to assist us in our food problems or advance the slightest constructive criticism. Their policy is to cause as many difficulties as possible with a view to engendering dissatisfaction amongst the Government supporters and in order to gain a few votes in this manner.

That is nonsense! Do the English-speaking people ever read “Die Burger”? That is more “bovril”!

May I be allowed to say a few words in connection with the whole question of the provision of food, and let us try to see the whole matter of food production and distribution in its true perspective. In the first place we must take into consideration the fact that the war has brought about a dislocation both as regards production and consumption. I want to explain why I say that. During the war our purchasing power has not only increased appreciably, but the number of imported factory articles and commodities which are manufactured in South Africa, has of course, decreased considerably. We know that there is even a prohibition on the purchase of some commodities, and the result has been not only that there has been more money in circulation, but that money has circulated in fewer channels, and one of the channels in which it was directed, an obvious channel, was to buy more food. Many people whose purchasing power is great buy more food today than they bought previously. That is one of the factors which We must take into consideration when we consider the food problem as a whole. The Leader of the Opposition not only referred to food distribution in his motion but also to the question of food supplies which, of course, includes the whole question of production and labour, but indirectly he made an attack on the producers in this country. He made an indirect attack on the farmers of this country who have been producing as they have never produced in the history of this country.

Where do the farmers get the farm labour?

I am sorry that he attacked the farmers of this country in that way. His motion is worded in such a way that it casts a reflection on the farmers.

You are putting up a smoke screen now.

We have to take into consideration various restrictive factors in connection with the whole question of food production. The very first of these factors is that we lost a large number of our best producers in this country, who regarded it as their duty after the outbreak of the war co enlist and to fight for the freedom of their country.

And what are you doing?

We lost the services of those producers, and it undoubtedly contributed a shortage in our food production. The second factor is the shortage of farm labour. The third is the shortage of agricultural implements and agricultural machinery in general.

What is the second?

The shortage of farm labour. In the fourth place, we had a shortage of fencing material. In the fifth place there was a shortage of artificial manure.

That is one of the main factors.

That is one of the main factors. Then there is the shortage of seed, a shortage of food concentrates, of which we normally had to import 40,000 tons per year, but notwithstanding the utmost efforts on the part of the Department we could not import more than 50 per cent. There was also a shortage of means to combat insects and plagues. Notwithstanding all these restrictive factors—I shall indicate in a moment what steps we took in that connection—our country produced on ah unprecedented scale. Let me mention a few examples. Take vegetables. In 1943 almost 70 per cent. more vegetables were delivered than in 1938, as far as the eleven most important markets in our country are concerned. If we take the quantity of vegetables and potatoes that were conveyed by the railways, the increase was even greater. There was an increase in our production of various types of grain, and as far as kaffir corn is concerned, the production in 1938, including the production of all natives, was approximately 1,800,000 bags and in 1943-1944 it was 2,800,000 bags, an increase of 1,000,000 bags. As far as mealies are concerned, the number of morgen placed under mealies in 1943 exceeded the 1939 figure by 200,000, as far as European cultivation alone is concerned.

And in spite of that less was produced?

I say there were various restricting factors, but in spite of that this country produced so much as a result of the policy of this Government. In 1943 the Dried Fruit Board dried no less than 35,000,000 lbs. fruit in comparison with the normal quantity of 28,000,000 lbs. The consumption of butter practically doubled in comparison with the pre-war consumption. Let me deal for a moment with the steps which the Government has taken to increase the production. The first is the general instruction which has been given by the Department since the outbreak of the war. The Department threw in its full weight with a view to instructing the farmers not only with regard to the necessity of food production, but the Department actually gave a lead in respect of the steps to be taken by the farmers in order to produce more. One other important factor is the price policy, the fixation of prices in relation to the various agricultural products. The policy which the Government followed in connection with this matter was to fix prices at such a level that the farmer was compensated for his increased costs of production, while his own increased cost of living was also taken into consideration, and also to give him a reasonable profit so that he could throw in all his weight to produce as much as possible. That was and is the policy. On the other hand counter-measures had to be taken against unrestricted increases in price, because the Government was not prepared to promote inflation. For that reason its policy was to give the farmer a reasonable price and, on the other hand, to fix prices for the consumer, which were not too high. In various cases the Government, with a view to attaining these two objects, paid subsidies. During the past year we paid approximately £1,500,000 in respect of bread, a little more than £750,000 in respect of mealies, approximately £200,000 in respect of butter. As I have said, that price policy prevented inflation to a certain extent, and nevertheless gave the farmers the necessary encouragement to produce as much as possible. I mentioned lack of seed as one of the difficulties with which the producers were faced. In that case too the State helped a great deal. In the case of seed potatoes the Government introduced an importation scheme with a view to providing the farmers with a good quality of seed potatoes. In 1942-’43 something like 27,000 boxes of 100 lbs. were imported under this scheme and approximately 16,000 boxes in 1943-’44 and orders were placed for almost 40,000 boxes for 1944-’45. These seed potatoes were imported from the United Kingdom, and apart from that private orders were placed in the United States and Canada, and they were encouraged by granting the importers a higher preference, and something like 50,000 boxes are expected from these countries. As far as vegetable seed production is concerned, we also encouraged the production to a great extent, and today the position is that as far as vegetable seeds are concerned, our country is practically independent of imports from oversea. This is a particularly fine achievement for us in South Africa, that it is no longer necessary for us, as it was before the war, to import vegetable seed. As far as wheat is concerned, the Government assisted with seed wheat from time to time, and loan facilities, up to a maximum of 20 bags of seed wheat and 20 bags of artificial manure, have now been made available to farmers who could not themselves afford seed wheat and artificial manure. This scheme is applicable to a number of districts in the Free State and the North Eastern Cape Province.

Is that a new scheme?

Yes, it is to increase the production of wheat and to assist the poor farmers. Then we were also faced with a shortage of bonemeal, and there again the Government took every possible step to encourage the production of bonemeal. Before the outbreak of the war this country required approximately 30,000 tons and as a result of the special efforts which were made the local manufacture of bonemeal increased by 15,000 tons to 20,000. Another factor which I mentioned was agricultural implements and agricultural machinery. There the position is that although the imports are not yet sufficient to meet our requirements fully, we did our best to import as much as possible in order to supplement our local manufacture. In 1944 we imported two or three times as much as during 1943. As far as our own production of agricultural implements is concerned, we manufactured only something like 1,000 tons of implements before the war, while in 1944 approximately 10,000 tons were manufactured locally, and the estimated production for 1945 is placed at 14,000 tons. As far as farm labour is concerned, of which we hear such a great deal, I just want to say that farm labour was scarce, even before the outbreak of war. Since the outbreak of the war the Government has assisted considerably by making available Italian prisoners-of-war. They were used in their thousands and many hon. members on the other side persistently approached me to provide their supporters in their districts with more prisoners-of-war. In that way the Government assisted considerably. The Government also assisted in the transport of kraal manure, with a view to relieving the shortage of artificial manure, and lorries were made available to transport kraal manure to the railway stations. Farmers were also assisted in the conveyance of their mealies by making available lorries from the Defence Force, and tarpaulins were also made available. Notwithstanding all these restricting factors, we succeeded in driving up the production as far as possible. The Government went out of its way to assist the producers to produce as much as possible. The Leader of the Opposition, wants to attribute the whole blame for the existing shortage of certain foodstuffs—there is undoubtedly a temporary shortage of Certain products—to the so-called laxity and incompetence of the Government. But does he not know this country? Does he not know that one of the greatest difficulties which we have in our country is that we are liable to droughts, to changeable weather conditions.

Since when has there been a drought?

Just let me indicate what droughts have already done. I do not refer to the present drought only. As far as mealies are concerned, more than 200,000 morgen have been put under mealies additionally since 1939. Owing to the serious drought the maize crop of 1941-’42 was only about 16,000,000 bags, a very small crop. As the result of favourable climatic conditions an absolute record of 30,000,000 bags of maize was expected the following year. That was the estimate until the end of January, 1943. In the following month however, in February, such a serious drought set in that the country lost about 7,000,000 bags of mealies and the harvests was only 23,000,000 bags. Let us take another example. During the 1943-’44 season extraordinarily heavy rains again damaged the crop, and as hon. members know the present drought has already caused a fair amount of damage to the expected crop. But the Leader of the Opposition does not refer to that at all. I think he blames us for the drought. As far as this year’s wheat is concerned the position was the same. There not only the drought affecting the crop adversely, but pests reduced the wheat crop very much.

But a moment ago you spoke about the great increase in production.

The 1942-’43 harvest would have been 30,000,000 bags if it were not for the drought.

All “if’s.”

As far as potatoes are concerned 1,000,000 bags were lost last season as the result of floods and washaways. The other day I noticed with surprise a leading article in the official paper of the Opposition, the morning paper in Cape Town. It is not often that they hold out England to us as a country which should be imitated, but the leading article in fact did this, and I will not be surprised if some of the hon. members who will still participate in the debate will speak in the same strain. In it England was taken as an example and it was said that England produced up to 70 per cent. of her food requirements during the war years, and our Government is blamed for not producing more in our country. Here again I wish to ask the Opposition how they stand on this point. In England full control over farming and manpower is exercised. There they can tell a farmer what he can and what he cannot produce. Does the Leader of the Opposition wish the same to be done in South Africa, that we should exercise full control in this manner? If they use this kind of argument, they must know what the implications are.

The implication here is that you take control.

The same accusation is made in connection with obtaining fertiliser. It is said that England took immediate steps after the fall of Casablanca to obtain fertiliser for herself, while the Union Government just sat still. There is no truth in that either. Immediately after the fall of Casablanca and even before that time steps were taken to obtain as much fertiliser as possible, and we succeeded in obtaining approximately 50 per cent. of our requirements. A moment ago I spoke about the improvement we brought about in the production of food. Now I wish to say a few words about imports and exports. As the position was we normally imported about 18,000 tons of tinned meat, fish, vegetables and milk, and in recent years practically none of that was made available for civilian use. In addition to that it so happened that our fishing boats were used for war purposes. That increased our difficulties very much. Steps have now been taken to release firstly two and later on four of these boats in order that they may resume fishing. Allow me again to mention some of the commodities with regard to the distribution of imported food. Let me mention tea in the first instance. We produce very little in Natal and as regards tea we manage to import 60 per cent. of our normal requirements. As far as cocoa and coffee are concerned, we could more or less supply the normal requirements of the country. In 1942 rice was practically unobtainable,, but last year we imported 20,000 tons from Brazil and 20,000 tons are expected this month, so that the rice position may be considered fairly satisfactory. Provided sufficient shipping space becomes available, we can expect a further 30,000 tons from Brazil, namely 40 per cent. of our normal requirements. We have an approved import programme for 1945 which consists of approximately 130,000 tons of various foodstuffs, of which 5,000 tons is for ship’s provisions. I do not want to enlarge on the various kinds of food, but quote these figures to prove that the Government, instead of being slack or inefficient, has taken all possible steps, not only as regards production, but also imports. We have of course had great difficulty as regards problems of distribution. In this country in pre-war years we have only had to deal with surplus problems. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) who was Minister of Agriculture, will agree that his greatest problems were in connection with surpluses, and our whole distribution system aimed at solving those difficulties. But owing to various difficulties—the drought had a lot to do with it—we are faced with problems of scarcity. We have all the difficulties caused by times of war. There is a shortage of manpower, and the difficulty of evolving a Food Control Organisation in a short time. I speak about a “short time” because it was only last year that the food organisation was separated from the Department of Agriculture. We were faced with all these difficulties and all these new problems. I certainly do not wish to allege that we did everything perfectly and with complete success. We made mistakes. I admit that. If we had not made mistakes we would have done nothing. Those who do not make mistakes attempt nothing and do not attempt to solve difficulties. But we did much and there was no slackness and inefficiency such as the Leader of the Opposition wishes to tell the nation outside about. Take for an example an article like potatoes. I said that we had a shortage because 1,000,000 bags were lost. That position was exploited by producers, distributors and consumers, and the result of it was an uneven distribution and evasion of the price regulations. There was a black market in potatoes even before the worst shortage existed. The Controller of Foodstuffs intervened actively and took physical control. It was drastic but necessary, and through those means he bought or obtained control of 115,000 bags, and the black market was cut out as far as the potato trade was concerned, and we distributed potatoes to many families. In Durban, where the food position was especially difficult, and where, in addition to all this, Infantile Paralysis and Smallpox broke out, the Controller of Foodstuffs felt that it would be dangerous to allow queues, as they existed there, to continue. What hapepned? Lorries of the Defence Force delivered foodstuffs from house to house and within four weeks food to the value of £50,000 was delivered to more than 100,000 families at a total cost of less than £1,000.

Why did you not continue with that, and why was the system not extended?

We continued with it as long as the shortage existed. That is again a proof of the fact that there was no slackness or inefficiency. We have been accused of exporting food out of the country, but there is no comment on the quantities of food made available from the stores of the Department of Defence. Let me mention a few figures. We are told that we exported much meat. Let me inform the House that we made available 15,000,000 lbs. of tinned meat for the civilian population. It was imported tinned meat.

How much was exported?

Take the case of tinned fish, of which 180,000 lbs. was made available; vegetables over 2,000,000 lbs.; meat and vegetable rations, canned, 2,250,000 lbs.; 100,000 lbs. coffee; 325,000 tins of milk; more than one million tins of jam, and more than 500,000 lbs. of tea.

Over what period?

Since I took over the Portfolio all this food has been made available out of the stores of the Department of Defence.

What was imported during the same period?

If the hon. member will give me an opportunity to deal with the matter I will come to that point. Take the position of eggs, another important foodstuff.

They rotted in the cold storages.

Another rumour! I will deal with that also. I know that eggs rotted but what the hon. member does not know is that we lost fewer eggs under the scheme than the trade generally loses in cold storage. Let him put that in his pipe and smoke it! As early as 1941 the exportation of eggs was apparently reduced; in 1942 it was practically stopped. I have already said that the trade generally has larger losses of eggs in cold storage than we lost under the scheme. The cold storage eggs were of the greatest value to us and without them the position would probably have been more difficult and almost untenable in the period when there was a shortage of other articles like meat and even butter and cheese. Another step that was taken is that by way of an experiment no less than 17 retail depôts were opened. That experiment which was made under the aegis of the Controller of Food will be extended to other parts of the country. Let me say a few words about the steps we took to safeguard the position in the future, and here I come to the complaint that we have exported meat. We had a meat canning factory in Durban where 10,500 lbs. per day was used, 15 per cent. of Durban’s average daily requirements of meat. The factory was closed and the meat was made available for the civilian population. Another step we took was to declare Wednesday to be a general meatless day. We control menus. Six of the minesweepers of the Department of Defence have been made available for fishing to provide for the food requirements of the nation. We went further and adopted measures to allow margarine to be manufactured in the country and as a start 12,000,000 lbs. will be manufactured which will be used for the lower income group of the nation under the Department of Social Welfare. Another measure is that the use of flour for private purposes was stopped, and this saves us three shiploads in the importation of wheat. Our importation of all other articles that are scarce has been drastically curtailed. Allow me to give the example of some export figures. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad made a great issue of the export of butter. He will remember. At a public meeting he enlarged on the point that we were exporting butter while our own people were without butter.

I will say so again.

Allow me to give the hon. member the facts. After that he will make such allegations at his own risk.

I also have my data.

During the latter half of last year the total amount of butter exported to all African territories, including Northern and Southern Rhodesia, was only 40 per cent. of one week’s consumption in the Union, less than half the consumption of butter in the Union in one week. That was exported during the whole of the six months of the latter half of last year. For the last six months of last year the exportation of all foodtsuffs which was scarce in the country was drastically curtailed. We do not export articles which are scarce in our country. We keep them for the use of our own people.

Since when?

I have already told the hon. member that. That was the position for the last six months of last year. There are two sides to this question of exportation to the African Territories. We helped those people in so far as we were able to do so, and I make no apology for it. It was a mutual help. Our policy on this side is not the policy of hon. members on the other side, namely to be against all sections in the country, to be anti everything We are not against the neighbouring states on the continent of Africa and anti everything. As far as possible we let them have foodstuffs and I now wish to refer to a few articles which we imported from those territories and which were of great benefit to the country. For the nine months ended September, 1944, we imported from the Belgian Congo to the value of £2,500,000. That includes 6½ million lbs. oil cake; 646,286 lbs. rice; 9½ million lbs. raw coffee. Those hon. members would not have had coffee for their braaivleis if it were not for this importation; 1½ million lbs. cocoa beans; 3 million lbs. raw cotton; 18½ million lbs. oil seed and nuts; 20½ million lbs. raw rubber; then we come to Northern Rhodesia. Over one and a half million lbs. oil cake and meal; almost a half million lbs. unmanufactured tobacco; 161 thousand gallons of palm oil; 70,000 lbs. raw rubber; 70,000 cubic feet of timber; other products to the value of almost £1,000,000, and wooden rail sleepers to the value of £55,000. Then we come to Southern Rhodesia. Far more than a million lbs. unmanufactured tobacco, crushed mealies, mealie meal and other merchandise to an amount of over 5000.000 lbs.; fresh meat, more than 500,000 lbs.; tinned meat, almost 1 million lbs.; sugar, over 1½ million lbs.; rubber, to a value of more than £4,000; sleepers for the railways to the value of £19,000.

Where did you hide all this?

We have much to thank those countries for and I think we can be thankful that we did not follow the road followed by members on the other side, to be anti everything. We help those countries where we can and they in turn help us. I think that the nation outside will support this policy and will prefer it above the antipolicy, above the isolation policy, of members on the other side of the House. I have taken a long time and I wish to conclude. I said that we, as far as our distribution problem is concerned, were faced with a very difficult and entirely new situation. But even there the Government did not sit still. The Department of Agriculture had the matter investigated; it was thoroughly investigated by the Controller of Food himself, and he made experiments with retail depôts and with deliveries from house to house. He investigated to see whether it was possible to have a practical system of rationing in the country. I am of opinion that many people in the country will be satisfied to be short of certain articles—I mean to be short in the same sense as they have been short in the past years, and not short to such an extent that their health is affected by it—but they will be willing to economise when they know it is done fairly. The problem of rationing is one of the most difficult existing problems. Even in the European countries or in a country like England, where you have a totally different population from ours, where the people belong to one race and support the war effort 100 per cent., it is a difficult question. In this country you have a totally different position. Our population consists of various different elements with their own standards of living, and as far as the white population is concerned, a large proportion of them is opposed to the Government and to every step taken by the Government and which, in the difficulties which arose partly as a result of the war, tried to bring every step taken by the Government in discredit with the population. It is their: aim to wreck schemes such as this and to cause dissatisfaction against the Government. Those are the troubles we had to face here. Nevertheless we find that even in the European countries where the position is much simpler because the population belongs to one race, a black market exists which plays a large role. Our position is much more complicated than those countries, but nevertheless the Government investigated all these matters thoroughly, not only by means of the Department of Agriculture itself but also by means of the Controller of Food, and at present moment even by means of the inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg). The report has been referred to the chairman of the Central Food Committee, who function in the various control areas of the country. I just wish to say this, that all the data we have indicates that it may be a possible solution of the matter if we institute a system of rationing through the retail trade by way of registration of consumers. This question will be very seriously considerd by the Government to see whether in this country, with all its manifold difficulties, such a system can be instituted thus to obtain a solution of this troublesome question of distribution. We may perhaps do it—I cannot bind myself at this stage—but perhaps such a scheme may be put into working, and I wish to say here that it Will only be able to work if we get the wholehearted co-operation not only of the consumers but also that of commerce.

If one listens to the address of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and one did not know that he was Minister of Agriculture one would have drawn the conclusion that it was one of the clerks from his department who had climbed on to a platform to present information that had been given to him. Regarding the practical matter over which this motion deals he has said nothing. The public are asking for food; the public are suffering hunger; and what has the Minister said about the steps he is going to take to help the people in their distress. We recall that 2,000 years ago Herod encompassed the death of numerous children, and I ask how many died through lack of sufficient food; how many mothers who are standing in queues to buy food have had attacks of fainting with the result that their lives have in that manner been shortened? The Minister must be careful lest he be known as the biggest tyrant that there has ever been in the country. The Minister has made an attack on the Leader of the Opposition and has said that we are in low water, and that is why we are coming along with this motion instead of a motion of no confidence. It appears to me that the Minister of Agriculture has not read the motion, and in addition to that he has no answer to make to it. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition says very emphatically as far as regards the Department of Agriculture—

The Minister has told us very clearly that they are not perfect and that they have made many mistakes. The Minister has not had the courage to reveal the mistakes that they have made. He says that many mistakes have been made, and he ought to have the courage then to say where they have acted wrongly. The point is, however, that he admits that they have made many mistakes, and we on this side of the House have thus the perfect right to frame this charge against the Minister.

What did you say sixteen years ago at Stellenbosch.

That hon. member has written more against the Minister of Agriculture than any other person in the country, but here in the House he has again become a “yes” man. The Minister of Agriculture has quoted a whole bunch of figures regarding how much meat and other products we have imported from other African states, but he has omitted to state the figures showing what has been exported out of the country. He has refrained from telling us that Australia, when it expected a drought seven months ago notified us that it could not fulfil its contracts. Our Government has waited however, and now the Minister wants to hide behind the drought. He comes along and tells us what has been imported into the country. We, in turn, ask him whether it was necessary to import those things that were imported. I will first confine myself to the figures that have been given in connection with this matter. The Minister is engaged on other things, and is not listening to what. I have to say, and I therefore move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 31st January.