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

This motion covers a wide field and in moving that this urgent investigation should be undertaken, I say without fear of contradiction that the conservation, division and use of our land constitutes the only guarantee of our existence. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this House must realize that all laws and all debates, every important statement which has been made and will be made in future, are secondary to this one consideration that our people or the nation or the population groups must have space within which to live in South Africa. In other words, the soil, the surface area of our only home, the Republic of South Africa, must not only feed, house and supply all raw materials, indeed life itself, for this generation, but also for the generations to come. Mr. Speaker, it does not matter how many millions are spent on Bantu development or on the implementation of our separate parallel development or on community development or on housing, pensions or building of railways, etc.—it does not matter how much we spend, if we do not look after the soil of the Republic properly. You do not divide and use it properly without practising exploitational farming, and if we do not see to it at an early stage that our land is not cut up and torn to shreds, then all these other things amount to seeking the unattainable. The first instruction given to mankind by the Creator we find in Genesis 2. It came even before the Ten Commandments. It was one of the most important injunctions ever issued, that we must live on the land and protect it; we must look after it, we must till the soil and husband it. In this sense “husband” means that we must look after it and protect it—this soil which gives life to mankind. Mr. Speaker, all visible things, gold, silver, everything you see here, the Speaker’s chair, the benches, the briefcases, the books, the mace, even you, Mr. Speaker, man himself, spring from the earth, from the soil, and we cannot increase this soil. Unfortunately this soil is frequently trampled on, burnt, robbed and neglected by man. I trust, Mr. Speaker, the result of this motion will be that the Republic of South Africa and the present generation will not be accused by the unborn generations of having cut up the land, of having left them with an inhospitable soil and of having stolen their living space. If one looks at man himself the first man was Adam, a name which means: Till the land, look after it, husband it. In other words, the earth, the soil, offers living space, offers life to man himself. When we look back into history we find that all wars of the past—we can even include those of the future—were fought, however much the purpose was camouflaged, over the ownership, over the political dominion, over the right of occupation, over the means of production and the right to exploit the land. The land gives life to man and to nations. It is what man yearns for. In other words, this motion deals with life itself.

Let us now analyse how the Department of Agriculture in America defines land in their investigation into the injudicious cutting up of land. We find the following in their Year Book Land—

In other words, we use all our energy to exploit the land and to extract from it food, a roof over our heads, clothes, furniture, telephones, motor-cars, washing machines, soap, newspapers, radios, books, in short everything which makes life worthwhile, comes from the land. I find that when Israel investigated the question of economic units, they made the following statement—

That does not apply to Israel only; it applies to the whole world. It does not matter what man does or plans, if one cannot feed a nation it dies; and a nation cannot be fed if the land is not looked after properly. Materially, this generation can leave tools, factories, railways, roads, buildings, dams, wire, fencing, livestock, etc. to the generations to come. These generations can have energy, the ability to work, vision, the will to plan, to plant and to work, but the decisive factor was and will always be the land, that which provides fertility, the precious and base metals, iron, coal, fuel, food, etc. What do we find, Mr. Speaker? In the report of the study group on agricultural credit we find that it is stated clearly in paragraph 23—

The most important capital asset in agriculture is land, and in financing it, regard must be had to the fact that the purchase price of land is often influenced by subjective considerations such as love of the land, family sentiment, etc. Apart from this, land is an investment and a means of speculation, since it has a permanent value, because with proper treatment it is indestructible and is basic to the survival of man.

I wish to emphasize that land has a permanent value. But that is subject to one condition and that condition is proper treatment, proper use. One cannot just let it lie exposed to the elements, or cut it up or let it be trampled upon. If we look back into history, we see that in the Crusades, the crusaders used Malta as a feeding station where they kept goats and cattle in order to obtain meat on the way to Israel. They so ravaged the island that only a bare piece of rock remained. The island died and the land could not give life to man. Later on they carted soil in baskets and in boats to put on the rock so that they could have some soil in which to plant. We cannot ravage the land in this way. That is the condition.

Mr. Speaker, how much land have we, the only guarantee of our survival in South Africa? Our surface area is 473,000 square miles, i.e. 143,000,000 morgen. But we must bear in mind that only 10 per cent of this surface area, if we include irrigation, can be ploughed and is suitable for cultivation. It will apparently never be more than 15 per cent. The reason for this is to be seen when we look at the lovely mountains, at the rocks, at the mountain ranges, the desert regions and at the climatic conditions such as droughts and so forth. I think we can safely estimate that only 20 per cent of the remaining 85 per cent is pasture. In other words, our highest potential for agricultural development is only 22 per cent of 143,000,000 morgen, or 45,670,000 morgen. That is all there is. We must realize that in most areas the grazing potential is also dependent on agriculture as a result of winter and other circumstances. In my area, for example, we find that farmers who do not have sufficient land for agriculture have to trek great distances with their cattle—70, 100 to 150 miles. Every year as winter approaches, we see cattle on the way to the Lowveld. The grazing and agricultural land, or the Highveld area, is to a large extent dependent on the agricultural potential. Mr. Speaker, this House must also realize that all our Bantu areas are included in this surface area. We must note the fact that the Bantu areas are the farming areas with the highest farming potential in the Republic. They are mostly in the eastern regions; they are frost free, they have the best rainfall. They are in the tropical and sub-tropical regions and we are conserving them and looking after them for those people as well and doing all the planning, etc. It also fits in with our policy of separate development because we must also provide living space for them for the future. In other words, if these Bantu areas together with those parts which still have to be bought in terms of the 1936 Act, are subtracted from the 45,000,000 morgen which we have, we find that the rest is divided, according to the census statistics, into 112,000 farms or farming units. These 112,000 farming units must be farmed in such a way that at the moment we can feed 3,000,000 Whites, the 2,000,000 non-Whites still living on the White farms and the 5,000,000 non-Whites who are still in our White areas. In other words, at the moment we must feed 10,500,000 million people. But that is not all. From time to time we have to send food to the Protectorates and the Bantu areas to meet the needs of those people who cannot produce so efficiently so that they can also live. Then we also have to produce out of our land so that foreign exchange can be earned for the Republic. Let us see what is already been earned by means of agricultural production. We find that in 1960 we exported agricultural produce to the value of R232,520,024, which is foreign exchange earned for South Africa. If we look at the gross value of our agricultural production, we find that in 1957-8 it was R723,388,000. In 1959 it was R729,990,000. In 1959-60 it was R766,264,000. We find an ever-increasing tendency in the gross value of our agricultural production which comes from the earth. By 1995 this land which we must guard without being able to increase it, will have to feed and provide living space for 29,800,000 people just in the Republic of South Africa and will have to provide all the raw materials for these people to live. At the moment it is providing for only about 14,000,000 people.

Mr. Speaker, in order, therefore, to see this motion in its right perspective, this House will have to take note firstly of the economic unit of our agricultural land in the light of the agro-economic production potential. This is the first item which will have to be analysed. Secondly, we shall have to take note of the prices of products and production costs compared with those prices. We shall have to take note of mechanization, labour potential and labour capacity. We shall have to take note of all these factors, and what is the distressing tendency? When one looks at this, when one takes note of all these details, one finds, if one analyses the price index of farming implements—and I take the figure for 1938 as 100—that the index price of tractors has risen to 269, of lorries to 406, farming implements to 303, spares to 313, fertilizers 62, fuel 206, fencing material 302. There has been a tremendous increase in production costs in South Africa. But what is the price index relating to farming products? If we take mealies at 100 in 1938, then the price index in 1959-60 was 307, wheat 284, kaffir corn 261, dried beans 408, potatoes 281. There is also a rising tendency, but if we take an average, we find that the rise in produce prices has not kept pace with the rise in production costs. Production costs are rising faster than produce prices. It is so bad that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services found it necessary the other day at the show a Worcester to issue a warning that this was the problem facing us and that the farmer would have to plan. This brings us back to the idea that he will have to plan in such a way that the land is not ruthlessly exploited and this at once brings the land unit into the picture. Notwithstanding this we must also take note of the fact that in the last few years there has been an unparalleled increase in production. I must analyse this unparalleled increase in South Africa, because later on we shall have to ascertain how it has affected the farming unit financially. I wish to deal with the position from 1947-8 to 1960. We find that there was an increase in wool production from 196,500,000 lbs. to 279.1 million lbs.; in respect of beef from 646,000,000 lbs. to 677,000,000 lbs.; mutton from 226,000,000 lbs. to 297,000,000 lbs. The production of butter has increased tremendously, to such an extent that we have a problem on our hands, as a result also of the effect of small-holdings in this connection. It has increased from 59,000,000 lbs. to 108,000,000 lbs. The production of cheese has increased from 20.3 million lbs. to 32.6 million lbs. The production of condensed milk has increased from 32,000,000 to 78.3 million. In the case of mealies the production has increased from 32.1 million bags to 41,000,000 bags, etc., etc. I wish to put it in this way, Mr. Speaker, that these increases are most certainly due to better instruction, better agricultural technical services, better opportunities which have been created and offered by this Government. But in part it is also due to the fact that it is necessary for the farmer to produce more if he does not want to go under. This creates the unfortunate anomaly that as we produce more, our agricultural problems will become more difficult in the future. When we consider the economic units, we must also take note of the comparative standard of living and the economic structure or the right to a living of the farmer in relation to the rest of the economy of the country. How is the economic unit measured in America? It is fixed as follows—

But now it introduces the economic factor and it says—

It is said that the economic factor has to be considered. It goes on to say—

It goes on to show that the economic factor must be considered in determining economic units of land. In their 1960 Year Book the following is said—

This shows that a change in the prices of agricultural products has a much greater effect on the price of agricultural land than the price of animal products. I mention this because in a moment I want to show how in some cases we have neglected and cut up our agricultural land. We find that Roosevelt considered an investigation necessary and we find a warning which I want to borrow from this Year Book. It starts with these beautiful words—

That is followed by this distressing statement—

Then it warns against the cutting up of land and it ends as follows—

Mr. Speaker, will this charge also be levelled against these sons of South Africa, that we wrongly cut up this land which was acquired for us by our forefathers, that we acted wrongly and ploughed where we never should have ploughed because of uneconomic units, because lovely cattle country is being sold in small units, and people are planting groundnuts in the Bushveld where groundnuts should never be planted? Must this accusation also be made against us? What has the American expert Lowdermilk to say about this? He says that he knows of no better way to impoverish a nation than to divide its land into small pieces and he cites China as an example. I wish to ask pertinently whether the time has not arrived when we should create a central board for surface planning, a central board to co-ordinate the activities of the Department of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Technical Services, Lands, the Land Bank, the Council for the Development of Natural Resources, Town Planning, Bantu Resettlement, Water, as well as of the bodies which provide recreational facilities (so that one can know where to relax)? In other words, every body which has anything to do with the occupation or the cultivation of our land should be gathered together to serve on this Board. Why must our land, this precious property of a nation, be cut up by injudicious road deviations, often only of a temporary nature? Often a vlei belonging to a farmer is cut off or the road goes right through it and destroys it whilst if the road was made with a slight curve this would not happen. Why must a road be made as straight as a ruler when in so doing most valuable land is cut up and wasted?

And without compensation.

Yes. Why must we allow profit-seeking agents to sell small-holdings and to exploit the land-hunger of our people? If you look at all the instances which I propose to mention in a moment, you will see what a tremendous sin is being perpetrated against South Africa. I wish to pose a third question: Why do we allow the subdivision and misuse of agricultural land by means of injudicious town-planning? The same thing, the same phenomenon was found in America—

There was also no proper planning in this connection in the beginning. One saw only a higgledy-piggledy pattern. I have already quoted the example of Malta. I now wish to mention a few examples in South Africa also. First of all I wish to mention the Native township Tembisa between Jan Smuts Airport and Pretoria. The soil there is deep, most fertile and most productive. It is known as Delmas red Adam’s soil. I do not believe that in the whole area there is land which can produce better potatoes and mealies and a greater quantity per morgen. After all, there is a lot of stony ground within the Witwatersrand complex which is unproductive and on which such towns could be laid out without cutting up fertile land which can never again become productive.

All Governments in the past have sinned because we do not have a national planning scheme in South Africa and, because of this, I feel the time has arrived to call a halt in this connection. I mentioned the small-holdings. Around Bloemfontein there are small-holdings which exploit the underground water. Do you realize what it will mean to the farmer and to his livestock if the underground water dries up? What will happen to the Republic of South Africa if we do not call a halt to this system of small-holdings under which all these boreholes are sunk and the underground water is taken away? If one goes from Pretoria to Bronkhorstspruit and further north, one finds a whole series of small-holdings which were sold by agents to make profits. A large number of our officials, driven by land hunger and a longing to return to the land, spent their savings, and what happened? They started building and in some cases they had only reached window height when their money was used up and they had to give it all back to the agent. The next buyer builds up to the roofheight; then his money is finished and he has to give it back to the agent. Some of these small-holdings are sold three or more times. Warnings have already been given in this House. I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) on 22 September 1958, in which he gave a warning and said that people were attracted back to the platteland by unscrupulous people who sell their land as speculators. He went on to say—

This phenomenon is still going on and is becoming worse; it will always go on unless we place the subdivision of land under the national control of an agro-economic planning board. I have already referred to the position in America. During the 1933 depression in America we found a phenomenon opposite to that in South Africa. In America the people fled from the cities back to the country. They believed that each man should produce his daily food for himself, a little bit of milk and vegetables and a little bit of this and that, otherwise they would die. In South Africa one saw the opposite, namely, that people flocked to the cities in large numbers during the depression. This phenomenon made it necessary for Roosevelt to investigate “submarginal farming units”. He ordered that all necessary steps be taken to see that the land remained in economic units and, where the land was already subdivided, that it be re-consolidated. This was done on the basis of agro-economic details. I hope the day will come when this will also happen in South Africa. This resulted in their starting a new scheme under which the agro-economic potentialities of every piece of land had to be recorded from time to time on the title deeds so that a purchaser could see what the productivity of the land was and so that the State authorities which subsidized purchasers could know at once that if the land was cut up its production potentialities would be interfered with and that accordingly it must not be done.

The same thing happened in England. When England became worried about its food production, it started planning. To-day it costs millions in Europe to buy up small pieces of land and to consolidate them. Let us see what is said in England. In the interesting book by Wibberley, “Agriculture and Urban Growth”, he makes the following statement, which, as I have said, comes back to what was done in America—

They use this information, which is registered together with the title deeds of the land, to show its production potentialities and so to prevent the land from being cut up injudiciously. In other words, they obtain the data relating to economic units and then they plan them. They have already produced their planning scheme, their Town and County Planning Act of 1947. So we find that Israel, a small country, are studying the same question and are also collecting information. They do this—

In their developmental plan they first take the economic units into consideration—

Then it goes on, and this is the important part—

In other words, they considered it necessary to place their economic unit planning scheme under a utility company in which the Government holds 52 per cent of the shares, so as to ensure that the soil of Israel, which is a small country, will remain productive in the years to come and will continue to feed the people.

So the whole world was cut up, or divided into uneconomic units, or came into the hands of non-occupying concerns and remained unproductive, or combined into areas too great a size. The problem actually became so big that the United Nations circulated a questionnaire to all countries and I want to quote a few questions from this questionnaire. The first question was—

Let us see what the countries replied. I want to mention a few of them. We find that in Europe since 20 December 1954, they have passed legislation that amends the 1941 legislation and they have created bodies to effect this consolidation. We find for example that Iceland said this—

That shows that in Europe and in Holland the people are busy consolidating on a larger scale and to consolidate their uneconomic units—

Everybody is concerned about the same thing, economic units neither too big nor too small. Switzerland, one of the countries which sets an example as far as agriculture is concerned, says this—

That is what is being done in this connection. Some countries are still busy with it to-day. I want to mention a few others without taking up the time of the House. I find that each of those countries who has replied has already started planning in order to consolidate uneconomic units and to prevent their coming into existence in future. When we go into the question of the uneconomic units in the Republic of South Africa, we find that there are two enlightening reports from which I could quote extensively, as well as those other hon. members who will take part in this debate. We have the report of the Commission of Inquiry on European occupancy of the rural areas and we have the report of the Study Group for Inquiry into Agricultural Credit. Time does not permit me to quote extensively from these two reports. I merely want to mention a few things. What is regarded in South Africa as an economic unit? I find from the report of the Study Group for Inquiry into Agricultural Credit that the following is regarded as an economic unit: it is a unit where all factors of production are exploited to the utmost, in other words, where the marginal costs of all factors of production are equal to their marginal yield, and then they say that in practice such a unit is seldom encountered and that most farming enterprises fall far short of this ideal. This is actually a theoretical concept of the optimum farming unit, but then we have this important passage “without harming the permanent productivity of the soil”. In other words, the planning of a farming enterprise should be such that you do not harm the permanent productivity of the soil. I find the following on page 2—

In other words, when they talk about an economic unit in this report, they couple to it the production potential of the farmer, the knowledge of the farmer, and the fact that he should perhaps receive the necessary guidance. Because this economic unit is a relative concept, planning, availability of labour, mechanization, the capital available, the farmer’s own managerial ability, etc., constitute a real factor, as is stated in the report. In passing, this report recommends very strongly that there should be a Department of Agricultural Finance. I hope that the Government is considering this already and that it will shortly be established, because such a department will also be able to some extent to prevent the further sub-division of land into uneconomic units. It could also serve on a part-time basis on any central board of land planning that may be established.

In the report of the Commission of Inquiry into European Occupancy of the Rural Areas, we find that where they talk about economic units, we again have this very important factor, namely that we dare not lose sight of the financial aspect. They say this—

In other words, he warns that there are two features as far as uneconomic units are concerned; they are either too small or too big where you cannot have optimum production. He gives a table on page 23 of the bigger groups and comes to this conclusion—

He then issues a warning and says—

What I want to point out clearly is this, Sir. That commission warned us that the depopulation of the platteland was due to two factors. Firstly, that land has been cut up into units that are too small and secondly land that has been consolidated into units that are too big and that cannot be utilized productively.

We already have an agro-economic map of the Republic of South Africa, but that is simply the framework within which we shall have to continue to make analyses and plan. I want to mention something interesting. It is very difficult to get hold of this map. Here I have seven of his books and I am afraid there are many Government departments that are daily sub-dividing farms in South Africa and purchasing land for Lands and for other reasons, who do not even know of the existence of such a map; that there are officials and boards doing this work and who completely ignore it or who do not even know of its existence, whereas it cost a great deal to prepare. This map, which is at least the framework as to where agriculture, stock farming and mixed farming should be practised, is not always followed. How many of the members of the Land Board themselves make use of that data when they assist in the subdivision of farms? How many of them know about it? When it comes to the planning of economic units we shall have to make the necessary surveys from farm to farm and have the details registered with the deeds of transfer and diagrams. I want to illustrate this. I have made an analysis of two pieces of land in the south-eastern Transvaal in respect of their agro-economic production potential as against the marketing possibilities, price structure, transport facilities etc. The one I want to deal with is 220 morgen. According to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the extension officers the unit that land can carry is 45 head of cattle and 330 sheep, otherwise you will be over-stocking it. What is recommended is roughly two parts grazing land and one part agricultural land. Let us analyse the position. Of the 45 cattle you may have 17 cows for the production of milk; eight may be heifer calves over one year; eight may be over two years; four that are not in milk and then your bull. What is your gross revenue from those cattle with an average yield of 7,500 lb. per cow—then they have to be very good cows—with a butterfat yield of approximately 4 per cent. At 35c per lb. you will receive R1,785 for your total milk production and if you sell eight cattle annually—that is calves, etc.—you will receive R240. From your cattle alone you will have a total income of R2,025. Of your 330 sheep—and here I want the sheep farmers to tell me whether my calculation is wrong—100 will be ewes—I am now talking about mixed farming—150 will be mixed and 80 lambs. You have to allow 7 per cent for losses—the 23 that die and the 24 that you kill for domestic use. You can then sell 33 per year at R198. Your gross receipts from wool at present-day prices will be R990. In other words, your income from the sheep will be R1,188, that is, a gross income of R3,230. That is the maximum. I now want to analyse what you can make on a third of those 220 morgen, that is plusminus 80 morgen; what you can make on it if you place one-fifth of it under ley-cropping, one-fifth under legumes, and the remaining three-fifths is divided between cash cropping, crops for harvesting and for fodder. Then you will have 16 morgen under ley cropping, 16 morgen under legumes, 16 morgen fodder, and 32 morgen cash crops, namely mealies. You will not get more than R1,070 for your cash crops. In other words, this farm of 220 morgen, will yield a maximum gross income of R4,383. However, let us analyse what the costs are. If you feed 4 lb. of concentrate to each of your cows every day and you take into account your medicine, licks, your domestic consumption of butter, transport costs of cream, etc. you have to deduct R648 from the income you derive from your cattle. Then you have the costs connected with your sheep such as shearing costs, woolpacks, medicine, licks, purchase of rams, transport costs etc. which run into R234. In addition to that you have your expenditure on your lands; fuel R130, fertilizer R242; seed, maize and oats and legumes R248. Altogether your expenses amount to R1,534. Over and above that you have heavy diverse expenses. Farm labour R600; cropping, harvesting, feed storage, hoeing and other casual labour, R100; bags, harvesting money, threshing, etc. R195. Allow an entrepreneur’s wage for that farmer of R1,500 per annum and R521 interest on the farm and livestock; R994 in respect of repairs and depreciation of implements, etc; and you find that your expenses already amount to R3,910 and that your total expenses in connection with this farm which gives you a gross income of R4,338, are R5,444.

I have based this analysis on the strength of practical experience as far as farming is concerned. In other words, these 220 morgen, as far as its agro-economic production potential is concerned, is an uneconomic unit in the Highveld of the south-eastern Transvaal. To illustrate my case I want to take the same piece of land and increase it to 400 morgen. According to the extension officer that farm can carry 82 head of cattle and 600 sheep. The ratio is again two parts grazing veld and one part agriculture. Your 82 head of cattle will give you an annual gross income of R3,705. Your 600 sheep will give you an annual gross income of R2,088. That is the maximum and then your total gross income will be R8,067 and your expenditure in connection with your cattle will be R1,161: your expenditure in connection with your sheep will be R441 and your expenditure in connection with your lands will be R1,182—classified exactly as in the case of the 220 morgen—and your diverse expenditure, such as labour etc. runs into a further R4,631. Then you have a total expenditure of R7,415 and your gross income is R8,067. In other words, you can make a profit of R652 from this piece of land. Then you have only covered your interest on capital. If you had bought the farm and you must still provide the capital yourself, you will find yourself in a very precarious position.

I have made this analysis in an endeavour to show that when you talk about bigger economic units, you can only do so in the light of the agro-economic production potential of that unit, coupled with the availability of labour, the price structure, and on the other hand the price of products and if you do not do that, you will have no norm to apply. I hope I have proved that there is a yardstick that can be applied. The conclusion I come to is this: Although your profit on 400 morgen is not big, those 400 morgen at least form an economic unit but it is clear that in that area 220 morgen do not form an economic unit on which you can make a living and that you cannot go on like that.

Now I should like to analyse our agro-economic production potential in relation to the price structure of the Maize Board. They show very clearly that this varies in different parts of the country. They have calculated that the production costs in the case of maize amount to R2.41 per bag in the Transvaal Highveld. Your yield there is 10.70 bags per morgen. When you go to the north-western Free State you find that your production costs are less as a result of the fact that you have less trouble with weeds and other circumstances. There your production costs are R1.92 per bag, namely 19s. 1½d. But when you go to the western Transvaal your production costs are even less; there they are R1.64, again because you have less trouble with weeds and because you have a better yield, namely 13.79 bags per morgen. In other words, that agro-economic unit indicates the production potential per morgen, and you must take that into account. Mr. Speaker, let me put it this way: from an investigation conducted in 1949 by the Development of Natural Resources Board, it appeared that in five districts in the central Free State where they go in for stock breeding and agriculture, 40 per cent of the farming units, that is to say 10 per cent of that area, were already under 200 morgen and that did not include smallholding schemes or land situated within urban areas. It was also determined that the smallholdings in the Witwatersrand complex, particularly along the Western Reef, which were undeveloped and consequently unproductive comprised thousands of morgen of agricultural land. The point I wish to make here is this: The greatest number of applications for assistance to the State Advances Recoveries Office come from this area in the Free State; that is the area where the greatest number of farmers get into difficulties, and those are the farmers who all have less than 200 morgen of land. Those units of 200 morgen have become uneconomic as far as they are concerned. You have to consider this all-important factor, Sir, that the farming implements of a farmer are to a great extent unproductive for eleven months out of the twelve. That is frozen capital. Let me give a few examples: a farmer uses a combine, for instance, only for one month or fourteen days; he uses a silo-fodder cutting machine for 20 days, and so I can go on. However, those are expensive implements that lie there—frozen capital. All these factors, as far as the production costs of the farmer are concerned, costs which are probably not always calculated correctly, place the farmer in a very unenviable position. In order to appreciate the scope of this problem fully we should not forget the contribution which the farmer makes to the net national income of the Republic of South Africa. This was R90,200,000 in 1939; in 1959 it was R472,600,000. The percentage has remained constant over the years, namely 12 per cent. In other words, farming has kept pace with the national economy. However, I think we should be honest with ourselves, we should face up to the position squarely, and admit that everything is not rosy in the garden as far as our agriculture is concerned, and that in spite of everything that this Government has already had to do. But there were reasons for that. It may be due to the fact that we inherited a great backlog in the agricultural field; it may be due to the fact that with the sub-division of farms there was never any planning with the result that we have farms to-day that are too small, that have been cut up into fragments. Because this essential specialized planning was not done, because this sub-division was not carried out properly beforehand, the Government has already assisted the farmers inter alia as follows—and it is necessary that we note this because it accentuates the problem. From 1948 to 1961 the Land Bank granted loans to farmers alone to the tune of R194,926,000; and if you add the seasonal loans of co-operative societies and instalment loans, the Land Bank advanced R2,880,000,000 to the farmers during that period. It says a great deal for the farmers that the Land Bank has advanced them R327,000,000 since 1912 and that up to date the Land Bank has not suffered a penny loss. That indicates the honesty of the farmer in South Africa.

In spite of the fact that the farmers find themselves in very great difficulties at times the Land Bank has not as yet suffered a penny loss. I now want to deal with the position as it is to-day. During this period the Department of Water Affairs has assisted the farmers to the tune of R1,587,389 in respect of drilling and irrigation works. Since 1956-7 to 1960-1 the Department of Lands has advanced R1,073,619 under Section 53 and an amount of R485,855 under Section 42, and under Section 20 an amount of R8,538,736 has been advanced to the farmers from 1956-7 up to 1960-1, and all those loans have to be repaid. Over the same period we have allocated holdings under Section 23 the purchase price of which amounted to R2,650,180. Likewise under the Department of Soil Conservation loans have been granted to farmers over the same period to the tune of R5,262,108. We have given them seed and fertilizer loans amounting to over R11,000,000 during this period. Since 1958 we have granted stockfeed loans to the tune of over R2,800,000. In other words, since 1956-7 to 1960-1 we have advanced an amount of R320,901,774 in the form of loans alone to the farmers of South Africa in this connection. But these amounts are economically sound; these loans have to be repaid. Why should the farmer of South Africa always be presented to the outside world as a person who continually goes about hat in hand? Why was it necessary for us over the same period to which I have referred to pay the following subsidies: in respect of fertilizer R8,853,110; we had to pay railage rebates on fertilizer to the tune of R14,000,000. Over this period we had to pay an amount of R1,221,000 in the form of subsidies for the conveyance of stock from drought-stricken areas. We had to obtain rebates to the tune of R400,804 from the Railways. We had to obtain rebates from the Railways for the conveyance of stock-feed to drought-stricken districts, firstly, under the Department of Agriculture, R299,707, Railways R599,406. So we continually had to give subsidies to the farmer; soil conservation works R3,354,000 and R1,019,000 for the eradication of noxious weeds; for the combating of pests and plagues, R715,000. In other words, if we take the Departments of Water Affairs and Railways together, we had to give subsidies to the farmers of South Africa, over this same period, to the tune of R41,193,536. Mr. Speaker, that is a great deal of money. People often say that this Government spends too much on the Bantu homelands; on Bantu development, but do we ever take into account these amounts that we spend on agriculture in order to keep the farmer on the farm and to enable him to farm properly and to produce food for South Africa? In this connection I do not want to compare the United Party with the National Party as far as expenditure on agriculture is concerned. I do not want to compare them because the position that obtained under United Party regime is probably not comparable with that of the National Party. For the purposes of this motion, however, I want to ask all parties to regard this as a national task not to make a political football of our agricultural economy, of our land, of our soil, our most precious possession, but that we should analyse the position together and see what can be done to keep the farmer of South Africa soundly established on economic units for all time. I want to ask this question: Will we not repeatedly be obliged to continue to render these services, to give these subsidies and big loans? I am afraid we shall have to do so unless we introduce a proper system of land planning and unless we divide our land into economic units on the basis of such planning, eliminate all the uneconomic units and see to it that we consolidate them on a national basis.

Let me analyse the position in this respect a little further. I find that the following services were necessary: The appointment of a study group to go into all aspects of agricultural credit: a temporary change in policy in the application of the Farmers Assistance Act; the changing of the Land Bank Act, amongst others, to grant loans up to 80 per cent: valuations for hypothecation loans to purchase livestock and implements; emergency loans for the purchase of seed, fertilizer and fuel; emergency loans for drought-stricken areas; quick action on the part of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Technical Services; advice to farmers etc. In spite of all these services we still find that it was necessary for the Farmers’ Assistance Board to do the following during that short period of time: In 1959-60 there were 6,512 applications for assistance under the Farmers Assistance Act; and since the granting of that assistance, up to the end of 1960-1, there were a further 603 applications. In other words, there were 7,115 applications for assistance. The debts of these farmers as disclosed under the 1959-60 scheme amounted to R69,723,000. The financial assistance given since 1 April 1959—that includes the stockfeed scheme that was taken over by Agriculture—amounted to R19,023,074, that is, under the assistance scheme—the assistance given at Riet River and the assistance given in the Cape Province. If you add the loans given to save stock, loans in respect of stock-feed, the transport of stock, water etc. and the loans to save crops, loans for the repair of flood damage and loans to farmers in the foot and mouth disease areas, you find that the total amount which the Farmers’ Assistance Board had to advance during this period was R24,052,225. Then you still have the number of compromises which the Farmers’ Assistance Board had to effect under the scheme in which 350 farmers were involved. I want to state it very clearly that the Farmers’ Assistance Board, namely the State Advances Recoveries Office, has taken the lead here and has proved that under a consolidated scheme, if it could possibly be converted into a Department of Agricultural Finance, it would also be able to make its contribution in this respect and prevent the sub-division of farms into uneconomic units because it would be able to issue warnings timeously because of the knowledge that it has already gained in this respect. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this: What control have we over the sub-division of land, over the injudicious fragmentation of our land? I went through the library and there I found Cape Ordinance No. 33 of 1934, Transvaal Ordinance No. 11 of 1931, as also No. 11 of 1933 and No. 13 of 1934. Those were the only ones in the library, but I know that after the Tomlinson Report the Transvaal decided not to allow land of less than 25 morgen to be sub-divided without the approval of the Administrator. But what does that mean? That is only in respect of town planning. That is only in respect of smallholdings—smallholdings which are often the reason why the agriculturist finds himself in an unenviable position, because the smallholder is not the bona fide farmer, and he goes somewhere or other for assistance, assistance which he does not always get with the result that he falls out, and the land lies there unproductive, as it lies from Krugersdorp, Randfontein, as far as Witbank, where there are thousands of such unproductive smallholdings. In addition you have the Water Act. In the Government Gazette of 12 January 1962 provision is made for the board of management at Kakamas to have the right to determine that certain land, namely, certain pieces of land in Gordonia and Kenhardt, should not be further subdivided and cut up into smaller fragments. We also find that in the past no authority has been prepared to put a stop to the sub-division of land by testamentary disposition. In other words, you have this phenomena: A farmer who farms on an uneconomic unit, may injudiciously leave that farm to four or five children, and we have never been prepared to do anything to prevent that land from being cut up into five small uneconomic units. That matter must be put right. I want to put it this way: The divergent legislation of the various provinces relating to the subdivision of land, makes a national attempt to combat this evil quite impossible to-day. As a matter of fact, as I have already said, it is only aimed at protecting urban development. When the Government tried to do so under the Development of Natural Resources Act and the Unbeneficial Occupation of Lands Act it encountered certain problems, and it cannot really be properly applied on a national basis. That again brings me to this all important matter, namely, that we should ensure that it is controlled on a national basis. The biggest crime that we have committed over the past 40 years was that we did not see to it that land was not injudiciously subdivided. There is simply no national control. There is pitiful overlapping and sometimes deplorable disregard by one department of the other department’s timeous warning. During the Day of the Covenant festivities I went to the northern Transvaal, and there I saw how some beautiful farms in the Bushveld had been cut up into such small pieces that the farmers were obliged to plough the land and to sow groundnuts. With the first drought that comes along the wind blows the soil away: all you have is water erosion, there is no erosion due to over-stocking, but there is wind erosion on a very large scale as a result of the fact that the land has been cut up into pieces that are too small. The Department of Lands hopes that the Land Board will do the work. The farmers who have been placed on that land are capable and efficient farmers, honest people, whose bona fides can never be doubted, but do they have the technical knowledge, do they have the scientific knowledge, do they know the facts how to determine what the effects of production will be on our agricultural economy before they agree to the sub-division of that land? I want to give an example of this knowledge to which I refer. As a result of the difficult position in which the farmers found themselves we introduced the scheme of hypothecation loans for stock. The Department of Lands set a fine example and said that stock should once again be integrated with farming. But nothing that you do in agriculture stops at that. It forms a chain reaction. What is that chain reaction? That chain reaction is that as a result of that step the Department of Agricultural Economics is at its wits end to-day and does not know how to dispose of the surplus milk and dairy products. This proves to me that when planning our land we should at the same time consider what the economic consequences will be of such sub-division, of those steps that we are taking. I know that the Government intends conducting an investigation. Let me tell you, Sir, that we have this planning over the whole world to-day. I found the following interesting data in the Year Book of Israel—

Then he goes on to say—

I want to emphasize that when it comes to land planning and the sub-division of land into units of an economic size, Israel does not only consult, for example, her Departments of Agricultural Economics, and of Agricultural Technical Services and her Department of Lands, but even her Department of Defence, even her town planning division. In other words, she tackles it on a national basis, because it is something which affects her entire economic structure. That is the reason why we are coming with this planning, Sir, we are coming with it not only to ensure that land is sub-divided into economic units and consolidated, but we are asking that the body that has to do so should have a national board of land planning that will see to it that all factors are taken into account. I know that because of the Government’s responsibility towards the Republic, its responsibility towards the various national groups, and particularly towards agriculture, it will conduct this investigation. In conclusion I want to recommend that the terms of reference of the Commission should be such that: (1) Investigation can be instituted into the steps that will be necessary to prevent the further uneconomic sub-division of land; (2) uneconomic units will gradually be consolidated into economic units; (3) a central board of land planning can be appointed; and (4) attention can be given to our agricultural economic structure in respect of entrepreneurs’ wage, planned mechanization, planning in respect of capital and working capital investment based on agricultural-technical and agricultural-economic advice. I move.

I second. I really feel that I should heartily congratulate the mover of the motion. I do not believe a speech has ever been made in this House containing so many points. He has definitely correlated everything which could be advanced and I want to congratulate him, and I am convinced that the House will accept his motion. The whole country is gratified about it. I must tell him that in my opinion such a commission of inquiry should have been appointed long ago, at the time, for example, when the Marketing Council was established.

But of all the good points he mentioned here I must say the main factor is still the price of the product which is obtained by the farmer. Without a sound price structure one cannot make any unit of land economic. Everything depends on that. Therefore I hope that in future, as was the case in the past, the farmers will bear that in mind when stating their case. I am glad to be able to say that the whole economic structure of South Africa has been built up on the shoulders of the farmer; our industries, mining, and everything else have been built up on our cheap food, and I think the time has arrived when the various industries which are flourishing to-day with the price structure continuing to rise and salaries continuing to increase, will also grant the farmers a reasonable living on the land, and it is because the farmer cannot make a reasonable living that we have all these evils such as soil erosion, the depopulation of the platteland, and that the Government has to spend much money to keep the farmers on the land. These are all signs showing that the economic structure of the farmer is unsound. Therefore I come back to the point that the price received by the farmer for his product is not sufficient to keep him on the land, and when one talks about the economic sub-division of plots, etc., everything turns on the question of what the farmer receives for his product. I hope the time will come when we will have a five-year plan, or an even more extensive plan, to put the farmer on a sound basis. It is true that the Government has performed a miracle in keeping the farmer there. It has spent large sums of money, but why did the Government have to spend these large sums? Because the economic position of the farmer is bad, very bad indeed. What do we find now? We have all these various loans to keep the farmers going. They are not gifts to the farmers; they are loans, and every day the burden resting on the farmers becomes heavier. It does not relieve them of their burden, and if one is still going to interfere with the prices received by the farmer for his products, then eventually the farmer must go under. One cannot produce if one’s expenditure is greater than one’s income. My hon. friend mentioned a few points which definitely show that it is to a large extent true, and these vagaries of nature, such as droughts, etc. are not taken into consideration sufficiently in fixing prices. One thing is certain, namely that the price of the farmer’s product decides whether he can produce economically or not. I think the farmer also has the right to expect to be able to make a decent living on the farm so that he can also educate his children. If one has regard to the income tax paid, one will see that only about 5 per cent of farmers in the country really pay income tax. I am convinced that 75 per cent of the farmers do not even make enough so as to have to pay tax.

Order! The hon. member is now deviating too far from the motion.

Sir, I am dealing with the economic aspect and I feel that unless the price basis can be set right the farmers must eventually go insolvent. I think there is one thing the Government can do, and which they are in fact already doing, and that is to provide more water in South Africa. In the Karoo …

Order! The hon. member is now deviating very far from the motion.

With all respect, Sir, may I not say why the economic position aggravates the problem? The economic aspect is one side of the matter, and I think the motion also refers to the economic aspect. I think it also refers to uneconomic units.

The hon. member may refer to uneconomic sub-division, but he must confine himself to the motion.

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, if I speak about economic units, surely I must discuss the yield of those units.

Yes, but the hon. member is going too far.

Sir, the point is that in the Karoo and those areas there are may uneconomic units which would in fact be economic if the price of agricultural produce was high enough. Therefore I want to discuss how to make those areas economically independent. The one thing is the price structure and the other the water supply, because the droughts in those areas cause severe losses, with the result that many of those farms become uneconomic. Therefore I also want to mention the factor of water to indicate that if one can solve the water problems in certain parts, the farms there will be economic. Plans are now being drawn up to put another 350,000 morgen under irrigation, and now I feel that the Karoo and the farmers who live in areas far distant from that water should also have the right to have economic units and to make their farms economic.

Order! I refer the hon. member to the wording of the motion. He must confine himself to what is contained in the motion.

Sir, I quite agree that uneconomic units constitute a burden to the State. I want to come back to what one finds in the Free State, where there are certain areas where, as the result of droughts, etc., the people cannot carry on. In the course of time these people will definitely become a burden on the State if something is not done to make those areas economic. The sub-division in the arable areas there is very serious, and I should like the board which is being proposed here, although I cannot prescribe to them, to go into all these points and to evolve a scheme based on this motion. But I want to add that it is also wrong if the economic aspect is not properly considered. If they do not do that, this motion will then be useless.

Any debate regarding the conservation of our soil and the production of necessary foodstuffs is of value, even if it develops into a general discussion of the difficulties confronting agriculture in this country.

What about the Orange River?

I think the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) rather transgressed the liberties he enjoys under this motion and he used the motion to a great extent to boosting the Government as a farmers’ government. I would like to remind the hon. member that it is not commissions that we need, but a Government that will have the grit to exercise the powers which have already been provided in the legislation of this country. Are we to wait to be reduced to the standard of mealies as our staple diet? The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) did not actually say that, but that was what he stressed, in his speech, as to what was in store for us. We have legislation to prevent the sub-division of agricultural land, which this motion deals with, and it is on this point that we want to stress the Government’s responsibility. But I wish also to move an amendment to remove the harmful section of this motion in which it seeks to delegate provincial responsibilities to the Central Government. I therefore move as an amendment—

I will speak to this amendment in a moment, but I would like to say first of all that a great deal of our troubles regarding this evil associated with the uneconomic sub-division of land is wrapped up in our evolution as a nation. The uncertainty of prices for primary products and the fluctuation in the natural laws of supply and demand induced the migration from the Cape in the early days, only to be aggravated by the concentration of our population on our farms in the interest of self-defence. I say that the dangers that the agriculturalists suffered in our earlier days aggravated this position of the sub-economic division of farms. They sought to keep their families together in the interest of self-defence. We had the example of the 1820 Settlers, who were concentrated not only on holdings of 100 acres in the interest of self-defence, but also as a buffer against the advancing Native tribes. They did so without any government assistance and without the Land Bank. They sold or gave their farms to each other and adjusted their difficulties, and to-day we find that 99 per cent of the ground allocated to the 1820 Settlers is still occupied and owned by their descendants. You see, Mr. Speaker, we must not always run to the Government to solve our difficulties. But what did the Transvalers do? Whom the 1820 Settlers came to assist? They ran away, taking even some of the 1820 Settlers with them, and they have been a problem in this country ever since Union. During General Hertzog’s Government there were commissions on the poor-White question, and most of the poor-Whites were in the Transvaal. Then, there being no government assistance, came the depopulation of the platteland and the drift to the towns. It was a question of self-adjustment. The industrialization of our country gave the people, their sons and their daughters remunerative employment, and they in turn created better markets for our agricultural production. What governments can do is only a palliative, and this Government hides and postpones its obligations by appointing commissions of inquiry at the instigation of motions like this motion of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. A commission of inquiry will get us nowhere. I would advise the hon. member to rather get down to the source of our troubles on the floor of this House. We have the necessary legislation and the hon. member should concentrate on that legislation and stop making suggestions for the appointment of commissions of inquiry. The Government have all the legislation necessary, but I am afraid that the Government is the greatest culprit itself. How much land does not the Government own? Let it do a little soul-searching. The Government has followed too much the designs of its own heart instead of doing the things it ought to have done. The hon. member quoted Aaron, perhaps I can also quote a little advice of that nature. He quoted two Acts. The Government has the machinery of the Land Bank Act, which the hon. member for Wakkerstroom mentioned; then there is the Marketing Act. Apart from that, the Government have wonderful powers in the Soil Conservation Act. It even has the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act of 1937. I recommend to hon. members opposite to read all the expressed optimism surrounding the passing of that Act. The Government of 1937 were most optimistic that under the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, land barons would be done away with and the uneconomic sub-division of farms would be controlled as a result of the powers provided under that Act. I am pleased to see the hon. Minister of Lands here to-day. I know he is ready to enter into this debate. He has developed a very fatherly attitude in the control of debates here and we hope for some sound advice from him when he replies. But I regret that he has not the Minister of Water Affairs also here to assist him in providing the alternative, the only alternative which we have as regards the cutting up of our farms into small-holdings. We do not want to reduce our population on the farms. We want to increase that population. We all know that Oliver Goldsmith in “The Deserted Village” said as regards the value of our rural population, to the stability of the nation, the development of its character, and everything that a strong nation would desire. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we as a nation in this country have developed out of the land. We have now moved into the towns, but we must not forget our foundation—the hon. member for Wakkerstroom spoke about the foundation of our nationality. Well, it is in our land. If we are to go back to our land, then there is this cry of “water, water, water!” for the alluvial soils we have, and then of course if this water is provided the difficulty as regards the uneconomic sub-division of land falls away. The proper conservation of the 6,000,000 acre-ft. of water which, on an average, finds its way annually to the sea from the Orange River …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but you know the Government asks us what suggestions we can make to eliminate these difficulties, and I contend that the sub-economic subdivision of our farms was brought about through an inadequate water supply, and I want to stress …

Yes, but that is not covered by the motion.

Could I say to the hon. Minister of Lands in regard to the Pongolo Scheme that I hope that the hon. the Minister will exercise his powers to see that in the subdivision of land in the Native areas, he is not creating a poor-Black community. But I will not go any further into that matter. I would have quite a lot to say on irrigation—hon. members opposite called on me to say something about the Orange River scheme—but I will abide by your ruling which as usual is correct.

I want to come back to my amendment. What I wish to omit in the motion is this passage “The desirability of transferring the jurisdiction over the sub-division of all land from the provincial administrations to the Central Government”. I want to ask the hon. member for Wakkerstroom whether he suggests that Act No. 10 of 1944 which empowers provincial councils and the Minister of Lands to regulate the division of certain land into small portions and to prohibit such division, that this Act should be repealed? This Act gives such power to provincial councils, and they may prohibit or regulate the division of certain land. It further says that the division of such land can only be made subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands—

For the satisfaction of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, I would like to just read the last section of this particular Act—

So it does give the Provincial Council of the Transvaal extra powers, and I think that the hon. member, representing as he does the Transvaal, has cast rather a slight on the Provincial Council of the Transvaal in this motion of his.

Mr. Speaker, this Act was very highly thought of when introduced into this House, and the hon. A. M. Conroy, the then Minister of Lands, said, as reported in vol. 47 of Hansard, page 263—

Then he does go on to stress how essential it is and why these powers should be delegated to the provincial councils. And then General Kemp, who was a previous Minister of Agriculture said—

That Act was passed and it went through the Committee Stage without any amendment and through the third reading without any discussion. It is an Act which delegates powers to the provincial councils, and we in the Cape Province are very jealous of the powers of local authorities and the provincial administrations. We have been prepared to pay for these privileges. The property owners in the Cape Province pay enormous land taxation to maintain local government like divisional councils and town councils. It is quite common for a farmer to pay £200 a year in road taxation. It is not as though he gets much more than the farmer in the other provinces in respect of work done on the roads. He retains that power of self-government and self-control which we want. I think that is what democratic government means. It does not mean delegating authority to a central Government. We in the Cape Province believe in the decentralization of government. The Province of the Transvaal and its supporters seem to advocate the centralization of government.

Where do you get that from?

A government is very far removed from the individual if it is centralized, for instance, in Pretoria or Cape Town. We like these powers and we feel that the Government has all the powers it needs as regards the unbeneficial occupation of farms and the cutting up of farms into uneconomic units. We have the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act. I do not want to delay the House by reading some of the sections of that Act but they are most enlightening and they give enormous powers to the Government if it only had the grit to exercise them. I do not think that time should be wasted on commissions. Once you appoint a commission where are you? The Press Commission has been going on for years and years.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

But Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with a commission.

But not the Press Commission.

I said it might even outrival the Press Commission. What a tragedy that would be. A great deal could be done for agriculture with the money that will be spent on a commission when the Government already has the powers. We have had numbers of commissions already, Sir. We had a committee to consider the administration of areas which are becoming urbanized but which are not under local government control. That, of course, gave rise to the Act which gave the Administrator the right to control these particular areas. We have had commissions; we have had reports. And then the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) still asks for a further commission and for a further report when we have all this legislation before us. Take the Soil Conservation Act. That Act gives the Government enormous powers. It can expropriate a farm if it is not properly farmed. What I like about the Soil Conservation Act is that it delegates authority to local committees. Why I am against the second portion of the hon. member’s motion is because he wishes to centralize all control in the Government and remove essential powers from our Provincial Councils. We fear. Mr. Speaker, that if this motion were acceded to and if it were recommended to allocate these powers now enjoyed by the Administrator to the Central Government, it may sound the death knell to the Provincial Council system. We have to remember that too. We are jealous of these rights. The Provincial Council system was part of the Union of South Africa; it is fundamental to our ideas of democratic government. For members to come here and to take away the powers of Provincial Councils, bit by bit, as has been done in the past, is something that we do not like.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that you think I have not kept to the motion but I do feel that some examples of what has already happened should be stressed in trying to impress the dangers of the second portion of this motion on the House. I myself do not like the motion at all.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I direct your attention to the second portion of this motion which asks for a commission to go into the question of removing from the provincial administrations the powers they have now and transferring those powers to the Central Government. I submit that the hon. member is dealing with that aspect.

I have allowed him to go very far to state his case.

I thank you Mr. Speaker. I think you too realize how jealous we are of the powers of local government. I do hope the Minister will react to the representations I have made. We do not want to kill this motion entirely. As I have said, even the first portion of this motion is quite unnecessary because the Government already has the powers. But we fear any reaction on the part of the Government benches to the second portion of this motion. We feel that the acceptance of that portion of the motion will lead to enormous dissatisfaction especially here in the Cape Province. I know that the Orange Free State and Natal place great importance on local government. But we in the Cape Province feel that we built the foundation of our legislation. Our early Parliament was the mother of the Parliament of our present Republic and, in that early Parliament, we did not only delegate the franchise to a wide section of the community, but we stressed the development of local government. I cannot use a strong enough term to stress the dangers and the reactions that will take place among the people of the Cape Province if the commission is appointed and it induces the Government even to consider further decentralization of the powers of the Provincial Councils.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the liberty you have allowed me in dealing with this motion. I am sorry that more time has not been allocated to us. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom naturally developed his introduction of the motion over a very, very wide field. I should like to apologize on behalf of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). He certainly has been led astray by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom gave us, not only what this Government should do, but what the Government has done. He also gave us information as regards the extent of the development in this country. I do appreciate the difficulties that confronted the hon. member for Cradock and I am sorry that he has not been able to make the contribution that he would have liked to make as regards the development of our water resources. That would partially have solved our problem in regard to the sub-economic partitioning of our farms in this country.

I should like to second the amendment. In the first place, I do not think it was necessary for the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) to include the last portion of his motion. If we go back to Act No. 10 of 1944, we find that the Minister already has the power to put a stop to the injudicious sub-division of land. Mr. Speaker, may I just draw your attention to Section 2 of Act 10 of 1944. Let me first say that Section 1 provides for the power to be given to Provincial Councils to determine to what extent ground may be sub-divided. Then we come to Section 2, which says that the Administrator may approve of a sub-division and that land may not be sub-divided—

If we read the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, we see that what the hon. member for Wakkerstroom aims at here has already been provided for and that the Minister already has those powers. But the Minister in his wisdom realized that the sub-division of land required the necessary local knowledge, otherwise the sub-division of land would result in absolute chaos. Therefore the Minister in his wisdom has delegated these powers granted to him in the following section. He delegated them to the provincial administration. As the position is at present, the Administration has the right to sub-divide to a minimum of 25 morgen in the Cape Province. I think the only province which is an exception is Natal, where it is 50 acres. That is near enough. I therefore cannot see why the last portion of the motion should remain standing, because we already have this Act. All that should be done, if the Minister thinks fit, is for him simply to say that he will again himself assume those powers which he delegated to the provincial administrations. I do not think the Minister will do so. Particularly when we come to deal with small plots, I can draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Tomlinson Commission Report of 1957—that is not the same Tomlinson Commission which is referred to so often, although it is the same Dr. Tomlinson—dealt with the sub-division of land into plots.

You are being very clever now.

No, I am not clever, but I look up things before I speak here. One cannot just get up to talk here without investigating the matter. If we read that report we see that this question of subdivision into small plots was very thoroughly considered by a very able commission at the time. That report is in the hands of the Department and also of the provincial administrations. I think one of the things which emerges from that report is that when one speaks about sub-division into small plots, there has been chaos just because previously there was no planning by local authorities. We also see that this report particularly recommends that when there is further sub-division into plots it should be done according to a pattern and in consultation with the urban authority on the borders of which these plots lie. I think if we want to do something good, we should rather urge that local authorities, from the Provincial Councils down to the ordinary local authorities, should devote more attention to the development of plots so that it will form part of a general pattern. Therefor I am glad to have had the opportunity of seconding the amendment that the last portion of the motion should be deleted.

Mr. Speaker, I think the whole problem we are discussing here to-day, viz, the question of the unbeneficial sub-division of agricultural land, is closely allied to the one great problem—and it will have to be seen in that light from time to time—that the size of a plot which is to be determined as an economic plot will depend on the prevailing produce prices. I foresee that we can easily land in the position that when at a certain given time we regard a certain size of plot as being economic in an area, we will find that as prices decrease we will later again have to increase those plots because they will no longer be economic. I want to mention these problems so that we will not lose sight of them. I am one of those who believe that we should always act very cautiously as a community to prevent our land being sub-divided into uneconomic units. That is why our Government, as early as 1957, passed the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, and provision was made for the Government to intervene if through inheritance the units become increasingly smaller until later they are totally uneconomic. It can then make the land available to as many of the heirs as can make a living on it, but then it must undertake to assist the others to acquire State land in order that they may make a living. But now the position is that in the times in which we are living we cannot abide by that provision and we must again reconsider the whole problem. Therefore I want to support the motion of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins). Let us discuss the matter here, but, Sir, I only hope that we will view it in a broad light. I also want to point out that if we should decide that in future only the Department of Agriculture or a commission or a board should decide what is an economic unit, we could be doing a tremendous injustice. Every farm is different. We cannot just generalize and say this is an economic unit and that is not, no more than we can say that it is an economic unit today and that it will still be economic in ten years’ time; or that what we to-day regard as an uneconomic unit will not be economic in ten years’ time. The whole question depends to such a great extent on the farming methods practised on that farm. Take a farm of 200 morgen, as the mover of the motion has done, and if it is farmed in the way he mentioned it is not an economic unit. But if one uses that unit practically as a stable and one produces large quantities of fodder, it can be a very profitable proposition for a more intensive system of farming. So much depends on that. How are we to determine what systems of farming should be followed in a certain area?

Mr. Speaker, there is another point I wish to make. I foresee that if we just say that it is an uneconomic unit and the State does not assist in purchasing it by means of Land Bank loans or other assistance, it may happen that numbers of the most progressive and energetic young farmers who usually need the minimum of State assistance may not be able to get assistance. I want to illustrate this. I know of so many young men who perhaps started farming on their father’s farms. They cultivated a certain portion of the farm. The boy made progress and was able to purchase a piece of land from a neighbour. Because he did not require much capital he was able to do that. That strengthened his position considerably. That happens daily. That same man is perhaps to-day one of the most prosperous farmers in that district, because he gradually became able to stand on his feet with the minimum of assistance by the State. If we are now to decide that a man cannot be assisted unless his farm is regarded as an economic unit, such a person will never have the opportunity of becoming independent. Sir, there are so many of these cases. Those are the points we have to consider when we discuss this matter. I want to give this matter my support because it is important. But I want to ask that we should approach it in this light, and I hope that if the matter is investigated the investigation will bring these things to light and will prove that we cannot just generalize by saying that this is an uneconomic unit and that is not; here the State will assist and there it will not assist. We have too many of these instances of people who, with the minimum of assistance by the State, can stand on their own feet by starting on a small scale and gradually expanding until they become quite independent.

I think that as the position is to-day, the Minister has the power to decide. Unless I am wrong, he has delegated this power to the provincial administrations, but I think he can withdraw it at any time. If the Minister sees fit to put this power back again into the hands of the Central Government, he can do so. But that does not derogate from the importance of this motion, that this matter which is of such importance should be discussed and that we should do what we can, when granting plots, whether it be done through the Department of Lands or by means of other State assistance, to avoid giving a man a unit which is uneconomic to start off with and which will lead to his failure. But we should not assume that we can just place a prohibition on all fronts at the same time against any assistance or consideration being given to a person who acquires or occupies or cultivates land which does not qualify in terms of that economic standard.

While listening to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) who moved the motion, a rather charming fantasy rose before me. I could see him burning the midnight oil and wading through all the works of reference to get the information which he has placed before us this afternoon. I feel a little pained to have to destroy such a lovely fantasy. But the truth is that the hon. member would not have come with this resolution unless he had the backing of the Government. And I presume, Sir, that at a later stage we shall have the hon. the Minister of Lands getting up and accepting the motion in view of the good case that has been put forward and saying that the Government will appoint a commission of inquiry. Because the hon. member would not have come with a motion like this at the beginning of the Session unless that was in fact the position. You will excuse me, Sir, if I address my remarks, through you, mostly to the hon. the Minister. I think that the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) who has just sat down has hit the nail on the head. This question of the subdivision of land is not merely a question of sub-dividing land into pieces of a certain size which can be called economic units. A piece of land is not an economic unit because it is of a cetain size. It is an economic unit because of the calibre of the farmer who is farming it, the amount of capital he can put into it, where it is situated in relation to markets and what its soil fertility, amplitude of water or otherwise, and so forth, is. Those are the things that make it economic. So you can have a piece of land which is far removed from markets, very fertile, but without, for example, water and it may not be economic. Similarly you get other pieces of land which have failed to be economic in the sense that they can give a good living to the farmer, but another farmer comes along and makes a good living there under precisely the same conditions. It has nothing to do with the number of acres involved but who farms it and what it is used for. We have had plenty of cases in this country where there has been a shift of emphasis in regard to our marketing. You get people who bind themselves together in a co-operative and work hard and eventually create a market for produce which can be raised in that area, and through intensive farming they make relatively small areas of land highly productive. Then of course you have vast areas farmed under totally different conditions which on the face of it might appear to be uneconomic, because either the farmer mortgages it up to the hilt or after a time he starts to sub-divide to keep himself going. These are the issues which have to be taken into account when dealing with a motion like this. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) made it clear what our amendment was. We think this motion should be in two pieces. The amendment is to delete the words after “units” in the third line of the English Order Paper, and to stop there. May I say that we support the motion up to that point, because we believe that a commission of inquiry could go into all these matters. In other words, it would not be limited in its terms of reference to merely dealing with the acreages comprising an economic unit, but all these incidental matters which make for a viable economy and for productive units, they should all be taken into account.

I want to deal with the portion of the motion which we suggest should be omitted. As the motion stands, I think what it means is that the central control over all sub-division of land should vest in the Government and that such powers as the provinces have should be taken away from them. Those powers include the power to confer on municipalities the right to sub-divide land, and in the Cape also to divisional councils. I hope the Government will not heed that plea by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, but that they will accept our amendment. The subdivision of land in regard to the layout of townships and matters of that kind, which are the particular powers that come under the provincial administrations to-day, are neither matters which can be learnt overnight, nor have they grown up overnight. They are the result of years and years of experience. All the provinces to-day have special departments dealing with the sub-division of land by the townships board, etc. and as the hon. member for Albany pointed out, in a speech which he quoted, a previous Minister of Lands said that so often the sub-division of land into smallholdings led to urban development. So it is not only the sub-division but the urban development that goes with it which should be taken into account and the provincial administrations have by experience qualified themselves to deal with that sort of thing. I would mention in connection with my own province of Natal the recent work of the Regional Planning Commission, the survey of the Tugela basin, a monumental work which took all possible factors into account, like the sub-division and the best use of land. All these things stem from a vast experience, and unless the Government proposes to take over town planning and all that goes with it, like the sub-division of land for purposes of the municipalities, and grafts that on to the Department of Lands, I can see only trouble and difficulty from the Government taking over any of those powers. I suggest that we leave that part of it alone and let the Government rather put its own house in order. We support the first part of the motion, but I think the hon. member for Wakkerstroom rather contradicted himself badly because for the greater part of an hour he set out to prove the need for a commission of inquiry and he quoted a lot of facts and figures which must have taken a great deal of research. That was to prove the need for a commission of inquiry, but into what? Into the Government’s exercise of these powers? And having done that, he said that we should take away the power of the provinces to control the sub-division of land. He proposes to take away the power of the provinces to sub-divide land when in fact there is no complaint about it at all, and he proposes to hand that power over to the Government which he has been criticizing for an hour or more. That is most illogical. If he had asked for an inquiry into the sub-division of land by the provinces and then suggested that it should be handed over, the Government having done all things well and there being no word of criticism against it, I could have understood it. But the reverse is the position. He criticized the Government and said there is really no complaint against the provinces, except that they made a road through a farm here and there, and that may or may not be the case because the national roads have nothing to do with the provinces, and then he says the Government should take over these powers.

I want to come on to another point. Where this sub-division of land into uneconomic units is concerned, I wonder how far we as a country are being committed to a type of population which is on the farms—they are called farmers because they own farms—but who cannot keep their heads above water and struggle and struggle until eventually they break down and go to the towns. But we keep these families and there are hundreds of them. I do not know that they are good farmers initially, but when once farms have been allotted and the Government is satisfied that those farms are capable of providing a living for the ordinary hardworking farmer, what protection then does the farmer get to see that his goods are sold at a living wage for him so as to give him a chance to make that farm an economic unit? You see, Sir, all these matters are linked up with this question of the sub-division of land and it seems to me that even with the help given to settlers, technical advice, so often these people have not enough capital to really get started or they do not use their capital to the best advantage, or there are inadequate markets and those farms are then classed as uneconomic units. They are probably not uneconomic units, but as long as it is the policy of the State to put farmers on this land without providing it with an adequate market so that the farmer has something to aim at and knows that if he works hard he will make a living on the land, until something like that is guaranteed I fail to see how simply an investigation into the area of the farms will get us anywhere. The investigation should be so wide in its terms of reference that all the surrounding circumstances are taken into account and what we should aim at is not just the economic sub-division of land but its sub-division under circumstances which will enable a normal farmer to make a living. We do not want to see the drift to the towns, but that is something I do not want to go into now. The fact is that the sub-economic farms is the reason why so many people go to the towns.

On the question of the smallholdings, I want to point out that we must remember that this affects the rating provisions in our municipalities in all four Provinces; as far as I know, as far as smallholdings are concerned, and for whatever reason—generally for reasons of public health—such areas are incorporated in the local authority area and become subject to rates, and they are given the benefit of a special rate, an agricultural rate. But those smallholdings in many cases are farmed by people who are not really making their living out of it. They are in close proximity to a good market because they are inside the municipality. They pay rates to the municipality which are usually lower than the normal rate and they are able to produce a quantity of produce and get that on to a good market quickly and easily in competition with farmers from further afield who have to make their living from agriculture. I know that from time to time this matter has been investigated by the provincial administrations. As soon as a smallholding becomes uneconomic, the owner has the opportunity of going to the townships board and cutting up his property. That is where the provincial administrations come in, because they can deal with matters of that kind. We do not want to see a large number of smallholdings simply thrown on the market because they are sub-economic from the point of view of the farmer making a living. It is not in the best interest of our economy to do so, but at the same time we do not want them to be used as an unequal competitor in the market against the genuine farmer who makes his living out of it. So I say that we support the first part of the motion. We hope the Minister will appoint a commission with very wide terms of reference. so wide that when the commission reports back again it will be able in respect, broadly speaking, of the various areas of land and the different farming conditions in the Republic, to say that for this type of farming in this area, at that distance from the market and with the water available, such and such an area will be an economic unit and the hardworking farmer with adequate capital, which they can determine if they like, ought to be able to make a reasonable living on it. Then some good will have been done, but anything falling short of that will result in that report being put into the same pigeonhole as all the other reports. It would have failed in its primary purpose, and that is to present the correct picture to a young man who wants to go farming in his own country and who wants to know the conditions under which, if he works hard, he can make a living. He cannot always do that in his own neighbourhood of which he has experience. He often has to go away and farm under other conditions. Such a survey would be of enormous assistance to them, let alone to people who come in from elsewhere, and it would be of incalculable value. Therefore we support the first half of the motion and I ask the Minister to accept our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), who introduced this interesting motion, used numerous quotations from the report of a commission appointed by President Roosevelt in America; but in the book from which he quoted or in another book, there is a preface written by President Roosevelt in which he states that the history of every nation is ultimately written according to the use that it makes of its soil. These are very interesting words and if one accepts them in their widest sense—the use it makes of the soil it has—then the motion must certainly be classified under this heading, because the use or abuse and the economy of the soil are all things falling within this sphere. I welcome this debate which has taken place to-day because this debate has proved that this is not an easy subject and that there is no obvious solution for these problems but that it is a matter which will require much study and one in connection with which it will be necessary to ascertain what has been done in other countries. I welcome this discussion, which I found interesting. It also made us realize that hon. members are serious about this subject and that the legislation we had and the means, that we applied in the past were ineffectual and offered no solution. A number of inquiries have already been instituted. There was the report by the late Dr. du Toit on the depopulation of the platteland and there was the Tomlinson Report on small-holdings; and there were various persons who gave this matter their attention and made considerable contributions.

It really falls within the powers of the provinces only to place restrictions on the subdivision of land. As far as their powers are concerned they did not primarily use them to ensure that agricultural farms remaind economic units. They were more concerned with the question of the so-called plots or smallholdings in the vicinity of our large cities and which had become a serious problem to us and more especially to them. In so far as the powers granted to them affect the problem, their contribution was almost nil. I do not blame them for this. They were given these powers for purposes other than the imposition of restrictions on the sub-division of agricultural farms. They were more concerned with the small-holdings which caused many evils in the vicinity of the large cities.

The kernel of this problem lies in the fact that we in South Africa are undergoing a transition from one form of agriculture to another form. We have always applied extensive farming methods in this country and with our increased population to-day we are switching over to intensive farming, but we are still inclined to think in terms of extensive farming. The debate that has taken place here to-day proves that hon. members are beginning to realize that we have entered a new era as far as our agriculture is concerned; and that while we are still practising and will continue to practise extensive farming, the accent must in future be placed on the problems of intensive farming and everything connected with it. We are going through the growing-pains of the transition from the one to the other and we have to start giving our attention to the new situation as we find it in South Africa.

The actual subject here is the sub-division of farms, the economic size of farms, and that is linked up with many other things such as the fertility of the soil. The hon. member over there has said that one should determine the fertility of the soil; but it cannot be determined at this stage that a holding will be an economic one in ten year’s time because one does not know what use will be made of the land. I have seen cases where the fertility of soil has been improved but I have also seen many instances where it has been destroyed. I have seen uneconomic farms become economic ones, but I have seen far too many uneconomic units where the farmer has exploited his soil and has not put back what he extracted from it with the result that the farm lost its fertility. We saw what happened in the North-Eastern Free State a few years ago as a result of circumstances concerning which I shall perhaps have a few words to say later on, where the fertility of the soil was lost and where we now have to try to build it up again. We saw how 20 years ago as a result of injudicious farming in what is to-day one of our most prosperous wheat districts there was enormous economic retrogression. They then started to grow lupins as a rotational crop and we know how the whole of the Swartland was lifted out of what was virtually an economic depression into a state of prosperity. These are small farms where intensive farming should be practised but the farmers tried to apply extensive methods with the result that the fertility declined. It involved a lengthy process to build up the fertility again and to make the Swartland what it is today.

Much has also been said, especially by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) concerning the question of produce prices. The hon. member for Cradock also spoke on this subject. This is also a very important subject. Prices rose after the war and people thought that they could farm on smaller pieces of land since prices had risen in relation to the cost of production. Later, however, prices fell or the cost of production rose and then they discovered that the farms were becoming uneconomical, that the fertility of the soil had decreased. A farm which had perhaps been economic ten years before, became uneconomic because it was too small and because wrong methods were applied.

Much has also been said here about a matter which also affect Provincial Councils, and that this question of agents who buy up farms around the cities and who then entice poor innocent people to buy small plots of ground there. “Be a farmer, and do your work in town”, the advertisements read. The gullible people do not know better and think they are going to have a prosperous farming project together with their town job. However, they neglect their job in town and the farm is not big enough to provide them with a livelihood. That was the problem of the Provincial Councils. But there is another matter which has not been mentioned to-day but which is to a large extent responsible for the small-holdings and that is our custom in respect of testamentary disposition. We follow the Roman Dutch Law and where a man dies intestate, the children inherit equally under Roman Dutch Law. In other countries where the law of primo genitur (first-born) applies, the eldest son inherits the entire property. Few of our people die intestate; but where a Will is drawn up, it is done in accordance with the law of the land, because the law is simply the crystallized custom which later on becomes law, and in our country a parent often feels that he is doing the children an injustice if he does not allow them all to inherit equally. Well it would be less of an injustice if the parent tried to give the younger children an education and then chase them out of the home and told them to go and work, leaving the land to one son, than it would be if he left his land to all of them with the result that they all have an uneconomic piece of land. I wanted to have a map prepared to show hon. members here to-day but I thought it would be contrary to the spirit of Parliament—to illustrate a case on the Marico River in the Transvaal where there was a fairly large farm with a piece of riparian land. The original owners wanted to leave it to their children and each child was to receive a small piece of riparian land because it could be placed under irrigation. The boundaries of the farm extended 5,000 yards from the river and to-day there are about 25 owners, each of whom has a piece of land with a 40 yards river-frontage. Some of the farms are no more than 50 yards wide and these small strips of land extended over a distance of 5,000 yards, which creates a ridiculous situation. This is the result of our system of testamentary disposition, of what we look upon as our duty but what is not always our duty. That is one of the main reasons for the sub-division of our farms into uneconomic small-holdings.

There is only one justification for the subdivision of farms and that is to raise the productivity of the farm. If the production can be increased then there is a justification for smaller farms. The productivity can be raised through improved marketing, as already mentioned, but also by growing better products and increasing the productivity of the soil. In this connection I have to state two facts: In the case of some of our most important products in South Africa our yeild is exceptionally low. The second fact is that the Department of Agriculture has since its inception done an enormous amount of work in order to make up that leeway. At a show which I opened last year, I gave the production figure per morgen in respect of maize and wheat in South Africa, in comparison with most of the maize- and wheat-producing countries of the world. I am not going to repeat those figures to-day; I am rather ashamed of them. We do not find ourselves in the best of company, in fact, we find ourselves in rather poor company. From time to time we see that prizes are awarded, particularly in the maize areas to farmers who have been able to obtain the highest yield of maize on an economic piece of land, and we find that the yield that is actually obtained is altogether disproportionate to the average yield of maize in South Africa. In the case of wheat the difference is not so marked because I think the wheat farmers are generally more advanced in the methods they apply. The difference between the good and the weaker farmer in the wheat belt is not as great as the difference is between the good and the poor maize farmer. But the figures at our disposal clearly prove that by adopting intensive farming methods instead of continuing to apply extensive methods on a small piece of land, we can push up the production of maize in South Africa enormously, to mention only one example. The attention which was given to this matter in the past was given chiefly in terms of thinking of the size of the land. This has been mentioned by various members—by the hon. member over there, by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and also by the mover of the motion of the very well-reasoned speech made by him. They pointed out that one should not think in terms of the size of the land. We now go to the Provincial Councils and suggest that we grant them the power to say that farms shall not be smaller than 25 morgen or smaller than 50 morgen.

Secondly, they say that the value of the land must serve as a yardstick. I can mention many instances where the size of the land has nothing to do with its productivity and nothing at all with the value of the land. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote a few examples that hon. members may find interesting. Mr. Willie Rood, who for many years was a member of Parliament and later became a Member of the Central Land Board, told me that the first time he went there, land along the Olifants River in the district of Vanrhynsdorp was being valued. The man’s farm had been divided into two portions 20 years previously. The one portion was valued at R400 per morgan and the rest of his farm at 25 cents per morgan. To-day the land valued at 25 cents per morgen has a valuation of perhaps R2 per morgen, but it is not worth R2. The land which was valued at R400 per morgen is now valued at R800 or R1,000 per morgen, and that is based on the productivity of the soil. Here in Constantia an aunt of mine had a piece of land which she let to Coloured people who cultivated flowers. There was one old Coloured woman, a Mrs. de Mink, who cultivated flowers. She had 1¼morgen on which she farmed and when she died two years ago, she left a young nephew a Cadillac motor-car and R10,000 in cash, apart from other legacies; and this from 1¼ morgen of land. One can go into the North-Western Cape and give a man 1,000 morgen there but he will never own a Cadillac motor-car.

Unless he becomes a Minister.

Nor will he be able to leave R10,000. Here in the Cape Flats we have pieces of dune land which are suitable for the cultivation of vegetables. This dune land is not worth more than R2 per morgen. You may have a farm of 200 morgen there of which four morgen may be suitable for the cultivation of garden produce and on which the man can make a decent living, but the remaining 196 morgen may be completely worthless to him. You may have two adjoining farms, one having six morgen of garden soil and the other consisting of 200 morgen. The one of six morgen is worth much more than the one of 200 morgen which may have only four morgen of garden soil. But out of those four or six morgen the owner can make a living. I came across an instance where a man applied for a piece of land in the Eastern Free State under Section 20 of the Land Settlement Act. The Land Board reported to me that this piece of land was not an economic unit and that they could not buy it for him because he would not be able to make a living there. I said to them that I found this rather peculiar because the applicant was a young man working in the Post Office who had saved some money to enable him to attend an agricultural college, where he came first in the two-year course. He returned to the Post Office and later went back to another agricultural college for a six-months course. I pointed out to them that it was unlikely that the man would be talking non-sense, that he should know what he was going to do with the farm. When I asked them with what he intended to farm, they made inquiries and ascertained that it was his intention to take up bee-farming. The land was. situated in the bushveld and he wanted to take up bee-farming, for which he would not require a large piece of land or a great deal of capital and the fertility of the soil was of no importance. I then allotted this land to him and asked the Board to let me know what this man’s income was during the next two years. The first year his income was R1,600. The second year his income exceeded R4,000. That was his gross income. I do not know what his net income was. That was his income on a plot of land on which any agricultural expert will tell you it is impossible to make a living, unless he takes into consideration the purpose for which the land is to be used. Take the case of your poultry farmer. Many of your noultry farmers do not buy expensive land. They purchase land here on the Cape Flats which they can obtain for R2, R4, R6 or R8 per morgen. All they need is space for the fowls. They do not practise agriculture; they go in for poultry farming. I mention this to show that the value of the land has nothing to do with the success or otherwise of the farming project. There are other factors also which have to be taken into consideration. I was very impressed once when I was in England in the grain-producing districts. I asked the owners of the farms what their average wheat yield was. They told me that their average wheat yield there was 60 bags per bag of seed in a bad year, and 80 bags per bag of seed in a good year. The average yield in our good districts here is only 15 to 25 bags.

Per acre?

Per morgen. We are talking about South Africa now. In the wheat-producing districts in England production ranges from 60 to 80 bags per bag of seed, and here it ranges from 15 to 25 bags per bag of seed. If you find land here in South Africa on which you can produce 15 to 25 bags per bag of seed, you have to pay anything from R60 to R80, or even more, per morgen.

R120 per morgen.

Well, let us say R120 per morgen. Do you know what the price was of the land in England which produced 60 to 80 bags per bag of seed? It was R60 per acre, that is to say, R116 per morgen. Why the difference? Because there are other factors which come into the picture, mainly the high price one has to pay for labour. One cannot therefore consider the value of the land only; one has to take these other circumstances into account. In a big country like South Africa conditions vary greatly. There are large areas like the maize complex in which conditions are more or less the same everywhere, but in the agricultural areas particularly conditions vary not only from district to district and from farm to farm but even on the same farm. A certain piece of land may be worth a great deal whereas the adjoining piece may be worthless. In my younger days I was a Land Bank assessor in the Stellenbosch district. Land which in those days was valued by us at approximately R300 per morgen is worth about R1,000 to-day. But I remember that I valued certain sections of a farm at R300 per morgen and other sections of the same farm at R1 per morgen. I valued it at R1 per morgen even though it was not worth R1. I could not very well have valued it at less than R1, but for the purposes of production it was not worth R1.

The point I want to emphasize here is that we do not want centralized control because local conditions both as far as the land, the climate, the type of farming which the man wants to practise and the character of the person are concerned, have to be taken into account. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) has told us a few very interesting things as to what happens in other countries. I was in Holland a few years ago where they have a system which I doubt whether our farmers in South Africa would be prepared to accept, because no farmer in Holland is free to sell his land, and if he is allowed to sell his land he and the purchaser are precluded from determining the price of that land; everything is arranged for him. The authorities decide to whom he may sell his land, and the reason why this is done is that he is not allowed to sell that land to a person who already owns economic land. He can only sell it to a person who is in more or less the same position in which he is. The authorities guard against inflation of land prices, because if there is one country where there is a great risk of inflation of agricultural land prices it is Holland, the reason being that there are so many cities in Holland, and that these cities are continually expanding with the industrial development taking place there. Here in South Africa, when a city starts developing, all the agricultural land in the immediate vicinity of that city is sold at inflated prices. It is bought up at a price far above its agricultural value, because it is bought with the object of cutting it up into township plots later on. It is a lock-up investment. Then I also want to say that when prices start rising in the peri-urban areas, this has an effect on the price of land situated far from the cities. One finds that in Holland cities do not stretch over a distance of ten miles; they end suddenly at a particular street; in other words, one finds a city extending up to a street and agricultural land just across the street. The owner of land adjacent to the city is not allowed to sell his land to a person in that city who wishes to establish a factory without prior permission from the proper authorities, and if he sells it he cannot sell it at an increased price; he can only sell that land at its agricultural value. Another reason why they impose a limit on the price one can get for one’s land is the question of subsidies, because in most European countries—in England, Holland, Switzerland in particular, and to a lesser extent in France but there too—farmers are kept going by subsidies paid on their products; and they say that if one allows the price of land to rise, then subsidies will have to rise as well. It is only be keeping the prices of land under control that one can keep subsidies in check to a certain extent. The price of land should be kept within such limits that the farmer is able to make a living out of it, bearing in mind the price he paid for that land. There are many areas in South Africa to-day where it is virtually impossible for a man to buy a farm; he has to inherit one, because the price of land is uneconomically high, and if he buys a small farm, it is not very long before he forms a pressure group to approach the Government with a request for subsidies on the products he produces because he has paid too much for the land. The third thing mentioned by the hon. member to which this body has to give attention is the question of consolidation—the question of isolated pieces of land, the question of people who own a piece of land here and a piece of land there—so that in the result everyone can have an economic small-holding. But what I have mentioned here only goes to show the drastic powers that the authorities in Holland have. In England they also have drastic powers, particularly with regard to the letting of land. That is not our problem. We in South Africa will only be able to solve this problem if we take fairly drastic powers, and I doubt very much whether our farmers would be ready to accept these drastic powers at the moment, because we are a lot of independent people here in South Africa. We are like those Cannon islanders to whom I referred the other day. They do not readily agree to restrictions being imposed on them; they would rather have subsidies than restrictions. We shall have to train our farmers through our farmers’ associations to accept that in the future restrictions which they consider drastic will have to be imposed on them in the interests of the future of farming in South Africa.

Reference has also been made here to our settlement policy. When settlement was started along the Orange River—I am talking about close settlements under irrigation—it was started in times of depression, first at Kakamas and later on along the Orange River under the Government scheme. It was started in a period of depression caused by low prices and drought. Small farms were carved out there which according to our standards to-day are still too small, but at that time it was felt that the persons concerned could make a better living there than they had been making before. But in terms of the standard of living that we concede to people to-day, they remain uneconomic small-holdings even though the people there do make a living. Because there is one thing which we have always opposed in land settlement in this country, and that is “peasant” farming, small-scale farming. the type of farming in which a farmer gets very little cash. He practically lives on what he derives from his small plot of ground. He is unable to improve his position or that of his children. He comes to be regarded as falling within a class and if a person is born into that class he and his descendants always remain in that class. We want to avoid that in South Africa. That is why we have gradually switched over to the policy that all the land that we allot through the Department of Lands under Section 20, under which we acquire land, under Section 23, or in the case of small farms that we allot under settlements, must be economic allotments. Our aim has always been to give people economic smallholdings, small-holdings which will not make them rich, but on which they can make a reasonable living and provide for those of their children for whom there is no land by giving them the necessary education. Our policy is that a person must be settled only on an economic small-holding. Under Section 20 the applicant may even select his own piece of land and we then purchase it for him and give him a certain period within which to pay it off. I reject many proposed purchases of land under Section 20 every year because the land the person wants us to purchase for him does not in our opinion constitute an economic small-holding. I admit that mistakes do occur. It is often the farmer’s own fault that the mistake is made, because we cannot judge the character of the farmer; we can only judge the land. People apply from far and wide. They bring testimonials, often from Members of Parliament, to show what good people they are. We give land to such a person and later on we discover that he is not the right type.

Mr. Speaker, that is the direction in which we are heading, and that is why I say that as far as these things are concerned and especially as far as the last point is concerned, one cannot have centralized control; or let me rather put it this way: One can have centralized control but the actual decisions must be made locally. In Holland where they have this system, they have their local committees in every district and these local committees go into every case. They would have gone into the case of old Mrs. de Mink who cultivated flowers in Constantia and found that her small-holding, with the methods she used, was an economic one even though it was only1¼ morgen. They would have gone into the case of the young man I mentioned who bought an uneconomic piece of land in the Eastern Transvaal through the Department, the young man who farmed with bees, and they would have said, “If you want to farm with bees you do not need land; you only need space”. They would be able to go into the prospects of the people who often come and ask us for ten morgen of land on the Cape Flats, land which has no agricultural value whatever but on which they want to farm with poultry. If people want to farm there with poultry, the farm is an economic one to them. Not only that, but they will go into the character of the person in order to determine whether he will in fact make a success of farming on that piece of land. May I just tell this story to the House? I was once asked by a bank to value a farm in the Stellenbosch district. There were three people who had applied. The bank had acquired the farm in an insolvent estate and three people had applied to the bank for this land. I then had to go and value this land because the applicants wanted bonds. I came back with three different valuations, a valuation for A, a valuation for B and a valuation for C. The bank manager then said to me, “But you cannot value land in that way”. I pointed out to him that the land must be valued in that way because the success of a farming venture dependended not only on the intrinsic value of the land, that it depended both on the land and the calibre of the man who was going to farm on it; that one could therefore lend so much to A but much less to B and that one’s money would still be much safer with A than it would be with B. Well, all this can be done locally. I do not want to bind myself to everything that I have said here; these are only my ideas in the light of the experience gained by me but I do want to say that the Government proposes to go into this matter. We shall decide what is the best way to obtain the necessary information and we shall then consider the steps to be taken. It may be a commission or it may be a committee of officials and of other authorities with whom we are going to co-operate but we are going to go into this matter and decide in the near future what to do. We are not going to shelve this matter.

Is the hon. the Minister not prepared to extend the terms of reference a little so as to cover the question of testamentary dispositions in terms of which the land becomes hopelessly uneconomic?

We shall have to decide first what the terms of reference are to be, whichever body investigates this matter. Briefly, however, these are the main things which have to be investigated in connection with this problem: The first is the determination of an economic farming unit, particularly the question as to how and by whom it should be determined. My feeling is that to a large extent it should be determined locally, with a central organization which really has its points of contacts everywhere. We shall have to determine what steps should be taken to obviate further sub-division of farms into uneconomic units and then we shall have to determine what steps should be taken to consolidate existing uneconomic holdings and what financial implications are involved. That goes without saying. I just want to say that we are giving our serious attention to this matter. We have no objection to the motion as it is worded. As far as the amendment is concerned, I just want to say that we have no intention of interfering with the domestic affairs of the municipalities; we have nothing to do with that. We are dealing here with agricultural land, land used for farming purposes, not urban properties.

Will you accept the amendment?

If the amendment had asked that we should not interfere with municipal affairs, it would have been a different matter because we are not going to interfere with municipal affairs. But the question is whether the position is covered by these powers that we gave the Provincial Councils in an attempt to obviate the subdivision of land into uneconomic units. For the purpose of this discussion those powers mean nothing because they do not think in those terms; they only think in terms of plots in the peri-urban areas. They do not think in terms of farming miles away from the large cities, nor is that their function; it is our function, and I feel therefore that the amendment is not necessary. I do not think hon. members need have any fear that we are going to interfere with powers which the Provincial Councils have in connection with cities and towns. We are not interested in that; we are only interested in farming, and if it can be shown that the Provincial Councils are able to do it, very well then, but that is the problem that we want to solve and if the Provincial Councils, because of the nature of their constitution and the work that they have to do—because they have nothing to do with farming really—ought not to have this aspect under their control, then it should not be placed in their hands. We shall go into this matter judiciously and decide what in our opinion is the best thing to do in this connection.

We on this side are particularly gratified because the hon. the Minister made the statement he did make this afternoon, viz. that the Government is in earnest in seeing to it that agricultural land in South Africa will not be further subdivided. I think we can accept his statement as well that it is not the intention of the Government in any way to try to interfere with the powers of the provincial authorities. It is for that reason particularly that I think the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) was so wrong in including the last portion of his motion, because the sting was really in the tail, and it is for that reason that we on this side have moved an amendment.

The hon. the Minister of Lands has made a very interesting speech. He proved that he is quite au fait with this problem of the subdivision of agricultural land in South Africa, and we can see that the representations made by hon. members opposite and also by the hon. members for Albany (Mr. Bowker) and South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) have fallen on fertile soil. It is no longer necessary for us to tell the hon. the Minister why it is essential that such a commission of inquiry should be appointed. When a person like the hon. member for Wakkerstroom comes to this House with such a motion, one immediately realizes that the hon. member must have made a thorough study of the scope of the problem, as his speech also proves. One does not ask for a commission of inquiry unless such a problem actually exists. We know from reports received by us a year or two ago that there is indeed a problem in regard to this question of the sub-division of land. Reasonable grounds exist for the hon. member’s motion, but before one does anything of this kind one would like first to have a thorough investigation. The commission which investigated the depopulation of the platteland and which published its report a year or so ago did in fact contain a chapter dealing with farms which are becoming smaller in South Africa. It is not a problem which has just recently arisen, but one which has existed for many years already. Shortly after Union the farms in South Africa began getting smaller. I just want to quote one paragraph from this report of the commission in regard to the depopulation of the platteland, paragraph 195, or rather part of it—

In other words, there was a tremendous increase in the number of farms of less than 100 morgen. If a farm becomes smaller, it does not of course mean that its fertility immediately decreases, but in this work by Grosskopf about the impoverishment of people on the platteland and the desertion of farms, he tells us on page 112—

As the unit becomes smaller, one can also to a certain extent expect a reduction in the fertility or the carrying capacity of the soil, and when disaster strikes it is that poor man who is affected every time. Therefore these farms which are diminishing in size definitely constitute a problem in South Africa. The commission of inquiry in regard to the depopulation of the platteland (the hon. the Minister referred to an experiment they had made) mentioned in the report that a poll was taken in the Marico district by the Department of Agriculture, and what did they find? The report states—

Originally these farms on an average were 2,500 morgen, and now they are approximately 13.3 morgen. Then they say further—

Therefore the problem exists. But it was not the object of this commission to study the problem of farms becoming smaller. They just pointed out in passing that the fact that farms in South Africa were decreasing in size was also a reason for the depopulation of the platteland.

Why is land sub-divided? The hon. the Minister himself mentioned two reasons. He says that it is mainly due to the system of inheritance we have in South Africa. That is quite correct. One can quote many examples of people who have made a reasonable living on a farm with three or four sons. Then the man leaves the land to his four sons and it is sub-divided amongst them, and in the end not one of them is able to make a decent living on the land. The result is that those people go to the cities. This system of inheritance with its resultant sub-division of land has therefore in fact had the effect that many of our people in the platteland have gone to the cities.

I also want to mention a second reason. I and is also sub-divided by the speculator, the man who buys up a large piece of land and then hopes to make a big profit by subdividing it into smaller farms. And in the third place the State cannot wash its hands in innocence either. We have made the same mistake in the past, of granting land to people without making a proper survey and without ascertaining what the carrying capacity or the fertility of such land was. No attempt was made, at least in many cases, to ascertain whether it would be able to afford a decent living. The result was that people were settled on land, at settlements and other places, when those plots were not suitable for the purpose and could not afford a decent living. I had the example about a year ago of a man who acquired a piece of land in the Kalahari, just above Upington, probably in the constituency of the hon. member for Gordonia. This man was very keen on farming. He obtained a farm, but when there was a slight drought he had to return and continue with his work of boring for water in the Williston district. It was impossible for him to make a living there. If ground has to be sub-divided the State should remember that farm or plot should have reserve resources. A farm should have reserves. One should not be able to take everything out of it all at once. In other words, if one wants to have grass leys, if one wants to rest certain parts of the farm, if one wants to apply soil conservation methods or grazing methods, that man must be able, if difficulties arise, to surmount those troubles because his farm is an economic unit which enables him to cope with the difficulty. I feel very strongly on this point. So many farms give a man a decent living, but as soon as there is the slightest set-back he must either incur heavy debt in order to overcome his difficulties or he must leave the farm—not because of his own fault but because that soil did not have the reserves necessary to enable him to apply sound farming methods.

It surprised me that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom asked that a stop should be put to the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities in regard to these matters. As the hon. the Minister himself said, they have no jurisdiction in respect of agricultural land. That is something quite different.

Read the motion!

The hon. member used the argument that he knows of a place somewhere on the Rand where a Native township was established on very fertile Delmas soil. It worries me just as much as it does the hon. member when such things are done, but will it be prevented if the matter is taken out of the hands of the provincial administrations? Of course not. That development to which the hon. member referred took place under the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Surely a Native township like that cannot be established without the approval of that Department. Therefore the hon. member will not prevent it by taking this power away from the provincial administrations. I can appreciate that there should be consultation between the Central Government, the provincial authorities and the local authorities. But surely he cannot advance this as a reason for taking it away from the Provincial Councils. How does the hon. member know that a central board such as he suggests will not set to work in the same way? It will simply depend on the measure of consultation existing between the Government Department concerned and the local authority.

I say that the sub-division of land leads to numerous evils, and one of the most important is this—one cannot even call it an evil, but to a certain extent it leads to malpractices, and it even results in the fact that a man who buys the land cannot make a decent living on it because in the first place he pays too much for that land. Just let me read what the report says about this in paragraph 222 on page 26. They took certain farms as examples, representing three different systems of farming, viz. crop farming, mixed farming and stock farming exclusively, and then they say—

I just want to give these figures: On farm units of under 200 morgen the total debt per morgen was £14.6; from 200 to 599 morgen it was £12.4, and from 600 to 999 morgen the debt was £7.7. But just note the investment per morgen. In regard to units under 200 morgen the permanent investment was £41, but from 200 to 599 morgen it was £33 per morgen, much less. Therefore the smaller the land, the more expensive it is for the man and the higher the burden of debt and his permanent investment.

If one takes the total debt per morgen, one finds that under 200 morgen it is £10.9 per morgen, and from 200 to about 600 morgen it is only £9.4. The smaller the land the greater the total debt and the greater the investment. I therefore say that it is an evil in this respect alone to sub-divide the land to such an extent that it later becomes uneconomic. Sub-division of land also results in a tremendous increase in production costs. We know how in recent years mechanization has begun to play a large role in agriculture. The man with 20 morgen, perhaps on a settlement, needs precisely the same amount of machinery as the man who has 40 morgen, but the man who has 40 morgen can farm more advantageously than the man who has 20 morgen.

But what is more, the man who has a too small piece of land often has to exploit the soil in order to make a decent living. Often he also has to do something else in order to supplement his income, and that leads to further inefficiency. They perhaps put a non-White on that land, or someone who is there only temporarily, who does not farm properly, and in that way they make absolutely nothing from the land. Sub-division also results in the soil structure, the fertility of the soil, being destroyed. Monoculture and exploitational methods are applied, and what is more, because the land is too small it becomes impossible for the man to introduce the animal factor properly, and in agriculture, even though we plough and sow, even though we apply sound agricultural methods, the animal factor should play its role. It is necessary to ensure the man a decent living, but it cannot be done because he lacks the space. He is forced to rely only on cash crops, and we know that if we produce cash crops alone that is the fastest and surest way of destroying the fertility of the soil. We also know that man cannot really afford to apply soil and water conservation. And these are only the obvious difficulties.

What is more, however, are the social consequences flowing from the fact that the farms are becoming smaller in South Africa. I want to conclude by quoting what the report says about the impoverishment of the people on Page 27—

Therefore if there is one reason why I think that steps should be taken to prevent our land being further sub-divided, it is particularly this result, apart from other material advantages which will flow from increasing the landholdings—

I regard that as one of the strongest reasons why we should prevent our land from being sub-divided further.

It is a great pity that during the discussion of this very interesting and essential motion introduced by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom many of our members were forced to sit on Select Committees, both on this and on that side of the House. Now unfortunately many hon. members are absent again. When as the result of the subdivision of land, uneconomic sub-division, the winter winds blow over that land and the summer sun bakes it and the floodwaters wash away the topsoil, then in spite of the application of fertilizer isolated plants will be dotted as sparsely on that land as hon. members are now sitting in this House, and I must say this, although the hon. member has also disappeared now: If this now were a field which had to be reaped and the knife of the reaper had cut me down, just see how far that machine would have to go to get to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) over there at the back. We would not have the honour of going through the drum together, and even less could we expect to land in the same bag.

Mr. Speaker, we must think carefully about our soil so that we will be jealous of every square foot of the soil of this Republic of South Africa. If the 14,000,000 inhabitants of this country each destroyed one square foot of agricultural land, several economic farms would have been destroyed, and if each of them protected and built up one square foot, we would have a few more farms on which farmers could make a living. We must be jealous of every square foot of our soil, just as the producer of gold is jealous of every fine ounce of that precious metal which he smelts and does not waste a single drop. In the same way we must guard over our soil. It is a basic requirement that the fertility of our soil should remain unimpaired and that it should be improved. Just consider how a tree which has been debarked withers and dies. It is the same when as the result of the uneconomic sub-division of land we debark the soil (I want to make that analogy). I cannot imagine anything more awful than a piece of land which has been trodden out and washed away, whereas formerly there were grassy pastures and trees to beautify the land and bubbling brooks, whereas now it lies bare under the torrid rays of the summer sun as the result of the uneconomic sub-division of that land. I can imagine only one thing worse, and that is to skin an animal alive and then to chase it into the veld, which is on an equal footing with the sin we commit towards our soil when we do not conserve it. Our arable land and our pastures are our most important natural resources and we should not forget that in comparison with other countries our production potential on an average is only eight to ten bags per morgen as compared with 20 in other countries, and then we still have the uncertainty of our climate which makes our production so vulnerable. It is equally important to remember that our arable land comprises only 10 per cent of our total agricultural land, and we must preserve and build it up. There is a disquieting decrease in the fertility of our soil. The reasons must be diagnosed and solutions must be found, and one cause of it is the existing uneconomic sub-division of our land. We know that the development of rotational systems as the basis for the maintenance and the increased fertility of our soil is receiving the serious attention of the Government. Furthermore, also fertilization and the breeding of new varieties, the planting of grasses and the eradication of weeds, etc. is enjoying the attention of the various departments. In regard to our grazing, our stock farming industry is based on our grazing, and most of our wool, mutton and beef and dairy products are produced on the veld, and we must remember that 85 per cent of our land will always be pasture. It is therefore vitally important that we should use our grazing properly and maintain it and that its destruction as the result of uneconomic sub-division should be combated.

Mr. Speaker, the yield of milk per cow in South Africa is 250 gallons, in New Zealand it is 475, and in England 720 gallons. From this it appears that it is not always the size of the farm which counts, but that on smaller farms the production can be increased by intensive and judicious cultivation. The results of the research done should be brought to the notice of our farmers immediately, and that is the task of our extension officers, and you, Sir, will allow me to say that at present there is one extension officer for every 900 farmers, whereas it is estimated that the ratio should be one for every 400.

But there is another matter which should be mentioned, namely that every year 2,500 to 3,000 new farmers start farming, and only 15 per cent of them receive agricultural education either at an agricultural high school, an agricultural college or a university, and that affects the low production of our soil, because there is no agricultural education available for these new farmers.

It is a well-known fact that throughout the years the uneconomic sub-division of land has taken place on a large scale in the Republic of South Africa. That was due in the first instance to inheritance. I do not want to expand on this, because the hon. the Minister has already mentioned it. Then there is the splitting up of farms purchased by people with capital who cut them up into plots. They then sell these plots at a high profit to poor, land-hungry people. I want to state here that this is a contemptible practice, i.e. land speculation by persons who have no love for the soil and who regard the soil as an ordinary commercial commodity. Sub-division is also due to the fact that the owners of farms close to the towns, as we have just heard, cut up their farms into 10-morgen plots, when they were still allowed to do so, and then sold the plots to people who thought they could farm there without any knowledge and who considered that their income could be augmented by doing casual jobs in the towns. Hence the unsightly picture of poor houses with rusty roofs and grey clay walls round about our towns and cities in the Republic. In the fourth place, it is the result of injudicious sub-division of agricultural land by the State in order to assist as many farmers as possible to acquire plots, and this applies to large units for extensive farming as well as to small units on the settlements where intensive farming under irrigation is practised. The result is that to-day thousands of farmers in the Republic are struggling to make a living, and ironically enough the position is aggravated by private loans and Land Bank loans and State advances for seed, fertilizer and fuel—all attempts and schemes aimed at keeping farmers with a shortage of capital on their feet, but as the result of the uneconomic subdivision of the land these schemes have for a long time not been attaining their object. So much for the small plots.

The second and equally important factor is the farmer. We know of successful farmers who resigned their jobs and who to-day are independent farmers, but we know others who also did so but after two or three years came back to ask the Government for assistance. There are farm boys who could be capable and successful farmers but who exchange that opportunity for cash wages in the cities. Care should be taken to see that the plot is an economic unit before a farmer is placed on it. I am now talking particularly about farmers who get their land from the State. If such a farmer then after thee years (so economic must the soil be) proves that he cannot make a success of farming—apart of course from the vagaries of nature with which he was afflicted and over which he had no control—then we must take drastic steps to remove that farmer so that he can make room for the right type of farmer. We must make so sure of the plots that the farmer alone will be to some extent the unknown factor and not the plot. The plot must be a known factor when it is awarded to the farmer, and in order to cope as far as possible with the last point, namely that the farmer is an unknown factor, the farmers should be selected carefully and scientifically before plots are granted to them.

Now we know more or less what the problem is and what the solution will be. The commission which has been asked for should be appointed, and on their recommendation uneconomic plots should be consolidated. And I want to say something practical: They must be consolidated into fully-fledged economic units, irrespective of what it costs the State, e.g., to establish closer settlements and to supply the plots with houses, dams, canals, fencing and curing sheds, etc., because this and successive generations cannot eternally be expected to suffer as the result of a big mistake which was made in the past and for which they were not responsible. Drastically to remedy these mistakes may cost hundreds of thousands of rand, but eventually, when we have made these farmers independent people on economic units, millions of rand will have been saved. Direct cash losses can be prevented and eliminated. To use an old Dutch adage, it is a sour apple to bite into, and it will cost a lot. The Department of Lands admits that there are numerous cases of uneconomic sub-division, which we also admit, and together we shrug our shoulders and ask: What should we do? It seems so difficult and so impossible now to declare as uneconomic units which years ago we declared to be economic, and to do it on such a large scale as is necessary to-day throughout the length and breadth of the Republic of South Africa. It seems somewhat irresponsible and it appears to be an admission of mistakes made and of a wrong policy having been applied in the past, but we are not here to make recriminations and to reproach each other, we are here to remedy the defects. I want to put it this way: we are not looking for mistakes in order to criticize in a derogatory fashion; the mistakes are as obvious as the cracks in a wall and these are the mistakes which are cried out aloud by the inhabitants of these uneconomic units, and also by the unbalanced agricultural economy, in spite of the present and past gigantic agricultural financing schemes.

Nor should we forget the psychological aspect of this matter. If a weak farmer goes down it pays to fit him in somewhere in the community and to give him work, but if as the result of this uneconomic sub-division of land a potentially good farmer lands in difficulty, we have destroyed a soul, we have destroyed an ideal, we have broken a human being, and that is nothing less than a tragedy. We know that all the so-called uneconomic units are not uneconomic. With the necessary planning and soil conservation many of them can be proved to be economic. Dr. Tomlinson said on one occasion at Nylstroom last year that the so-called sour “Waterberg bushveld”, properly planned, would be able to carry no less than 1,000,000 more head of cattle.

With my knowledge of Waterberg, with its three main agricultural regions, I should like to state the size of the economic units in the various regions approximately as follows: The Springbok flats, for cash crops, together with the addition of the cattle factor, 400 morgen, and there are many of them which are 150 morgen in size. The sour bushveld, for mixed farming, i.e. cattle farming, dry land farming, as well as farming under irrigation, from 1,000 to 2,000 morgen, but some of them are only 300 morgen in size. The sweet bushveld, exclusively for cattle farming, from 3,000 to 4,000 morgen, but there are some farms which are only 500 morgen. What the hon. member for Wakkerstroom said applied to the sweet bushveld. One cannot farm with cattle on a farm of 500 morgen. The trees and the grazing are being eradicated in order to plant peanuts. A proper survey will therefore bring to light, Mr. Speaker, that the sub-division of land in the Waterberg district is completely uneconomic.

But actually, throughout the whole of my speech, I bore in mind, if the hon. the Minister of Lands is here, the Sterkrivier settlement. There we have uneconomic units of 20 morgen of scheduled land, poor soil, soil which becomes waterlogged easily, stony soil, sandy soil and clay soil. The Department has in its possession a memorandum I drafted two years ago. I now have a new one which was drawn up by interested parties. The two memoranda are in close agreement with each other, but I shall discuss the matter with the Department personally at a later stage.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if this Commission is appointed, I hope that also that area, the Sterkrivier settlement, will occupy a prominent place in the itinerary of such a commission. Here I have a pack of letters I have received from Waterberg since this motion of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom was published in the Press. They all say the same thing: If the Commission is appointed, we would like to interview it; we are trying to live on uneconomic units. I have a whole parcel of letters. The flood-gates have been opened. Therefore I am glad to hear from the hon. the Minister that the Government will give serious consideration to this matter. At this stage I wish to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

I second.