Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name—

I do not think there is anyone in this House, Sir, who is not concerned about the condition of the farmer in this Country. When you see that there are not less than five motions on the Order Paper dealing with the position of the farmer, you realize that there is general concern about his position and that the farmer in general is having a difficult time. The future of agriculture depends on three important factors. The first is the reclamation, improvement and conservation of our soil. The second is the cost of production—that should be kept as low as possible—and the third is that we should have markets that will give the farmer a reasonable livelihood.

As far as soil conservation is concerned we are told every year that soil conservation is not carried out fast enough and that the position is deteriorating annually. We are told that an insufficient number of officials are responsible for seeing that it is carried out. We are told that the officials who are there are doing their best but they cannot cope with the problem. The Minister tells us that so many officials are charged with this responsibility and so many do research work and the figures are impressive, but the fact remains that there are far too few to cope with this problem and that they make no impression whatsoever on this problem. We have heard of farms that have already been planned. The Minister has told us about farms where the carrying capacity has been doubled; that is true, but those are few compared with the number that is deteriorating. I want to read something which Dr. Ross, the former Director. said—

That sums up the position, Sir. We are attending to the position but we are making no headway, we are not keeping pace with the problem and it is no use the Minister telling us that he has so many and so many officials. If we carry on the way we are doing at the moment, we will within the foreseeable future be unable to provide the necessary food for the country. The Minister must simply get more officials, because this matter is of the greatest importance and positive steps should be taken to find a solution for the problem.

The second factor is that of production costs. The Government encouraged the people to mechanize. Well, the farmers mechanized as fast as they could. Even the smaller farmer mechanized with the result that his production costs are so high to-day that he can hardly make a living. If the smaller mealie farmer, for instance, has a crop failure, he does not recover from that setback, because his profit margin is so small that he can hardly make a living and he finds it impossible to make up for the loss which he suffered the previous year because of the crop failure. In that way the smaller farmer is going down. Thousands of them go under every year and have to abandon their farms. Interest, wear and tear and replacements costs are so high to-day and production costs are so high that they simply cannot make a living. I think it is essential that the young farmer should receive a certain measure of training. I am not suggesting that they should all go to a Grootfontein College, but they should receive a certain amount of training so that they will make fewer mistakes in their farming operations, because it is because of the mistakes that they make that their production costs are rising. They should be trained to keep proper account of their production costs, their income and expenditure, so that they can readily see in which section of their farming operations they show a loss and in which section a profit. As I have said, they should receive a certain amount of training and provision should be made for that. It is also necessary that farm labourers should receive a certain amount of training, particularly those who operate machinery, because most of them are unskilled labourers. They ruin the machinery and because of that production costs go higher and higher. Another method would be the establishment of experimental farms. Year after year we have requests for experimental farms. I want to give one example which we have in the North-Western Districts. For the past 15 to 20 years we have been asking for the establishment of an experimental farm in the North-Western Districts, and I truly think that had there been such an experimental farm, the farmers in that area would have been better able to survive the recent drought. If the necessary experiments are carried out to show them which is the more economic way of farming with sheep, for instance, they would probably have been able to save sufficient of their sheep to have covered the costs of the experimental farm over and over again. In that way production costs are kept low and I want to make an earnest appeal to the Government to consider this matter.

A third factor is the marketing of our products and the necessity for proper planning in that regard. Most farmers do not make a decent living to-day for the simple reason that their profit margin is too low. Their income from agriculture is too low. The “State of the Union Year Book” gives the figures in respect of our national income and the figures for income derived from agriculture. In the year 1954 the national income was £1,559,000,000 and that of agriculture £258,000,000. In the year 1958 the national income was £1,888,000,000, an increase of nearly £440,000,000 and that of agriculture £244,000,000, an increase of £14,000 000. I got the figure for 1959 somewhere else. In 1959 the income from agriculture was only £236,000 000 as against a national income of over £2,000,000,000. The income from agriculture is declining year by year or remains more or less constant compared with a rising national income. That income from agriculture has to be divided amongst more people to-day. Cost of living is higher and there is not the slightest doubt that the farmer’s income is much less to-day than it was previously and he is finding it more and more difficult to make a living. Then, of course, Mr. Speaker, the farmer is liable to have crop failures, but you do not get crop failures over the whole country at the same time. There are crop failures in one particular part of the country this year and in another part of the country the following year and the figures which are given here are in respect of the whole country. In other words, it is the average figure and they indicate clearly that if it has not declined the income from agriculture has remained more or less constant, while the national income has increased tremendously over that period. If the farmer cannot make a living, he is forced to embark on exploitational cropping.

What is the position in respect of the various branches of agriculture? I want to say something about the dairy industry. Mr. Morphet, the chairman of the National Dairy Co-operative Society, one of the largest milk co-operative societies in the Union, said the following recently—

The production of milk has increased as a result of research. As a result of artificial insemination our herds have improved. The individual cows yield more milk and the production has increased. There are farmers today who keep more cows and the result is that the total production is steadily increasing. But if the production increases there should also be proper planning to ensure a market for the milk products, because if we do not do so, we immediately find ourselves in difficulty. I believe too that the local market should be developed. The consumption of milk and dairy products is much lower than in the case of many other countries, particularly countries like Canada, the United States, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. One would have thought that the consumption of milk in this country would have been particularly high. I remember when we were children we were very seldom given coffee or tea to drink, we had to drink milk; we grew up on milk, and that is no longer the position to-day. The children of to-day are not encouraged to drink milk. The Bantu nation was a milk-drinking nation but to-day they drink very little milk. They ought to be encouraged to do so and our own people ought to be encouraged, both for health reasons and in the interest of the dairy industry. However, the price of fresh milk is so high to-day that milk is beyond the reach of many people. The Government should subsidize the consumer so that he will be able to afford milk, because it is in his own interests that he drinks milk, as well as in the interests of the dairy industry. As far as the processing of milk is concerned, there too we should have proper planning so as to ensure that too much milk is not converted into cheese or butter. I take it that it will not be easy to do that because our climate is so inconstant. Parts of our country are often drought stricken but we know to some extent what time of the year milk is plentiful and what time of the year it is scarce and we have to keep count of the periods that are more dry than normally. We ought to calculate and determine how much milk will be available from time to time. Towards the end of last year there was a surplus of cheese in this country which was exported at a tremendous loss, while at the same time there was a shortage of butter. We had to import 3,000,000 pounds of butter to supplement the shortage locally, while we had a cheese surplus. When that butter arrived we had already built up a surplus ourselves and we again had to export some of that butter, again at a loss. I believe it is possible to have better planning, and Dr. Morphet also says that in his report to the Co-operative Society.

Then I should like to say a few words about the citrus industry, one of the industries which is fairly well controlled and which, generally speaking, gives the producer a reasonable living. More trees were planted and the production gradually increased. It is a product which is mostly exported and our exports increased until last year when the citrus industry found itself in great difficulty. There were two reasons for that. They had an exceptionally good crop in 1960. The citrus growers exported 2,000,000 boxes more than the previous year which, of course, meant that the overseas markets received a greater supply. However, the supply was not so big as to cause the market to collapse, but the trouble was that many countries objected to buying South African products.

If there was objection how could the growers have exported 2,500,000 more boxes?

The question is at what price did they export? Was the money received more than that received the previous year?

There could not have been a boycott if we were still able to sell our oranges.

The one consignment to Sweden had to be diverted to the London market and even there they encountered trouble. The fact is that there was objection, particularly in Sweden, and to a certain extent in Britain as well, and as a result of that it was more difficult to find a market. As I have already said there was a bigger crop than the year before but I believe that it would still have been possible to obtain a reasonable price had it not been for this objection, an objection which caused a total collapse of the market. The citrus was sold in the long run, but at what price? As a result of the price obtained every citrus farmer in South Africa is showing a loss this year. Mr. Speaker, new markets have to be found. We believe that Russia is a potential market, or was a potential market. Whether it still is after Langa, is doubtful.

Now you are spoiling your case.

No, I am only stating the facts as they are. Russia was a potentially big market but she is no more so to-day. We have to find new markets if we wish to protect the citrus industry, and we must ensure that potential markets are not lost to us.

As far as the tobacco industry is concerned, there too we have surpluses to-day and the small tobacco farmer is going under as a result of surpluses. Hundreds of them are being driven off the land to-day. One of the reasons for that is the fact that the duty on tobacco, cigarettes and pipe tobacco, etc., is too high. It is true that every year when the duty is increased there is a certain amount of resistance for a while. People smoke less for four or five or six months but after that they smoke as much as they did previously; that is quite true, but the smoking habit is being discouraged because of the high duty. Had the duty been lower the consumption would have been higher. I wonder, Sir, whether it is not possible to place a cigarette of inferior quality on the market for the Bantu, a cigarette on which the duty will be low. We have a big potential market in the Bantu. Once the Bantu start to smoke we will have a big market for our tobacco.

The mealie industry is also experiencing difficulty to-day. As I have already said, the small farmer is having a hard time as a result of higher production costs. There are surpluses in the case of mealies as well, but fortunately the mealie industry is under proper control. We export mealies annually at a tremendous loss. Can those surpluses not be used on the local market? Is it not possible for us to absorb those surpluses locally by feeding them to our cattle and so fatten them for the market? Can those surpluses not be used, at a reduced price, in the drought-stricken areas of the country? I do not know what difficulties there are, but it should be possible to devise some plan or other whereby the surpluses can be used for that purpose at a reduced price and thus prevent the necessity of exporting them at a tremendous loss. Why should the taxpayer of this country subsidize the consumers of other countries?

Take the onion industry. Until two years ago when the one-channel marketing system Was introduced in the Caledon/Riviersonderend area the position of the onion industry was very poor for years. But they had their troubles even then. Unfortunately there was a record crop the first year and it was naturally difficult to find markets immediately or to cope with the tremendous surplus that year. I understand that 24 per cent was exported but there was still such a large quantity left that it kept the price low on the local market. The following year the position returned to normal. In that year 35 per cent was exported with the result that the local market afforded a steady price to the producer. But then again some people could get a slightly higher price outside and they complained so much that the Minister unfortunately gave way and withdrew the scheme.

Those were the United Party supporters of Caledon.

It makes no difference whatsoever whether they were United Party supporters or Nationalist Party supporters; it is the principle which is involved. Had we continued with that scheme, those people would have been in a stronger position to-day. Immediately after the withdrawal of that scheme the market for onions dropped by 30 per cent. I believe that the co-operative societies will again try to market those onions as best they can and if they succeed it will ensure a somewhat better price to the onion farmer than he is getting to-day.

I do not want to say much about the marketing of meat, but in that respect, too, orderly marketing has been departed from and whittled down from year to year, with the result that there is nothing left to-day. The last straw was the withdrawal of the permit system; that was the last vestige of control which was removed. We are back where we were 20 years ago, we are back in the former chaotic position where the speculator had free rein. You cannot do otherwise, Sir, than get the impression that the Government is not serious as far as orderly marketing is concerned. All these surpluses, bad marketing systems and increased production costs impoverish the farmer and make it impossible for him to exist. No farmer, Mr. Speaker, will run the risk of going bankrupt for the sake of conserving his land. If the Government expects the farmer to protect the soil for future generations, it should see to it that the farmer is in a position to do so.

I second. One must express gratitude to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) for having raised these most important points here this morning. I want to deal with points Nos. 1 and 3 at a later stage, but there is one point on which I must enlarge at this stage, and that is the question of the lowering of production costs and some planning for the training of young farmers. I maintain that we are not sufficiently equipped with agricultural schools and agricultural colleges to equip our youth as the future farmers of this country. That is part of the planning that we must undertake. This Government or any government will have to offer assistance at some time or other, as is being done at present, to give relief to farmers who experience difficulties. I think one of the deciding factors, when a Government has to come to the assistance of people, is how well they are equipped to carry on their job, and we can only suitably equip those people by means of agricultural education in some shape or form, be it through a school or a college. Over quite a lengthy period of time we have been to agricultural conferences, farmer association meetings, national wool-growers’ congresses, and at every one of them there has been a score or more of notices of motion asking for assistance in some shape or form. Even in this House we have motions introduced in which we ask for assistance or thank the Minister for some assistance or other. Sir, these resolutions have been pleading for financial assistance, and over the last two years the Land Bank has had to find millions of pounds to relieve the position of farmers in this country. All this indicates the seriousness of the financial position in agriculture and over the years we have tried to spotlight that position across the floor of this House, but when this side of the House drew attention to it, the farmer was thriving, according to the Government; he had never been better off; he was in a sound position, and every day we had members getting up and thanking the Minister. To-day we have motions on the Order Paper and we have them on the agendas of farmer association meetings thanking the Minister for assistance to the tune of millions to help the farmers in their difficult position. Sir, how the hon. the Minister is going to reconcile these facts. I do not know. Agriculture has never been in a better position and the farmers have never been better off than under the present Government, but at the same time we are voting millions of pounds to give relief to farmers. There is definitely something wrong. If something is not wrong, how can you reconcile those facts? We have asked for investigations from time to time, and we have been told that the matter does not require investigation or that there is a departmental invesigation taking place or that some control board has set up a committee of inquiry to investigate something that has gone wrong. Sir. I am justified in assuming that all is not well in the agricultural industry, and I think that in private conversations with hon. members of this House, some of them will admit that the position with agriculture to-day is nearly as bad if not as bad as in 1932. I maintain that these things have arisen out of bad planning and bad management, and I think I am quite justified in saying that. The first point I want to come to is this lack of confidence that you have in agricultural finance to-day. You have a shrinking confidence in agriculture. Short-and long-term investors no longer have the confidence that they had in agriculture many years ago. Credit facilities have gone and according to many financiers there is not the confidence in agriculture that there should be.

We have to investigate what is wrong, and part of the answer lies in the lack of planning. The hon. the Minister cannot deny— the proof is not far to seek—that there are people in agriculture to-day who would better serve their country in some other employment rather than be the drag on agriculture which they are, and unfortunately we are responsible for keeping some of them on the land. Those men may be extremely able but they are a drag on agriculture. I am not saying that to try to belittle those people, but they are misfits. The hon. the Minister has had the necessary machinery ever since he came into office, and I want to say this for him that he has inherited a legacy in that he has to assume responsibility for many of the mistakes made by his and his colleague’s predecessors. My own belief is that with the machinery we have had, the Marketing Act, there has been a measure of abuse. That machinery has been used to peg and to adjust the prices of agricultural commodities in the interests of the cost of living of the consumer, regardless of the rising costs of production. Let us just take a look at the heavy selling costs that have to be borne by the producers of this country. I am going to take meat as my first example. The hon. Minister is fully aware that it costs the meat-producers of this country not less than 12½ up to 15½ per cent to sell his produce in the controlled markets; it is higher where there are any combinations, but let me confine myself to those figures. It varied under the system we had, with no stability, of from 15d. which was the floor price to the highest price of 30d., a variation as high 15d. per lb. Now, Sir, what farmer can spend that, because it means a return, or rather a shortfall of at least £2 per head of cattle? The same applies to beef. You have variations there of as much as £2 per cwt. the same day. There are hon. members on the other side of the House who are prepared to support those things. That in itself means anything from £10 to £16 loss per animal. That is the type of stability that we have had over the last five to six years. Sir, it is the result of bad economic planning. The farmers of South Africa under the meat scheme have been called upon to pay £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 of their income either in levies or in sales costs. Now, Sir. can the hon. the Minister honestly claim that we had any stability? Can the farmers stand the drain of that amount of money out of their pocket? And may I say in passing that there are hon. members sitting on that side of the House who. when they sat here, condemned that meat scheme as “rotten”. All we had to do was to hand over to them and they would rectify the matter. But what happened when they did take over? Against the expressed wishes of their own people, they accepted auction on the hook, and that brought about the greatest measure of instability that we have ever had in the meat industry of South Africa. Sir, we had a permit system that has recently been discarded, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the chaos in some of the controlled markets to-day? I want to tell him that where the Control Board has come in and in the past only bought third grade, it is now buying second and first grade meat at pounds below what they were going prior to the abolition of the permit system. After 13 years of bad planning, that is what we have to face. We have confusion worse confounded in agriculture. What we have got to-day is a stampede to try to get ourselves back onto our feet. That is the lot of the unfortunate farmer in South Africa. In passing I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to one of the biggest bungling in planning we have ever experienced. For some years we discussed the Stock Theft Act. With it we discussed a Diseases and Cleansing Act. A Select Committee dealt with the one question for a lengthy period of time, a Bill was submitted to this House and ultimately accepted after a lengthy debate. Now these two Acts together completed the circle. But what was the result? The Stock Theft Act which was to stop all movement of cattle and exercise the greatest amount of control is still lying, I don’t know where. But some three years ago, you had the introduction of a Stock Diseases Act. with compulsory cleansing, and that was promulgated immediately and it has been applied in various parts of the country. We got the complete removal of the east coast fever regulations where all stock had to be moved under a permit system. That has completely gone now. But what control over stock theft have we; what control over the movement of stock? I think the hon. Minister has consulted his colleagues in the Native Affairs Department and he must be aware that stock theft is at least 100 per cent worse than it was before the removal of those regulations.

Let us turn to wool. I have no objection to the collection of levies for the purpose of providing stability, but does the levy give us stability and can the farmer afford it? That is the major point: “Can the farmer afford it?” We are now collecting approximately £1,500,000 per year towards the stabilization funds and research. Now collectively the farmer has got to sacrifice at least 9 per cent, including selling costs, of his wool clip for this stability. If it would give that stability, nobody would be more pleased than the wool-farmers of this country. But one thing I do object to, and I want to say that it is time that the hon. Minister intervene with his colleagues, and that is that the collection of these enormous sums by the various control boards is a heavy burden on the farmers, and then these huge amounts are deposited with the public debt commissioners as long-term loans. May I quote one here? An amount of £1,244,000 at 3¼ per cent, 3 per cent, repayable 1971. 1969 and so on. Mr. Speaker, can the farmers of this country afford to have their money collected in that way and handed over to the public debt commissioners as long-term loans? We on this side of the House have no objection if that money is required to bring about planned stability and to assist sales. Nobody has any objection against that.

I turn to veterinary services. We have some 40,000,000 sheep, goats and mutton sheep, in this country and some 11,000,000 cattle. Added to that, we have probably every infectious and contagious disease that other countries have got and our own besides. We have got external and internal parasites, and added to that we have got herbal poisons in this country that are unknown in other countries. That is the legacy of the farmer, and with all those things we have an ill-equipped veterinary service, outside Onderstepoort. I have only praise for the research that is taking place at Onderstepoort, but Onderstepoort is handicapped today because it cannot get the material with which to work. I ask the hon. the Minister, or must I address that question to his colleague: Where has he got his field-men stationed? In all the big towns, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether they are attending to cats and dogs, or what? Sir, they have no laboratory accommodation where they are situated. You will find some of them in the Colosseum Building if you go down to East London. They have no room for any post-mortem, and eyen if they had them, of what assistance would it be to the farmers? While the permit regulations were in force, it was forbidden to bring any stock in there, and in any case, the health regulations would not permit it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why not put those people in the field where they can employ themselves in collecting, correlating this information for the purpose of Onderstepoort research? That can be done at the experimental farms where the diseases prevail and where the herbal poisons are to be found. Is that not the right place where they have easy access to all they require? To make administrative officers of qualified veterinary surgeons, I think, is a shame. Is it any wonder under those circumstances that we are faced with the position that we are faced with in this country? Serious losses are taking place at this very minute in some parts of the country. I only got back yesterday, and I would just like to give you the figures of two leading farmers in the particular area in which I found myself. They have lost at least 6 per cent of some of the nicest herds we have in that part of the country from English redwater. Now English redwater is not something new to us. There is a disease that takes a toll in January and February of every year from the Kei River to as far as we have the tick. And nothing is being done about it. Onderstepoort is perfectly capable of dealing with that and providing a serum. But what are we doing about it? The losses go on. Is that contributing to the lowering of our cost of production?

Surely it is up to the farmers …

Up to the farmers! And where must he take the animals to?

He knows redwater.

Of course he does, but there is no vaccine to prevent it. Those two herds I have mentioned have been inocculated against redwater, every beast in it, but that particular virulent form of English redwater is such that there is no serum with which to immunize that stock.

Now I want to deal very briefly with what the hon. member for Gardens spoke about in respect of maize, the price of maize and the surpluses. Now the price at which it is delivered in the main to the consumer (I am going to confine myself mainly to my part of the country, is 37s. to 40s. Now, Sir, can you expect to reduce the cost of production with maize at that price? At the same time we refuse to consider ways and means to overcome our difficulties. We refuse to consider the use of that maize for producing products that are in short supply, simply because somebody says “No”, and in the main that is the one commodity that is the basis of production in respect of most of the perishable products. We are prepared to export our surpluses at a loss, and, as the hon. member for Gardens suggested, to subsidize other countries. Now I am reliably informed that we are in for a bumper crop this season. Is there nothing we can do about utilizing that surplus for the purpose of raising the efficiency of our people by feeding them better, getting greater energy and output? Can we not utilize those surpluses, be it maize or other products, to raise the standard of living of those people who in the main find it difficult to live? I want to conclude that part by asking the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that agriculture needs greater attention than what it is having at present in research and planning for the purpose of trying to absorb the whole of these products in some other way rather than exporting them out of this country! I still maintain it can be done. Much could be said on the perishable products side of it, but I would like to say this, and I have said it to the hon. the Minister before, that it costs the producer of fruit and vegetables and other morning market produce up to 25 per cent to sell that commodity. And being a perishable product we have no say about it. May I direct this question to the hon. the Minister: The markets in these large centres are now being established miles and miles away from where the food is required. Is that in the interest of the consumers and is it in the interest of the producers? Definitely not. We have grading of all of these products and I want to deal very briefly with that. Every product is graded. But are those plans being carried out? In many instances your producers are the biggest consumers of some of these products. Take for instance maize. We have been large consumers of that commodity and have got to put up with anything. If the maize is weevily, we have got to take it, but weevily maize is not fit for human food any longer. Why should a board, whatever board it may be, have the right to impose that stuff upon the consumer? These things are allowed to go on. I mention another example. Unfortunately as we know our elevators and so on have not got sufficient capacity to take all the maize that is produced. Much of this is left dumped in the Free State and Transvaal under canvas. It starts to grow. But does the hon. the Minister know that much of that maize that is growing out of the bags is sent down to consumers and has got to be sent back?

That was in the Sap days.

I can produce correspondence that I got this year and last year, where maize was inspected at the Döhne Station. In any case that is still going on. And, Sir, if we have to type and grade maize, why must these conditions be tolerated? Why should a board have the right to say to you: Take it or leave it?

I want to come a little bit nearer home. The hon. Minister is more at home with oats and wheat. Now, what I am going to mention has been brought to his attention for a number of years. Why cannot we get from a control board or buyer the quality or grade of oats that is required for the production of food? Why not? I have been to the hon. Minister personally in this connection, but every resolution coming from farmers’ associations indicates that there is something wrong. What is the hon. the Minister going to do about it? I don’t suppose there is anybody more conversant with this question of the plight of agriculture where you have persistent droughts over a long period at times, than the hon. member for Gardens, who, I think, has gone through it himself. Now, when hon. members, now sitting on the other side, were sitting here, they pleaded for fodder banks. So did we. What has Agriculture done towards providing fodder banks, which could be most useful in saving thousands of sheep which simply die during droughts? Fodder banks could be utilized to the greatest benefit in South Africa, in fattening stock that is not fit for the market.

Must the Government pay for it?

I have not asked the Government to pay for that. I say it is part of what the Department of Agriculture should be planning for, in order to reduce the losses, and thus reduce the cost of production. Whose responsibility it is, is not the important point. It should be done. We have got millions lying with the public debt commissioners that might be utilized for that.

There are millions of bags of mealies available.

Does the hon. Minister expect this maize to be utilized for that purpose at the price it is to-day? Sir, what we want in this country is research and intelligent planning to meet our requirements.

May I deal very briefly with soil conservation? In the particular part of the country from which I come, we have taken the greatest advantage of soil conservation. There are very few areas, if any, that have not been planned and in which they have not gone on with the job. The people have become soil conscious, and they are saving and rehabilitating their soil. But I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: Why is it, after everything has been planned, approved, after the accounts have been approved, measurements taken, those documents go from the extension officer to the regional office, are approved there, and when they get to Pretoria, nothing further is heard of it? There are some of those farmers who have given up all hope of recovering these amounts. In one case at least £1,000 has been owing for five years, and he has given up all hope. I have a letter here that I can hand to the Minister and that I received yesterday, asking whether and when he might expect payment, after everything has been approved. If soil conservation is applied, let it be applied in the whole of South Africa, because there is not a portion of South Africa that has not got to be rehabilitated. Why is it that you fly over or travel over hundreds of miles of this country not seeing a single contour furrow and not seeing a sign of soil conservation?

You don’t travel through the country and you don’t know what is going on there.

What part are you talking about?

I repeat that you can travel for hundreds of miles and not see a single contour furrow in parts that lend itself to erosion.

In conclusion, I want to say this: Let the Minister and his Department and his colleague and his Department apply themselves to some true planning in the interest of the reduction of the cost of living, in the interest of the reduction of the cost of production. These hon. gentlemen who are constantly interrupting have seen the Transkei and its denuded grazing ground. They have seen those cultivated lands that have been abandoned. Some are even to be found in European areas. Should we then not realize that this question of planning, this question of reducing the cost of production and preparing ourselves to meet our requirements for the future, has to be attended to in haste?

I want to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan)—

This House further requests the Government to consider the advisability of—

1. (a) establishing a more effective scheme for providing credit facilities to bano fide farmers; and
2. (b) reviewing the price levels for produce, where it proves to be necessary, regard being had to (i) planning of production, (ii) production costs and (iii) the distribution and disposal of produce both at home and abroad.”

The speech which the hon. member for Gardens has made here is as familiar as the droughts in South Africa. He wandered from citrus to mealies, to butter, cheese, sugar, meat and from South Africa to Russia. When talking about Russia, Sir, the hon. member attacked the Government for not seeking markets in Russia. I wonder whether the hon. member was sincere when he said that? He said that because of Langa there was no market for us in Russia, and that Russia would resist any attempt on our part to establish a market there. Does the hon. member remember what attitude hon. members adopted when a consignment of meat landed in Russia by mistake a few years ago?

By mistake?

Mr. Speaker, I want your advice as to how to reply to the speech made here this morning by that hon. member. There are many hon. members who still want to speak to-day and I have consequently decided not to deal with the arguments of the hon. member. I want to give you an example, Sir, of how unfounded the allegations of the hon. member are. I am not allowed to use the word “misleading”. I want to refer to it merely to show how incorrectly the hon. member for Gardens has been informed. He alleged that the gross income from agriculture had declined during the last few years. But the whole approach of the hon. member is totally incorrect. Why did the hon. member not use a basis? The figures given by the hon. member were obviously based on a certain year, probably the year when our income was exceptionally high due to exceptionally high wool prices.

You did not listen.

He probably took the year when wool fetched 240d. per pound. Let me give you a few figures, Sir. In 1955-6 agriculture in this country had a gross income of £384,170,000; it was more or less the same the following year. In 1957-8 there was a slight decrease as a result of the decline in the wool prices which in turn was a result of factors beyond the control of the Government. In 1959-60, however, it rose again to £384,000,000. During the past 25 years the increase in the physical volume of production was as follows: Agricultural products, 86 per cent; garden products, 135 per cent; livestock production, 71 per cent. During the same period there was a 50 per cent increase in the population. However, I want to leave the hon. member at that. I leave it to other speakers to reply effectively to the legion of matters raised by the hon. member. I want to deal with the allegation made by the hon. member that the economic planning, as far as agriculture was concerned, was wrong. While I was sitting here, Sir, I made a few notes as to what I understood by economics and economic planning. To my way of thinking it meant the harnessing of all production factors such as soil, labour, knowledge, training, and organization, so as to produce the best quality for the market, thus ensuring the biggest profit possible over a long period of time without exploitational cropping. When we analyse that further, I would say that that can be obtained by means of farm planning, which includes construction of camps, water supplies, the combating of soil erosion, water conservation and rotational cropping in the various fields of farming. Furthermore, there should be the best possible co-ordination between labour and equipment with due regard to capital, transport facilities, marketing and organization. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the approach of the hon. member, his whole outlook and his ideas about planning in the agricultural field, leave much to be desired. Had the hon. member wished to criticize the Government and the Department of Agriculture effectively, his approach should at least have been based on four basic or fundamental factors which affect agriculture. It seems to me that we have been teaching them how to govern for the last ten or 12 years and to-day I have to teach the Opposition how to criticize. If the hon. member wishes to criticize the Government on its agricultural economic policy, I think he should deal with production, financing, marketing and research. Because those, Sir, as far as I am concerned, are the four big corner-stones on which agriculture is based, and on which it has to develop.

In the course of my speech I shall raise the question of production and financing. I think other hon. members who will take part in this debate at a later stage will raise the subject of research marketing. Mr. Speaker, my amendment reads “That this House further requests the Government to consider the advisability of establishing a more effective scheme for providing credit facilities to bona fide farmers”. When you talk about financial assistance and credit facilities to farmers, Sir, you should ask yourself whether there are sufficient channels to provide that assistance and whether there is effective legislation to provide for it and to authorize it; whether there are sufficient funds to ensure effective assistance and whether those facilities can be used in practice. We find that during the past few years a new pattern has developed in the agricultural industry. The industry has become highly commercialized; it has become necessary to apply stricter business principles in your farming operations. The process of mechanization during a post-war period of high prices has made the investment of capital in the agricultural industry a costly and risky investment. The agricultural industry has placed heavy burdens on the shoulders of the agricultural producer. It has made it necessary for the producer to acquire knowledge and training, and to follow strict scientific and costly farming practices. As a result of keener and more complicated competition from abroad, both as regards quantity and quality, the producer has been forced to concentrate more on the production of super-quality products and on the application of the best possible marketing techniques than before. At the same time the development of this new pattern in the agricultural industry has placed certain responsibilities on the shoulders of the Government as far as the producer is concerned. Such factors as the output of the labourer and the national income are mainly determined by the quantity and the quality of the food which is available to those people who have to do the work. Past experience has proved that because of our peculiar climate here in South Africa the agricultural industry will never be able to stand alone without Government assistance. Time and again the Government has to come to its assistance by way of emergency measures by way of export subsidies in order to create an artificial market internally, by way of drought and flood loans, etc. This is not a phenomenon which we find only in South Africa. It is peculiar, Mr. Speaker, to note that the growth of credit facilities and the financing of agriculture in South Africa has run parallel with the growth in other parts of the world. And here I want to refer to America, Canada, Denmark, Germany and Australia where the position of the producer is identical to that of the producer in South Africa. We must accept it as such. That is characteristic of our agricultural pattern; it is inherent in our history. Because of the speed at which our agricultural pattern has changed, coupled with the periodic erosion of the capital and capital reserves of the farmer, as a result of stock losses, droughts, floods, and the collapse of world market prices, we have found a need for credit facilities in our agricultural industry. The compulsory changeover from cheap farming methods because of the disappearance of the animal factor, to a system of mechanization which meant expensive implements, in a post-war period when everything was costly, coupled with expensive fertilizer and fuel, has descended like a thief at night on the South African agricultural producer, the farmer with little capital and with eroded capital reserves. That fact greatly increased the need for credit facilities in the agricultural industry. The challenge of a growing nation, the challenge of a growing industrial state, the challenge of a keener-growing competitive world market as regards both quality and quantity, coupled with rising costs over which the South African Government in many instance had no control, the need for capital together with rising land prices, have all contributed towards an increased demand for credit facilities in our country. In the interests of feeding the nation, and with a view to stabilizing prices, and as a result of overproduction and with the object of tackling the marketing problem, the Government has been obliged to undertake the responsibility for the production, the distribution and the marketing of certain products by means of the Marketing Act, the Marketing Board and the control boards. The inevitable result has been that our price policy has become the responsibility of the Government. A further result has been that the marketing of controlled products, internally as well as externally, has become the responsibility of the control boards. The producer has sufficient sources of information, based on the research which the Department has undertaken, at his disposal to enable him to improve his farming methods. Other speakers will refer to that later on, Sir. There are also sufficient training facilities at the disposal of the producer, training facilities where he can acquire the necessary knowledge and receive the necessary guidance so that he can conduct his farming operations on the most profitable basis. There are many channels available to the producer where he can obtain credit. With the approval of the Minister the control boards follow a definite policy in respect of price fixation. Certain bases have been laid down. They assist the producer with the marketing of his products. I have in mind the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Citrus Board, who have permanent representatives overseas, people who are continually seeking new markets and continually advertising. Similarly, our trade representatives overseas are continually endeavouring to find markets. But, Mr. Speaker, in spite of all these sources of information, of which there is a sufficient number, and institutions where he can receive training, in spite of the number of credit facilities available to the farmer, in spite of the efforts which are made to prevent surpluses, such as the control of production by means of price fixation, or the refusal of licences for certain processing works to operate, in spite of that and in spite of all the control measures which are applied, a certain section of our farmers go under annually because of lack of capital. In spite of the tens of millions of pounds which was recently injected into the agricultural industry and which is still being injected, the prospects and results are not what they should be. Something must be wrong somewhere. The Department of Agriculture can do no more than it is doing at the moment. It cannot provide more training facilities, more credit facilities or more information. If we want to find the reason, however, if we want to find that something which is wrong somewhere, we must look for it amongst the class of farmer who has appeared on the scene during the last couple of years. As far as their credit worthiness is concerned, I think three types of farmer have come into the picture. The first type consists of the farmer who can go to any financial institution and obtain credit. The second type is the farmer whose liabilities are less than his assets and who can get assistance from the Land Bank. He is assisted. Then we have the third type of farmer whose liabilities are such and whose credit worthiness is such that the Land Bank is unable to assist him, the commercial banks do not want to assist him, and the trust companies, the assurance companies and the credit corporations refuse to assist him. He is, however, established on his farm and he has to make his living there. He is the man who is greatly in need of credit. As far as these credit facilities are concerned, the financing of our agricultural industry, particularly as far as the two latter types of farmer which I have mentioned are concerned. I think there is a lack of co-ordination between the various financial institutions as regards the application of a definite policy and a lack of knowledge on the part of the type of farmer I have mentioned. I want to give an example. Various co-operative societies in the same agro-economic area follow different policies in granting credit facilities to the same type of producer. I want to say something else. When a farmer applies for credit not one of these financial institutions, such as the Farmers’ Assistance Board, trust companies, commercial banks, insurance companies, brokers, shopkeepers, co-operative societies, auctioneers, market agents and private moneylenders, knows enough about his financial obligations towards other institutions. I go further and say that there are too many financial institutions, institutions where the farmer who is in a weaker financial position, can obtain credit without any control being exercised. As a result of a lack of knowledge of and insufficient information about the applicant’s farm, about his production potential, about his organizing ability, about his knowledge and experience, about his transport facilities, about his labour position in the area concerned, or the type of commodity he is producing, sufficient care is not always taken to ensure that the credit is utilized productively and it is granted without considering the chances of it not being utilized profitably. I say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that there are too many financial institutions where credit can be obtained, institutions which are not co-ordinated and who do not have sufficient information about the applicant at their disposal. I want to add that in very few cases is the interest rate charged by those financial institutions too high. A farmer cannot pay 20 per cent or 22 per cent on the capital which he requires for his costly farming operations. I say that the credit facilities are not sufficiently varied. We have long-term credit facilities, interim credit facilities, and short-term credit facilities. To a large extent the Land Bank meets those needs. But the Land Bank does not finance the third type of farmer whose liabilities and assets stand in such relation to one another that the Land Bank does not see its way clear to help him. Because of their poor credit worthiness, many producers are to-day left out in the cold and have to depend on sporadic emergency credit facilities. I say it is wrong to have different institutions within the Government itself which grant various farmers various forms of credit. Here I have in mind the financial requirements of the Land Board; I have in mind the financial requirements of the Farmers’ Assistance Board; I have in mind the form of credit granted by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in connection with soil conservation. Is it really necessary to have different forms of credit for the same farmers in the same agroeconomic area? Will we not be able to eliminate overlapping by introducing one central uniform system of financing our farmers, a system based on the uniform application of conditions, uniform information, agro-economic differences, training and experience? Will such a centralized financial institution not be cheaper and promote savings? Will that not be better planning and will it not ultimately mean bigger profits over a long-term period for the farmer? I therefore want to ask the Minister whether it will not be advisable to consider establishing such a central financial organization where farmers can get assistance on a uniform basis, under guidance and with planning, at a low rate of interest, with perhaps an initial redemption free period and a longer period of redemption. Should we not establish such a central financial institution, an institution that will undertake all forms of financing and where the type of farmer, who cannot get assistance from existing financial institutions to-day, can be assisted? Also those institutions which, apart from the co-operative societies and the Land Bank, finance the discounting of hire-purchase agreements. That is the kind of institution which can finance the beginner—after he has purchased his farm, paid his transfer duty, after he has paid all costs in connection with the transaction—to buy stock, or to sow grazing, or to fatten his stock for the market, or to purchase cows thus ensuring a fixed monthly income for himself while he is waiting for a crop; or to create emergency credit facilities on a uniform basis, or to consolidate existing debts, or to bring about improvements on his farm, or to provide working capital for the coming season. When I ask for that, Sir. I am not asking for something extraordinary. I am merely asking for a consolidation of the existing facilities, but facilities which are so divergent and widespread that the poor man has to go from pillar to post and wait a long time before his application is decided upon. What I am pleading for, Sir, is not something which will operate in South Africa alone. They have a similar system in America as well as in Canada and it works very well. In America they have the Farmers’ Home Administration, in Canada they have the Veterans’ Land Act, which is on the same basis as the one I am pleading for here, a basis which will provide credit to the farmers in a profitable and fruitful manner. But, Mr. Speaker, when this kind of credit is granted, still subject to the condition that it conforms with its source and that detailed information is available to the institution or to those departments—detailed information in connection with his farm, the type of land he holds, his production potential, his credit obligations, the capital invested in his farm in the form of buildings and implements, his training and experience, and the marketing prospects of the particular commodity in respect of which he wants credit in order to produce it—the applicant should receive guidance and advice in so far as planning and production are concerned from the particular department concerned. With this in mind, we can perhaps do one of two things: We can develop the Land Bank and establish more branches on an agro-economic basis, branches that will be assisted by district advisory boards under the guidance of the agricultural technical officials of the Department, so that it can undertake the task of financing the producer because of a detailed survey of all the relevant data concerning him, apart from the granting of long-term credit facilities and the task of financing the discounting of hire-purchase agreements and the granting of interim credit facilities which is to-day done by the Land Bank. In case the Land Bank does not see its way clear to undertake this, I suggest that we ask the Government to consider establishing a central financing department for the bona fide agricultural producer, namely those farmers who cannot obtain assistance anywhere else, and also the settlers of the Land Board, the farmers who to-day fall under the Farmers’ Assistance Board, the farmers who cannot be assisted by the Land Bank to-day, and the type of farmer who raises a loan annually so as to employ White labour on his farm but who is unable to pay them their monthly salary in cash so that they in turn can live, but who is nevertheless in a position at the end of the year, when he reaps his crop, to pay the labourer. Mr. Speaker, we are living in a period where the White man is becoming more and more entrenched in our agricultural economy, to the exclusion of the Black man. With the best will in the world, Sir, and with the best intentions we will never get the White man integrated in our agricultural industry, either in the form of manager, or as general help, if we do not make provision for the financing of the high costs connected with it.

Mr. Speaker, for this purpose farmers will have to register with such a department; the farmer will have to submit a detailed account of his income, the nature of his land, and details of everything that has a bearing on his production, his organization, his creditworthiness and the area in which he is developing; and based on that such an institution can, in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and various other departments either through their branches or through advisory committees, introduce a co-ordinated credit and financing policy under the guidance of technical officials, also in respect of the various policies which are to-day being followed by various co-operative societies.

Must every farmer register?

No, that will be voluntary, and it applies only to those farmers who make use of those institutions. If a farmer does not wish to register that is his affair. The Minister may see this matter in a different light, and hon. members of this House may see it in a different light. If we succeed in assisting certain farmers in their farming operation, by providing them with credit facilities on a more effective, more scientific, more economic and more profitable basis, we would still not have gone the whole way.

Now I wish to say a few words about the second part of my motion, which deals with the revision of the price levels for produce with due consideration to certain things which I mention there. Let me make it quite clear that when I talk about the revision of price levels. I am not asking for increased price levels for all products. I am not saying that that should be done. My whole plea centres round this, whether or not our present basis of price fixation is still the best basis to-day. Generally, in the case of controlled products, the price is determined on the basis of costs of production plus a reasonable living wage for the producer. I cannot think of any other basis. I am not suggesting that we should abandon the production cost-plus basis in price fixation. I am not asking for that, but I have certain doubts about the average production cost basis because I have seen the results. In the case of the average production cost basis you always have a few farmers above the average line and a few below the average line.

Hear, hear!

The production costs of the farmers above the average line are above average and they are the people who, in my opinion, are the victims of high production costs, the victims of fortuitous losses as a result of droughts and floods. It is not the farmer who farms on a big scale; nor is it the one who farms on a reasonably large scale. The small farmer, in particular, is the one who is most vulnerable and who is least able to weather set-backs. If we accept the average production costs as basis, I want to know whether it is not possible to investigate whether the profit margin in respect of certain products, in certain circumstances which may prevail in certain areas, is sufficiently high to enable that particular type of farmer, who is above the average production cost line, to make a living. Mr. Speaker, the proof is there. We have the position that through the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Board, tens of millions of pounds have been injected into the farming industry, and in spite of all our praiseworthy efforts—and I do not think the farmers will exchange this Government for any other alternative Government because of what it has already done during the past 12 years to bring about price stability, to encourage production, and to promote a progressive outlook in the agricultural industry as a whole—a great deal has still to be done. We are entitled, however, and we will have to do it, to see to it that whatever we do in connection with an industry, such as the agricultural industry, which is a dynamic industry and an industry subject to changing circumstances, is the right thing. I want to ask the Minister to make further thorough investigations in order to ascertain whether in respect of certain products in certain areas and in respect of a certain class of farmer, the method of calculating the profit margin on the average costs of production is satisfactory.

We know it is not satisfactory, and we will investigate it.

I want to repeat that I am the last person to plead for the abolition of the average cost basis. I am merely asking for an investigation into the profit margin. I appreciate the fact that difficulties will arise if we increase the profit margin. It will increase production and bring about an increase in land prices and it will increase the production costs per unit. It may bring about overproduction which results in surpluses, surpluses which in their turn mean a loss to the farmer, because over-production lowers the prices. If the farmers follow the advice of the Department and apply the best scientific methods there will be an increase in the production per unit and that means a decrease in prices, based on the average cost of production. We are in a vicious circle and we cannot do anything about it. In addition to that we are faced with the difficulty connected with surpluses, surpluses which we find throughout the world to-day. A a result of our system of control, as implemented by the Government, we have not fallen victim to the present international price fluctuations. but we are faced with another difficulty. In spite of the fact that we have a population of approximately 14,000,000 people, those people do not have the most economically effective purchasing power in the world. It is not our fault. The economic purchasing power of a large section of the population may improve greatly in 20 years’ time and it may become greater and greater, but in spite of all our efforts we find ourselves together with the rest of the world in a position to-day, where as far as stability is concerned, as far as research and price stimulation are concerned, and in the case of certain commodities, our production exceeds the economic purchasing capacity of the nation and that makes the problem of over-production such a great one, with the additional problem of finding an economic market overseas. The Mealie Board and the Dairy Board can testify to it that due to over-production in other parts of the world their missions to countries abroad have great difficulty in finding profitable markets. That makes our marketing problem internally as well as abroad a difficult one and a solution must be found. I want to say immediately that I have no solution to offer. I do not know what to suggest. All I can say is that during his visit overseas in 1937, Dr. Viljoen visited countries such as Holland, France, Germany and Denmark and he found that all those countries planned on a national basis in order to keep surpluses down. Certain measures were applied from time to time in South Africa in order to limit over-production. In the past that was done by means of price fixation and by the curtailment of licences for the erection of processing industries. The production of cheese is already being controlled, because further production will stimulate over-production. I have no solution to offer. For years it has been our policy to limit production, so that is not a new idea. I think of the days, Sir, when we paid a subsidy of approximately 7s. per bag on mealies in order to keep the price constant. At various times different methods have been employed to discourage production, but we have not as yet solved the problem of over-production. We shall have a permanent surplus for many years to come and certain steps will have to be taken to cope with that problem. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister—and he can either accept or reject it—whether an investigation cannot be made in order to evolve some scheme or other whereby the evils which will flow from increasing the profit margin in respect of certain producers and the evils connected with the resultant over-production with its accompanying adverse effect, can be eliminated. I have, therefore, pleaded for a change in the system of granting credit facilities in respect of those producers who require them and I have pleaded for an investigation into our system of price fixation. At the moment our present system is the best which the Opposition and the present Government have been able to evolve during all the years. I have pleaded for steps to be taken to combat the permanent surpluses which we will have in future according to present-day calculations. If we do that, we shall be doing no more than the National Party has been doing all these years, a progressive party with a progressive policy, a party which has from time to time by means of research and guidance and advice injected life into the agricultural industry. Even if my plea does not amount to anything and bears no fruit, I trust that, other than the plea of the hon. member for Gardens, it will be regarded as an attempt to inspire us to think along the lines of a progressive and dynamic agricultural policy for the future.

I second. While seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) I want to congratulate him on the very able manner in which he delivered a well-prepared and studied speech, in which he gave our reasons for moving this amendment and why we would like, in spite of the hollow laughter on the other side, to thank the Government for what it has done for our agricultural economy in recent years, and in particular for new thoughts which he expressed and which I regard as constructive criticism deserving of the attention of the hon. the Minister and his Department. When you express new thoughts they do not necessarily amount to destructive criticism. That is the way in which we try to contribute constructively to the interests and welfare of this important agricultural industry in South Africa.

The fantastic and almost phenomenal growth of our agricultural industry during recent years belies the contents of the motion of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). There is, of course, always room for improvement in any sphere and particularly as far as this difficult and intricate part of our economy is concerned, namely, agricultural economics and marketing. There is always room for improvement although we will never get perfection; that we will certainly never get and nobody expects it.

I really want to refer solely to two points raised by the hon. member for Gardens. In the first place he referred rather offensively to the sending of citrus to Sweden and the resistance that was experienced there. Now what on earth the resistance in Sweden has to do with the economic planning of agriculture in South Africa I cannot understand. I do not know how the hon. member expects us, by means of local planning, to prevent the resistance of the people in Swedish harbours, where they refuse to off-load South African products. Or does the hon. member expect us to change our whole traditional policy in order to have our products off-loaded there? But it definitely has nothing to do with economic planning in the agricultural sphere. And in reality it is not even the reason why losses were suffered in connection with a consignment of citrus to Sweden which was not off-loaded there. The real reason was shipping space and the glut on the market at that time.

Then there is another point which the hon. member for Gardens made, concerning which I have a lot of sympathy with him. He pleaded for an investigation into the possibilities of training for young farmers who enter this industry and I want to support him very strongly. It is estimated that about 2,500 to 3,000 young farmers enter this industry every year and that not more than 15 per cent of these young farmers get any training in agriculture. Now, we are grateful to see that attention is being given to this matter, although I think we are entitled to expect that even more attention be devoted to this matter of training for young farmers. It is disconcerting to think that you have to leave your agricultural industry, in which so many millions of pounds are invested, in the hands of people who have not had the necessary training for it. We know that the students of the agricultural colleges of Stellenbosch, Cedara, Glen. Grootfontein and Potchefstroom only numbered 338 in 1948. 552 in 1956. 559 in 1957, 584 in 1958 and 553 in 1960. They are persons who attend a diploma course for three months, a sheep and wool course. At the agricultural faculties at the universities, like Stellenbosch and Pretoria, there were 562 students in 1948, 949 in 1956, 1,033 in 1957, 1,077 in 1958 and 852 in 1960. It is pleasing and encouraging to see. and I think it should satisfy the hon. member for Gardens to know that it is being done, but I want to admit that we have to consider the possibility of giving more training facilities to these young farmers who enter this industry. I think that the phenomenal growth of our agricultural industry during the last few years really belies the motion moved by the hon. member for Gardens, in which he asks the House to express its disappointment in the Government because of its poor economic planning as far as agriculture is concerned. Let us see how our agricultural industry has grown. In 1910 the gross value of all agricultural produce was £28,900,000. For the period 1955-9 the average for every year was £359,000,000. That means an increase of 368 per cent. That is why I think there is no justification at all for the motion moved by the hon. member for Gardens. We have achieved much during past years as a result of economic planning in our agricultural industry.

The House should also take into consideration what the position of the farmer would have been had there been no economic planning, and without apologizing to the Opposition or anybody else I want to thank the Government on behalf of the farmers of South Africa, and in particular the Departments of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and Agricultural Technical Services, for what has been done in recent years to achieve this efficiency and this stability in our agriculture. I express my gratitude to the Government for this economic planning, not only for the stability which we have, but because we know there is a policy for the future and that as far as agriculture is concerned, we can face the future with confidence. I say we have achieved much in this respect.

We must not lose sight of the fact that there are two ways in which we can plan, and that applies not only to agriculture but to many other Departments as well. The one way is to plan for a short term. The other is to plan for a long term. While I want to deal briefly with this matter I want to make this request, that we in South Africa should never make a political bone of contention of our agriculture, and on the other hand that we should realize that we will be doing a disservice to agriculture if we try, for personal gain or political gain, to play the consumer and the producer against each other because they are supplementary elements. Short-term planning would be selfish in agriculture but perhaps it could mean a considerably higher income for the farmer if we had short-term planning and it could do much to make the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing popular if we want to do sheer short-term planning. Let me use this example. If, for example, we would concentrate on the adding of fertilizer and trace elements to get quick results it could mean a far bigger turnover for the farmer. But the faster you make money from your soil in this way, even if you do make the Department popular, you destroy the heritage left by your ancestors for your children to inherit. For this reason agricultural planning should be long-term planning which will not only provide for the present but also give a guarantee for the future. That is why I say that we should not make a political bone of contention of this matter and should not try to make capital out of it. Your economic planning should be such that in time to come you will know that you have done nothing to exhaust the soil of South Africa and that those who come after us will not be able to point an accusing finger at us.

As has rightly been quoted, a number of factors should be taken into consideration in planning and with regard to any planning, but particularly economic planning for agriculture, you have to have certain aims. To my mind what we are aiming at is a dual purpose. Firstly, it is to provide the farmer with a decent living and to give him the opportunity to build up reserve funds for the unexpected setbacks which always come periodically in South Africa. In the second place we must plan with a purpose, to use the soil of South Africa in such a way that its fertility is not harmed. I want to make this plea because the recognition of all other resources, the exploitation of our mineral wealth, our secondary industries, etc., still leaves the agricultural soil as the communal mother of all of us who has to feed her children also for generations to come. The assistance that is given to farmers is often wrongly described in South Africa in such a way that the farmer is made to appear as a beggar. The mover of this motion has already shown that in South Africa through the ages agriculture has not been able to stand on its own feet. Agriculture always had to get State aid in order to survive. We want to thank the Government for providing an economic living for the farmer in order to enable him to farm judiciously.

Let us see what has been done in this respect. When I quote the figures I must ask that they be not regarded as aid to individual farmers but to the farmers of South Africa as a whole and to the industry as a whole. I want to quote a few figures. I quote the figure for recoverable loans. I am not going to mention the figure for every year separately but I am mentioning the years 1954-5 to 1959-60, the assistance given to farmers in connection with soil conservation, £1,892,000; general assistance, £3,624,000; State advances, general assistance, £4,517,000; assistance given by the Department of Lands to farmers to buy land, £5,278,000; stock and implements, £280,000; drilling for water, £647,000. Then there is the Land Bank. As far as the Land Bank is concerned I only have the figures available and covering the years up to 1958-9 and I do not have the figures for 1959-60 but loans on land and mortgages amounted to £50,700,000.

If all these are taken together for the period 1954-5 to 1959-60—and here I am making an estimate for the year 1959-60—it amounts to about £100,000,000 for the five years in the form of loans given to farmers to assist them and therefore given to agriculture in South Africa. This is recoverable money—loans granted. But with respect to different subsidies, rebates, and bonuses during this same period the following amounts were provided: to land conservation, £3,796,000; subsidy on fertilizers, £6,027,000; rebate on railage of fertilizer, £7,406,000; drought loans, £59,000; rebate to drought-stricken areas, £118,000; subsidy on drilling for water, £5,796,000; a further total during this period in the form of subsidies, rebates and bonuses of £23,205,706 and for this assistance given to farmers we have reason to thank the Government and the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing as well as the hon. the Minister for Agricultural Technical Services together with their staffs for what has been done during the past years in the interests of economic planning in agriculture. As far as the agricultural industry in South Africa is concerned we have two parties: we have the Departments of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and Agricultural Technical Services on the one hand and we have the farmer who practises this industry on the other hand and these two parties do not fight each other; these two parties, the State Departments on the one hand and the farmer who practices farming, on the other hand supplement each other because in this country we have a mutual aim and also common dangers. Our aim is to have permanent stability and to retain the fertility of the soil. The dangers are periodical droughts, stock diseases, plant lice, caterpillars, commando worms and other pests—more than Egypt ever had—which continuously affect some part of our country. That is why we should treat this matter with so much sympathy. Every penny the farmer invests in order to produce is invested in two different ways, on the one hand with the object of providing him with a living from the soil because that is his trade, this is his livelihood, and on the other hand he invests this capital in order to produce and feed the people. His motives are not only selfish; it is quite human for every person to aim at getting the maximum advantage from his calling. But he also practises his calling to feed the people and now he has to do with these unforeseen circumstances over which he has no control and over which the Departments have very little control —circumstances which do not flow from your own actions—and seen against this background with this common purpose and these common dangers we have to co-operate—these two Departments and the farmer who really practices agriculture in South Africa—in order to get more efficiency and to produce more efficiently and to find decent markets for the products which we do produce. In this respect much has been done.

At this stage I want to embroider further on a matter which was only touched upon by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). It is not only an appeal to the hon. the Minister, it is also an appeal to the farmers on their farms and that is that we should give very serious attention to our non-White farm labour. It is good, and it was also mentioned by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), that the non-White labour should get some degree of training. But if we go round, particularly in our towns, then we find a land hunger which we will never be able to satisfy. It is the wish of the young White man not so much to own land but to go farming because he loves the soil. And we want to plead here for the farmer of South Africa to be enabled to make more and more use of White farm managers or general White assistants on their farms. He is to-day, however, forced to use cheap Native labour. I say “cheap Native labour” but I am not so convinced that Native labour on our farms is really cheap. I think that Native labour on our farms is very expensive labour. I think that the productivity of one White farm manager is much higher than that of three or four Natives on the farm.

There are sorts and sorts.

To that I readily agree. There are sorts and sorts. The same applies to the non-Whites—there are also sorts and sorts. But I am speaking about this person with the urge who desires so much to help to cultivate the soil of South Africa and to produce food who must be assisted to get training either by way of a bursary or in some other way. He must be assisted economically to go back to the farm even if he does not become a landowner at that stage. There are many of our young people who are technically trained who work in factories although they are not all the owners of factories. There are many of our young White boys in the gold mines although they are not all mine-owners. There are numbers of these young Whites in South Africa, and not only in South Africa. It opens up the field for suitable immigrants who can come here as farm managers and to be trained as farm managers. Unfortunately I do not have the figures available but recently there was a lecture on the destruction and damage to expensive farming implements and there was an equation of the percentage of deterioration of a tractor which was exclusively handled by a White person and the percentage of deterioration of a tractor which was handled by both White and non-White hands and that of a tractor which was exclusively handled by non-Whites. Unfortunately I do not have the figures with me but I know that it is fantastic. The farmer is forced to entrust these expensive implements to non-White labour as the result of economic reasons, because he is not able to afford the services of a White farm manager.

Now I want to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Ventersdorp when he asked the hon. the Minister not to be over-sensitive about this; this is not really criticism and I want to ask the Opposition not to rejoice about this and to think that they will win votes in this way. I do not want to make a political matter of this but I want to state here that matters are not going well with the farmers of the country to-day; things are bad for the farmer. We see what we may regard as prosperity on the farms but I want to give hon. members the assurance that much of that prosperity is only sham prosperity. For many of those shiny objects which we see on the farms the farmer often carries debts which keep him down and which he is never able to pay. I would be untrue to myself and my constituents, regardless of which party I belong to, if I did not say these things. I am not prepared because of a little sensitivity here or there about the agricultural industry in South Africa to see agriculture, which I believe we should all foster and regard as something very valuable, go to pieces. We cannot allow that to happen. We will have to review the profit margin of the farmer and it must be adapted to our present economic structure in order to prevent the farmer from lagging behind; in order to make it possible for the farmer also to send his son to the university and to have him trained. Our boys on the farms cannot all become farmers. The agricultural surface of South Africa has already been divided into economic units and if a man has five sons he cannot divide his farm into five parts and have five more farmers. Four of those boys must be absorbed by the labour market in the industrial world and that is by the way also the reply to the hon. member for Gardens who quoted comparative figures to show how the agricultural income has decreased as compared with the national income. Of course your agricultural income will decrease on a percentage basis; it cannot be otherwise. It decreases because those boys from the platteland do not remain on the farms and farmers are not just absorbed by the industrial world. He is productive there and he helps to increase the national income in that sphere. As I have said the agricultural area has already been divided into economic units; you cannot increase that area—you cannot make 20 morgen out of 10 morgen—but we approach the future with confidence because we know that in the hands of the hon. the Minister, who is interested in this matter, together with his secretary and his staff, the planning for the future will be such that we will be able to increase the productivity of the soil without harming the fertility to the detriment of generations to come.

I want to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), because from what he said it would appear that everything in the garden of agriculture is lovely and that the farmers are happy and prosperous; that they have no worries or real financial difficulties. Later on in his speech he did refer to the high cost of production, but apart from that, if you read the amendment, there can be no doubt that he considers that the agriculturist is happy and that the Minister should be thanked for what he has done. Sir, what is the true position? In my opinion this Minister in fixing ceiling prices, is responsible for the position that the farmers of the Union have had to borrow all these millions of pounds made available by the Government. Admittedly this Government, through the Land Bank, have made available many millions of pounds to the farmers. But that just proves the necessity for planning and for the Government to see that the economic position of the farmer is improved. The Government must do more than just to lend the farmer money on which he has to pay interest and which he has to return. Here, of course, I am not dealing specifically with the drought areas, where one area may have hailstones, droughts or floods. That is a different proposition completely, and where the Government does help those farmers by lending them money, it is definite help and one is grateful for that assistance.

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

When business was suspended, I was just passing a few remarks on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). I pointed out that his amendment really amounted to thanking the Minister and saying that everything in the garden was lovely as far as agriculture was concerned. Sir, organized agriculture does not think so. One only has to read the official publications and statements of the commodity committees of the South African Agricultural Union to realize how wrong the hon. member is in trying to paint that picture. In fact, I am sure that the hon. member is not speaking from personal experience as a practical farmer.

Who is not a practical farmer?

The remarks made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp in regard to the economics of farming are not borne out by his practical experience as a farmer, because I know as a practical farmer that some of these prices for agricultural products to-day are quite uneconomic. Sir, the seconder of the amendment quoted the large amount of money which had been made available by the Government, mainly through the Land Bank and some other institutions, to the farming community to tide them over this very bad period. In fact very many farmers have had to pledge everything they owned to cover the advances which have been made to them. That does not show that the farmer is enjoying economic prosperity or that the price that he is receiving for his products is an economic one which allows him to pay his way, to rear a family and to build up some reserves for very bad seasons. Some parts of the Union, as you know, have had very bad droughts this year. The figures which were quoted here by the hon. member relate to the last three years, and during that time we had some very fine seasons. It has been suggested here that the fact that the maize farmers have been getting bumper crops proves that the farmer is doing well. But what are the facts in relation to some of these bumper crops? Owing to very heavy mechanization and the heavy application of artificial manure, it is true that very large crops have been produced in maize and one or two other products, but what happens to that surplus? Because with a bumper crop like that you are only creating a further surplus and that surplus has to be exported at a loss on a subsidized basis. Sir, if we produce grain crops to that extent, are we not mining our soil through heavy mechanization and the heavy application of fertilizers? Are we not selling the fertility of our top soil overseas so that the producers of other products in Europe and elsewhere can utilize that grain and the fertility of the soil of South Africa to their advantage and not to ours? It would be to the advantage of South Africa as a whole, but particularly to the farmer, if some plan could be evolved, so that more and more of our so-called surpluses could be absorbed in this country, particularly on the animal husbandry side of farming in South Africa. We would then be retaining our soil fertility and build up the fertility of our soil. In spite of this heavy mechanization for the production of crops for sale overseas, the maize farmer is not making a lot of money as an individual farmer, although we have had these bumper crops this year and last year. A few big organizations may be doing so but that is because they are producing on such a huge scale. The ordinary farmer with 400 or 500 morgen is not making much profit. I am not talking about his gross earnings. He is not making much profit out of maize at to-day’s prices. I say that because I have been told by some quite big producers in the maize triangle that when they have met their very high costs of production, which is going up every year, there is not much profit left for them, except where they can utilize that maize themselves in some other line of farming. I think it is a pity that we should go on mining our soil to export grain. That is certainly not to the best advantage of the country. I know it sounds nice to quote globular figures, but what does it means in terms of profit to the individual farmer, so that he can raise a family and build up some reserves, and what does it mean to South Africa in the end? We must not forget the dust bowls of America when they exported wheat in huge quantities. Are we not perhaps going that way? I would remind the Minister that our rivers are still running red with our top soil in every rainy season. Where is the planning that is doing so much good for agriculture when this goes on month by month and year by year? There seems to be no end to that soil erosion. When you go to certain parts of the maize triangle in the early spring, when the high winds are on and in winter, you see evidence of wind erosion that really is quite frightening. Sir, I am trying to deal with the subject objectively, and I say that we are not going far enough with our planning to see that this is prevented. You can spend huge sums of money on other projects and put money aside for soil conservation, but we do not seem to be able to attract enough of our own people, who after all are South Africans who need a job, into the soil conservation scheme as officials, or train enough engineers to carry out the work. The Minister may come back—and of course this comes under the Minister’s colleague who deals with soil conservation—but until we can get sufficient people to put into practice soil conservation on a huge scale, we will not go ahead agriculturally in this country as we should. I appeal to him to see to it that the conditions are made suitable so that we can attract enough young South Africans who will be trained and then will stay in South Africa and not go to the northern territories as soon as they are trained in this country because our conditions of service and our salaries are not good enough to keep them in this country. That is a very important factor in developing the soil conservation side.

The Minister and his Department must help to bring down the cost of production of primary products. Two things can be done. Today the farmer is not getting an economic price and so he is mining the soil on the one hand and many people are leaving the land and drift back to the towns, many are getting into debt and pledge all their assets to the Land Bank or other financial institutions. But the price of the product when it reaches the consumer is in many instances very high indeed, and you are not going to extend your consumption if prices are uneconomic to the consumers. So you must assist the farmer, the primary producer, to bring down the cost of production so that the prices to the consumers are reasonable, or alternately, where it is not feasible, or not easy, the state must face the subsidization of the consumer. But what does this Government do? This is the gravamen of my charge in regard to dairy products and the uneconomic position of the dairy industry in South Africa to-day that the Government instead of promoting consumption, is actually doing the opposite. This Government has done away with all the school-feeding schemes. They have stopped subsidizing the consumption of protective foods, particularly dairy products. That has brought down consumption, because most of the people who received those subsidized meals or other food were people who needed that and could not afford to buy those protective foods. I think it is not only a shame, but a great pity that this Government has stopped school-feeding and stopped subsidizing food for the children of this country, because the children of this country who need those protective foods in many instances …

Order! The hon. member must not go too far into that. He should come back to the motion under discussion.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am only mentioning that in passing. This is one of the factors that keeps down the consumption of dairy products, and we have a surplus of dairy products. Here was one place where we could get rid of our surpluses to the benefit of the nation and to the benefit of the farmers. However, I will not go any further into the feeding schemes. But what are we doing? During the last few years we have exported dairy products, the finest protective food available to the youth and for the health and growth of the children of South Africa—the real wealth of the nation—and the farmer has had to subsidize the export of several of these products, as for instance, the cheese that we had to subsidize and sell lower in Italy than the price was here.

Should it have been dumped on the market here?

Why did you not create a market here? We had these schemes under which cheese was utilized in huge quantities, but the Government has stopped that and is now exporting these protective foods. What did the Government do last year and the year before? Through that export at a loss, we in South Africa produced less and less over the last few years, less cheese and certain other dairy products. I gave the figures during the last session when we were discussing the Minister’s Vote. What was his reply? The only answer he gave me was: When we had to import butter and cheese, we had to do so to keep up our contracts with Rhodesia and the territories north of us. Mr. Speaker, earlier in this season we had exported these products. Why was there no proper planning to carry over sufficient to fulfil our contracts so that the producer in this country could get the full price for his produce instead of exporting them to the European market at a loss? I admit that we want to keep those markets. We have always had those markets. But why should we export at a loss to the European markets and then import from New Zealand and Australia to fulfil contracts which we knew we had to fulfil in Rhodesia and elsewhere? That shows a lack of planning, a lack of policy. The present Minister has not been in office long, and I know that he has inherited many of these problems and troubles from the previous Minister, but surely this is Cabinet policy and the hon. Minister has not done anything to improve the position. We complained last year. But what did the hon. Minister say to the Natal Agricultural Union at its conference in 1960? I was there as a delegate. The dairy industry put forward facts and figures to show their cost of production. The Minister said: “We cannot take all these costs when finalizing the ceiling price for dairy products.” What the Minister said was that while there is plenty of industrial milk and plenty of fluid milk, I can’t see my way clear to give you an increased price. In other words, the cost of production did not mean a thing. If for that temporary period there was a surplus of milk, the farmer must be kept down and get lower prices so that he will produce less. As much as saying to the farmer, the Minister suggested that production should be curtailed. That was also the conclusion the Natal Agricultural Union came to. On the other hand, in his opening speech, the hon. Minister referred to price fixation, because there were complaints from all parts of the province that there would be a ceiling price but no guaranteed floor price. What was the Marketing Act brought into being for? It was to protect the farmer and see he got a reasonable price, but it is now being utilized entirely for ceiling prices and keeping down the price of the producer.

Are you referring to fresh milk?

Both, fresh milk and industrial milk. When the industrial milk people put up their plea for an increased price through the Natal Agricultural Union and the fluid milk people then stated their position, you said you had to keep them correlated, and as long as there was sufficient milk on the market …

There is a fixed price for industrial milk and cheese milk.

I know there is a fixed price, but it is too low. For your fresh milk, you have only got a ceiling price. You keep down the ceiling price of your fresh milk so that you can fix your industrial milk at a lower figure. And the cost as put up by the producer has never yet been proved to be incorrect by the Minister in public debate. A few years ago, in the time of the then Minister, Stephen Le Roux, when we had Professor Tomlinson investigating the cost for the whole of the dairy industry, both fresh milk and industrial, he put in an interim report, and that report, which was never published for us to see, although some of us know it actually produced figures which proved that we were right, Professor Tomlinson was taken off the job, he was put onto another and the report was never completed. Why? Why does this Government not have a full investigation and treat the dairy industry on the same lines as any other industry? In other words, those who are employed in the dairy industry, or agriculture as a whole, where they can prove their costs, and where the Government can put a cost accountant on the job to get the exact cost, why are not they allowed their cost of production plus a reasonable return on their money? The price to the consumer can be adjusted through lowering the cost of production, or alternatively by subsidizing the consumer. The producer is entitled to a reasonable profit to enable him to raise his family, to live decently and pay his way as is anybody in any other industry. But the agricultural industry is the only industry in South Africa that is treated by this Government in such a way that cost of production is not taken into account. The hon. the Minister has on another occasion said in regard to cost of production: Well, if you produce more, you will bring down your cost of production.

I did not say that.

Produce more per acre, produce more per cow and you bring down your cost of production. But the moment you do that, you have got a greater surplus, and to-day this Government is not utilizing the surpluses in the best manner. So the larger the surplus, the less you get for it and instead of making a more reasonable living, you actually are worse off. Others will deal with the citrus industry, but I think I have said enough to prove that this Government has not planned sufficiently, especially on the marketing side, and can also be accused of not making the best use of surpluses. Because these surpluses. except in the instance of maize and one or two others, really are there as a result of under-consumption, they are not true surpluses.

I do hope that the hon. Minister is not going to interfere with the sugar industry in any way. Up to now, the sugar industry has controlled its own destinies, it has organized and run the sugar industry efficiently and well to the benefit of everybody.

With a closed shop.

We do not want the sugar industry interfered with in any way.

You want to keep the closed shop?

Yes, you see, Mr. Speaker, you have got an industry that is paying its way, that has organized itself well. Why do you want to introduce areas that are not economic for sugar production, with the result that the price will be brought down for everybody?

Of course you don’t worry about the small man, do you?

No, don’t say that. You are bringing in people on uneconomic land to produce sugar and that will make the position difficult for the industry as a whole. I say: Do not let politics come into it in any way. Don’t interfere. I plead with the Minister to leave this side of agriculture that is paying its way to the benefit of everybody in that industry alone, don’t ruin it, whatever you do.

Listening carefully to the hon. members opposite we find that in one breath they say that the producer should get a higher price and in the next breath they ask that the consumers must be enabled to buy the product cheaply. And then they say that in order to get some play between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays the Government should pay a subsidy. It appears to me that some of the hon. members have been presenting a case here which they have never yet studied and worked out. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) said that because the maize farmer is not getting a reasonable price for his maize he is finding it very hard, and that certain farmers came to him and told him that really only big combines are able to farm but that farmers with 500 to 1,500 morgen are unable to make a living in the grain areas. The hon. member must go to the neighbourhood of Lichtenburg to have a look at farmers farming on 300 and 400 morgen of land. Then he will sing a different song. In Lichtenburg he will find that at the time the Opposition was in power the price of land there was between £8 and £10 per morgen but now it is between £80 and £100 per morgen. That shows that things are not as bad with the maize farmers as the hon. member pretended.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) moved this motion. We do not know whose case he is advocating, whether he is pleading the case of the consumer in the cities or whether he is pleading the case of the farmers. To me it seems that if you farm in the north-west and at the same time you represent Cape Town Gardens in Parliament you get a bit mixed up. The hon. member talks of the cheap export maize which the Government must allow to go to the stock farmers. Has the hon. member ever ascertained what the price of export maize is and what the farmer will have to pay if he wants to buy that maize at the same price? I know there are many of our stock farmers who come along with this story. I have heard it before but I want to put what the position quite clearly is in order that an end may be put to this misconception. There is a basic price for yellow maize of 30s. 3d.; if you want to buy in bulk you can buy yellow maize at 30s. 3d. f.o.r. the agent’s station. And in order to give it to the consumer at 30s. 3d. the Government went so far as to subsidize the consumer to the extent of 4s. per bag. Had the Government not subsidized the consumer the latter would have had to pay 34s. 3d. per bag f.o.r. Then he would also have to pay the railage which to the Eastern Cape or to the Boland would amount to 2s., 2s. 6d. or 2s. 9d. That means that the consumer in the Cape would have to pay about 37s. if he buys in bulk. It he buys by the bag it would be even more expensive. But the Government is subsidizing the consumer to the extent of 4s. per bag in regard to yellow maize and then the consumer also gets a 37½ per cent subsidy on the railage. In other words, the railage is 37½ per cent less than it should really be. The Government therefore subsidizes the consumer to a great extent.

Let us now come to the so-called cheap export maize. On this export maize the Government does not pay a penny in subsidies and the railage on export maize is fully paid; there is no rebate on it. So when the Mealie Control Board exports maize at a loss it means that it would have to pay the basic price of 30s. 3d., it must pay 3s. 6d. to 4s. in railage and that 3s. 6d. subsidy or 4s. subsidy which the Government pays on white and yellow maize respectively to the consumer the Mealie Control Board does not get on export maize. That means that the Mealie Control Board must at least get 38s. per bag in order not to export at a loss. In other words, if the Mealie Control Board now sells maize at 36s. 6d., 36s. 9d. or 37s.—in the past week the price was round about 36s. 6d. and you know that the oversea market changes from day to day—then the Mealie Control Board still suffered a loss at 36s. 6d. In other words, people who say that they must get cheap maize will have to pay 36s. 6d. if they want it in De Aar or Queenstown or wherever they want it, but then they have to buy 5,000 bags of maize at a time because we sell 100,000 bags at a time at that price. They must not want to buy one bag and expect to get it at that price. The people buy maize from their dealers. The dealer perhaps bought it from a wholesaler. The wholesaler bought it at 30s. 3d. The wholesaler makes a profit and the retailer who buys from him also wants to make a profit and the railage is added and then it works out at 35s. or 36s. a bag and then they say “it is far too expensive”. Our stock farmers must not think that when I succeed in getting cheaper maize for my pig farm I will be able to make a bigger profit. We must all work together in this country and the one cannot expect to live on the other. Now the trouble is that maize which forms the staple food of many of our industries is always the product hammered at. Everybody wants that product at a lower price because it is the basic food of the country and they think if they are able to procure it at a lower price they will be able to make a slightly bigger profit. We must live and let live.

It is said that the farmers are worse off to-day than they were before. I want to remind hon. members opposite that in 1948 the profit allowed to the farmer on his average production of maize was about 4s. 8d. per bag and at that time his production was only about seven bags per morgen. When we multiply that then we find what the farmer’s profit per morgen was. For the past five or six years now the farmer’s entrepreneur’s wage was 9s. 2d. per bag. It did not decrease and the production per morgen increased from seven bags to nearly 11 bags per morgen. Multiply 11 by 9s. 2d. and then you find what remuneration your farmer gets on his enterprise. You see, Sir, our friends opposite must not drag this debate into politics. The control boards meet the South African Agricultural Union, in most cases of which I know, every year before prices are fixed and every year production costs are discussed with them and each item is examined. They are told: Look, this is the finding; have you any comments to make or can you prove that our figures are wrong? If you can prove to the Board that it is wrong the Board will be prepared to add to the figure. But then you must come and prove to us that it is so. Then all the increases shown by the index figures are taken into consideration and the production cost is calculated on them and to that production costs remuneration for enterprise is added. That is why I am unable to see how the farmer can be worse off to-day than he was before. If hon. members came and said that there are farmers, that there is a farmer here and there who is finding it hard we could understand it. But it cannot be said that it is the price of maize or the price of milk which is causing this. I know the circumstances. There may be a hailstorm which destroys the mealies of a number of farmers and even if the price of maize was fixed at £3 per bag then those farmers would still not have any maize to sell and the increase in price would be of no avail. Then you help him from the frying pan into the fire because he himself will perhaps have to buy maize in order to continue farming.

There is also so much glib talk about fodder banks. We know that for years and years this matter has been discussed at conferences and organizations have been started to see what could possibly be done to provide such fodder banks. But it had always been found that it is a very difficult problem to create fodder banks. You do not know how long the stuff will have to lie idle. There is talk of fodder banks on maize farms and that special provision must be made for this. It is true that certain facilities are given to stock areas and even in the Eastern Cape in order to enable them to store maize and only pay for it in two or three months’ time, in order to make it available to them when they need it. But after two or three months they must take it over. They cannot expect the maize farmers to subsidize the stock farmers by providing them with cheap maize. The Government subsidizes maize for the consumer and it is unreasonable to expect the maize farmers in addition to subsidize the other farmers. This is not a question where one section of the population must subsidize another section. When it comes to subsidies it is a question for the Government and in this case the Government already subsidizes the consumers of maize to the extent of about £4,000,000 per year.

I also want to say that hon. members opposite asked for cheaper maize and then they say that the maize exported at cheap prices should be made available to local consumers at low prices. Those hon. members should realize that they will have to pay more for export maize than they have to pay now for maize made available out of the stocks available in the country. They say that maize which is exported should be made available to the stock farmers and then they create the impression that the result of this would be that only a small surplus would have to be exported. If the normal consumption of maize is 25,000,000 bags per year then the consumption could easily be 24,500,000 in one year and 26,500,000 the next year, depending on how the crop was distributed and on droughts, etc. But whether 500,000 more is consumed, it is only a small part of the normal carry-over of 7,000,000 bags which the Mealie Control Board carries over for the consumers of the country. The little maize they will buy will only be a drop in the ocean of the quantity which has to be exported. If we have ten bags of mealies to sell and we have buyers for only six bags then four bags remain over to be exported. But say we take the four bags and we sell them to people who normally buy the six bags, in other words if we sell the surplus to those people who usually buy the normal crop, then the surplus in this case would still remain four bags which would eventually have to be exported. You cannot get past this economic law—do whatever you like.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) complained about the bad quality of maize they get. The hon. member knows as well as I do what the procedure is when maize is delivered to him which is not of the correct grade or weight. He is entitled to send it back, and he is not compelled to accept it if the grade is not right. He is entitled to send it back and it will not cost him a penny. In addition, the agent who sent him that maize which was not of the correct grade will be fined because he sent such maize.

Mr. Speaker, this sort of argument which the hon. gentlemen advanced here should not be advanced in this House. They only want it in order to make political capital out of it. Langa was this morning dragged into the debate and so was Russia and this afternoon the feeding scheme was also dragged in. Because there is a difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government on those matters they must not be dragged in here because they mean a disadvantage to the farmer. Let us keep this a farmers’ debate. Let us discuss the farmers’ interests here. Let us not only discuss matters which could give us political advantages. When we see how one member opposite pleads for an increase in the price to the producer and then you see another one rise and that in some instances even the same speaker pleads for lower prices for the consumer then we see how one pleads for the consumer in the cities and the other pleads for the farmer on the platteland. It is a pity that hon. members dragged these things in here where the farmers’ interests should be the main point of concern. We will not make any progress if we drag in politics in this way.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) has said about the export of maize, and in spite of his saying that he adheres to their policy for the exporting of maize at a loss, the public understands that the maize crop this year will amount to something like 50,000,000 bags. Of those, 8,000,000 bags will have to be exported, being a surplus that cannot be retained for use in this country, and this maize will be exported at a loss of 5s. a bag. Now all that we on this side of the House are asking is this: cannot that maize rather be made available for the production of food for stock at a reduced price? Let our farmers in this country be enabled to make their products pay at the present level. We cannot get away from the fact that the prices of our agricultural products are the lowest in the world. I have before me the publication Organized Agriculture of November 1959 and I read in that—

I think the case we want to put up here to the Government, is one to enable the farmer to maintain a low cost of production in this country. In spite of the two motions we have had of “dank die Minister” here this Session, there is much evidence that proves that there is something fundamentally wrong with the agricultural industry. The agricultural industry is passing through very dark days. The hon. the Minister knows this. He has had to provide facilities for farmers for chattel mortgages, to borrow on their implements. The Land Bank cannot cope with the applications it receives for increased loans, and the Minister has made provision for moratorium facilities to be granted to numerous farmers. We say that much of this is a result of the lack of economic planning in this country, and that is why this motion has been brought before the House by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). There is a marked lack of economic planning in this country in our agriculture. and this industry seems to have developed on a hit or miss basis. Food and raw materials have been produced to meet the expanding demands of the country at a cost that imperils the whole structure of our soil and our economy in this country as far as farming is concerned. And that is because we have no planned agriculture. The hon. the Minister issues a weekly news bulletin on agriculture. The Secretary for Agriculture produces an annual report. But we can hardly regard these as anything more than progress reports. We know that in times gone by we did have the necessary planning. I have here a White Paper on the agricultural policy of the Government issued by General Smuts in 1946, that is W/P. 10/46. I also have the Social and Economic Planning Council Report No. 4 dated 31 August 1944 which is packed with material on which to build and plan for agriculture and which enabled farmers to know what was actually planned for the industry. I have here a report on agriculture in Great Britain, which is also packed with information and which is available to the public and the agricultural community. And from this I read that a small country like Great Britain has a greater cattle population than that of the Union and, they are all cattle of a show standard whereas the great majority of the Union’s cattle are actually scrub.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to curtail my remarks because I want to enable the hon. the Minister to reply. If this debate is curtailed and if the Minister is not given time to reply we will be very much the poorer to-day.

I was referring to the British farmers. Under their limited conditions and restricted areas of agriculture these farmers actually produce more than half the food requirements of the 56,000,000 people in Great Britain. To give an instance of how their agricultural production has been developed, on page 5 of this report on agriculture in Great Britain it says that 99 per cent of the condensed milk requirements are produced by the farmers; 56 per cent dried milk; 99 per cent shell eggs; 100 per cent milk for human consumption, and potatoes for human consumption 95 per cent. And as we all know, they export seed potatoes to practically all the countries in the world. In my curtailed contribution to this debate, I would like to commend our Minister to pay greater regard to what is happening in other countries.

Sir, even in Kenya a farmer is guaranteed payment for the crops he sows, if they are not reaped, provided he adheres to the Government’s agricultural policy. In America farmers are paid for the products even if their lands lie fallow, if the system is approved by the government. And the previous Government did plan and issue statements on agricultural policy which are available to this Government but which, as I have pointed out, they have not taken advantage of.

I did want to discuss several other matters of interest but my time is limited. I did want to refer to the Government’s lack of interest in the mechanization of farming, and point out how our small farmers in this country are not being encouraged to undertake a co-operative system as regards mechanization. The indiscreet mechanization of farming is responsible for a great deal of the trouble which we experience in this country, but I have not the time to go into that any further. I also have much literature here, but perhaps I will have an opportunity, at some later date, to place it before the House for the Minister’s consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the motion which the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has placed on the Order Paper reads as follows:

When I read this motion I thought that we could anticipate a most fruitful discussion on the really important principles which apply to economic planning in agriculture. To my disappointment I must say that most hon. members opposite have made speeches which could just as well have been made on the Agriculture Vote, without any necessity for a motion being introduced here. I have sat here all morning and waited for one concrete indication of how hon. members opposite view economic planning in the agricultural industry. But I have heard about product prices which are not high enough; I have heard about mealies which are being exported and which are being sold at a loss or at lower prices overseas; I have heard that the entrepreneur’s wage of the farmers is not high enough and so on, but very little has been said about the actual economic planning of our agricultural industry.

Mr. Speaker, if I must analyse what our attitude towards economic planning in agriculture is and what the requirements are, I should put it in this way: Economic planning includes in the first instance the co-ordination of related branches of the agricultural industry; the planning of a farming organization with a view to, for example, production requirements and financing; and the determination of economic levels of fertilization, feeding, cultivation, capital investment, marketing and the provision of credit to our agricultural industry. As I see the position, those are the basic principles which we can lay down for ourselves if we want to have economic planning in agriculture.

In the first instance it is pointless talking about economic planning, price determination and inadequate price levels if at the first stage of production the farmer is following uneconomic practices. For that reason the first requirement if we want economic planning in agriculture, is that we must start by providing the farmer himself on his farm with economic guidance. Since the passing of the Marketing Act in 1946 we have introduced planning in various spheres. There is planning under the soil conservation programme. Hon. members have tried to contend that very little success has been achieved. During one year the Government has paid £4,500,000 in subsidies for soil conservation works alone! But in addition farm plans have been submitted and approved in which methods of farming are prescribed for those farmers who are trying to rehabilitate themselves under the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act, and who are planning their farms under that Act. It has been found that our farmers are engaged in many various activities on their farms and that there are many branches of the agricultural industry regarding which our farmers themselves do not always know whether they may be uneconomic. The farmer is not always aware of the fact that his labour is being used uneconomically. He is not always aware of the fact, as we have for example found through investigation, that farmers are producing lucerne on their farms which they cut and dry themselves while an analysis of the costs involved shows that this lucerne costs him £22 per ton, on the basis of his own figures, while he can have lucerne delivered on his farm at £8 and £9 per ton if he buys it elsewhere. The farmer is not aware of this fact and no one blames him. But when this practice is brought to the notice of the farmer, he realizes that he is spending money on something which he can really buy at a lower price elsewhere. I am merely mentioning that.

There are other aspects to the planning of farming activities on the farm itself. I refer to capital investment, particularly to the investment of capital, especially in the grain areas, in machinery, tractors and other implements; to what extent must a farmer invest capital in proportion to the scope of his productive activities to place his farming activities on an economic basis. These are all matters which should be investigated. That is planning. There are other matters. We take for example the dairy industry. People keep cows and they send their milk to a factory. It is said that the farmer cannot live on the price he is paid. But when one investigates the position, one finds in many cases that the farmers are sending milk to the cheese factory. Their rate of production is 1,700 lb. of milk per cow per annum. We have to point out to the farmer that a cow which provides 1,700 lb. of milk per annum is a goat. We have to tell him how to plan and to point out to him that he is farming in a way which must inevitably involve him in losses. He cannot continue on that basis. I am merely mentioning these matters to show that when one is considering the planning of agriculture, one must in the first instance direct one’s attention to the primary producer, to the farmer who is following these practices, and we must be able to give him guidance in connection with the various branches of his farming activities which are on an uneconomic basis and which are uneconomic not merely because the price the farmer receives is not remunerative, but because the methods he is using are in fact making the prices uneconomic in his case. That is why in 1958 the Department of Agricultural Economics immediately initiated an information system or in the first place an investigation system, because we must in the first place investigate the position if we are to understand the various problems. We have therefore started economic investigations in various regions. As a result of a staff shortage we could not start everywhere at the same time. We have started in various regions and in co-operation with the farmers concerned we have devised a bookkeeping or record system, which they maintain in collaboration with the Department. By these means we are investigating these problems in co-operation with the farmers. By these means we have already made a great deal of progress towards ascertaining what the problems are. We must first determine what the problems are before we can take steps to combat problems. I am merely mentioning this to show that the Department of Agriculture, despite the statement of hon. members that nothing is being done as regards economic planning, is in fact engaged on planning and that progress has already been made in various regions. We intend extending this planning as rapidly as we can and as rapidly as we can recruit the necessary trained staff. But in those instances where we have already carried out these economic investigations, in co-operation with the farmers, we have already in many instances established what the basic problem is. There is another problem inherent in our economic planning as a whole. In regions where grain farming and stock farming are both practised, the cry is often raised that we must introduce the animal factor into our farming. It is essential that we should have the animal factor which can provide the necessary stability. But, Mr. Speaker, in economic planning it is necessary and very important that the stock and grain branches should be in proportion to one another. There must be the correct balance between them. It is pointless a farmer saying that he is not making a profit on his mealies and therefore he must now change over to milch cows. He changes over completely and the balance is once again incorrect because he is not producing fodder for his cows. The balance between these various farming activities must also be correct. In the first instance research is required. We must first establish what the problems are. That is what we are doing at the moment and we have already made reasonable progress. It is our intention through the medium of our extension officers to provide this economic guidance to the farmers. I am merely mentioning this because this is what I consider to be economic planning in agriculture. But simply to criticize in this House and to say that the prices our farmers are receiving are too low, that many of them are in difficulties and cannot make an economic livelihood; and that the Government has had to provide financial aid to the agricultural industry from time to time—to make this type of statement without analysing the basic causes and merely trying to attribute them to incorrect prices, is not planning. Hon. members have argued that in certain branches of farming there are farmers who cannot make a living, but on the other hand we find farmers cultivating the same products and becoming rich. The one mealie farmer can pay £90 and £100 per morgen for mealie land and still make a profit. Another mealie farmer cannot make a living. He gets into difficulties and he must obtain Government assistance. To say that the only method of planning is to raise the price of mealies is not planning. If we should increase the price of mealies, we would enrich the farmer who has paid £100 per morgen, and the one who is in difficulties will simply get into further difficulties.

A second aspect of economic planning in agriculture, and a very important aspect too, is of course the provision of credit to and the financing of our farmers. To say that the Government has failed in its duty as regards the provision of credit to and the financing of our farmers—well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand where hon. members come by the right to make such a categorical statement. In recent years this Government has spent millions of pounds on stabilizing the agricultural industry and on meeting its credit requirements. Over the years the provision of this credit has been organized. We have our co-operative societies who provide credit and who help those farmers who are in a sufficiently strong position. We have the normal commercial institutions which provide credit to the farmers. But then of course we have those cases to which hon. members have referred where there are special circumstances which have been caused by various reasons. If we want to plan, do not let us merely seek the reason for these difficulties in one direction, namely the prices. There can be many other reasons why farmers get into financial difficulties. It is not merely due to the prices. One very important reason, is the droughts such as we have experienced in recent years. Prices can also be a reason, but there are others too, such as inefficient farming methods. The excessive provision of credit can also be a very important reason. This can also be a very important reason why some of our farmers have got into difficulties. When we discuss planning, Mr. Speaker, we must not only seek the reason in one of those directions but we must investigate the various circumstances which may be be causing the difficulties of the agricultural industry. We must go to the root of the various reasons. If the excessive provision of credit is the reason, then we must remove that difficulty. If it is too little credit, then we must remedy the position. If we want to plan, we cannot solve the whole problem by saying that we should simply increase the prices and then everything will come right.

Then I want to mention a third and important aspect, namely marketing, which is an important factor in planning. If the accusation is that the Government is not devoting its attention to the economic planning of our agricultural industry, then the person who makes such an accusation is a stranger in Jerusalem. Under the Marketing Act alone we have 17 different schemes aimed at establishing stability in the agricultural industry. We have one or two schemes under our Co-operative Societies Act. We have special Acts relating to agriculture, such as the Wine Act and others. These are all aimed at ensuring the improved marketing of our products. That constitutes the economic planning aspect of marketing in our agricultural industry. Then hon. members say that we are not planning and that the Government has neglected its duty as regards economic planning. The Department is now engaged on three or four schemes which farmers wish to establish under the Marketing Act in order to market their products. The day before yesterday we passed legislation which dealt with municipal markets and which will enable us to exercise control along such lines that there will not be any abuses. Then hon. members say that there is a lack of planning. We have the various marketing boards. From time to time, with the approval of the Minister, they have sent missions abroad to study market conditions so that eggs, milk, cheese, citrus, deciduous fruits and grapes can be marketed. The Department has also decided to appoint a special agricultural attaché in London for that purpose. Then certain hon. members say that if other hon. members thank the Government for the little it has done, they do not know what they are talking about because the Government has done absolutely nothing. No, when hon. members criticize the Government and their motion deals with economic planning in agriculture, and they have so little criticism of the planning itself that they are forced merely to discuss the few bad mealies which the Mealie Board happened to deliver to a farmer via an agent, or they have to discuss the little bit of fruit which has arrived rotten on the market or which did not get a good price as a result of a boycott, and they claim that therefore there is no economic planning, then their case is very weak.

May I ask a question? I just want to ask whether the Minister will take this opportunity to tell us what his price planning policy is.

The hon. member has discussed surpluses but the whole basis of controlled marketing is the disposal of surpluses to the best possible advantage and the hon. member does not know it. Take the wine industry. The K.W.V. is the controlling body. The whole object in establishing that organization was that it should dispose of the surpluses which cannot be sold in South Africa. If the K.W.V. had not been established, we would have had the chaos which existed in the days before the K.W.V. came onto the scene. The mealie scheme under the Marketing Act has been introduced to deal with surpluses. If we had not had a surplus we could simply have fixed a floor price and anyone could have bought at that floor price, but when we have a surplus and we must export it at a loss, there must be planning and the Marketing Act provides that planning. Does the hon. member not know that? If that is not planned marketing, then hon. members just do not know what they want.

The hon. member has referred to the sugar position and has urged that it should be left unchanged. Why is the sugar position as it is to-day? It is because there has been planning so that their surpluses do not exceed what they can sell abroad. What is that if it is not planning? I want to give an example. The hon. member has referred to butter and has said that there was a time last year when we did not have sufficient butter for domestic consumption and we then had to import. But there come times, particularly in a country like South Africa, when we have periodic droughts and seeing that the butter producers especially are located in the drought-stricken areas, butter production does vary. But I now want to ask the hon. member this. If the sale of our butter had not been planned and this shortage of 2,000,000 lb. had arisen, butter prices would have risen sharply during those few weeks and in the following month, when there was a surplus of 4,000,000 lb. they would have fallen just as sharply again. That is obvious. But the hon. member says that the Dairy Board was wrong in retaining its regular markets—because they normally have surpluses and shortages only occur occasionally—by importing butter from another country. We should not have imported that butter at a loss. No, we should have lost that market just because we had a shortage for 14 days. We should not have imported butter, and we should have allowed our overseas competitors to capture this regular market of ours, and when we bad a surplus again the other countries would have had our market and we would not have had a market. That is their argument. If we are to believe that hon. member, there is no planning, but it is precisely because we have planning that we acted in this way. The hon. member has discussed milk and he has contended that I said in Natal …

What do you know about butter, except that you have fallen in it?

The hon. member says that I said that the people should produce more because they would then be producing more economically. I never said that. It may very well be that the more one produces the less economically one is producing. I said that they should produce more efficiently; then they could produce more economically. Can the hon. member rise here and honestly say that our farmers are all producing on an efficient basis? He will surely not claim that No, when we discuss planning including the planning of marketing and of economic guidance, I say that this Government has done more than any previous Government.

Then the hon. member discussed the provision of credit to our farmers. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has also referred to this aspect. Farming to-day is an expensive undertaking, and has to compete with all our other industries for its labour and capital. Agriculture is also a more risky industry than any other, and because to-day it requires far more capital than in the past, the agricultural industry finds itself in the unfortunate position that it does not compare favourably with other industries as far as obtaining capital is concerned. We all admit that. The Government realized this and because a stage was reached where droughts and other conditions had forced the farmers into a position where they were under economic pressure and in many cases could not obtain the necessary credit to continue farming, the Government last year introduced these schemes to help the farmers. After all, we all knew that agricultural industries do not find it as easy to obtain capital as other industries. On the one hand the hon. member says that the Government must ensure that the farmers obtain credit, but on the other hand as soon as we give the farmers credit he says this is proof that the Government’s policy has resulted in the farmers receiving such unsatisfactory prices that they are now in difficulties and the Government is obliged to provide them with credit. This is the type of argument we hear in this House. A few years ago we had a debate in this House which dealt with this very question of the provision of credit. It is clear to everyone that whereas a farmer could start out with a few thousand pounds in capital 20 years ago, it costs £20,000 to £30,000 to start a farm to-day. We know that there are certain farmers to-day who are living on smaller farms, who are just starting out and who cannot be financed by the normal methods. The fact still remains that most of our farmers can still obtain all the credit they need from the normal institutions, and that is the yardstick which we must apply. If we were in the position to-day that 70 per cent of our farmers could not obtain credit through the normal channels, hon. members could say that the position of the agricultural industry was extremely critical, but I maintain that at least 90 per cent of our farmers can still obtain credit without approaching the Land Bank or the Farmers’ Assistance Board. We tested this last year. We had one of the most serious droughts in the north-west which had continued for four years. We have made fodder loans available to these people, and up to a little more than a month ago, despite all these years of drought, less than 6 per cent of those people had applied for fodder loans. These people were still able to obtain credit elsewhere. The great majority of our farmers can still obtain credit through the normal channels.

But then there are other groups who find it difficult to obtain credit through the normal channels, and the Land Bank facilities have been provided to help them. The Land Bank can assist most of them. I admit that a small percentage of our farmers who are beginners or people whose position has deteriorated under difficult circumstances or who are living on settlements cannot obtain credit through the normal channels, not even from the Land Bank. That is why we have appointed this study group to investigate the credit position to ascertain what measures can be devised to provide those people with credit. To-day there are various ways in which they can in fact obtain credit. It is also felt that this group of farmers whom the Land Bank cannot assist in the normal way, should be provided with a more consolidated type of credit, and this study group has already submitted its recommendations in this regard. The hon. member for Ventersdorp has made certain proposals to-day which correspond to a large extent with the recommendations of that commission. He has said that this is the new direction in which he is thinking, and I am glad that his new direction corresponds to such a large extent with the recommendations of the commission. The commission has completed its work and its recommendations are before the Cabinet. We are discussing the matter but unfortunately I cannot announce any decision at this stage. I just want to add that when the State provides credit to a particular group of farmers, we must not make the mistake of thinking that we should provide credit to every farmer in that group. There will be people who, because of their personal qualifications or their inability to farm, or because of other factors, simply will not qualify for that assistance. We must simply accept that there are certain people who will have to leave the agricultural industry just as there are people who have to leave any other industry. If we imagine that we can plan in such a way that we shall retain in the agricultural industry all the people who are in it at the moment, we are making a very big mistake. The credit which we will provide must be consolidated credit, and it will have to be controlled as well. It is pointless giving people credit if they really use their credit to their own disadvantage. If such a person is given credit, he must obtain it from one central organization alone and not from other credit organizations as well. Otherwise we shall not be achieving our object which is to rehabilitate those people. This type of farmer will have to be prepared to accept control and only to obtain credit from such an institution. Furthermore he will also have to undertake to farm under the guidance and instructions of the Department because otherwise we shall be wasting our money.

I just want to say a few words about something which has been discussed at great length this afternoon. The hon. member for Ventersdorp raised it, namely the surveys of the costs of production in the various branches of the agricultural industry. When we talk of production costs, I just want hon. members to appreciate that we are using a very relative term. Certain costs of production surveys can be very useful in determining prices, particularly in those instances where we have control, but in most instances, as far as price determinations are concerned, these surveys can only relate to areas of production which are suitable for the cultivation of certain products, and we cannot extend them to cover all South Africa. We have undertaken costs of production surveys in respect of a few products, such as wheat and mealies and to a lesser degree dairy products. In the case of these three products the costs of production are taken into account to a certain extent in determining prices. But before we determine the costs of production we say that only certain areas will be recognized as production areas in the case of the particular product. We only recognize certain areas as mealie areas and certain areas as wheat areas. In those areas the approximate costs of production are calculated. We cannot take the costs of production of all the producers in South Africa who are cultivating a certain product and then determine the price on that basis. I am convinced that there are many farmers in the Boland who can produce mealies, but if we were to take as a basis the farmer in the Boland with his land, his irrigation and his costs of production, where would we finish? I say it is a very relative term. There are various factors which play a tremendous role in the costs of production, and one of the most important is the price of land. If a survey of the cost of production of meat for example must be undertaken, should it be based on land costing £5 a morgen or £10 or £80 a morgen? Anyone knows that if one’s investment is £10 a morgen, one’s costs of production are only half those of the farmer whose land cost him £20 per morgen. But there is another factor as well, and that is the efficiency of the farmer himself. This also affects the costs of production. The one farmer can make a profit out of the same undertaking on which another is losing money, and that is very important. But there is yet another very important factor, namely one’s investment in machinery, i.e. whether or not one’s investment in machinery has been economic. The one farmer will reap 10,000 bags of mealies with three tractors, while another farmer will use six tractors to reap the same number of bags. As a result his costs of production are far higher than those of the other farmer.

Another very important factor is the utilization of labour. The one farmer will produce the same quantity of mealies with ten labourers as the other produces with five. But the most important factor remains the yield per unit. One farmer produces five bags per morgen and the other 15. The one dairy farmer produces one gallon per cow and another three gallons. And then we still talk about average costs of production. And after all these factors have played their role, one region of the country may experience a tremendous drought and another may have excellent rains, with the result that the one produces nothing and the other produces a fine crop. I now ask you, Sir, if we determine the costs of production and then pay an average price based on the costs of production, who would we subsidize by so doing? In the first place we shall be laying down a price which will make it a most attractive proposition for some people to buy land and then the price of land will immediately shoot up. The second result will be that whether the farmer is efficient or inefficient, he will remain in the industry and he will therefore be compensated for his inefficiency. Whether or not the farmer is building up the soil, and whether or not he is exhausting it, he will be compensated. Is that planning? I ask hon. members whether they think for one moment that we can determine a price for a product which will keep in the industry all the farmers who fall below the average? If we were to lay down a price which will cover all the costs of production incurred in producing any article, we would see the platteland being depopulated because then the big farmers who make the profits will buy up all the land. That is logical. [Interjections.] I say that if we fix prices at such a level that the most inefficient farmer can make a living then the most efficient farmer will become wealthy.

At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned until 17 February.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I was pointing out, and I wish to repeat, that when we discuss a motion such as this in this House then we are dealing with a matter which is very important and which has been greatly neglected in South Africa in the past, that is to say, the fertility of our arable land. We appreciate that in the end our greatest source of welfare is the soil, and the growth of every country or nation is limited by its possibilities of producing food for the nation. In other words, the fertility of its soil, its potential to produce food is a restrictive factor in the future of any country. Since that is so one would think that every country and every nation would exert all its energies and do everything that is humanly possible right from the start to build upon that foundation of its existence, to improve it for the future and jealously to cherish it for the succeeding generations. But unfortunately we in South Africa—and I think initially many of the countries of the world did the same thing—have greatly neglected our soil. It is a fact that South Africa is unfortunately very poor in fertile soil, particularly agricultural land, but even our livestock areas are ravaged by drought and the land is very arid and poor. By the application of over-cropping—and when I talk of over-cropping I want to add this, that I feel that over-cropping in South Africa has been promoted to a very great extent by the fact that the share given the farmer has always been such that the farmer has had to resort to a system of over-cropping. So the prices allowed to him have been so low that he has been simply forced to practise over-cropping. He has made such a poor living out of farming that he has had to resort to over-cropping to keep body and soul together and to provide the necessaries of life. I said that here as long ago as 1936. I said then that if maize had to be sold at 5s. a bag, the farmer would be compelled to plunder the soil and to exhaust it, because once he had subtracted his production costs he had nothing left, and that is just what happened. For that reason I am glad that this motion has received so much attention this year. I want to thank the mover of the motion, but I want to express the hope that when we leave here we will not revert again to our old sins and continue on the road that has been the cause of so much poverty over the past 50 years; that we will not stand by supinely while the best parts of the country dry up, while our fountains dry up and the arable land is exhausted. When one crosses the Drakensberg range the land looks as though it has been ripped up. There are dongas wherever one looks. I want to express the hope that we will be able to awaken the nation to the realization that a great task awaits us and that the preservation and future of our arable and grazing lands places a very great duty on every good citizen of the country, whether he is a farmer or a city-dweller. That is why I enjoyed the speech so much that was made here by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) recently. As a city-dweller he made a valuable contribution to the debate. It was most heartening.

He is greatly interested in the soil.

Yes, he is very interested in the soil and he made a very good contribution. I am sure that there are thousands of others in the cities just like him who are equally interested in this matter and who will help us to solve this big problem. But if we want to do justice to this cause we will have to adopt an entirely new approach. We will have to cultivate a new vision in South Africa. As far as research is concerned we will have to think big. We may have a man studying forest encroachment and doing research; we may have a man conducting research into the desalting of salt water, but we will have to learn to emulate the Americans: If we want something we must go after it. You must fight for what you want and you must take it. We must say to ourselves: “This problem requires all the energies of the nation.” We must do what we would do if an enemy appeared on our frontiers and marched upon us. When we are threatened by an enemy we mobilize the energies of every man, woman and child to repel the enemy. But the greatest enemy of all we allow to invade our country and we take no positive action to keep him back. I say, “the greatest enemy of all” because one cannot drive him out again. Other enemies one can drive out by using cannons, but it is an almost impossible task to build up soil that has been impoverished and destroyed. We are capable of great things but we can never realize what it will cost to build up the soil again. May I refer here to what the Jewish people are doing to-day in Israel. They are doing the most wonderful constructive work. Is it not possible for us to light our lamp from their torch and to see whether we cannot do the same here? If we do that then we will be on the road to what I would like to see in South Africa, on the road to what we ought to do. We ought to awaken from our deep sleep. The soil of South Africa is being threatened seriously, and unless we wake up in time it will be too late. Let us go and see what the Jews are doing in Israel in turning the desert into a country for the future of their sons and daughters. There they are really trying to …

… create a paradise.

Yes, I have been assured by well-informed persons who have been there that they are turning that desert into a beautiful country for their descendants. Mr. Speaker, let us wake up in South Africa. I am not saying these things to accuse anybody; we would then have to accuse everybody—nobody can be said to be blameless. I hope we will wake up and realize the situation in which we find ourselves. South Africa is fortunately in this position that it has gold and diamonds, that we can still afford research workers to tackle this problem. I want to express the opinion here that South Africa’s greatest need is research in this field. We require a great deal of research. We have heard here of all the fine work that is already being done here. I do not want to repeat it but nobody is more grateful than I for what men have done in South Africa to improve our position in the field of agriculture, and in saying that I have in mind a man such as the late Sir Arnold Teiler; I have in mind a man such as the late Dr. Anecke who opened up the eastern lowveld for occupation and changed it from a malariaridden area where no person lived to one of the most beautiful and most fertile parts of our country. We think of many other men who have performed great work for South Africa but we cannot mention all the names here. Mr. Speaker, this only goes to show how necessary research is. We must wake up and realize that we do not yet know how to maintain the fertility of the soil in the maize triangle. It has been shown here how a farmer disturbs the composition of his soil by applying fertilizers although he may have the best of intentions, and where the composition of the soil has been disturbed it is practically impossible to build it up again. For many years now not only I but many others who have had to deal with these matters, have viewed this position with concern. On the Maize Board, just one of many boards in this country, we tried for many years to find out what we could do to retain the fertility of our soil and we then decided to buy experimental farms. We said to the Department of Agriculture: “We know it is very difficult to get the necessary funds from the Central Government to finance such an experimental farm. The Maize Board will buy those farms and make them available to the Department of Agriculture. Go and farm there and show us how a farmer should farm so as not to destroy or deterioriate his soil and yet make a living.” That was the idea behind it. At the time we gave this matter a great deal of thought before taking that step. We considered whether we should apply other methods; we thought of trying to pay a bonus to farmers who looked after their soil. We thought that if a farmer looked after his soil and did not destroy it, he should get more for his product than the man who goes in for over-cropping. We discovered that we could not put this into practice without enormous difficulties and we consequently hit upon this idea. To-day I am very proud to be able to say that our board took that step because we have rendered an enormous service to the maize triangle.

Where are those farms?

They are situated in the most important maize areas. There is one in the Western Transvaal, one in the north-western Free State in the sandy part, one in the Eastern Free State and one in the Eastern Transvaal.

What was the result?

The result was not very satisfactory. The result was such that we realized that these farms ought no longer to be used as experimental farms, but that the time had arrived for the Government to take them over and use them entirely for research and investigation purposes. We realized that it was a big mistake to blame the farmers for all the misfortunes experienced in farming. As a result of tests done there we discovered that our knowledge of agriculture, even the agricultural knowledge of the best specialists, fell very much short of the mark. That is why the Maize Board made this offer and that is why the Government accepted the idea of taking over these farms for their purposes so that they could proceed with tests without hindrance. I am convinced that those farms will be of great value to us in future in the agricultural areas and in the maize triangle in particular, and enable us to find out how a farmer ought to treat his soil in South Africa to be able to continue to reap good crops from it without its fertility deteriorating. Up to now we have had little knowledge as to how to tackle this problem of soil impoverishment. We knew certain basic facts but that was not enough.

Mr. Speaker, that is one point, but now I want to mention another which is just as important, namely, what do we in South Africa know at this stage and what do our agricultural specialists know, our extension officers stationed everywhere, about grazing problems in our country, in the livestock areas? There is much ignorance in that regard. We do know that wrong grazing methods can ruin grazing. We can also not get away from it that one cannot talk about soil conservation without talking about the water supply. In South Africa one cannot apply soil conservation if one does not provide for adequate water in the various camps on an agricultural unit.

That is the crux of the problem.

The hon. member is well informed and now he is helping with the right word. It is the crux of the matter, as he rightly says. I hope the time will arrive when we will be in a position to make a proper survey and not only to do research in connection with the maintenance of the fertility of our arable grazing lands, but that we will also do research work in connection with our subterranean water supplies. Mr. Speaker, are we not following a policy of letting things develop when we sink thousands of boreholes each day without replacing a drop of water in that subterranean reservoir? We do not know how full or how empty that dam is; it may be fairly full or it may be empty, but we continue to take water from it. The day when that subterranean dam runs dry then South Africa will certainly become a desert, and we will have to quit it. But what do we do? How many people in the country are busy using their brain power in connection with this extremely important problem? If to-day there are 10 or 20 or 50 persons making a study of that problem then we are fortunate, but if we use 500 for that purpose we will perhaps be nearer the mark in showing that we appreciate the danger facing us. If in the meanwhile we can do nothing else, then I want to ask whether we cannot say: While we are busy with research we are going to try to determine to what extent it is practicable to carry water by pipe-line from the big rivers to large parts of the drought-stricken areas for drinking purposes. To-day that water is running down the Orange River straight to the sea. I want to go further.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he has thought about the possibility in the future of using atomic power for the purification of sea water for irrigation purposes?

It is a very useful question and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to answer it. In short I want to tell the hon. member this: I thought that we should use atomic power in the South Pole to warm up the cold current which flows past our western coast so that we could get plenty of rain. I feel we ought to think along more realistic lines, where we have water available, to supply that water along pipe-lines instead of carrying on in an indiscreet manner extracting water from the earth until such time as we have more knowledge in connection with our supplies of water in those areas where subterranean water is scarce. Mr. Speaker, to-day we spend millions of pounds on boreholes in South Africa and what is the result? We know to-day that the more boreholes one bores the more holes dry up in certain parts. Eventually it becomes a kind of vicious circle. One carries on and on and one’s water tank drops further and further. We shall have to do more and more research in this country. We shall have to realize that we do not by any means fully understand our biggest problems, on which our whole future depends. We shall have to realize that we will have to make money available to those departments which are busy doing that good work so that they can really make progress, so that we can achieve something. I want to predict that if we carry on as we are doing now, one threat after another, one enemy after another will prove unconquerable. It will almost be the same as in the case of the colour problem in South Africa. To-day we notice that bush penetration is assuming enormous proportions in South Africa. In large parts of South West Africa the farmer’s cattle have been driven off certain parts of his farm. The same applies to Vryburg and Mafeking, that splendid cattle-raising area. The bush is gradually forcing the farmer’s cattle off his farm. One has the same position in the Northern Transvaal to a far greater extent than is generally realized. Mr. Speaker, what are we doing? We are tackling it on a very small scale. We will have to wake up and realize that our country is being threatened by problems which will give us no rest. We must deal with them now, while we still can, otherwise they will prove insoluble.

I want to conclude by saying that I believe we must awaken the conscience of the farmer to assist us in this matter. No Government alone can solve a problem such as this; it is a natter for the whole country. In the first instance it is a matter for the farmer, it is a matter for the Government and it is a matter for those in the cities. It is a matter for everybody in the country. We will have to realize that it is a matter in connection with which we can either destroy or save our future. I want to express the hope that we will move forward with all the energy at our disposal to try to save the future of South Africa by building up the fertility of our soil. At this stage we can perhaps find no better example than what is being done in Israel in those desert areas where a new country is being developed with so much determination and resoluteness. I hope that our farming community will assist the Government in the application of such a policy and that the whole country will support it and give it all the assistance it may require in such an enormous undertaking.

The hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) seems to have allowed his oratory to run away with him to such an extent that he has run right into opposition to the Government. He seems to have forgotten that this is a motion of “dank” to the Minister. He has actually supported the amendment introduced on this side of the House—

The hon. member for Vryburg has stressed “research”. He has actually indicated that some of the wealth of our gold and diamond industries should be used in the interests of research. We quite agree with him as far as research is concerned, because we know that we are among the poorest countries in the world as regards the development of research in general as well as research in agriculture, and that is what I think the hon. member for Vryburg had in mind.

Sir, this Government has been in power for 13 years during a period of unprecedented prosperity and during that period it has not achieved anything of proportionate value in research and in respect of the preservation and redemption of our soil. We do not believe that the hon. the Minister is satisfied that his Department has been enabled to do everything possible to turn the scale against the deterioration which is so evident in our soil on account of the difficult periods which the farmers have experienced over the years. In this White Paper on agricultural policy (W.P.10 1946) it is stated—

And that has taken place in this country for many years—a destructive agriculture, and I believe it is continuing to-day. We know that with mechanization production has been increased by ripping and tearing up many areas which are better suited to pastoral uses than agricultural production. The hon. member for Vryburg said, there is nobody in the Agricultural Department who knows anything about pastoral control; they are absolutely ignorant in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House long. I just want to say that the Orange and tons of our top soil. I say that the Government has done nothing to counter this. The Tugela Rivers still convey annually to the sea more than three-quarters of the Union’s flow of water, and with it they convey millions of great southern desert is steadily encroaching southwards. The sand dunes of the Kalahari are making progress south of the Orange River. The Karoo is extending in all directions, which is an indication of desert encroachments, and we must face these facts. Here we have nature’s evidence before us. We can see it happening and we are not doing enough. The grass in our grass areas is being displaced and grass is necessary to build up the structure of our soil and to hold it against the erosion of waters. These are things, Sir, to which the Government must pay attention. We must face facts. South Africa, unless something of a drastic and radical nature is done, will become the great southern desert of Southern Africa.

At this stage I would like to move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 3 March.