Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

I have exercised the discretion conferred on me by Standing Order No. I (Private Bills) and permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The replies of the hon. the Minister and of the hon. member for Yeoville to the objections which I put up against this measure yesterday, consisted largely of snide personal remarks. I have no intention whatsoever of entering that level of debate nor have I any intention of debating my personal finances with members of this House. However, I am sure it will make the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Yeoville feel better when I tell them that the Progressive Party will benefit considerably by the passage of this Bill.

At this stage there is only one question which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. He told us that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the Bamford committee. There were, however, two exceptions which the hon. the Minister did not mention. Why, if the committe’s report as far as Members of Parliament are concerned, has been accepted and in view of the argument that the committee presupposed that being an M.P. ought to be a full-time occupation, did the hon. the Minister not accept recommendation 3 (b) on page 10 of the committee’s report? I should like to read it—

This is R1 000 per annum less than the salary recommended for members of the House of Assembly. In view of the fact that the Minister seems to have been so much impressed by the reasoning of this committee that being an M.P. is a ful-time occupation, he ought to explain why he did not see fit to accept this recommendation in regard to Senators.

Another recommendation of the committee which the Government rejected is the recommendation that members who represented constituencies which cover a considerable geographical area—in excess of 20 000 square miles to be correct— should receive a special reimbursive tax-free transport allowance of R1 000 per annum. The hon. the Minister evidently was of the opinion that they did not require that.

In order to get some logic into this matter, I should like to know why the hon. the Minister saw fit to accept the recommendations in regard to members of Parliament but not in regard to Senators?

In any event, I shall object to the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, repetition is odious. I dealt with this matter when I announced which recommendations of the committee the Government had accepted. I said then that we were not prepared to accept the principle of discrimination as regards basic salaries of members of the two Houses of Parliament. We think it is wrong. I also said then that we were not prepared to introduce a new principle of discrimination in regard to the salaries and allowances of members of the House of Assembly. To have accepted the committee’s recommendation that certain hon. members should receive R1 000 per annum more than others, would have meant the introduction of an element of discrimination. This too we considered not to be right. In any event, it is difficult to maintain a principle such as that because with every delimitation the boundaries of constituencies change. One might find the position that one hon. member represents a constituency of just over 20 000 square miles, and as such qualifies for the allowance of R1 000, whereas another hon. member who represents a constituency of just on 20 000 square miles does not qualify for this allowance. We considered this to be wrong in principle—that is why it was not accepted.

We used to have a distinction in the past.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

The hon. member for Parktown raised certain objections on the basis of principle in the debate yesterday. I spoke after him and said, inter alia, that he had neglected his duty in the Select Committee by not discussing these matters there. I want to make it clear that I made a mistake in that matters of principle cannot be discussed in the Select Committee. The inference can also be drawn from what I said that the hon. member is not doing his work in the Select Committee. That is not so, and accordingly I apologize to the hon. member.

When the House adjourned last night I was appealing to the hon. the Minister to simplify the system of granting rebates of sales duty on sales to tourists. I did that because this is a type of trade which is highly desirable and which has a considerable volume potential. For that reason it ought to be encouraged. But if that is to be done, it is necessary that the procedure in connection with rebates on sales to tourists should be simplified, in the first instance for the sake of the tourists themselves who do not want to be bothered with complicated rigmaroles, such as to having to apply for rebates. Furthermore, it is necessary that it ought to be simplified for the sake of the trade itself if we want to encourage this particular type of trade. In other countries it is relatively easy for tourists to buy the type of goods in which they are interested on a duty-free basis.

Sir, I cannot hear the speaker.

They can do so either by buying them in the many duty-free shops which exist at airports, or by buying them on a sales duty-free or purchase duty-free basis by complying with relatively simple procedures. In contrast, in South Africa the type of goods in which the tourists are interested, such as leather goods, curios, photographic equipment, jewellery, etc., are all subject to sales duty, mostly at the highest rate of 30 per cent, which represents a very considerable disincentive to tourists to buy these things in South Africa, particularly tourists from overseas, from countries like America and Europe, who are accustomed to duty-free facilities. It may surprise the Minister that there are people in this world who do not enjoy paying taxation, and when those people have the option of not paying tax by not buying the goods on which the tax is levied, they are very likely to exercise their option. But clearly the present method of levying sales duty, where it is levied at the first stage of distribution, makes the payment of rebates a complicated issue when the goods are sold at the last stage of distribution, namely at retail level, because in many cases the seller, who sells to the tourist, has not paid the duty himself and does not even know what the duty is. But I do suggest that if the seller who sells to the tourist trade goes to the trouble of getting proper documentary evidence in regard to what the duty on the goods which was originally paid is, it should not be beyond the ingenuity of the Minister and his department to devise in consultation, say, with Chambers of Commerce and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut some system whereby he would enjoy the necessary safeguards in regard to these rebates, and at the same time we could simplify the system so that this type of trade will be encouraged. These systems do exist. Several types of them exist in overseas countries and I have no doubt in my own mind that it is possible to do what I have suggested that the Minister should do.

I trust the hon. member for Constantia will not take it amiss of me if I do not respond to him directly now. I should like to draw attention to a report which recently appeared in the Press to the effect that the customs procedure at our seaports has now also been changed in order to make possible a quicker clearance of incoming passengers. Of course, we know that as from last year the system of red and green lanes was introduced at our three international airports in order to facilitate and expedite the clearance of incoming passengers. We are very glad to see that the department has seen its way clear to extending this system to our seaports as well. It is much more difficult to apply this system at our seaports than at our airports, because ships dock at different places in our harbours, so that passengers cannot all embark at one point. But we are grateful that, after thorough investigation and planning, the department has found it possible to apply this system at our harbours as well, and we should like to express our appreciation for this. Sir, it is of course the duty of the department to ensure that we do not lose revenue as a result of articles which are in fact subject to customs duty being brought in illegally. But on the other hand it is extremely frustrating for people entering our country for the first time, to be held up for a long time in the customs before they may enter our country. This definitely does not create a good image of our country. Accordingly we are grateful that, after very thorough investigation and planning, the department has found it possible to extend this system to our seaports as well. I understand it is already being applied at all our large harbours and that it will soon be applied at the few smaller harbours as well. I should once again like to express our sincere appreciation to the department for this.

Then I want to mention another matter here which can perhaps be rectified after the necessary consultation. I am referring once again to the recent increase in the excise duty on spirits. As you know, Sir, the manufacturer acts as a sort of tax collector. This principle was accepted in our public life long ago. The employer is a sort of tax collector in the sense that he must pay taxation in respect of his employees; the manufacturer is a tax collector in the sense that he must pay the sales duty on articles which are subject to sales duty; the manufacturer of products which have carried excise duty all these years, has of course been acting as a tax collector all along, but with the recent increase in the excise duty on spirits, an exceptionally heavy financial burden has in my opinion been placed on the shoulders of the producers of brandy and other spirits. It may be argued that the manufacturer of other goods on which sales duty is levied, must in fact also carry that burden, but there is this difference: In the case of sales duty the manufacturer pays on a quarterly basis, while in the case of excise duty, the manufacturer pays monthly on the consignments of the previous month. Sir, there is a further difference, and this is that, in the case of sales duty, the excise duty payable is from 20 to 40 per cent of the manufactured value of the article, but in the case of spirits the excise duty is between 400 and 500 per cent of the value of the product at the manufacturer. For that reason I maintain that the burden on the manufacturer is becoming an almost unbearable one. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister very respectfully that he should consider allowing the excise duty payable on spirits to be paid on a quarterly basis as well as in the case of sales duty. I maintain that the burden resting on the manufacturer is an almost unbearable one, because it is general business practice that the manufacturer grants 90 days’ credit to the trade. It is true that the public eventually pays that excise duty and not the manufacturer, but it easily takes from three to five months before the manufacturer receives the excise duty paid by the public. In the meantime he must bear the full burden of that excise duty, in this case up to as much as 400 or 500 per cent of the value of his product. For this reason I am of the opinion that a very good case has been made out for quarterly payment, and not monthly payment, in the case of excise duty as well. I am sure the hon. the Minister will be able to make this concession.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the question of customs and excise I do not wish to repeat remarks and criticisms I have made in previous debates other than to say that they are still valid. The situation has not changed materially for the better and the administration of customs has become even more complicated with the introduction of sales duty. This is so much so, that even clearing agents today are finding that they must specialize in particular types of goods. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what progress has been made with the simplification of both the tariff items and of procedures to eliminate the excessive specialization which has become necessary. As for the ordinary importer, it is almost impossible for him to import goods in any quantity without going through clearing agents or without having a specialist to handle it. I do feel that more could be done to make it less of a burden to be an importer in South Africa. The same applies within the department as far as specialization is concerned. This has become a department which requires extremely specialized knowledge and I would plead with the hon. the Minister to look again at the responsibilities which rest on the staff of his Department of Customs and Excise and to see whether he really is satisfied that these heavy responsibilities are rewarded as they should be in relation to grades and salary scales. This is a department dealing with many millions of rands and it is responsible for a great deal of revenue. I feel that much more could be done to reward those people for whom it has become a very difficult job and one which requires a great deal of training.

I also do not intend to deal with sales tax in detail. I want to raise only one point which I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with. There has been some confusion amongst home boatbuilders in regard to a ruling regarding the application of sales tax. It was announced in the Press that a person building a boat in his backyard for his own pleasure, would have to pay sales duty on it. Subsequently a Press report appeared which stated that this would apply only if he sold the boat. I ask the hon. the Minister to clarify this position. I hope that he will say today that there is no question about it and that the person, who builds a boat for his own amusement with his own hands, buying only the raw materials he uses, will not have a sales tax imposed on it. Many people build boats for their own pleasure. It is not a profit-making business, but is solely for recreation amongst people who cannot afford to buy their own boats. I might say, in passing, that the pleasure boat industry has been hit desperately hard by the sales tax. Many small firms have found themselves in serious trouble. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think it short-sighted that, in the imposition of a sales tax to create revenue for the Government, an industry is so affected that it can be totally crippled.

I want to turn now to three other matters and deal with them briefly. The first is the question of computerization which I raised in a question recently. A number of years ago the Customs Act was changed in order to provide for computerization and the handling of documents in Pretoria. After all this time, we find that at this stage, virtually only sales tax documents and some statistical work are being processed on that computer. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what it cost to introduce this system. In his reply he avoided this aspect of my question, because he said that the clearing of customs documents had not yet been handled and therefore, he could not say what increase or decrease in staff there had been. But other documents have been handled on the computer and I should like to ask what the costs have been, what the effect on staff has been and I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a general picture as to the effectiveness and the results of the work being done on this computer. It will be remembered that at the time this matter was debated, we warned that the Government was being over-optimistic in its anticipation of the effectiveness of the computer.

I want to turn to another matter on which I asked a question recently, namely the question of containerization. The hon. the Minister of Transport, sitting in front of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance, will know that his department has been working for a long time on the question of containerization. In the latest annual report we have a whole page indicating the progress that has been made. Already Railway vehicles have been built and are used in this respect. Containers were being built last year at the rate of 50 per month. A special pier is being built in Durban harbour to handle containerized traffic. Special arrangements are being made at the other harbours. Yet we find that the question of how goods imported in containers are to be handled by the Department of Customs, has not yet been resolved. I feel that this is indicative of lack of planning and lack of foresight. I would ask the hon. the Minister to tell us why it is that at this stage, where we are on the verge of major containerization traffic, he is unable to tell us how they plan to handle this traffic in clearing it through customs. Obviously, it will not be possible to open all containers. However, this is a problem which other countries have had to face. They have been able to devise ways and means of clearing and of handling such traffic. It will be no use having containerization to simplify transport and handling and to streamline procedures at the harbour, if there will be a bottle-neck at the Department of Customs. The hon. the Minister owes the House and importers an explanation in regard to this matter.

There is one other matter which I wish to raise. There is also a question on the Order Paper in connection with this matter, but unfortunately, it has not yet been answered. I have given notice of a question asking how many prosecutions have resulted from the investigations into irregular textile imports. The hon. the Minister, some three years ago, made wild allegations against textile importers. He implied that there were vast amounts of money involved in illegal and irregular importation of textiles. I have only heard of some four or five cases which have come to court involving comparatively small amounts of money, both in value and in duty concerned. At the time we took exception to the implied slur on textile importers. The hon. the Minister assured us that we did not know what we were talking about and that this in fact was a very large scale racket. Time has gone by and I hope that we will now have an explanation of why this slur was cast on the importers and what the factual position is now that there has been time to deal with it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in a speech I made when the Health Vote was being discussed last year, I pointed out the increasing extent to which methylated spirits was being abused, especially among our Coloureds and Bantu. I pointed out that this phenomenon was found especially among the poorer people of those colour groups. We find it among pensioners as well. It is alarming that the phenomenon is now beginning to appear among children as well. I indicated how methylated spirits, which consists basically of a mixture of methyl- and ethyl-alcohol, including other additives, were filtered through bread so as to remove the colour of the spirits and much of its bad taste, and that it was then mixed with a soft drink such as Coca Cola, etc., in order to make it drinkable. I also indicated that the ethyl-alcohol content of methylated spirits had the same influence on man as ordinary liquor sold. In other words, what this means is that those who drink this, become inebriated immediately. The influence of the methyl-alcohol, however, is felt only a few hours later. From the point of view of those who are addicted to methylated spirits, there is the advantage that they become inebriated from the ethyl-alcohol content, but when they sober up after the effects of the ethyl-alcohol have worn off the methyl-alcohol content takes over. They become inebriated again. I am told that these people become absolutely crazy as a result of drinking methylated spirits. Then, of course, it has an additional advantage for them, and that is that when they have recovered they need merely drink water in order to become inebriated again.

I referred to this matter under that Vote, because it actually is an evil at the national health level, but the evil is extending to the social level as well. I have before me statements from parents of Bantu children who have implored me to raise this matter. They have asked me to continue my crusade because they are deeply concerned about the increasing abuse of alcohol, and especially of methylated spirits, among their children. Methylated spirits is available at approximately 25 cents a bottle. It is quite freely available in trade. I can read to hon. members what the Bantu Affairs Manager of the Cradock Municipality wrote to me with reference to this problem. I quote (translation)—

This evil is promoting work-shyness and irresponsibility and it is the concern not only of the municipality of Cradock. Since I made the speech in this House Last year, various institutions, social workers, farmers in the Western Cape and the K.W.V. have contacted me and expressed their concern about this state of affairs. In fact, the K.W.V. was responsible for the adoption of a resolution at a congress of the South African Agricultural Union, which read as follows (translation)—

In conversations with the farmers of the Western Cape, one gains the impression that this evil is very definitely increasing among our young non-Whites, Coloureds and Bantu and even among pensioners. Only yesterday evening an hon. member told me of his firm who had employed a dependable and capable Coloured man as driver of its motor cars, and that recently the firm had to dismiss this Coloured because he had become completely addicted to drinking methylated spirits and his eyesight had failed completely. We know one of the toxic effects of methylated spirits is that it impedes the function of the liver and that it also affects the eyesight.

Last year I suggested that consideration should be given to the possibility of adding an emetic to methylated spirits in order that it may be brought up as soon as a person has taken it. Evidently the Department of Health has ethical objections to making methylated spirits undrinkable because they feel that most of the emetics, such as emetine hydrochloride, are toxic to humans and can even lead to death if large quantities are consumed. One is often surprised to see how much methylated spirits can be consumed by an individual.

Of course, one should like to suggest that methylated spirits be placed under very strict control, especially spirits available for domestic use. The position is, however, that methylated spirits is in fairly general use as a domestic aid for cleaning purposes and for various other purposes, so that stricter control over its sale in general trade would perhaps not be the answer. For this reason I want to request that the department consider changing its regulations in this regard. I have noticed in the regulations that various formulae exist according to which methylated spirits may be prepared in order to denature it. I feel a case can be made out for a for mula according to which Bitrex may be added to methylated spirits sold in general trade. I am told that Bitrex is a very bitter substance which makes anything to which it is added, even in very small quantities, absolutely impossible for a person to drink. I may just mention that in other countries it is in fact the position that Bitrex is added to domestic methylated spirits. I have made inquiries and the K.W.V., too, has provided me with certain details in this regard. For example, we find that Bitrex is being used in Britain. Just as a matter of interest, I may mention that the possibility of adding emetine to methylated spirits was investigated there, but that they also found that because of its toxic effect, it would be dangerous to do so. Apart from this, it is a very expensive process as well. In Sweden, Bitrex is added to methylated spirits, as is the case in Switzerland. If this request of mine to add Bitrex to methylated spirits is not feasible for some practical reason or other, I do want to address an urgent request to the hon. the Deputy Minister to refer this entire matter of the denaturing of methylated spirits with a view to making it entirely unsuitable for drinking purposes, to the C.S.I.R., with the specific instruction that they should do research in order to establish in what way methylated spirits can be denatured in order to make it totally unsuitable for human consumption without making it toxic or fatal if it is in fact taken.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to start with the matter raised by the hon. member for Constantia in connection with the imposition of sales duty in respect of goods sold to tourists. I can assure the hon. member that this matter is already receiving the full attention of the department. Representations in this regard were received from the Cape Chamber of Commerce in the course of this month. They also submitted a very interesting memorandum with proposals in regard to the way in which the matter may possibly be handled in order to ensure that tax evasion and irregularities will not occur in this connection. The department, in consultation with interested bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce, is going into this matter and examining their proposals. At the same time they will possibly consider alternative proposals as well in order to try to find a more acceptable formula than the present one in respect of sales to tourists. I have an example here of the department’s attitude in this regard. It reads as follows (translation)—

In addition, the department will take note of the ideas expressed here by the hon. member for Constantia.

The hon. member for Paarl raised the question of the excise tax on spirits. He particularly mentioned the point that the repayment of the funds which have to be provided by the producer initially, takes some considerable time. In this regard I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that both the department and the hon. the Minister of Finance have already paid full attention to this problem, which has now assumed serious proportions as a result of the increase of the excise duty. After consultation with the interested parties it has been provisionally agreed that relief will be granted in the form of deferred payment this year. This measure is a temporary one. In the meantime the department is continuing its intensive investigation to find a permanent measure which may possibly solve this problem, which has come to the fore specifically. In the short time at the disposal of the department, it has not yet been possible to come to an agreement with the institutions concerned about a permanent measure. I think the institutions concerned have been satisfied in respect of the measures which have now been adopted on a temporary basis.

The hon. member for Durban Point pleaded for more simplification in the activities of the department. In regard to simplification of the tariff, the scales are based on the Brussels list of items and are in accordance with the international classification.

But what about the sub-divisions? The chapters and descriptions are according to the Brussels list of items, but the problem is the sub-divisions.

I understand this is a matter for the Board of Trade and Industries. Furthermore, I have been informed that the departmental work study team is continually simplifying the procedures as far as possible.

Have you ever looked at the tariffs?

I saw one just a few days ago. It seems very complicated to me. However, that does not make it definite that a change can be effected.

*In addition, the hon. member mentioned the matter of boat owners, i.e. boats which are built at home. The position in that regard is that where boats are built by private persons for their own use, a rebate on the sales duty is in fact granted. However, certain conditions must be fulfilled, for example, if the boat is sold within a fixed period, the sales duty will apply again.

Must they apply to the department?

Yes, they will have to apply. The department must be aware of the position. There will have to be records in case that boat is sold.

The hon. member went on to mention the question of what the computer cost and of what the effect was on staff, etc. I have statements here in regard to the computer which I should like to read out for the convenience of the hon. member. The position in connection with the computer is that the sales duty accounts are being implemented at present and at this stage it is not possible to give any indication of the expenses incurred with the computer. The cost involved in the whole matter will be available at a later stage. Then there is the further information that a team of public service inspectors, work study officials, programmers and system analysers have for more than a year been working on adjusting the computer. As a result of the sales duty the computer had to be expanded considerably, but the department is now beginning to see some light in this connection. Furthermore, it is being insisted that importers comply with certain requirements prescribed with a view to the use of a computer and which were included in the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, in the course of 1968. This is one of the aspects referred to by the hon. member where the formula is more complicated. Although the computer is not yet being used to examine clearance documents in respect of customs duty, as was intended initially, the additional information required serves a useful purpose because it facilitates the examination of clearance documents and thus enables the department to release consignments earlier. Here, for example, one thinks of the requirement that in the case of textiles, a supplement to the prescribed invoice—i.e. form D.A. 60.A, which is prescribed in a Government Notice of 27th September, 1968—together with an extra copy of the prescribed invoice and a sample of the textile material attached to it must be submitted to the department. With a view to the mechanization of sales duty accounts, new forms to be completed by the local manufacturers of sales duty goods were published in Government Notice No. 1441 of 4th September, 1970. These forms were prescribed specifically with a view to the processing of the sales duty accounts by means of the computer. The forms are already being used and the processing of the accounts is at present being implemented.

Then I think the hon. member also referred to a question he has on the Order Paper and about which he desires information. My information is that this question will be replied to tomorrow.

What about containerization?

The position seems to be that at present the department, in collaboration with other interested bodies, such as the South African Railways, Airways, clearance agent societies, Chambers of Commerce, etc., is investigating procedures that will have to be followed in this case. The investigation has already reached an advanced stage and the final procedure will be made available to interested parties as soon as possible.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether such containerized goods are not already coming in?

As far as I know, they have not yet assumed appreciable proportions. I am told that what is being done at present, is something which is being done only on a temporary basis; it is quite limited.

How is it being handled?

I have been informed that they are small packages which do not cause handling problems.

The hon. member for Cradock made some interesting observations about the use of methylated spirits as an intoxicant. I think the hon. member himself supplied the answer to the problem to a large extent. He himself mentioned that the Department of Health had objections to the substances he had suggested. This is true. This is not only a matter for the Department of Customs and Excise. For example, the Department of Health is very intimately concerned here. The Department of Health has very serious objections to the use of an emetic. Similarly, as the hon. member indicated, the Department has very serious objections to the addition of the substance known as Bitrex. The Department objects to this as well. The hon. member requested that further investigations be instituted, if need be with the assistance of the C.S.I.R. I do not think this is an unwise suggestion. Unfortunately I am not in a position at this stage to say to what extent investigations have already been carried out in this regard, but attention will be paid to the suggestion he made here.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 13.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: Administration”, R3 538 000, 14.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General”, R87 547 000, 15.—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R3 580 000, 16.—“Surveys”, R3 500 000, and 17.—“Agricultural Technical Services”, R40 935 000, Loan Votes C.— “Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, R600 000, and D.—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R36 893 000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 5.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, R3 720 000, 6.—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R4 327 000, and 7.—“Agricultural Technical Services”, R4 650 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted the privilege of the half hour? Sir, it is hoped that better days have come to the industry as a result of improved climatic conditions. The agricultural industry, as you know, has been in dire straits the past few years. There is already a noticeable tendency among hon. members opposite, and many of their supporters in the country, to think that there is not really much to say about our agriculture because climatic conditions in South Africa have improved—for example, light rains have fallen. Then they also mention the increase announced recently in the prices of certain agricultural products, for example maize, wheat and other grain products. Reference is also made to the increased floor prices of meat. Now, of course, they want to know what the United Party still has to say under these circumstances. Let me say immediately that we on this side of the House are grateful for the increase in the prices of certain agricultural products; we welcome these increases. In this connection I want to refer, firstly, to the increase in the price of maize. The Government has announced that for the new season the maize farmer will receive R3-70 per bag. There are still maize farmers in the country who feel that this increase is inadequate. As a result of the fact that in the past crops have been overestimated, there are many farmers who still claim that they suffered R30 million or so in damage last year. Consequently they did not expect a new price of R3-70, but one of R3-54 plus a final payment of 26 cents per bag—a total therefore of R3-80 per bag.

Over and above this there is yet another factor that must be taken into consideration. When the producer price is increased, it does not always keep pace with the increase in production costs. The result is that an increase, which is either too little or comes too late, leaves the farmer in an unstable position. Let me illustrate this with reference to the increased maize price and comments which the South African Maize Producers’ Institute recently made in their magazine “Die Landman” with reference to the entrepreneur’s wage granted to the farmer when his price is determined. They had the following to say about that (translation)—

Then they make the important statement—

Therefore, if one now has an increase, one must also see it against the background of what took place in the past year in connection with the big increase in production costs and because there was frequently an over-estimate of what the maize crop would be. Notwithstanding that an increase would, in fact, be welcomed in agricultural circles.

Then hon. members on that side get up and say that matters are now running smoothly because of the Government deciding that there will be an improvement in the price. I should also like to refer hon. members, in addition, to these important statements, which the South African Maize Producers’ Institute made in connection with the position of the fanner:

Why do you not quote the whole book?

For the benefit of the hon. member for Brakpan, who is being so clever now, I just want to indicate a point that those hon. members usually make, i.e. that when there is a price increase the whole matter is salvaged, and that South African farmers are also saved. The hon. member must also take into account that in the case of the farmer’s real income—and this does not only apply to the maize farmer—there has been a decrease from 1953 to 1964 in the per capita income of the agricultural population, while for all the other population groups there has been an increase of between R149 and R157, and it must be taken into account that the physical volume of agricultural production has still increased considerably. Therefore, if increases come at this stage they can be welcomed because they are going to relieve the burden slightly. But I want to reiterate that a price improvement that comes too late or is too little will leave the farmer in a very unstable position. The Government must bear in mind that there must not be too long a delay as far as increases are concerned, because in the meantime production costs increase to such an extent that an increase really only allows the farmer to make up his backlog and does not specifically allow him to plan properly for the future.

One must conclude from that that the increased price for the new season is consequently not aimed at helping the farmer in the future, because it does not even square up what he lost in the previous seasons. That is why I say that this Government would have been foolish had it not announced these increases. Such a course of action would have made the position of many farmers even more unsteady. I can say that as valid as the arguments I have now mentioned are, in respect of the maize producer in the country, as valid are they, to a large extent, in respect of the position of the wheat producers and the other grain producers.

What is your price for maize?

The hon. member will hear about our policy. Our policy is that if there is an increase in production costs, the farmer must receive a decent price for his product which will take into account the increase in production costs and which will also give him a decent entrepreneur’s wage on his investment and his work.

What is your price?

When the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet was still representing the farmers outside, he lodged pleas for them. But he stood up here and said that everything is fine. If we were in power today, we would have ensured that the farmers prices were adjusted regularly to keep pace with the increased production costs. This is now for that hon. member’s information.

I want to mention another example. It was announced with approval that during the following season, for example, there would be an improved price for distilling wine. But what do we find now on the part of the Government? We now find that an increased excise tax was announced that could result in the consumption of the farmer’s product again decreasing. Similarly an increase in the floor price of meat was announced. But these new floor prices were announced after the average public sale price had already been considerably higher than the minimum price for a number of years. Many farmers are having a tremendous struggle to get hold of permits for meat, for example, while there is a considerable increase in the demand for their product. What is the use of the hon. the Minister telling them: “We are increasing the floor price of your product”, while at the same time a permit system is being adopted, causing many farmers to be saddled with their livestock and not being able to market it properly? When there is an improvement in the demand, bottlenecks arise that prevent the farmer from selling his product. We believe that such action cannot ever bring stability to our agricultural industry. It rather promotes decreased confidence in our industry.

Today I want to urge the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and his Deputy Minister, as all the hon. members on this side of the House, who are going to take part in this debate, will do, that stability be brought back into our agricultural industry. I now want to tell the hon. the Minister what we mean when we say that we want stability in the agricultural industry. In the first place we mean by that that we want to ensure the present agricultural generation a decent livelihood. The psychological effect that a struggling agricultural industry has on those undertaking it is definitely alarming. Later on this becomes a condition of rejection and frustration. Because we have that lack of stability, we have little confidence in our agricultural industry today. That is why the numbers of students at our agricultural faculties and universities are decreasing. That is why we find that more and more farmers would rather see their sons qualifying themselves for any other profession rather than choosing the agricultural industry. They are no longer prepared to encourage their sons to enter the agricultural industry because of the lack of stability.

The success of the agricultural industry cannot only be measured by the increase in volume production. It is important to realize this. The increase in the volume production specifically shows us, on the contrary, how well the South African farmer can produce. It specifically shows his competence, his efficiency and the fact that he is prepared to make use of the most modern methods. It proves that he is also prepared to use the knowledge, which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services conveys to him, for the benefit of his industry. We cannot, however, measure the success of our industry by the total volume production of agriculture. The success of our industry must be measured by the increase and the improvement in the standard of living of the people engaged in the agricultural industry. Consequently the test of the financial success of our agricultural industry is the test of whether the individual entrepreneur is better off than he was a few years ago.

A varying price for products must inevitably cause instability in the agricultural industry. If there is one way to achieve greater stability, it is to see how price variations can be avoided as far as possible. Bottlenecks in the marketing, and particularly in the sphere of financing, must be eliminated if we want greater stability in our agricultural industry. I particularly want to concentrate my attention on this method. We must establish better financing for our agriculture, in order to obtain greater stability in our industry. Today agricultural finances are still the weakest link in our agriculture. Short-term financing is tremendously expensive and also very scarce, let alone long-term financing when it comes to our industry. Commercial banks are skittish and hesitant when it comes to investing in our agricultural industry today. Likewise other financial institutions and undertakings are afraid to invest in it. When it comes to greater stability in our agricultural industry, this is a restricting factor. I also want to say this afternoon that it is unfair to expect sectors, which have had little to do with and borne little responsibility for these inflationary conditions in South Africa, to make almost super-human sacrifices for the combating of inflation.

What are our suggestions for ensuring that our agricultural finances improve considerably? In the first place our Land Bank must be extended to help more farmers in South Africa in respect of long-term financing. It is very clear to me that in the years ahead the foremost institution for long-term financing will have to be our Land Bank. This will have to be the case for the simple reason that the other institutions are becoming less interested in the agricultural industry, and because they can do so much better in other sectors. Consequently, if there is subsequently no one left, who else will have to attend to the long-term financing? One can even look at some of the boards of executors established by farmers on the platteland. Where are they active today? They are all coming closer to the urban areas and they are all investing more in other sectors than they are prepared to invest in the agricultural sector. If our own organizations, created by the farmers, are becoming hesitant as far as the agricultural industry is concerned, who must then be prepared to invest in it? That is why I see, as clear as daylight, that our agricultural industry will eventually have to be financed increasingly by this country’s Land Bank. We on this side of the House have always supported the hon. the Minister when he wants to give more money to the Land Bank, as proposed again in the Budget.

This gives you something new to gossip about.

I shall simply ignore the hon. member’s interjection because it means nothing at all. In the second place, when it comes to agricultural financing it is also very clear that many of the farmers do not know where the functions of Agricultural Credit begin and where they end, and where the duties of the Land Bank begin and end. Absolute certainty will have to be given about the policy in this respect. It is also obviously necessary that in the course of time we shall have to have a blanket organization that will embrace all agricultural financing. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us whether they are also thinking along those lines. Why is agricultural financing so important to us? Because the interest rates under present circumstances, and this has been said repeatedly, still remain too high to ensure efficient production and to obtain cheaper production in agriculture. It is therefore very clear to us that this subsidy that is being given to help reduce interest rates when it comes to the farmer, will have to be increased, higher than the present 1d per cent. We have actually suggested previously that it should be made with retrogressive effect from the beginning of 1966 when the Government decided to increase interest rates with a view to fighting inflation. In addition, it is also very clear to us that the maximum amount on which this subsidy is granted, i.e. R100 000, will have to be increased to R150 000.

We see this because there are large areas of South Africa, particularly its grazing areas, which have been through a very difficult time these past few years. Therefore, over and above agricultural financing, there will also have to be a much wider adjustment as far as our livestock withdrawal scheme is concerned. Why are we on this side asking for this? Because wool and mohair have had a very difficult time of it these past few years. The wool and mohair market have reached a complete ebb, so much so that experts claim that in the past seven months our wool industry has lost no less than R53 million, despite the fact that there was decreased production. Likewise our livestock numbers in those areas have also decreased considerably as a result of the droughts.

This is not the only important factor as far as we are concerned. For us another important factor is the fact that, in the interests of our economy, as many of our grazing areas as possible should be kept going, with a view to giving any support at all to stopping the depopulation of the platteland in those areas. A livestock withdrawal scheme can only be successful on a long-term basis if we do not have a total withdrawal scheme. I shall tell you why. If farmers must be encouraged to have total withdrawal, and they then have to get hold of that breeding stock again after five years or longer, it would prove almost impossible for them to do so. It would also be tremendously expensive. That is why we say that this livestock withdrawal scheme will have to be adapted so that it will be possible for the farmer to keep back 25 per cent of his original breeding stock. But if he is then allowed to do so, we shall have to extend this scheme considerably, a scheme which at present allows the withdrawal of a maximum of 2 400 animals at a certain tariff. The reason why I say that the tariff will have to be increased considerably, is not only to help the farmer, but also to keep the general economy going, an economy that is based on this in the platteland. That is why we say that we are in favour of a much broader application of this scheme, and that a much higher tariff should be paid to the farmer in compensation.

But when farmers are willing to go in for such an adjusted withdrawal scheme, we are prepared to see that considerable obligations are also placed on such a farmer. There will be certain fundamental things he will have to carry out on his land if he wants to take part in this scheme. He will be obliged, for example, to ensure that his farm is properly fenced into camps, and that the best possible water points are established. He will have to be encouraged, and be placed under an obligation, to plant drought-resistant vegetation. And any farmer going in for such a scheme will not be entitled to obtain any other form of support, for example the interest subsidy. But then one has an adjusted livestock withdrawal scheme that will give the farmer a decent income, that will allow him to look after his farm and introduce improvements, that will make it unnecessary for him to get rid of his labourers and that will help him at the same time to keep the industrial life of the platteland going. [Time expired.]

I just want to state that for the convenience of hon. members Revenue Votes 13 up to and including 17 will be under discussion. In addition, I put Loan Votes C and D, as well as South-West Africa Votes 5 up to and including 7.

Before we go any further with this discussion, I first want to convey to Dr. Vorster, the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, the thanks of the farmers for the good service he gave them during the period of at least 40 years in which he served them. He began in the difficult depression years of 1930, and he gave excellent service. He became Secretary in 1958. A great deal of reorganization took place while he was Secretary. He furnished exceptional services, not only to the Department, but also to the farmers because he was born and grew up on a farm and because he speaks the farmers’ language. I have noticed that when he addressed farmers at meetings they always left the hall with happy hearts. He also understood the art of saying “No”, but it was the way he said “No” to the farmer that caused the farmer to feel no dissatisfaction. The farmers could understand why he had to say “No”. Since he is going to retire in September, we want to wish him the best of luck and prosperity in his period of rest. We hope that he will have a pleasant period of rest, although we know that a man of his nature is not going to sit still. Once again, the best of luck and prosperity, Dr. Vorster.

Sir, now I come to the United Party. The hon. member for Newton Park said here that things were now going well with the farmers because climatic conditions were good.

No.

Now we can understand why in the past, when extensive overall droughts prevailed in the country, they came along in this House and preyed on those droughts. When things are going well they have nothing to prey on.

We say that things are only a little better.

They are now preying on the locusts.

You got rich under the National Government.

Sir, the hon. member also spoke of the maize farmers who were supposedly now so dissatisfied about the increased price they obtained this year.

What does Sam-pi say?

Even Sampi decided that it first had to think about what to say. They have not yet said that they are dissatisfied. I have already spoken to many maize farmers, and not one of them told me that he thought that the price could be a little higher. We know that the farmers are sensible people. They know they are getting a good price. If there are maize farmers who spoke to the hon. member for Newton Park, then they are a few United Party farmers who just want to make politics out of the matter. Sir, the United Party poses here as champions of the farmers. They had the opportunity of showing what they could do for the farmers when they were in power up to 1948.

In those days the farmers were rich.

I shall tell that hon. member how rich they were, and how the United Party Minister treated our maize farmers. Here I have a booklet which the United Party published at the time—

In this booklet they made many promises to the farmers. They say here, inter alia—

I now want to show you what the United Party Government gave the farmers when they were in power.

That was even before the rinderpest.

When they were in power, they only made promises, and that is why their Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Strauss, later got the nickname “Koos Promise”, because they only promised and never gave anything. In the years 1946-’48 there was a maize surplus in the country, and this was exported at great profit. The Government of the time then put those profits in its pocket. It demanded them. The Mealie Board repeatedly said that they belonged to the farmer. They did not give them back, but kept them in their coffers. In other words, they deprived the farmers of R11 million in that year. In 1946 the Mealie Board refused to accept the price that Mr. Strauss suggested after the Mealie Board had stated its price. When Mr. Strauss heard that the Mealie Board did not want to accept that price, he threatened the Mealie Board in 1946—it was after the war—with the application of war measures to fix that price. That is how they treated the farmers. Now they pose as the great champions of the farmers.

In 1948, when there was a maize surplus in the country and one could export maize at a great profit. “Koos Promise”, who was the United Party’s Minister of Agriculture at the time, decreased the price by 12½ cents per bag, because he could then make a greater profit on the export maize, which he could then stick into his coffer. That is why he decreased the price. Then the National Party came into power that same year. I want to say that it was to a large extent the maize farmers who helped to bring the National Party into power as a result of Strauss’s policy. The late Mr. Wolfie Swart was also a member of this board. He accompanied me to Mr. Strauss when the latter reduced the price by 12½ cents. Then the Mealie Board sent a deputation to Minister Strauss requesting that we be allowed to use some of those export profits to let the price increase. He refused the request. When we walked out there I told Mr. Wolfie Swart: “Wolfie, that 12 cents is going to cost you a lot of votes, old chap”. He grabbed my arm and said: “Ah man, come along and tell him, because we, the Party, have done so repeatedly, but he does not want to listen”. You see. this is how that party treated the maize farmers. Then the National Party came into power that same year. The Mealie Board then came to the Government and said: “Look, that money belongs to the farmers”. Eventually that R11 million was all given back to the maize farmers. Who is now the farmers’ friend—that party or this Government? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I request the privilege of the second half-hour? I should like to associate myself with the good wishes which the member for Ladybrand extended to the Secretary for Agriculture, Dr. Vorster. On behalf of this side of the House I want to wish him a pleasant period of rest. I do not know how he is ever going to rest—he is such an active man. He knows the farmers so well and has always found it so easy to converse with them. I have always found that it does not matter which supporter of which party pays a visit to Dr. Vorster; he converses with all of them. We want to wish him a pleasant period of rest.

I understand that Mr. Viljoen, the Secretary for Agricultural Credit, will also retire towards the end of the year. We also want to convey our good wishes to him, and we hope that there is a pleasant period of rest in store for him. We are sorry that during the last part of his period of office he has had to struggle so much with the agricultural credit loans. We hope that things will be better in the future.

The hon. member for Ladybrand said that we no longer had any droughts and that there was nothing left for the United Party to exploit. We are very grateful for the fact that we no longer have any droughts. I would not say that that leaves nothing for the United Party to exploit. If the hon. member for Ladybrand meant by that that the agricultural industry and the farmers were doing so well at present, it is a pity that he did not simply say so. The only things he discussed were the maize farmers and the small increase they had been granted. Why did he not simply speak about agriculture in general and say that, now that we had had rains, all our problems were solved? We are just as grateful as hon. members on the other side are and as any farmer in the country is for the fact that we have now, eventually, had rains all over the country and that, although there are many locusts at present—and we shall have more to say about this later on —we can at least expect, once the locusts have gone, that the vegetation will grow again. The hon. member once again drew comparisons with the position in 1948. I wonder why we do not simply go back to the Government of 1932; I wonder why we do not go back to 1932 as well, why we do not compare the position at present with the conditions that prevailed at that time? I find it strange that we always go back as far as 1948 only. After all, if we have to go back to the time of the rinderpest, why can we not go back to 1932 as well, when the Nationalist Party was in power? I am merely mentioning this to prove how we are wasting time by drawing this sort of comparison.

I find it a pity that the hon. member for Ladybrand had to drag in here the name of a person who is no longer alive, namely Mr. Wolfie Swart, as a witness to what the Minister’s recommendations and standpoint were in regard to the price of maize.

But I actually want to devote the time at my disposal to two sections of the farming industry—the meat industry and the sheep and wool industry. If I do not have the time now to say everything I should like to say about these matters, I shall come back to them later on.

As far as the stock and meat industry control board is concerned, I want to say that we cannot even call it a control board. It is not a board which, like other boards constituted under the marketing system, controls the product from the producer to the consumer and which concerns itself with the profit margin between the producer’s price and the consumer’s price. It seems to me as though the Meat Board does not care two hoots about the price paid for meat by the consumer. Other control boards are in fact concerned about what the profit margin is on the various levels of the product which is under their control. But that is not all. In fact, there are a host of things which I want to mention in regard to the Meat Board and which I want to say about the fact that meat marketing is in a chaotic condition. In fact, the industry has been in that chaotic condition for years, more so in the recent past than was the case previously. The function of the Meat Board is to care for the stock and meat industry. At the moment I do not want to speak about what it is not doing for the industry as a whole. I shall have something to say about that later on. At the moment I want to confine myself mainly to the meat industry and¹ what is being done by the board.

One of the functions of the Meat Board is to register butchers and another is to issue permits, or, as it is being called lately, to allocate quotas. To that we can add the function of protecting the floor price for the producer. Of course, these are not the only functions of the board. Let us see now how the board has been carrying out the functions I mentioned. As far as butchers are concerned, the industry is overstaffed to such an extent that it is no wonder that the price which the consumer has to pay today is what it is. This industry is hopelessly over-staffed, and yet the Meat Board issues permits to whoever applies for a butcher’s permit. As far as the issuing of permits for slaughter-stock is concerned, the board does not even issue such permits. What it does, is to issue block permits or quotas to agents who, in turn, issue them to their producers. After all, we know what conditions prevailed. The person who wanted to sell a thousand head of sheep, had to wait for months and months whilst, on top of that, he had to feed the sheep in times of drought only to find, once he had got them ready for the market, that because of the quota system he could not get them accepted by the market. At a recent meeting it was mentioned that in August a certain person, who had just started out, applied for 1 500 hamels to be sold. By February of this year he had still sold only 500 of them. Fortunately it had rained in the meantime and his veld could carry them. Any system which lends itself to such a thing, is not a system. It is not possible for a system to function that way and at the same time contribute to the satisfaction of the producers. I am not even referring to the dissatisfaction of the consumers. They must, in turn, pay the higher price, because the product is supplied to the market in insufficient quantities. [Interjections.!

But, surely, that is the system which the farmers wanted?

But this vigorous Government says that they have all the say.

If these two members have finished speaking to each other, I should like to proceed. I want to say that as far as the protection of the minimum price is concerned, this board has not been doing its duty. I am not saying that the minimum price is a realistic one. As the hon. member for Newton Park said here on an earlier occasion, it was only recently that the price of meat was increased again. For a period of more than two years the price of beef varied from 2 cents to 4 cents per pound above the minimum price and, prior to the recent increase, from 4 cents to 6 cents above the minimum price. The price of mutton was approximately the same, for this was more or less just under 4 cents per pound. This is not a realistic floor price if over a long period the market price constantly remains far above the floor price. If this is to be a realistic floor price, it must be closer to what the market is prepared to offer. If that price is closer to the market price and the board is asked to buy it in, then the board must do so.

But what does the board not do, which may be regarded as its duty? I have already said that as far as butchers are concerned, it pays very little attention to what the profit margin is. We all know that if one buys fillet, one may quite easily have to pay R1 per pound for it. I want to admit that there is not much fillet on one carcass of beef. But if one buys cuts, which are choice cuts, it is by no means unusual to pay 60 or 70 cents per pound for an article which originally cost 22 or 22½ cents per pound. The average price of beef and mutton per carcass, once it has been sawn into cuts, realizes such a great profit for the butcher that applications for opening new butcheries are pouring in all the time.

As far as the livestock and its protection are concerned, which has been defined as being one of the functions of the board, I have already said that the board does not pay much attention to the livestock. Hon. members know that it does not matter to the board whether there is an increase or a decrease in the number of livestock and whether or not the livestock are marketed in a good condition. If price incentive is to mean anything, it is the only method used by them to ensure that only stock which is in a good condition, is marketed. The Meat Board does not import any meat, for it uses agents to do so. The meat which is imported, must be considered by the agents, because this is not done by the Meat Board. Furthermore, the Meat Board exports very little or no meat. What does the Agricultural Economics and Marketing Report tell us? It tells us that over the year 1969-’70 the Meat Board exported 78 tons of beef, whereas the agents exported 2 535 tons during the same period. Is it, therefore, only the function of agents to export meat, whilst the board uses our levy funds? Is it proper for the board to use these funds for paying fees to agents to export the meat? When is the board going to start doing its work and performing its duties? I have already said that the board does not export meat. As far as cold-storage is concerned, the board has no provision for the transfer of the meat it has to buy in. I have never been able to understand why. over a period of years of representations on the part of organized agriculture and other farmers’ organizations, no cold-storage facilities have been provided for the storage of meat in times of plenty. So far nothing has been done about that. Cold-storage facilities still have to be rented. Most of the time such facilities are being rented at very great expense. Cooling chambers are such that if one does not engage them all the time, they become more and more expensive. On the other hand, when one carries large supplies, one can protect the market in times of plenty and one can draw on the supplies in the cooling chambers and utilize them correctly.

This aspect was investigated by the board. That I admit. It carried out investigations to see whether a system of marketing on the hoof and on the hook could be introduced. I understand that the board was of the opinion that stock should not be marketed on the hoof. There are many members both on that side and on this side of the House who are of the opinion that it will in fact be worth while to follow this dual system. There are members who are of the opinion that an experiment should be made over a period in order to determine whether this would not be a greater success than it is to market stock on the hook only.

On so many occasions I have spoken in this House about the way in which we slaughter our breeding stock. The first time they can be marketed in controlled areas, is once they have been slaughtered and are sold as carcasses. Meanwhile nobody knows whether these were good breeding animals. On so many occasions I have already pointed out how this practice affects and ruins our livestock. I have already pointed out that this is something which we should not do, namely to sell young breeding stock as carcasses. There is no method whereby the farmer can enter and buy in the controlled markets as far as sheep are concerned. I also have here figures in respect of cattle. Last year six million were handled as against the two million outside the market. Of course, the vast majority of the sheep are sent to controlled markets. The producer who would like to have breeding stock and therefore want to obtain young sheep, is consequently not in a position to buy them there. This is the case, for the animal is slaughtered before it reaches such a market. If the dual system is not given a chance, there must be protection on the open market. At a later stage I shall state what system is being followed in Rhodesia in this regard. This can be done by way of reciprocal financing as well as price protection which, in itself, will already help if this cannot be done inside the controlled area. But we cannot experiment with it and do what is being done in other parts of the world. We cannot afford it!

I referred to the things which are not being done by the board. Recently the board was not even prepared to issue a permit for a consignment of slaughter sheep which had to be sent abroad by a private producer. Many difficulties were put forward in this regard.

For good reasons by veterinarians.

There was no excuse.

Furthermore, the board has made no provision for meat to be transferred on the hoof or for it to be stored on the hoof. This is one of the important things which Rhodesia is doing at this stage. It is not always necessary to slaughter an animal and then to store it. One can store and transfer it from one period to another while it is still on the hoof. I shall discuss later on the methods which can be applied by the board in this regard; that is to say, if it wants to apply them, sees its way clear to doing so and recommends itself that these methods be applied in this manner. But let us consider the board itself and its constitution. Let us, once we have done so, see whether we are still astonished at the situation being the way it is. The board consists of 24 members, 14 of whom are producers. Of those 14 members who are producers, 10 come from the same interest group.

Are you against that?

If it is sound for an industry that one interest group should have such a predominant number of members on a board, then the hon. member for Pretoria District should tell me whether he thinks it is sound. I am against it. I shall not mention any names. From the chairman of the board down to the bottom, there are represented on the board 10 members who are board members and supporters of Vleissentraal. If one interest group has such predominant representation on the Meat Board, is there anybody in this House who expects them not to look at their own interests as well? I am not saying that they are exclusively looking after their own interests. But I say it is an unhealthy situation when a board consists virtually exclusively of representatives of one interest group. After all, any board is established for the purpose of looking after the interests of the industry as a whole. Those representatives may not only be placed in a privileged position as far as the allocation of quotas are concerned, but also have the sole right to import meat from Rhodesia. This right to import meat is not a minor one, because more than 100 000 carcasses of beef are imported from Rhodesia every year. They are also one of the major importers of the quota of 2 500 tons, to which I referred a moment ago. All of these are aspects which seem unsound to me in the composition of a board.

I almost want to say that I have sympathy with the hon. the Minister for being obliged to listen to the advice of the Meat Commodity Committee of the South African Agricultural Union and of the board. This committee, too, has been constituted predominantly from representatives of Vleissentraal. The hon. the Minister is being handicapped by a board which always has its own interests in mind. He often has to do what he must and not what he wants to do. Indeed I would have had sympathy with the hon. the Minister in this regard if I were not of the opinion that he was weak in the sense that he had failed to take the Meat Board by the scruff of the neck a long time ago and tell them precisely what he wanted. He should have told this board a long time ago what should be done in the interest of the country. After all, the national interest is more important than are the interests of a group of persons or the interests of one organization. I am laying the responsibility for the actions of the Meat Board at the door of the Government and nobody else. After all, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Deputy Minister, who are sitting over there, are the people who must shoulder the responsibility in this regard. Surely we must lay it at their door and tell them that they have now been trying to remedy this matter for years, but that they will never succeed if they do not start at the source of the trouble, namely the South African Meat Commodity Committee and the Meat Board, and tell them how the Government and the people want these matters to be handled. That is the only way in which it can be done. There is no other way. As far as this matter is concerned, it is so much water under the bridge. The Marketing Act provides how the board is to be constituted, and the hon. the Minister is powerless to do anything about it.

I have already dealt with the problem of livestock and how such stock should be protected. At this stage I should like to proceed to the marketing system used in Rhodesia. I want to explain to the House and the hon. the Minister once again how the Rhodesian system differs from ours and in what respects we can learn from them. In Rhodesia there is only one organization which buys in stock for slaughtering purposes in the controlled areas, namely Rhodesian Cold Storage. I shall now mention the functions of this organization. They receive and slaughter all slaughter-stock in controlled areas. They announce the prices six months before the time, and permits are issued six months before the time. In other words, if a farmer wants a permit for marketing his stock, he has to apply for it six months before the time. If a farmer applies in March, he must state that in, for instance, August or September he wants to market 500 head of cattle. Then they notify him on what date it will be possible to slaughter his cattle. He does not even have to see to it that there are trucks at the station when he wants to load his cattle. This organization sees to that. If he does not load his stock on the date appointed for him, he has to fall in at the back of the queue once again. Because he will then not have kept his appointment, he is penalized, for no board can arrange a steady supply unless it has a system in terms of which producers are compelled to deliver their stock when it is their turn.

What do they do with sheep in Rhodesia?

They do not have the same system in regard to sheep. Nevertheless farmers must, just as it is in the case of cattle, book their turn for slaughtering purposes. If such a farmer does not send his sheep when it is his turn, he will quite possibly not get a permit again. I have been farming for 23 years, and I know the Rhodesian system only too well. If a farmer has received an allocation six months before the time, he must see to it that his animals are ready for slaughtering and that they are trucked when his turn comes round. If a farmer does not truck his animals on the date allocated to him, he will be placed very far back in the queue when he applies for a new allocation. That is how they arrange their supply. That is why they have a constant supply throughout the year. If a farmer does not avail himself of his turn, he is not fined, but must in fact pay the cost of the truck. But this fine is severe enough for a producer to ensure that he will not take the risk of not trucking his animals if, the next time he applies for a quota, he finds that he cannot get it. I have said that they issue permits six months before the time. Then they act as the financiers between the person who buys and the person who sells, not as regards slaughter-stock, but as regards young breeding animals, bullocks and everything that goes with it. Sir, I have already explained this system on so many occasions. The latest information I still have about the cooling chambers in Rhodesia, is that over a period of years they have not yet lost five cents on this financing scheme. It is a scheme which we have repeatedly recommended in this House and which I now want to recommend again, i.e. that if a person has 500 bullocks, one year old or 18 months old, and he wants to sell them, then he indicates at the cooling chamber that he has 500 oxen for sale.

If another person states in his application that he wants to buy 500 oxen, he indicates that he wants to buy them. Then the cooling chambers intervene and they finance the transaction and send out their representative. They go out and weigh the animals on the scale. All meat and all stock in Rhodesia is weighed alive. They cross the scale in groups of ten or 20 at a time, depending on the size of the scale. They are branded, and the cooling chambers finance them for the person who buys them, and he pays the person who sold them. If they are yearling bullocks one can keep them for two years, and if they are two-year-olds, one can keep them for one year, but I may be mistaken in regard to the times. If they are breeding cows, one can keep them for five years. During the five years which one has for such breeding cattle, one can raise as many calves as one’s farm can carry. When one sends those cows back, they deduct the money one owes the cooling chambers plus 6 per cent interest over the period of the years that have passed since getting them.

Sir, every young cattle farmer who left this country and became a large-scale farmer up there, became one on this kind of basis, through the Government and the cooling chambers. In this case, if the board wants to do this, they will not lose a cent, for how can one lose it? After all, it would simply be getting back cattle which are in a better condition, fully grown and bigger than the cattle it originally financed. But one should not think that one will get this if one does not have proper fences, grazing and water. But if one has these things and one met with disaster, such as a major drought, and if one announced what one’s position is, they would take back the cattle and allocate them to somebody else. But I want to emphasize that they have never lost any money on these transactions. I do not know how many millions are involved. I do not know how much was placed at their disposal by the State for operating this system. But if a similar system could be introduced in this country, I could just imagine how many people would enter the market. All those animals are sold at a fixed price, i.e. 85 shillings per 100 lbs. five weight for bullocks. That is the price financed by the cooling chambers and that is the price paid by the person concerned. If one pays more than that and the seller receives an additional 5 shillings, one is free to pay the additional money, but they will not finance it for one. They only finance at their fixed price. They even protect the prices on the outside markets by coming into the market for the animals they want, and across the scale they bid against the grade and the weight and their own price. If a butcher or somebody else wants it, he has to pay a little more. Sir, most important of all is the fact that in Rhodesia they add stability to the meat industry on a scale which is unheard of in this country. We have no stability in the meat industry here. It is a gamble from morning to night. If one has purchased animals, one does not know whether one is going to get a quota for selling them; one does not know when one is going to get the quota for selling them, nor does one know what one is going to get for the animals. Furthermore, one does not know what one is going to get for them if at a later stage one is obliged to sell them on the open market. Whereas the meat industry here is a big gamble, there is so much stability in the meat industry in Rhodesia, that if I were to buy 500 oxen there today I would know what I would get for them in 18 months’ time, for they are weighed and they are graded. I should like to know why a similar scheme is not introduced here. I should like to know why the board which we have, is so inactive and doing so little, whereas this is one of the functions which, as a board of control under the Marketing Act, it ought to be carrying out.

Sir, I have very little time at my disposal. I should very much like to have said something about the sheep and wool industry. As far as wool marketing is concerned, I want to say that the wool farmers of South Africa are of course grateful, not only for the R7 million granted to the South African Wool Commission so as to make up one half of the deferred-payment price of R14 million, but also for the RH million granted to the Wool Board to help them to cover the cost of research. This is not a small amount, Sir; it is a substantial amount, but the fact remains that it is ad hoc assistance which does not offer the industry any salvation. It only helps the industry for one year. What will happen after this year, we do not know. We know that the reserve price is going to be determined on the same basis. We know that if the market remains as it is, it may very easily cost another R32 million next year, for it cost R32 million this year—R18 million for purchases and R14 million for the supplementary payment. It may therefore cost another R32 million next year. We still do not know whether, with the aid of loans, we can cope with that amount, but the fact remains that it is ad hoc assistance. It cannot be said that this assistance paves the way ahead for the wool farmers, and that they may now carry on with confidence once again. There is a complete lack of confidence in the industry. In addition we are faced with appalling problems. Because people have lost confidence in the industry, because many of the wool farmers are in financial difficulties, because they are being pressed and forced by banks and other institutions into putting their land on the market, we have the unwholesome position that where land is offered for sale, it does not fetch a decent price. This fact forces the prices of land down in large parts where one cannot diversify. This is one of the greatest evils with which we are faced today. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member devoted most of his time to the meat industry. In the limited time at my disposal I cannot go into all the aspects he mentioned, but he made one remark that I found particularly interesting, i.e. that the hon. the Minister should take the Meat Board by the throat and change its scheme.

That’s it!

My hon. friends on that side say: “That’s it!”, but I am reminded that it was the hon. members on that side who last year, when we dealt with the Egg Production Control Bill in this House, kicked up a great fuss here because we were giving too many powers to the Minister by way of regulations. Sir, we are dealing here with a very important democratic principle as far as the farming community is concerned. [Interjection.] No. the hon. member must not jump around now. The hon. member said that the Minister must take the Meat Board by its throat. He must, in other words, adopt certain statutory powers that take away the democratic right of our control boards on which our farmers have a majority representation. Would hon. members support us if we passed legislation through this Parliament by which such effective powers are granted to the Minister? It is surely always about these so-called powers of the Minister that these members complained when we were dealing with legislation! Hon. members must be careful about how they handle this matter. Hon. members must not simply jump around all over the place as far as principles are concerned. The democratic right of the farmers is one of the corner stones in the Marketing Act and we cannot simply meddle with it like that. This situation in the meat industry is now being laid at the Minister’s door. Let us now be honest. I am also concerned about the position in the meat industry, and in my opinion there are problems.

Oh!

My old friend, I am not dealing with agricultural matters on a purely political basis. I am doing this in an honest way. There are problems in the meat industry. The facts are, however, that the hon. the Minister, through initiative and influence, had an investigation made of the present scheme. This was done by a commission appointed by the Meat Board. As hon. members know, a minority and a majority report were published. The Meat Board accepted the majority report, according to which it is recommended that the present marketing scheme remains unchanged. The problem is that the present scheme creates problems for us because it requires that public selling on the hook must take place on a weight and grade basis, and that all the carcasses sold in this way must be slaughtered within the controlled area and not brought in from outside. Consequently this scheme draws the slaughter stock within a concentrated area and then a situation of overloading of slaughter capacity develops. This problem is one that has been developing over the past years. The commission that investigated this problem took a look at that. They nevertheless decided to stay with the old scheme.

However, I want to come back to another matter. The hon. member for Newton Park made an interesting remark. He had apparently read the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and he read in the report again that the physical volume of agricultural products increased by 7 per cent in the past year. He went further and said it was as a result of better conditions. Then he said, in addition, that we could not ascribe the success of agriculture to the increase in physical volume.

Not to that alone.

Yes, but the hon. member discredited it in his argument. If one wants to investigate the efficiency of an industry, it is necessary, in the first instance, for one to determine how sound its production level is. Notwithstanding the droughts of several years, there has always been a continued increase in the physical volume of agricultural production. This means, in other words, that our agricultural production, seen as a whole, has succeeded in making the best use of our natural agricultural resources. Let us be very certain about this one point. We have limited agricultural land in South Africa, and we cannot therefore have a horizontal development of agricultural production. What we had was a more intensified utilization of the existing agricultural resources in South Africa. This is praiseworthy, and it says a great deal for the work done by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in particular, because together with the increased utilization of the natural agricultural resources it means that better soil conservation methods had to be applied. This also means, therefore, that the soil did not deteriorate and that water conservation was applied. This also means that attention was given to the fertility of the soil, its fertilization and to better farming methods. This inevitably had to make available a bigger physical yield per unit from the existing agricultural resources. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services played a particularly big role in this. I should just like to quote one paragraph which the retiring Secretary of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services mentioned in the report. He said—

I want to say on this occasion that I think that under the administration and management of our present Secretary, Dr. Vorster, he succeeded in organizing this Department in such a way that it made a tremendous contribution to the development and the utilization of our natural agricultural resources in South Africa.

The hon. member for Newton Park went further and began arguing about financial problems. There are financial problems in agriculture, but if agriculture is seen as a whole there are various facets of production. There are 92 000 entrepreneurs in this industry that have to apply various methods of production under various climatic conditions. Certain sectors of these production activities will have certain problems, like the wool industry, inter alia. It is now very easy to single out one of these specific cases and then to establish a negative image of agriculture.

What about the meat industry?

For the hon. member’s information I want to say that our meat industry is basically sound. There are marketing problems, but that is only one facet of the meat industry. I may say for the hon. member’s information that notwithstanding drought conditions, our numbers of cattle increased and that our numbers of sheep only decreased by 3 per cent. In addition we must also take into account that the livestock withdrawal scheme and the large number of sheep slaughtered, more than one million in excess of the number slaughtered the previous year. Then there were also the biggest droughts our sheep industry has ever experienced. The production level of our livestock industry is therefore still completely sound.

When one looks at the financial position of agriculture one sees that this year it had one of the biggest revenues, i.e. R1 340 million, the second largest amount in its history. As far as that is concerned, the turnover of our agricultural industry is therefore a completely sound one. Certain increases in production costs have taken place, as well as a small decrease of a little more than 1 per cent in the prices of products. We can nevertheless say generally that the revenue from agriculture is sound. When we look at the financial position of farmers, which the hon. member is so concerned about, there is one very interesting aspect that I want to mention to the hon. member, i.e. that the total burden of debt of the farmers amounts to more than R1 300 million. There are farmers who are in a bad position, those who are less so and also farmers who are in an altogether sound financial position. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethal took offence at the hon. member for East London City for having told the hon. the Deputy Minister that he had to take the Meat Board by the scruff of the neck. He then said that it was the democratic right of the Meat Board to do as it pleased. The hon. the Minister has the right—and it is not only its right, but also its duty—to see to it that the Meat Board does its work properly. The hon. member for Bethal also said that the agricultural industry was doing well as the physical volume had increased by 7 per cent. He said that from a producer point of view the agricultural industry was doing well, but what does that prove? It merely goes to prove how efficient the farmer of South Africa is. He also said that the gross income of the agricultural industry was higher than it had ever been before, i.e. R1 340 million. The point, however, is what the net profit of farmers looks like. It has dropped by R73 million. What does that mean? It proves that things are going well with the production of our farmers, but that they are going badly with their finances as a result of the price policy of the Government.

But before dealing further with the hon. member for Bethal, I want to come back to another matter. It is a matter which affects my constituency very closely, i.e. the flood damage caused in East London. The farmers of that area suffered damage to the amount of R1 382 146. Those farmers would have qualified for assistance to the amount of R422 000. To a question I put to the hon. the Minister the other day, namely what amount had been paid out to farmers in respect of flood damage in the disaster area, the reply was R156. I think the Minister did at least add that they were still waiting for further applications. I am not unreasonable either; we know that these applications take a while. But it does seem to me as though there is unnecessary delay to a certain extent. I think it is reasonable, though, to ask the hon. the Minister to speed up that assistance and to trace the cause of the delay. But the second point alarms even more, namely the reply I received after I had asked what was going to be done about the topsoil that had been washed away in that area. There are 8 630 morgen of agricultural land, valued at R191 224, and 219 morgen of river land valued at R15 210, the topsoil of which was washed away.

The hon. the Minister replied by saying that they were going to do nothing about that topsoil. Now I want to make a very friendly appeal to the Minister. I want to ask him to consider the position of those people. Wire fences, embankments of dams, etc., can be replaced again, but the topsoil can never be replaced again. Those people are going to have no income for years. For that reason I want to make a very friendly but urgent request to the hon. the Minister to look after those people. I want to remind him that on the evening of the flood damage the Prime Minister made a promise here. He said that those people would be assisted. I went to that constituency and told the people that the Prime Minister was sympathetic towards them. I said he was going to assist them. Now I must go back to that constituency. Are they going to say that I mislead them, or somebody else? I want to make it very clear that I really was under the impression that those people were going to be assisted in those difficult circumstances.

There is another matter in my constituency which I want to touch upon, namely the moving of the administrative regional offices of Agricultural Technical Services from Queenstown to Dohne. That decision was taken a number of years ago already. We have been unable to obtain finality in that regard. Pressure has been brought to bear for those offices to remain where they are. I do not know for what reasons, but I do not think it is necessary for me to make out a case as to why the administrative offices should be near the technical offices at Dohne.

The other matter which I want to raise, is that the stock reduction scheme should be extended to that eastern part, and particularly to Komga.

Peddie too.

I was asked by Peddie and Komga, but especially Komga. They made a request and that request was turned down. I think it was a very reasonable request.

Then there is another matter I want to raise here. To me this is rather a much more urgent matter. The butchers of Berlin have now been forced by the Meat Board to make their stock purchases on the East London controlled market. I discussed this matter with the Minister. He is also very sympathetic towards this matter. But now those butchers have to drive 38 miles every morning to buy their sheep there. Previously they bought them at a well conducted stock-fair organized by the farmers there. It was a good stock-fair; the prices were much better than those realized on the controlled market. The butchers used to buy their slaughter stock at the stock-fair and slaughtered them at King William’s Town, which is situated only 13 miles from there. But now they are being forced to buy in East London, and in order to do so they must, as I have said, drive 38 miles every morning. The stock-fair has, of course, gone out of existence now. Another consequence is that the prices are now going to be much lower for the producer, but at the same time higher for the consumer. I am aware of the proclamations that were issued; in fact, I do not know how many proclamations there are altogether. We say that the Minister must take the Meat Board by the scruff of the neck; the Minister must act like the boss. We know that the hon. the Minister and his Deputy are very successful farmers, but they would not have been as successful if they had managed their farms as they are managing this department now. I say let them take the Meat Board by the scruff of the neck, and we shall support them if necessary. A business without a boss does not make any progress; that is why we are asking the hon. the Minister to act as a boss would act in the interests of his own business. We cannot allow this incompetence.

We find that in the controlled areas 6 244 132 head of small stock are being slaughtered every year. There are 2 931 butchers. This means that in the controlled areas one butcher handles, on an average, 2 130 sheep per year, or 177 per month, or 44 per week, or 9 per day. In the uncontrolled areas, on the other hand, one butcher handles 3½ sheep per day. In all the areas taken together 8 762 000 carcasses are slaughtered. [Time expired.]

I suppose the hon. member for King William’s Town will not hold it against me if I do not follow him in the plea he delivered on behalf of his constituency.

The hon. member for Newton Park, who opened this debate, gave another clear demonstration today that if he were to progress to a higher office some day, he would undoubtedly be a worthy successor to the last United Party Minister of Agriculture. He, too, would undoubtedly make promises. Moreover, he would have the hon. member for King William’s Town to assist him. Where necessary, he would take the farmers by the scruff of the neck and put them in their place as a person who had the whip-hand would do. To me the vigour which the United Party is showing at the moment is something strange. Hon. members must not hold it against me if I now leave this matter at that.

I should like to say a few words in connection with what was said here earlier on by the hon. member for Newton Park. It is clear that he covered a very wide field in a very short time, that he made a large number of promises by implication and advocated increases. The hon. member nearly went so far as to suggest what the mealie price should be in his opinion, but then did not do so. After he had presented the complaints from one and all to this House, he apparently did not have the courage of his conviction to say what the United Party’s suggestion is as to what the mealie price should be. It is very clear why he did not do so. He was thinking of the sheep farmers who have to buy the mealies and of the voters of Port Elizabeth who are consumers of mealies. He will definitely not advocate a higher price, in case those people come to hear of it, but he will, in fact, advocate his price surreptitiously. He also touched on the question of excise. As a matter of fact, this was the umpteenth time he had touched on this question. But it was very clear that this hon. member definitely did not have the interests of the wine farmer in mind but something completely different. In fact, he was not even perfectly sure whether the K.W.V. had a managing director or simply an ordinary chairman of corporation. I admit that it is possible for one to make a small error like this. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is very clear that he knows preciously little of K.W.V. matters and of viticulture. In contrast to what the hon. member said here, I should like to say here on behalf of our farmers that we are grateful to the Minister for having increased the price of wine considerably on the recommendation of the K.W.V. and of the organization who speaks on behalf of the wine farmers of this country. We are also grateful for the prospect of our farmers receiving increased planting quotas. Where there is concern at the moment about the influence of excise duty on spirits, I should like to express it as my conviction that we have every confidence that the National Party and the Government will see to it that the farmer will receive his rightful share and that the viticultural industry will not suffer. The hon. member need not concern himself about our farmers. Our farmers are reasonable people and will deal with this matter in a reasonable way.

In order to conclude this matter I just want to say that our farmers are particularly grateful because the drinking pattern of this country has also been promoted, in the spirit of the recommendations of the Malan Commission, by the fact that no excise duty has been imposed on natural wine. Therefore we need not worry ourselves any further about the remarks or covert references made here by the hon. member for Newton Park.

In my opinion there is another matter which the hon. member for Newton Park raises time and again in this House, and that is the constantly decreasing enrolment of students at the agricultural colleges, because of poor handling by the Department of Agriculture. In my constituency I have many people who are the hon. member’s kind, and it is very clear that they are just pessimistic. Especially the young farmers who are supporters of the United Party, are very pessimistic. The other day one of them paid me a visit and he specifically told me that he was not going to allow his two sons to become farmers. Particularly in respect of an industry which is so vulnerable and risky, but at the same time so essential, as the agricultural industry is, it is the duty of each member on both sides of this House to see to it that the people in the agricultural industry are not discouraged but encouraged. These people are truly doing their best and are working wonders. To me it is very clear that we on our side are pleading for the farmer in the best possible way as well as in a constructive way. But when we come to demonstrate in this House, as the United Party did, we are not doing our agricultural industry any favour. [Interjections.] Let me just remind the complaining members on that side of this House that I have examples of this. For two years already we have been experiencing a state of emergency, a state of disaster. Nothing has been said about this by that side of the House. But the minor things, matters from which they stand to gain something, they do discuss. Now I, too, should like to tell a small story I heard from their people. For the past two years boring operations have been undertaken on a large scale in the area I represent in order to provide water supplies for animals. This is being done because of an alarming shortage of water. The department has greatly assisted us in expediting matters. Now a story is doing the rounds, to the strongest indignation of people, including responsible U.P. members, that it is being said—misuse that money, because it is the money of the National Government. Influencing has already sunk to this level. It is tragic that such things are happening in these times in which we are living. I am convinced that if this kind of thing is happening, the National Party is going to remain in power for another 100 years.

I have another matter with which I should like to deal, and I am sorry that time is going to catch up with me. The state of disaster in the constituency I represent extends over a very wide area. It extends from Barrydale and Barrydale-Karoo, as well as the part in the Karoo which is known as Montagu-Karoo, down to the sea. It includes such fine and reliable agricultural districts as Montagu, Barrydale, Bonnievale, parts of Robertson, especially McGregor and Klaasvoogds, as well as the Rûens part of Heidelberg, Swellendam and Bredasdorp. In those parts conditions have arisen which are shocking, yes, actually alarming, because of the fact that in a very long climatic cycle, of more than 100 years, we have been hit by an absolutely unusual and exceptional drought. The conditions which have arisen from that is truly appalling. Soil erosion and even erosion of cultivated fields have occurred. Water resources, which were known as good resources, have run dry. These things have caused farmers to go downhill to a large extent. In the grain producing parts, such as the Rûens, there have been no harvests in certain parts for three years. In the fruit-growing areas in which irrigation water comes from the mountains, the people who are dependent on this water have been hit to such an extent that they have lost half of their vineyards and orchards and in some cases even everything. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister, seeing that these problems are known to him, too, for special disaster measures to be made applicable to these parts. [Time expired.]

Surely the hon. member for Swellendam did nothing but engage in scandal-mongering here today. He has told us the story that the U.P. supporters are now walking about and saying that the money must be misused because it is Nat money. But surely it is not Nat money. It is the money of the taxpayers of South Africa.

That is in fact the tragedy.

Now that is the tragedy. I now want to extend an invitation to that hon. member. I am not a person who is very fond of challenges. But I want to invite him to mention the name of that person, inside or outside this House. I shall tell you, Sir, that the hon. member does not have the courage to do that, for this is nothing but plain gossip. Then the hon. member imputed certain words to me by saying that I had allegedly said that the hon. the Minister had to take the farmers by the scruff of the neck. Does the hon. member not listen to what is being said in this House? I said the hon. the Minister had to take these boards of control by the scruff of the neck. Let me say this. I am making no apologies for it. The United Party will not allow this incompetence. We shall not allow this process of “empire-building”, which is taking place in this country. Does the hon. member not listen to what is being said in these debates? Did he not hear what the hon. member for Paarl had had to say about excise duty the other day, and how this angered the farmers? And if my memory serves me correctly, the K.W.V. also spoke out about it; but the hon. member comes here and he is nothing but grateful. He is nothing but grateful for everything. I suppose he is grateful for having a seat, for I do not know what else he can be grateful for.

But I was dealing with the slaughtering of stock. As far as all areas are concerned. 8 762 963 sheep were slaughtered at all abattoirs last year, but 5 922 butchers are registered. That means that on an average they slaughter 1 479 sheep per year each, or 123 per month, or 31 per week or six per day; and less than one head of cattle per day. And all of these people are making a living out of the farmer, the producer. He has to pay for it, but that side of the House is very grateful; they are perfectly satisfied; things are allowed to take their own course, and these boards of control may not be taken by the scruff of the neck. No, the hon. member is very grateful for everything. Surely this situation cannot be allowed to continue for all time, i.e. that an average butcher handles six sheep and less than one head of cattle per day, and then drives around in a Mercedes-Benz. Those people are making a living out of the farmer and the consumer. [Interjections.] I wonder whether that hon. member is a farmer, for judging by the way he talks, he is not a farmer. For whom is he pleading? Is he pleading for the butcher, or for whom is he pleading? If you are a farmer, you rise here and plead for the farmers, as this side of the House has been doing. Take a look at the position of the farmers. They owe R1 340 million, and this amount is increasing every year. From year to year that debt simply mounts up.

To what do you attribute that?

I most certainly do not attribute it to a lack of productivity, as has been done by certain hon. members opposite who are talking about the inefficient and bad farmers and the incompetent farmers who have to go to the city.

Who said that?

Just ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what he said on a certain occasion. The hon. member has asked me what the reason is, and it is so simple. The reason is simply this: The prices of the products are lower than the prices of the things the farmer requires. The price of the product does not rise along with the increased expenses. That is the position. It is just as simple as that, and if this is the position, one must either raise the price or lower the production costs.

It is very easy to say how one should reduce production costs, for what is the reason for these high production costs? The greatest single reason is the high interest rates, which were caused by that Government. The second reason is the high railage on the farmer’s requirements and products, and the third one is divisional council rates, which that Government is clinging to in order to create another small “empire”. These are the things which are ruining the farmers. And the fourth one is estate duty. And so I could continue. Every difficulty in which the farmer of South Africa finds himself today, is a result of the actions of that side of the House. It is as simple as that and as long as the Government continually increases the prices of the necessaries of life, this situation will obtain. I wonder whether those hon. members have ever thought how this amount of R4 million which is once again going to be collected this year in higher tariffs and higher taxes, will affect the farmers, and what the ripple effect will be. This increase in the price of fuel from 3 cents to 6 cents—do you not realize what this is going to do to the costs of the farmer of South Africa? Those hon. members are laughing. To them this is a big joke, for, after all, they do not visit their constituencies. After all, life has now become pleasant. Even the hon. the Deputy Minister, a good farmer and a fife chap—see how quickly he mastered ministerial language! Hon. members on that side are out of touch with the population of South Africa and they are apathetic towards the farmers. But, Sir, we on this side of the House will not allow ourselves to be put off our stroke. Hon. members opposite are welcome to poke fun at the interests of the farmer of South Africa, but we shall plead for the farmers of South Africa.

Sir, I am coming back to the question of the cost of farming requisites, which was raised here. If hon. members would only take the trouble to read this report, they would see that the cost of farming requirements increased by 2 per cent last year, but the prices obtained by the farmer for 1rs products dropped by 1,2 per cent. The price obtained by the stock-farmer for his products dropped by 3 per cent, and the report adds that the greatest expenses incurred by the farmer, namely interest and higher wages, were not taken into consideration at all.

Tell that to your industrial friends.

Is the Government responsible for the higher wages?

Of course the Government is responsible for these higher interest rates. The hon. member should read up what the hon. the Minister of Finance said in a financial debate here the other day. Does he want me to read it out to them?

Is there any wage determination as far as the farmer’s labour is concerned?

No, why do the farmer’s wages increase? The wages paid out by the farmer are increasing as a result of the sales duty, which is pushing up the cost of living of his labourers, and therefore the farmer must obviously pay his labourers higher wages. Every time the cost of living of his labourers is increased, the farmer has to pay them higher wages. Surely, this is quite simple. Sir, are hon. members on that side not aware that there is a shortage of 141 000 non-White labourers on our farms? But in spite of that this Government is saying that the Bantu on the farms must be evicted.

Where did you get that figure?

From this report. Do hon. members opposite not read the reports of the S.A. Agricultural Union?

That is last year’s report.

It is last year’s report, but does the hon. member want to tell me that during the past year there was an influx of 141 000 Bantu labourers to our farms?

Say “Yes”.

Is that what the hon. member says? Then I want to see what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is going to do with him, for he is always telling us that his policy is succeeding. He wants to remove the Bantu from our farms, but that hon. member says they may pour in. Sir, so I can continue; every problem which the farmer of South Africa has, except for the droughts, can be blamed on the policy of the Minister of Finance. I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture realizes that, but he does not have the courage to stand up to the Minister of Finance. [Time expired.]

Sir, the speech to which I have just listened is the oddest I have ever heard. The hon. member says the Government is ruining the farmers. He mentions a great many measures which are being applied by the Government, and then specifies estate duty as one of the measures by means of which the Government is ruining the bankrupt farmers. Sir, that hon. member had 10 minutes’ time to think after he had spoken for the first time, and then, when he spoke for the second time, he repeated the very same statement he had made the first time, one which had also been made by colleagues of his. They are revealing the attitude of the United Party towards the farmer, i.e. that they have no sympathy and no respect for the farmer and his opinion. Sir, that hon. member had 10 minutes to think. Then, when he was speaking for the second time, he said to the Minister, “If you establish a board and the majority of the members appointed by you are producers and they approach you with recommendations, you must not believe those people.” That is what the United Party thinks of the farmer. If the farmer makes a recommendation to the Government which suits the United Party, the United Party agrees that such an adjustment has to be made. But if it does not suit the United Party, they want the Government to take a different decision. It is typical of the United Party to use these boards and all other matters advocated by them as a pretext and a smokescreen so as to make the farmer believe that the sympathy of the United Party lies with him. They did the same thing when they were in power. I want to give an example of this. The hon. member for Newton Park spoke about conservation farming this afternoon. If I were in his shoes, I would not have spoken about that; I would have been too ashamed. In 1946 they placed the Soil Conservation Act on the Statute Book, but they did absolutely nothing in terms of that Act. When the National Party came into power in 1948, the United Party had not spent a single cent in terms of that Act. Nor had a single farming project been completed in 1948 when the National Party took over control. By 1967, on the other hand, 247 000 such projects had been completed. This illustrates to us the attitude of the United Party. They placed an Act on the Statute Book in order to bluff the farmers, as they had no intention of applying the provisions of the Act.

I want to go on to give a further example of where the sympathy of the United Party lies as far as the farmer is concerned. The hon. member for King William’s Town said here that he was pleading for the farmers, but last year when he had the opportunity of promoting the cause of the small egg producer, he pleaded for one single body at the expense of all the other poultry farmers. Nevertheless, he now has the audacity to get up here and say that he is pleading for the farmers. However, I should like to read to this House what the attitude of a United Party Minister was towards the farmers in terms of this Soil Conservation Act.

But that would refer to many years ago.

Yes, it was before the rinderpest. They perished in the rinderpest. In the course of an agricultural debate National Party members got up and asked the United Party Minister what he had been doing. His reply was:

That was the reply of the United Party Minister. He went on to say:

That is the United Party all over! They will consider these matters later.

I now want to give a few examples of the attitude of the National Party. We have to take a look at the three accounts in this Budget from which expenditure is to be defrayed, i.e. the Revenue Account, the Loan Account and the South-West Africa Account. In these three accounts we see that an amount of R339 million is being voted in respect of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Agricultural Technical Services, Water Affairs and Forestry—these are the departments concerned with agriculture. The department in respect of which the second largest amount is being voted, is the Department of Defence, i.e. an amount of R321 million. Of course, we do not know how much will be voted for the provinces. But I am sure that if an analysis were to be made of the amount voted for the provinces, and if that were to be brought into account, we would see that the largest single amount spent on one section of the administration of the country, would be that spent on education. This was the case last year. But if we take a look at the Budget we have before us now, we see that the largest amount is to be spent on agriculture. In other words, the Government gives the highest priority to education and the second highest priority to agriculture. Now I want to ask hon. members on that side of this House who have participated in this debate what they would do if they were to come into power? This is, of course, an illogical or a completely hypothetical question to ask. However, would they change these priorities? Would they, too, give agriculture the highest priority? The hon. member for Newton Park said that whereas there had been a per capita increase in the income of the rest of the population, there had been a decrease in that of the farmer. The hon. member for King William’s Town made a similar statement. I now want to ask both those members whether the incomes they derive from their farms have increased since the day they started farming, or has there been a time when they …

No, we are good farmers.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he has never made a smaller profit in a certain year than in the previous year because of droughts, and has then made a bigger profit the year-after that. The hon. member cannot simply compare one year with the next; the hon. member has to take this over a period of time. I now want to tell the hon. member that the figures he mentioned, the figures for 1969, showed that agriculture’s gross domestic product amounted to R1 340 million. Short-term expenditure amounted to R364 million, and the expenditure on capital goods R95 million. The net profit was R900 million.

R682 million.

No, I am taking the whole of the agricultural industry. I am also taking into account those which remained on the farms. One cannot take into account only those which were sold. They amounted to R900 million. This is three times more than what the total agricultural production was in the time of the United Party, in 1948. And yet those hon. members come here and tell me there has been no increase. Those hon. members on the opposite side are talking agriculture into its grave. I now want to tell hon. members that if we compare producers prices in South Africa, the prices of farming requirements as well as the unit prices of products we export to other countries, with one another, we get a good picture of what is really going on. The producers’ prices in South Africa increased from 98,1 in 1958-’59 to 122,4 in 1969-’70. The prices of farming requirements increased from 99,7 to 113,4 on the same index basis. That much as regards farming requirements. The producers’ prices increased …

Rather give us the figures from 1965 to 1970.

This is the change there was from 1958-’59 to 1970-’71. If the hon. member wants information, he may ask me for it afterwards. However, I cannot teach the hon. member the basic things now. The producers’ prices increased from 98 to 122. The price index for farmers increased from 99 to 113. But what is really important, is that the unit prices for agricultural products exported from South Africa to other countries increased from 98 in 1958-’59 to 107 in 1969-’70. In other words, whereas the producers’ prices for farmers in South Africa increased from 98 to 122, the prices abroad did not increase to the same extent. It increased to only 107 abroad. I, as a farmer of South Africa, would prefer to market my product in South Africa and not elsewhere, because the price increases which occurred here were higher. Therefore I say those hon. members are talking agriculture in South Africa into its grave.

I now want to tell hon. members that if I had been able to start a career all over again, I would again have chosen to be a farmer in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the subject raised by my colleague, the hon. member for East London City, namely the meat industry. This is a matter about which I am deeply concerned as I think every citizen in South Africa today is concerned about the meat industry. If there ever was an industry which has lost the confidence of the public then it is the meat industry. The farmers themselves have lost confidence. In fact, they believe that they are now fighting a losing battle. The question farmers ask hon. members on both sides, and I know that they do, is what solution this hon. House has for the industry.

*Often farmers ask hon. members on both sides of the House what the solution to our meat problems is.

What is it?

The hon. the Minister has been here as Minister of Agriculture all these years, and he asks me what the solution is. That is the trouble, because, as far as I can see, it looks as if hon. members opposite think there is no solution to this problem.

†I have read many reports and the Government has even gone so far as to appoint a commission to go into the question of the abattoirs. As I see it, this is the only thing the Government has done in regard to the meat industry. Most of us who have been throw the abattoirs during every recess when we return home and have seen what is going on, hardly need a commission to tell us what is going on. I do not want to use the term, but whenever we go out and meet the people concerned they tell us that the meat industry as such is in a mess. They use no other phrase. I myself am I convinced that it is in a mess. What encouragement is there for the producer today? We must bear in mind what the hon. member for Bethal has said, namely, that we have just emerged from years of drought and that in spite of this the farmer can produce produce for sale. I know there are many reasons why in spite of droughts farmers have been able to produce, but what has been taking place and what did it cost to produce that produce, particularly beef and mutton? It has cost the State a fortune. One only has to ask the hon. the Ministers what they have paid out in subsidies in respect of drought feed. Unfortunately this drought feed has still to be paid for. No farmer received it gratis. They had to apply for it through the Department of Agricultural Credit, obtain loans from the Land Bank or by means of overdrafts from commercial banks. This feed has to be paid for. When one looks at the net return from agriculture today, the profit is very small indeed.

What about the subsidies?

Subsidies are only a part-time solution. I know there have been subsidies, but this does not bear out the argument of the hon. member for Bethal when he says that “na al die jare van droogte kan die boere van Suid-Afrika nog meer produseer as wat eintlik nodig is”.

*This is what the hon. member said, but what did it cost? That money still has to be repaid to the State and other bodies, because the farmers borrowed it.

†There is something else farmers want, namely a stable market. I think everybody in business today wants a stable market for his products. I know of no industry worse than the meat industry when it comes to stability. Here I have—and I have many others—two account sales for sheep which I personally sold in December last year. I was told by my agents that I must hold on to my mutton because the prices would be very good in December. So I held on to my stock.

So you became a speculator.

I am not a speculator. I breed and do not buy. Everything I sell I breed. I held on to my stock until December as advised by my livestock agents. I sent 50 sheep to East London and was pleased with the price. I netted R7-22 on the 22nd of December for 50 young two-toothed wethers. A week Later, on the 29th of December, for another batch of sheep out of the same flock, off the same pastures, I netted R3-49.

How much did they weigh?

More or less the same. Actually there was a difference of one pound in weight.

The grade?

The grades were the same. I will hand these sale accounts to the hon. the Minister and hon. members can all have a look at them. In fact, these are not the only account sales I can mention; here I have others as well. If anybody tells me that this is stability in an industry, I would like to know what instability is? This is not the way we ought to run the meat industry. It is absolutely a hopeless state of affairs. I wish I had more than ten minutes at my disposal, so that I could tell the hon. the Minister what I believe to be the solution to the whole problem. In spite of all this, I know people will say: “Yes, but you see, we have now gone in for the stock reduction scheme”. This is an excellent scheme and one which we on this side of the House have always supported. It is a scheme which is working very well indeed and it will gain impetus in the years to come. In the years to come it will even work better. But has the Government made provision for disposing of or the slaughtering of the stock of which we have to sell under the stock reduction scheme? What provision has the Government made? Nothing at all. Millions of small stock are being sold now, because the farmers are forced to get rid of them. I am a subscriber to the stock reduction scheme myself. I had to sell sheep before the end of this month, otherwise I would have been overstocked and I would not have qualified for the next 12 months. Those young sheep fortunately fetched a fairly reasonable price. But generally speaking, farmers cannot find a market for their stock today. They have to send them away to the livestock agents, but what happens when they apply for a quota? Only in December last year I applied to one livestock co-operative society agency, and they told me that I had to wait for two months for a quota; so I immediately went to another livestock agent in East London and he said “Send them immediately”. While with the other agent I had to wait for over two months. Now I know for a fact that that particular co-op. of livestock agents are over-loading the market ever so often with the biggest lot of rubbish you can find as far as slaughter stock goes. When I speak to the graders in East London they tell me: “Mnr., kyk hoe hang die katte daar”. Lambs not much larger than cats on the hook. I saw one lamb there being slaughtered weighing five pounds on the hook. That is not much heavier than a cat. [Interjections.] Give me time, please—my time is limited. The quotas are being distributed very unfairly. There seems to be no system about it at all, and it is causing great dissatisfaction among the farming community. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member did here, was to give us a long list of particulars on the lambs he had slaughtered, all of which received the same grading. On one occasion he received more than R7; on the second occasion he received R3-20 for similar lambs with a similar grading. If the hon. member had made a few calculations, basing them on the lowest floor price of 15 cents, he would have seen that those tiny lambs of his must, on the second occasions, have weighed approximately 20 lbs. each—which means that the lambs he slaughtered were little more than the size of a cat! But this United Party trick is not going to work. This agriculture story we had from the United Party reminds me of these fashions, these maxi-dresses, which people are trying to popularize. These things are not catching on; why not? Because these dresses have no customer appeal. It is the same with the United Party—they do not have any customer appeal either. It was alleged by an hon. member on that side of the House that we do not visit our constituencies. Good Heavens! Just look at the farmers sitting here, one after the other, as representatives of farmers’ constituencies. I have here particulars I received from a farmer from my constituency recently. He kept a record of the sheen he sold during the period 1940 to 1968. During the years 1940 to 1948 he sold 5 000 sheep on the controlled market at an average price of R2-30. Against that, he sold 62 000 sheep from 1948 to 1968 on the controlled market at an average price of R7-48, i.e. R5-18 per sheep more than in the first instance.

Those prices do not mean anything.

To a member of the United Party they will naturally not look too good. Wei have never said that the marketing of meat is easy sailing. On the contrary, the scheme has its problems. One of the causes which has led to these problems is the assistance this Government has rendered the farmer through the years in the form of drought relief, for example, fodder loans and subsidies. The result was that instead of the number of stock being reduced during periods of drought, we find that particularly the number of sheep increased to the extent of approximately 5 million over the past five years. Not only were grazing problems created as a result of this, but also marketing problems. One may consequently ask oneself whether it was a wise thing for the Government to have rendered assistance to the farmers to that extent. I am not sure about this either. But would one hon. member on that side of the House have the courage to suggest that the Government should not have rendered drought relief to that extent?

There was no planning.

At what stage do you start planning once you have rendered considerable assistance to the farmer? At what stage is it decided that the farmer should not be given any further assistance? In the meantime the Government has introduced the stock withdrawal scheme, a scheme for which all of us have the highest praise. Hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Newton Park, is of the opinion that too little is being paid. However, we should not regard this scheme as a financing scheme, but as a scheme to assist the farmer to enable him to rehabilitate his grazing so that he can have proper grazing on which to continue his farming activities. Surely, that is the object of this scheme. That is the object of this scheme, and it is quite clear that when a scheme of this nature is introduced problems are going to arise as far as the marketing of meat is concerned. This had to happen of course. It follows that people now want to withdraw their stock. In the second instance, problems were experienced with the marketing of meat because there was a drought and people wanted to get the stock off their land in order to reduce the size of their flocks. The result was that the markets were inundated. I now want to tell the hon. member for East London North that this is the very problem so many of our farmers have; every farmer is being advised by his agent not to sell at this stage, but to wait until Christmas. But this is simply not possible. It is impossible for all the animals to be slaughtered just before Christmas. There are problems and there is a shortage of slaughtering facilities.

There are reasons for this shortage of slaughtering facilities. The Government has now intervened and said it will be the task of the municipalities to build abattoirs in future and that the Abattoir Commission will undertake this task if the municipalities do not see their way clear to do so. However, for quite a number of years now the meat producers of the S.A. Agricultural Union have made a point of telling the farmers: We must stand together and we should build our own slaughtering facilities on the outskirts so that we will no longer have to use the facilities of the municipalities. I am asking you now, Sir, what do you expect the municipalities to do? Do you expect them, under these circumstances, to proceed to build enormous abattoirs, if such abattoirs are not going to be utilized properly?

This is a very complicated industry. I say once again that nobody will say that this is easy sailing, but this is the scheme the farmers of South Africa have chosen for themselves. This is the crux of the matter, and since we can see that this scheme is not the correct one, it is our task to go back to the farmers and tell them: You should put this scheme of yours in order. It is our task to do this and not to take the Minister and the Meat Board to task. The National Party Government has never treated the farmers as a bulldog would; we have never grabbed them by the neck, shaken them and told them what to do. The Minister has appointed an agricultural advisory board, which consists for the most part of members of the S.A. Agricultural Union who are constantly advising him. [Time expired.]

The discussion this afternoon made interesting listening, not so much because of what was said, but because of the various standpoints which emerged. What I found particularly interesting from the United Party, as stated by the hon. member for Newton Park, is the complete about-face they have made in regard to certain matters. I can remember that for many years the United Party levelled the accusation at the Minister and the National Party Government here that it did not accept the advice and recommendations, etc., of the control boards. Their argument was always that the Minister should always, when it comes to price determinations, or whatever, acknowledge that the marketing councils are right. Today we now have a completely new spectacle Now the same Minister and the same Government are being accused by the hon. member for King William’s Town and the other members on the opposite side, in regard to the control boards constituted in terms of the Marketing Act, of allowing empire-building to take place. Sir, one cannot for the sake of a little political gain blow hot and cold to such an extent.

There is another thing I found interesting. During all the years I have been sitting listening here to the standpoints of the Opposition on agriculture, their authority they quoted for the standpoints they adopted has been the South African Agricultural Union. Today we now have a new spectacle here. The same South African Agricultural Union that has the nominating powers to constitute the control boards, is now being accused of placing people on those control boards who are unqualified for their work, and hon. members on that side are saying that the Minister should take them to task. This afternoon they have now found another authority. Today Sampi, the South African Maize Producers’ Institute, is their authority. This is the new authority the hon. member for Newton Park quoted here this afternoon, in his very feeble criticism of the maize price. He read out certain quotations in regard to the so-called deficit the maize industry supposedly suffered last year because the size of the crop had not been correctly predicted in determining the price, and because their production costs this year had not been taken adequately into account.

Then the hon. member comes along and promises on behalf of the United Party that when they come into power—that will probably never happen, but at least they always have the hope of doing so—they will determine a produce price based on production costs plus a profit for the entrepreneur. Sir, I now want to put a question to the hon. member which I have very often put to the United Party and to which I have to this day not received a reply: On what production costs are they going to determine the price? Surely it is obvious that if one produces 60 million bags of maize in one year on the same number of morgen, with the same fertilization and the same fertilizer, and if one then has an increase of 10 per cent in one’s production costs the next year but one’s crop is 40 million bags more, then surely the unit costs, the production costs, of a bag of maize cannot be the same as the unit costs when the crop is 60 million bags. If hon. members on that side adopt the attitude that the price must be adjusted per bag to the production costs plus, then I want to ask them whether they are going to calculate for each year, as the size of the crop varies, the production costs on that particular crop and then give the producer a profit on that on a certain basis and then calculate it on the number of bags produced? Are those the production costs they want to take into account? If they do not want to take them into account, Sir, what other basis do they then have for determining the production costs?

The average.

Sir, that is precisely what is being done. But now I want to go further. If the crop is poorer in one year and then very much better the next, and if one must accept the basis of absolute costs and must in addition to that pay an absolute entrepreneur’s wage, then you would in fact achieve the result which the hon. member does not want to achieve; then you would in fact be bringing about instability in the industry, for then the farmer would not know what price he is going to get for his bag of maize the next year. Sir. it is very easy to rise to one’s feet here and make a lot of statements to try to impress people. Hon. members on that side made certain statements in regard to the net income farmers are receiving. They make a calculation. They say that in a specific year the total net income from farming activities was a certain amount. The next year that amount increased or decreased. They divide the amount by the number of farmers in the country and say that the average net income of the farmer was so much. I now want to give the hon. members a few examples. Why do they make such an absolute statement? According to statistics, on the basis of which they advance their argument, their finding may be correct. But such a finding is absolutely misleading because the maize industry alone, for example, is this year going to earn R120 million more for maize than last year. On that R120 million alone the net income of the producer over the total number of farmers in South Africa will increase by more than R1 000. What sense is there then in making statements of this kind? That still does not mean that the wool farmers are so much better off or that other industries are so much better off. With statistics one can of course prove many kinds of statements, but our agricultural industry has also changed during the past few years. There are major factors within the agricultural industry which have an income. Examples of this are the large companies which produce sugar, and large companies in the poultry industry which produce broiler chickens and so on. As a unit farming enterprise they show a very large income. That is why I also say that if one has to base a unit income on an average one will arrive at a certain figure, but if one eliminates a few of the industries from that calculation, one will arrive at a completely different figure. The reason for that is that the turnover of those unit farming enterprises is so much greater. Therefore, the arguments advanced here to prove certain statements, still prove nothing to us.

The hon. member for Newton Park stated that a price increase which came too late or was insufficient, created an unstable situation in agriculture. That may be. In effect it is to a certain extent the case. I now want to state the matter the other way round. A price which is too high and which is introduced too soon, creates far more instability in agriculture. Our agricultural industry has proved this in the past. We can take as example the industries which at certain times received those high prices, and then we can see how stable they have shown themselves to be over the years. We can, for example, take our ostrich industry. We can take our pineapple or our wool industry, in which at one stage or another such high prices were received, as examples. After a time these industries had to adjust to the market again. If we take such examples into account, we can judge for ourselves how stable those industries are.

After that we can return to industries such as our maize and our wheat industry, which did not have those tremendous price increases. Hon. members in this House have blamed my Government and me because the prices in those industries have not increased sufficiently. Hon. members in this House said in regard to these industries that they were pleased that I, as Minister, did not have control over wool, export fruit, and so on. They asked what would have become of these industries if the Minister of Agriculture had had control over their prices. What is the situation today? Those industries over which the Minister of Agriculture did in fact have control, together with the marketing boards, under the Marketing Act, which admittedly were not unnecessarily hard hit by drought, although there are certain parts of the country where this did happen, today have far greater stability and possible prospects of stability in future than do those industries over which the Minister did not have any control. This is not an argument which I am advancing for the first time here today; as Minister I advanced it here many years ago. I said that a price for a product which was too high, was not always the solution and did not always result in stability. On the contrary, it could in fact have precisely the opposite effect. If, at some stage or another, the price increases too sharply, the entire economic structure adjusts itself to that price. The land prices and the entire structure of the industry adjusts itself to that. That is one of the problems we are saddled with today in the wool industry. By comparison our wool prices today are not on an average much higher or much lower than they were prior to 1948. On the contrary, if one takes the value of money, etc., into consideration, they are more or less on the same basis they were on during and immediately after the war years. But then we had the great boom period. What happened then? The entire economic structure of the wool industry then adjusted itself to the boom period. Now it is back on its old basis. Where is the stability in the industry?

It is an export product and you can do nothing about it.

Where is the stability in the industry? One cannot merely make statements such as the hon. member made when he said that the prices which are being adjusted, are being adjusted too late and that the adjustment is too low. There will always be a difference of opinion. Every farmer would like to receive more for his produce, but when one is dealing with the stability of an industry, then an unsound high price adjustment, in spite of increases in costs, is far more dangerous than one which is normally adjusted in accordance with certain economic principles.

The hon. member discussed the problem of the marketing of meat. In addition he mentioned the shortage of facilities. Hon. members said that the Government had introduced the withdrawal scheme without making provision for facilities for slaughtering that stock. One cannot create facilities, or too many of them, for an out of the ordinary situation which may not last a long time. Those facilities cost money; such facilities must be economic. One cannot establish facilities which will in future place a burden on the producer although he will not need them. Nobody denies that there are problems in regard to the marketing of meat. The situation must be remedied in a realistic way. There are reasons for it. There is a shortage of slaughtering facilities in our controlled areas. There are very good reasons for that. Some of the reasons could perhaps have been foreseen. Here in south Africa we are dealing with a scheme according to which auctions on the hook are held in the controlled areas. The farmers say that that scheme results in certain problems and has deficiencies. The Meat Board which has to implement it, is doing so in such a way that, according to the hon. member, it should be taken to task by the Minister. It must be prohibited from doing that. Certain committees have investigated the scheme. Commissions have made investigations overseas. The Meat Board, together with the South African Agricultural Union and together with organized industry as a whole, have resolved at one congress after another and at one meeting after another that the scheme should be retained in its present form. But there were times in our meat marketing set-up when it was said by our own farmers that the time had arrived when the farmer of South Africa should, through his co-operatives or some organization or other, own the abattoirs. It should be their property. They even went further by saying that the time had arrived when they should be able to slaughter meat outside the controlled area, bring it in and make it available to the consumer. That is a very good idea with which I have no fault to find, but at the same time an idea which cannot be applied under the present scheme. If we were to do that, we would in the first instance have to reduce the number of carcasses on the auction to such an extent that it will no longer be a proper auction. In the second instance it would immediately cause doubts to exist in the minds of the authorities who have to supply those abattoirs. What local authority would then spend R10 million on an abattoir in a controlled area to slaughter a certain quantity of stock if it did not have the certainty that that number of animals was in fact going to be slaughtered there? If that number of animals were not slaughtered there, it would mean that its investment was uneconomic. That is why an investigation was made in this connection. That is why I as Minister of Agriculture went to the Meat Board personally and told them that they must take into account the position which was arising as a result of the doubts in this connection which were to a certain extent being caused by the farmers themselves, farmers’ organizations, etc., and the fact that we would not under these circumstances find a local authority which would be prepared to establish an abattoir without guarantees, guarantees which no-one could give it. It was eventually decided to retain the auctions on the hook scheme in the controlled areas, as I stated here last year. I also said that local authorities, if they wished, would be given the first opportunity to establish abattoirs within their municipal areas. This has always, over the years, been the function of local authorities, and I still regard it as their function today.

During the Budget debate the hon. member for Mooi River accused me of not having seen to it that adequate slaughtering facilities were established in the Durban municipal area. The impression he tried to create was that it was the Minister who was delaying the establishment of these facilities, or making the establishment of these facilities impossible.

Nonsense.

Yes, that is what the hon. member accused me of doing; he said it was my fault that the slaughtering facilities in the Durban municipal area were inadequate.

When did I say that?

One of our basic problems is the shortage of facilities within the controlled areas. It is no longer such a simple matter to establish an abattoir today. It costs a great deal of money. We have had discussions with various municipalities because I regard it as the primary right of a municipality to establish an abattoir and because a municipality also has a responsibility to the consumers within its boundaries. What were the standpoints of the municipalities with whom we negotiated? By the way, it takes time to negotiate on these matters. In the first instance the standpoint of the municipalities is that they want the guarantee that if such an abattoir is being operated on an uneconomic basis owing to the fact that it is not being adequately supplied, some person or body, the State or any other person or body for that matter, will make good the loss. That is the first guarantee they want. The second guarantee they want is that they should be able to make profits for their taxpayers out of such an enterprise. The Durban municipality is one of those that want this guarantee. Now to come again to my hon. friend, the member for Mooi River. The Durban municipality demands that over and above its interest and redemption of the costs of the abattoir, it wants 4 per cent on that abattoir to pay to its taxpayers.

It is getting that today.

Does the hon. member agree that we should give the Durban municipality what it is asking for? That is a simple question. I cannot understand why the hon. member is afraid to reply to it.

My standpoint is that it is in the first instance the duty of the municipality to provide the facilities. In the second instance, this must be done as cheaply as possible. If one were today, to allow an abattoir costing R9 million, R10 million, R11 million or R12 million, a profit of 4 per cent over and above all its cost so that the taxpayer could benefit from it, it would mean that one would have to allow an abattoir such as the one at Durban, which will cost R13 or R14 million, R500 000 per year over and above the costs. If one were to do that in the nine controlled areas—for if one allows this in the one case, one must allow it in the others as well—it would mean that over and above the total costs involved in running the abattoirs the meat industry would still have to pay R4½ million profit so that the municipalities could pay out this amount to their taxpayers.

What would meat cost then?

Now I want to ask hon. members whether a Minister can allow such a situation to continue? Very well then, so there are negotiations now. Negotiations take time. Not only do they take time, but one cannot have negotiations with people who are not prepared to give way on that point. We have now, for argument’s sake, said that we will allow I per cent, and that is also out of the ordinary, but if they do not wish to do so some other authority must be allowed to establish abattoirs. We do not at the present moment have other authorities in this country. This means that if the Abattoir Commission has to establish those abattoirs, it will have to begin from scratch with an entire staff in order to make that possible. It is not as easy as all that. We are not dealing with small amounts. We are dealing here with large amounts and with money which the cattle and sheep farmer will eventually have to pay. Now I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side whether they think a Minister can simply be irresponsible and accept those standpoints of the municipalities? Can he allow those extra costs to be borne by the industry, or must we try to do this by way of negotiations?

Yes.

The hon. member on the opposite side is saying “yes”, but then he must not make an irresponsible attack on me if he is sitting in this House.

I did not do that.

But this is what the hon. member did under the Budget; how can he say he did not do it? I was here. For that reason I am saying that this is one of the basic problems we are faced with. The problem is a shortage of facilities. We gave the municipalities certain guarantees under which they can establish abattoirs. The Johannesburg municipality is now going to establish abattoirs. At the present stage we have not yet received a final reply from Durban. Durban has not yet let us know whether it is prepared to establish abattoirs for 1 per cent profit over and above the operating costs, or whether it wants the 4 per cent which it has insisted on. I want to mention here that the industry cannot allow it to have that 4 per cent profit because the industry cannot afford it.

I should just like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. In regard to the 1 per cent which is the point at issue in the negotiations with the Durban Municipality, I want to ask whether what is concerned here is the price which it will cost as from this moment on or whether it is the 1 per cent of the price as they revalue the abattoirs from time to time?

There can of course be different ways of calculating it. There are many factors which have to be taken into account. The one is whether they are the owners of the land or whether they are leasing the land, etc. The 1 per cent they receive is on the total costs invested in the abattoirs, and as they are renewed from time to time and the facilities expanded. It is therefore 1 per cent of all those total investments. Durban, however, wants 4 per cent.

Are they receiving 4 per cent today?

No, they are not receiving 4 per cent today. To tell the truth, they are receiving nothing today. They are today operating the abattoirs on the basis on which they have operated it in the past, in other words without profit, as Cape Town and Johannesburg are doing at the moment. They are not receiving 4 per cent on their total investment. That is why I say that this question of the marketing of meat is a particularly difficult one. A person can have different standpoints in that regard. One can conceive of different schemes. It is not necessarily the case that the Minister should think precisely as the Meat Board does in regard to the scheme, just as the hon. member for East London City does not think precisely as they do. The situation is that one is dealing with an organized industry, an industry with a board constituted in terms of the Marketing Act. This board is made up of producer members as stipulated in its scheme. The producer members are nominated and appointed by the farmers and their own organizations. The hon. member for East London North asked whether it was a healthy state of affairs that this organization should have such an important say on the Meat Board. This is not a new principle. In the nomination of members of the Wool Board there is only one organization of producer members that is able to do so.

That is the only organization there is.

That may be, but it is only the National Woolgrowers’ association that nominates the total number of members. I am not talking about the constitution of the board now. This is not, therefore, a new principle. If a body which is constituted by the co-operative societies in South Africa, which belong to the farmers, and the South African Agricultural Union, which is established by organized agriculture, cannot constitute a representative body of producer members on the board, I want to ask hon. members what other body is able to do so. What other body must do it then? Even if I as Minister should perhaps have other ideas in regard to this scheme, I have a board which has to implement this scheme and it is easy for the hon. member for East London City to say that I must take the board to task. If such an unwilling board then has to implement a scheme, can the hon. member imagine what a failure that would be? There are problems in regard to marketing, particularly as a result of the heavy pressure which is being exerted on it by the withdrawal schemes, droughts and other circumstances. There is also the problem that there are not enough facilities in controlled areas. This is, however, a long-term problem which must be remedied gradually. In this way the abattoirs which are shortly going to be built by the Johannesburg Municipality, are going to bring a certain measure of relief. Sir, the hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about the small butchers and calculated that there were many of them who only sold five or six sheep per day, and that the producer was suffering as a result. He said that some plan had to be devised to do something about that, but I now want to ask him what plan. Must the Minister prohibit those people from slaughtering? What plan must be devised if there are butchers who can make a living out of selling six sheep per day?

Fewer licences should be issued.

When a licence has already been issued, must it then be cancelled when the butcher needs less than six sheep per day? Is the hon. member prepared to apply this principle in agriculture as well? Must the farmer who produces less than a certain quantity, and is therefore farming on an uneconomic basis and cannot make a good living, also be prohibited from farming?

You say that he will then have to give it up in any case.

That is the same principle. The small butcher will also have to give it up if he cannot make a living. I am simply mentioning these facts because these stories, arguments and statements from hon. members opposite are not worth discussing. Let us rather discuss the many bigger problems we have in agriculture today. Let us consider these problems and try to find a solution to them, instead of indulging in arguments of this kind across the floor of the House. These arguments will in any case have no effect on agriculture. They are quite simply statements which are being made in order to obtain a little publicity so that people can hear that there is someone here who is saying that there are people who are operating on an uneconomic basis and that someone must take them to task.

The hon. member for Newton Park discussed the financing of agriculture. He stated that the Government should allocate far larger subsidies. He also said that interest should also be subsidized to a greater extent, that for many reasons larger amounts of money should be made available to the Land Bank, that larger amounts should be paid out in regard to the stock withdrawal schemes and that far more facilities should be created for farmers to enable them to do certain things. However, we must bear in mind that the Agriculture Budget is part of the total Budget and is not a separate budget or unit. One of the major attacks made by the United Party in the discussion of the Budget was in fact that the people were being overtaxed by the Government. This is one of the things we had to listen to for days on end, i.e. that the taxpayer was being overtaxed and that the Government was using the money and spending it again in a different way.

Wasting it.

Yes, there my friend is saying that we are wasting the money. Now I want to ask them where these larger amounts which they want us to give the Land Bank must come from. Where must the increased interest rate subsidy which they want come from? Where must the price increases they want for maize and wheat, over and above those the Government has laid down to make the consumer’s price cheaper, come from? Surely we cannot argue in this fashion. Then my hon. friends must say: We are requesting the Government to make these larger sums of money available to agriculture, and you must tax the taxpayer in order to do so. Then they would be correct. The hon. member is shaking his head. Sir, I do not know in what other way he is going to make the money available.

But I do want to agree with the hon. member for Newton Park to the extent that in the financing of our agriculture the Land Bank and other authorities will have to play an ever-increasing part, particularly in regard to long-term financing. It will have to play that ever-increasing part, for the reasons he mentioned, and perhaps for other reasons as well. But the sources available for the financing of agriculture have dwindled. There are other more attractive fields of investment than those sources. Fbr that reason the Government has in fact given the Land Bank R25 million of the taxpayers’ money this year, in the first place in the form of a loan at a low rate of interest, and in the second place in the form of a loan at the ordinary State interest rate, with a possible decrease. It has done so to make it possible for the Land Bank to maintain those interest rates it is at present charging on mortgage bonds. But this, too, cannot be done to an unrestricted extent. We cannot in one year make an unrestricted amount of money available to such an institution, for if we were to do so, I do not know what the hon. members on the opposite side would say when the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance was introduced here. If the excise duty were to increase by another R25 million, in order to make a further R25 million available to the Land Bank, I do not want to hear what they would then have to say about the excise duty. Then I do not want to hear their criticism of the inflationistic conditions the Government would supposedly be creating then. Then the same people who are now pleading for increased expenditure, would level criticism in regard to the existing State expenditure which would, according to them, already be too high.

Let us now state our case in its correct perspective. Let us make our request in their correct perspective. But now I also want to say this. The auxiliary measures the State is making available for agriculture are many and varied. Some have perhaps had the effect that people have found themselves in worse difficulties than they were in before. With all this assistance one has given, one cannot in an industry like agriculture, prevent people from leaving it from time to time. Nowhere in the world in developed or developing countries has the agricultural population on the farms remained constant as a percentage, or have even their original numbers remained constant. Therefore, when you come to a situation such as this, you have precisely the same position you have in any other industry, and this we will simply have to accept. You can introduce measures to assist the reduced number of farmers in the rural areas, or those who are competent enough to adapt themselves to circumstances. But you cannot force a farmer to remain on the farm if his income and expenditure or his debts are such that he can do much better somewhere else; the hon. member will readily acknowledge that I am right about this. It is very easy, Sir, to talk about the decrease in the number of farmers in the rural areas. It is easy to talk about the depopulation of the rural areas; it is a very popular statement to make that the rural areas are becoming depopulated, but then one must decide how one is going to prevent it. One cannot do so solely by introducing certain auxiliary measures which help those people who are able to make the grade, to stay on their farms.

The hon. member spoke about the withdrawal scheme, and said that their standpoint would be that the withdrawal scheme should be made far more attractive; that a far greater amount should be paid out for the withdrawal and that the farmer should be allowed to retain 25 per cent of his breeding stock under the withdrawal scheme. Sir, the withdrawal scheme is such that the farmer is able to retain 60 per cent of his breeding stock and still participate in the withdrawal scheme. Above the 66 per cent he is able to retain, no obligations have been imposed on him as far as the number he may withdraw is concerned. He can withdraw from one-third to the entire number. In other words, it is for him to decide what number of breeding stock he wants to retain on the farm. The hon. member is therefore advocating something here which has already been done. Then the hon. member said a very interesting thing; he said that the United Party’s standpoint would be the following: When they compensate a person for the withdrawal of his stock, they will impose certain obligations on him. The farmer will have to run his farm in a certain way, he will have to construct camps in terms of the Soil Conservation Act and he will not qualify for an interest subsidy on a mortgage bond either.

If he elects to go in for this scheme.

Yes, if he elects to go in for the withdrawal scheme; then the hon. member will make all those conditions applicable to him, and he will not qualify for an interest subsidy on his mortage bond either. I now want to put this question to the hon. member: If a person has a Large mortgage bond on his farm on which he has to pay 9 per cent interest and he may either pay 1½ per cent less and continue with his stock-farming or else he must withdraw at R3 per sheep, or, just say for example R4, which the hon. member will give him, and then lose his interest subsidy, how many farmers does he think will go in for the withdrawal scheme? Does he think there will then be anybody who will go in for the withdrawal scheme? For what the farmer is then getting on the one hand, he will be losing on the other in the form of the interest subsidy. Then one will, after all, not be making this shceme at all attractive for him. Sir, my standpoint is also that farmers who are being assisted by the State must as far as possible apply soil conservational farming practices, but it is not always so easy to say “If you do not do so, you do not qualify for auxiliary measures”, for if you make a withdrawal scheme available to the farmer, why should he then put up a fence; why should he install a drinking trough, for after all, he has no stock now.

But surely he carries on again after five years.

That is another matter. If he begins again one day, then you can say to him “If I help you again with stock, then I will only help you on condition you do these things”. But it seems to me to be a very ill-considered scheme to say to the farmer: “If you withdraw, you must do these things”, because he has a farm which has been withdrawn, on which there are no sheep; there are only a few excellent drinking troughs and a few very good fences, and he is sitting in the town.

Sir, I think I have now replied to the basic questions. I just want to say this to the hon. member for East London City. He mentioned the Rhodesian system of marketing meat, and said that it was a system which gave the farmer an assurance. Sir, I do not for one moment want to criticize the Rhodesian system. Under their circumstances it is probably the best system one can follow. But we must understand that our circumstances are completely different to those in Rhodesia. Rhodesia is to a large extent a country which exports meat. It is primarily a producer of beef only. It does not have many sheep of different kinds—as the hon. member there said, from a cat to a large wether or an old ewe—as we have in the Karoo. That is not what they have to sell at all. To apply that system in Rhodesia to South Africa cannot work either; for ours is a country which is still importing meat. We are still importing meat from Rhodesia, Botswana and other places. That Rhodesian scheme, which the hon. member is suggesting, cannot therefore be applied, just like that, to us. I can see how it could perhaps still work in regard to beef in South Africa, but I cannot see how it could work in the case of mutton. They cannot freeze mutton and export it, because there is no overseas market for it when they have to cope with the large demand. I do think, therefore, that there is still a possibility of changing and improving our meat marketing scheme. Sometimes there is perhaps control which is not necessary to achieve the objectives of the scheme. Let us do this in an evolutionary and not a revolutionary way.

Then there is still another matter I want to discuss, i.e. the statement which is so often made in regard to the burden of debt of the farmers. The figure is so easily used. All of us know, and I want to say this as well, that as a result of the droughts and other circumstances, our farmers’ debts in general have increased considerably in South Africa over the past few years. I am not talking about the exceptions. Their burden of debt has increased. There was a drought lasting for many years throughout the entire country, an almost unprecedented drought. But now we speak so easily of the amount of R1 300 million, and say that that is the burden of debt of the farmers. When we toss such an amount across the floor of this House so easily, we must have a look at it. If there are 90 000 farmers who owe R1 300 million in the form of mortgage bonds, overdrafts, etc., we say that that is the burden of debt in agriculture. I think that it is completely incorrect to say that. That farmer who has the mortgage bond or the overdraft does not have it in respect of agriculture only—he often has it in respect of a boat which he bought to catch fish with at sea. He often has it in respect of a seaside cottage …

Or in respect of a Cadillac.

… or possibly in respect of a Cadillac, as my hon. friend there has just said. He often has it in respect of shares he holds in some company or other. During the holidays I went to one of the beaches. There I did not see one. but several, farmers who have a seaside cottage, a special pick-up truck to tow a boat with, and a luxury boat, apart from other things as well. Now, surely we cannot say that those farmers who have all those possessions and an overdraft at the bank owe that money in respect of agriculture. We must at least try to qualify the matter when we say this.

The gross revenue of agriculture is R1 340 million, as has been quoted here today. The gross revenue for one year is less than the total burden of debt, which includes all these expenses I have just mentioned now. Are we in agriculture consequently in such a weaker position than the other industries? That is why I say that because the Government is fully aware of the problems of agriculture, of the drought conditions. the increase in the cost of our by port products such as deciduous fruit and canned products over which they have no control, it will be prepared to help support these industries in difficult times. To advocate an unrestricted price increase here, which could ruin the whole situation, is fine propaganda. It is very popular among the farmers. I do not know whether my friend from Newton Park is so popular. I almost want to say to him that in spite of the fact that he is able to make all this propaganda and I have to do all the defending, I am more popular among the farmers than he is. That is why I maintain that we must state our case in its correct perspective and that we would be doing agriculture a service, not by making propaganda for it for more assistance, but by getting down to the heart of its problems and looking for a solution to them. Not only must we look for solutions to the problems, but we must find solutions which are not going to create more problems in agriculture which will result in our having to render more assistance to them, for then you would really be doing agriculture a disservice.

The hon. the Minister concluded his speech by saying he was prepared to discuss with us the problems of the agricultural industry. I think we have done so up to now.

I should like to return to the point made by the hon. the Minister when he pointed out that he had recently been on holiday at the coast and had seen the people with their light trucks and the boats they were pulling on trailers, their seaside cottages, and so on. I, too, have had the opportunity of seeing exactly the same things as the hon. the Minister did. But not all of these people are farmers. Many of the people the hon. the Minister saw at the seaside are doctors, attorneys and other professional people as well.

That is not my point.

Why single out the farmer as the man who owns a seaside cottage, two cars and a boat?

You are distorting what I said altogether.

No, I follow the hon. the Minister, because his point was that all the possessions bought by farmers might also be included in the total agricultural debt.

Yes, of course.

That was the point the hon. the Minister made. The hon. member for Bethal again made the point this afternoon that if one took into account the total investment in the agricultural industry and the total debt of the farmers, the debt ratio of the farmer was not too bad. According to that hon. member the debt ratio was good. Now the hon. the Minister comes along and says if the farmers have debts, we are to bear in mind the fact that the motor-cars, the boats, etc., are also included in their debts. The hon. the Minister is making the same mistake today he made so often before. The hon. the Minister and his previous colleague, Mr. P. K. le Roux, told farmers at agricultural congresses that they were finding themselves in difficulties because, instead of keeping their own affairs in order, they were buying too expensive houses and motor-cars and were maintaining a too high standard of living. The mistake of the hon. the Minister is that this is his approach, instead of seeing to what the real problems of the farmers are. The hon. the Minister says we never come forward with anything constructive. Today we asked the hon. the Minister here whether it was not possible to apply the stock withdrawal scheme on a much wider basis, not only to assist the farmers, but also to keep the economy of the rural areas going. That was the point. And what did the hon. the Minister do? The moment he heard the proposal and, before he had had the opportunity of considering it properly, he immediately tried to pull it to pieces. He expects us to be constructive and to come to him with proposals. But at the same time he wants to have the right to pull that policy to pieces. And what did I tell the hon. the Minister?

Who introduced the scheme? You or I?

I told the hon. the Minister we should have a stock withdrawal scheme which would assist the farmer to retain 25 per cent of his breeding stock. If one asked the farmer to fall in with this scheme, certain obligations had to be imposed on him. In addition one should give him a far higher tariff than the one allowed by the present stock withdrawal scheme. In other words, one would, with regard being had to current wool prices, place him more or less on the same basis as the one on which he was a year or two ago. The result of that would be that the normal economy would go on, but that one would at the same time be able to make better preparations for coming droughts. The farmer who joined such a scheme would have to be compelled, for example, to install a proper watering system, to construct proper camps and to plant drought-resisting vegetation. This is a constructive proposal and the hon. the Minister is not prepared to listen to it.

How can it be a constructive proposal if it gives the farmer a higher income than the one he had at the time when it was most profitable to produce the product?

When did I say that? I did not say he had to have a higher income than the wool farmer had in 1951 or 1952. That is not what I proposed. The hon. the Minister is aware of the success of his scheme at this stage.

In the first instance, a start was made with the veld-reclamation scheme five or six years ago. How many farmers have made use of this scheme? According to the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services 2 500 have made use of the scheme up to now. Then there is the stock withdrawal scheme. How long has this been in progress? This scheme, too, has been in progress for a few years. Up to now 2 700 farmers have made use of the scheme.

Is that the Minister’s fault?

I am not saying it is the hon. the Minister’s fault. It is the scheme that is to blame. The scheme is not attractive enough. For that reason farmers are simply not prepared to make use of the scheme.

The scheme is attractive to 5 000 and not to the other 5 000.

At this stage the scheme will be attractive to the farmer who has virtually been ruined during the drought. It is also attractive to that farmer who is sufficiently well-to-do. But the scheme is not attractive enough to the average stock farmer. These are the people for whom we are pleading.

As regards meat, the hon. the Minister adopted the same attitude. He said he was aware of all the problems concerning the marketing of meat, but that no one could expect him to take the Meat Board by the scruff of the neck and do something. However, last year when they thought there was trouble in connection with the egg industry the hon. the Minister did not hesitate to have legislation passed.

At whose request?

Quite likely at the request of the egg producers and the Egg Control Board. Today the hon. the Minister is being inundated daily with problems stock farmers have in connection with the marketing of meat. He knows they are dissatisfied as a result of the bottlenecks existing at our abattoirs. The hon. gentleman knows that future developments in this country will cause an ever-increasing demand for meat. The trend exists. But the bottlenecks are arising at our controlled markets. However, the hon. the Minister says he is not prepared to fall in with the proposals of the municipalities, as this will cost a great deal of money. Surely it costs a great deal of money at all times.

That is not all I said.

Surely it costs money to create facilities at any time. The hon. the Minister piloted the Abattoir Commission Act through Parliament a few years ago. At that time it was envisaged that the Abattoir Commission would be the answer to better facilities. The Abattoir Commission Act has been on the Statute Book for two years now, and still the hon. the Minister says the only way in which the matter can be rectified is by way of negotiation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member, who has resumed his seat, has said in his address. I think that we on this side of the House know him only too well. I would rather leave his address at that in view of the fact that we know him so well.

The hon. member, inter alia, again criticized the withdrawal scheme and suggested that drought-resisting crops be cultivated on those farms. Nobody stops the farmers from doing this. To my mind the State has made an excellent contribution by making it possible for these farmers to do so.

Although the hon. the Minister of Agriculture dealt at great length with the matter of the marketing of meat this afternoon, I want to say, in addition to what the hon. the Minister said, that the United Party apparently did not read the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on 15th February, 1971. If they had read that announcement, they would not have accused the hon. the Minister of adopting an unsympathetic attitude towards the meat industry and of having done nothing to try and alleviate this shortage of slaughtering facilities. The report I am referring to, is quite clear. In the report it is stated, inter alia, that the hon. the Minister made an earnest appeal to local authorities to provide the necessary public service abattoirs in their area of jurisdiction as soon as possible. This whole matter was quite clearly dealt with by the hon. the Minister this afternoon. I say again that if the United Party had read the Press statement made by the hon. the Minister, they would not have made such nonsensical statements and accusations this afternoon.

Furthermore, the hon. the Minister promised them a subsidy or contribution of one per cent on distributable profits and added that it was a contribution towards the general rate funds of local authorities in order to enable them to provide service abattoirs for the industry. I do not want to suggest here this afternoon that there are no bottlenecks in this industry, and that there is no shortage of facilities. Supplementary to the two matters I have just mentioned in regard to what the hon. the Minister has done to try and solve this problem, I just want to quote to hon. members the last paragraph of this Press statement made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. It reads as follows—

These are the areas situated outside the boundaries of the local authorities.

And the United Party should take notice of this—

The hon. the Minister admitted unequivocally and clearly here that we are aware of the bottlenecks which exist in this industry. The hon. member for East London City has launched an attack on the Meat Board. I think there is some substance in what he said. However, he went further and referred to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture had said that they, and not the Meat Board, were responsible for this state of affairs. After the hon. member had blamed the Meat Board, he went further and blamed the Government. I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture made this matter so clear that the hon. member should withdraw those words. I have no objection to it if the hon. member wants to take the Meat Board to task. That is the attitude he adopts, but before taking our control boards to task, the United Party should come forward with a sound alternative with which to replace those control boards. On the Opposition side objections have also been raised to the meat prices which have been announced. They said those prices were too low. I want to say tonight that I am glad that the Meat Board, in view of the fact that there is such a heavy demand for meat on our markets, has really seen its way clear to recommend that this will be done. I am also glad that the hon. the Minister approved of the increase in the mutton and beef prices. Normally, when there is a heavy demand, it is difficult to increase prices. In view of these circumstances—and I have referred to this matter in a previous debate—and in view of the increasing cost of living, I am all the more grateful that they have done the agricultural industry a great service in this particular case. I have referred here in passing to a bottleneck in the meat industry. However, I feel myself quite at liberty in raising this matter with the hon. the Minister. It is a fact that the farmers in my constituency, which is a stock-producing constituency, often find it difficult to obtain permits to enable them to send their animals to the controlled markets. It is a fact that the Meat Board of the Republic will not easily give permission for carcasses to be brought into the controlled areas from outside. In principle this does not differ in any way from the existing position, because beef carcasses are brought in from our neighbouring areas. We know there is a very sound reason for this to be done. However, I am merely referring to this matter in order to show that the principle does exist that carcasses may be brought into the controlled area from outside. For that reason I want to advance once more the same plea I advanced a year ago in this House. In accordance with the spirit of the statement made by the hon. the Minister, I want to ask that attention be given to the shortage of slaughtering facilities. I have said that I have confidence in the Minister and in the Deputy Minister. This is proved by their sympathetic attitude and goodwill towards the agricultural industry over many years. In this connection we are able to furnish numerous statistics and facts to prove that the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister are really quite sympathetic towards the problems experienced in agriculture. For that reason I feel myself at liberty to raise this problem with the hon. the Ministers. Although we are aware of the fact that a great deal of capital will be required for this purpose, I think that we will succeed in utilizing in the near future the reserve capital the Meat Board has available at present, i.e. at least R16 million, to alleviate this bottleneck. Hon. members know that a farmer wants to market his stock when they are ready for the market. Farmers then do not market their stock simply for the sake of marketing, but because they require capital to pay interest and capital redemption. In addition, they want to obtain funds for development, production capital, and so on. If the farmer is unable to market such stock, their condition deteriorates and when the producer has to feed the stock in order to keep them in a market condition it costs him a great deal of capital and also reduces his net yield for such stock. This does not do the industry any good at all. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Harrismith displayed a peculiar approach here in reply to the hon. member for Newton Park. In other words, he said he knew the man and the speech he usually made. For that reason I want to ignore him. I want to treat him with the same courtesy.

Sir, in the reply which the hon. the Minister has furnished up to now, he has, as regards this board and its composition, merely repeated what I said before; in other words, that they have been constituted in a democratic and constitutional manner. I want to grant that. I said I had sympathy with the Minister in this regard. I know that he does not always agree with everything the board recommends. But this will not be the first time, nor will it be the last time, that the Minister does not want to accept the recommendations made by a board. He has often done so before and he can do it again, if there are recommendations of this nature with which he cannot agree. I have a feeling that in regard to certain aspects, which I mentioned here this afternoon, the Minister feels just as strongly as II do. One of them is in fact something I referred to, i.e. sales on the hoof and on the hook. I think he also feels strongly that this is necessary. After all, the stock does not vanish. Surely this has nothing to do with abattoir facilities and the guarantees which the city councils want. Surely if they are simply bought up, they do come back to the market. This is, after all, only a cycle which is running for the purpose of providing better quality. That is all that is coupled with it.

The Minister went on to say that we were so fond of talking about the depopulation of the rural areas and that it was a popular slogan. I wonder why the hon. the Minister thinks that it is a popular slogan. What we are saying is merely a cause for concern, for with whom can it be popular? Is it popular with the farmer or with the city dweller, or with whom is it popular if one says that the rural areas are being depopulated? This is not a popular slogan; it is a lament, because it is necessary for this to happen, and in these economic conditions which we have, it will go on happening. That was why I said earlier on that the assistance we had been granted up to now and the withdrawal scheme constituted a wonderful scheme, but I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Newton Park, i.e. that if we cannot do more financially in regard to the withdrawal scheme, it still does not provide us with the method of rehabilitating grazing, animal husbandry and the farmer. It is no use having a withdrawal scheme in which only a certain percentage of the people are participating. If we can extend it in such a manner that on a basis of five years the entire area which has to be rehabilitated, together with its grazing and its farmers, will have been rehabilitated to such an extent that we feel we did what had to be done, it will be a good thing. But we have not yet reached that stage, and for that reason I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Newton Park, i.e. that if we can make it more attractive and more rewarding for the person to withdraw his stock, it will be more effective. And heaven knows, Sir, I am doing so with a heavy heart, for it seems to me that the department has almost gone as far as they can go. But the fact remains that if the position cannot be improved, one will not succeed in roping in the farmers sufficiently to make this scheme worthwhile so that both the grazing and the farmer may be rehabilitated. This will be something we shall have to consider. The Minister will have to consider it seriously. We have already discussed the fact that methods will have to be applied for the permanent rehabilitation of both the grazing, which has been trampled to such an extent and is in such a poor condition, and the farmers. Sir, do you know that in the history of this country there were times when we had I times as many sheep as we have now? I have lent out to an hon. member statistics which indicate that this country had 56 million sheep in 1930.

But far fewer head of cattle.

Fewer head of cattle—not much fewer—but 56 million sheep. That is what South Africa had at that time. All the sheep were marketed; they were all consumed and we did not have such endless problems. The point I want to make is that we now have far fewer sheep, that in the course of consecutive droughts the veld was trampled to a greater extent and that at present the problem is so much more extensive than it was even in 1930, for in 1933 we had plentiful rains and the whole country recovered again. Sir, this thing that has happened to the farming population, makes it essential for us to give careful attention to it and to ask ourselves what method we can apply in terms of which it will toe possible for us to rehabilitate the farmer and our grazing over a period of 4, 5 or 6 years. If we cannot do that, we must acknowledge defeat; then we will have lost as far as the agricultural industry is concerned. I regard it as being very essential that such a method be found.

Sir, the hon. the Minister did not say one single word about the many matters I mentioned in regard to the Meat Board and the functions which they are not carrying out and the functions they are in fact carrying out, but are not carrying out properly. I do not hold it against him that he does not have replies to these matters, but I just want to make this point: The hon. the Minister made the statement here that the scheme in Rhodesia could not be applied here and that if it could be applied here, it could perhaps be applied to the cattle industry. I did not only refer to the Rhodesian scheme in terms of purchases and in terms of a long-term guarantee; I referred to the financing of the farmer and to the financing scheme which has been built into this scheme and which can be applied to both large and small stock. Why can it not be applied to small stock? Sir, it saddens me when I visit open stock-fairs and see at what prices animals are sold, simply because the people do not have the money to buy. I explained that it would not mean any financial loss to the State to introduce the Rhodesian cold-storage system here. If a person buys animals, then he has grazing and he wants to make money out of those animals. Those animals always come back to the market in a better condition and are sold at a higher price than the price for which they were bought. Sir, as long as we adopt the attitude that we do not want to apply here a scheme which is being applied in a neighbouring state and which will benefit our farming population and our livestock, we shall be struggling with a scheme which is no good.

Sir, I have very little time left. I just want to mention one point in regard to the wool industry. I understand that the committee in regard to wool marketing has published its report. As yet I have not had any access to it; I have merely read in this morning’s Burger what was reported to the Transvaal Congress of the Woolgrowers’ Association by Mr. Van Wyk. At this stage I do not want to pursue the matter any further, but I just want to point out that one of the recommendations made by the committee is that two harbours, namely Cape Town and East London, should be closed as wool marketing harbours. I do not wish to speak here on behalf of Cape Town, because the quantity of wool handled in Cape Town is not so much that it would justify my saying that Port Elizabeth could fulfil the function of Cape Town. But the closing of East London is quite a different matter, for East London handles just as much wool as does the Durban harbour and it handles almost as much wool as does the Port Elizabeth harbour. Sir, millions of rands have been invested in the wool industry in East London; this industry provides hundreds of people with employment; this industry provides the Bantu in that area with employment, which is what the Government itself wants. Sir, I do not want to go so far as to say that the East London harbour will be closed over my dead body, but I can give you the assurance, Sir, that the four representatives of the Border area who are sitting in this House, will fight this proposal to the very end. I want to remind hon. members that East London has always provided the wool producers with a market on which they have, generally speaking, obtained a higher price than has been the case on the other markets. Sir, this report will of course be discussed by the woolgrowers’ associations on the provincial as well as the national level, but I hope that when the recommendation eventually reaches the Minister, he will take the same view in this regard as we do on this side of the House, i.e. that a city such as East London, which is already being neglected as far as its harbour is concerned and from which a large part of our wool is being shipped, may not be treated in such a way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the previous two speakers devoted most of their time to the stock withdrawal scheme. However, as I come from a maize-producing area, I should like to say a few words about the maize industry this evening.

It is a fact that the maize industry is the largest single agricultural industry in South Africa. The maize industry, like any other large industry or undertaking, has many facets and problems. There are, inter alia, production problems which are related to the risky nature of this industry and high production costs. There are handling problems which are related to mechanization. There are storage problems which are related to grain elevators and other storage facilities. There are distribution problems which are related to the fact that maize in large quantities is not readily available in our remote rural consumer areas. There are export problems which are related to our methods, of export and the fact that we have varying quantities of maize available for export each year. There are price problems relating to the income position of the maize farmers and the paying ability of the consumer. There are economic problems relating to the general economic position of our country. I have mentioned only a few of these facets. If we want to develop this, our largest single agricultural industry, which I believe is undoubtedly a strategic industry to South Africa, to its fullest potential in the interests of the country as a whole and also in the interests of every maize producer, these problems require the full-time attention of experts in respect of each of these facets I have mentioned, because each of them forms a field of study on its own. I think I may safely say that in my opinion such an intensive study of these facets of the maize industry should receive greater attention in the future than is the case at present.

But I do not want to dwell on this any longer. This evening I want to make a plea for our country’s small maize fanners, of whom there are thousands. The unofficial figure shows that there are 30 000 maize farmers in South Africa. In order to give an indication of how many small maize farmers there are, I want to mention a few figures based on the average producer output over the past 12 years. Fifty per cent of these 30 000 maize farmers had an average annual producer output of less than 1 000 bags over the past 12 years. I have to admit that this group consists predominantly of mixed farmers. But maize production plays an important part in the economic profitability of their farming operations. Thirty per cent of these farmers produced from 1 000 to 2 000 bags of maize per year. Eighteen per cent produced from 2 000 to 5 000 bags per year. 1,5 per cent of them produced from 5 000 to 10 000 bags of maize per year, and only 0,5 per cent of these 30 000 maize farmers succeeded in maintaining an average annual production of more than 10 000 bags of maize over the past 12 years. Now I want to say that in our price policy for the maize industry we should not be over-sensitive to the fact that this 0,5 per cent of farmers are making a good deal of money out of the maize industry. As it is, we can get at them by means of income tax. We must think of those thousands—80 per cent in total—who produced fewer than 2 000 bags of maize per year over the past 12 years. The 2 per cent of them producing more than 5 000 bags of maize per year are not capable of supplying this country with enough maize. For that we require the assistance of every small maize producer. Therefore, as I have said, I want to make a plea for the small maize farmers. To many of them maize production has to a large extent become uneconomical, not necessarily because they themselves are uneconomic or unscientific farmers, but because the increase in production costs over this period contributed to their units having become uneconomical. I would say the position should really have been just the reverse. With our improved farming methods and with the science and technology at our disposal, we should have succeeded in converting a large number of our uneconomic units into economic units, but that has not happened. Therefore we have to accept the fact that we have thousands of small maize farmers in our midst, farmers we cannot eliminate overnight. We must assure these people of a decent living, because circumstances over which they have no control have left them with uneconomic units.

In the meantime these people, I would say, have done everything in their power to combat the increasing production costs. As a result of improved farming methods, better use of mechanization, greater application of fertilizers, more effective eradication of weeds, combating of wind erosion in windswept areas, production has risen considerably in the past number of years. That is a fact. Therefore I want to take off my hat to these tough, tenacious people who, have had to make a living out of one of the most risky and nerve-racking agricultural industries in South Africa, i.e. the maize industry. For the small farmer the numerous appeals to increase production so as to be able to combat the increasing production costs have not meant any appreciable financial gain, if any gain at all. An increase of production in the maize industry cannot be achieved by working harder or by working longer hours. It can only be done by spending more capital on modern implements, applying greater quantities of fertilizers, using better seed and cultivating the land more scientifically and more intensively. All these things cost a considerable amount of money. The farmers have responded to the call to increase production. Every good year indicates what the maize farmer in particular is capable of—but he has spent money in order to do so. Unfortunately it is the position that this annual capital expenditure is not an investment for the future as far as the maize industry is concerned. Every year has to look after itself. It is also a fact that crop failures and droughts have consumed millions of rands of the maize farmers which we will never be able to recover. However, no one can do anything about these things, and I am not making a plea_ in this regard either. These are simply risks attached to the industry.

Therefore, the position is that some good crops in a fairly good year have saved the small farmers from complete ruin. Production costs, inter alia, have been responsible for the fact that the maize industry and agriculture as a whole have not been able to maintain their relative position in respect of other sectors in the national economy. I want to say that we must not make the mistake—I am not saying we are doing so—of thinking that one reasonable crop after a series of crop failures has completely saved the position of the maize farmer. In the years ahead we shall have to give serious consideration to special measures to stabilize the position of the small maize farmer in particular in the maize industry.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.