The work for next week will be as near as possible the Order Paper of to-day from Order No. V downwards. I should like to say that an amendment to the Group Areas Act will be introduced, probably on Monday, and we would like to take it the following week. I am drawing hon. members’ attention to it, because it is rather a complicated measure and I would like to give them a week in which to study it and then we will go on with it the week after next.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

That, in view of the unsatisfactory conditions at present prevailing in the agricultural industry, this House requests the Government to consider the advisability of combating—

1. (a) the downward trend in commodity prices;
2. (b) the upward trend in production costs; and
3. (c) the accumulation of commodity surpluses;

and of making adequate marketing facilities available.

There is no doubt that a large section of the farmers in our country find it very difficult to make a living to-day. At every agricultural congress and meeting of a farmers’ association the economic position of the farmer is discussed. We heard the other day from the hon. members for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) and Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) that all is not well in regard to agriculture. The Commission of Inquiry into European Occupation of the platteland makes the following important statement. Their conclusion is this—

I believe we will all agree that the tarmer constitutes a very important section of our population and that he is responsible for feeding the nation and that he contributes by means of the export of his products towards keeping the trade balance of our country on a sound footing and in earning foreign currency. But as the result of steadily increasing production costs and falling prices for his products, his economic position has deteriorated. Production costs have increased tremendously and are still increasing. For example, the cost of a bale of wool from my station to where it was marketed in 1945 was R2.8, whilst to-day it is R9.5. It has almost quadrupled in that period. Tractors, spare parts, tyres, labour, grainbags and woolpacks, insecticides and fertilizers, all the things needed by the farmer to produce, have risen and are still rising in price. On the other hand there is a strong falling tendency in the prices of his produce. Wool, for example, sold at an average of 40s. 9d. in the 1959-60 season, but last year it was 36s. 4d., a fall of 4s. 3d., and we still do not know what it will be this year. The prices of meat, milk, wattle bark and other products are even lower. In the year ending 1959 our national income increased by R90.000,000, but the income from agricultural products fell by R58,000,000, in spite of the fact that there was an increase in the physical volume of about 4 per cent, because prices decreased on an average by 10 per cent in that year. Agricultural loans and State advances amounted to R46,000,000. Arrear payments on Land Bank loans, expressed as a percentage of the total loans, increased from .997 per cent in 1955 to 1.991 per cent in 1958. Arrear interest increased from .59 per cent to 1.28 per cent over the same period. These people are falling into arrears with their payments and with their interest, which proves that there is deterioration in the position of the farmers of our country. Of course we have a country which has a variable climate. There is more or less always a drought in some part of the country, and when there is no drought there is damage caused by floods.

The supply and demand also changed quite a lot in the past. After the First World War the demand was greater than the production and then prices were good, but in the years 1930 to 1933 the position was different and prices fell to such an extent that the farmers could not make a living. After the Second World War, however, as the result of industrial development, prices were high again because the demand exceeded the supply. As the result of large-scale mechanization the number of tractors alone, for example, in the last 13 years increased to five times as many, and to-day there are about 120,000 tractors in agriculture, and with the good prices received, with the best farming methods which were applied, as well with the application of soil conservation methods, a third problem has now arisen and that is the problem of surpluses in certain branches of agriculture, and the task now is to ensure that the farmer makes a decent living and to keep him on the platteland. Some people think that one can do so by restricting production; in other words, by allowing the farmer only to cultivate a certain acreage and in that way to try to reduce the production. But in most cases it is found that the farmer simply cultivates the bit of land to which he is limited much more intensively and still produces more, and in that way the production is also increased again. Then there are others who think that a reduction in prices will help to squeeze out some of the farmers and in that way to reduce the surpluses. But it is no use either, because if you reduce the farmers’ prices he sows more in order to implement his income in that way, with the result that there are even larger surpluses and the price is reduced once more. In many instances it results in exploitation of the soil. The farmer, in the circumstances under which he is compelled to farm to-day, is in many cases compelled to exploit the soil. He is compelled to take increasingly more out of the soil in order to make a living as the result of reduced prices. Nor has he the necessary capital to do the conservation work which he ought to do, and consequently, instead of restoring the soil faster in order to apply better agricultural methods, the progress made is not as fast as it should be.

Another important point also is that every year about 3,000 young farmers enter the industry, of whom only 20 per cent have received any training in agriculture. In other words, these young men are not fitted for the task they are tackling, and consequently they do not make use of the best methods. We shall have to do more in training those people to be better farmers. The troubles of the farmer just continue and in this process agriculture steadily retrogresses.

I want to mention a few branches of agriculture. The wattle bark industry is one in which £40,000,000 capital has been invested in this country. That industry is restricted now because the export markets are restricted. In 1953 we exported wattle bark to the value of R15,000,000; last year we exported only to the value of R7.6 million. The local consumption has also been reduced considerably. Of course we are facing strong competition from the Argentine wattle industry which receives State assistance. Fortunately we still have a little preference on the British market which assists us, but I believe that when Britain enters the European Common Market we shall possibly lose that preference, and then things will go badly with the wattle industry.

The maize farmers reap larger crops every year and the increasing surplusses are exported at a loss, to such an extent that the stabilization fund will be exhausted. Maize prices were first determined on a cost-plus basis, but recently the rising costs of production have not fully been taken into consideration and the margin of profit has been reduced to such an extent that the mealie grower had to plant increasingly more in order to make a living. Last year, of course, we had a good year; we also had good rains and the crop was 52,000,000 bags, almost double our requirements in the country, with the result that there must be heavy exports. Markets have and will be found for it, but the maize is exported at a loss. There are thousands of mealie farmers who are in financial difficulties, and they will remain in trouble unless they receive financial assistance to enable them to plan their farming operations on a soil conservation basis. Dr. Penzhorn makes it clear in his study of the physiological-biological phase of farming in the Highveld area of South Africa that by means of planned farming it is also possible to reduce the production cost of maize to a level where a profit can be made on the export of maize and maize can be sold in the Republic at parity. I assume that this will be a long process for the farmer to apply soil conservation in such a way and to plan his farm in such a way that he can derive so much benefit from it that he will be able to reduce his production costs. He also mentions the case of a farmer who, after four years of near insolvency, progressed so much that ten years later he was in a sound financial position and was quite prosperous, a farmer who had planned properly and who had applied all the soil conservation methods. If the price of maize can be reduced appreciably but can still be profitable to the farmer, then Dr. Penzhorn considers that animal products such as milk, butter, cheese, meat and eggs can also be produced much more cheaply. It is therefore the duty of the Government to ensure that the maize farmer is put into a position where he can restore the fertility of his soil and to preserve it and to apply proper planning and soil conservation.

In regard to the dairy industry, one hears on all sides to-day that industry is in a critical position. Two years ago we imported 3,000,000 lb. of butter from New Zealand, and the butter had not even been landed before we had a surplus. It is true that climatological conditions play a great role in the matter, but still one feels that somebody must have made a serious mistake somewhere. Last year we had a tremendous surplus. We had to get rid of 24,000,000 lb. of butter and 8,000,000 lb. of cheese at low prices, and the stabilization fund has now practically been exhausted. The exports were mostly to Britain, which has now fixed a quota, and a very low one, for us, and I am sure it will now be difficult for us to sell dairy products in Europe in future. We shall, therefore, have to seek other markets. In the meantime the producer’s price is dropping, with the result that he cannot make a living. The price of butter-fat has been reduced to 29c per lb., and of cheese-milk by 11c. to 133c, and of condensed milk by 11c to 143c. per 100 lb. The maximum price for fresh milk on the Rand was 29c per gallon, but the farmer mostly receives 25c for quota milk and 10c for surplus milk, and at that price he cannot make a living at all.

The costs of the distributor of milk have also increased, but the producer’s price has simply been reduced in order that the distributor may retain his margin of profit The milk scheme has now been published and we hope that it will go far towards bringing about stability in the supply of milk to the large cities. But a milk scheme cannot solve the problem of the surplus, and we are finding ourselves increasingly in trouble. A long-term plan, as well as a short-term plan, are needed here. The Government must have a long-term plan to reduce costs by keeping better cows which give more milk, by providing cheaper fodder, and in many other ways as well to enable the product to be sold at a lower but still at a profitable price. For the present it is the Government’s responsibility to see that the farmer does not go under. The farmer was encouraged to include the animal factor in the planning of his farm, and he did so. It is not right simply to reduce prices in the hope that production will consequently be reduced: in some cases it will possible increase the production, and in other cases it may mean that the farmers go insolvent. The sale of a large proportion of the surplus milk, butter and cheese should take place in our own country. There is tremendous malnutrition here and the Government must help to build up a healthy nation by making use of the surplus dairy products. The Argus the other day referred to the advantages of milk in regard to malnutrition—

Then later on it says—

This morning again we see that they write seriously on this subject—

We have the problem in this country that we are producing food which we cannot sell. We are landed with surplus foodstuffs which have created a problem which threatens to ruin the producer. On the other hand, we have the problem that a large section of our population suffers from malnutrition, to such an extent that 10,000 people die of malnutrition every year. Something is radically wrong. It should be possible to use that product of which there is a surplus, and which to a certain extent is really a burden, to save the lives of those people who cannot obtain milk and to build a sound nation. It simply must be done.

What is the solution?

Give it to the poor people.

I have already said that we should find a market for a large proportion of our surplus milk, butter and cheese in our own country because there is great malnutrition here. A healthy nation will save us thousands of pounds in hospital costs, and just imagine how many working hours we will save. The indirect benefits flowing from the provision of milk and dairy products to our people will be tremendous. Methods should be evolved to make it available to those who really need it, and at reduced prices. In the past we provided food to the less privileged people on a small scale through the Department of Social Welfare. For example, we supplied the school children with dairy products. That can be done again on a larger scale. We supplied the so-called enriched bread. That was useless and it cost us R8,000,000. The people were prepared to spend that money, and that being so, they will also be prepared to pay the difference between the price needed by the farmer in order to make a living and the reduced price at which it is supplied to the less privileged. The Government must ensure that the less privileged people can get dairy products at an appreciably reduced price, a price which they can afford to pay, and the Government must subsidize it.

I think that the wages of workers could also be increased. I think it is generally felt that the time has arrived when workers’ wages should be increased in order to increase the purchasing power. The worker will spend a large proportion of his earnings on food. Mr. Silberbauer is reported to have said the following in the Cape Times of 8 February–

If Bantu wages and those of the ordinary workers are increased, a large part of it will be spent on food. There is an idea held by some people—I want to say frankly that I do not think it will work—that part of the increased wages should be paid in the form of milk coupons. That would ensure that the worker buys the right article and it would also assist the industry. I doubt whether it can be done, but it may be investigated. If it is practicable, it will help the industry very much to find a market for its surplus milk. A considerable subsidy will have to be paid, but in that way the health of the people will be built up and it will be well worth while. It will give the dairy industry a chance to improve its production methods and to reduce its production cost in such a way that it will still be able to sell its products at a profit. It will of course also create a much bigger market for the profit.

Then I want to say a few words about meat. The meat industry is also getting into a deplorable position. Less than a year ago the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services said in the Other Place that—

His words were not yet cold when we sat here with tremendously overloaded markets. Every single meat market in the controlled areas was so overloaded that animals had to stand for days before they could be slaughtered. The permit system was lifted barely a year ago, and we find that here in Cape Town there are often from 10,000 to 16.000 sheep. and in Johannesburg up to 30.000 a day, awaiting their turn to be slaughtered. People are inclined to blame the farmer to some extent for this state of affairs. They ask why the farmer cannot withhold his sheep or cattle. But if he does that he simply does not receive a turn for his animals to be slaughtered. He is compelled to send his stock, even though he knows that the animals will have to stand there for ten days before being slaughtered. Unless the farmer does that, his animals will never be slaughtered. There were periods, particularly in December, when use was made of the Railways in order to exercise control. The Railways refused to carry slaughter stock to certain markets. But there are no signs of improvements yet, and I believe that if we have normal rains this year the position will deteriorate still further, because it seems to me that we are producing increasingly more meat.

An experimental consignment of cattle carcasses were recently sent overseas, and the experiment succeeded. The meat arrived there in a good condition; it was of high quality and good prices were paid. I want to congratulate the people who sent those carcasses. If that experiment is a success, I suppose we can continue with it and we can see to it that more cattle carcasses of the same quality are exported. I cannot accept that our exports will be on such a large scale that it will spoil the markets there to any extent with the result that prices will fall. I think we should ensure that more articles of the right quality are exported. After that we exported 2,000 sheep carcasses and it was a failure. The meat was sold there at 7 or 8 cents a pound. If the Press report is correct, it seems that they were badly prepared—

One does not know whether that is the only reason, nor do I know whether it is the real reason. The Minister will perhaps be able to tell us. If it is true, it is a great pity that we exported an article which was not properly prepared. By doing so we spoilt our reputation overseas. We should ensure that we do not export any product, of whatever nature, which cannot compete on the markets overseas with the products of other countries. A few years ago our canned fruit almost had a monopoly on the British market, and because the industry practically had a monopoly they eventually started exporting products of a lower quality, with the result that canned fruit from America entered the market because it was better and began to oust our product there. and to-day we have to fight hard to regain those markets. Under no circumstances should we in this country allow products of an inferior quality to be exported.

What will also assist in reducing our surpluses somewhat is a bigger population, if we could have more immigrants. Of course, we could already have had a larger population as the result of immigration if it had not been for the fact that a stop was put to immigration. There could perhaps have been hundreds of thousands more people in South Africa to-day, people who would have set afoot great developments in the country and who would have brought more money into circulation, which would have increased the purchasing power tremendously. In any case, we should continue and see what we can do to strengthen our population, because that will increase the market. The Government can also perhaps in the meantime expand Iscor and Sasol.

There have already been tremendous developments in that regard.

Yes, but it can be extended much more. Let us develop our industries as fast as possible in order to increase the purchasing power in the country.

I believe that it is the duty of the Government to see to it that the surpluses are disposed of and that producers are enabled to make a decent living. It is the Government’s duty to see that they are able to produce as cheaply as possible. Research should be done in connection with other products such as rice, coffee, tea, fibres, etc. of which there is still a shortage in the country, and to see whether our farmers cannot switch over into that direction. It is necessary that the Agricultural Department should be expanded tremendously at all costs in order to be able to do the necessary research and to give the necessary guidance. Steps should be taken to prevent agriculture against landing in the position in which it was in 1930.

I second the motion. It has been interesting to listen to the all-embracing speech made by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). It was also interesting a week ago to follow the agricultural debate which took place in this House, and I found the reply of the Minister of Lands particularly interesting on that occasion. One point which interested me in particular was his explanation that in European countries subsidies were being paid in respect of agricultural produce. He mentioned England, Holland, Switzerland and France; and we also know, of course, that in America large subsidies are paid on agricultural produce. I found it particularly interesting when I made a comparison between the yield per hectare in European countries and the yield in South Africa. I find that in some of these countries where subsidies are being paid, the yield is as follows: In France, 2,080 kilograms of wheat per hectare; in Italy, 2,030 kilograms per hectare; in Western Germany, 2,830 kilograms per hectare; in Eastern Germany, 3,100 kilograms and in England, 3,080 kilograms per hectare. And as far as South Africa is concerned we find that the yield is 560 kilograms per hectare.

There is a reason for that, and you know it.

There is a reason for it, but I am not talking about the reasons at the moment. I am stating a fact and that fact is that we produce so much less per hectare than these European countries do. And when I notice in this connection, as the hon. the Minister of Lands has pointed out, that in most of these countries which I have mentioned a subsidy is paid on agricultural produce, then I am not surprised to find that the South African farmer is in difficulties. Because with our lower production we should be able to show a greater profit in order to be able to make a decent living out of agriculture. We have comparatively few farmers in this country bearing in mind the size of our country. At the moment there are 112,000 farming units in this country, and the hon. member for Gardens says that with young farmers entering agriculture that number is growing. But I contend that figure remains fairly constant because farmers are continually leaving agriculture because they are being driven off the farms. They then have to seek employment in the cities. That is the difficulty with which we have to contend. But, Mr. Speaker, when you bear in mind that we have 112,000 farming units in our country, then you realize that they have an enormous task. When we consider that in 1957-8 the gross value of agricultural production was R723,000,000, that it rose in 1958 to R729,000,000 and in 1959-60 to R766,250,000, then we realize that our farmers are doing their job and that they are producing on quite a large scale. But in order to be able to compare the income of those farmers we must take other factors into consideration. You will have noticed that I referred to gross value. But we must bear in mind what their cost of production is and we must look at the prices they receive for their produce. And when we do that, we get an entirely different picture. If we take 100 as the index for 1938 and bear in mind that the price of lorries has risen from 100 to 410, agricultural implements to 300, spare parts for agricultural implements to 310, fuel to 260, fencing material to 350, tractors to 259, then we realize what an enormous increase there has been with prices of the means of production.

By what percentage has the prices of agricultural produce risen?

I shall give the figures. If we take 100 as the basic figure for 1938, then the price of maize has risen to 307. Now compare that with the index for lorries, which rose from 100 to 410 and with that for tractors, which rose to 269 and with that for parts which rose to 310 …

And labour?

I want to ask the hon. Minister if it is not true that a farmer needs a lorry when he produces mealies. Or does the hon. the Minister not know that? Does he think that the farmer can carry the bags of mealies on his head? Surely that was a stupid remark on the part of the Minister. Mr. Speaker, the index for dried beans rose to 408. That was the biggest of the increases. But how many farmers in the country produce dried beans? The figure for potatoes rose to only 288, that for wheat to 280 and that for kaffircorn to 260. We see, therefore, that it is a vicious circle: the more the farmer produces, the higher his production costs; the more he mechanizes, the better he plans, the greater the surplus. We find to-day that there are surpluses of milk, mealies, eggs, sugar, citrus fruits, wattle, bananas and several other products and, as the hon. member for Gardens has said, one of these days we will also have a surplus of meat products and in many other branches of agriculture. The question now arises to what the farmer can switch over, because as soon as a farmer finds that a product no longer pays, then of necessity he begins to ask himself whether he can change over to something else.

Bananas.

No, he cannot change over to bananas because already the banana farmers are having to feed 30 per cent of their production to cattle. He cannot, therefore, change over to bananas. But the Department gives the advice and many farmers unions’ have been advised that the farmers should switch over to rice, to tea, to coffee, to fibres, to wheat and to cotton. Mr. Speaker, tell me how big is the area in our country in which products like rice, tea, coffee, fibres and cotton can be produced? They can be produced only in frost-free areas and those areas are in the minority in our country. We also know that the frost-free regions are situated mostly in the Native areas. How then can the farmers change over to those products? How many of our ordinary farmers who produce milk and mealies and eggs and citrus fruits can change over to those other things? And as far as wheat is concerned, how many more farmers can change over to wheat? I cannot see how it can be done in the highveld of the Transvaal because the production of wheat there is practically impossible. As a result of the rainfall it is attacked by rust there. But that is the advice that is being given to people at present. Last year I heard the hon. the Minister of Agricultural and Technical Services speak about fibres and the wonderful future that there is in the cultivation of fibres. I cannot see how this advice is going to help most of the farmers in our country. People talk about the physical control of production, but again I cannot see how that is going to help. At the prices paid for agricultural produce at present, if the farmers are also to be restricted in respect of what they produce, there remains only one thing for them and that is bankruptcy. The truth is that the farmer to-day is in difficulties and I cannot see how he can earn his living without protection in this world. Let me take one product, butter. I recall that one of the recommendations of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and of the Minister himself was that the farmers should keep more animals, that they should not rely only on the cultivation of their lands, but that they should keep animals and R9,000,000 was then lent to these farmers to buy animals.

But surely all the animals are not milked. After all, one only milks cows.

That is an equally stupid remark. A sum of R9,000,000 was spent on purchasing animals, but of that R4,000,000 was spent on milk cows and that R4,000,000 that was spent to buy milk cows helped to bring about the overproduction that we have to-day. The hon. the Minister cannot deny it. I want to say here that many of the farmers who borrowed this money are in difficulties to-day, because they borrowed money to buy milk cows and now it does not pay them.

But the milk cows were giving milk before the farmers bought them.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to deliver her speech.

Prices have declined so much to-day that the farmers cannot repay these loans. A week ago I was at home for two days and during those two days five farmers called and told me that they could not repay the loans. Their 18 months have expired and they cannot repay the loans. Two of them were working at the iron works at Newcastle; they were not on their farms at all. But let me pursue my argument. There is an idea that if we lower the price of agricultural products we may get rid of surpluses. Let us take butter as an example. As from 1 December 1961, the price of butter was reduced by 5 cents per lb. But what is the effect of that? It is true that more butter was consumed, but it was also found that more and more was being produced. The consumption during the week ending 18 November was 1,703,000 lb. and the production was 2,238,000 lb. of butter; during the week ending 25 November a little more was consumed, namely, 1,726,000 lb., but the production then was already 2,400,000 lb. and in the week ending 2 December the consumption was 1,882,000 lb., but the production was then 2,564,000 lb., and in the week ending 9 December the consumption was 1,854,000 lb. and the production 2,894,000 lb. You see, whereas the consumption rose from 1,703,000 to 1,854,000 lb. during those four weeks, the production rose from 2,238,000 lb. to 2,794,000 lb. There is, therefore, no solution to be found in that respect.

I come now to another point and that is that the farmer is surely entitled to proper remuneration. I insist that the Government’s attitude should be that every farmer must receive decent remuneration. Surely there much be a basis other than just the basis of supply and demand. Surely that cannot be the only factor that counts. Surely it cannot be the only factor that counts in determining prices, if the farmer in South Africa is to be able to make a living. If the position is that the factor of supply and demand is the only factor in terms of which prices are to be determined, then the Marketing Act has very little meaning. I do not plead for any favoured treatment for the farmers. Somebody asked me a moment ago whether I insist on higher prices. I ask for proper remuneration for the farmer. I do not ask for favoured treatment for the farmer. In saying that, I want to ask why the factor of supply and demand is not the decisive factor in other fields in South Africa. Why is that not also the case as far as the remuneration of a labourer or of a professional person or the price of factory goods is concerned? Why should the factor of supply and demand be the decisive factor as far as farming is concerned? Is it not the same then throughout the country? Why cannot the farmer demand what other people get and that is proper remuneration for the work that he does? Mr. Speaker, after all there are accepted standards of living which also apply in the case of the farmer. There are the usual living expenses which have to be taken into account. There are the production costs. All these things must be taken into account in connection with a basis of remuneration for the farmer.

Must the farmer get a salary?

May I make it clear to the hon. member that the farmer draws no salary, but that he is a self-employed man and when I speak about price fixation or remuneration for the farmer, I mean that his prices must be determined in such a way that after deduction of production costs a reasonable remuneration remains for him, a reasonable sum on which he can live decently. I have now stated it as simply as one could state it for a Std. II child.

I come now to something that the hon. Minister of Finance said. The hon. member for Gardens made mention of the fact that the national income rose in 1959 by R90,000,000 and that the agricultural income over the same period declined by R58,000,000—and that in spite of the fact that the physical volume of agricultural products rose by 10 per cent. In the Part Appropriation Bill the hon. Minister of Finance, when I said that it was not going well with the farmers, told me that the gross income of the farmers had risen. He mentioned the percentage and unfortunately I could not write it down, but he said that the gross income of the farmers had risen more than that of the other sectors in our country. I say again that it serves no purpose to talk about the gross income of the farmer.

He did not talk about the gross income.

He did. When one talks about the gross income of the farmers it is meaningless. If you take my gross income into account I am a very wealthy person, but when it comes to net income, then I am in the same position as many hon. members on the other side, who are only too pleased that they are receiving a salary here to make up for what is lacking in their farming.

Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

Mr. Speaker, I included myself in that. But now I come to the interjection of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Naturally I read with interest what the Minister himself had to say. I listened with interest to see whether he did not have a plan for the farmers of South Africa. Now I find that he said the following when he opened the Congress of the South African Agricultural Union—

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister tried a moment ago by way of an interjection to suggest that I was arguing wrongly in saying that production costs in our country are so high that the farmers cannot make a decent living. But the Minister made that confession before the agricultural congress and he spoke about the surpluses and said that the export market was becoming more and more limited. He spoke about stabilization funds which were becoming exhausted. He said that the whole system was collapsing in view of the fact that production was being encouraged in this way. I then looked to see what he suggested as a solution, but he had no solution.

You are reading just one half of my speech.

I shall read out the whole speech with pleasure. He went on to say—

You see, there is no solution there! —

No solution! But he goes on to say—

Again no solution—

No solution, because he says—

No solution. The Minister then goes on to say—

Is that a solution for the farmer or a solution for the consumer? The Minister went on to say—

Throughout there is no solution! There is one more short sentence that I could read out if the hon. the Minister wants to hear it. When I could obtain no solution from the Minister I turned to the speech of the President of the Republic at the opening of Parliament, because nobody in this House, particularly not hon. members on the opposite side, will deny that farming is one of the most important, if not the most important industry in our land because no country can exist unless it has a sound farming industry. I waited therefore to find some ray of light in the address of the President for the farmer. What did I find? He did refer to agriculture. It must be remembered that this speech was not written by the President himself, but by the Cabinet, and this is what he says—

What does that mean? It simply means more production, more surpluses. And what is the solution for that? I find that the Government offers no solution and I want to say here that I regard it as the responsibility of the Cabinet, and I do not want to lay all of the blame on the Minister of Agriculture. It has now become a matter of such magnitude that the whole Cabinet must bear the responsibility in connection with this matter. This is not a matter of making political capital; it is a matter of the utmost seriousness, because the farmers in our country are in a desperate plight.

What is your solution?

I find the solution in what the South African Agricultural Union formulated as its economic policy and this is what it says—

1. (a) whether a more dynamic sales policy can be undertaken or supported, directly or by agents working under their guidance;
2. (b) intensive marketing research actively undertaken in respect of the primary product or one of its processed forms.

That is already being done.

Nobody denies that a certain amount of research is being conducted, nor does anybody deny that not enough research has been done, because we are sitting with accumulated surpluses. The solution of the difficulty has not yet been found. Therefore, to talk about research which has already been done does not alleviate the existing position in which we are saddled with surpluses. They go on to say—

They speak of the co-ordination of government policy, which, as I said just now, is a Cabinet responsibility. They speak of the co-ordination of government policy, by co-ordinating special credit facilities with improved farming practices, without throwing out of gear the economy of a given farm or product and by instituting for this purpose a Department of Agricultural Financing and co-ordinating agricultural credit with government policy.

That is also being done.

According to the interjection of the hon. member I can only presume that he has given up farming and that he is no longer in touch with the farmers or else that he is perhaps restricting himself to one small branch of agriculture. I do not know whether the hon. member is still farming in Wakkerstroom, but if he is still farming there he ought to agree with me in connection with these matters, because what I am saying here is the policy of the South African Agricultural Union. That is what they desire. They ask for—

They also talk about the necessity for irrigation schemes on the basis of production to replace imports.

But we thought that you were against those irrigation schemes?

I have no objection to irrigation schemes. I am in favour of the introduction of irrigation schemes. I have no objection to that, but I am pointing out that when irrigation schemes are introduced, without any other scheme being undertaken, it will again result in greater surpluses. There must be other schemes as well as irrigation schemes. They speak of “an amendment of the Government’s tender system to ensure for the producer a reasonable income and to prevent his market from being unnecessarily depressed”. Then they speak of “creating the possibility of levelling the farmers’ income within a few years”. They speak of “an expanded inland market for products by more energetically speeding up industrial development in the Republic and along its borders with Bantu areas …” Then of a “dynamic immigration programme” and of, “using surplus food as part of the developmental capital Then they speak of “increasing the buying power of the lower income groups etc.” They speak also of the alternative of helping the farmer by bringing supply closer to demand by introducing a quota system where practicable and desirable. Here, naturally, I have certain misgivings. They talk about the revision of the transport policy and the integration of railway bus services, together with a system of proper roads. Then, they talk about “investigation into economic production possibilities “the consideration of a comprehensive crop insurance system and a long term planning in agriculture”. That, to me, is the most important thing of all. Mr. Speaker, there ought to be planning in this country so that the farmer can know exactly what he can get for his agricultural products during the following five or 10 years. Farmers ought not to leap in the dark, as they are doing at the moment without knowing what the future has in store for them. I have pleasure in seconding this motion.

At one stage I felt sorry for the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). I felt sorry for her because while she is so concerned about agriculture when she talks in this House, there were only five members of the United Party in this House except during the last five minutes. Only five members of the United Party were interested in her speech. It was tragic to witness that.

I want to analyse a few of the statements made by the hon. member. She gave the House the index figures in respect of the increase in the price of lorries and spare parts etc. and against that she gave us the index figures in respect of the increase in the price of products, and because they do not agree in every instance she takes it that the costs of production are much higher and that they are rising faster than the increase in the price of products. But the hon. member should bear in mind that she cannot make deductions like that, because, if you have to have a lorry and not use a trailer, you do not convey only one load of mealies with it, but every bag of mealies for two or three years. The same in the case of wheat. You do not use one plough to sow one bag of wheat, but you use it over a number of years. Those are not figures that you can juggle about in that way, Sir—it creates the wrong impression. The hon. member was very concerned about the R4,000,000 which, she alleged, was paid for milk cows, and she said that was the reason for the over production which we have to-day. But surely those milk cows were already in milk before the R4,000,000 was paid. They only changed hands—that was all. Because certain farmers in the agricultural areas who found it difficult to integrate stock farming with their agricultural farming were assisted, she regards that as a reason for the over production of milk. That may be true to some extent because those cattle are better cared for now and because the remaining cattle are also better cared for. But that is not the norm. She concluded by quoting the suggestions made by the South African Agricultural Union, suggestions that they have put forward as offering the solution. But does she not know that most of the recommendations of the South African Agricultural Union are already actively being carried out—or at least to a very great extent? The others are still being investigated. I shall analyse the position in a minute and show you, Mr. Speaker, how some of those things are already being done.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has introduced a very interesting motion. The only pity is that his motion is based on the wrong premises. He says this—

Mr. Speaker, he generalizes and says that conditions in the agricultural industry are unsatisfactory. As far as he is concerned conditions are unsatisfactory in the entire agricultural industry, and the hon. member based his entire motion on the premise that conditions were unsatisfactory in the agricultural industry. He then went on to say that I was supposed to have said, when we discussed the motion which was introduced the other day, that conditions in the agricultural industry were not satisfactory. But that is not the case. We said very clearly that everything was not satisfactory as far as certain areas and certain sections of agriculture were concerned, that everything was not satisfactory as far as certain commodities in agriculture were concerned. But we have never generalized. The hon. member gave a few examples. He mentioned, for example, the price of wool. But surely he knows that the price of wool is an international price that depends on the international demand. He also knows that had it not been for the fact that action could be taken under the Marketing Act, under the Wool Board and the Wool Commission—in respect of which legislation has been introduced—to maintain a stable price, the farmers would have received much less. In other words, he quotes the price of wool as an example to prove that agriculture is in a bad shape, as a charge against the Government, knowing that this Government have taken those steps, more so than any other country in the world. Then he went on to say that meat prices were still going down. But that is not the position. The speculative meat prices may be lower, but surely he knows that there is a floor price under the marketing system and under the Control Board and that price is fixed from time to time. That price has never as yet gone further down. It is only the speculative price above the floor price that is lower. But that is not the position in respect of the price provided for under the Marketing Act.

But prices are low.

The hon. member then referred to the outstanding amounts due to the Land Bank and to the State Advances Recoveries Office. I shall deal with that at a later stage. Mr. Speaker, so that we may have clarity, I again want to make an analysis of what the hon. member said about the unsatisfactory conditions in the agricultural industry and his generalization in that connection, something to which the hon. member for Drakensberg subscribed and quoted what the hon. Minister of Finance had said the other day and what the Minister of Finance had said. He quoted from a publication of the Bureau of Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch—A Survey of Contemporary Economic Conditions and Prospects for 1962. To what conclusion did he come after he had made his analysis? He says this—

Namely the earning capacity of the people. That is what it means. That has increased by 7 per cent. But what does he find further—

That is higher than the average increase in the earning capacity of the entire population. There were the mines for example 11 per cent; private factories 4 per cent; commerce 8 per cent, etc. In other words, according to this survey by the University of Stellenbosch, the earning capacity of agriculture was higher than the average and had kept pace with the other sectors in the country.

This Government knows and admits the fact that in certain areas the position of certain farmers is not what it should be as well as the position in regard to certain agricultural commodities. We have never denied that. The United Party with this motion of theirs only want us to consider now what action should be taken. But the Government has long since passed that stage and has not only to start considering to day. It is taking action. It is already taking active action. Because we know that everything is not what it should be with certain farmers; yes, that things are even going badly with them, but we cannot generalize as the United Party has done. We are aware of the agricultural problems that exist and of the anomalies that are created by ever increasing over production, due perhaps to the improved agricultural-technical services, the better guidance, the better circumstances of production and the better production facilities, that have come about as a result of the steps taken by the Government. The Government has not waited only to consider those things to-day. It has already conducted an inquiry into the European occupation of the platteland; it has already appointed a study group to go into all aspects of agricultural credit and in their report that study group divides the farmers of South Africa into three categories. They mention group 3 specifically as those farmers who find it difficult to make a living. Those are the people who continually suffer crop failures, who are over-capitalized and who farm on uneconomic farming units. In this connection they also refer to the collapse of the markets, inexperience, unbalanced farming; and then they say that in such cases special assistance and expert guidance are necessary. These are the farmers about whom we should really worry. According to the report of this study group—and this is not an old report, because it is for 1960-61—the other farmers are not in difficulties. Their position is not such as to cause us to panic. According to this report category I can manage its own financial affairs. It is not necessary for them even to go to the Land Bank. Category 2 go to the Land Bank and they are all creditworthy, sound, bona fide farmers about whom the country need not worry, because they are already protected in various ways. Then we come to category 3 which consists of those people who have to be assisted. This Government, knew not only as a result of these reports, but because it has its finger on the pulse of the nation, that steps had to be taken and what has the Government done already? It has made a temporary change in the loan policy of the Farmers’ Assistance Act by again granting those loans. The Land Bank Act has been amended so that loans up to 80 per cent of the value could be granted. We have the hypothecation loans to purchase livestock and implements. We have introduced emergency loans for the purchase of seed, fertilizer, fuel, etc. We have also introduced emergency loans for drought stricken areas and there has been action on the part of the Department of Agriculture to give advice to farmers economically. These are all steps which the Department has already taken. But what is more, a commission of inquiry was appointed to make a thorough investigation into the profits that were made on implements, farm machinery and spares. We trust that report will shortly be Tabled. The Government is, therefore, not only at the stage where it is considering what action should be taken. It has long since been taking positive and active steps in this connection. Mr. Speaker, I want to give another example, a very good example as far as I am concerned. This publication came out in Pretoria yesterday and I was fortunate to get hold of this copy. It is called Agrecon. This is a new brochure which the Department of Agricultural Economics publish quarterly and make available to the farmers of South Africa. It can be bought for 20 cent. This new publication gives us the necessary statistics and data and details relating to all the areas and circumstances surrounding production. It is worth-while getting a copy. In case members are interested I should like to analyse one item. Having analysed the position in respect of the grain industry, they give a table in which a comparison is made between Grootvlei and Bethal. We find for example that the yield per morgen in respect of mealies is 23.1 bags at Grootvlei. The test was carried out over three morgen. In Bethal the yield was 19 bags. But this is what is interesting about the whole thing: The figure in respect of costs of implements per morgen at Grootvlei is 8.6, whereas it is 11.6 at Bethal. They conclude that the farmer at Grootvlei gets 20.2 per cent interest on his capital investment if he produces mealies, but the farmer in Bethal gets only 9.2 per cent, because conditions there are different. Mr. Speaker, with the assistance of this wonderful publication and the investigations that will be conducted in future, we may find, for example, that the farmer in the Eastern Free State, where my hon. colleague (Mr. Knobel) farms today, probably only makes 2 per cent; or that the farmer in Volksrust who cannot produce what the farmer in Bethal or Grootvlei produces, probably only makes 3 per cent. With a survey such as this at its disposal the Government can take steps to advise the farmers and the farmer himself will then know that he cannot grow mealies in certain areas—a table has been compiled to show him that it will not pay him to grow mealies there.

Mr. Speaker, who are the farmers who are in difficulties to-day? Those who are in difficulties are those mentioned in category 3. The Natural Resources and Development Board conducted an investigation in 1949. They took five districts in the centre of the Free State where the farmers raise stock and go in for agriculture. That was 40 per cent of the farming units; 10 per cent of that area was already subdivided into units of under 200 morgen. Smallholdings excluded. If we investigate the position we will find that those farmers constitute a group of farmers who find it difficult to make a living. That does not mean to say that they are all insolvent; they are not all insolvent as some people would make us believe. They are people who find things difficult, perhaps their units have become uneconomic in present-day circumstances because of their size. You have the same position in the southeastern Transvaal, possibly in the districts of Standerton, Amersfoort. Ermelo, etc. The managing director of the Land Bank quite rightly said—and I agree with him—that there was no longer room in our economy for uneconomics units in our agriculture. That was why we were pleased the other day when we had the discussion here, to hear the Minister of Agriculture tell us about the investigation that is to be conducted, namely an investigation into the subdivision of land into uneconomic units. It is true that a certain group of farmers find it difficult to make a living, but this Government has not forgotten them. Let us analyse briefly what has already been planned, the assistance that has already been given in order to solve the problem. I do not want to give all the figures to the House. I merely want to say that the Department of Agriculture grants subsidies for fertilizer, there are railway rebates on fertilizer, etc. There are rebates on the conveyance of stock from drought-stricken areas to areas where there is grazing. Then there are railway rebates on the conveyance of stock feed to drought-stricken areas. The farmer only pays a quarter of the railage; the Department pays a quarter and the Railways carry half. Where else in the world do you find a service like that; where else is that type of assistance given? Water is conveyed to drought-stricken areas. You have soil conservation works, the eradication of noxious weeds, the combating of pests and plagues. The Department of Water Affairs gives assistance to farmers and to irrigation boards, etc. During the years 1956-7 to 1960-1—during those few years—assistance was given to the farmers in the form of subsidies to the tune of R41,193,000. That is an example of what has been done to assist those farmers to keep their production costs lower. These subsidies constitute active steps to keep production costs lower. Those have undoubtedly been active steps. I want to give another example and I want to analyse what has been done by State Advances. I am doing this particularly because the hon. member for Gardens said that those people who had been assisted by State Advances, had fallen into arrear. Mr. Speaker, the Farmers’ Assistance Board assisted only those farmers who were financially in an absolute weak position. It did not assist all the farmers. The Farmers’ Assistance Board helped those farmers who were in a weak position. That is the largest group of people that can be taken as the norm in deciding what the position is in regard to agriculture, because they are the people who have found it most difficult to make a living. The others have not. The farmer who found himself in difficulty and who could not meet his obligations went to the Farmers’ Assistance Board that year and asked for assistance. In other words, that is the norm that we can apply to determine what the position of our agricultural industry in South Africa is. It is one of the best norms. Let me analyse the agicultural position: We have 100,000 farming units in South Africa. At the end of 1961 there had been 7,015 applications for assistance. In other words, only 7 per cent of the farmers of South Africa had gone to State Advances and asked for assistance because they could not meet their obligations. It is interesting to note. Sir, that those 7 per cent are not insolvent. Under the farmers’ assistance scheme an amount of R17,960,000 was given to those farmers in the form of mortgages; for irrigation schemes, water shortage, assistance in drought-stricken areas in the Cape Province a total of R19,000,000; loans to save stock which the farmers would otherwise have lost, stock feed, conveyance of stock; loans for the cultivation of crops, loans in respect of flood damage in Natal and Griqualand East; loans to farmers in the mouth-and-foot disease areas, a total of R12,036,000. In other words, during this short period of time up to 31 January 1962, the Department of State Advances had assisted the farmers to the tune of R31,091,000. I repeat that only 7 per cent of the farmers of South Africa found it necessary to apply to State Advances for assistance. I also repeat that they are not insolvent. Let us see how these amounts have been repaid, and this is a scheme which has only recently been introduced: Repayments under the assistance scheme for 1959-60—the first payments under this scheme fell due in 1960—in the form of capital and interest amounted to R1,817,000. That is on R19,000,000. In other words, within a year State Advances recovered 10.53 per cent of the loans it had granted to those farmers. Does that look like insolvency? Does that look as though we should panic? Capital repayments were as follows: Debtors who are up to date with their capital and interest payments, 28.8 per cent; those who have only repaid capital, 7.2 per cent; debtors who have repaid capital in part and interest in full, 11.8 per cent; debtors who have only paid their interest in full, 7.8 per cent. In other words, the position of 48.4 per cent of the farmers who were assisted under State Advances has not deteriorated; their position has not deteriorated because they can still meet their obligations in full. When you analyse these repayments, Sir, you find this interesting fact. The position in respect of repayments and losses is that State Advances has advanced R92,700,000 in the form of capital and they have already recovered R71,900,000 in the form of capital and interest. They have written off an amount of R2,700,000 in the form of capital and interest. That is 2.9 per cent. What is the amount that has been written off? Let me analyse the amount. This amount does not include the demobilization scheme under which a number of ex-soldiers were established in the farming industry. Under this scheme the corresponding figures are: R20,500,000, R18,400,000, etc. But it means that 2.9 per cent was written off. And that means 2.9 per cent of 7 per cent of your farmers. You can work it out yourself, Mr. Speaker. In other words, less than .08 per cent of the farmers could not meet their obligations towards State Advances as was expected. It is interesting to note that State Advances estimated what they could expect to recover and they estimated that they should recover the amount of R3,220,000. On 31 January 1962 they had already recovered the amount of R3,975,000. In other words, more than they had estimated. They expect to-day that by the end of 31 March 1962 they will have recovered R4,700,000, whereas they originally expected that they would only recover R3,220,000. Does that not show that things are not as bad with the farmers as we are led to believe?

I wish to move the following amendment to this motion—

1. (i) the marketing system as embodied in the Marketing Act, which serves as the only guarantee of stabilization;
2. (ii) the steps already taken by the two Agricultural Departments in bringing about greater efficiency in agricultural production;
3. (iii) the steps taken by the Agricultural Departments and the Control Boards to develop domestic and foreign marketing; and
4. (iv) the steps taken by the Agricultural Departments, the Land Bank, the Farmers’ Assistance Board and other Government bodies in giving financial assistance to areas where unsatisfactory conditions arise in the agricultural industry on account of phenomena of nature.”.

In moving this amendment I wish to point out that hon. members have already showed what the increase in production has been. In 1947-8 our wool production was 206,000,000 lbs.; today it is 296,000,000 lbs. In 1948 our beef production was 646,000 000 lbs. In 1959 it had already increased to 677,000,000 lbs. You find the same tendency in the case of mutton. There has been a tremendous increase in the production of butter. Our butter production is 114,000,000 lbs. to-day. There has been a tremendous increase in our cheese production. It was 20.3 and to-day it is 37,000,000 lbs. The same applies to concentrated milk. But farming does not consist only of mealies and milk, but of many other facets such as dried fruit, wine, meat, cotton, wheat and groundnuts etc. and to generalize, as the hon. member for Gardens has done and to say that things are bad with the farmers, is wrong. When you make a wrong statement like that your entire case falls away. Fortunately he admitted that it was on account of climatic conditions that everything was not going smoothly. It is true that some farmers in the mealie-producing districts find things difficult, but let me make another analysis. I will only give the House three figures. In 1947-8 the net cost per morgen for the production of mealies was £5 9s. 5d. and £11 15s. 1d. in 1959. The net income per morgen was £7 14s. 1d. in 1948 and £16 10s. 9d. in 1959. In 1948 the profit per morgen was £2 4s. 8d. and £4 15s. 8d. in 1959. That is in respect of mealies, and it is globular for the whole country. That is why we are right in saying that taken as a whole the position of agriculture in South Africa is as sound as any country can wish it to be. We admit, however, that there may be certain districts where the position is probably bad. The hon. member for Gardens spoke about the price of meat. In 1938 beef was 34s. per 100 lbs.; in 1956 it was 110s. and in 1960 it was R12.27 or 122s. There has not been a decline in the price of beef as alleged by the hon. member, and that is merely the floor price. But that is not the position in all respects. I want to state this clearly. The South African Agricultural Union is incorporated in the Marketing Act and that is the machinery. Planning has already been done. The United Party only want to do it to-day. The Meat Board has sent people to Europe. The Wool Board is continually there. A mission has gone overseas and to the East in connection with sugar. The Government is not only going to consider to-day what should be done. They are already taking action. It is only a pity that suspicion is too often cast on our attempts by United Party stories and that they try to sabotage our attempts. Hon. members said that the position as far as Land Bank loans were concerned, was bad. Do they know that since 1912—incidentally the Land Bank is 50 years old this year— R327,980,000 have been granted to farmers and the Land Bank reports that to date they have not suffered one penny loss. What better evidence do you want than that, Sir, to prove that the farmer of South Africa is one of the most honest in the world! He is not a person who evades his responsibilities, even if he is in difficulties at times. But hon. members said that they were in arrear with their payments. Let me analyse the position. In 1933 the arrears were 4.9 per cent, in 1958 they were 1.99 per cent, in 1960 1.95 per cent and we want to admit frankly that the figure for 1961 is 3.39 per cent. The position is not as sound as it was in 1960. That may be a danger signal but there is a reason for it. In 1959 the Land Bank based its system of instalments on 35 years; it has now reduced it to 25 years, which means that the instalments are so much higher to-day and in consequence the farmers are not always able to meet them. But the Land Bank has once again extended the period to 35 years. In other words, if a farmer has a 10 year loan he can of his own choice extend it to 15 years, those that are for 15 years can be extended to 20 years etc. up to 35 years, on merit, if it is sound. That gives farmers the necessary breathing space that hon. members are asking for, without making beggars out of them and without undermining their morale by saying they are insolvent and only want to live on credit.

I want to make four statements. The first is that our farmers are some of the most honest people in the world. They meet their obligations. Secondly, in general our agricultural industry is inherently sound; particularly when we compare it with other countries, and it is even sounder to-day than it was in 1936 or in 1948. Fourthly, the gross income of the farmer has kept pace and compares favourably with that of the urban dweller. I want to analyse this statement by giving a few examples. In the first place I wish to say that the movement to the cities was not an evil one. In the thirties we had 300,000 poor Whites. We are not faced with that problem to-day. In other words, it is not a question of the depopulation of the platteland, but a question of uneconomic units. We are changing from a system of extensive farming to one of intensive farming; that conversion is taking place to-day. That is why we have certain problems.

Let us look at the value of our agricultural production. In 1936 it was R96,000,000; in 1956 it was R486,000,000, and in 1961 it was R814,000,000; eight and a half times more than in 1936. That indicates prosperity, but let us look at the volume of production: In 1936 the index figure was 100. In 1956 it was 170 and in 1961, 196. It is still rising because we are offering services and because the farmer is availing himself of those services. That is also the position in the case of mealies.

I just want to state one final case. When we look at the capital investment in respect of agriculture, we find that it was £1,655,000,000 in 1954; in 1957 it had risen to £2,000,000,000 and in 1958 it was £2,470,000,000 and to-day it is 6.2 times as high as in 1938.

But we must bear one thing in mind. We must compare the mortgage burden with the capital investment to find a yardstick. In 1947 the mortgage burden was R132 million as against Rl,894 million, in 1955 the mortgage burden was R203 million as against R3,719 million. In 1947 it was 7.2 per cent and in 1955 5.5 per cent and on the 30 June, 1958 the capital investment in agriculture amounted to £2,888 million or R4,167 million and the mortgage burden was R305 million. In 1958 the mortgage burden was only 7 per cent of the capital investment in agriculture. Is there another industry in South Africa that is so sound that its mortgage burden only constitutes seven per cent of its capital value? There is not another business like that. I say again that there are certain farmers in certain areas who have a difficult time. Do you know what that means per farm unit Sir? In 1936 when it was R400 million, it was £4,000 per farm unit. In 1954 it was already £16,550, in 1957 it was £20,000 and in 1958 the unit value per farm was £24,700. I repeat that the mortgage burden is only 7 per cent. That is why I say that we should not commit the crime towards our agricultural industry of telling the world, as the hon. member for Gardens has done, that things are bad with that industry. We should say that there are certain areas and certain farmers with whom things are not as sound as we would have liked to see them, but the position of our agricultural industry is as sound as it is in any country in the world today, because the farmers meet their obligations. That is why it gives me pleasure to move this amendment and to show that this Government realizes what the problems are and is already taking active steps. It is not only considering them to-day as the U.P. is doing. They are always too late.

I second the amendment. All of us in this House are grateful for the opportunity and grateful to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) for having introduced a subject of such importance for discussion. Although we look at the matter in a somewhat different light, agriculture is and remains the backbone of our economy. We know that throughout the world those governments that have been careless enough to allow their agriculture to deteriorate, have fallen behind and have gone under. On the contrary we know that the problem that we are discussing to-day, the financial soundness of agriculture, is a world problem to-day. The stranglehold of costs and surpluses that has taken hold of the whole world, has not overlooked South Africa. I should like to refer to the world food production organization which held a conference recently in Rome. They discussed the whole position of food surpluses. That organization represents 88 countries and at that conference tribute was paid to South Africa, as one of the oldest members, on account of her approach to the question of overproduction in the world. They also mentioned that as far as mealies were concerned, even in a country such as France, there was a surplus to-day, also in Hungary. That shows that the tendency throughout the entire world is to become independent as far as food supplies are concerned, that is the general direction in which every country and nation think to-day. That means that export countries such as South Africa who is dependent on the overseas markets for the disposal of many of her products, is entering a period where we shall have to employ new methods and find new markets if we do not want to lose the struggle.

I want to give further proof of this, by quoting a few sentences from a speech made by nobody less than Pres. Kennedy when addressing his Congress recently and when he pointed out how America was also concerned about her agricultural problems. Before I read it I want to summarize what the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing says in his Annual Report. He says—

There we have the position as it grips the farmer to-day. but that is our problem. Pres. Kennedy describes his problem in the following words—

I mention this because I am convinced that the problem which we are rightly discussing to-day is one which you can only approach with commonsense and that is how it will have to be approached from all planes and sectors. We shall not be able simply to say there is the problem and in saying that think we have solved it. We shall have to deal with the problem as the Secretary for Agricultural Economics has put it in a nutshell, and thereafter we shall have to act further along the lines of this amendment and try to keep our agriculture on a sound basis in the future.

We know that as far as mealie surpluses are concerned the attitude which America adopted was practically that of an elder brother. In the past she has deliberately held back her surpluses from the European market and stored them at a cost running into astronomical figures, but in the meantime we have been given the opportunity of selling our surpluses on that market. America gave those surpluses that she could not store practically as a present to countries that had been hit by catastrophes and to underdeveloped countries. But America has also now reached a stage where, as Pres. Kennedy says, she will have to clean her own house, with the result that we are no longer in a position to use all those markets for ourselves. We should therefore cast our eyes wider afield, go further and give attention to new markets and find new uses for our products. Where we have imported wheat from Canada in the past to the tune of millions of rand and exported mealies to Europe at a loss of millions, we shall even have to consider whether that is not a wrong policy and whether the time has not arrived to include mealies in our bread, because the C.S.I.R. have made tests and determined that a certain percentage of mealiemeal could be used in bread and that an expert would not be able to say that it had affected the taste or the quality. I do not hold that out as a solution of the problem because we cannot do it on a sufficiently large scale, but the R2,000,000 or R3,000,000 which we shall be able to save along those lines, will assist in meeting the position. I think of this for example. We are still to-day prohibiting the marketing of bakers’ cones in this country, whereas I am convinced that the eating habits of the Natives have changed over the years. We notice to-day that Natives like to eat white bread, most of the flour of which we have imported on a subsidy basis, whereas if the Government were to make that fine, processed mealie product available to the Natives, they would be only too pleased to get it. But they have discarded those eating habits of ten years ago and we shall have to take those things into account and see, if by doing that, we cannot create a bigger market. The fact remains that in certain parts of our country certain farmers are struggling under a financial burden of such dimensions that we dare not lose sight of it. I know that in the mealie industry we have reached a stage that, when a farmer suffers a crop failure one year, either because of drought or hail or pests, even if he is assisted by the State—and he gets assistance —that farmer suffers a set-back of three or four years economically, and one crop does not compensate him for the loss that he has suffered. It takes at least three or four successful years before he gets where he was. But fate often decrees that when an area is hit by crop failures, as happened in the Eastern Free State a few years in succession, the farmers get into a position where they require special assistance. That is why we realize to-day how vulnerable agriculture is and that is why, according to our amendment, the Government must continue to give assistance in that respect, and I am pleased to be able to say that it is doing so.

I also want to associate myself with the statement made by Mr. Pentzhorn, someone who is held in high esteem by everybody in the mealie triangle. He said that we would have to get to the stage where we sold mealies at parity prices. But what are parity prices on the world market to-day? That is the price you get after the entire world has dumped its surpluses. It is not a realistic price but a dumping price and that is why the farmer is so reluctant to accept it. I also want to say that where the hon. member mentioned the case of a farmer who was nearly insolvent ten years ago but who was to-day a prosperous farmer, shows how one farmer differs from another. One of the chief factors that we must take into account is that one person, on account of his exceptional ability and managerial qualities, is able to do better than another. I agree with him in expressing the hope that we should do everything in our power, but that brings me again to the question that I have so often raised in this House, namely that we should not be stingy when it comes to the training of scientists, scientists to give us the necessary guidance so that we will be able to place our agricultural industry on an efficient basis and so that our country will develop and grow to such an extent in all respects that we will be able to absorb the growing surpluses.

I do not want to go further into this matter. I want to give other hon. members an opportunity of speaking. There are numerous farmers present who want to take part in this debate. I want to conclude by saying that we should not minimize the seriousness of the position, we should take it into account seriously and it will pay this country to take the greatest possible interest in the farmer and to see to it that the position of the South African is kept inherently sound.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) proves the need for this motion moved by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). The hon. member for Wakkerstroom says that there is a very great surplus problem, a problem of getting rid of surpluses which are ruining the market for the producer in South Africa. He says that there is a downward trend in our overseas market and that something must be done about it. Well, if that is so, why does he not support the original motion which deals with that very point? Because if this downward trend continues and is so serious as to upset the economy of the South African primary producer, it shows that it is not necessary to thank anybody for developing markets for us or even for holding our markets, but that it is more important to see that we get rid of that surplus to the best advantage and to see that it does not interfere with the basic price for primary products. He goes on to say that the Land Bank has come forward and has helped the primary producer to meet his indebtedness and his troubles occasioned by his loss of income. There we have what is virtually an admission from Government speakers—and of course that is the true position in this country—that the primary producer is in a very parlous position. That is certainly true except for the producer of wool and perhaps those who produce fruit for export. I do not include in that category the producer of fruit for canning purposes. What has this Government done to protect the farmer and the price he should receive? The primary producer is like anybody else who produces a commodity for sale. He wants his cost and production plus enough to give him a decent living, and that was the reason for the introduction of the Marketing Act, in other words, to get rid of and to handle that surplus that ruins the market as a whole. In referring to advances by the Land Bank to the primary producer, the hon. member overlooks the fact that those very advances that have been made in the last few years, amounting to many millions of pounds, are made to the farmer because he is not getting an economic price for his product. In many instances, instead of putting him on his feet, it is loading him with a debt at quite a high rate of interest, which adds to his indebtedness and brings him into greater trouble. We know that an advance at the right moment by the Land Bank or an advance to a man to start farming, can put a man on the land and keep him there and help him over temporary difficulties owing to droughts. But the taking over by the Land Bank of all the assets of many of these farmers, has put them in a position where they are now loaded with debt, a position from which many of them will never recover. In the end those very debts and advances will drive them off the land at a time when they will be too old to start another line of farming. Sir, I have had practical experience in helping many of these people to get these advances, and when you look into the facts and figures and see the rocommendations of the Assistance Boards you realize as a practical farmer yourself that many of them can never recover. When they need a small amount of money for a month or two they cannot get an advance from any other business house because all their assets are pledged to the Land Bank. Except during the very first year or two of my farming, I have always found the banking facilities of commercial houses of greater use to me because I did not have to pledge all my assets when I needed financial help. But under this system where every asset of the farmer is pledged, I think many people who have taken help in the last few years will go under in due course, especially now that there is, as admitted by hon. members on the other side, this downward trend in prices and a collapse of the market at a time when costs of production are rising. Just take labour costs. We know that there is a nation-wide drive at the moment to increase the cash wages of all unskilled labour in commerce and industry. Do you think that is not going to have the effect of raising the wages that the farmer has to pay to his own unskilled labour? Of course it must have that effect. We know that farm labourers receive a good deal of their wages in kind, and many of our labourers who, according to commerce and industry, are not adequately paid, are actually better off financially and have a better home life than the urban labourer in as much as they live with their families and get a portion of their wages in kind. The labourer in commerce and industry, on the other hand, gets his wages in cash and fritters it away with the result that his family suffers from malnutrition and other diseases brought about by malnutrition. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the producer will be compelled to pay increased cash wages, which will, of course, increase his cost of production. There is already a declining market, and many of the primary producers’ prices have been fixed under the Marketing Act on cost of production figures arrived at after a considerable time lag. Cost of production has gone up in the last year or two and there has been no increase in commodity prices to re-imburse the farmer for that extra cost of production. The hon. the Minister admitted that last year in this House in replying to the debate, when he said, “How can we just go on raising the price of primary produce when there is overproduction?” I think he has recently given the same reply to the fresh milk producers of this country. There is a surplus of milk, and how does the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services deal with that problem? He holds a meeting and tells the producers that they have to produce more cheaply and bring down their costs of production. Sir, I ask you, how can the primary producer bring down his costs of production unless he increases his production per acre, and the moment he does that he temporarily helps himself by getting a bigger production for immediate sale, but then he has a bigger surplus to contend with before the year is out. I will deal with those surpluses and once again make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister and to the Government as to how some of the surpluses can be used to the best advantage of the country as a whole. On this question of increased production costs as the result of increased cash wages, I would point out that commerce and industry can afford to raise cash wages because all they need to do is to increase the price at which they sell their commodity. When transport costs go up, all they have to do is to increase the price at which they sell fertilizers and implements to the farmer. The farmer is therefore caught both ways; he has to pay increased costs to get the fertilizer and the implements to his farm and he has to pay increased costs in sending his product to the market. The man in commerce and the man in industry simply adds those increased costs to his price, and he is allowed his margin of profit without any question. Even the distributor of fresh milk is allowed those costs, but it is not allowed to the primary producer, and as far as fresh milk is concerned no minimum price is fixed; only the maximum is fixed. In that case therefore the Marketing Act is used to help the consumer but not the producer, and the Marketing Act was put on the Statute Book in an effort to help the producer as well as the consumer. If you read the debates in this House in the ’thirties, you will see that the Marketing Act was brought in to get rid of the surpluses, to introduce orderly marketing and to give the producer a better return on his product.

But fresh milk is not done under the Marketing Act.

It should be. I agree that it has never been done by this Government under the Marketing Act. This Minister has never used the Act that way.

Will you tell the people in Natal to come in under the Marketing Act with their fresh milk?

They will not come in because the Marketing Act has kept down prices and prevented the producers of so many other commodities from getting a reasonable return. It was the Marketing Act that broke hundreds of raisin producers in South Africa. When South African raisins were sold to Germany at 4d. per 1b., they were being retailed in this country at 1s. 9d. per lb. That is what put many of those men off the land and made them turn to other occupations.

Then don’t blame the Minister. Tell your farmers to come in under the Marketing Act.

The Minister blames the farmer, but the price is fixed under the Marketing Act by the Minister. That is how this Minister always tries to wriggle out of it. The Marketing Council makes recommendations to the Minister on the price recommendations of the Control Boards, and this Minister admitted last year in a debate that he did not fix the prices recommended by the Industrial Milk Board and by the Citrus Board on many occasions. He knows that is true; he admitted it in this House. The Minister had the final say and he has used the Marketing Act to keep down the prices to the primary producers.

And he is going to push them down further.

In the last couple of months the price of industrial milk has been reduced. The price of butter fat has been reduced by 2d. a lb., and it is suggested that huge surpluses are going to be consumed because butter is 5d. per lb. cheaper. Sir, have you ever heard so much nonsense? The ordinary housewife uses so many pounds of butter per week, and she goes on using that quantity, and a reduction of 5d. per pound at the present price of butter will not bring the non-European and the less-privileged classes into the market to purchase that butter, and the Minister knows that. If commerce and industry can add all their extra costs of production to their cost of production figure and then put on a reasonable profit, why cannot the farmer do the same? That is all the farmer asks. He wants a reasonable return for his product. He does not want to make a fortune out of it, and if that is guaranteed to him, then it is up to the Minister to evolve a way of getting rid of that surplus, if necessary by means of subsidization for the good of the nation.

When business was suspended I was dealing in some detail with the dairy industry in this country and our difficulties in disposing of the huge surplus of butter and other surpluses that we have which depressed the basic price. The Minister, as hon. members know, gazetted a reduction in the price of butter fat on behalf of the dairy industry in South Africa, in other words, the Dairy Industry Control Board. I did say that the price of butter fat had been reduced by 2d. per lb. I should, of course, have said “2c”, and the reduction in the case of butter to the consumer was 5c per lb. It is quite easy, when you are thinking back to the prices gazetted up to last year, to think in terms of pennies instead of cents. But what is the future of the industry in South Africa the way we are going? Because we are now in the position that people who are in other lines of primary production are now being encouraged, because they are now subject to a quota, by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to produce milk. Take the wattle farmer. I would like to ask the Minister what future there is for the wattle industry. As a wattle grower I am not re-establishing one wattle plantation that has been cut in the last three years because the outlook for the marketing of wattle bark, if you are not really close to a railway, is very bleak at the moment. Our quotas have been cut down from year to year. Until three years ago, as you know, Sir, there was no quota in the wattle industry. The wattle grower made his own arrangements with the factory, whether he was selling green bark or dry bark. To-day there is a quota, and each year over the last three years the quota has been reduced. This year it has been reduced very drastically. We are told that there is a very poor outlook for the future. The cane growers, too, are subject to a quota, and their quotas have been reduced because of the difficulties in the overseas market.

The price has gone up.

Admittedly the price has gone up. The price of sugar to the consumer has gone up. Of course, they are a very well-organized industry and they have been given a higher internal price to offset their lower quota. But what is the position of the dairy farmer? Instead of getting a higher price, his price has been reduced. But what does the Department of Agricultural Technical Services do? They go to the sugar farmer, especially the small cane growers, and say to him, “We can see that you have to have a bigger margin now because as the result of your quota you have lost the sale of so much of your cane; you had better go in for dairy farming; you had better put down pastures; these lands are very suitable for pasture growing, so go in for dairy farming”. What is the wattle farmer being told in the midlands of Natal? Exactly the same thing. Of course, your wattle land will produce very good grass for two or three years, with practically no fertilizer, because wattle improves your soil as far as grass is concerned because it is a depositor of nitrogen. Many of these people, instead of purchasing mealies, are now producing their own maize and maize for sale to Natives in the area, so once again you have further surpluses brought about through the difficulties of marketing these products. But the bulk of the farmers who have been producing wattle, who have to switch to some other form of production to increase their net income, have been advised by the Department to go over to pastures and dairy farming. We already have this huge surplus, and what are we going to do? More surpluses are being produced, forming a vicious circle on the advice of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and that is not helping the dairy industry. I say that is going to lead to further difficulties in marketing and further trouble. As I have said, some of these farmers are producing their own maize. If dairy prices drop much further, you will find the wattle areas producing enough maize not only for their own use, whereas before they were importers of maize to those areas, but surplus maize which is going to lead to further difficulties in getting rid of the surplus maize which is being exported from this country. And what is going to happen if the United Kingdom goes into the European Common Market? She is almost sure to do so. The chances are 99.9 per cent that she will go into the European Common Market, and then what is going to happen to our butter market? We have no other country to which we can export butter at all. We have been limited in what we can export to Great Britain. What will be the position should the United Kingdom enter the European Common Market? And what about the egg producer, who has been rather hard hit in the last two years as far as the export of eggs is concerned? He is getting low prices for his commodity compared to what he got before in the market over there, and when Great Britain enters the European Common Market I think the egg producers of the other six countries who are already in the Common Market are going to insist on preferential rights for the sale of their eggs in the United Kingdom market. That again will hit us very hard.

I put some questions to the hon. the Minister, which he answered to-day in relation to the export of day-old chicks, a business that has been built up over the last few years with Tanganyika and Kenya and one or two other countries in Africa. We have had a ban put now on the export of day-old chicks as far as Tanganyika is concerned. The Minister says in his reply that they do not know whether the ban was imposed for veterinary or other reasons. I know that one man in my constituency who has specialized in this business has lost orders to the value of R1,800, which he was due to start executing from next month. All these things are forming a vicious circle, and I ask the Minister what he is doing to help the farmer to obtain markets and a basic price for his product that will give him a decent living. All the farmer wants is his cost of production plus enough to make a reasonable living, as I have said before, and with the trend in the overseas markets, with surpluses being built up here, I cannot see much future for him. These people will be forced off the land. Where they have been helped by the Land Bank, the Land Bank has taken over all their assets, with the result that they cannot obtain any help from commercial banks in the shape of overdrafts or temporary help. Over the years we on this side of the House, and I in particular, have pressed Minister after Minister— Mr. Steven le Roux who was Minister of Agriculture for some years and then the present Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and the present Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing—to get rid of our surpluses in this country to the best advantage. In the thirties—I have repeated it over and over in this House in other debates—we had a scheme whereby the small schoolchildren in this country got an issue of free fresh milk every day and where the milk was not available a cheese ration. That was most successful. Further, there was a sale of butter at a reduced price, the cost of production price actually, through the market-masters in all our bigger cities and towns and through welfare societies to people who were on the welfare societies’ books. So they bought second-grade butter, not top-grade, (which they call “choice” to-day), at cost of production price, which took that surplus butter off our market to the advantage of everyone concerned. The people who could not afford sufficient butter for their children, the lower income groups, obtained that butter by going to the authorities, and you could control and stop the exploitation of this cheaper butter coming into the market in other ways. It was a great success. I had a lot to do with it in my own area. Through our market-master we supplied huge quantities of butter at a reduced price, and it did not affect the sale of the ordinary priced butter in business. What can we do? It is admitted that we have a position of malnutrition in South Africa, that there are hundreds of underprivileged people, irrespective of race and colour, who need the protective food, milk or dairy products. And, Mr. Speaker, how I heard hon. members on the other side cheer when the Minister said, “We are going to cut off all school-feeding”. It is a wrong principle. But I then reminded the farmers on the other side that they were going to lose one of their best markets for the disposal of our surplus products. What a fateful thing to do as far as nutrition is concerned! You had a system of free milk provided, irrespective of income group, every child got his ration of free milk or a cheese ration, and the surpluses were used up which helped the dairy industry—but what was much more important, we were building up healthy citizens in South Africa. To-day we are faced with the huge surpluses. The farmer is not getting a reasonable return for his produce, because there is nothing in fresh milk to-day or in industrial milk. Every agricultural organization that has to do with dairy products is complaining that the price is not an economic price. It will be much better if instead of getting large Land Bank loans, pledging all your assets and becoming heavily indebted to the state, if those people were helped by not subsidizing the producer but subsidizing the consumer so that all those protective foods could be used by the underprivileged people or people who cannot afford them at the price prevailing to-day. In relation to their wages, prices are high, and it would be to the benefit of the whole country if those surpluses of dairy products were used to the best advantage, which could be done through that scheme. Once again I plead with the hon. the Minister to consider the introduction of such a scheme again. He has all the details, and it could be implemented in the near future, and it would remove those surpluses to the very best advantage of everybody concerned in South Africa.

The motion of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has one sub-paragraph to the effect that the Government should do everything in its power to try to reduce the accumulated surpluses, which to my mind is. a particular indication of the wonderful service which the farmers of the Republic of South Africa have rendered the people of the country. Those farmers are charged with the important duty of providing the nation with food and to do so not only in sufficient quantities but also to deliver the best quality. I think if a monument had to be erected, we should decide to erect a monument to the farmers of the Republic of South Africa, on account of the fact that they are fulfilling a task which is not such an easy one in South Africa. South Africa is a country which is generally known not to be a wonderful agricultural country and the farmers were faced with the big challenge of feeding the people of this country. They have now achieved such wonderful results as regards food production that there is practically a surplus in every respect. Not only that, but the quality of the food is such that you need not be ashamed of the food that the South African farmer produces. When we look at the quality of the fruit that is served in the dining room of this House, you feel proud of the fact that you are living in this country of ours, thanks to the person in charge who goes to the trouble and shows the loyalty of seeing to it that fruit of that quality is served at table. But you can also go to any decent butcher shop here in Cape Town and you will find beef or mutton of such a high quality that you will be able to treat Her Majesty the Queen of England on it. The farmer has fulfilled that task in full realization of the fact that he is also responsible for preserving the soil of this country and that he should not produce food at the expense of the soil of our country. When you travel through the country, Sir, you are surprised to see how the farmers are doing everything in their power to conserve the soil by means of soil conservation schemes, schemes which they tackle with the assistance of the Department of Agriculture.

I just want to sketch briefly what the task of the farmer is. When you think of the unfavourable climatic conditions under which the farmers sometimes have to render that service, the disasters that nature causes to hit him over which he has no control, when you think of the pests and plagues that beset the farmer, stock diseases, lice, floods, droughts, I think we should really pay tribute to the farmers of the Republic for having fulfilled their task under those circumstances in such an honourable manner.

It now appears that they have done their duty too well. In other words, they have progressed faster than the rest of the country and they have produced more food than the 14,000,000 up to 15,000,000 inhabitants of South Africa can consume. That is indeed an achievement on the part of the 100,000 farmers of our country. Hon. members of the Opposition have now suggested that the Government and the Minister should do more to prevent those surpluses from being exported at a loss. Various speakers have already pointed out the different steps that the Government have taken to encourage that consumption. For example, mealies are subsidized to a great extent to encourage consumption. We find that in 1960-1 the Government paid a subsidy of R8.8 million for the storage and handling of mealies; the subsidy paid in respect of railage for local consumption amounted to R3.144 million, butter was subsidized to the tune of R2.967 million. Similarly, subsidies are paid in respect of wheat and many other products. I want to know from the hon. member for Gardens whether that is not sufficient evidence that the Government is doing everything in its power in an effort to meet the problem.

As I have already said, we all know that if you want to have a country with a sound economy, your basis should be a sound agricultural economy. I think the problem of surpluses should in the first place be tackled by greatly increasing the consumption on the local market. It is not my problem or my duty as a farmer to increase that consumption. My responsibility as a farmer is to produce food and it is the duty of the people on the other hand, after I as a farmer have done my duty, to see to it that the product is consumed. Take the position in respect of butter for example. It is estimated that the butter production for the year 1961-2, that is the present season, will be approximately 118.6 million lb. and it is estimated that only 94,000,000 lb. will be consumed during the year. That means, therefore, a butter surplus of 24.6 million lb. whereas in the case of condensed milk and powered whole milk, in respect of the two together, 72.19 million lb. were produced in 1959-60 and the consumption 70.71 million lb., in other words, there was not a surplus in respect of condensed milk and powered milk. I know the hon. the Minister will say that the factories only produce sufficient to meet the demand. I know that and that is sound policy, because there is no export market for those products worth mentioning. I agree with previous speakers that with a view to the large number of Bantu and Coloured children in this country the problem of surplus butter could be minimized by producing more whole milk and thus reduce the butter surplus. I do not want to place sole responsibility on the State. But I think, for example, of the amendment to the Liquor Act where it is envisaged that only local authorities will have the right to sell the White man’s liquor in the Bantu residential areas around our White cities and that in that case the policy is to plough back the profit that is made into the Bantu residential areas. That is why I want to make an appeal this afternoon to the authorities concerned to think seriously about using some of the profit that is made from the sale of liquor in the Bantu residential areas to provide the Bantu children in those Bantu areas with dairy products on a subsidized basis, products such as powdered whole milk (not skimmed milk), something that will improve the health of those children and reduce the surpluses. We know that as a result of malnutrition many Native children suffer from kwashiorkor, but one pint of milk per day can prevent that disease and thus the State will be saved a great deal of money that it would otherwise have had to spend on medical services.

Now I come to meat. What was the position in the case of meat in 1959? The total production that was offered on the market were 134,000,000 lb. of beef and 312,000,000 lb. mutton and the consumption was only 91.7 lb. per capita per annum, beef and mutton together, that is to say the consumption per capita per day was .22 lb. or 2 to 3 oz. I can assure you, Sir, that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom does not eat .2 lb. of meat per day, but rather 1.8 lb. Here I see an opportunity to encourage the consumption of meat considerably. I do not know whether the people of Cape Town really know what is happening, but if you go to a first-class butcher shop and you ask him what he charges for rump steak or beefsteak, he will always tell the consumer that he stocks prime beef, whereas in many cases it is only grade I or grade II, and then he charges you 35 cents per lb. Chops are also 35 cents per lb. For fillet they charge no less than 60 cents per lb. I do not know where the butchers get all the fillet from, but they never run out of supplies. Only a small portion of an ox is fillet steak, but they always have a supply on hand. The butcher charges 25 cents for a pound of sausage, and for mince, which we all know consists of odd pieces of meat, sinews, etc., they charge 22 cents. I do not want to appeal so much to the butchers as to the consumers. Do you know why the butcher has to charge such a high price? Because you as consumer are too lazy to go to fetch the meat personally at the butcher shop. That butcher has to deliver the meat from the centre of the City to Sea Point and elsewhere, he has to make out the accounts and post them; he has to give credit and in many cases have summonses issued against people if they do not pay. But if you as consumer want to accept the responsibility together with us as farmers you will do everything in you power to help that middle man, who must also live, to reduce the price. He as middle man renders an essential service. You as consumer cannot go to the farmer or to the abattoirs and the middle man renders a valuable service. But he has assured me that if you help him he will be able to sell his meat much cheaper. What will the result be? The consumption of meat will increase appreciably. I want to go further.

I want to appeal to the mine-owners and the industrialists of this country, the mine-owners who take those treasures from below the surface. They did not plant them there as I as a farmer planted my mealies, but the Creator put them there. Those treasures should be used to develop the surface. However, I do not want to be unfair towards the mines. I admire them for their enterprising spirit and for the large capital investments they have made in order to mine those treasures. We know that those treasures earn us valuable foreign currency. But I want to appeal to them to do their share as well. If we as farmers had not provided them with the food, they would really not have attained those achievements. Because all the gold that has been produced in South Africa so far cannot keep a baby alive for 24 hours, but one pint of milk can do so. That is why I want to make this appeal to the mine-owners and industry that they should carry their responsibility together with us as farmers. The surpluses are there and they should be grateful that they are there. What would have happened to them had there been shortages and prices rocketed sky high? It is their duty today to stand by us. Why cannot the mine-owners and the industrialists provide proper food to their underfed employees from the lower income groups, the Bantu and the Coloureds and also others? The industrialist does not know what the Bantu whom he employs eats. The Bantu gets paid and I admit that in many cases he gets paid well, but how many of them spend their money on healthy body-building food? How many spend it on milk? No, he buys a bottle of Cocoa-Cola and half a loaf of white bread and then his stomach is full of wind and he thinks he has had a meal. That is why I ask the industrialists of this country to assist us by giving their Bantu employees a properly balanced plate of food every day, at least one healthy meal a day? Have you ever thought about this Sir, that in 1960 there were 275,614 non-Whites working on the gold mines and that during 1959 a total of 556,888 non-Whites were employed on all mines. Then you still have the industries. I do not have the figures with me, but I think you will agree with me, Sir. that there are quite a few hundred thousand Bantu employed in industry. I am not asking the industrialists to help us to solve this problem for selfish reasons. I am asking it in the interests of the industrialists themselves, because if I as farmer have the purchasing power, I can buy his industrial product. I saw an example of this in certain areas in my constituency where those areas were hit by disasters four years in succession, disasters that were beyond their control. The farmers’ mealie and wheat crops were destroyed by rust. That happened four years in succession. What was the result? Those towns deteriorated into ghost towns. The position is better to-day but I really hope that the industries will help us in this respect. Secondly, if consumption is developed to its utmost so that we are convinced that every person in this country gets what he needs, and there is still a surplus that has to be exported at a big loss, I believe—but we have not reached that stage yet—that the responsible Government, the National Party Government which will still be in power at that time—will realize its responsibility and that we shall then have a round table conference to try to find a solution.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) pointed out in a very capable manner —and I want to congratulate him on it—that the motion was not quite correct, that the farmers of the Republic of South Africa were not in such difficulties. The figures that he mentioned showed that the position was reasonably sound. But he did point out, however, that there were parts of the country where the farmers had been hit by disasters which were beyond their control, disasters for which neither the Minister nor the Government could be held responsible. I wonder whether you as an urban dweller and consumer, Sir, have ever visualized yourself in the position of a farmer whose lands are full of beautiful wheat, a promising crop, and then the hail comes along and not only does it destroy that crop, but it also destroys the farmer’s entire capital investment? The hon. member for Wakkerstroom pointed out in a very capable manner how the Government has on every occasion when disaster has struck the farmers come to their assistance in a sympathetic way with annual crop loans of £300, etc. and farmers’ assistance throught the Land Bank. I want to make one appeal to the House this afternoon. An old farmer once said to me: “Jan, you know I can still put up with those droughts, but the thing that finishes me is that untimely frost just when your crop is at its best.” That is why I want to appeal to the Government that due account should be taken of that risk factor in agricultural production. When you look at the price fixations, you find no indication anywhere that the risk factor has been taken into account in fixing those prices. When a disaster hits me and the Government gives me a loan of £300 so that I can start my following crop and another disaster hits me, I am only more in debt and my position is only worsened to the tune of a further £300. That was what happened in those parts. That is why I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and ask him whether he does not think the time has arrived to give serious consideration to do what the United States of America have already been doing since 1939, what Japan has been doing since 1939, what Mexico has been doing since 19545, Brazil since 1955, what Ceylon started a few years ago and Costa Rica recently, namely a system of cost insurance of the capital the farmer invests in his crops. Mr. Speaker, it has become necessary to do that and in those countries where that scheme has been in operation, the capital investment in that crop is at least insured when disaster hits the farmer and if he loses his crop he at least gets back the capital that he has invested in it. Amongst others the scheme embraces the following. The farmer is covered in respect of all causes beyond his control—all natural causes and natural disasters: too much rain, floods, hail etc. That scheme is already operating in those countries reasonably successfully. Time does not permit me to go into more detail to-day. I think the Minister knows everything about it. Neither do I want the Minister to tell us to-day that he will introduce such a scheme. I know he cannot tell us that. But I want to conclude by making his appeal to him: Will he promise the House that he will have this matter thoroughly investigated? And if he then thinks that it is a scheme that can be introduced successfully, whether he will introduce it in this country?

I would have had no fault to find with the motion introduced by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) if he had introduced it with a few amendments. I must say that the hon. member in moving his motion stated the case very objectively, and it was clear to me, too, that like all of us he was trying to find a solution for the difficulties in which a certain section of our agricultural producers are finding themselves to-day. But when we read the hon. member’s motion, we find that it says the following—

1. (a) the downward trend in commodity prices;
2. (b) the upward trend in production costs; and
3. (c) the accumulation of commodity surpluses; and of making adequate marketing facilities available.

The Government is asked to consider the advisability of combating these things. As I have said, if the hon. member’s motion had been worded differently, we would have had no fault to find with it. Because in the first instance I do not think it is correct to talk about difficulties and troubles experienced by the whole of the agricultural industry. After all, there are certain facets of our agricultural industry which are not experiencing these problems and difficulties. There are certain facets of the agricultural industry which are doing reasonably well. There are other branches of the agricultural industry which, for various reasons, are not doing so well at the moment. And if the hon. member and his seconder were concerned about those branches of the industry I would have no quarrel with them, because I think all of us here who have the interests of the agricultural industry at heart, as we should, are aware of the fact that certain facets of our agricultural industry are going through difficult times to-day. Indeed it is because the Government is aware of that fact, that steps have already been taken by the Government to combat those things which the hon. member refers to in his motion. It is not necessary for us at this stage to consider the advisability of doing so.

Mr. Speaker, we have had an entirely new phenomenon in our agricultural industry in recent years. During the war, and particularly immediately after the war, there was a shortage of nearly all agricultural products in the world. A demand arose in every country throughout the world for the necessary food for the nations of the world. But in due course, by making better use of technological aid and means of production, and to some extent also as the result of reorganization and price adjustments, which were effected to a very great extent in certain countries, surpluses arose, particularly in the grain production of the world. To a very large extent surpluses arose throughout the world. That naturally also affected us here in South Africa. We had an enormous expansion of production in various fields. We had an expansion of production in maize and other cereals, as well as of other products which in turn are derived from cereals. There is an important reason for that. By using the new technological aids, by resorting to mechanization, it was possible to step up production, with the result that to-day we find ourselves in the position that there is a surplus of grain produce as well as of certain animal products, and that surplus is to be found not only within South Africa but in most countries of the Western world producing those particular products, with the result that the markets for those products outside our own country are becoming more and more limited. There are various types of agricultural products that we produce; we have products that are produced largely for the overseas market and the bulk of those products are marketed abroad. I am thinking of wool, for example, of our deciduous fruit and our citrus fruits. I am also thinking of other products which hon. members have mentioned, such as wattle bark, which is produced almost exclusively for sale on the overseas market. Then there are other products of which we had a shortage in the past, in respect of which we were not self-sufficient, which have been produced in ever-increasing quantities to meet the needs of our internal market, with the result that there, too, we have had surpluses as far as the domestic demand is concerned. These products have to be sold in some way or another. There are various ways, of course, in which we can try to find a market for those products. If there is a good export market for them, they can be sold there at a certain price. One can, of course, sell practically anything at a price. Another way is to develop our internal market in such a way that the internal consumer is able to make greater use of this country’s products. Steps are already being taken in this direction, and I shall come back to this later on. But I think there is one thing that we must realize to-day and that is that in our agriculture we have brought about completely changed conditions in the past few years. I think when we seek to use means to stabilize our agricultural products and to place them on a sound footing, it is essential to ensure that those means are not of such a nature that they can cause greater difficulties for us; they should be of such a nature that we can try to bring about stability in our agricultural industry as a whole. In other words, Mr. Speaker, any means that we adopt to overcome our difficulties temporarily, may create further problems for us if we do not tackle this matter in the right way. That is why it is essential, since we have now come to a period of adjustment, that adjustment should take place in such a way that in the long run it will be in the best interests of the agricultural industry.

In this adjustment of our agricultural industry to the new circumstances, each of us has a function. The agricultural producer as such has his function to fulfil. In this transition period of adjustment the Government too has its function and it is quite prepared to recognize that function and to help to meet that adjustment. Our agricultural industry in South Africa, apart from the fact that we have to contend with surpluses, is in this position, with our cost of production structure, that we are unable to compete overseas at the prices at which we have to sell there. At least that applies to many of the products we produce. With the structure that we have, one can only maintain one’s internal price if one is prepared to do certain things. In the first instance one must be prepared to pay big subsidies to the internal producer. In the second place the internal producer must be prepared to accept the lower price for his products, particularly for that portion which has to be exported. That is the second way of getting rid of the surpluses if one wants to get rid of them on the overseas market. The fact remains that one can only get rid of the product at the price that one can get abroad, and the price that one can get there is a price that one can only get in competition with other parts of the world which also sell their products there at a price at which they in turn are prepared to sell. We must be careful that the solution that we suggest does not place us in greater difficulties.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to come to the motion of the hon. member for Gardens, I should like to mention a few things which the Government is trying to do to overcome the difficulties that we are experiencing in certain sections of the agricultural industry. The hon. member refers in the first instance to the upward trend in production costs. There are many factors in our production costs over which we have little or no control. Internally the Government has very little control over it, except in so far as it controls the margins of profit which are allowed on the imported article. Over that aspect of production costs we have little control therefore. The solution in this connection is to try to guide producers to display greater efficiency in their methods of production; in other words, to produce in the cheapest way with the means at their disposal. This is in fact done by the Government through its Departments of Agriculture, by means of instruction with regard to better farming methods, better utilization of the soil, better utilization of fertilizer. We have already started with economic instruction to assist the farmer to plan his farming in such a way as to bring about the best balance and to keep his costs of production as low as possible. While I am on the question of costs of production I just want to mention that there are certain items in the cost of production over which Governments have or can have very little control, unless they are prepared to take certain drastic steps. One of the items in the costs of production over which the Government has very little control is the question of the price of land. In our country we adopt the attitude that every person who wants to go and farm may buy himself a farm, and he can pay for it what he likes. In other words, if the Government is not prepared to intervene and to say that he may not pay above a certain price, it has no control over the item of interest which enters into the price. That is something which our farmers have to look after themselves, if they are not prepared to abandon that basic principle upon which our farming is based. But I want to mention a second one, and that is the question of labour. The Government cannot determine for a farmer how efficiently or how inefficiently he is using his labour. With the steadily rising wage scales (a trend of which we also approve) in our industries for our labourers, it will mean that in the long run the agricultural industry, which has to compete with secondary industries for labour, will necessarily have to pay higher wages. This is also why one of the functions of the producer is to use his labour as efficiently and as economically as possible. I do not think there is a single farmer in this House who can sincerely say that our farmers are making the most efficient use of labour. Here, then, we have another item, an expensive item, over which the Government cannot exercise control without interfering with the basic outlook of our producers. But there is another basic outlook which we have. When a farmer has bought his land at the price which he is prepared to pay for it, according to the value which he places on it, he himself determines with what he is going to farm on that land. If this House is not prepared to allow the Government to tell him with what he is to farm, if we are to retain that basic principle of freedom, then we have those problems and the Government cannot be held responsible for them. I say therefore that if the producers want to retain that basic freedom, they will have to be prepared to a large extent to sell the article that they produce at the price that they can get for it.

I want to mention a further point in this connection. Not only does the farmer decide with what he wants to farm, he also decides how he wants to farm. He does not want to allow other people to tell him how he should farm and how he should use his labour and that sort of thing. He decides that himself. If we do not want to interfere with that basic principle of freedom on which our agricultural industry is based in South Africa, we cannot expect the Government alone to be held responsible for the difficulties that we are discussing here. It seems to me that to some extent hon. members here want the Government to be held solely responsible for what goes on in the agricultural industry. No, Mr. Speaker, this question of adaptation to new circumstances is a matter which the agricultural industry as such and the farmer as such, together with the Government and together with the bodies which are able to assist them with advice and in other directions, will have to tackle together and solve together.

I have listened to various speakers putting forward certain suggestions which they regard as solutions. It seems to me that one of the solutions which is accepted almost generally is that if you simply adjust your price to the right level, if you have a higher price to compensate you for certain things, then everything is in order and all your difficulties are removed. I have said on a previous occasion, and I want to repeat, that the price factor is not the only factor which can place agriculture on a sound economic basis. On the contrary the price factor can be the very factor which causes it to get into difficulties. I want to mention an example again to illustrate that. If you have a good demand overseas for a certain product, as we had a few years ago in the case of canned pineapples, it means that the price of that product rises steeply and the higher it rises, the greater the investments that are made in that direction and the higher the price that is paid for land which is suitable for the production of pineapples. If that product then has to be sold on a falling market later on, then the producer who paid those prices is in trouble immediately. In this industry therefore the high prices paid for products may even be dangerous in the long run. That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that if we are looking for a solution for these problems, we must not think that it is simply a question of saying that the producer should receive adquate compensation for his product. I think the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) put it that way when she said that “the Government must see to it that every agricultural producer gets a living wage for the work done by him”. She went on to say that every farmer must receive proper remuneration for the work done by him. Let me just analyse that proposition for a moment. Since we do not want to interfere with the farmer’s freedom—and I do not think there is anybody in this House who would wish to do so—to buy land and to pay whatever price he likes for it—if we retain that basic freedom —it is an untenable proposition to say that the Government must see to it that the farmer gets proper remuneration for his labour after deducting his costs of production and after deducting interest on his capital investment, etc. I think it must be clear to every right thinking person that would result in an impossible position. It would create a totally untenable position. The difficulties that we come across in certain branches of the agricultural industry in this country are not due so much to the fact that prices have not been remunerative in the past; indeed they arise from the fact that to a very large extent prices have been remunerative and that producers have been encouraged by those remunerative prices to step up their production. There are certain commodities which were produced under these circumstances, and when prices dropped later on, the producers were unable to adapt themselves immediately to the reduction in price, with the result that they found themselves in financial difficulties.

As I have said, the Government is already taking certain steps to comply with the request which has come from the hon. member for Gardens. We are trying to give our farmers the necessary guidance, economically and otherwise, so that they will be able to produce in the most economic way. And we shall have to produce in the most economic way in spite of the increase in our costs of production in order to find a market for our ever-increasing production, at prices which are not necessarily highly subsidized but which will be able to compete reasonably with competitors on the overseas market. We are inclined to talk lightly about subsidies and increased subsidies. But may I remind hon. members that the higher the subsidy, the greater the production of that product. And when you have to export that product to markets abroad you immediately come up against GATT and you are told that you are dumping that product on the overseas market and that you are dumping it because you are subsidizing it internally. You may then lose that overseas market entirely or you may have such a heavy duty imposed on the product that you cannot sell it overseas at all. It is very easy to say that all we have to do is to subsidize. In a country such as South Africa with such a small population, it is much more difficult to subsidize the products of our agricultural industry than it is in other countries such as England, Germany and Italy where you have large populations and a high national income. In those countries they can subsidize internal consumption to a certain extent, but it is more difficult to do so in our country. I shall give the House the figures in a moment to show what the Government is already doing in this respect.

The hon. member referred to the upward trend in production costs. I have already said that there are certain items, which I have mentioned already, in connection with which very little can be done, but through the development of our own industries such as Foscor and others the Government is already undertaking the manufacture of our own implements and other things so as to keep our costs of production low. In that respect we are also in a transition period. There are certain industries which began a short while ago, which want a certain amount of protection, and it is necessary to support these industries because we are all convinced that in the long run they help our agricultural industry.

The third point that the hon. member makes in his motion is that the Government should see to it that markets are created for the surpluses that we have in our agricultural industry. I just want to say that as recently as two years ago we still had shortages in certain industries which are saddled with enormous surpluses to-day. As recently as two years ago we still had to import butter from New Zealand to be able to supply our regular export markets such as Rhodesia. That happened as recently as two years ago. But in the past two years the picture has changed entirely. In the past two years we have started to produce an enormous surplus of butter. Apart from the fact that in the past we did not export to the same extent to the other overseas markets to which we are obliged to export to-day, those markets in Europe, particularly the market in England (which is about the only market for our dairy produce) are being flooded with dairy produce from other countries as well as from our own country, with the result that when we had to export this butter surplus we found that the British market could not absorb it because butter was already being dumped to such a large extent from other countries. GATT was then requested to place the countries selling butter to Britain on a quota basis. And because we exported very little butter until two years ago, our quota is naturally much lower, relatively speaking, than that of countries which regularly exported to Britain, with the result that in spite of the fact that the overseas price is much lower than ours the British market at the moment is actually closed to us to a large extent and that is about the only market to which we can export butter; practically all the other countries meet their own needs. When we realized that we would be producing a surplus of butter for a reasonably long period, the Government immediately took steps together with the various boards. During the past six months we have on three occasions sent Government officials and Dairy Board officials overseas to investigate the position there with the result that to-day we are also selling butter in a country like Italy—naturally at a lower price than our internal price. At the same time every effort has been made to encourage and to increase our internal consumption. There is only one way in which to increase consumption, and that is that the people must be prepared to pay the low price that we charge them to consume that butter. In the circumstances in which we found ourselves the Government showed its willingness to ensure an increase in the internal consumption by bringing about a reduction in the price of butter. Instead of loading the whole of the export loss on to the producer the Government introduced an additional subsidy of 2½ cents per ½lb. which together with a 2½ cents reduction in the price of butter fat, brought about a reduction of 5 cents per lb. in the price of butter. It would seem that this effort is successful. During the few months that this scheme has been in operation the consumption of butter in all grades has increased by 6 per cent. But even if this consumption were maintained it would only mean that an additional 6,000,000 lb. of butter would be consumed and our consumption is 22,000,000 lb. That means that we shall still have 12,000,000 to 14,000,000 lb. left to be exported. I mention this only to emphasize once again that since we have this problem and since the Government is prepared to make its contribution, the producer too will have to make his contribution. Somebody has to pay for it. You cannot sell a product if the consumer is not prepared to pay for it, if he is not prepared to pay the price that you charge for it. In other words, you may be able to sell the product at a lower price but in that case either the State or the producer, or the State and the producer jointly, must carry that loss. And that is what we are trying to do here. It remains to be seen whether it will be so successful that we shall overcome our problems in connection with butter and dairy produce, but we should make this adjustment in such a way that in the long run it is to the advantage of the industry. We must not do things which may hit the industry even harder.

Let me take meat as another example. Until last year we had a shortage of meat in this country during certain periods. Hon. members will recall that year after year we discussed the question of the shortage of meat and they will recall that the accusation was made against the Government that people were unable to get meat. But that position too has changed from a shortage to adequate supplies throughout the greater part of the year and a surplus at other times. We have no overseas market for our meat. We have not developed an overseas market because we have not had meat to export, but to-day we have, and here I want to make an appeal to hon. members. Since we are now adopting certain methods in an effort to get rid of our surplus meat—because it is expensive to store meat—they must not come along with criticism when the board exports meat, for example. In the first place we must start de novo to develop markets for our meat. We all know that there is a very poor market overseas for mutton, and when I talk about mutton I refer to what we in South Africa describe as mutton. What the overseas market wants is young sheep, the super and prime lamb from Australia and New Zealand. But it is not only lambs which come on to our market. All sorts of sheep come on to the market here, even old ewes. In this country our Meat Board has had to buy up meat from time to time, particularly mutton, which has not been specially prepared for export but for local marketing. The Meat Board had to buy up a large number of sheep carcasses; it had to get rid of them and it tried various ways. It sold a certain number to the mines at a low price for their Native labour. A certain quantity was exported to the Congo and other places. They also had to test the overseas market and the only market that they could test for that type of meat was the British market. They exported 2,000 carcasses as a test consignment to see whether there was a demand for that meat. To a large extent this was a type of meat which people overseas do not normally buy, but now the Board is being attacked and it is said that the Board exported the poorest type of meat that it could lay its hands on and that it spoiled the whole market. The Board was fully aware of the fact that this meat had not been prepared for export, but in this respect the Board has a trading function that it has to carry out. If any other person in the normal trade had exported that meat in order to test the market, there would have been no criticism, but because the Board did it, it is criticized. We became aware of the fact long ago that we were heading for a meat surplus at certain times. I said so in this House last year, and apart from this attempt made by the Board to sell this meat which it had bought up, I gave the Board permission three months ago to prepare special lamb carcasses for export so as to test the market. It is essential that we test the market, and we are making a great mistake if we think that we are going to get a better price for our meat overseas than we do with a protective price here.

The same thing happened in connection with beef. In the past we also exported beef which the Board had bought up here, and the same complaint was made against them. But now that it is becoming clear that we shall be able to export meat more regularly, the Board has started to export boned meat specially prepared for export, because we are sure now that we can maintain those exports for a reasonable period and that we shall be able to export regularly. But apart from that the Board also has special permission to buy up and to prepare for export prime and super young cattle carcasses in an attempt to alleviate the pressure on our own market. I mention this in order to show that these requests from the hon. member for Gardens that efforts should be made to find markets are in fact being made; efforts are being made in various directions to exploit the overseas market as far as possible. Apart from that we have sent three trade missions overseas to various parts of the world, not only to sell our industrial products but also to find a market for our agricultural produce. The various boards, such as the Citrus Board, the Meat Board and the Deciduous Fruit Board, have been sending missions overseas continually in the past few years to inquire into the possibilities of export. On behalf of my Department I appointed a special official in London to investigate the export possibilities and to advise us. But we are in a transition period and it will take us some time to determine what the actual potential of the overseas markets are. At the moment the indications are that we shall be able to find a reasonable market overseas for beef and that perhaps this market will not be overstocked so quickly; but there are other commodities such as butter, and particularly mutton, in respect of which we are aware of the fact that at the moment the market is so flooded that there is no great demand. But everything is being done to try to find a market for our surpluses.

We are also doing the same thing in this country. The Government is undertaking various big projects. Sasol and Iscor, etc., are busy with huge developmental programmes which must inevitably increase the internal consumption. But all this cannot be achieved within the space of a day. The Dairy Board and other boards are investigating the possibilities of disposing of products in the Bantu market at lower prices. That is already being done in the case of butter. Hon. members are so inclined to say that the Bantu market, particularly the under-nourished people, can easily be provided with milk. One hon. member has said here that if every Native gets a pint of milk the problem of the surplus will be solved. But somebody has to pay for that milk. Either the farmer must give it away free of charge or else the Bantu must pay for it. But even if somebody pays for it the milk still has to be brought to the Native, and I wonder whether hon. members realize what it costs to bring a pint of milk to the public. If hon. members adopt the attitude that the farmer’s price must be maintained at all times and that in the meantime the State must subsidize it so that the less privileged people can get milk, it is going to cost a great deal of money, and it costs very much more to give them fresh milk. The only solution therefore is to use powdered milk. The Department of Health is conducting experiments at the moment at various institutions to see whether that powdered milk can really serve the purpose which they say it must serve.

The hon. member talked about school feeding, milk and cheese and raisins for the children, and he said that this was a very important market. Mr. Speaker, we know what administrative difficulties we had in that connection, but apart from that, the greatest portion of that milk never reached the people who should have got it. But how big is the market that you can reach in that way, even if it were administratively possible? I want to give hon. members the assurance that all these things which have been mentioned here to-day, even the development of the Bantu market, are being examined in every possible way by the Department and also by the boards. Together with the Minister of Bantu Administration, we have also appointed a special committee now to see how we can best reach the Bantu market with our various products. It involves research and it takes time, but all those things are being done.

I just want to say again that the Department of Agriculture and the Government are fully aware of these problems. Many of these problems have arisen not only because there has not been an economic price for the product, as stated by hon. members, but also because of climatic conditions. There are certain parts of the country which have had poor crops year after year, and those people were caught by circumstances. I am thinking of the north-eastern Free State where we had to grant assistance. Where such circumstances have placed the farmers in a difficult position the Government has always tried to tide those people over that period by means of loans or other assistance. But we shall simply have to come to the conclusion, whether we like it or not, that there are inefficient farmers in our agricultural industry too, and if we were to adopt the attitude that we must keep all the farmers on the land, however inefficient they may be, we will be tackling an impossible task and we will be harming the agricultural industry instead of benefiting it. We shall have to accept the fact that even in our agricultural industry, where we have inefficient farmers, just as there are inefficient people in every other industry, some of our farmers will disappear from the agricultural scene from time to time. Any attempt on our part to keep on the platteland all the farmers who are there to-day is doomed to failure. The duty that rests upon us in that respect is to create other opportunities for those people who do not fit into the agricultural industry. We hear such a great deal about the depopulation of the platteland, but that depopulation has always taken place to the greatest extent at times when large sections of our farmers have done extremely well. A second reason for the depopulation of the rural areas is that our agricultural units are sometimes uneconomic, that the farmer has insufficient income and then lives on his capital as long as he can. We shall have to face these problems and find a solution for them. We shall be rendering the agricultural industry no service by adopting the attitude that we must keep on the land all those people who are farming to-day, who enjoy all these basic advantages in our economy, who have the basic freedom to buy land and to farm on it as they please. I say again therefore that I am pleased the hon. member for Gardens introduced this motion. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that the time available is too short to reply adequately to what the hon. the Minister has said, but I should like to say something about it for a minute or two. I hope the hon. mover of the motion has been listening to the Minister. I hope he will get the Minister’s Hansard and study it carefully, because it seems to me that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), who moved the amendment to the motion, made a speech which was entirely at variance with that of the Minister, and if the mover of the motion would get those two speeches and put them together he would have the complete answer to this debate, because the Minister and the hon. member for Wakkerstroom have been joining issue with one another right throughout.

What is the background of the situation today? It is that over the years, while this Government has been in power, there was under-production, and so there was a producers’ market and we were able to sell at a good price, and the Government sat back and basked in the light of conditions they had nothing to do with, and the Ministers responsible said that they were very competent Ministers and that everything was fine. But to-day we get the Minister coming along with a long list of complaints, particularly in regard to those matters where he says the Government can have little or no control. During the war we were better off than other lands, but that has nothing to do with the Minister. Other countries have surpluses, too. We are not concerned with their surpluses. We want to know whether we have a Minister who can tackle the problem in this country. What is he doing about our surplus? The basic principle is to produce and sell at a price which is competitive in the world market. Yes, we have surpluses and have to export, but what is he doing about it? He comes back to the old story that we must have lower costs of production and produce more at lower cost. What is the difference between that and the position when we had the last Government? He says the Minister of Bantu Administration has a special committee investigating the Bantu market. May I tell the Minister that if the Bantu get down to an efficient method of farming, they will ruin the White farmers of South Africa. That is the curious position. The position to-day is that because the Bantu are not producing efficiently, the Bantu farmers themselves form the market for the White man’s produce, so what is this nonsense about producing more? The more we produce, the more surpluses we will have and the more the Minister finds it beyond his control.

Sir, we have a motion on the Order Paper and I challenge the Government members to vote against it, in spite of the political amendment moved by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. It is time that we got away from this nonsense. We are dealing here with a fundamental issue and the Government is running away from it. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom came with a red herring to distract attention. Sir, I am going to sit down now timeously, and I hope the mover of the motion will forgo his right to reply and that he merely gets up and says that he now moves his motion so that the Government shall vote on this motion and the amendment. I challenge them to vote. [Interjections.] We will call for a division and let us see whether the Government votes on this fundamental issue of agriculture. I say they will funk it. They dare not let it go to the vote. Look at them. They will do everything but let it go to the vote. So I ask the mover not to reply to the debate but to call for a vote.

It is already the second time this Session that I have had to sing the swan-song on private members’ day, and it is just as well that the opportunity to do so presents itself to-day because we see what the political proposition was which was made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). Up to this stage there was no politics in this debate and we were prepared to accept that it was a very well-intentioned motion which was moved by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan).

Vote!

That was also emphasized from both sides of the House, and there was a moderate debate. Then the hon. member for South Coast got up, stood on his head and waved his legs in connection with a motion which was intended to discuss the difficulties of the farmers and he made a political matter of it. I am now sure that whereas the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) said that she was not seeking favours for the farmer, the whole idea now is to obtain favours for that party opposite, to catch the vote of the farmer, but they have missed the ball completely because they will still have to learn that they have completely underestimated the integrity, in the agricultural sphere and otherwise, of the farmer, and that the farmer of the country knows that the party opposite has never in the past been a farmers’ party and never will be. That is all it amounts to. Those hon. members who spoke about the position in which the farmer is alleged to find himself remind me of the man and his wife who were washed away down a river. In the middle of the stream they encountered a tree and whilst the man clung to a branch his wife swam out and fetched a boat with which she rescued him and later put him into bed and gave him a cup of milk, and when he felt better he said, “Wife, it seems to me that we are in trouble to-day”. It is quite clear that we are all aware of the difficulties being experienced by some farmers in some areas. They have commodity troubles and regional troubles.

And they have political troubles.

At 3.55 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned until Friday, 9 March.

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

I move—

It gives me pleasure to move the second reading of this Bill. I want to say at the outset that I have the approval of my party caucus to bring this matter before the House, although my party has decided to treat this as an open matter and to give members on this side a free vote. I understand that the official Opposition have done the same thing, and I want to thank them for it in advance I am sure that hon. members will discuss this matter in an objective and realistic way to-day and I do not even want to make an appeal to them to do so therefore.

I should like to say a few words about the history of this Bill. This Bill was drafted by the Confederation of Labour in co-operation with the two chiropractors’ associations that exist in South Africa. I have here the minutes of the congress at which this matter was discussed and I want to quote what the congress said—

I want to say at once that this Confederation of Labour consists of three trade unions, the S.A. Federation of Trade Unions, the Federal Consultative Council of Railway Staff Associations and the Trade Unions Co-ordinating Council, and according to figures given to me by the Department of Labour, these three trade unions represent more than 180,000 members. According to other information, there are also other trade unions which support this Bill. For example, I have a letter here from Mr. L. J. van den Berg, the chairman of the Trade Unions Co-ordinating Council which he addressed to the Minister of Health and in which he says—

When one bears that in mind, one realizes what great support this Bill enjoys amongst the workers of South Africa. I also have a letter here dated 9 February of this year from the Mineworkers’ Union in which the general secretary says this—

This Bill is supported not only by these 180,000 members of the Confederation of Labour who caused the Bill to be drawn up, but, Sir, I think you will probably concede that I can claim that almost the whole of the trade union organization in South Africa supports this Bill. The reason for that is perfectly clear. Members of the trade unions make use of these services, but they are not allowed, as in the case of medical practitioners, to send their bills to the medical aid societies for settlement. As a rule the constitution of the majority of medical aid societies or medical funds, contains a clause prohibiting the payment of fees charged by persons who are not registered with the Medical Council. In other words, workers who go to chiropractors cannot have their bills paid through the medical aid societies. That is why the trade union organizations support this Bill and caused it to be drawn up. I think I should tell the House immediately that it is not the chiropractors who asked me to submit this Bill. This request, as the minutes show, came from the trade union organizations. They asked me to submit this Bill in their interests. When I was asked to pilot this Bill through the House, I had to satisfy myself as to whether it can be regarded as being in the public interest that such a Bill should be brought to this House, and I must say that having studied and considered the matter I came to the conclusion that it would be in the public interest to grant this recognition to chiropractors.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, chiropractors have been practising in South Africa for the past 40 or 50 years, but it is particularly in recent times, after World War II, that their numbers have grown considerably, and it is interesting—and I say this without reproach—to note that it was in fact the United Party Government which was largely responsible after the last world war for increasing the number of chiropractors in South Africa. On demobilization the Smuts Government gave bursaries to 26 ex-soldiers to qualify as chiropractors in the United States of America. Bearing in mind the fact that to-day there are only approximately 100 chiropractors in South Africa, not all of whom are practising, this addition of 26 who were granted bursaries by the then Government, represents a great addition to the number of chiropractors in the post-war period. I say again that I do not reproach the previous Government, but I do want to draw the inference from that fact that the United Party and the then Government regarded the work done by chiropractors as useful work, because one does not give bursaries to people out of State funds to go and study abroad unless one thinks that the profession that they practise is of some use. The number of chiropractors in this country is still increasing steadily. At the moment there are 40 students abroad. I have a telegram here that I received to-day and that I should like to read out to the House. It comes from Davenport and this telegram was sent by Boshoff, president of the South African Students Club, Palmer College. I want to say to the House in parenthesis that this Mr. Boshoff is the son of Professor S. P. E. Boshoff, the well-known philologist, and he says this—

I only mention this here as an interesting telegram that I received to-day. Since the number of chiropractors in South Africa is growing, I have come to the conclusion that there are only two courses open to this House. We in this legislative assembly must either forbid chiropractors to continue practising—that is the one alternative—or in the interests of the public and in the interests of their profession we should give them the opportunity to exercise effective control over their members. If there are dangers and malpractices which are inherent in chiropractic as a profession, as certain people allege, then we should forbid chiropractors, in the interests of the public, to practise their profession in South Africa. If it involves certain dangers to the public, then that is the only logical step that we can take. But if those dangers are attributable, for example, to poor training in some cases, or to the fact that untrained persons or persons with only meagre training hold themselves out as chiropractors, then in my opinion we should enable them to put their own house in order and to control themselves and to place their profession on a sound footing. Then there is no need for us to prohibit them. After all that was the position before the medical profession received recognition. At that time people with meagre training and all sorts of certificates acted as doctors, and it was then made possible for the doctors to control their members through the Medical Act which the Medical Council framed.

There is abundant evidence that these chiropractors have done a great deal of good to many people. Many of these people who have been helped and in many cases cured by chiropractors, or who have been given relief after years of suffering, are people who made the full round of the medical profession before going to chiropractors. I have an article here dealing with chiropractice in America. It was not written by a chiropractor; it was written by an article writer. This article alleges that 75 per cent of the patients who visit chiropractors are people who first went to the medical profession, who could not be helped by the medical profession and only then went to chiropractors. If it is true that chiropractors help thousands of people, then I do not think that this House will forbid chiropractors to practise their profession. I do not think that public opinion would permit it. The support which is given to this Bill by the trade union movement proves to what extent the chiropractors enjoy the support of the public. There are even members in this, the highest legislative assembly of this country, who can testify to what extent chiropractors have improved their own health and the health of members of their family. Since last year I have received numerous letters, and perhaps I should read out some of these letters to the House. I am not going to detain the House very long by quoting letters, but I do think that hon. members will find a few of these letters interesting. I also have here a long telegram of three sheets asking that this Bill be placed on the Statute Book. The telegram reads—

And so this telegram goes on. Then I have a letter here which was not addressed to me but to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) who handed it over to me. In this letter this person says—

He then mentions the name of the chiropractor—

Then I have a letter here from an English-speaking person from the city of Durban. This letter comes from Bishop’s Gate, Smith Street, Durban, and this English-speaking person says the following—

He then gives the name of the chiropractor—

I could read out numerous other telegrams and letters of this kind to the House, but I do not want to go on with this sort of evidence. I can only tell you that I have come to the conclusion that in these circumstances we in this House cannot forbid the chiropractors to carry on with their work. I say therefore that only the second alternative is open to this House and that is to recognize the chiropractic profession. And if we do recognize it, we shall only be following the example of quite a number of countries which have already given that recognition. In the United States of America, where chiropractice originated, it has already been recognized by 46 out of the 50 federal states; the medical profession in the United States has been opposing recognition to chiropractors for the past 60 years or longer, and yet we find that to-day there are 30,000 chiropractors in the United States. I just want to quote here from a “special McCall’s report by Samuel Grafton”. He says this—

As I have said, in the United States there are 30,000 chiropractors to-day who are recognized in 46 out of 50 of the federal states. They have been recognized in six provinces of Canada, and outside America they have been recognized in Switzerland. I have here all the legislation passed by the district governments in Switzerland to grant recognition to chiropractice. During 1960 a measure was placed on the Statute Book in New Zealand granting recognition to chiropractice. I have the Act here with me. Then there are other states like Greece and Denmark and Mexico which have also recognized chiropractice. I mention this only to show that more and more recognition is being granted to chiropractice.

Let me explain immediately what the objects of this Bill are. In the first place this Bill accepts the fact that there are approximately 100 chiropractors in this country who are continuing their practice. Even assuming that they treat only a few hundred patients a year, it is clear that large numbers of people visit chiropractors every year, people who obtain assistance and relief from them and whose health is sometimes restored by them. This Bill seeks to give these people, the public, an opportunity to be treated by registered chiropractors so that they will know that they are dealing with a trained, registered chiropractor. But this Bill also seeks to give chiroprators the opportunity to put their own house in order. It is the desire of the chiropractors to ensure that only trained chiropractors will practise the profession. They would like to ensure and raise the standard of their profession by prescribing examinations, as provided for in the Bill. I know that last year hon. members on the other side expressed some doubt as to whether it was possible to prescribe examinations efficaciously so as to make sure that a certain standard would be maintained by chiropractors. I am not going to deal with the educational qualifications of chiropractors; I leave that to other members. I merely want to say this with regard to educational qualifications in America to-day that there are 16 chiropractic colleges and one in Canada which prescribe a minimum course of four years. I have a cutting here which says that in America a chiropractor must first write a “basic science” examination together with medical students and thereafter a Chiropractic State Board examination before he can be given a certificate to practise his profession. There is nothing to prevent us in South Africa from inserting a provision in this Bill prescribing a minimum educational qualification such as matriculation, for example, before students will be allowed to study chiropractice overseas. Unfortunately there is no such college in South Africa. We can lay down the certain basic subjects which must be taken such as anatomy and physiology, diagnostics, radiology, etc., for example, to mention just a few, in which an examination can be written in South Africa before a chiropractor is allowed to practise. If they can institute such an examination in America, then we can institute a similar examination here. I wanted to refer this Bill to a Select Committee to go into this matter and unfortunately that was not allowed, but these are matters which could have been dealt with by a Select Committee.

I do not want to deal with this Bill in its full details. It is not an involved Bill and its aims are no doubt clear to every member.

In conclusion, I would appeal to hon. members to face the practical situation as we have to deal with it in South Africa to-day and to realize that we must devise ways and means of meeting that situation in an objective, judicious way. I have read the debate that was held in 1960 in the New Zealand House of Representatives. There the Minister of Health who introduced the Bill said that he was not going to argue over the fact that the medical profession there, the British Medical Association, was opposed to granting recognition to chiropractice, first as they are here in South Africa. The New Zealand Minister of Health stated that he accepted the fact that these people were practising and that for the sake of the public, for the sake of the profession, he wished to give recognition to the chiropractors to give them an opportunity to put their own house in order. That is why I say that we should devise a plan which will enable the public, for the sake of their own protection, to make use of the services of registered chiropractors only. Let us give the chiropractors the opportunity to lay down certain minimum qualifications for the training of members of their profession. To me this Bill is an indication of the desire on the part of the chiropractors to place their work on a high standard and in so doing to look after the interests of the public as well as the interests of their own profession. I have pleasure therefore in moving the second reading of this Bill.

I should like to move as an amendment—

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) correctly stated here that the Confederation of Labour, i.e. the trade unions, raised this matter and that they took certain resolutions in regard to it. I first just want to put this fact to the House, namely that although that is so, it is right that trade unions should give guidance to a House like this on a matter which must be a higlhy technical one, because it deals with the question as to whether people who have not had the basic medical training should be allowed to handle the human body and to treat patients.

The second point the hon. member mentioned here is in regard to accounts which cannot be sent to the sick funds. I know that one of the main underlying reasons why the chiropractors feel so strongly about this legislation is because they would like to have their accounts paid by the sick funds. Medical science fully recognizes the value of manipulation and massage, but for that there is, in the first place, the bone specialists who do not undergo training for four years only, but for eleven years, to decide on manipulation, and in the second place there are the physiotherapists who receive a training which includes a basic medical training and who are recognized right throughout the world. There is therefore ample opportunity for manipulation, as well as for physiotherapy in present-day medical science.

In the third place, the hon. member said that he had to ascertain whether it was in the public interest to introduce this Bill and that he became quite convinced in his own mind that was so. I want to say this very clearly—and I hope to prove it in the course of my further remarks—that I am quite convinced that this House would be taking a great retrograde step in regard to science and the wonderful things medical science has already achieved for all of us if this Bill is to be put on the statute book. The hon. member quoted letters referring to the good done by chiropractors, and I do not want to quibble about that. Nor am I going to point out a single mistake to-day, although from the very nature of the matter I have much written material in regard to the mistakes made by these people. But my argument is not based on that at all. The hon. member has received various letters from people, who say that chiropractors have benefited them, and I accept that, but can that be the basis on which a House like this should decide whether people should be recognized as being fit to handle the human body, merely because a number of letters were written? In the first place, some of them must be inspired, but supposing that is not so, we can at any time obtain various letters written by people saying, “Herbalists have done wonders for me; naturopaths have done wonders for me; cancer doctors have done wonderful things, also witchdoctors”. I do not think that as a House we can take that as a basis on which to come to a decision. The hon. member has not mentioned a single scientist of repute in the whole world who at least gives his blessing to chiropractice. I think that when we are dealing with a matter like this, which concerns the human body and its treatment, we must turn to the great scientists of the world, because only from them can one receive the correct guidance.

In the first place, I want to say that my opposition to this Bill is based mainly on one matter, namely that there is no scientific basis at all for chiropractice. Medical science has done wonderful things in recent years. Chiropractice has a history, according to the hon. member, of 40 to 50 years, i.e. since 1912. Medical science has a history of 2,500 years.

How many people did they kill?

I think everybody in this House …

Order! That is not relevant.

The services rendered to humanity by medical men are relevant. Just let me tell the hon. member this, that the services medical science has rendered to every family represented here is the most wonderful one can imagine, and even the hon. member who put the question to me will require the services of the medical profession before he dies in order to meet his death without undue suffering, or to make it possible for him to live a few years longer. I really do not think we should joke about these very serious matters. Let me now say, in regard to medical science, that—

And that is true.

You can say that once more.

Life is very valuable to the human being, and as the result of the progress made in the sphere of medical science during this decade the expectancy of life has been prolonged by about 23 years.

We are not opposed to medical science.

I accept that, but I am trying to make the point that where we are dealing here with the human body we have to decide for ourselves whether we are dealing with a practice which has a scientific basis or not. To me that is the most important point we have to decide. In this regard I want to quote the views of the great men of the world—the greatest in the world—in respect of the treatment of the human body and in regard to medical science. Dr. Harvey, one of the great men of Yale University, says this—

Dr. Hugh Cabolt, of Mayo Clinic, says—

I want to point out that these are all medical men, but who else in the world can we ask whether a practice which deals with the human body has a scientific basis or not? They are the only people who can give us guidance in this regard, and they are the only people whose guidance we can confidently accept when we see what medical science has achieved.

Are those not inspired letters?

These are the scientific opinions held by these men as the result of investigations they have been asked to do from time to time over a long period. Chiropractic has been thoroughly investigated by medical science. Also, the things done by cancer doctors are not ignored; they are thoroughly investigated by medical science, but if there is nothing in it, it is certainly not adopted by medical science, and when we talk about scientific matters it must be proved in the laboratory what the causes are, what the consequences are and what the cure is. That is the basis on which medical science works. Prof. Burr of the Department of Anatomy at Yale University says—

Prof. Davies, Chief of New Research Region in the North-Western University College of Medicine, Chicago, says—

Emeritus professor of medicine, Prof. Barker, of John Hopkins—what does he say? And when we speak about John Hopkins and Yale and Chicago, we are mentioning the great names in medical science. The fruits we are plucking in medicine emanate from those places. Dr. Barker says—

Dr. Dudley Morton of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University says—

A second question I wish to pose in this regard is this: Is there any proof, in so far as anatomy is concerned, that there is a scientific basis for chiropractic? Now I again want to read what Prof. Huber, Professor of Anatomy and Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Michigan, said—

Prof. Bensley, Director of the Department of Anatomy of the University of Chicago, says—

And I may say that Bensley is one of the great names. He is not a practising doctor, but a professor in anatomy. That is precisely the basis on which the chiropractor works, but Prof. Bensley says that he has never found it in 29 years. A last one, Prof. Lewis, Surgeon-in-Chief of the John Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore—

And then I must still mention the name of Prof. Lahey of the Lahey Clinic in Boston. I do not think there is anyone with a higher reputation in the medical world than Prof. Lahey, particularly for his research. He is very cautious, but he says the following—

I have mentioned these few people, but let me now also mention the finding of one of the greatest medical research institutions in the world, namely Heidelberg in West Germany. They investigated the matter and they particularly investigated whether there was not in fact something in chiropractice, and at the end they came to the following conclusion—

Mr. Speaker, in South Africa we received a lead in regard to the matter, and we received that lead from the SA. Medical and Dental Council, and let me say now that the Medical Council was established by this Parliament in 1928. It is a Council which in the first place consists of lay members, in the second place, of members of the legal profession, and in the third place of members of the nursing profession, of medical men and representatives of the training schools, people who are not in practice. The Medical Council adopted a very clear attitude. They gave evidence before a Select Committee of this House in 1952, and I think the hon member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) was Chairman of the Select Committee, and this is what the Medical Council stated after mature consideration. They were discussing the omission of, chiropractors from the Medical Auxiliary Services Act, and they said this—

That is what the Medical Council said, and I shall come back to it later. I must also submit to hon. members the most recent decision of the Medical Council which I have. And now I want to repeat that when it comes to scientific matters I do not think, with all respect to this House, that we are capable of deciding. It is a scientific matter. In all spheres we allow ourselves to be guided by bodies which have been established, like the Bureau of Standards, the C.S.I.R., and also in regard to Defence, and we let ourselves be guided by the Medical Council when it comes to matters like polio and things like that, and this is the standpoint of the Medical Council—

They call it a sect because it has no scientific basis—

I want to bring further proof, and I quote the judgments of scientists because I myself can allow myself to be led only by them. The State of New York in America had an investigation made by the Professor of Anatomy of the University College of Medicine, Cyracuse University, and by an Associate Professor of Pathology, Columbia University, and a Professor of Bio-Physics of Cornell University, and this is their finding—

That is what medical science ascertained over all these years through dissection in the anatomy room—

Then they continue, and towards the end of the report they submitted to the State of New York they say—

If one now wants to know further what chiropractice is, one should study its history. The hon. member who has introduced the motion read out a telegram he received from a Dr. Palmer. Now I would like to tell hon. members what the history of the chiropractic is. In 1895 a grocer by the name of D. D. Palmer of Davonport began to practise nature cures, and one day he came across a deaf man who had been deaf for 17 years, and by manipulating his back he cured him. That was the start of the whole thing. But this curing of the deafness of this man gives rise to all kinds of questions. It is said here: “This was a discovery that was to evolve in a new theory of the treatment of diseases. As a grocer, Palmer could hardly be expected to know that the nerves of hearing never enter the spine, but are completely enclosed in the. head.” But in any case, Palmer started it. His son then took over from him and turned it into a big business. And now we will let the son himself speak, in 1920, this B. J. Palmer from whom the telegram comes. In 1920 he addressed the chiropractors’ convention in Butte and said—

But I would like to throw more light on this same school, the Palmer School, and the person who has now sent this telegram. In 1910 there was a court case dealing with chiropractic and then this so-called Dr. Palmer had to give evidence. The following questions were put to him—

And this Palmer was properly sworn and the case proceeded further—

Then he was asked further—

I think I must leave it there. This Palmer School advertises as follows—

I think this is enough in regard to the history. But may I just say very clearly now that in this respect this House will have to decide whether chiropractice has a scientific basis or not. You know, Abraham Lincoln one day asked some people: If a beast’s tail is also a foot, how many feet has that animal? They replied “five”. He said: “No, because calling a tail a foot does not make it a foot, so it remains four feet”. And whatever we call chiropractice, it still remains a matter which has no scientific basis.

In the second place, I just want to refer to this Bill. The Bill asks that the Council should be composed of one member appointed by the Minister and his Department, and further there will be six members who are chiropractors. There it ends. Now I ask how on earth one can constitute a Council to exercise control over people who have to treat the human body if that Council consists only of their own people? The Medical Council has lay members, medical men, the representatives of training schools and members of the legal profession, but the request here is that only chiropractors should serve on the Council. In view of the fact that the concept of chiropractic is in conflict with our concept of science, and also of the scientists in the Department of Health, I ask how can there ever be co-operation? How can the hon. the Minister of Health ask a medical practitioner in his Department to serve on that Council whilst it is in conflict with his scientific conceptions? I also want to point out that three former Ministers of Health adopted a very strong attitude against it. The late Dr. Karel Bremer expressed himself very unequivocally against it in the Senate, and Dr. Stals also expressed himself as being against it as early as 1927, also on the basis that there was no scientific foundation for chiropractice. Dr. Gluckman, who was also a Minister of Health at one time, did the same. Now I ask again: How can there be co-operation between the Department of Health, which is founded on a scientific basis, and something which according to their own evidence has no scientific basis?

Now in regard to the constitution of the Council which in terms of this Bill is to consist of chiropractors only, I want to point out that according to their own evidence, that includes osteopaths, etc. But I want to get on to the matter of training.

In South Africa we have no school for chiropractic. No single school in America is affiliated with a university. Now I ask again: Where one is dealing with human bodies, how can one have training schools which are not affiliated with universities with years of experience? In South Africa it will simply be impossible. The majority of our medical schools are affiliated with universities, but not one of these universities will be prepared to take up a matter which has no scientific basis and to make facilities available for it. But in the second place a very thorough investigation was made in this regard by the State of New Jersey, and this investigation, I may say, was done by lay members. They obviously deliberately appointed non-medical men for the investigation, and this was their finding—

They say—

We have no chiropractic training school in South Africa. And even though we have this Council, what control can they exercise over training which takes place beyond the borders of the Republic? The most they can do is to refuse these people, but then they must refuse them all. The hon. member who introduced the motion said that they received training for four years. A few years ago we in South Africa extended medical training for six to seven years But another reason why this training is not sufficient is the following—

In this regard I want to say this: The school in New York, which trains many of the people who at the moment practise chiropractic, has 28 instructors for 282 students. The Medical School of Columbia University has 342 full-time and part-time teachers for 400 students. It is no use giving figures and saying that a student receives so many hours’ training The basis is not right. And then in the third place, and this is the most important to me, they say—

Not a single school where chiropractors are trained has any connection with a medical school. Sir, how can we send people out into the world to treat the human body and to pass as doctors whilst the schools where they are trained have no affiliation with hospitals? Nor have they any hope of getting it, because they are entirely lacking in a scientific basis. Also in South Africa there is no affiliation with any hospital. Mr. Speaker, we are busy deciding a matter where we must be guided by people who know about those things. Permit me to say further that this is not a struggle between medical men and chiropractors at all. The function of the Medical Council is in fact to train as many doctors as possible. We welcome the opening of a new medical school. It is not a question of competition here. The medical profession welcomes it if there are more doctors, and the Medical Council welcomes it if there is more competition. But our standpoint is that the chiropractor and chiropractic is not founded on any scientific basis. That is why we are opposed to it.

I have said that I did not want to discuss the mistakes which are made. Let me now immediately give my alternative. I feel very strongly about vested interests in any share, and the fact is that we in South Africa have for many years allowed chiropractors to practise. They make a living out of it, their bread and butter comes from it, and I believe that those who are there should not be deprived of their work. Let them be allowed to practise, but let us decide, seeing that this thing has no scientific basis, that not a single one more will be allowed in South Africa.

If they constitute a danger to health, how can you then allow them to practise?

Let me say that I do not base my argument at all on the question of whether it is dangerous to health. That is also true, but my argument is that this House is not qualified to judge scientific matters. As in every other respect, we must be led by scientific people If there is no such scientific basis, we will be rendering a tremendous disservice to the medical profession if we take the step proposed. All the medical progress over the years was based on a scientific foundation. I feel strongly that we should accept the advice of scientists, and that we should particularly take into account the advice of the Medical Council.

I must hurry, because I know my time has lapsed, but I want to conclude by saying: Do not let us undermine the authority of the Medical Council, a body which we ourselves established. Do not let us do anything in regard to which science tells us that it is wrong. And in the second place, do not let us take a vote here on this matter in regard to which the Medical Council told us the following in 1952, when it was giving evidence before our Select Committee—

That was said by Professor Oosthuizen, the present Chairman of the Medical Council.

Mr. Speaker, to-day standards and standardization are the watchwords, but the proviso is always that it should be on a scientific basis. This House and the Government allow themselves to be led by scientists of the C.S.I.R. or in respect of the Broadcasting Corporation, or in respect of Defence and in all other spheres. I ask this House also to consider seriously, in this matter affecting the human body, our most precious possession, being guided by the great and wonderful scientists which the world has given to itself and to South Africa. I think they are the people who can give a lead in this respect, and we should follow that lead, unless we want to make a great mistake.

I second the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this Bill, and in my opinion the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) is rendering a public service by introducing a Bill such as this. Because, Mr.Speaker, the chiropractor is here to stay. He is doing a public service and rendering an enormous amount of good to many people throughout the country, and throughout the world, and there is room for all those people who render such a public service to the public in the relief of pain and making them fit and well again and relieving their incapacity for work or free movement. And if the chiropractor is here to stay, Sir, I think it is right that he should be given the right to organize himself properly in an association, to protect the public. Because that is what the Bill does. Through this Bill the chiropractors in the Republic are asking for the right to organize their own association, to regulate the services rendered, to see that only trained people and people of a certain standard of training are registered, and to lay down regulations to control those persons in the way they provide service and what they do. There are many people walking around to-day who would not be walking so easily if it were not for the chiropractor, people who had been under doctors’ treatment and who, although they had been considerably relieved of their pains, were not free in their movements and certainly not free of pain. Let me mention fibrositis. I know of men in this House, not one but several, who since I have been in this House have suffered badly from fibrositis of the shoulder, the neck and other parts of their body, men who have only had relief when they had gone to the chiropractor. I know of those cases personally. I know of many medical men who go to chiropractors themselves as well as members of their families. I have met them in the consulting rooms in this very city. I think we must recognize this fact and give the chiropractors the right to organize themselves and to see to it that chiropractors are properly trained. We know that many to-day are only half trained or semi-trained. On the other hand, some of your best and leading chiropractors have taken overseas courses lasting up to six years It is only right that the public should be protected from these untrained men who profess to be chiropractors and trade on the fact that relief from pain is given by those who are fully trained and know their job.

As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, there is room for everybody who gives treatment that leads to the relief of pain and who gives an ill person the capacity to do his work and to have free movement rather than suffer from pain every day of his life. I would remind you, Sir, that the Government of this country at the time actually made grants through the D.S.D.C. after the last war, to ex-service personnel to enable them to proceed overseas to be trained in chiropractics. I think most of the chiropractors in my own city are men who were trained on State grants in America to become chiropractors. To my knowledge they have done a tremendous amount of good. You hear many people who are opposed to chiropractics say that it is faith healing and all that sort of thing. My experience has been that I only went to a chiropractor after I had failed to get further relief from the medical practitioner I think 90 per cent of the people who go to chiropractors only go there as a last resort They do not go there with the idea that it is faith healing; they only go there because they get treatment that does them good and because they realize that they are doing something to help themselves. I can only say to those who suggest that there is nothing in chiropractics, that the proof of the pudding lies in the eating. People go to chiropractors as a last resort. They get such satisfaction that they go back again.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill and I hope this House will do its best and see that this Bill goes on to the Statute Book in due course

I have listened with great interest to the eulogies that we have had from those who have benefited by these gentlemen, and I would be the last to say that they do not do any good at all. I wanted to ask the mover of this motion a question but he refused to reply to it I want to tell him now what I was going to ask him, and I should like to have his answer. My question is this: Will he during the next year adopt a chiropractor as a family doctor for himself and his family and remain with him? The way for the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Capt. Henwood) and Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) to find out about chiropractors is to keep on going to them. Because they seem to fail to realize that this is a complete system of medicine. They have had experience of backs and various things like that and we hear tales of shoulders that had been cured; all of which, I am quite sure, are true. But this is a request to this House to turn over the practice of medicine in this country completely, to create alongside the existing health services of the country another autonomous body which is able and permitted on its own recognizance to practise on the health of the people in all respects, from the cradle to the grave. Mr. Speaker, the chiropractor recognizes no limitations whatsoever.

Neither does the Act.

That is what I say. There are no limitations on the illnesses that they can treat. Is this House prepared to allow chiropractors to bring children into the world by manipulating the back? I am not exaggerating. If you see what the chiropractors claim in their own documents you will find that they teach obstetrics There is no doubt about that. If you find a man suffering from a ruptured artery on the road after an accident will you try to stop the bleeding my manipulating his back, because if you are a chiropractor you would not be allowed to do anything else. You must manipulate the back. That is what this hon. member is asking the House to do. He is asking the House to build alongside the existing services a new and autonomous system to take care of the health of the people. Is this House prepared to allow any chiropractor who does not believe in vaccination to issue a certificate to the authorities that a certain person should not be vaccinated? Are we prepared to allow the children of the country no longer to take the sweets that prevent poliomyelitis? Because that is what they are rejecting completely; they reject the theory of germs They say that there are such things as germs or there are not, they do not know, but they say that if they manipulate the back of a child that child will not get poliomyelitis They remind me of a doctor practising in Durban. He sells medicines and among other medicines he sells, what I believe is the most successful medicine in the world, a medicine to prevent you from being struck by lightning. I think that is a wonderful effort. Because if you are struck you can’t go back and if you are not struck, you believe that he had stopped you from being struck. That is actually a fact. He is licensed in Nyanga and practises in Durban—licensed by the State. Mr. Speaker I think I should read you a small extract about chiropractors. You must imagine, Sir, that you are travelling along the highway in your car—

Don’t believe what the doctors tell you—

Of course, Sir, that sounds ridiculous. There is not a man in this House who would take any notice of that but that is what they do with their families and themselves. It is quite true, some cars will be improved by adjusting their spark plugs. One of the hon. members has already spoken about it.

After the medical profession had failed.

Well, the other fellow just did not adjust the spark plugs. What they would not do to their cars they would do to themselves and their families. They will go because somebody had said to them “I think that chiropractor is a pretty good chap. He did my back for me. You had better go and see him”. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) would not entrust his cattle—he is a farmer, he keeps cows—to a chiropractor. Does he think that he can have them cured by having their backs adjusted? Does he think that will stop them from getting ill? If he has such great faith in spinal adjustments why does he not start with all his cows and have their backs adjusted so that they will never become ill? He will get more milk. They must be consistent. They must either say “yes, we believe that by pushing the back about all illness can be stopped” or they must not say it. This Bill places no limit on what the chiropractor can do. He is only limited by the fact that he must do it by manipulation. This Bill even goes further because it does not limit its scope to the chiropractors; it extends it to—

In 1952 there was a Select Committee that considered the Supplementary Health Services Act. A group of people gave evidence before that Select Committee. They called themselves the South African Manipulative Practitioners’ Association. The hon. member for Vanderbylpark (Dr. de Wet) has read extracts from that evidence. They say “the manipulative profession is used collectively to describe the chiropractic profession, the osteopathic profession and the naturopathic profession”. We don’t know quite what that one is. But that shows, Sir, that they go far beyond the scope of what is pretended to be in the leading part of this Bill. They went on to say—

I will not dwell on the fact that manipulation is provided for under the ordinary laws of the State and under the ordinary rules and regulations of the Medical Council. People are trained in massage and manipulation and are registered. Doctors are trained into two groups. There are the physical medical specialists who undergo a training of 12 years from the time they enter the university. Orthopaedic surgeons also undergo a training of 12 years before they are allowed to call themselves specialists in this field of medicine. In this Bill it is forbidden for anybody else to carry out the manipulative practice. Clause 22 forbids that—

Now, Sir, if that is read in to “scope of practice” which describes what a chiropractor may do, you will see that no doctor or trained masseur is entitled to carry out any treatment on the spine because this is their peculiar domain. Clause 1 (viii) reads—

So that nobody will be allowed in future to handle the joints—

Now, Sir, “and includes the use of procedures which may facilitate the adjustment”. In some of the States of America, it is claimed, some of the schools teach the administration of anaesthetics by chiropractors. That is one of the things they do. That is what “facilitates the adjustment”.

Let us go to Clause 1 (ii)—

From that it is clear that this is a universal system. It has no limits. It is a system, so to speak, a state not within a state, but a state alongside a state A new system of medical practice or healing practice or health practice lying just alongside and autonomous and completely independent and able to do anything that is necessary to care for the health of the public. What is a philosophy? After all, a science and an art has some basis in it They learn the art of selling. But what is philosophy? Philosophy is “that department of knowledge or study which deals with ultimate reality or with the most general causes and principles of things”. It envelopes everything. A philosophy deals with the world, it deals with everything that happens; it has no limit. That is what these people are claiming to do.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most tragic things to my mind in the appeal of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) was the fact that he based his argument chiefly on the fact that the trade unions wanted it. Now the trade unions want it firstly, because in terms of the constitutions of some of them they are not allowed to pay out without a doctor’s certificate. That really has nothing to do with us at the moment, but the fact remains that the same gentleman who gave evidence about a manipulative society whom I quoted just now, went on to prove the fallacy of the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria (West). He said this in his evidence before the Select Committee—

The simplest way, if the hon. member for Pretoria (West) wants to help the people who have asked him to bring this Bill forward, is to get the benefit societies of these trade unions to change their rules so that they can pay the chiropractor without the counter signature of a doctor. It is as easy as pie, Sir. They have only got to alter their rules. The doctors will not mind. What the doctors will not do is to certify work for which they are not responsible. That is illegal That is unethical. If a doctor gives a certificate in respect of anything about which he is not certain himself he comes under disciplinary measure. He cannot, therefore, do that.

I move—

I second.