With the leave of the House I would like to make a statement on the price payable for the Union’s gold. I regret that it has not been possible to make the statement sooner, but I do so at the earliest possible moment for the benefit of hon. members of the House.

In terms of an agreement between the Bank of England and the South African Reserve Bank, acting for the Union Treasury, the price of gold was fixed during the greater part of the war at 168s. per fine ounce. In terms of existing legislation gold producers received this price less the realisation charges (including Bank Commission) at the rate of approximately 41s. 3d. per £100.

In view of the return to normal conditions of freight and insurance charges, this agreement has been amended with retrospective effect to January 1, 1945. The price to be paid by the Bank of England for the calendar year 1945 has been fixed at 172s. 3d. Gold producers will receive this price (less the realisation charges) for all gold sold by them to the Reserve Bank during the calendar year. The higher price will also be paid for gold already purchased by the Bank on the old basis since January 1, 1945, as soon as certain necessary preliminary arrangements have been completed.

The value of the South African pound in relation to other currencies is not affected, and no modification in monetary policy is involved.

The Minister of Agriculture yesterday made a very important announcement in connection with a subsidy which will be paid in respect of the cutting down of prickly-pear. I want to thank the Minister and the Government heartily for that consideration because there are hundreds of farmers who have for years and years suffered on account of the prickly-pear menace. There was a ray of light when the cochineal insect and subsequently the cactoblastis were used, but they did not prove so successful as we expected. I have now been engaged for 18 months in an attempt to get a subsidy for the cutting down of prickly-pear and I am glad that the Government will take this step because the House and the Minister will appreciate that we often have to give farmers just such encouragement. I trust that the Minister will make a statement in connection with the period in respect of which the subsidy will be retrospective.

Is it applicable to the whole Union?

Naturally. There are farmers who have been busy for a long time and I trust that the Minister will take their cases into consideration. Then I would like to thank the Minister for including Colonel Kingwell in the deputation from South Africa to the Imperial Wool Conference in London. I do that because I feel that the Minister has made a very happy choice. Apart from the fact that he farms on an extensive scale, he was Officer Commanding the Midland Regiment, which furnished a large number of soldiers for the Middle East. They are mostly farmers from the best sheep farming parts, such as Graaff-Reinet, Jansenville, Middelburg, Murraysburg, Steynsburg, etc. In any case, it was also very fortunate that Colonel Kingwell was in London when the Armistice was announced and he was therefore in a position to welcome many prisoners of war who had previously been under his command, on their return to England. It is also fortunate in this respect that Colonel Kingwell was in a position to represent the unorganised wool farmers at the conference. Then I would like to make some remarks in connection with soil erosion. Although the war against Japan has not yet been concluded, I think that the time has arrived, now that the war in Europe has come to an end, that the Government should tackle this matter with all its might. The Minister has made a statement in connection with the funds which are being made available by the Government. The amount is approximately £300,000. However, I hope that he will take the House still further into his confidence. The money which has been made available mainly concerns the large schemes at Vlekpoort and Drakensberg. But I would like to see that the local committees which have done such good work in the past are re-established. Up to the present time the trouble has been to obtain extension officers because there is a shortage, and for that reason I trust that the Minister will consider re-introducing that scheme. I also want to refer to the good work done by the magistrates on those committees. For example, I have in mind the magistrate at Steynsburg. His work is a monument. After his office hours he went out to the farms to assist farmers in surveying schemes. It is Mr. Len Morris. Farmers will remember him. He is at present back at Jansenville. I hope this matter will receive the attention of the Minister and that he will also get in touch with the Minister of Lands in an attempt to standardise the machinery capable of being used on soil erosion works to enable farmers to obtain such machinery at fair prices, as well as spare parts, so that they may be in a position more easily to carry out the work. Then I also want to express a word of thanks for the research work carried out at Onderstepoort in connection with the blowfly pest. They have made available a remedy which is obtainable by farmers at a fair price of 3s. 6d. per gallon. It is of great value to us in combating the blow-fly pest. As is known there is a new remedy which has been discovered, viz. D.D.T. It is something which is very easy to manuafacture. I had a discussion with Dr. du Toit of Onderstepoort on this matter and he explained the position to me. I only hope that until such time as we are able ourselves to manufacture that remedy here, the Minister will take steps to import as much of it as possible, to be made available to farmers. I feel convinced that once it is made available to farmers on a large scale sheep farming in our country will greatly advance. Then I just want to ask the Minister whether he could not persuade the Australian Government to withdraw the export prohibition on sheep to South Africa. Although Australia imported its first sheep from South Africa, it has made a great advance on us and in later years we imported sheep from Australia on a large scale. Although our sheep breeders compare favourably with those of Australia, I feel that it would be to our advantage if we could obtain new blood from Australia.

They could exchange it for good blood which they can obtain from us.

It will be good for both countries. Then there is another question. It relates to mohair. Under the meat scheme goats received indifferent treatment. I do not want to enter into that. I would rather come to the export of the accumulated quantity of mohair in Port Elizabeth. The position is that mohair was accumulated there as a result of shortage of shipping space. The result is that it is difficult to sell mohair. For that reason I hope that the Minister will make representations to the British Government to provide more shipping space to enable us again to open the market for mohair.

There are apporximately 20,000 bales. For that quantity two medium-sized ships are required. I hope that the Minister will meet the mohair farmers as far as he is able to because they have in many respects received indifferent treatment in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, may I avail myself of the half-hour rule? The matter which is certainly of first importance in the public mind at present is the extent to which we shall be able to assist Great Britain and other similar countries with additional food from South Africa. I know the Minister has spoken on this matter already but my complaint is that he has not been sufficiently definite as to what is to be done, and when it is going to be done. I may say that I disagree with the view that the winter which lies ahead of us promises to be a mild one for stock. I hold a totally different view, and I venture to say that by the end of the season results will show whether I am right or the Agricultural Department is right. I maintain that we are facing one of the worst winters as regards shortage of cattle feed that we have ever been confronted with and I would urge the Minister to endeavour to facilitate the obtaining of foodstuffs to enable the dairy stock especially to be fed,’ so that there is no considerable shortage in dairy products or losses of livestock at the end of the winter. But a more important matter with regard to beef production is the manner in which the meat scheme has been mismanaged just at the time when supplies were most readily available. I have a letter written by one who is a supporter of the scheme, so I hope the Minister will not disregard the representations. He declares at the outset that he has long been a supporter of the scheme and asks me to draw the attention of the Minister to the impossible position that has come about as a result of faulty meat control. Now this man is a very substantial farmer in cnnection with meat production. He is a very moderate man and he speaks with some knowledge on this subject he is dealing with. He belongs to the constituency of Drakensberg and with the consent of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) I am speaking about this matter because the letter was addressed to me. He says—

Now, that state of affairs spells mismanagement of a very serious nature. The sale of prime cattle, what we need most, is not being encouraged by the system in vogue, and you have at this moment hundreds of cattle for which no permits can be issued or are issued only very sparingly. Now, there has never been a better time for the Minister to embark upon a scheme of food for Britain, because meat is now in abundance. If the matter were dealt with in an efficient way at this stage we could succeed in shipping large quantities of the best meat available in this country, and landing it in Britain straight away. We have lying idle the sum of £600,000, the accumulated levies on stock over a number of years. Previously, when we embarked upon a policy of exportation, this levy was used to pay the cost of export and to grant a subsidy to make up the price to a payable one for those who exported cattle. Now there is no reason in the world why that money should not be used forthwith, and by forthwith I mean at once. There is no use putting it off. We have to return to our constituents and there is nothing more discouraging than for us to be put off and to have to tell our people that the matter has been mentioned, but we cannot tell them what is happening. We cannot leave it until the end of the winter when the condition of the stock has deteriorated so that they will not be fit for food and will only be fit for boners, the only market for which in Great Britain is Glasgow, among the very poor. To enable us to ship acceptable meat food immediately we need to act immediately. The Minister has a tremendous number of people at present employed in connection with the meat scheme and surely it is not expecting the impossible to look to him to see that this matter is taken in hand at once. There is a blockage that has occurred, referred to by this farmer, one of the best-known farmers in the district whose people have been known for 100 years in Natal as some of the most honourable and right-minded people in the country. The Minister, I think, has allowed very salient facts in regard to the meat position to be obscured. Some years ago a survey was made by the Board of Trade and Industries, and they put out a map showing where improved breeds of stock were most to be found. That map indicates in the black spots the area populated by these stock.

What is the date of that?

There is no date on it but it was prepared a few years ago. But that doesn’t alter the facts recorded. A man does not change his habits in regard to animal husbandry in a year or two. Although compiled a few years ago this map is indicative today of the proportion of well-bred improved stock which are most useful both for dairying and for meat purposes. In the section marked in black, in Natal and East Griqualand, over 75 per cent. of stock is improved. In the other shaded centres, in one area from 51 per cent. to 74 per cent. are improved, and so you come down to as low as 10 per cent., where there is practically no improved stock, and moreover there are areas where there are no cattle. With that basis to work upon it seems to me that we do not expect too much if we ask the Department to lay their hand on a list showing what stock are awaiting permits in these various areas, and it will be a simple thing to grant permits for the stock, to have it dealt with in such a way as to enable the meat to be placed on board and to be sent overseas straight away. I hope the Minister will not take up the attitude of promising to do what he can. It is not that we doubt his promises; it is that we are anxious to have this done at once, and all the circumstances are most favourable to that being done at the present time. Now, to deal with another matter, I should like to point out how unsatisfactory the present method of subsidising the fruit boards has been shown to be. I would like to point out what the position of the Citrus Fruit Board is first. Á large sum of money has been authorised to assist that industry, and my complaint in regard to most of these subsidies is that insufficient attention has been paid hitherto to the losses that have occurred and the reason for those losses, and I also object to the method of maintaining such a loose check over this extravagant expenditure. There has been no check kept, really, and I want to show what startling figures have recently been disclosed, but not to the English Press. As far as I know the only publication in which an account of this meeting, the annual meeting of the Citrus Board, was published, is “Die Burger”. I have failed to find any report of it published in any other newspaper. But in the published account the figures for the last twelve months of the citrus year were given, and it was stated that out of £1,084,659 realised for the export crop, the exporters Would receive only £281,000. We all realise that feights are hign, that shipping costs are high, and also insurance, but when we come across administration costs of £21,976 for this one activity of the Citrus Board, the activity of exporting, which is deemed to be a very small proportion of their work at present, and find that technical costs were £8,072, and interest £17,000, in addition to these administration costs, it is obvious that the producer suffers. I have endeavoured from time to time to ascertain to what extent the subsidy has reached the people who have earned the subsidy by their efforts, either by sale in South Africa or by exporting. I have no remarks to make in regard to the export subsidy because in the past I think that has been fairly carefully regulated, but there is no doubt that subsidy has been paid on estimates of fruit irrespective of whether that fruit was sold or destroyed. There has been a considerable amount of fruit destroyed ….

What do you mean by destroyed? Do you mean it was deliberately destroyed?

Deliberately buried. There have been other cases in which no effort was made to sell the fruit. It has been allowed to go to waste or allowed to rot by the growers. I am not blaming the fruit growers but I am blaming the system under which this has been arranged. The Citrus Fruit Board has stated their policy. Their policy is to pay on estimates, irrespective of whether the fruit is sold or wasted and whether it includes any that is buried.

They have indicated, though, how these estimates are arrived at. It is not just an ordinary estimate.

The estimates are called for under the War Emergency Measure, an estimate submitted by the grower and having been made these estimates became the basis of the payment made by the Board, irrespective of whether the fruit is sold to the public or wasted. Now, I have had correspondence about that in the Press, and this is perhaps a good opportunity of giving the lie direct to the suggestion that payment of the subsidy was not based on estimates. That was the suggestion made by Dr. Allwright in reply to me, a very extraordinary reply he made to a comment I had made in the Press. He put in the forefront of his rejoinder that I was evidently an individual who did not know the difference between a subsidy and a pool. Now, I do not need any learned doctor to teach me the difference between a subsidy and a pool, and I will tell him that my purpose at that stage was to find out—and I have since found out without any shadow of doubt and without any help from Dr. Allwright or any help from anyone else—what the position was. I have discovered it from a document written by the Citrus Fruit Board and signed on its behalf and I want to read that document for the information of hon. members, so that they can realise what methods are followed by a board that publicly rebukes me for assuming that the subsidy paid was on estimated fruit and not on fruit actually sold or available to the public. The letter was written in October, 1944, by the Citrus Fruit Board and signed by Mr. Beveridge, who signed as Secretary to the Citrus Board and it was headed “Staatssteun” or “State Subsidy”. I hope that is clear enough. We, are not talking about a pool but about a subsidy. The letter reads as follows—

The extraordinary thing is the fact that the inefficiency of the accounting system of this Board permitted the payment of the same account for £833 18s. 3d. twice over within a week. The first cheque was sent on the 13th October, the quantities of the fruit being enumerated and specified. It is an extraordinary thing, and it is a magnificent testimony to Dr. Allwright who, I presume amongst his many duties has some responsibility for the accounts of the company, that that sum having been sent on the 13th October, a precisely similar sum was sent to the same firm for the same fruit on the 17th October.

It was a duplication of the payment.

Certainly it was a duplication of the payment, made within a week. Their right-hand knows so little of what their left hand is doing that they sent two identical cheques for the same fruit to the same firm to say nothing of the third cheque, evidently mis-sent, which the firm was asked to return. But for the honesty of the producer this money could have gone to the credit of the wrong persons—money provided by the State—but they knew at once payment had already been made the previous week and the cheque was returned. I am told this is not a singular instance in regard to the Board.

It is bettter for them to pay twice than not to pay at all.

This merely shows the haphazard methods allowed to prevail through want of care and scrutiny by the accounts department responsible. I have never known a state of affairs such as exists in regard to a Board which sets out through their spokesman Dr. Allwright to be prominent in the sphere of economics and the science of business. In regard to the overseas market I have quoted heavy expenditure which had to be borne by exporters whose stock was sent to England in 1944, but in addition growers had to pay £19,238 to packing houses, and all these items really demand investigation. If we are to be asked to continue a subsidy to a concern whose expenses are so unduly heavy in regard to administration as has been shown by their own report, I think when any further proposal is made to subsidise under the present state of affairs the public are entitled to know, amongst other things, before another penny is contributed to this board, why they should contribute so much per pocket to a company when fruit is left on the trees or deliberately buried. Then I think this is the time one should ask the Minister how long the policy defined in the war measures in regard to citrus and deciduous fruit and other measures, is to be allowed to continue. I hope the country as a whole will be relieved, as soon as possible, from the burden placed on them by war measures such as these. In regard to the non-exporter, the Citrus Board has imposed on him a limitation as to the amount of fruit he can sell, and that limitation is very restricted and happens to be a limitation that affects the all-the-year-round supply which some non-exporters are able to furnish to the public. There are growers within easy reach of the markets, not growers on a big scale but growers whose product is appreciated by the public probably more than that which ordinarily comes from the bigger growers, because their product is available during the summer months, and to all intents and purposes is purchasable all the year round. Those limitations upon fruit producers are very irritating to the public. They serve no useful purpose at all. Once it is possible for the citrus exporter to resume his export trade there is no reason why the war measures should be retained, and I hope the Minister will indicate he is prepared to grant relief on that account. [Time limit.]

Judging from speeches which have come from farmers in connection with agriculture, it seems to me that the different branches of farming here compete with each other in determining which of them receives most indifferent treatment. If there is, competition I would like to take part in it because I am fully convinced that neither dairy farmers, nor wheat farmers, nor meat farmers, nor fruit farmers received the most indifferent treatment during the present year. The mealie farmers are the people who have received the most indifferent treatment. I am convinced that the hon. Minister will agree because he knows the position of all the branches of the agricultural industry. I want shortly to prove my statements. In the pre-war years, in the years preceding the depression, when mealie farmers were compelled to sell their product on the European market at uneconomic prices they began to realise that they should not rely on an export market but should concentrate on the home market and should try to develop the home market for their produce. They took much pains and produced all types of products. Let me give some examples. People tried to can green mealies like American sweet corn. It proved a failure. Efforts were made in other directions and eventually we found a market for mealie products such as mealie rice, samp, “kienmeel”, and specially also brewers-grit. It is green mealies processed for the breweries. We had a fair market for mealie products. There was a fair demand and consequently mealie farmers were no longer so dependent upon the European market because they developed their own home market. In proof of the indifferent treatment accorded mealie farmers, I want to say in the first place that they have lost almost half of their production, and secondly, as a result of that, they still have to sacrifice the internal market to a large degree, and suspend the manufacture of products to which I have referred. We are able to a degree to appreciate that it was necessary because the production was not sufficient for the population. Those products however to which I have referred are mostly consumed by the European population and in order to provide sufficient mealies for the native population the Government must now, as it were, take the products out of the mouths of the European population if it wants to provide sufficient food for natives. I regret that not a single native representative is present because I would very much like them to take note of this that mealie farmers in South Africa during the present year are receiving double blows. They are losing half of their crops and are not in a position to market their produce as in the past for the sake of the native population. The market is sacrificed and I fear that it will be no easy matter suddenly to build it up again. It requires much time and years before a product is well advertised and before there is actual demand for it. We realise that when the manufacture of the product is suspended the European population is no longer able to buy the product and the result is that they seek substitutes and will buy rolled oats and Weetbix and corn flakes and the like and will forget mealie rice and samp and the other products to which they have now become accustomed, and if after years we start manufacturing mealie rice again we shall have to start at the beginning to advertise the product. Therefore it is definitely a loss to the mealie farmers. If it is not a direct financial loss it is nevertheless a loss which will be felt by our mealie farmers and they will suffer damage. But we are prepared to do it and we must do it. We merely want to ask the Minister to see to it that more damage is not done to mealie farmers as is unavoidably necessary and that these products will again be manufactured as soon as possible before they are forgotten so that the market may be maintained to a large degree. Then I want to make a few remarks on the control system. I do think that the time has arrived for the Government to have a thorough investigation made into the methods followed by the various control boards. If one listens to all the complaints made with regard to the handling and distribution of products one can only come to the conclusion that the methods followed in the trade and the distribution are not always perhaps the most economical and the most effective methods. We know that the control system was started in our country as an experiment during the years when we had no market for our products. I am now referring to mealie products. The Mealie Control Board was then established, practically in the form of an experiment, and it has continued through these years. But are we now sure that the methods in force today are the most economical and most effective methods for the distribution of the products? I do think that the Government should have a thorough investigation made not only into the Mealie Control Board but also in connection with the other boards such as the Wheat Control Board, the Dairy Control Board, and the other’ boards, in order to find out whether we could not improve control. In conclusion I again want to take an appeal not to forget the mealie industry. It is receiving double blows and I trust that the native representatives will take notice of the fact that those farmers are partly suffering losses for the sake of the natives.

All are looking for social security, but I hope that hon. members will realise that we cannot have social security in this country unless there is a prosperous and happy farming community. This pamphlet on the reconstruction of agriculture suggests four things which should be achieved before social security would be possible for farmers, viz. a reasonable price for the products of the farmers, preservation of his undertaking, maintenance thereof and improvement of his undertaking. As far as prices are concerned I want to say immediately that we on this side welcome and approve the fixing of prices but what we deprecate is the manner in which it is being applied and the failures which have taken place. With regard to meat, prices have now been fixed until April. What is the position today? Owing to the drought many farmers are compelled to send their slaughter stock to the markets, slaughter stock which they would otherwise perhaps have held back. But now they are unable to obtain permits to supply to the controlled markets, with the result that they simply have to send their stock to auction sales at which they suffer enormous losses, because oxen fetching more or less £22 or £23 in the controlled markets only fetch £15 and £16 in the open market at present. Farmers lose up to £6 on an ox because they have to sell in the open market to the speculators. The speculators perhaps fulfil a useful function but the position is that the Minister will never be popular on the platteland until he gets to the stage of supplying the required cold storage accommodation. Because there are times when farmers are compelled to dispose of their stock and if the required cold storage accommodation is available the Government would be in a position to buy up meat to place it in cold storage until supplies decrease. The Minister is surely again anticipating a shortage of meat after the winter. At present there is a surplus on account of the drought because farmers have to sell and farmers are suffering great losses. It is said that farmers receive fixed prices. That is only partly true and I think that if we are able to calculate the losses at present suffered by meat farmers on account of having to market and the Government not providing the required cold storage accommodation, we would be surprised. I suggest that the Minister should now start providing cold storage accommodation on a large scale and I trust that he will make the cold storage accommodation available on the platteland. That is also the wish of the agricultural unions. In that way industries will be more spread out over the platteland and if one thinks about the matter then the province which is most suited for cold storage accommodation is the Free State because large numbers of slaughter stock are produced in that province and wheat is also produced on a large scale, and if the cold storage accommodation is made available at the best places and is not concentrated in the large cities, it will be of value to the whole country. One of the best places will be Odendaalsrust which is at present a very small place but has a future with unlimited possibilities. It will be the centre of the gold fields and I trust that the Minister will have an investigation made into the possibility of providing cold storage facilities there. It will also have an additional benefit which is that stock farmers will be able to obtain by-products locally. There is for example blood meal and meat meal. At present cattle first have to be sent to Johannesburg and from there the by-products must be sent back to farmers. Transport charges are high. I am also not convinced that the Minister has done his duty in connection with the improvement of our cattle because former Ministers of Agriculture spent in the form of subsidies on bulls no less than £679,972 for the improvement of livestock, but the present Minister came along and with one stroke of the pen put an end to the improvement of livestock effected by former Ministers and he has stated that they were again going to use scrub-bulls.

Quite wrong.

I have the reply here given by the Minister himself.

Read it again.

The question was—

The reply was—

That was the official reply given by the Minister and it is unworthy of him now to deny it.

It is nowhere stated that I had put a stop to it.

The second question was—

The reply to that was—

That was already the position when I took over. It is not something to which I put a stop by a stroke of the pen.

The reply was that the amount had been spent up to November. In any case it does not suit the Minister to evade his responsibility in that way. He is responsible for cattle not being further improved, and he is destroying what former Ministers’ of Agriculture built up at so much trouble. I then just want to draw the attention to a telegram which I have received from the Farmers’ Association of Odendaalsrust in which they ask that I should urge upon the Minister the extension of one additional month in connection with the 6d. on the price of mealies because, owing to a shortage of labour most farmers are as yet unable to thresh. I want to draw the attention to the fact that the additional 6d. was offered to farmers to enable them to place their mealies on the market early owing to the shortage of mealies. It is exceptionally difficult for farmers as early as May to place dry mealies on the market. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) expressed thanks to Onderstepoort for the valuable services rendered to the farming population. However, there is something with which I do not agree in connection with the treatment received by farmers from Onderstepoort and that relates to the campaign against ngana in Zululand, the way in which the campaign is being conducted. They are trying to eliminate big game because big game are considered carriers of ngana. We know that ngana only occurs at places where you find the tsetse fly and the tsetse fly has been in Zululand from earliest times and to fight ngana you must kill the tsetse fly. That is something which can be done. It is of no use, for example, to say that because malaria occurs at a place you should shoot all the people, or because there is typhus fever all the people should be killed. We know that where there are no lice there is no typhus fever and where there are no mosquitoes there is no malaria and where there is no tsetse fly there is no ngana. Ngana is transmitted by one animal to another and to wipe it out you must wipe out the tsetse fly. The tsetse fly can be destroyed by using D.D.T. It is a new remedy for insects, and is especially effective against the tsetse fly. Already there are parts of the world which have been cleared.

Is a sufficient quantity of it available?

There will be a sufficient quantity. We are engaged in adapting a poison factory to the production of D.D.T. and it is expected that within a year approximately 500 tons of D.D.T. will be capable of being produced annually. If we use D.D.T. in that area where the tsetse fly is found we will clear the whole area and that area will be one of the most fertile parts for farming, especially cattle farming, and as soon as the tsetse fly has been removed ngana will of course be a thing of the past. In the same way we can prevent the tsetse fly coming down from the north and carrying ngana to our parts of the country. It is a most important matter esepecially for Natal. Natal is losing all its game reserves and if Natal does not wake up Onderstepoort is going to remove the game reserves of Natal, which constitute one of the main assets of our country. We must admit that wild animals are carriers of many stock diseases but it is not intended to kill of all our wild animals in the country because there are other ways in which we are able to prevent domestic animals—cattle and sheep—contracting diseases carried by wild animals. Then I want to direct the Minister’s attention to another point. I asked him in February whether he intended fixing minimum and maximum prices for eggs for the laying season commencing in July. At that time he stated that it was his intention but up to the present, he has not yet told us what prices will be fixed. We know that dealers at present more or less do what they like with the prices. One day it is 2s. 11d. and the following day it is 3s. 5d. I would like to know whether the Minister intends fixing egg prices for the laying season. Then I want to direct the Minister’s attention to the destruction of indigenous trees on mountain slopes. I specially have in mind now the Sekukuni mountain in the district of Lydenburg. There is a native reserve on the top of the mountain and the farms of farmers about the lower slopes of the mountain. The natives have destroyed the indigenous trees and have done so much damage that streams which formerly flowed down from the Sekukuni mountain no longer flow. All the wild animals have been chased away. Is it not possible for the Minister to make an arrangement with the Department of Native Affairs to fence in the slopes of that mountain-? It is a very important point and it is also one of the most important factors in combating soil erosion.

In the Gazette of the 30th April last, certain regulations appear dealing with the manufacture of margarine. I would like to know from the Minister why an important amendment in the Dairy Act, such as these regulations constitute, should be done by way of regulation instead of bringing in an amendment to the Dairy Act in this House. I think it is flouting the authority of this House to make such an important amendment to the Dairy Act by way of regulation. I would like to refer particularly to some of these regulations and to the power of the Dairy Board to get a levy on the sale of margarine. Section 5 (1) provides—

Does the Minister realise the implication of this regulation? The levy that the poor people pay will amount to £12,500 per annum; 3¼ per cent. on our output of margarine will amount to £19,500, a total of £32,000. The Dairy Board extracts £32,000 from the consumers of margarine. This is a very important matter. The regulations state that these levies are charged for services rendered and that a fund is to be established out of these levies and out of the commission in order to pay the expenses of distribution. It is an extraordinary position, because actually the Dairy Board has nothing whatsoever to do with the distribution. The distribution is confined entirely to the Department of Social Welfare. The Dairy Board is not concerned with it. I assume that the depots of the Department of Social Welfare will be supplied direct by the manufacturers, and I would like to ask the Minister to give the House an explanation of the services the Dairy Board actually perform in the distribution, for which they want an amount of £32,000. Who is going to pay this £32,000? To accept the principle that you are going to tax the lower income groups to the extent of an extra £32,000 for the benefit of the Dairy Board, well, that is beyond my comprehension altogether, and I do hope that the Minister will not in this case impose this levy or this commission as long as the margarine is confined to the lower income groups only, and that is the intention at the moment. We have never had an account of the huge levy that is being collected by the Dairy Board on butter. What has become of that levy? What is the board doing for it? To what extent are the consumers benefiting by that huge levy? If the Dairy Board were to come forward in a liberal spirit and say “we have got so much money on hand and we are going to use the levy money and send butter for that amount of money to the people in England or give it to Unrra” then I think there would be some sense in it. I hope the Minister will go into this question very thoroughly and see that this amount of £32,000 is not taken from the poorest of the poor whom we intend to benefit, and yet here the Government comes along and takes away more with one hand than it gives with the other hand. Then there is the question of the substitute margarine that is now being brought into the market. I do not like the idea altogether of having a substitute margarine brought in, however great the emergency is, and I do hope that if the Minister really finds it necessary to allow substitute margarine to be made, which I am afraid is going to create a certain amount of prejudice against the use of margarine by the consumers and almost kill this industry at its birth, that he will limit the manufacture of the substitute margarine to the time when the margarine factories in the country are equipped to produce a standard, good quality of margarine. I would like to ask the Minister what his policy is going to be in the future in encouraging production? Greater production in this country will solve our difficulties to a large extent. Today we find that the dehydration companies, which have done great work in finding a market for our vegetables, apart from canning, are short of cabbages and other vegetables. They cannot get potatoes, for example. They should be able to get all the supplies they need. I have before me a letter written on the 19th January, 1945, by the principal of the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg College which asks the farmers to discontinue planting. The letter is rather lengthy and I have no time to read it, but inter alia it is stated here—

It is true that he refers to the vegetables being used by canners, but as I pointed out there is such a scarcity of vegetables, not only for dehydration purposes, but there is a scarcity of vegetables on every market, that everything should be done to encourage the farmers to produce more. Yet here a farmer is told that because the vegetable canning industry is a doubtful issue, he must limit his planting.

Who wrote that letter?

It is from the principal of the South African College of Agriculture at Stellenbosch. It is such a very serious thing when we should embark on a policy of encouraging increased production. There is no doubt that if this farmer at Stellenbosch had gone on to plant in the usual way, he would have found a ready and willing market in Cape Town not merely for canning but to supply the market generally. This is a very important matter, and I should like the Minister to give his serious attention to it. [Time limit.]

I too should be interested to hear what the Minister’s explanation is in regard to the question of the levy on margarine, to which the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) has referred. I do not know what that explanation is going to be, but on the face of it, it sounds remarkably as though this is another of those devices with which we are so familiar for the restriction of production indirectly through the restriction of consumption. I am informed that the total butter production of this country is estimated at 60,000,000 lbs. I do not know whether that figure is correct; I cannot vouch for it, and if it is not correct I shall be glad if the Minister will give me the correct figure. I am informed that the total butter production is estimated at about 60,000,000 lbs. per annum’ If there was a butter consumption of two ounces per day per head of the population, excluding the rural natives, i.e. the European population, the coloured, Indian and urban native population, if there was a consumption of two ounces per day, which is half the army ration, this country should consume 140,000,000 lbs. so that you have the gap between 140,000,000 lbs. and 60,000,000 lbs. and the 12,000,000 lbs. of margarine will go a very short distance indeed towards satisfying the essential nutritional requirements of the people of this country. It is for that reason that those of us who are concerned about the consumers’ position naturally look with suspicion at any proposal that looks as though it is intended to restrict production and consumption. Suggestions have been made during this debate, in connection with the production of dairy products, that there is a danger to the dairy industry in the very existence of margarine production! I think the hon. Minister has effectively answered those criticisms, but I want to add that the very fact that this criticism has been made during the course of this debate, indicates that what is really the difficulty in this country so far as primary production is concerned, is the absence of purchasing power. If the production of any necessity in this country were surveyed on the basis of the needs of the population, I am quite convinced that a ghastly shortage would be disclosed. The problem is entirely one of the provision of purchasing power rather than a problem of production. In so far as there is a problem of production, the problem is, as the hon. member for South Peninsula reminded the Committee, one of increasing and not restricting production. We have had bitter experience in the prewar years, an experience the fruits of which we have been harvesting during the war years, of scarcity economics. I hope that now that hostilities have been terminated, we shall have no return to those policies. I must confess, with regret, my dissatisfaction with the replies that the Minister has given on the subject of the condensed milk position which has been raised in this House during this debate. It has been estimated that about 75 per cent. of the consumers of condensed milk are non-Europeans, the poorer income groups of this country, the reason being that in the quantities in which the poor people are able to consume milk of any kind, it is cheaper for them to buy condensed milk because they can keep it and simply take out small quantities when it is required. It would no doubt be better for them to consume fresh milk, if they had the necessary refrigeration facilities and so forth, but unfortunately that is not the position. Apparently in the larger cities the consumption of condensed milk, in comparison with the pre-war position, has been forced down to about half what it was. I know that is the position in Durban and I understand it is the same in other cities in the Únion. The production also has been falling. The estimate is that this year, 1945, about 21,000,000 lbs. of condensed milk will be produced and that if Defence requirements are taken into consideration, about 32,000,000 lbs. would be required. I believe the Minister has made arrangements to import about 4,250,000 lbs.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY.: No, 5,000,000 lbs.

I am obliged to the Minister for giving me the exact figure, but that also does not fill up the gap. Fresh milk consumption, on the other hand, which, for the reasons I have given, is not consumed by the lower income groups on the whole, has doubled in the large cities during the war and as the Minister suggested yesterday, that is to some extent due to the increase in the population of these cities. Regiments of soldiers have been stationed there and so forth, but I find it difficult to believe that the populations of cities like Cape Town and Durban have doubled during the war. The facts would seem to indicate that there has been a considerable increase in the consumption of fresh milk. That might be a good thing in itself but not if it is at the expense of the very meagre consumption which existed before the war on the part of the lower income groups in relation to condensed milk. I understand the policy of the Minister’s Department is that the more fresh milk that can be consumed the better, that the Department is prepared to allow this consumption to increase to its utmost limits, and if thereby there is a shortage of condensed milk, well, that must be met if possible by importation and if that is not possible, then presumably not at all. I want to suggest to the Minister that considerations both of justice and policy would suggest that some attempt should be made by his Department to attempt a just and rational allocation between the consumption of fresh milk and the consumption of condensed milk. At the present moment, as has been pointed out by previous speakers in this debate, an actual financial inducement has been held out to producers to divert supplies to the fresh milk trade and I suggest to the Minister that this is not a long-term problem as to whether peri-urban producers should be kept in existence or whether they should not. It seems to me to be a shortterm problem. I cannot see that there would be anything to prevent regulations being made by the appropriate authority that producers who previously supplied condensaries should continue to do so. If the price which is paid for condensed milk is too low, well, let it be subsidised. I am not concerned at the moment with the producers’ end. There is such a shortage that I would rather see the price of milk sold to condensaries is levelled up to the fresh milk level than the continuance of the present position. I am not suggesting that that should be done. To my mind that would be the lesser of the two evils, but I submit to the Minister that the appropriate procedure to meet the situation would be to compel producers who before the war have supplied condensaries to continue to do so, the financial conditions under which they should do so being a matter of arrangement between his Department and the producers. I would like to ask the Minister what answer there is to such a proposal. Let him by all means import if he can, but it seems to me from past experience at all events, that importation cannot adequately meet the needs of the population. In any event, in a country like South Africa we should import as little as possible so far as primary products are concerned, if we can produce them ourselves, and more particularly in the existing circumstances when America, from which country we import at the moment, is itself experiencing a period of food shortage. [Time limit.]

I would like to bring a few aspects of the fruit industry to the attention of the Minister. The Minister will recall that the question of fruit pests has been brought to his attention on several occasions. In view of the provision which has been made for the transport of fruit overseas by the shipping contract and the probable increase of export, this problem now naturally assumes a serious aspect especially as a result of three pests which seriously handicap the export of fruit. The first is the moth which injures a few types of fruit; another is the fruit fly which mostly injures peaches and the third pest is the honey louse in vineyards. All three are exceptionally serious pests in the fruit industry. I know that this matter enjoys the attention of the Minister’s Department but it has assumed such proportions in several districts that it is necessary for me again to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister and to ask what provision has been made. Particular concern is felt in areas where export fruit is produced. I shall be very glad if the hon. Minister could allay the fears of the House and the other interests concerned as to the progress made in that direction. The position in respect of the pests has now assumed such proportions that many farmers who were previously prosperous are being ruined. It is of special importance. I would like to discuss the question of the effect of control exercised by a few fruit boards, especially as it relates to the small man. I refer to the authority of the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Dried Fruit Board to prohibit selling to any consumer or organisation except through the fruit board itself. A number of difficulties resulted therefrom which not only caused uneasiness but also friction amongst many people. The people concerned who are mostly affected are unfortunately small farmers and some of these small producers are denied an existence as a result of the effect of the measures adopted by the board. I do not want to deal with the matter of principle. In general we must assume that the action of both the Government and the industry is determined by circumstances, but every measure which is adopted, or in any case every measure agreed to by this House, should not be considered an inflexible measure, and where in the initial stage it causes serious friction and serious difficulties I think the Minister should take the responsibility so to modify the administration thereof that it will not ruin some people. In the short time at my disposal I want firstly to deal with the question of the control of dried fruit and the effect thereof. But I first want to ask the Minister, as my time is very limited, whether he will not now give an undertaking to the small producers concerned, at the places which I would like to point out to him later on, to appoint an extension officer, to meet the people. I specially have in mind a few areas in which there are a large number of small producers of peaches. I have here a number of letters which really disclose a very sad position and I do not want to deal with them as single cases, but the single cases afford proof of the general serious position existing at present. I have here a letter written by a certain person, whose name I do not want to mention, who is a small producer of dried fruit; it is probably not his main line of production. The quantity known to me for this year was unfortunately only 75 lbs. of dried peaches. The total return was 9s. 4d. which was granted to him for the 75 lbs. of peaches. From that amount 4d. was deducted as a levy and he alleges that another 7s. was deducted without instruction as subscription to a certain journal, and he has forwarded me his cheque for an amount of 2s. as the return on his 75 lbs. of dried fruit. I have not yet taken the trouble to return the cheque. I will rather convey it to him personally after receiving a statement from the Minister which will console him. I do not want to air all the grievances referred to in the letters but we are here dealing with a matter which requires special serious consideration. The second case is that of a person who selected his fruit. He despatched 374 lbs. Of that quantity 34 lbs. were sold at 8d., 209 lbs. at 4d. and 131 lbs. at 1½d. His total income was £5 8s. 2d. for the 374 lbs. of dried peaches. This person is a landowner and that was his crop and everyone will appreciate that he is unable to make a living out of that. People are compelled to sell their dried peaches through the Dried Fruit Board. They are hot permitted to sell in their neighbourhood. In the one case the person stated that similar peaches could have been sold at 4d. per lb. but he was not permitted to do so and through the Dried Fruit Board received l½d. In a third case a person writes to me—

Then he encloses the results of his sales—

This unfortunate person received £2 7s. 1d. for 390 lbs. of dried peaches. The Minister will reply that this is not a graded product. I do not want to judge upon that. But, in the first case, these people are unable to make a living, and for that reason I shall be pleased if the Minister will undertake to have an investigation made into the special products of that area. I further want to make a request to him to send an official there to enlighten the people as to the planting of more suitable trees and also drying processes. Then I have here another case where people under the present system were compelled to despatch their pears to the Board. It refused to accept the pears despatched by this person. He dried them himself and he had a small amount over which he was unable to dry. He himself despatched them to the market and he received a reasonable price. He was however informed by the Board that he was not permitted to do it. That is a big problem because it handicaps farmers in disposing of their products. The sound idea behind control was to make the channel between the producer and the consumer as short as possible. Now we have virtually a total prohibition on direct sales by farmers. I am not prepared at this stage to propose an amendment. But it is a matter of so much importance that the Minister should go into this matter, especially in connection with grading which, in my own opinion, is not being carried out according to the same standard. [Time limit.]

As the Committee is aware I probably represent the oldest wheat district in South Africa, a district in which wheat has been cultivated for over 200 years, and therefore a district which has for over 200 years assisted in providing bread for the people. I believe that the Minister had no other alternative; he was unable to fix a higher price than the price recommended by the Wheat Control Board. But farmers in my constituency are very dissatisfied that the price was not fixed at 39s. 3d. as was mentioned by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). Wheat cultivation is one of the branches of the farming industry in respect of which there can be no uncertainty. The Wheat Control Board was in existence before the war; the particulars of the average cost of production were known to the Government and to the Wheat Control Board, and all that the wheat farmers have now received by way of an increase on the pre-war prices was the increased cost of production. In other words, wheat farmers at least are no better off than they were before the war because they merely received the increased cost of production, and that has been worked out very precisely by the co-operative societies as amounting to 39s. 3d The Wheat Control Board recommended 38s. and it was accepted by the Minister, I do not want to blame him but I want to say very clearly to this House and to the country that wheat farmers have not made any particular profit out of this war. And where wheat farmers and the Wheat Control Board were mognanimous the whole country should remember it in future when difficult times for wheat farmers again arise. They are entitled to demand that the Government of the country should protect them after the war in order to enable them to maintain profitable farming. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has disappointed me somewhat because I intended pointing out that there was one control board in respect of which there were no complaints, viz. the Dried Fruit Board, and just before I rose to speak that hon. member raised a few minor complaints in connection with peaches. I am fairly well acquainted with that position. Unfortunately there was an over-production of small and inferior dried peaches during the past few years. It was so bad that the company which dealt with those peaches suffered a big loss. It was absolutely impossible to sell those peaches in South Africa at the price recommended by the Board. The result was that the Dried Fruit Company was compelled to approach the Board for assistance and during the past few months practically most of it was sold to New Zealand but at a price which left the company no profit. Therefore the complaints which were made related to peaches of an inferior quality for which the price had dropped very low so that it was not profitable to farmers. But I am in a position to say that dried fruit farmers are practically 100 per cent. satisfied with the work of the Dried Fruit Board. It is the most successful control board in the whole Union. I want to ask the Minister, in the postwar years when control boards will disappear, to retain this Dried Fruit Board. It is absolutely essential that the dried fruit of South Africa, which is to a large degree sold overseas, should be of regular quality and grade which can only be achieved if our dried fruit is properly controlled. On behalf of apricot farmers in the Western Province, and I am sure also of the whole Union, I am in a position to thank the Minister for placing dried as well as fresh apricots during the past year under the control of the Dried Fruit Board. I do not say too much when I say that over 75 per cent. of apricot farmers in the Western Province and other parts are satisfied with the state of affairs existing at present. I am in a position to congratulate the Minister and the Dried Fruit Board on the services they have rendered to those farmers. There is another matter which I would like to raise. It is a very important question for farmers in the Western Province. And that is the question of Karoo manure. I want to thank the Minister heartily for the assistance given to farmers during the war years. We know that the Department of Defence was persuaded by the Department of the Minister to make lorries available, with a result that Karoo manure was conveyed to the Western Province on an unprecedented scale at practically nominal rail charges over the railways. If farmers in the Western Province had been unable to obtain the Karoo manure during the war years a catastrophe would have taken place. I have to thank the Department for what it has done in the interests of those farmers. But then we come to a difficulty in that regard. We know that the parts supplying manure have been divided into areas taking into account the places where they were able to deliver. In that way the Western Province also was allocated an area from which it could obtain manure. The difficulty in respect of the Western Province is that it has for the past 30 or 40 years obtained manure from the area assigned to it. The result is that the manure which was obtainable close to the railhead has now become practically exhausted. During the past five years jackal-proof camps have been made with the result that the supplies can no longer be supplemented as was the case in the past. I want to request the Minister during the recess to investigate this demarcation of areas. There are parts for which a large area was set aside which practically make very little use of it while the manure is urgently required in the Western Province. There are also other sources from which could be drawn and I would like the Department to investigate the possibilities in South-West Africa. I believe that there are still almost unlimited quantities of kraal manure obtainable, and if that is the case and if such manure is available, I want to ask the Minister to assign that part to the Western Province. The manure would have to come via De Aar so that it would practically be just as near to the Western Province as to the Transvaal. The Western Province is the part which requires it urgently and I want the Minister to ascertain whether this manure could not be made available to the Western Province. The position is connection with manure in the Western Province is becoming more and more critical. We must try to expand. Once more I want to thank the Minister for the great assistance he has given to the Western Province in connection with this matter up to the present.

One of the members from the Transvaal here referred to a vaccine for redwater and tick fever amongst cattle. I want to associate myself with him in appealing to the Minister to ascertain whether it is not possible to take steps for a supply of these vaccines in the near future. I want to bring to his attention a case which recently occurred at Hopetown where a farmer’s cattle are dying. This person trekked to the Free State with 300 head of cattle. He stayed there for several months and he then brought back the cattle. After two months they started dying and up to last week 80 had already died. He called in two veterinary surgeons and they said that they did not have the right vaccine for the disease. The only consolation this man was able to obtain from the veterinary surgeon was that he was informed that 40 per cent. of the cattle which became sick would survive and would be immune, and the others would die. We are able to appreciate what that means. I think the Minister should take this matter up very seriously and if possible make provision to make the vaccine available against those dread diseases. The second point concerns the training of extension officers especially for outlying parts. I recently wrote a letter to the Department in connection with the position at Upington and Kenhardt concerning the supplying of information and the rendering of assistance to the people, and the reply was that they did not have the staff to assist. I now believe that the extension officer at Upington has been transferred or taken away to South-West Africa for duties connected with the work of the Meat Control Board. I do not know whether my information is correct but farmers at Kenhardt have informed me.

Yes, it is correct.

It is not fair towards the outlying parts where extension officers have rendered very good services to the farming population. I feel that the war is now practically over and we have an opportunity of training those officers. The Department should use the opportunity of training more extension officers, specially for the outlying parts which should be given preference. The Minister knows that those parts of the country are expanding very rapidly. Especially during the past years they have developed much and there is not a single Government department which has kept pace with the development which has taken place. The third point I want to raise is the eradication of the “boetebos” and other weeds. Along the Orange River it has become a menace and the time has arrived for the Department strongly and seriously to consider appointing inspectors to go into the position. It is urgently necessary to eradicate those types of weeds and “boetebos”. Then there is another matter which I raised last year and that is the establishment of fodder banks in the country. I have already said that the war was practically over, and what remains will soon be over, and we should now devote our attention to the big difficulties with which we will have to deal in our own country. The establishment of fodder banks will make it possible for us in times of plenty to accumulate wheat and other vegetation suitable for fodder; the Government could buy it and accumulate it and in times of scarcity that fodder could be made available to those who require it. I want to appeal to the Minister to consider this matter seriously because, in my opinion, it is a very urgent matter. Then I want to deal with the present meat scheme. As I have said previously the aim of the scheme was in the first place to ensure profitable and paying prices to producers of meat; and in the second place to ensure that consumers would be in a position to obtain meat at prices they could afford. I want today to say that that was the chief aim of the scheme and up to the present the meat scheme has not been successful in giving proof of the attainment of that aim. As I said previously the great difficulty of the meat scheme, and I regret that the Department does not realise it, is the manner in which the system of grading is carried out. As long as we apply the system of grading as at present we shall have those difficulties; the difficulties with which the scheme has to cope will remain. I am in a position to tell the Minister that I went into a butchery this morning because I have been living in Cape Town now for three and a half months. It has been said that we could now again obtain mutton. This morning no mutton was obtainable. That surely is proof of something being wrong. What is more we are able to go outside controlled areas and load a motor car with mutton and convey it here if we are allowed to do so. The difficulty lies with the system of grading, and I want to give you a description of some of the grades. I refer to beef in respect of which there are five grades. The first is super, described as follows—

Then we come to prime, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister and of the House to the fact that reference is consistently made to the build—

Then we come to Grade I, and note again the good build—

Then we come to Grade II, and we must bear in mind that it is now practically the fourth grade. The description is as follows—

All the time we notice that reference is made to the good build. Then we come to Grade III, and we must bear in mind that it is practically the fifth grade, of the compounds—

The application of this system of grading and the difference between the various prices are the causé of the great difficulty in connection with the meat scheme. The difficulty in respect of mutton is practically the same. I do not want to read all of it because I do not want to take up the time of the House. I merely want to point out where the trouble lies in connection with the application of the meat scheme. It is the application of this system of grading. I do not blame the graders because they have been trained according to that system. It is the export system. It was originally introduced for export externally, and I agree with the fact that if we want to compete on the world market we should apply the system of grading strictly. But it is another matter if we want to provide food for our own people in our own country. Then in my opinion it is not necessary so much to emphasise the build and to say that the meat should fall under this or that grade. It is the cause of many of the troubles in connection with the whole meat scheme. Why do meat co-operative societies try to get away from the controlled markets? I am not here speaking from hearsay but from what I have myself experienced. They try to market their sheep outside controlled areas. It is not because they obtain a better price per lb. but because the system of grading is not applied in such a manner in those areas. They receive uniform prices and no discrimination is made between Persians and fat-tail sheep and other sheep. We previously experienced consumers in Cape Town being prepared to pay a penny per lb. more for meat derived from Persians and fat-tail sheep. They preferred that type of meat, because we know that it has a good flavour. But now we find under this system that Persians and fat-tail sheep are graded under an inferior grade to other sheep. I want to say this to the Minister that I ordered half a lamb from Kimberley to furnish him proof and he himself admitted that the grade was not the right grade. But the difficulty was that it was a Persian lamb and as soon as it comes to Persians graders pull up their noses.

[Inaudible.]

I am prepared to place my word against that of any other member in this House. Some time ago somebody from Hopetown—I think I have the inventory of the sale with me— despatched lambs to Kimberley. His neighbour had a fat wether 18 months old. I knew that sheep and it was included. That wether was sold in the lowest grade. Do you know why? Because the system of grading required it. The best sheep that one practically could find in the country was included and it was sold in the lowest grade simply because it was very fat. That reminds me of a person who had himself injected with monkey-glands. They injected an overdose and then he changed to a baby. Sheep must be fat but as soon as they become a little too fat they are considered inferior. That is wrong and it remains wrong. When we spoke about the meat scheme some months ago and when it was said that there was a shortage of meat in the country, I, informed this House that there was meat for everybody; and how long was it after that when meat arrived from all quarters and then the trouble was again that the market could not take all the supplies. I admit that the Minister has done his best, and I do not want to blame him. [Time limit.]

I can understand that there are many difficulties attached to a department like the Department of Agriculture. But unfortunately we also feel that the Department leaves much to be desired, for example in connection with control, as we have already heard from the last speaker and also from other speakers on both sides of the House. But it is not only complaints about meat, but complaints in general in connection with the products of the country. If we carry on as before, we shall continually cause panic among our people. The farmers do not know what is in store for them. The producer is always in an extremely difficult position, and the consumer suffers thereby. There must be something wrong. But we do not want to put all the blame on the Minister. We believe there is something wrong. What the Minister must do is to institute an investigation to find out, and I want to say that he must go further. There are the world markets, there is Australia, New Zealand and America who all do not have the problems in the same degree as we have them. Can the Minister not send special economists to study the system there? We have intelligent people, we have our own economists, and I am sure that they are not the cause of the difficulties. There must be other factors which cause our small country with its small production to be in such a critical position and that so much chaos exists in all the branches of agriculture. Not one section is satisfied. No calmness prevails. There is not the least proof that in the future we will be able to say: “Now we have guidance, now there is no problem which cannot be solved. No section can be satisfied with the position which exists at present. Last year and at the beginning of this year there was a shortage of meat and there were grievances and friction. Now there is again a surplus and there is dissatisfaction over the conditions. As things are going, there will shortly perhaps again be a shortage, and so it falls and rises and the country does not know where it stands. Where is the fault? The Minister is young and strong and active. I believe that he can put our minds at rest. We do not just look for faults, but we want to have stability, we want certainty in regard to marketing and price. If you do not have that, what future is there in South Africa? The Minister has a responsible position. In America the agricultural industry is a success.

Do you know what the position is in America in connection with meat?

In America you have millions of people and here in South Africa you have merely 2,000,000 whites, but we have a shortage. And the shortage does not exist in the platteland, but the friction and the dissatisfaction over the position is in the towns, where there are but a few hundred thousand people. The Minister refers to a country like America with millions of people, but he merely has the problem of a couple of hundred thousand people. Why can it not be solved? A measure of panic prevails among the people. The farmers do not know what is going to happen, what they must produce and what prices they are going to get. We want every section of the population to have its rightful share and to be able to make a decent living, but the Minister does not appear to see his way clear to removing the uncertain and unsatisfactory state of affairs. Up to now he has made a failure of the question. I fear, perhaps the Minister is not conscious of it, that the critical position in our country is in great measure due to certain big financial influences, certain people putting a spoke in his wheel and obstructing him. [Time limit.]

Before raising a few points which are of importance to farmers in the Western Province I would like to give the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry an assurance that the people outside are very pleased to learn that the Government has decided to contribute food to those countries overseas in which there is famine and distress. That is the least that we could do. The statement by the Minister has come at a very opportune time, just after we have discussed the matter of Unrra in this House. I have here the minutes of the American Congress where it dealt with the contribution to Unrra and I would like to refer to a speech made by Senator Taft and his remarks in connection with the contribution which were that he personally after the last war saw the work done by the American Relief Fund which distributed amounts of 2,000,000,000 dollars in a year or more and the Senator said that America had never yet expended funds in a better way, because it had led to sympathy. I also feel that we cannot provide enough for the countries which have suffered and especially the countries which stood by us during the war. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) has referred to petrol. I would like to ask what would have happened to us if we had not received petrol during the war, and we must know that other countries exported petrol to this country to their own detriment. Recently we obtained meat from Australia and we know that such meat was sent at the expense of its own population. We are not experiencing such a shortage of food in our country as hon. members of the Opposition want to make out; as if there was famine. They say that we must first see to our own people. That is right. We should not send food out of the country and let part of our people starve, but if we go into the position there is undoubtedly no actual starvation. There are poor people, especially natives, who are experiencing a shortage of mealies, but the more privileged are surely not experiencing any shortage. For a short time we were without meat but we did not starve and I say that our people are prepared as far as possible to provide food to the countries suffering overseas, and the right-thinking persons are fully prepared slightly to curtail their requirements in order that we may do our duty. I also want to emphasise the rémarks made by the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) in connection with the position of fertilisers. As the Minister of course knows we in the Western Province are largely dependent upon Karoo manure and during the past few years Karoo manure has become scarcer and scarcer, and it is necessary that the Minister should devote his attention to the question. More fertiliser should be provided for our farmers in the Western Province. We find that State guano supplies are reduced more and more and therefore our farmers should more and more make use of Karoo manure and also other fertilisers imported from overseas. I trust that the Minister will give his attention to this matter, because farmers in the Western Province urgently require manure. Another necessary fertiliser is phosphate. I trust that an attempt will be made for obtaining ammonium sulphate because there is also a great need for it. With reference to our export grapes and export fruit, we would like the Minister to walk warily and devote attention to the provision of shipping space during the coming season. We cannot expect a very large export but if a commencement could be made it would mean relief in connection with the position of table grapes and fruit in general. Then just a few remarks on veld fires. Especially in the Western Province large areas have been destroyed during the current year by veld fires. In districts such as Paarl and Stellenbosch we find that the parts which have been damaged most are the parts in the mountains, water resources from which our water supplies come. They have been totally destroyed. It is a matter which also deserves the closest attention of the Government. A measure of control over mountains should be introduced and also in respect of areas where farming operations are carried on, stern action should be taken. People should be prevented from making fires indiscriminately and picnicking and going away and leaving burning things. Sterner steps should be taken because negligence is practically the cause of all the fires. The position is already critical and farms situated at the foot of mountains and have never had a shortage of water are already having a shortage at present. Then I want to make a few remarks in connection with the settlers under the Department of Forestry. I would like to thank the Minister for what he has done. Last year we directed his attention to the position of the settlers and the fairness of their request for longer leave. The Minister complied with the request and they now receive 14 days’ leave on full pay, and sick leave for a longer period, but there is one small point more which is somewhat hard on them and that is rainy days and on which they do no work. I merely think of La Motte near French Hoek. I do not think that they have worked a single day during this week. It is a very wet part. The people are prepared to work but if it is too wet they do not work. Some can be employed in buildings but only a small proportion and then you find that the others at the end of the week have earned nothing. The people must live. They may claim full payment for rainy days but then it is deducted from their leave. They are old people and they work hard from morn to night and I think that they are entitled to at least 14 days’ leave without the rainy days on which they do not work affecting their leave to their disadvantage.

For just over six months I have been closely connected with the deciduous fruit industry as a consumers’ representative on the board. During that time and in the interests of the consumer I have attempted to try and seek the root cause of the increasingly high cost of the fruit to the public, and I have endeavoured to think out ways and means of cutting down that cost, while leaving a fair margin of profit for the farmer. I have come to the conclusion that the main fault is that our basic methods of production are wrong.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may we have your guidance as to whether we may discuss the Deciduous Fruit Board in view of the fact that the Select Committee’s report dealing with all the affairs of that board has not yet been laid on the Table?

A member may discuss the Deciduous Fruit Board provided he does not disclose any of the evidence given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts which has been taking evidence on the subject.

Are we to take it that this board may be discussed?

It may be discussed, and I shall watch that position.

I was merely stating my qualifications, if I may say so, to state the problems of the industry itself. I was about to say I have come to the conclusion that the main fault is that our basic methods of production are wrong and must be drastically altered, with the co-operation of the farmers themselves. On previous occasions I have examined the chain of costs and charges that are incurred—transport, storage, selling—costs which have gone to make up the final price to the consumer. I have in the past given some indications as to why the consumer is paying too much. I have suggested ways in which the price he pays can be cut and controlled, and the fruit marketed more cheaply, but as yet the methods I have suggested have not found acceptance. I do not propose to reiterate what I have already said. I should like to deal with one link in the chain of charges, namely the intake price. To my way of thinking it has not been fixed on a scientific and businesslike basis, but it has been arbitrarily fixed. The intake price constitutes the first cost of the product, and we do not know whether the farmer is getting too little or too much. No one has any sound criteria on which to judge whether the price is fair or not. My contention is that when we consider the intake price scientifically the farmer is getting too little and the consumer is paying too much. Can the farmer get more for his produce and at the same time supply cheaper fruit? The answer, I think, to the first question is that his methods of production, the methods of production of the whole industry are faulty and unscientific, and the answer to the second question is that if these methods can be changed the farmer can get more and the consumer will pay less. Although the deciduous fruit industry has a low rating as a producer of national wealth it is important as a branch of agriculture, and agriculture must always be the backbone of a sound national economy. I think if we apply scientific methods to the deciduous fruit industry, as we could to all branches of farming, we would be able to cut down the price to the consumer and increase the price to the farmer. Of necessity in the short space of time at my disposal I have to talk in general terms. But I shall make no statement that I cannot prove to be correct by actual figures to any interested member of Parliament. The cause of low profit to the deciduous fruit farmer and high prices to the consumer is not only faulty distribution, but high profits of retailers. The main cause is excessively low fruit yields, due to faulty farming. If one takes the pear industry as an example one finds that the yield per tree in the Western Province is probably the lowest amongst recognised pear growing areas in the world. In other words, the cost of producing the product we are selling is the highest in the world, and therefore our public must unfortunately pay for it. Taking the total average pear crop and examining it over a period of years in relation to pear tree census figures, one finds that the average yield per tree is only 66 lbs. of fruit per year. This excessively low fruit yield is due to a variety of reasons, many of which are curable. If we cure them we go a long way towards solving our problem of cheap fruit. The reasons for the low yield are: (1) Producing too many varieties; (2) growing the wrong varieties; (3) farming on the wrong type of soil; (4) growing on marginal soil; (5) producing with too little regard to climatic conditions. To illustrate and prove my assertions I have, taken one particular branch of the industry, namely, pear farming. The same arguments will, I presume, apply with more or less the same force to all three branches of the industry. I have said that too many varieties are grown. Actually, there are forty-three varieties produced of which 29 are normally exported. Of these, 12 varieties contribute 95 per cent. of the total crop. Having too many varieties causes overlapping during harvesting and inefficient and more costly pest control amongst other uneconomies. Actually they can be reduced to six or eight varieties to serve the needs of the industry. From these varieties the farmer can have a series of types of pear that can carry him right through the season. If he confines himself to a choice of Bon Chrétien, Clapp’s Favourite, Beurre Hardy, Beurre Bose, Louis Bonne, Packham’s Triumph, Winter Nelis, Keiffer and Josephine—if he confines himself to a choice of six from amongst these that I have mentioned, with perhaps one or two types added which experts would be able to pick out more effectively than I can, the farmer should have a series of varieties from early season to late season which would enable him to farm and market efficiently and economically, over the longest period of time. I have said that the wrong varieties are planted. Certain varieties should not be grown in certain areas—but are now grown there. Climatic conditions—which govern foliation—have in the past been generally ignored in planting, e.g. Bon Chrétien and Beurre Hardy should not be grown in places like Groot Drakenstein, Banhoek, French Hoek, Worcester, Stellenbosch, Robertson, Tulbagh, Wolseley, Paarl, Wellington—where the minimum temperature varies between 40°—44° F. or is above 44° F. Yet in the 1943-’44 season 40 per cent. of the Bon Chrétien pears actualy came from these areas. Farming on this basis becomes a question of luck and not a question of scientific planning. One of the reasons why we have alternate good and bad years is because of this use of wrong varieties. We must plant in the right areas, we must carefully consider the type and characteristics suited to these areas, we must consider temperature conditions and harvesting sequences. I have stated that deciduous fruit is planted on the wrong type of soil. Experiments conducted by the Western Province Fruit Research Station for pears show that six farms with suitable soil yielded an average of 165 lbs. per tree. Whereas six farms with poor soil yielded only 63 lbs. per tree. I might say that all of these farms were well cared for, well farmed, and that Codling Moth infestation was fairly uniform on all of them. I might also say that on one other good farm, over a period of three years, each tree yielded an average of 336 lbs. per tree. One does not expect such spectacular results from all farms. As in all forms of business one man or some men will stand out above all others. But what we must do is to raise the general level—the average level of farming. These investigations were all made on farms that are at present producing for the industry. Now who pays for this inefficient farming? First the farmer; next the consumer pays in increased prices. For, intake prices to farmers are based not on an average but on the most uneconomical farmer on the land. But even if based here on the average the costs would still be too high. And we must bring them down for the sake of the farmers and for the sake of the consumers.

I would like to make a few remarks on the prices for wheat and meal as fixed by the Government and I would like to point out that for the years 1943-’44 and 1944-45 prices have remained the same, viz. 36s. 6d. for A.1 and 36s. for B.1. I do not actually want to speak about the price of wheat because other hon. members will do so but I want to confine myself to the prices for meal and bread. In 1943-’44 the price for bread was fixed as follows: when less than three bags were purchased the price per bag was 43s. 1d. but when you bought from three bags to 35 bags the price was 38s. 1d. per bag. The price of bread was fixed at 6d. for a 2 lb. loaf. The following year the price of meal was increased by 2s. 6d. per bag for any quantity. But we had the surprising fact that the poor man, the man who was unable to buy more than a bag or half a bag had to pay 5s. per bag more than the person buying 35 bags. The poor man had to pay 5s. per bag more for his meal. I think that we should disclose this fact. We can see no reason why, if you buy less than three bags, you should pay 5s. per bag more.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

The price quoted here by me is for unsifted Grade I meal. I want to say briefly that consumers pay 4s. per bag more when they buy less than three bags of meal than the person who buys from three to 34 bags and 5s. more than the man who buys more than 35 bags. When I speak about the price of wheat I want to confine myself tot the price for wheat Grade B, because most of the wheat produced by us is Grade B wheat. Notwithstanding the fact that wheat prices remained the same for the year 1944-’45, as they were for the year 1943-’44, the price of meal has been increased by 2s. 6d. per bag. Bakers pay 2s. 6d. more for their meal without the farmer obtaining the slightest benefit, but the consumer has to pay a halfpenny more than previously on a 2 lb. loaf. Bakers will inform one that they get 112 2 lb. loaves from a bag of wheat weighing 200 lbs., that is, the water added by them gives them 12 2 lb. loaves more. If we take this at 6½d. per loaf then the consumer pays, if you fix the price of all wheat at 36s. to the farmer, 24s. 3d. more than the farmer receives. Between these two there are people who collect 24s. 3d. But what is more, where the price of meal has been increased by 2s. 5d. per bag the halfpenny increase on a 2 lb. loaf gives the baker 4s. 8d. per bag extra, that is, he makes a clear profit of 2s. 3d. on a bag of wheat. The aim of course was to compensate bakers for the 2s. 5d. increase on a bag of meal. If the price of bread had been increased by a farthing it would more or less have compensated them, but instead of that he makes a profit of 2s. 3d. on every bag of wheat. I may just say that I have not as yet received the latest figures but for the year 1943-’44 5,288,800 bags were milled. At 2s. 3d. profit per bag for bakers they received an extra profit of approximately £600 000. Consumers therefore pay more for their bread. Notwithstanding the fact that the price of wheat has not been increased, consumers are paying £600,000 more for their bread than during the previous years. I want to bring that fact to the attention of the Minister. This is a matter in which he is able to interfere. This margin between what is received by wheat farmers and what is paid by consumers is far too big. In the cities the larger portion of the population are poor people. It is the working classes. Why should they pay an extra profit of approximately £600,000 on the price for the previous year, and that to bakers and millers? I do not want to say that the Minister is responsible. The figures quoted by me are to be found in the Government Gazettes of the 30th October, 1943, and 27th October, 1944. These Government Gazettes indicate how the prices for meal and bread have been increased. I want to associate myself with other members who said that wheat farmers were in a very critical position. Especially wheat farmers requiring fertilisers for the cultivation of their lands and make no extra profit. They are practically farming at a loss. Notwithstanding this we find that the profit of the middleman has been secured and not only secured but he makes a clear profit of 2s. 3d. per bag and the price has been increased by 4s. 8d. per bag to the consumer. I therefore want to ask the Minister when he fixes the price of wheat during this year to find out whether the margin between what is received by the farmer and what is paid by the consumer could not be brought closer together. It is especially the poorer section of our population who pay most for their food. I want to point out to hon. members who perhaps do not know these matters that the poor man is paying 5s. more per bag than the wealthy man or the man who is able to buy more than 35 bags. That is the reason for my bringing this matter to the attention of the Minister so that the matter could be adjusted.

Perhaps it is time for me to reply to the speeches made here yesterday and this morning, and the first is that of the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus), who asked what the position is in regard to fertilisers. He also asked for a more favourable allocation to vegetable farmers if it is possible, and he also raised the question of delimitation in connection with Karoo manure. As he will realise, we found it necessary to introduce delimitation in order to use our railway trucks in the most economic and best way, and I think he accepts the principle of delimitation as quite a sound principle, but he makes the point that has also been raised by a few other members, that the Western Province has been allocated a region from which they have now for already a few years been getting their Karoo manure, and that they ought to receive a little better treatment. One of the hon. members has even suggested that the Government ought to allow farmers to get their manure from South-West Africa. I shall go into the matter further. We have tried to treat the Western Province as fairly and as favourably as we can. I shall go into the question further, and I shall see the Controller of Fertilisers in order to see whether we can do something.

. The South-Western Districts are more important than the Western Province.

We shall take the Southwestern Districts into consideration also. I do not know whether they also wish to get manure from South-West Africa. If that is the case the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) will perhaps have a little influence there as a result of his former association with South-West Africa. The general fertiliser position is that the Union yearly receives an allocation of about 200,000 tons of phosphate rock from Morocco and Egypt, and that is practically the maximum that can be handled in our factories in this country. Our greatest difficulty in the past years was the question of shipping facilities, and we have done our best to get the shipping space available in order to bring that quantity into the country and to have it worked up into fertiliser for our farmers in the country. The annual allocation of nitrate is about 22,000 tons from America and Canada; potash is 6,400 tons from Palestine. The shipping position as regards these articles is more favourable and no difficulty is experienced in obtaining that amount. We have also made every effort to work deposits in our own country, but the only one that is promising is that at Langebaan. It is worked up in a factory at Bellville.

Can that fertiliser be recommended?

We have not tried it out finally. The point is that it is less soluble for absorption by the plant than any other, and the advantage of it is only seen in the second year. The factory therefore suggests that a double amount be used. The demand for fertiliser is about half a million tons this year as compared with 400,000 tons in the previous year. There has been a great increase in the demand for fertiliser in the country. There is great progress. As regards the supply we made 135,000 tons of superphosphate available in 1943, and there was an increase in that amount in the following year. As regards shipping we are taking all possible steps to relieve the position. We have approached the British Ministry through the highest authorities in order to obtain the necessary ships to bring the phosphate rock to the Union. As a result of our representations the supplies from Egypt are being imported fairly regularly. We recently received 14,000 tons of rock from Morocco. The ships of the South African Railways could also assist. At the moment, however, they are being used to import corn from Canada and the Argentine. We bought about a million bags in those countries. As soon as that is finished they can be used to import the components for fertilisers.

Is there a possibility that we may get a higher percentage for the following season?

The position is unfortunately such that towards the second half of 1945 we cannot get the same amounts as previously, owing to difficulties in connection with shipping space. But as soon as the position improves, when more rock can be imported, we shall increase the allocation of the farmers immediately without their having to make further application.

When will the position improve?

About that I can give my hon. friend no assurance. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) has raised a number of points, and I am glad to see that he has on behalf of his farmers expressed his appreciation about my announcement in connection with the slaughtering of cattle in connection with foot-and-mouth disease.

The farmers appreciate it.

I wish, however, to add something to what I have already said. Credit is due to the hon. member that he especially raised the question with me of compensation for cattle that is headed off and slaughtered. His representations were successful and we undertook to make provision for this. I shall go into the question of giving effect to this policy as soon as possible, because I understand from my hon. friend that the veld is deteriorating and that the people are anxious that the plan should be carried out before the animals lose condition. There is at present an accumulation on the controlled markets, but after the end of this month it will perhaps decrease a little, and then we shall do our best to help those farmers get their cattle marketed before they have lost their condition too much. As regards weeds in the locations I shall undertake to discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs.

It does not apply only to the native area.

I shall in any case discuss it with my colleague. As regards cross-breeding of bulls and that we do not adhere to Africanders only, I wish to tell my hon. friend that we wished to promote milk production. I shall undertake to go with him to the experimental station, and as far as we are able we can go into the matter whether the scheme is sound. With regard to weeds I would also further like to tell him that the Division of Soil and Veld Conservation that is charged with the eradication of weeds, collaborates with other Departments such as Railways and Lands, and also with the Provincial Administrations. Consultation is continually taking place. Then he raised another matter about which I feel strongly myself. The cattle of the people are slaughtered out in order to combat foot-and-mouth disease, and I feel that they should not as a result of this be forced to pay tax to my colleague, the Minister of Finance. The people are forced to slaughter out the cattle, and there is much to be said for it that they should not be forced to pay the tax on this. I cannot bind myself in the matter, but I shall discuss it with my colleague. With regard to the destruction along mountain slopes were ploughing is done, I agree with the hon. member that we should do everything in our power to avoid it. We shall go into the matter and see what we can do. Then the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) raised a few points. One was in connection with the extension of the period in which a premium of 6d. a bag is paid. I wish to express my hearty thanks to the mealie-farmers who responded to the appeal and brought a large quantity of mealies on the market. It helped us a great deal to get in a large quantity of mealies with which to meet the new year. That period ends today. We cannot extend the period of the premium, but I say again that we are thankful’ to the farmers who came to our aid. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) raised a few matters. One was in connection with the point that inspectors should have the right to go and inspect cattle infected with ticks. We cannot do it, except in East Coast areas. But we hope to pass legislation next session to provide for this.

Is it compulsory dipping against ticks?

I do not wish to go into the details now. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. Van Niekerk) who can at times be very eloquent, raised a few points. He stated inter alia that the price of beans had dropped so terribly. On an interjection he admitted that the price was nevertheless still £6 a bag. That is more than a reasonable price. I think there are many farmers who would be thankful if they could obtain such a comparatively high price for their articles. Then there is the question of the Price Controller. Well, the fixing of the price of foodstuffs is a matter for the Price Controller alone. But he takes steps after consultation with the Food Controller, and no such price determination takes place before I as Minister have been consulted first. My hon. friend’s objection in this respect is not based on a sound foundation. Then he also raised the question of the £7,000,000 levy that the Mealie Board has already received, and he asked what the Mealie Board has done with it. He sits next to the hon. member for Kroonstad, who is a member of the Mealie Board, and I wondered why he has not asked him what the Mealie Board has done with the large amount. That levy was collected over a period of 10 years, from 1935 to 1945. Nearly £7 million of it was used in connection with the export of mealies, namely to compensate the loss on the export of mealies in order to maintain the local price for the producers; supplementary payments were made to producers; then there were rebates for cattle feeders and for factories. By means of this system we succeeded in paying the mealie producers during those difficult years considerably better prices than the extremely low prices of the export basis. But in 1944 no more export took place and the levy was then reduced to a minimal amount intended to cover the administrative costs as well as the storing costs and the payment of agents. After all the costs have been covered at the end of the 1943-’44 season the Mealie Board will only have a very small amount at its disposal. He also asked whether the Mealie Board is not going to compensate the co-operations from its Levy Fund for the damage they suffered as a result of the fact that wet mealies were brought in at the beginning of 1943-’44. He has accused me that we are again taking in wet mealies, so wet that the water runs out of it. My hon. friend is entirely mistaken. It happened in the past, but it does not happen now. The moisture content has now been fixed at 15 per cent., and there is no danger that we shall suffer any loss as a result of that complaint. The books of the co-operations and all the accounts must be gone through and properly investigated, and only after this has been done it can be decided whether the Government or the board will consider compensation. Then he spoke about an increase of 6d. a bag in the price of mealies. The increase that the producers get is 1s. 6d, a bag. I think that if we examine the matter closely, with the data we have about the production costs of mealies, the mealie farmer gets a better price in comparison with the increase in the cost of production. He gets a better price than the increased cost of production justifies. We know why the Government went to the length of fixing that price. It was largely due to the fact that the crop was so small. But one cannot apply that principle too far, because that would mean that if on the other hand the crop is very large, the prices would also have to be very low and that is completely in conflict with our principle of stability of prices. We must keep those things within reasonable limits. Then I come to the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) who referred to quite a few matters. The first was to the reply I gave him on the 9th March in connection with a scheme which the farmers drew up at a conference held towards the end of the previous year and which I unfortunately could not attend. I stated that the Marketing Board would investigate that scheme, and it has done so. Its finding was that it would be impractical to apply that scheme. The cost of production and the size of the crop, although they are extremely important factors in determining the price, are not the only factors. There are many other factors that have to be taken into account and such a hard and fast formula could not possibly be applied, especially in these times in which future developments are completely uncertain in all spheres.

/

What about the new scheme which the Marketing Board, according to your answer, is investigating?

I spoke about the Scheme which the farmers drew up at that conference and I cannot recall having said anything about a new scheme which the Marketing Board is investigating. I shall, however, again go into my reply. Several members have spoken about the elimination of samp and mealie rice. That question is receiving further consideration, but I do not think that the farmers need have any fear in connection with it. The market worked up with it is not very large. It does not amount to large quantities. On the other hand the farmer does not today really have to cope with many difficulties in order to find a market. The difficulty is to produce enough.

But what about the future?

The future of the mealie farmer lies mainly in the use of mealies as cattle fodder and for human consumption. Cattle fodder is a great factor. My hon. friend has stated that in a personal conversation with him I said that I am not afraid of over-production. I am not afraid in the near future. If we have a large crop next year we shall not be at a loss what to do with it because during the past few years we have had a fairly short crop one year after the other. I do not believe that a large mealie crop is going to cause us any trouble. If we have very large crops one year after the other then we may perhaps have a surplus again, but as regards the immediate future I am convinced that there is no fear of over-production. Then he also spoke about the grain-elevator system. It is not a clearly settled matter whether it is the function of my Department or that of the Railway Department. The administration of the grain elevators falls under the Railway Administration, and as the hon. member rightly said they were intended for the export of mealies. At present mealies are being used mainly in the interior. But if circumstances again arise that mealies have to be exported the grain elevators will again be used for that purpose. I do not believe that it will happen very soon, because it is our policy to use the mealies locally. I believe that it is the soundest policy to use more and more mealies for meat production, for milk and further dairy production, for the production of eggs, etc. I hope that we shall not soon return to the policy of exporting large quantities of mealies such as we exported in the past.

What do you think of the idea of early production?

It is not clear to me that that in itself will be the incentive that my hon. friend has suggested. The farmer usually waits for the first rains in order to plant. I do not know whether early announcement of the price will have that effect. It is also very difficult to do it because we have to take into consideration all the factors that I have mentioned. I do not now wish to go further into the root of the idea proposed by the hon. member. As regards the early announcement of the price, I doubt whether this would be the best method to encourage it, and there are practical difficulties in the way of it. It may be found possible to announce what premium will be paid on the fixed price for mealies submitted before a fixed date and this can be done before the price is announced for the next year. I shall have the Marketing Board enquire into the matter. It may be possible to work out what the additional cost will be to the farmer to plant his mealies early. Then he put a question in connection with the fixing of the price of fertiliser and the action of the Price Controller. What I did in that case was that when the price was fixed, I saw to it that the chemists of the division went into the matter to find out whether the price increase was reasonable or not. The finding of those officials was that the increase was quite reasonable, that the people were entitled to the increase. The main reasons for this were the following: (1) the increased price of the phosphate rock that is imported; (2) the increased cost in the factory owing to increased wages as a result of a wage determination under the Department of Labour; (3) the price of bags; (4) higher expenses in connection with the maintenance of factory apparatuses; (5) increased prices of certain components in the mixtures of fertilisers; (6) and the increased price of components such as fish-meal which is important in an organic mixture. It was found that although the price was increased for the farmer the margin of profit for the factory is smaller than it was previously, and I do not therefore think that we can blame the Controller for the increase. It was quite justified by the facts of the case.

How about a little more?

I have already dealt with that side of the matter and have shown that it is a matter of shipping space.

That is the old story.

It may be an old story, but we cannot make a new story if the position is still the same.

What about our own ships?

They first have to bring in the wheat from the Argentine and Canada and then they can go and fetch the phosphate rock. To the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) I wish to say that we have already discussed the position of the Deciduous Fruit Board earlier in the Session. We are going into the matter further and therefore I do not wish to make a statement about the position of deciduous fruit now. Then I come to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) who is not in his seat. He read a letter here in which a person writes that he applied for a permit on the 4th of May and that it was only issued to him on the 28th of May. He held me personally responsible for delay in connection with the issue of permits, and by way of interjection I intimated that the actual state of affairs is that I do not issue permits, but the Wheat Control Board, and he and other hon. members immediately said, “now the Minister is sheltering behind the Control Board, behind the Wheat Board”. It is rather difficult to grasp what actually is the point of members, because if you do not follow what the Control Board says, then it is a terrible sin, then you are the most dictatorial Minister that we have ever had because you do not listen to the board, but if there is a board on which the farmers doing these things are in the majority, and you just state the facts of what has been done, then you shelter behind the Control Board. If that is the kind of criticism, then I hope hon. members will not take it amiss if I say that the criticism seems to indicate that our administration is reasonably good. But I wish to go a little further and indicate how the Board is constituted, in order to show that his own fellow-farmers sitting on the board have a majority there. There are seven farmers, one civil servant, one tradesman, one municipal representative and one auctioneer. That is seven farmers and five other members. The Control Board is undoubtedly sympathetically inclined towards farmers. As usual, however, the hon. member did not state all the facts. Perhaps it was due to his ignorance. I do not wish to say that it was intentional. But I now wish to give the Committee a few more facts. The position is that there is a permit system in force. There is a permit system to make the supply to the controlled areas take place proportionally in accordance with the storage accommodation, slaughtering facilities and the demand. This is rationalisation that is generally desired, and on this basis alone can one have stability. It is obvious that in issuing permits for slaughtering facilities, the storage facilities and also the distribution quota for the different parts have to be taken into account. These are not all the factors that have to be taken into account. Two kinds of permits are issued, namely normal permits and urgent permits. A producer has to apply for a normal permit for a period of 14 days in which he wishes to supply. If the permit is granted during the 14 days, four separate dates are allocated to him on which he can supply cattle in the controlled area concerned. This period is necessary to make arrangement for trucks possible. Urgent permits are issued only if the cattle slaughtered during any week under a normal permit leave space for more cattle. There is, therefore, never an assurance that a producer will receive an urgent permit. It depends on the supply position. But further it is also true as the hon. member has said, that in the allocation of permits preference is given to producers in regions suffering heavily from drought. The fact that the producer whose case the hon. member mentioned, had to wait for a permit, may therefore easily be explained by the fact that there was a heavy supply from the drought inflicted regions so that it was necessary to make other people wait longer. But now I wish to remind the hon. member of another point. If we had not had the meat scheme and if we were to have a drought such as now, in a time when the supply of cattle is usually plentiful what would then have been the position without a meat scheme? We all know that the bottom would have dropped out of the market and that the farmers would have received much lower prices for cattle than they are now receiving for cattle which they send to controlled areas, and in view of this the hon. member will agree that it is not so bad that a farmer has to wait a little longer to get a permit.

We shall talk about that a little later.

Then the hon. member spoke about the supply of cold storage accommodation. Hon. members will know that I appointed a commission a considerable time ago under the chairmanship of Mr. MacDonald, who was also chairman of the meat commission, and a member of the commission is also the General Secretary of the Meat Control Board. I am convinced that the commission is doing excellent work and will eventually submit a very good report. The cattle industry in our country undoubtedly owes a great debt of gratitude to the very able and unselfish work that has been done and is still being done by Mr. MacDonald in this sphere. With regard to rams from Australia, about which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) spoke it is of course connected with shipping difficulties. The hon. member, however, also knows that originally Australia herself imposed the embargo. But that is a matter we can investigate further The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has raised questions about the administration of the meat scheme and also in connection with the Citrus Control Board. I was not quite able to follow his reasoning in regard to the administration of the meat scheme. He first of all prophesied very much severer shortages than we have had, and in the same breath he advocated that we should send large consignments of meat to Great Britain. I cannot reconcile the two statements. He suggested the remedy was a very simple one—to grant permits and send the meat overseas. If it was as simple as that we could have done a great many things. Unfortunately it is not only that. You can only issue permits to the extent of slaughtering facilities. At Durban, for instance, they have for many weeks been slaughtering to the fullest extent with the facilities available. How would my hon. friend’s simple remedy of issuing permits help us? The only result will be what he has complained about in his remarks, namely that the stock will arrive and will have to wait for a week or ten days before it can be slaughtered. That is not the way to remedy the position but to aggravate it.

There are other slaughtering facilities in addition to the abattoirs.

We are using every place where there are slaughtering facilities, apart from the abattoirs; and I am using all the cold storage facilities available. They are stacked full; the figure already stands at over 30,000 beef carcases. In addition they are slaughtering at Walvis Bay, and the meat is being stored there.

How much has been exported?

I have indicated that at this stage we cannot decide about export. The whole question will be decided when we are in a position to do so, and in a position to say what quantity should be exported.

By that time they will all be dying of starvation.

Why do they not use some of their 9,000,000 cattle they have?

Then the hon. member mentioned that “Die Burger” was the only newspaper that published the report of the annual meeting of the Citrus Board. I do not know what the suggestion was, whether he thought I should take steps to stop the board publishing the proceedings at their annual meeting. I am glad the hon. member appears to have no suggestion except that it is a compliment to “Die Burger”, and I am prepared to leave it at that.

Well, I hope they report my speech.

I hope you do not join us, though.

Then the hon. member said that the nett receipts in respect of the export of citrus was only about 20 per cent. of the gross earnings. I think he has not worked out the figures correctly. The position is that the gross figure for the export account in 1944 was £1,084,000, from which is being deducted freight and insurance which came to £246,000, leaving a nett figure of £838,000, less packing material, transport, etc., £373,000, leaving a figure of £465,000; so that the nett receipts to the growers is, therefore, round about a figure of 50 per cent. and not 20 per cent. as suggested by the hon. member. Then he has come back to the old question of paying out on estimates. I do not want to go over that in detail. My hon. friend knows it is not simply a question of the farmer going to his orchard and saying: I estimate so many thousand cases. The estimate is taken very carefully and is checked no less than three times, and quite often it is checked again by the actual deliveries. It is found in practice this kind of estimating is correct to within 1 per cent. or 1.5 per cent., and I think it is most misleading to say that it is simply a loose estimate. There is actually a provision that if a grower is not satisfied, a committee comprised of growers in that area may consider an appeal and decide whether the estimate has been correctly given or not.

Why should the consumer have to pay on estimates only.

The consumer is better off in this country as far as the price is concerned than in any other citrus producing country in the world that I know of. They are very much better off here than in America, which is a very big citrus producing country.

*The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Visser) expressed himself very pessimistically on the position of the mealie industry. I do not think that he meant it so seriously as the impression created by his pessimistic remarks. I do not think that he should feel much concerned about samp and mealie rice.

What about consumers?

Steps are being taken for the protection of consumers. Every step is taken to protect consumers, in this case mainly the native consumers. The position is that there is at present more rice in the country than there was for example a year ago, so that European consumers are able to obtain rice and potatoes to supply the starch ingredient of their diet, while natives are solely dependent upon mealies for their starch diet. The step has therefore been taken to provide mealies for the natives because the quantity to be made available for mealie rice and samp for Europeans was too small.

Rice is three times as expensive as mealie rice.

The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus) referred to figures given by me to him and he stated that by one stroke of the pen I have put a stop to the subsidy on bulls. That decision was taken before I became Minister.

But if you do not agree why do you not re-introduce it?

It is still in force.

Then you agree with it?

The scheme was originally introduced for a maximum period of seven years and the period expires at the end of this month. That is the policy. I am unable to alter it.

Why do you not extend the scheme?

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) raised the question of the commission of 3½ per cent. which is being paid in connection with margarine; he spoke somewhat feelingly about the amount of £30,000 that will have to be paid by the poor consumer. That figure of 3½ per cent. has been fixed on the basis of it being considered a reasonable figure, especially when one considers that the margarine has to be put in cold storage and payment has to be made for that. It is not the case as suggested by my hon. friend representing the natives that this is another way to circumvent the production of margarine. I think this represents a reasonable charge. If, however, members wish me to do so I am prepared to ask the Price Controller to go into that and to check the figure and to tell us whether in his opinion it is fair and reasonable. The same applies to the small levy which will be imposed to cover the small administrative costs involved; and there again I am prepared to refer it to the Price Controller, and certainly it can always be revised, and if the amount is more than adequate it can be reduced. The hon. member for South Peninsula criticised my Department for not going in for greater production, in fact for telling farmers not to produce, and he said he had a letter in which the prinicipal of the Elsenburg College had written to a farmer and advised him not to produce. He said it was a long letter and that he would not read the whole letter, and that he would only quote one paragraph. I asked the hon. member to give me the letter, and I find so far from it being a long letter it is a short letter, and the gentleman to whom it is written is Mr. Dorfman, who has made a great deal of propaganda against the Department with the letter. But when you read the whole letter you see why that advice was given, and as it is not a long letter I propose to read it.

The Secretary for Agriculture and Forestry, Pretoria, has informed me that the Minister received a telegram from you dated 31st October 1944, in regard to Government orders for canned vegetables; And in view of the fact your full address was unfortunately not known to the Department the Secretary has asked me to communicate with you to explain the position. In this connection I have to advise the War Office has up to now been the biggest buyer of canned vegetables, and until such time as new markets have been found it will be advisable for farmers to limit their plantings in order to avoid serious losses.

That is a horse of a different colour to what the member made out. The War Office gave large orders for canned vegetables and the tin plate was made available to us for the canning. Now that has come to an end we cannot allow the farmers to continue to produce enormous quantities of vegetables only for them to find that this market no longer exists, that there aye no facilities for canning, and that the dehydrating plant is not yet capable of absorbing this produce. In view of these circumstances the only reasonable step was to let the farmers know the actual position so that they might work out their production accordingly. That is a very different thing from saying in time of scarcity the Agricultural Department goes and tells the farmers not to produce. I think it is only right the Committee should be able to view that matter in its proper perspective.

Could not Unrra take some of it?,

I can assure my hon. friend we have taken every possible step, and if we can get the tin plate we may be able to kill two birds with one stone ….

Surely you are not going to kill them?

Shall we say we hope we shall revive two dying birds with one draught of water.

*The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) raised quite a number of points. They have been partially replied to by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) who is very proud of his Dried Fruit Board. I would however gladly undertake to have the cases mentioned by him thoroughly investigated. I will also find out whether it is possible to send an extension officer of the Department to the areas, if the hon. member would mention the areas concerned, so that the people there may be properly enlightened in connection with the matters raised by him. As he of course knows the whole idea of control is not to give big farmers an opportunity to corner the whole market, but it is also the idea to assist the small farmer. In connection with research with regard to the combating of pests much progress has been made. I gave particulars on the Part Appropriation but research is being continued at the Western Province Research Station and they have made exceptional progress, especially in connection with combating the moth. Unfortunately I believe that nicotine is one of the ingredients required for combating it and it is difficult to obtain nicotine.

Are we not able to manufacture it ourselves?

That has been suggested and we are going into the matter. Up to the present we have not yet come across a tobacco plant with an adequate nicotine content to produce it economically, but the experts are going into the matter. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. A. C. du Toit) raised the point in connection with the establishment of fodder banks and he said that especially now as the war was over we should go into the matter. Before the war we encouraged it extensively. When the war started and when the required materials were scarce the position was somewhat difficult, but I will again go into the matter and now that the war is over we shall see what we can do in that respect. The matter of the transfer of the extension officer at Upington; it unfortunately was necessary to send the officer to South-West Africa in connection with the administration of the meat scheme which has also been extended to South-West, but I did not like to see the part of the country where there are not too many officials suffer, and I immediately made representations to the Public Service Commission to appoint a substitute.

When will the officer return?

As soon as he can be spared in South-West. Africa, but in the meantime I have tried to find a substitute.

Extension officers are needed at many places.

I agree. One of the big difficulties of course is that the salary scale is not sufficiently attractive for men who qualify in the agricultural faculties of the universities. They do not come to us and when they do come they remain with us for a few years and then obtain bettter paid positions.

There are places where such men are urgently required.

I agree and it is also emphasised in the Report on Reconstruction of Agriculture and we hope that when the Centlivres Commission eventually submits its report it will be recommended that the salaries be improved. I trust that we will then have the position that we do not only retain the services of those we have in the Department but also that we will be able to extend the work considerably.

The same applies in the case of veterinary surgeons.

I again agree. I now want to deal with ngana and the tsetse fly. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) said that we could easily destroy the tsetse fly by using D.D.T. I do not know how easily it can be done. I believe that in America experiments have been made by aeroplane. I do not know whether that is the method advocated by the hon. member but I am in sympathy with the carrying out of experiments in this respect. We shall have to find the most effective method and I trust that the Treasury will enable me to carry out experiments.

Will we receive D.D.T.?

I believe that a factory is being established and that the product of our own factories will shortly be placed on the market.

When will we receive a little D.D.T.?

I believe it is now being manufactured and it will not be long before it will be placed on the market. Then I come to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) who asked me surely to send some of our men to America to find out how they handle meat control. I can say to him that the position in America is much worse than it is in South Africa. I have a cutting from a newspaper which was sent to me by Mr. A. B. MacDonald who was chairman of the Meat Commission, and it appears from the cutting that America has now reached the stage which we reached about 18 months ago. They now have a ceiling price and the cutting from the newspaper shows, as the hon. member would see from the illustration, the ox jumping over the butcher’s shop. The position is that those ceiling prices are not adhered to. Farmers are in a position to sell cattle far above the ceiling prices and butchers find themselves in a dilemma, just as was the case in this country, that they have either to commit breaches of regulations by buying in the black market or they have to go insolvent. We reached that stage 18 months ago and at present we have a meat scheme which has overcome our difficulties. Perhaps America will follow our example instead of us following America’s example. Permit me to read from Reuter’s Economic Services. It illustrates the position of the black market in America—

As far as I am able I picture the position in certain parts as approximately 50 per cent. of the meat being bought in the black market.

Are we not now eliminating the black market?

We have introduced an official service under the Meat Board to which has been entrusted the taking of further steps to eliminate the black market. It definitely is not so serious at present as it was in the past. To totally eliminate the black market has as far as I know been found impossible throughout the whole world.

The farmers’ black market has come to an end.

I think that I have replied to the various points which have been raised. We have now devoted considerable time to the vote and I shall appreciate it if we could now pass the vote.

It is customary for us to devote approximately two and a half days to the Agriculture Vote. The Leader of the House will have to think out a very good explanation to the farming community for making such a farce of this debate, why the vote should come up for discussion right at the end of the Session. I cannot understand why the work of the House is so arranged by the Acting Prime Minister that these late hours of the Session should be devoted to agriculture, one of South Africa’s most important votes, and that it should then be forced through in less than a day and a half, when ordinarily two and a half days are devoted to the Agriculture Vote.

Sometimes four days.

He cannot escape the accusation that it is being done intentionally.

We are not hurrying you.

We will remain until next week.

There have been so many complaints from both sides of the House in connection with wheat farmers that the hon. Minister should devote his serious attention to the matter. The dissatisfaction is not only on this side of the House. I want seriously to suggest that he should during the recess consider whether the time has not arrived for the appointment of a representative commission to go into the cost of production of wheat and into the margin which exists between the price received by the producer and the price paid by the consumer. The last commission which was appointed in this respect was in 1938, I think. After that the Department went into the matter. But it was not considered adequate by wheat farmers. I want to ask the Minister this afternoon whether he will not consider appointing a representative commission to go into the whole matter of the cost of production of wheat and the margin which exists between the price paid by the producer and the price paid by the consumer. What are the prices? The Minister has stated here that he fixed the price for this year as a result of the unanimous decision of the Wheat Control Board. If that is so—and we have to accept his word for it—it is just as well that wheat farmers should know the names of the 14 men in the country who helped them to obtain the price they are receiving at present, and for that reason I want to read their names to the House: Mr. Minnaar, Mr. Van Maltitz, Mr. Bekker, Mr. Slabbert, Mr. Brink, Mr. Delport, Mr. Pistorius, Mr. Klerk, Mr. Jaffe, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Geldenhuis, Mr. Conelly, Mr. George and Mr. Katz. The Minister did not say that these 14 men were responsible for the one matter which I now want to raise; he said that he would have granted 38s. 1d. for first-grade wheat, but he informed the House that as a matter of ease he made it 1d. less, and that was why the price was not 1s. 7d. higher than the price recommended by the Wheat Control Board, but was 1s. 6d. higher. I now just want to tell the House what this desire for ease is costing farmers; what difference that 1d. makes which he has now taken off as a matter of ease. It is £23,000 calculated on approximately 5,500,000 bags of wheat produced in the country. It is not a joke. It is a high price which farmers have to pay for the ease of the Minister.

It is not my desire for ease. I said that the Marketing Board recommended it and that I accepted it.

I then want to exonerate the Wheat Control Board in so far that it recommended 1s. 7d. and the Minister granted 1s. 6d. on the advice of the Marketing Board. Wheat farmers asked that the price should be 1s. 3d. higher than the present price, that it should be 39s. 3d. The Minister refused. He shelters behind the Wheat Control Board. He said that they did not want to do it but the responsibility is his and that of his Party. He has to defend it here in this House. It means a loss of the 1s. 3d. which wheat farmers demanded extra. £350,000 is the loss because the Minister is not prepared to take the right perspective of the increase in the cost of production—£350,000 calculated on 5,500,000 bags at 1s. 3d. per bag. Wheat farmers have reason for complaining about the Government. The other day the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) said that different governments had dealt badly with wheat farmers. We then asked him what government introduced protection for wheat farmers and he would not tell us but everybody knows that the Nationalist Government did it.

My time was too short.

Well, the hon. member’s time was too short to utter the words “Nationalist Government”. I want to submit another figure to the Minister to show to the country what is taking place, and under this Government. What is the result of the labour of the wheat farmer, if I may so put it? If you take 5,500,000 bags of wheat produced by the country and you multiply it by the amount paid by consumers for bread it amounts to this: Consumers pay for bread £3 0s. 8d. per bag for the bread made from one bag of meal.

What about the workmen who have to bake the bread?

There we have the children again.

224 lbs. of bread are baked from a bag of meal weighing 200 lbs. for which farmers get 36s.—that is Grade B. Ordinarily they bake them in loaves of 2 lbs., then it is 112 2 lb. loaves at 6½d. It works out at £3 0s. 8d. for a bag of meal for which the wheat farmer receives 36s. From that bag of meal bread is baked which is sold for £3 0s. 8d. In other words the fruits of the farmer’s labour are 5,500,000 bags of wheat, but multiplied by £3 0s. 8d. amounts to £16,560,000 which are the fruits of the wheat farmer’s labour.

You know more about law than wheat.

If I give the hon. member the simple little sum he will be able to understand it. [Time limit.]

I shall be pleased if the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) is able to be present because I want to address a few remarks to him. When I previously took part in the debate I made the statement that wheat cultivation received indifferent treatment. I went further and I said that the price of 38s. which has been fixed in respect of the next season’s wheat was inadequate. I put the question: If the Control Board recommended 38s. where the calculated costs amounted to 39s. 3d. at whose expense was it done? The Minister replied and said that the Control Board made that recommendation unanimously, that the Control Board consisted mainly of wheat farmers and those wheat farmers made the recommendation. I definitely want to deny that the Wheat Control Board consists of a majority of wheat farmers. As far as my knowledge goes one of the members of the Control Board is dependent for his existence upon wheat cultivation, and in respect of the other members who sit on the Control Board wheat cultivation is a sideline and not a main point.

Who is the wheat farmer on the board?

I do not want to give names. The hon. member heard the names read out here. Wheat producers are accused of being protected by the Control Board. That is the kind of protection they receive as I have endeavoured to show. I almost want to go so far as to say that this price is being forced on wheat farmers, because it is an absolutely unpaying price. They find themselves in a position where goodwill is lacking in connection with the fixing of the price by the Control Board by whom they should be protected. A price of 39s. 3d. would definitely have shown goodwill. I say that if we wanted to meet wheat farmers during this season they were entitled to no less than £2. I am very grateful for the objective and sensible way in which the hon. member for Calvinia explained the difference between the price which the consumer has to pay and the price received by the producer. It was very well done and he has saved me a lot of trouble for otherwise I would have had to go into that matter. He spoke with a knowledge of the matter and I want to subscribe to his remarks in that respect. I regret that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) did not choose to follow the same line. Please let us consider this national matter from a national point of view. It is a matter affecting the existence of thousands of families who are dependent upon wheat cultivation.

If I criticised the Government surely it is not politics.

No, but the reply given by the hon. member to my interjection created a totally different impression. I want to hope that while the Control Board makes approximately from £150,000 to £200,000 per year out of the levy that a portion of the levy will be taken to compensate wheat farmers during this season for what lies ahead. If that is not done, I say that wheat cultivation under these conditions is the Cinderella amongst producers, for the sake of the unenviable, fatal position into which they have been forced by necessity. In proof of what I say permit me to give a few figures, and here I would like to have the attention of the Minister and the heads of the Department of Agriculture. On every occasion when agriculture was dealt with we had the representatives of the Control Board in the gallery and I am disappointed that they are not there this afternoon. I would have liked to deal with them. Let us make a few comparisons to prove that wheat cultivation is treated indifferently. I want to compare wheat prices with the prices of other agricultural products. In 1939 8s. 6d. was paid for mealies. At present 19s. is paid, an increase of 120 per cent. In 1939 7s. 6d. was paid for potatoes and at present the price is 25s., therefore an increase of 320 per cent. I speak subject to correction. There are members here who know what I am talking about; they are able to submit the figures if they can do so. But I want to prove how unfairly and how indifferently wheat cultivation is treated. The price for onions was 6s. 6d. in 1939 and at present it is 20s., an increase of 305 per cent. The price of wool in 1939 was 12½d. per lb. and at present it is 22½d., therefore an increase of 90 per cent. In 1939 slaughter wethers fetched 25s. and at present the price is 50s., an increase of 100 per cent. Lucerne was 4s. and at present it is 8s., again an increase of 100 per cent. In 1939 lucerne seed cost 60s. and at present 200s. is paid, an increase of 333 per cent. In 1939 45s. was paid for beans and at present it is 160s., an increase of 346 per cent. 6s. was paid in 1939 for sweet potatoes and at present 13s. is paid, an increase of 116 per cent. In 1939 75s. was paid for wine and at present 150s. is paid, an increase of 100 per cent., in the case of brandy there was an increase of 250 per cent. and in the case of vegetables 300 per cent. In the case of fruit there has been an increase of 200 per cent. I can continue like that, but the time at my disposal does not permit me. Now I want to prove the exact contrary. What do you think of this increase: In 1939 22s. 6d. was paid for wheat, at present 38s. is being paid, an increase of 66 per cent. 15s. was paid for rye and at present 25s. is paid., again an increase of 66 per cent. Oats fetched 8s. 6d. and at present 12s. 6d. is paid, an increase of 47 per cent. For fodder barley 10s. was paid and at present 12s. 6d. is paid, an increase of 25 per cent.; barley for breweries 16s. and at present 21s., an increase of 30 per cent. I can continue like that. The smallest increase is in the case of wool and we know that the cost of production of wool requires least of all the necessities I have referred to. I for my part now ask: Why this gross injustice in respect of wheat cultivation? Why this compulsion and unfair, unequal treatment in respect of wheat cultivation? Was the price of 22s. 6d. for wheat before the war too high? If it was not too high—and nobody with a knowledge of wheat cultivation would say that it was too high—why then this compulsion and this disproportionate increase? Permit me to show how the prices of agricultural requirements have gone up since the beginning of the war. I merely want to refer to a few. The prices for spades and forks required by wheat farmers when working with their product have increased by 92 per cent. The price of wire which wheat farmers need for the baling of their hay and fencing in of their land have increased by 130 per cent. The prices for standards have increased by 125 per cent. The prices for wheelbarrows have gone up by 180 per cent.; the prices for binders have gone up by 50 per cent.; the prices for ploughshares have gone up 60 per cent.; the prices for fertilisers have increased by 90 per cent.; the price for binding twine has gone up to 300 per cent.; the price of grainbags rose by 300 per cent.; wages rose by 150 per cent. and grain dips by 200 per cent. Is it necessary for me to continue proving that wheat cultivation is receiving indifferent treatment?

Will you not for that reason support the appointment of a commission of enquiry for which we are asking?

I think we have had enough enquiries. We know exactly what the position is. In March last we again investigated prices along with the Control Board and we calculated the cost of production at 39s. 3d. and at present the Control Board comes along and recommends 38s.

It makes no impression on the Minister and that is why we ask for a commission.

We worked it out with the Control Board and if the Control Board recommended 38s. I will accept that it is very difficult for the Minister to exceed 38s. But I ask the Minister, and if he attaches value to these figures, whether he is able still longer to attach value to the recommendations of the Control Board and whether it is not his duty to step in and to see to it that the required compensation will be given to farmers to save them from the critical position in which they find themselves. Our production over the past year dropped by 1,000,000 bags. The result is that we are short by almost 2,000,000 bags in respect of our annual consumption. [Time limit.]

One would think that at this stage of the debate it would be almost impossible to raise something which had not been raised, but this matter which I now want to raise has not been touched upon because Pietersburg is the only place where it has been tackled. I want to say incidentally that I approached the Minister personally in the matter and I am glad to see that the Food Controller is also present. I approached the Minister in this matter. I refer to the saving of butter to be used for relief of distress in Europe. At Pietersburg they found the happy thought to sacrifice the butter from time to time supplied to the people for one full week to be devoted to relief of distress in Europe. A little pamphlet has been published and I notice that people have practically given their full support. I read here from the pamphlet—

I merely want to point out that here it is not a question of providing money or something similar, to buy something, but the people themselves go short. They are prepared to go for a full week without butter. Therefore the argument cannot be used that there already is a shortage of butter in the country. They are prepared personally to make that sacrifice. It is merely a gesture which has gone out from the town but I am convinced that it will be followed throughout the country provided the Minister is not only prepared to treat it sympathetically but will undertake to see it through. If every town and city in the Union were to follow the example of Pietersburg and if the butter is exported, I am convinced that approximately 1,000.000 lbs. will be made available for export to sufferers in Europe. May I just say that the Food Controller is very sympathetic but there are many objections. There is for example the difficulty of export. There are the difficulties of refrigeration, but we must surely try to overcome those difficulties. Under ordinary circumstances we export butter to Europe. If one is able under normal circumstances to export butter to Europe then surely it should be possible under the exceptional circumstances, where people are prepared personally to make the sacrifice, to do it now. The Minister is sympathetic but it is of no help in this case if the Minister and the Food Controller are merely sympathetic. The people in Europe cannot live on sympathy, and I therefore want to appeal to the Minister and the Food Controller not only to export the butter saved at Pietersburg but also butter which will be saved in the remainder of the Union if the example of Pietersburg is followed. If they will only comply with the appeal made by Pietersburg I am convinced that a large quantity of butter which is indispensable for the existence of the sufferers in Europe will be made available. I trust that I do not to no avail appeal to the Minister and the Food Controller to make possible the export of the butter. Then there is a second question which is also very serious in our opinion and in respect of which I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I am glad to see that the Minister of Native Affairs is present. Already provision has been made in connection with natives for the supply of mealies in the Northern Transvaal where an unfortunate state of emergency exists which practically amounts to starvation. But it prevails not only amongst natives. The same condition exists among the poorer section of the European population. Provision has now been made for the native population, but I want to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to see to it that provision is also made for the European population. We have many Europeans there who are just as much in need of assistance as natives. I want to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to make provision for the supply of food to the people, especially mealies and wheat, until the position improves. In this regard I merely want to point to something which is very disappointing to me. I have here a letter which is typical of what might happen. It is a letter by the Mealie Control Board in connection with the supply of mealie meal to a shop, a shop run by Mrs. Du Preez. It is a new shop and she complains that she is unable to obtain any mealies. The natives and even the Europeans go miles to get mealies at the shop but they say that it is not the policy to supply mealies to new distributors. I merely want to read the letter—

What disappoints me so much is that the manager is fully aware of the position and knows that the people are going hungry. It is not that the people want mealies for their animals but they want it for themselves and for their families and then it is stated here that new distributors may not obtain mealies. That is not the method which we should adopt in these special conditions which prevail. We cannot permit official red tape going as far as that. Those people must have the mealie meal to exist and one expects more sympathy from the authorities. Now they have to go for many miles in an attempt to obtain that food. The stores are about 15 miles apart so that people have to walk 7 miles to get to a store. The next store incidentally is an Indian store. They are able to obtain supplies but this European woman is unable. The Minister can advance no argument to justify such a state of affairs. And I think that he should point out to the Mealie Board that it should in such special circumstances provide for the needs of the people and should not advance the excuse that they do not want to supply new distributors. Then I come to a second point which concerns a matter which the farmers’ association has asked me to raise here. It relates to dips. I have here a letter which is very important especially for farmers. It was written by the Director of Veterinary Services and I would like to read the letter—

Farmers would like to know why they are unable to obtain arsenite of soda as such and why they should buy dips in this impractical form. [Time limit.]

I would like to support the plea of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). The fact that the people of Pietersburg have voluntarily decided to do without butter for one week in the month shows a fine spirit. That their decision to send this butter overseas is unanimous is even better and is symptomatic of the general feeling throughout the country, of the general desire to forego a little of our plenty so as to send it to help ease the shortage of food in Europe. I hope that the Minister and the Food Controller will make this desire possible. I am sorry that the Minister is not here for the moment because I want to refer again to the question of margarine. The Minister said that the ¼d. levy will be deducted for administration costs. I am not satisfied about that. I am not satisfied about the whole scheme. I hope the Minister will see to it that the administration costs will be as low as possible. It is the lower income groups who will use margarine, and if the price is too high the Government should see to it that it is subsidised. Another point is this. The Minister has told us that a charge of 3¼ per cent. will be levied on the manufacture of margarine for distribution costs and that margarine would be put in cold storage. That is definitely a new point to me, because I understand that as fast as margarine is manufactured so it is distributed through the Social Welfare Department, and therefore I do not see why there should be any question of cold storage for margarine. As it is, the Minister has told us that 12,000,000 lbs. per annum will be manufactured, but meanwhile he said that instead of the twelve million pounds we will get only eight million pounds. Therefore there cannot be any question of cold storage. It will be consumed as it is produced. I would like to know from the Minister then what that percentage is for. That is a charge which should not fall on the consumer, but should be paid by a subsidy. I am concerned about it, because of the consumer. Let me make this further point, that the Dairy Control Board has now put up the cost of State subsidised butter by one penny, with the result that the very lowest grade of State subsidised butter will now be 10d. If was 7d. and it is now 10d. The temporary margarine, I understand, will cost 1s. I understand that from newspaper reports, and I want to remind the Minister that the Nutrition Council found that it is not in the ultimate interests of the consumer to have temporary margarine. I want to remind the Minister about that because it is an important factor. Now the Minister, despite the recommendation of the Nutrition Council, is allowing margarine to be manufactured at 1s. a lb., and I want to know why. State subsidised butter is to be sold at 10d. a lb. I am anxious to see that the lower income groups get margarine at a reasonable rate. They are not able to afford to buy it at 1s. I suggest that margarine shall be sold at no higher a price than State subsidised butter. If it is true that even temporary margarine cannot be sold profitably to the lower income groups for under 1s. a lb., I say it is time that the State subsidises margarine, because if it is not sold at a reasonable price it will be of no use to the lower income groups; if margarine is sold at a higher price than subsidised butter, the shortage of butter will not be eased by the manufacture of margarine. One of the points about the manufacture of margarine is that during this butter shortage, if it is sold at a lower price than subsidised butter, it will release more butter for the ordinary market. I want to know then from the Minister firstly whether it is true that temporary margarine is going to be manufactured, and secondly whether it is true that if it is manufactured it will be sold at a price higher than that of subsidised butter. If it is in fact sold at 1s. a lb., it will be as much as the best quality subsidised butter, which is a matter of first class importance to the lower income groups. I have a constituency where there are many poor people and the difference between 10d. and 1s. a lb. is an important matter. [Timp limit.]

The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) followed by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) made statements in the House yesterday in an endeavour to disparage the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). Let me now tell the House that in so far as his newspaper is concerned, I am proud of the editor of that paper, Mr. A. G. Barlow, M.P., and the sub-editor of that paper, Mrs. Waring. I am proud of the independence shown by the paper in being anti-Fascist, and the anti-Nationalist tendency of the paper. I am proud of the attitude taken up by it in regard to the meat scheme. I am not ashamed of that statement “Strauss must go”. I must say this, that with all due respect to the Minister I still think that the meat scheme will go. The short-term meat scheme which this country has had over one year in my opinion has not proved its efficacy. I have heard producers from both sides of the House attack it and defend it. This scheme was brought in for the protection of the consumer. But the consumer’s position in regard to the supply of meat was not met. From the consumer’s point of view we are absolutely disregarded. There is no machinery whatever to improve the consumer’s position about meat. Mr. Chairman, I obtained some figures on this very question, comparative figures, showing the slaughterings 10 months prior to the meat scheme and 10 months after that. These figures show this: It shows that 10 months from the date of the meat scheme there was a falling off of slaughterings both for sheep and cattle. With regard to cattle for the 10 months before this, the slaughtering of cattle decreased to 87½ per cent., and sheep went down to 81 per cent. as compared with the previous period. In the nine principal areas cattle slaughterings went down to 85 per cent., only 2½ per cent. less than the reasonable amount they could receive. But sheep were down to 31 per cent. compared with the previous slaughterings of 81 per cent. In uncontrolled areas we find that except for the meat scheme period, when there were slaughterings of 87½ per cent. there were 100 per cent. slaughterings. With regard to sheep they got 150 per cent. On the Rand the figure was 47 per cent. and in Pretoria 27½ per cent. From the consumer’s point of view we find it even wider under the old meat scheme. I want to know what machinery is available to ensure that the consuming centres, the nine controlled areas, are going to get their meat supplies from August onwards. I am quite prepared to admit that the prospects are better. The Minister has a reserve of frozen cattle and frozen mutton. Still there is no machinery to correct any defects. The uncontrolled areas will have full supplies and the controlled areas will wait for the surplus. That is no protection to the consumer. I am not concerned with the producer but only with the consumer’s point of view, for which this scheme was brought in. In addition we have built up machinery which is extravagant and wasteful and which is not bringing the producer and the consumer together. I am convinced that the losses are staggering. Then we come to the long-term scheme. I maintain that if the long-term scheme is applied on the same basis as this it will also fail. It will have no machinery to make it succeed. I do not begrudge the farmer insisting that he should have a minimum price but I object to the machinery put up, which is supposed to give him protection, but absolutely leaves the consumer in the urban centres at the mercy of supplies. That brings me to a factor I think I must refer to, namely that this policy and this scheme is a Fascist scheme. It cannot succeed in a country like ours. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) made a statement yesterday which was amazing. He referred to the Minister and asked why he did not make use of propaganda. The Minister’s reply was that he did not control the Press. The hon. member replied that he should control the Press. Is that the way in which we should do things? Is that democracy? Is propaganda to be applied to bolster up, something which cannot stand on its own? I say that that is not right. I would also refer to the general policy which I feel is in existence in the Department of Agriculture. In this respect I do not in any way wish to make my remarks personal to any officers of the Department, in particular to Dr. Viljoen, who I know is a most hard-working and capable man. I do not think for a moment that he is responsible for the policy. I do not know who is responsible for the policy, but to my mind the economic policy which is enforced is wrong and contrary to the ideas of democracy and it belongs more to the totalitarian countries. One of the most amazing things is how the country accepts with criticism the idea of plans being made by men who make surmises and who, if they fail, have no real responsibility. If they cost the country millions, that is no concern of theirs. In South Africa this system is in its infancy, and that is why, at the expense of the hon. member for Hospital being called a paranoiac, I am very interested in bringing this to the attention of the House. [Time limit.]

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an urgent matter which was also raised at the beginning of the Session, I think it was in March of this year, and which is now again being mentioned in a letter which I received from my constituency from an important and prominent official. He writes in this letter—

I mentioned this matter on a previous occasion and the Minister then gave the House the assurance that everything was going well and that there would be enough food. Now we receive these disquieting letters and at the same time the even more disquieting statement by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) that we should export foodstuffs. Last night I received the following telegram from Louisvale—

This is a very serious state of affairs in the country. There is not sufficient food for the people and I think that it is of importance that the Minister should have this position at Louisvale investigated immediately. We do not want to reach the stage where people will be subjected to starvation.

Boer meal and mealie meal are not exported. We import.

That shows that there is a shortage of food. I ask the Minister kindly to go into this matter. Then there is another matter concerning the Wheat Control Board, particularly as far as the large mills are concerned. The large flourmills in the country are aiming at a monopoly and as a result of the policy of the Control Board, all these small mills are excluded. At the beginning of this Session, I put a question to the Minister, namely, what the quotas of the various milling companies were during the years 1942, 1943, and 1944; what quantity of wheat was imported; whether the grinding of wheat was done in the areas where the wheat was produced and where flourmills existed, and, if not, why not? Whether the grinding of wheat at the centre of production did not reduce the cost of production of flour, such as the transport costs, and if so, why that was not done. We have a very serious position in the country. The Wheat Control Board is following a policy of rationalisation and in doing so, is playing into the hands of the large milling companies which are obtaining more and more control over the milling industry in the country, with the result that the small millers, particularly in the Western Province and the Cape Province are being ousted. The result has been that these smaller millers in the Western Province and in the Cape Province have been forced to get together and to establish a company to manage their affairs. But they are faced with the enormous difficulty that no attention is paid to the development in their respective areas since the quotas were allocated in the year 1938-’39. As the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) said, these quotas have remained stable and not the slightest consideration is given to the extent to which the needs of the particular areas have increased. The reply which I received from the Minister on all my questions was—

Why does the Minister not want to give us that information; why is the public not allowed to know what the quotas of the various large milling companies are? Why are the people not allowed to know that a few large milling companies in the country are in possession of almost all the large quotas? Why are the people not allowed to know that as a result of that policy, the small millers have no means of existence any longer? The position at the moment is that wheat is produced in one place and must then be conveyed over long distances to be milled, after which the meal has to be transported back. I have here in my hand a letter from Kakamas. It is written by the manager of the trading stores there—

That is generally the position, especially in the North-Western districts.’ I went to Upington one day, and they told me there that there was a shortage of 4,000 bags of meal. The wheat was lying there at the co-operative store and the mill is just next door, but they could not take the wheat from the cooperative store to the mill to have it ground and supplied to the public. It is an impossible position. It cannot be the law of the Medes and the Persians and I want to ask the Minister whether he should not instruct the Wheat Control Board now to go into this matter of the fixing of quotas again, so that the quotas will be fixed in such a manner that wheat produced in the vicinity may be milled in order to supply the public in that area. The position as it exists at present, is entirely unsound. Wheat produced at Kakamas has to be transported to Clocolan and ground there and then has to return to Upington or Kakamas to be sold there. That certainly does not promote business. I know that the Minister is a business man and I hope that he will give his attention to this matter. This is a serious matter. The farmers in the Western Province are entitled to retain 25 bags of wheat and they can get a permit up to 80 bags. As a result of this policy small mills are closed and the farmers will be forced in the future to take their entire crop to the stores of the Control Board and then they have to buy their meal elsewhere. For that reason it is essential that small mills should be kept going. I would like to know what the profits of the larger millers are, I do not think there is any other industry in this country in which larger profits are made than these large millers are making. A few years ago, I think the Minister will know, the price of bread was increased by a ½d. and that went to the bakers. The farmers did not get it. The increase was allowed in order to cover the increased cost of the bakers. We are not quarrelling about that but we do want this whole question of quotas to be revised and a new allocation of quotas made. [Time limit.]

It is already late and most of the points to which I wish to draw attention have already been mentioned, but there are one or two little matters which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. Reference has been made to veterinary surgeons. Last year, on this same vote, I drew the attention of the Minister to the position and I think it will be a good thing if the Minister would in view of the young men now finishing and also those coming out of the army, make it more attractive for them to take up the profession of veterinary surgery. If there is one thing we need in our agriculture, it is veterinary surgeons, especially in a place like Worcester where the people have become aware of the value of keeping good livestock. I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider making these appointments more attractive. Then I also want to say something about horsebreeding. I am apparently the only member to raise the matter here, but I want to avail myself of the opportunity to express my gratitude to the Minister for having responded to my representations of last year and for having helped along horsebreeding. I understand that the Department is purchasing a few horses of light breed and we are thankful for that. But while we are grateful for that I want to remind the Minister that there is also such a thing as a heavy breed and there are many farmers who are interested in that. We shall be glad if the Minister would obtain a few horses of the heavy breeds as soon as possible. I wish to associate myself with the hon. members for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) with regard to the fruit industry. There is just one point which has not been mentioned and that is the combating of the woolly louse which the wine farmers have to contend with. The wine farmers have had much expense in combating this pest and it appears as if it has not been quite a success. I know that the Department has taken much trouble but I hope that they will proceed with the investigation as how the woolly louse should be combated, which is a dreadful pest to the wine farmers. Reference has also been made to the destruction of water sources by fires. I just wish to say that the district of Worcester is a hundred per cent. dependent upon irrigation and the water comes from the various mountains and from the kloofs around Worcester, and every one of these were laid waste by fire last year. The individual farmers appear to be powerless to stop these fires and I want to ask whether the Department could not devise some plan to combat this evil. If that could be done, it would mean a lot to Worcester. Then there is another small matter, namely the delay in connection with permits for compost. There is a firm in Worcester which makes a lot of compost and it takes a very long time before a permit can be obtained, which makes it almost impossible for the people to carry on. I hope that the Minister will expedite the allocation of permits for fertiliser.

I should like to continue some remarks I made earlier today on pear production, and I come now to the fourth cause of the excessively low fruit yield which has resulted in a fall in profits, the use of marginal soil. The stimulation which export gave to fruit production led to planting on entirely unsuitable soil. During the war consumers have been paying a premium to keep these farms in production. When we remember that a pear tree takes seven years to bear and reaches full vigour in thirty years or more, the need for close attention to soil depth, water-holding capacity, etc., can be appreciated. Climatic conditions must also be closely studied for really scientific farming. Each kind of fruit, each kind of pear, flourishes under different temperature conditions, and temperature is dependent in our mild Western Province climate, largely upon altitude. Growing in the wrong conditions can result in, and does result in, delayed foliation, crop failure, bad quality, low yield. Good temperature conditions governed by the factors I have mentioned, make certain areas very suitable for pears. The cold Bokkeveld, Ceres Basin, Montagu, Elgin, Langkloof and Hex are very suitable. Different areas are suited to different varieties of pear. Other areas are unsuited for any form of pear. Pears in certain areas suffer only in years of high winter temperatures, pears in other areas have normal crops only during winters of very low temperature. Other areas seldom have normal crops. Yet we find in farming that all these considerations are all too frequently ignored. That the wrong type of pear is grown under the wrong condition of temperature with resulting uneconomic farming and high prices causing both farmer and consumer to suffer, is evident. I may add that climatic conditions have an important effect on the keeping qualities of fruit, so important in merchandising and distribution, and in the avoidance of waste. For example, Bon Chrétien pears from Ceres store at 34° F. up to 50 days. Whereas the same type of pear from Groot Drakenstein under the same conditions lasts only 21 days. I have shown three things in my argument. (1) I have shown that low yields per tree are a primary cause for low profits to farmers and high prices to consumers. (2) I have shown that low yields are due to (a) many varieties; (b) wrong varieties; (c) wrong type of soil; (d) growing on marginal soil; (e) wrong climatic conditions. (3) I have shown all these conditions are curable. In outlining the considerations that should be but are not taken into consideration in the farming of pears I have ignored one major cause of poor production and high prices. I have but little time to deal with the subject, but I feel that I must refer to the codling moth infestation which is progressively increasing and causing high expenses to the farmer. When I mention that in 1916 it was only necessary to give three arsenate of lead sprays to a crop, whereas in 1937 up to seventeen sprays were necessary it gives some idea of how the infestation has grown and how farming costs have increased. This, of course, increases the cost to the consumer by running up the expenses of the farmer. It is an expense that he cannot really help or control. It is not, in most cases, the result of negligence or carelessness. It is one of the many difficulties of this country of very difficult farming conditions. If one single spray is left out or mistimed it can be fatal to a crop, and it must be remembered that spraying costs are the same for a heavy as for a light crop. Spraying alone has in some cases cost as much as 60 per cent. of the gross income that the farmer makes out of the crop. Is this condition also curable? I shall content myself with saying that every effort is being made to counteract codling moth infestation. It has been hampered by the war, though progress has been steady, and great hopes are entertained of the new D.D.T. chemical of which spectacular results are reported and of which it is the hope of everyone will relieve the industry of one of the expenses which help to make the price to the consumer more than he can afford. I have now dealt, to the best of my ability, with all the main faults in the industry—which we must try and correct, and which we can correct— if the farmer is to produce profitably and the consumer is to pay lower prices. Before the industry is placed on an economic basis, before we can really start planning intelligently certain preliminary investigations are necessary into the production of the deciduous fruit industry, and I hope that the Minister will consider beginning this task immediately this year. Already in a bad state before the war, the industry has retrogressed during the war and badly needs rehabilitation. And the public are getting tired of subsidising inefficiency. For the future sound planning of the industry certain statistical data is necessary. Certain information must be obtained. We have the machinery to conduct these investigations in the Western Province Fruit Research Station at Stellenbosch. We have the man who can conduct them in the person of Dr. Du Toit, who is head of the institution, a man who is typical of most of our high placed civil servants with whom I have come in contact, whether it be in the real sphere of social welfare, health or labour—men, mostly underpaid but with a high sense of service and a high degree of efficiency. It is essential to have (1) a tree and vine census by varieties and age groups, related to climatic zone, soil type, tree vigour and yield; (2) a cost of production survey showing the spread of costs in relation to the size of holdings, climatic conditions and soil types. Showing also the minimum yield per acre consistent with profitable return. The method of procedure for the census I have mentioned would be, according to Dr. Du Toit, first to send census forms asking for the relevant information to every grower in the different magisterial areas. Second, to send out trained census teams of officers and technical men of the institute, assisted by senior pomology students to follow up the forms, visit each farm and to check and verify and help with the gathering of the information that is necessary. It is estimated that the total cost of a year’s investigation of this sort would be a maximum of £3,000, surely a small sum to begin getting the facts needed to start the very necessary rehabilitation of this industry. When one has the census forms analysed one will have up-to-date information regarding the industry. One will have the facts. One will know exactly what farms have too many varieties, what farms grow wrong varieties, what farms are planting certain pear trees in the wrong types of soil, what farmers are using marginal soil, what farmers are growing under wrong climatic conditions. And we can set about mending the situation. The cost of production survey which I have suggested in addition would take more money and take longer. The quickest way of getting immediate results and working data would be to take a good cross section of the industry and examine that. From such an analysis we could safely draw conclusions which could be checked up from time to time as the study advanced. This also could be started now. The census which is the first essential and to which I want the Minister to agree to—if started in July could finish in a year, in time to use the analysed results for the next season. Meanwhile, the Government should, I feel, review the whole subsidy system. Instead of subsidising inefficiency, subsidies might take the form of special loans to finance farmers to make essential changes in their farming operations in the light of scientific advance. Though it will take perhaps a generation to put this industry and farming generally on to its feet, it will be well worth the effort and the money. I have attempted to deal with a subject that should take an hour or so in two periods of 10 minutes. I apologise to the House if I have been somewhat sketchy in my outline of the faults of this industry, but I hope that the bare outine I have given will suffice to prove the usefulness of practical research, and I hope that the Minister will agree to take the steps that I have indicated as being necessary.

The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) who has just sat down, has told us of the various proposals he would make in the interest of consumers for the improvements of the deciduous fruit industry in this country. I am sure if the point were put to the Housewives’ League or any similar sensible body they would agree that a far more effective cause would be to abolish the Deciduous Fruit Board altogether and to let us see the last of it as soon as possible. The hon. member suggests that a considerable loan should be granted to this board, presumably to perpetuate its existence. I am dealing with the remedies he proposes, and he indicated the continuance of this board side by side with his other recommendations.

I suggested £3,000. Not for the board, but for the Stellenbosch Research Station.

I have listened to the hon. member very carefully and I am not likely to have understood him wrongly. Actually this board gets a huge loan of £750,000 from the Land Bank guaranteed by the Minister for an innumerable number of matters which he considers necessary. It has also drawn over £1,000,000 by way of subsidies. What I should like to hear from the hon. member is what tangible proposal he makes as the consumers’ representative on this board, for the improvement of the consumers’ position and for the reduction of prices. In my personal experience I have never known such a state of affairs in connection with our fruit. I have travelled during this Session three times to Natal, and I have never known in all my years of railway travel such high cost for the various fruit of ordinary types that are available at the stations.

Hear, hear.

Imagine it, 6d. for an apple; that is a fine tribute to the hon. member who is the consumers’ representative on the board.

Apples are not controlled.

I am prepared to show that when the subsidy of £280,000 was issued for 1944-’45 it was stated that the inordinately high prices Of apples and grapes were to receive the consideration of the board. I am speaking of the operations of this board. Actually the subsidy was granted in September, 1944, on condition that the prices of fruit should be fixed by them. If the hon. member does not know that it is about time he did, and he will in due course have this matter brought to his notice in a more authoritative manner. Now I want to deal with one of the conditions under which the subsidy was renewed for another year. Evidence was not led on this question in the Select Committee, so I assume, Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to refer to it. One of the comments and final stipulations in the letter of the Secretary for Agriculture dated 27/9/1944 was this—

I take it the hon. member is the larger consumer representation we were promised under this condition. The larger consumer representation has made a long speech, and when I ventured to comment about the price of apples he said a moment ago: “They are not controlled”! Why then was this reference made in an official letter by the Secretary for Agriculture as to the probable benefits we should derive from the future operations of the enlarged board? The hon. member was, as a result of some mysterious method of selection which guides the hierarchy who deal with these things, chosen from the innumerable other alternatives as the consumers’ representative. Sir, I have never been able to understand why. I am certain that if the Housewives’ League, or some such body as that were given any voice in the selection the hon. member would be among those who “also ran”. His intelligence in regard to what the consumer can pay would be completely discredited. Instead of telling us about “marginal soils” he might have got more to the point and told us that the trouble was much more closely related to the simple and sober realisation that the board of which he is a member is making a hopeless mess of their concern. I want to show some of the huge losses this concern has been responsible for. I never heard of these having been referred to in evidence before the Select Committee, nor did I hear any evidence led on it. But these figures have been sent to me by one who has closely followed the work of the board, and who is entitled to have access to their official statements. From this official statement it is shown that 20,307 tons of packed grapes were recorded as having been taken on charge by the board—what is known as intake; there were 20,307 tons of fruit packed in lug boxes, half lug boxes and baskets, etc. When it came to the account of the disposal of the fruit it was found that there were only 18,542 tons sold, leaving a shortage of 1,765 tons as missing. That shortage has never been accounted for as far as I am aware, and that shortage in actual cash value must come to £60,000. These are figures produced as a result of a comparison of the accounts of the board with their official returns. Here you have a body that in one branch of its products alone achieves a loss of £60,000 through a missing and unaccounted-for tonnage of grapes. The “larger consumer representation” which we have on the board today might well devote its talents to the unravelling of this mystery without going so far afield as to tell us what we must expect if we cease the cultivation of marginal soil; I do not think that is going to provide any advantage to the consumer or satisfy his reasonable demands. In regard to the board itself there is no doubt that the consumers and many of the producers would breathe a sigh of relief if they could hear a public announcement that that board has been abolished from the face of the earth, and that we shall not be tormented by it any longer. There is no doubt that the fixation of prices which the Minister announced at the beginning of the season has been, as far as the public are concerned, only a means of raising the price all round against the consumer. We were told by the consumers’ representative in the earlier part of the season that he attributed the high prices of the previous season to overcharging on the part of the distributors. We are now told that fixed prices were established by the new board of which he is a member. Presumably we are now asked to accept his theory for avoidance of marginal soils and endeavouring to improve cultivation, and by that method reduce the price.

That will be very cold comfort to those trustful consumers who were looking to the hon. member with great expectations, and feeling that as a result of the mysteries he propounds to this House they might perhaps receive some reduction in the price of fruit next year or the following year. [Time limit.]

The hon. Minister said that we should send a message to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and we accordingly drafted the following telegram—

It is the same with the Minister’s meat scheme. He has a plan but will only deal next year with the plan which he will present to the farmers. In this connection the Minister told me that I would admit that if there had been no meat scheme there would have been a collapse of the market with all the stock coming on to the market now. I want to be reasonable and yield the point to him that that would have happened to some extent. But had it not been for the meat scheme, it would not have been necessary for him to import 80,000 sheep during a time of surplus because then a large number of the medium sheep would have been absorbed during the months December January and February. I say that it is the control system which has been the cause for these sheep being withheld from the market. It is the meat scheme which has been the cause for that. I would now like to deal with the system of grading and, first of all, I want to put this question to the Minister. He says that next year he will introduce a long-term scheme under the Marketing Act, but in the meantime, he must surely want to remove the sources of friction from the present scheme in order to improve it as far as possible. The grading system is one of the most important sources of friction and the second source of friction is the prices being paid for first-grade and second-grade mutton. I do not think that the Minister will give satisfaction with the staff he has at present. Do you know who the persons are to whom the sheep-farmers have to send their stock in Cape Town or Johannesburg to have those sheep graded? They are not people who have had previous experience and they receive a salary of approximately £200. Just imagine, we appoint these people; a young man at least wants some hope for the future. But these people start with a salary of £200 or something like £17 per month and it goes up to £240. I understand that is the salary. What person with any ambition will undertake that work. No wonder that it is a system of here today and gone tomorrow. These people come there temporarily and merely wait until they obtain another position. With this grading system, he will not get anything else. Coming to the prices for the different grades, I want to read something here which’ has come to my notice. It is to the effect that the Minister announced in Johannesburg on the occasion of the Spring Show that he was going to pay from 15s. to 25s. per 100 lbs. of beef more on that occasion than the usual prices. There are several agricultural shows in the vicinity of Johannesburg which feel concerned about this. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W.‘Van Niekerk) has asked me to point out that the organisers of the show at Volksrust are afraid that they will not have any animals on their show because people will naturally send these stable-fed animals to Johannesburg where an auction will take place on the day after the show because there they can then get 15s. to 25s. per 100 lbs. more. I will leave this letter with the Minister, and I shall be glad if he would give his attention to the matter. Then there is another source of friction in respect of the meat scheme and that is the margin of profit to the middleman. I do not want to say much about that. The Minister knows how dissatisfied the farmers are about this. These middlemen are making profits as never before. Then I come to the third point, namely, the seasonal price for mutton. I cannot understand that the Minister could have any doubt about that and that the Department of Agriculture can say that there should not be a seasonal price for sheep. I will admit that in the Karroo and in the north-western districts it is not necessary, but in the grassland areas no one can produce fat sheep in the winter, if he does not grow food for them, and there should be an additional price to encourage him to do so. Then I want to deal with something else which affects my own constituency. The Minister said that he was going to introduce a long-term scheme and that for that he needed abattoirs and cold storage. The Minister must not build all these abattoirs and cold storages in the large towns. I am thinking of a place like De Aar which lies in the centre of the sheep country. It is a centre where four important railway lines converge, one from South-West Africa, one from Port Elizabeth and East London, one from Cape Town, and one from Johannesburg. I further want to show the Minister how centrally De Aar is situated. Within a radius of 300 miles of De Aar there are 4,800,000 sheep which are older than one year. The Minister will realise what it will mean to the farmers and to the consumers if abattoirs and cold storage facilities could be established at such a centrally situated place. I wish briefly to point out what it would mean to the farmer. A farmer from Prieska sends 240 sheep to the market. He divides them into four groups of 60 apparently of equal weight. The 60 sent to Bloemfontein for a distance of 358 miles weigh 47 lbs. at the abattoirs; those sent to Johannesburg, a distance of 567 miles, weigh 46½ lbs.; those sent to Pretoria, a distance of 612 miles, weigh 45½ lbs. and those sent to Durban, 861 miles away, weigh 45 lbs.

But there is a difference in the price.

I am not concerned now with the difference in the price, but with abattoirs at centrally situated places. The Minister’s interjection confirms my argument. The distance causes a difference of 2 lbs. in the weight and the difference in price will not be necessary if such central abattoirs are established. I must hurry and I want to come to another matter, namely D.D.T. I see that Dr. Mönnig who is no longer in the service of the Minister is still attached to an institution which enables him to carry out experiments. He is attached to a certain organisation and he has made experiments with D.D.T. on Mr. Marais’ place at De Aar, which have been very successful in connection with the blowfly. I want to ask the Minister whether his Department intends immediately to proceed with those experiments and to make D.D.T. available to the sheep farmers. Farmers of the grassveld know that merino farming has become almost impossible there and the farmers are all switching over to Persian sheep. Then I want to point out to the Minister that the Karroo Agricultural Union, Saps, and Nats, and whoever they may be, have taken a unanimous resolution that Dr. Mönnig and Dr. Malan should be taken back into the service even although they belonged to the Broederbond. I would like the Minister to reply to these few points.

Two days ago, when my time was up, the Minister got up and he passed sentence on us in those protected parts, but the Minister must not think that we are meekly going to accept that sentence. There are other factors, however, to which the Minister gave no reply. A’ large percentage of the cattle in those prohibited areas is going to remain behind and what are the intentions of the Department and of the Government in the future? Must we once more be left to our own mercies and if there is another outbreak in five or six years’ time, must sentence again be passed on us and our cattle destroyed? Can you see s where it will lead to? Are they going to help us? I would like to suggest something to the Minister. He should take into serious consideration the question whether it is not possible and whether the time has not arrived for the Government, once and for all, to draw a line between those parts where farming can be carried on and those parts where game is allowed to roam. We should clear a road along the Sabi and the Olifants River and put up a wire fence there. In Rhodesia they have cleared a path 60 yards wide and erected a wire fence along the middle. Now the officials will say that the game has no respect for wire fences. We speak from experience. At the Selati Ranch a wire fence was erected along the railway line and that farm was thereby protected from a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. But the Minister has now passed his sentence upon us. Our stock will be destroyed. But what does the Minister propose doing with game? Must it be left there? I am now notifying the Department on behalf of my constituency, that we from our side, are now passing sentence on the game, a wholesale destruction of game, irrespective of the Protection of Game Act or the Society for the Protection of Game. We are going to destroy all the game, and if the Government does not want that, then it must keep the game away from there. If the game runs on our land and eats our grass, then it is our game and we reserve to ourselves the right of shooting all the game. The Minister must understand that. We are not going to allow sentence again being passed on us to the effect that all our cattle must be destroyed. We are not going to allow ourselves to be ruined every five or six years as a result of the weakness of the Department. In a period of five years, they have never yet investigated the position. They have not condescended to cross the border into Portuguese territory in order to see what the conditions are there. They are satisfied with the knowledge they have. It is to be regretted that we have to deal with a superiority complex in that people think that they have the knowledge and that nobody else can teach them anything, because they are perfect. I want to plead on behalf of my district, and I ask the Government to consider appointing a permanent veterinary surgeon for the Kruger Game Reserve. It should be a charge to the National Parks Board to have a permanent veterinary surgeon appointed for the Kruger Game Reserve who will have the right to shoot two or three dozen game after the winter, say in August until the summer rains begin to fall, without having to get permission from the authorities. He could shoot the game in the parts where any suspicion exists so that he will be able to investigate as to what extent the disease is spread by the game. The Minister has made his statement, but there are factors which he did not take into consideration. The animals are destroyed and next year the farmers will have to go to the Department of Finance with their hats in their hands in connection with their income tax. They would have to say to the Revenue Office: No, but you cannot assess me on the revenue I derived from the cattle that were slaughtered. We are asking that those things should be rectified before the farmers carry out this sentence. We want to know from the Minister what policy he intends pursuing. The Minister has announced that he will see the Treasury about this matter, but we want to know now what the position is to going to be. It is something which should have been arranged beforehand. For quite a few years those farmers were not entitled to bring their animals to the market. Now they have to slaughter those animals, which will mean that for the year of assessment 1945-’46, they will have a large income from animals which they are forced to put on the market and perhaps some of them may now have to pay super tax. But we must not forget that for eighteen months they had no income. There are many people who were practically stared in the face by ruin and I say that the Minister should have given his attention to this matter in order that we may know what the position is going to be. Then there are also other stock diseases such as heartwater, about which I want to say something. This is a disease which every year claims a large number of victims. We want to ask that people at Onderstepoort should specially be entrusted with the task of exploring the possibilities of supplying a remedy for this disease to the farmers. I think we will be amazed to see the figures of the number of animals dying each year as a result of this disease. Heartwater is a disease which does not only exist in the Lowveld but it is also taking root in the Highveld and the people are at their wits’ end as to a means for combating this disease. There are parts where the cattle are being dipped regularly and that is a preventive measure to a certain extent, but we would like to have a remedy with which to treat the animals when they have contracted the disease. Then there is the question of arsenate of soda. It is surprisingly difficult to get any. We continually have to hunt around to try and get it and it is indispensable for our dip. During the last war arsenate of soda was obtained from a gold mine in our area and the farmers used that. I would like to know whether something similar could not be developed so that we could obtain the necessary dip. [Time limit.]

When my time expired, I was busy pointing out the unfair manner in which the wheat farmer is being treated. For the five and a half million bags of wheat produced by him, £16½ million are paid by those who have to buy the bread. The wheat farmer must produce the wheat by the sweat of his brow, and of the £16½ million he gets £9,900,000 reckoned on 5½ million bags at £1 16s. per bag, which is the average price. In other words, £6,600,000 go into the pockets of other persons who are in between. In other words, between the man who produces and the man who buys the bread, an amount of £6,600,000 disappears and that is a scandal. What makes one feel so discouraged in South Africa, is that this Government is so firmly in the grip of a few big millers who draw high dividends, that one cannot make it realise that it should not allow that the wheat farmers on the one hand should be in want and that on the other hand large profits should be made by those millers. I have here in front of me the Government’s proclamation in connection with the price of bread. There are different grades of wheat and also classes of wheat. There are four classes and one additional, and they all differ in price. They are from class one to class five, but when the bread is baked, the miller mixes all those different classes and grades and he sells the bread at one and the same price. Here I have the proclamation in front of me. The maximum price of all bread is 6½d. It appears to me to be a complete scandal that the wheat farmer is paid so little, that he gets different grades and classes, five grades and classes and prices, but according to the proclamation of the Government, the big miller comes along and he mixes all the grades and classes, good and bad, and he sells the bread to the consumer at a fixed price.

One could almost call it fraud.

It is almost that. In any case, the wheat farmer gets the worst of the bargain. It is a fraud against him. It is also fraud against the man who buys the bread. The Government is simply under the thumb of the big millers, and the consumer and the wheat farmer get the worst of the bargain. The consumer who buys the bread, thinks he is getting first grade, because he sees the price of first grade wheat. What he actually gets, is a mixture of all the grades which is being sold to him at one fixed price. If the Minister wishes to deny that, he is welcome to do so. Another matter I wish to raise in support of my plea that the time is ripe for a commission to be appointed to enquire into the whole question of the wheat industry, is that the Government is actually violating its own regulations and laws just as the Minister of Transport has already done long ago. A proclamation was issued that no bottle shall be cut to make glasses and he cut as many as he could in order to serve beer to people on the trains. I am mentioning this as an introduction to what I am going to say now. The Government issued a proclamation that there shall be no conditional selling of articles; but what does the Government do now? At one stage the Government imported binder twine because it thought that there would not be sufficient in the country. At a given moment, the Government suddenly discovered that so much binder twine is made in the country that it was afraid that it would be stuck with its binder twine and so in April, a circular was issued— A.R. 1945/1— in which it is stated—

A regulation was issued that there shall be no conditional selling but here the Government comes along and it issues a circular which forces the people to buy conditionally. Have you ever seen a Government violating its own laws in such a manner. Now those poor people are left to hold the baby, or the binder twine. Sufficient quantities are made in the country, but because the Government had imported binder twine at a higher price, the farmers in South Africa are now being placed in the position, according to this circular of April, that if they buy five bales of binder wine, they have to take two bales of the expensive imported binder twine. They have to pay £1 11s. for the South African binder twine, but for every three bales of that, they have to take two bales of the expensive imported binder twine. And that quite apart from this point which I am raising, that the Government is actually violating its own regulations. In conclusion I wish to say this in regard to a commission of enquiry, that the last time we had a commission of enquiry into the wheat industry, was in 1938. After that there have been Departmental enquiries, and it is high time after so many years, that another commission should be appointed. But let us have a representative commission. Allow the wheat farmers, through their organisations, to appoint representatives on the commission this time. There must be experts, but allow the organised wheat farmers this time to have their own representatives on the commission, and let those representatives be appointed by themselves and not by the Minister. We have heard today in what way the Control Board is constituted. An accusation was made against you today by an hon. member on your own side who told you that you had a Wheat Control Board at the moment on which there was only one active wheat farmer whose main income is derived from the wheat industry. It was not said by any of us from this side, otherwise you might have said that it was not correct. It was said by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) and addresse to you. What was his argument? His argument was that here you have a Wheat Control Board, which is not representative of the wheat industry because there is only one farmer on the Wheat Control Board whose whole income is derived from the wheat industry. Now I say to you today that if you agree to what we are asking—and I hope that you will do so—and you give us a commission which will enquire into the production costs of wheat, then we ask at the same time to give the wheat farmers an opportunity of electing their own representatives on that commission.

To say all I would still like to say would take me another half an hour but I would not like to delay the debate and the adoption of this vote after the Minister has been subjected to so much criticism and since he probably feels tired at the end of a difficult week, and I shall therefore confine myself to a few additions to the arguments which I used during the earlier stages of this debate. When my time expired I was dealing with the decrease in the production of wheat during the past year. The fact is that during the last two years our oats and barley production increased in relation to the decrease in our wheat production. I would now like to show what is being done today as a result of that. We knew at the time when fertiliser was being rationed and the ration of fertiliser had been curtailed that people would automatically switch over to the production of oats and barley because the fertiliser required for the production thereof is so much less than that required for the production of wheat. Moreover we had two exceptionally good seasons for oats and barley, with the result that production was considerably greater and in spite of the high production of oats and barley, which resulted in surpluses, we had strict control. Not only did the strict control prevent those surpluses from being used up but the consumers were forced to use an inferior article whereas they would have consumed all of the better quality article if they had been allowed to do so. The result was that we in the Western Province who produce the better article, were victimised for the sake of an inferior article which was imported from other parts of the country to the Western Province and elsewhere for consumption in competition with our product at the same price as our better quality oats. It is impossible for us to be satisfied with this state of affairs. It is obvious that we will object against it for the sake of our own existence. I have here two samples of oats which should like to show the Minister. The one sample is taken from some other part of the country and the other sample was produced in the Western Province, and it requires no expert to realise that it is impossible to force these two articles on the market at the same price. Any layman can see that. In spite of that the price is the same, with the result that our surplus product accumulated and as a result of the accumulation the price has been reduced from 15s. last year, to 12s. 6d. I think it is an utterly absurd state of affairs to reduce the price of a product at this stage which is not a matter of minor importance but of quite as much importance ‘ as the production of wheat itself. I would like anyone in the House to come and have a look, and I would like the Control Board to see what sort of products they are forcing on to the market in the Western Province in order to create the surpluses in consequence of which we are today experiencing this trouble. We are generally acting on the assumption that the price of wheat has been fixed at 38s. for the next season, but do not let us forget that 9d. is taken off directly for commission, leaving 37s. 3d. and not 38s. The farmer never sees that 9d. Apart from that, if the grade drops a quarter of a pound in weight per bushel the price is reduced by another 6d., and the result is that it is brought down to 36s. 9d.; and if the grade drops two pounds, as very easily happens, it drops another 1s. but the strange thing is that if the grade increases to above 62 lbs. per bushel in weight and it increases to 68 lbs. per bushel in weight, no extra compensation is given. For that reason I say, as a practical wheatgrower, that the wheat farmers are being underpaid and that they have cause for complaint. There are people who can produce at these prices. I will not deny that. But then your farm should be fully paid off; you should go in for mass production; you should have good soil for wheat and you should have good seasons. Wheat production is an unenviable occupation. Unfortunately the wheatgrowers in the Western Province are the victims of sentiment which pins them down to the ground they inherited from their forefathers, in consequence of which they are today still producing wheat in the Western Province. There are many people who ask themselves: why do we still go on producing wheat when it can be imported cheaper? My reply is this: Wheat is not the only product which can be imported cheaper; there are other things which can also be imported cheaper than wheat, and we should either follow a policy of protection or we should have free trade. And if we want wheat to be imported without protection we should not complain when other things which can be imported cheaper are also imported without protection. We, as agriculturists, are quite prepared to subscribe to that policy of protection. We are quite prepared to pay higher prices for our own article, but let the people who are demanding cheaper bread at the same time remember that we are also an important factor in the economic structure of the country and that we are just as anxious to have protection as other industries in the country. I shall require much more time to say all I have to say in connection with this matter, but there is just one other point I should like to mention, and then I shall leave the Minister in peace. I want the Minister clearly to understand that the price of fertiliser was increased at the wrong time last season. The price of fertiliser was increased towards the middle of the season. Half the farmers obtained their fertiliser at a price of 17s. 6d. lower per ton than those who obtained their fertiliser later in the season. That fertiliser was used for the same product by people living on adjoining farms and belonging to the same community. Can it be reasonable that the one should pay 17s. 6d. per ton more for his fertiliser under Government control than his neighbour? I repeat what I said previously, that in all fairness the Government will be obliged to eliminate that difference. It will in some way or other have to come to the assistance of those farmers who paid too much for their fertiliser, and if he fails to do so you can well imagine that there will be a good deal of dissatisfaction as regards the price of fertiliser. [Time limit.]

I would like to say a few7 words in connection with the wool question. I want to say at the start that the time I have at my disposal is altogether too short, because I would have required at least half-an-hour to speak on the wool position; but I want to start by asking the Minister whether he is prepared to do, as so many of the countries are doing today, that is to say, to introduce legislation in advance in order to protect producers as regards their markets. The farmers’ wheat and mealie prices have been fixed by the Government. The Government has been instrumental in obliging wool producers to sell at a certain price. Notwithstanding the fact that there has been an increase in the price of farming requisites we still find that the farmers are getting exactly the same prices. Since the Government fixed the prices it is now also the duty of the Government to see that the farmers are not made victims of a decreasing wool market. Since the Government allowed the farmers to obtain high prices for about four years it is now the duty of the Government to see that the farmers will continue getting those prices or a little more for at least four years after the war. I would like to compare the wool prices in the Union of South Africa with those of England and I want to take three periods. I want to take the year 1930. In 1930 the average price for South African wool was 8.9d. and in England it was 11d. per pound. That was the price of greasy wool. In 1939 the price for greasy wool in South Africa was 12d. and in England the price was 10.38d. The British woolgrower refused to be brought in under a fixed scheme; in other words, the British woolgrower remained in the open market. What do we find now? We find that the average price for wool in South Africa is today 13.1d.—that was in respect of 1944—as compared with Britain, which remained in the open market and where the average price of wool today stands at 20d. In 1939 it was 10.38d. as compared with 12d. in South Africa. You will ask me from where I get my figures. These figures are given in the “Trade Journal” of 17th March, 1935. They say here that if you take the 1930 price at 100 then, in February, 1944, it was 182 and 134.4 at the end of January, 1945, approximately 20d. per pound on an average as compared with 13.1d. for the South African woolgrower. The woolgrowers of Great Britain refuse to be brought in under the wool scheme. Let us see how wool prices in Britain increased. In 1939 it was 10.38d. but it increased to between 16½d. and 25½d. in 1941. If you turn to the “Economist” of April, 1942, you get these figures and it has been computed that for the year 1942 woolgrowers in Great Britain received between 18½d. and 27½d. Now compare that with the average price received by woolgrowers in South Africa. I mention these few figures to prove that because the Government interfered by preventing woolgrowers from obtaining better prices in the open market, it has caused them considerable loss. We hold the Government responsible and they should now take steps to ensure that the woolgrowers will receive at least that price for a considerable number of years after the war. I would like to express my regret that the Minister did not carry out the promise of his predecessor as regards woolgrowers. The woolgrowers asked for a levy of 2s. per bale on wool. The former Minister of Agriculture said: “I know the opinion of woolgrowers as regards this matter. They are asking statutory powers to levy 2s. per bale of wool.” The Woolgrowers’ Association consulted their organised members. They were 90 per cent. in favour of it. Then the former Minister came along and said: “No, you see there is still a large number of unorganised woolgrowers. The question is whether they are also in favour of it.” Again the Woolgrowers’ Association went along and called together all the woolgrowers—members of the Woolgrowers’ Association and also non-members. Again 90 per cent. of all the woolgrowers voted in favour of the levy of 2s. per bale. Thereupon the former Minister said that he could not introduce the scheme but that he was instructing the Marketing Board to work out a scheme. After they had done so the Minister said: “If you accept this scheme I would be prepared to give you statutory powers to do so.” Now the present Minister is refusing to carry out the promise of his predecessor. Our woolgrowers are justified in having a grievance. We go further. A deputation was recently sent to Britain in connection with the wool position. Who were the people who were empowered to negotiate with the British Government? Not the woolgrowers. Two members went across, namely, Messrs. Moolman and Kingwell, but they went in a purely advisory capacity. These are the officials of the Ministers’ Department who are empowered to negotiate. 27,000 organised woolgrowers have one advisory member there and approximately 500 farmers, also organised, who were against these statutory powers, also get a representative in the person of Mr. Kingwell. These people, who fought 27,000 woolgrowers tooth and nail, get one representative, and the 500 farmers also get a representative. The woolgrowers are feeling very unhappy ….

Are you aware of the fact that Colonel Kingwell is a member of the National Woolgrowers’ Association?

Yes, but he does not represent even 500 members. There are 27,000 members against him. But the hon. member behind the Minister today stood up and what did he say? He says Colonel Kingwell was a colonel in a certain place and an officer and that was the reason why he was so glad that Colonel Kingwell had been sent. Are those the qualifications you require to represent a woolgrowers’ organisation?

Don’t be silly.

One gets nothing but silliness from someone who makes that type of interjection. The wool farmers voiced their strongest protest to the Minister. On a board consisting of approximately 30 members there were not more than five Nationalists, and the board expressed the deepest disapproval at the action of the Minister in appointing Mr. Kingwell. I regret that the time at my disposal will not allow me to take this matter further. In consequence of the fact that the Government would not give the woolgrowers statutory powers they have been unable to establish a wool factory. But now the Government goes along and establishes a wool factory where the woolgrowers have not the least say, but where anyone in the trade can have a share. This is not the type of wool factory the wool farmers asked for, and it is due to the Minister’s actions since he would not give the woolgrowers the necessary statutory powers. I am sorry that I have no time to deal with this matter documentarily in detail. There is just one other point I would like to make. I would just like to say that the hon. Minister has done the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) a great injustice. He was appointed as a delegate to go to the conference in London and by this and that clever ruse the Minister prevented the hon. member from going to the conference.

On a point of order, is the hon. member in order in accusing the Minister of making a clever ruse?

It is not unparliamentary.

That is just what I expected. Whenever the hon. member stands up he talks nonsense. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to labour the point that I made previously with regard to the influences which I feel are being brought to bear in this Department except to say that through the Marketing Act and through the emergency regulations the Department unfairly uses its powers as a big stick, in some cases with favouritism and in some cases with victimisation. I do not think they should have any jurisdiction over the rights of trading, which in many cases they have prevented, the rights of milling or erecting mills, which they can prohibit under their regulations. Then I would like to rteurn to the meat position and ask the Minister whether he has some machinery by which he can ensure that reasonable supplies come to the Witwatersrand. Last year he was forced to use the premium system which is nothing else but the machinery that was used under the old marketing system. From the economic experiences we have had, I would prefer to have not the clumsy machinery of a terrific 7s. 6d. rise, but the fluctuating machinery under certain regulations that we had previously, but all I am concerned with at this stage is to know what machinery he has to ensure a reasonable supply of what is available. The percentages I gave of the total Union slaughterings — 81 per cent. of the sheep and 31 per cent. of the cattle for Johannesburg—is not a fair representation of the supplies availablie. Then I wish to refer to the question of samp and mealie rice. Samp and mealie rice are the cheapest staple foods. They retail it for 2d. a lb. Any other commodity is 400 per cent. higher. I would suggest that rather than prevent the manufacture of samp and mealie rice, the Minister should go into the factor of having a greater extraction from mealie meal. The extraction today is 75 per cent. Perhaps 97½ per cent. or even 100 per cent. extraction would ensure a larger quantity of mealie meal. There were numerous other points that I also wanted to raise but which I feel I cannot advance at this stage of the proceedings.

There are just two points I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I believe that there is quite a good demand for cattle from the Belgian Congo. The Belgian Government is anxious to buy our cattle, and the South African farmers can at the moment have a good market for that type of cattle in the Belgian Congo, but I believe that the export of cattle to the Belgian Congo has been prohibited, and I shall be glad if the Minister will investigate this matter with a view to helping those farmers who can get a good price for their cattle in the Belgian Congo. The number of cattle to be exported is not enormous. It will apparently be a comparatively small number of a particular type they want to have there. The other matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is one I raised last year in connection with the two institutions in the Western Province which are doing research work in connection with the drying or dehydration of vegetables. I asked whether these two institutions were necessary and whether it would not be advisable to have an investigation with a view to seeing whether the work could not be concentrated on one spot.

Perhaps it would be just as well if I reply immediately to what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has said. As regards the question of export of cattle to the Belgian Congo I would just like to say that I did allow certain numbers to be exported. Where it involved cattle which we did not require for our own dairy industry I did come to their assistance and I shall again go into the matter to see whether we cannot offer them further assistance in the future. As regards the other question he raised, in the earlier stage of the Session I went into this matter, as I promised, and I came to the conclusion that it would be better to have the whole matter thoroughly investigated by a technical committee. The other day we adopted a Bill in Parliament for the establishment of a research board under Dr. Schonland and I discussed the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, as to whether Dr. Schonland would be available to act as Chairman of the technical committee. I hope to appoint that committee in the near future and I hope that the committee will soon commence its functions. Let me also reply immediately to the other point which has been raised.

In connection with the question of margarine raised by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) I have already replied to that on the remarks made by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg). Then the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) has made a number of points in connection with the meat scheme. I do not want to go fully into that. I was out of the House for a while whilst the hon. member spoke but I gather that his inferences were drawn from the figures I gave in reply to a question. I understand it is so.

Yes.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND

Of course, those figures gave an incomplete picture in regard to the meat scheme. They only dealt with the sheep and cattle. They did not take into account two other classes of slaughter stock which must necessarily have a bearing on the whole question. He also disregards the fact that in October a butcher’s quota was introduced throughout the Union. Furthermore, he only takes his comparison up to the end of March. Since then there has been a constant increase in the flow of slaughter cattle. During the period of eight weeks ended on May 31, cattle slaughterings were 26.5 per cent. higher than the quota requirements of these centres. Supplies of sheep have also increased to quite a substantial extent. I have taken a number of other steps to bringing about a better distribution. I am prepared to concede there has been a certain measure of uneven distribution which is easilý understood in view of the many factors operating against the scheme—misunderstandings, propaganda and to some extent the fact we have not provided for a sufficient difference between the normal price and the seasonal price; it was not big enough. That has now been taken care of by providing a bigger difference between the two sets of prices and by having a sliding scale, as I indicated in the Press at the time. Also. I think we learned by experience our inter-area prices were not quite right, and I feel quite confident that we shall have better distribution in the coming season. For these reasons I am not unduly pessimistic. My hon. friend said we would have to face a very severe shortage again. In addition to that, as I have already indicated, we have 83,000 beef carcases in cold storage, as well as mutton, and the building up is still going on. I do not want to prophesy, but all the advice I have is that we shall not see anything like the shortages we had last year. Then the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. P. J. de Wet) has made certain suggestions which I will also have carefully examined in consultation with the Deciduous Fruit Board. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has raised the important question of the availability of condensed milk to the lower income groups. He was particularly perturbed because our local product had fallen to quite a substantial degree, as he indicates, quite rightly, there has been a very much increased consumption of fresh milk. I have discussed the matter with the Dairy Control Board and I have asked them to go into the possibility of diverting more milk to the condensaries, and it might be possible to divert some of the milk going to the creameries to the condensaries. I am particularly anxious to have fresh milk available, especially for the members of the lower income groups who cannot afford frigidaires and what not to keep the milk fresh.

†*The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) raised certain points in connection with the salary scales of graders. The position is that these people commence on a scale of £200 rising by £20 to £400. That is the lowest grade. The other class commences on the scale £340 with increases of £20 to £500. He will therefore see that his information does not reflect the position correctly.

Has it always been so?

That is the salary scale at present. I am not satisfied with these scales and I agree that we should remunerate these people reasonably well. I am still engaged on this matter. I am at present engaged on the Public Service Commission to see whether an improvement cannot be effected.

Does one group commence on £200?

Yes.

What type of man can you get for £200 per year?

These people really commence as learners. But I shall again go into the question of scales. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) reverted to foot-and-mouth disease. I think he misunderstood the position. The position is that we are not continuing with a general slaughter in his area, but we are waiting until the contagion is altogether past and we shall then allow the farmers, under proper precautionary measures, to send their cattle to the market.

What about cold storage?

I have entrusted the whole matter to the McDonald Commission and they will make recommendations and we will then decide on a policy. Then the hon. member for Calvinia has raised certain points in connection with the price of flour, and the position is that it is not intended to penalise the person who buys a small quantity; it simply means that margins have been fixed. There is a margin of profit for the retail and the wholesale trade and when a man buys a small quantity the price is naturally higher. It is not a new principle.

What about the small man and the poor?

It is a fact that whenever a person buys a small retail quantity the price is higher than in the wholesale trade? I do not think the hon. member can mention an exception in the trade where this is not the case, i.e., that the wholesale price is lower than the retail price. Then the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) surprised me particularly with the example he quoted; his calculation of the price of wheat and the price of bread. He says that the additional penny I did not give the farmers is going to cost them £23,000 and he said that they were losing this amount as a result of my indolence. The fact is that the Marketing Board recommended that we should increase the price by 1s. 6d., and we acted in accordance with this recommendation. The position is that this season’s harvest amounts to 3,200,000 bags. The one penny works out to £20,000. The number of wheat farmers is 40,000, therefore they are losing an average of just 10s. each as far as this one penny is concerned.

My calculation was naturally based on a normal harvest of 5,500,000 bags on an average.

Then it might perhaps be 10s. 6d. But the peculiar thing is that he reckons how much you are going to pay for bread you bake from a bag of wheat costing 36s., and then he says the bread will cost £3 8s. 0d. and he says that is scandalous or bordering on scandalous. But surely he must admit that there are various other costs which must be taken into consideration; the miller’s expenses and the profit he has to make; the baker’s wages and expenses; the profit which is due to him; and it is no use calculating the way the hon. member did and then saying that that is the amount the farmer is losing. You have to take all these things into consideration.

I am satisfied with my little sum.

What about grade 2 and grade 3 wheat? What is the position in regard to that?

Will you appoint a commission to investigate the matter and also the cost of production of wheat?

I shall consider whether we should go so far as to appoint a commission.

Are you sympathetic towards it?

I said I would consider it. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I shall carefully consider it. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) came with a magnanimous suggestion. His town, Pietersburg, has taken the lead in submitting this proposal that they should do without butter during one week every year provided it is sent to people in Britain ….

In Europe.

I thought the suggestion which came from Pietersburg was to send it to Britain. In any case, he discussed the matter with me and I said that it would be difficult to issue butter to consumers in Pietersburg first and that they should then accumulate the butter and return it to us for export. It would entail many practical difficulties. But should it be that the whole country is willing to do without butter for a week, we would consider, through the Dairy Industry Control Board, whether it is practicable not to issue butter for a week and then to export the butter. I am prepared to consider it and to discuss the matter with the Dairy Industry Control Board and the Food Controller to see whether it is a practical step. We will go into the matter carefully with all possible sympathy to ascertain whether it would be possible to take such a step. I hope the hon. member’s colleagues on the other side will support me in such a step.

All sides.

Yes, and that they would ask the country to have a butterless week once a year and to export the butter to the destitute people in Europe.

There are many matters we would still like to discuss, but I would just like to mention one or two points. The one great difficulty we are today experiencing in this country is the lack of fencing material. There is a tremendous shortage of wire and fencing standards. For almost five years we have not been getting any fencing material and it has almost become a matter of national importance. There is almost no wire to be had today. You do get a limited amount and that is terribly expensive and I should like to know from the Minister whether there is any prospect of the platteland especially getting wire and fencing materials. The farmers are struggling a good deal. As the Minister is aware, it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain shepherds. The farmers are tending their own livestock, cattle and sheep, and they cannot obtain wire with which to fence their farms. The war in Europe has now come to an end and we have been told that large amounts of fencing material would be coming from there. Is it not possible to obtain some of the surplus wire from Europe which had been used for barricades? Then there is one other point. In making the national roads, large washaways of roads have been caused as a result of negligence. Sufficient precautions have not been taken, especially in my electoral division. In my part of the country livestock have to trek long distances to the nearest station and they have to go along the roads and such deep sluits have been washed in the ground that the stock can hardly pass. Will the Minister get into touch with the Roads Board with a view to encouraging them to take the necessary steps to prevent such washaways along the roads?

The difficulty has been, as the hon. member has said, to acquire barbed wire, because it has to a large extent been used for war purposes. It is quite possible that the position will now ease itself and we shall do our utmost to obtain as much as possible. We recently placed an order in India for wire from there. With regard to galvanised and smooth wire, that is now being manufactured in this country and number 8 wire will shortly be made available in sufficiently large quantities, and number 12 steel wire will gradually also be taken into production and larger quantities will become available.

What about iron standards?

That is also manufactured locally and production will increase. The other points which the hon. member raised will also receive attention.

One important matter is being lost sight of to some extent, and that is the matter of soil erosion. Large irrigation schemes are being contemplated in this country but we should not lose sight of erosion. We notice from the reports of Dr. Bennett how serious the position is when he says that we should apply ourselves to the protection of our own country and our own assets. I do not want to go into all the matters but I would just like to quote a few things he said.

I think this is not only the case in the Cape Province but also in the mountainous regions of the Transvaal, for instance, that part of the country where I live. The hon. member should realise that every man feels in him the urge eventually to become independent and to become a landowner, and he also wants to become independent, not merely for the sake of owning something, but also to protect it. Although some are negligent, that is not the great rule, but I do think that the Department should take steps to ensure that soil erosion is prevented. Dr. Bennett also says in his report—

His report says that 25 per cent. of the soil has been lost, but in some cases it is probably more. In this connection I would point out that in the past we attempted three schemes for combating erosion, the A scheme, the B scheme and the C scheme. I now notice from the latest report that the new programme eliminates the C scheme. I want to ask the Minister why that has been done. According to my experience in the Transvaal, in the area where I live, the C scheme is one of the most important schemes. The reason they now give is that there are no more semifit labourers. That is of course as a result of war conditions, but now I feel that semifit labour will again be available. I have had the experience, and that is the general experience in our parts, on certain farms where they put down several boreholes to a depth of approximately 300 ft. without obtaining water, whenever they started such a scheme on a farm and built a dam and avoided erosion, the water on that farm increased considerably. I feel that the C scheme was one of the best schemes because labour is scarce in our parts and throughout the country, and the C scheme will be of considerable assistance to us. For that reason I hope that the Minister will not merely continue the A and B schemes but also the C scheme. Something else has struck me in the pamphlet, and that is that when a farmer owns as many as three farms he would only be entitled to a subsidy of £150. That means that when he has had expenses of £400, only £150 would be granted. That is being paid out to him by the Department in connection with works to a value of £1,200. Of what use is an amount of £150 when a large erosion scheme has to be carried out or a large dam has to be built. What is the use of £150? The previous scheme went up to £200 and I think the Minister should consider at least restoring that. I was convinced that it would be a great asset to the country if the Minister would re-introduce the old scheme. It is impossible for the small farmer with a small income to attempt the work by himself and he should get as much assistance as possible from the Government. As I said, my experience as a practical farmer has been that the C scheme has been of the greatest value to us and I do hope that the Minister will not relinquish the scheme. Then we notice further that the Bennett report goes on to say—

The time has come for us to pursue the advice given by Dr. Bennett and to devise schemes as speedily as possible. Much time has already been lost, but we dare lose no further time because erosion is increasing every year. In the district where I live we had floods last March and various dams were washed away and lands likewise. We dare not wait longer. Then something in connection with the vaccines we use against various diseases. In our parts one of the most important things is the vaccine against horse-sickness. According to data I have obtained from various police stations, no less than 130 horses died in one single year and many of the horses which had been vaccinated died. That should also receive the Minister’s attention. If a horse has not been vaccinated you take better care of it and you keep it in the stable; but when a horse has been vaccinated you argue that it cost you money and sacrifice and that you might just as well allow the horse to go, with the result that people suffer a good deal of loss in that manner. It causes great dissatisfaction to lose horses after they have been injected and after money has been spent on them. [Time limit.]

The question1 of soil erosion which has been raised by the hon. member is of the greatest importance and I can give him the assurance that the interesting suggestions he has offered will be examined very thoroughly when our reconstruction scheme is drafted and we will take all possible steps in regard to the combating of soil erosion. The other points he raised will also receive attention.

It is undoubtedly the policy of the Government to improve the quality of our stock and in this connection agricultural shows have played an important role in our country. During the war the Railway Administration withdrew the concessions to farmers for the consignment of cattle to shows, but since the war is now over I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will use his good influence with the Minister of Railways and Harbours to have these concessions again made available to farmers in order to promote agricultural shows. These shows are of the greatest importance and we are looking forward to the restoration of these facilities by the railways. Another aid in improving stock is the scheme we had for improving bulls and we do want to appeal to the Minister to allow this scheme to remain in force for a longer period. It is now coming to an end and I would like to ask the Minister to keep it in force for a few years longer. It has been a tremendous contribution towards improving our stock. Then we are in great need of extension officers. The few we have are altogether inadequate to meet our needs. Then I should like to know what the position is in regard to vaccine against splenic fever, whether it is being manufactured and whether farmers can procure it and what the prospects are in that connection. I do not think the Minister has made a statement in connection with that yet. I represent a mealie-growing division which perhaps produces more mealies than any other in the country. The people are feeling deeply dissatisfied with the prices fixed by the Minister. I doubt whether he will renounce those prices but I want to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkins) that the Minister should now announce the price for the next season so as to encourage people to plant mealies, considering that there is a great shortage of mealies. It is not sufficient to fix a date in May as a period within which a premium will be payable on mealies. The Minister should shift the period to a later date. In many parts of the country mealies cannot be reaped before the middle of May and it cannot be brought in before the end of the May crop. I want to appeal to him to fix a later date. I do not want to go into the meat position again but I just want to tell the Minister very clearly that the farmers are all opposed to the prices. In my electoral division the supporters of both political parties are deeply and bitterly disappointed. Active farmers regard these prices as altogether uneconomic. The last matter I want to mention is fertiliser from South-West Africa. Large quantities of fertiliser can be obtained in South-West, provided the railway tariffs are properly adjusted. There are considerable quantities of fertiliser there and if the Minister would give attention to the railway tariff he will find that we can to a large extent help ourselves.

I have a few points I would like to raise. I would like to support the hon. member who spoke about vaccine against gallamsiekte. At the commencement of the Session I put a question and the Minister’s reply was that there would be sufficient vaccine towards the end of the year, since the factories were in operation. The farmers have specially asked me to request the Minister to expedite matters. The war is past; matters have taken a different course, and it should now be possible to obtain the means for expediting this work so that the necessary vaccine should be available shortly. Then there is another matter of which I have experience. Meat has been imported from Australia at 6¾d. per pound. In the butcheries this meat is being sold at 1s. 8d. per lb., roughly 300 per cent. more.

I have already replied to that question.

I was apparently not here. I also want to come to the subsidy for bulls and improvement districts. I have here a letter from the Agricultural College, Potchefstroom, dated 8th December—

It is signed J. F. Burger, Principal. That was already on the 8th December. Now the Minister comes along and says that the scheme will terminate at the end of the month only.

You are confusing two matters. I shall reply to that if you will give me a chance.

Then there is another matter which I brought to the notice of the Minister of Mines and he referred me to the Minister of Agriculture. 3¾ lbs. of meat per week are given to every native in the compounds. That is more than ¾ lb. of meat per day, including Wednesdays. I saw in the papers this morning that they are being given preference. Large quantities of meat are being consigned there although there are many Europeans who would have been glad to get the meat. I would like to have an explanation from the Minister. The last point is that I would like to have a statement from the Minister in connection with the opening of Agricultural Colleges.

I made a statement on that last year.

Then I would like to know whether changed conditions have not brought about a change in the policy of the Government. Many people are asking us when they will again be able to send their sons to the Agricultural colleges. At present we only have Elsenburg and Pretoria.

That comes under the next vote.

Then the Minister will be able to reply under that vote.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 44.—“Agriculture (Education and Experiment Farms)”, £275,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 45.—“Agriculture (General)”, £4,074,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 46.—“Agriculture (Forestry)”, £455,000, put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Vote No. 9 standing over.

Vote No. 9.—“Provincial Administrations”, £12,814,980, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 11th June.