Mr. Chairman, for weeks we were eagerly awaiting the speech made by the hon. the Minister yesterday. The hon. the Minister spoke for an hour yesterday afternoon and in that hour gave agriculturists, particularly the farmers in the meat industry, no hope for the future whatsoever. I, and all of us on this side of the House, regret that the Minister spent that hour in putting forward criticisms and in finding excuses for his department’s failure. According to this morning’s Burger he even went so far as to say—

The hon. the Minister then went further …

Quote from his Hansard.

The Minister’s Hansard is the same. I was here yesterday and I heard the hon. the Minister’s speech.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may the hon. member quote from a newspaper report on a debate which is now taking place here?

Why not? I am quoting the Minister.

Order!

Quote from Hansard.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to quote from a newspaper report dealing with this debate. He may only quote from Hansard.

Very well, Mr. Chairman; I will then refer to what I actually heard the hon. the Minister say yesterday. The Minister went on to say that the farmers’ debts did not consist only of agricultural debts, but that they also owed money on houses along the beaches, on holiday houses, on boats …

And on Cadillacs!

… and on shares in companies. An hon. member on this side then interjected, “And on Cadillacs?” and the hon. the Minister replied: “Ja, en Cadillacs ook”. Sir, there was a time when certain farmers could drive about the country in Cadillacs and, what is more, they could pay for those Cadillacs. But today there are very few farmers who can afford a Volkswagen, and many of those Volkswagens are not even paid for.

That is a reflection on the farmers.

Sir, I only have ten minutes. Unfortunately the Minister, as I say, gave us no direction whatsoever; he gave this House and agriculture no lead whatsoever yesterday in the whole hour which he had at his disposal. He held out no hope for agriculture whatsoever either. All he did was to make excuses. I agree that it is a very complex problem, particularly when one thinks of the meat industry. In this industry, when selling meat for human consumption, we have high-grade meat which causes no problem at all. Everybody enjoys high-grade meat and what is more it is easy to prepare. It is the lower-grade meats, which create the problem. It is the lower-grade meats, which I mentioned yesterday in a short speech, which cause the bottle-necks.

Cats.

Yes, what I described as “cats on the hook”. It is the lower-grade meats with which certain livestock agents flood the market, and this is where the bottleneck arises. I believe that it is sacrilege to cut an animal’s throat before it is ready for human consumption. I believe that it is absolutely wrong, and this is where we are going wrong in the industry and where the Government is failing in the meat industry. Once an animal’s throat is cut it is finished, and it is finished for the producer too. He has no more say over that animal; it is dead and gone for ever and ever. This is in the main low-grade meat. We are not complaining about the high grades. The hon. the Minister asked me yesterday for a solution. Sir, I do not blame him, because in a speech lasting an hour he could not give us a solution. It is not my habit to give my opponents a solution. I believe that when we are in power we will have the solution, and in fact we have got it. But, Sir, the position is so serious in the meat industry today, that I believe we have reached a stage where we will have to assist this Government. I will therefore give the hon. the Minister what we regard as the ultimate solution to the meat industry. I want the hon. the Minister to listen to this. I believe that we must provide for the storage of all surplus meat in the flush season and that we must also ensure an even distribution of meat in the lean season. The hon. the Minister will ask me how one can do this. I will tell him how it can be done. For the storage of surplus meat in the flush season we have only got to go over our borders into Swaziland and Rhodesia, and if you are a Minister you can go farther afield and see what other countries are doing. There are many ways of storing meat in the flush season. It can be stored on the hoof, as the hon. member for East London City suggested yesterday. That is, the system which is being practised in Rhodesia and it is a very good system. They keep the animal alive as long as possible and under no conditions do they cut that animal’s throat until it is ready for human consumption. They keep it on the hoof. In Rhodesia the cold storage company takes, say, 500 steers, as quoted yesterday by the hon. member for East London City, which are not ready for sale. They are then weighed on the scale and they are then sold to another farmer who has grazing available but not the cash. This farmer then grazes them until they reach a saleable condition for a year or two and he pays 6 per cent interest. So there is no exchange of money at all, and the farmer brings it back to Rhodesian Cold Storage and then it is sold.

There is another way, too. We can consider cold storage systems as well, particularly if we decentralize and have cold storages in the platteland. There is a third way. We can consider the canning of meat. Have we ever considered that? But every time we make these suggestions to the Government we get the reply: “Yes, but …”. There is always a problem and we make no progress. This is our problem. We must first decentralize, and then in the lean season we can distribute the meat evenly. The producer will then certainly benefit by it and what is very important, the butcher also. He will have a more guaranteed stable price for his meat in the lean season. It will affect and assist all butchers. Today no butcher can budget at all, especially when the farmer gets the prices I quoted from my own accounts yesterday.

Sir, we must be positive and think big we have to do something, when one considers the low wool prices today. Wool has dropped in price. Farmers are selling their merino sheep and instead are breeding fat lamb. If we do not make provision for this change, many farmers will be in a desperate position. The second reason why we must consider the position of the meat industry today as one of the backbones of agriculture is because of the high interest rates the farmers pay, particularly to their commercial banks; and a third reason is that most farmers still have to pay for the stock feed they bought to keep their stock alive during those critical times. These are the important factors which we must bear in mind, and unless we in this House can give agriculture a positive lead, which is not coming from that side the position will get worse. We have given them years to do so, we on this side will give a positive lead in future and we will tell our agriculturalists what we believe the solution to be. I do not believe this Government has the solution. I attend agricultural union congresses year after year. Farmers come with agendas and resolutions pertaining to the meat industry. Usually they are very dissatisfied, but once they have listened to one or two of the gentlemen representing the S.A. Meat Board and others, they all adjourn for tea and everybody is smiling again until they get back home and get their next account sales for stock sold. [Time expired.]

I did not want to take part in the debate again at this stage, but I am now forced to do so. These two hon. members on the opposite side, the hon. members for Newton Park and East London North, now come forward in this House, as they are accustomed to do outside this House when they appear on a political platform, to try to distort my words completely, to suggest I had said something I have not said at all.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that an hon. member is distorting?

Yesterday the same words were used, and if “deliberately twisting” is said, I shall rule it out of order, but I do not know what other Afrikaans words can be used for “verdraai”. I shall accordingly allow it. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I say that when the hon. members are on a political platform outside they are accustomed to creating the wrong impression of what people said. When coming to this House now, they cannot get away from those methods of theirs. Now they say that in talking yesterday about the debt burden in agriculture, I said that farmers may not have seaside cottages, they may not sail on the sea in boats, and they may not invest in shares, because these things are responsible for the debt burden. And then they add “Cadillacs” to that. [Interjections.] Unfortunately they have now gained an ally in Die Burger as well. It is a pity my hon. friend could not read it. I shall now tell the House what I said, and then hon. members may decide whether what the hon. member for Newton Park inferred from it is correct. I have my complete Hansard here. This is what I said—

Then the hon. member for Newton Park interjected by saying, “or in respect of a Cadillac”. I then said—

There is my Hansard. [Interjections.] If he distorts it, he is guilty along with you. Then I said—

That is what I said. But now hon. members want to make it appear as though I created the impression that a farmer may not have a seaside cottage, may not have a pick-up truck, or may not own a boat. This is a completely false impression, and I repeat and still say that those debts cannot be attributed to agriculture. If my friend the hon. member for Newton Park has a house somewhere in which he lives, and he happens to have a mortgage bond on his farm, he cannot say that house is not responsible for the mortgage bond. He cannot say it is a debt in respect of agriculture.

Then I must have a mortgage bond on the house.

Yes, then there may possibly be a mortgage bond on the house. But I mean if you have paid the house and possibly still owe on the farm. Sir, there are farmers who have investments in various fields and no one has ever objected to their having investments, but then one cannot regard such investments, if on credit, as agricultural debt. And that is what I said. But now hon. members want to distort the entire statement I made. That is what they are trying to do.

We are not distorting anything.

But we know the hon. member for Newton Park. This is not the first time he has tried to distort matters in this way, not only in this House, but outside as well.

As in the case of the Land Bank.

He makes a statement.

On a point of order, Sir, you have given your ruling that there is no other Afrikaans word to describe it when a misrepresentation is made, but you said that if it is said to be done deliberately, you will rule it out of order. Now the hon. the Minister accuses members on this side of the House of distorting deliberately. He did not say “deliberate”, but he is making it quite clear that it is done deliberately.

Order! My ruling was that if it was described as “deliberate twisting”, I would rule it out of order. But yesterday the word “distortion” was repeatedly used and allowed. Therefore I am allowing it today as well. But as soon as the word “deliberately” or “moedswillig” is attached to it, I rule that word out of order.

And if someone says it is done on purpose?

Then it is the same.

With respect, Sir, that is what the hon. the Minister said a moment ago.

No, Sir, I said the hon. members are accustomed to making distortions. Whether they do so out of stupidity, is another matter.

Order! I think the hon. the Minister should not refer to another hon. member as being “stupid”.

I shall withdraw it, but the fact remains that if a speech such as this is interpreted in the way those hon. members did, there are only two reasons for their interpreting it that way. It means that they must have an absolute lack of understanding or they must be stupid, because there is no reason why they can make such an inference. Therefore I say I am quite prepared to withdraw the word “distort” if the hon. member is prepared to get up and say that he misunderstood the whole trend of my speech, but he is not prepared to do so. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to admit that the inference he made from my speech is completely wrong. Is the hon. member not prepared to admit that?

You have called it that often in the past.

I asked the hon. member whether he is prepared to admit that. If the hon. member is not prepared to do so, I say it is a deliberate method he is using in order to gain political advantage from it, or otherwise it is attributable to pure stupidity.

You do not think before you speak.

Here is my speech! The hon. member may have it now if he wants to read it. Here is my speech which Hansard recorded verbatim. Therefore I say that, if hon. members want to argue with me whether the amount of R1 300 million to which I referred is the amount owed by everyone in agriculture, I am quite prepared to argue with them about it. But if they make a statement which is a misinterpretation of what I said here, I say that the inference they have made is completely wrong. I just wanted to put this matter right.

What did you want to say?

I have read it out to the hon. member. Is he also one of the stupid ones in this House?

Order! I must ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that they must give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to make his speech. I can only listen to one person at a time. Now I must try to listen to everyone and I find that impossible.

I want to say that I find the powers of comprehension of the hon. member for Pinelands completely suspect because of the remark he has just made.

There is only one clever person in this House and that is Dirk.

The hon. member’s powers of comprehension are completely suspect. I should have liked to include the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in that, but I do think he is a little more reasonable.

I want to return to the hon. member for East London North. The hon. member said that I had said nothing about meat and the problems existing in regard to it. The hon. member is completely wrong there too. I have told the hon. member that this question has been investigated. As a result of my request to the Meat Board, all the agricultural unions—those of the Cape, Natal and all the other regions, as well as the South African Agricultural Union—decided with the Meat Board that they wanted to retain the present scheme as it is. If the hon. member can convince the farmers that the scheme he is proposing to them is better than the one they have, he is free to do so any time. There is nothing to prohibit him from doing so. He should attend the congresses of the agricultural unions now and then. When attending the congresses of the agricultural unions, he should try to give the lead at those congresses. He should not try to make political propaganda as he usually does; then he may possibly be able to give a little guidance to the farmers. But does the hon. member want to suggest that the Minister should tell the Meat Board and the whole of organized agriculture that they may not or must not apply the schemes as they want them applied after they investigated all the other possibilities, but that I should work out a different scheme for them which they should apply? In other words, the hon. member wants to say that organized agriculture, the Meat Board and the entire industry must be completely ignored in the introduction of the kind of scheme they want. He wants the Minister to force such a scheme on them. Can the hon. member imagine how such a scheme could be implemented if the Minister had to enforce it after it had been rejected by organized agriculture and by the Meat Board? The hon. member must not simply criticize and say that the Minister has done nothing about the matter. I went to the Meat Board. I pointed out to them the problems created by this scheme. As I said yesterday, I pointed out to them the problems created in connection with the erection of abattoirs.

We went even further. We said that if those abattoirs created the problems they do create under this scheme, we would even be prepared to allow the Abattoir Commission to have the abattoirs erected itself. Hon. members in this House agreed with that. When a decision had to be taken as to which body was to be responsible for the erection of abattoirs in South Africa, that decision was taken unanimously in this House. It was then decided that local authorities should be given the first opportunity to erect abattoirs, and the hon. member agreed with that. Because such a decision has been taken, it is the duty of the Minister to conduct negotiations with the various municipalities in order to determine whether they are in fact prepared to do so. If they are not prepared to do so, it is obvious that another body, for example the Abattoir Commission, or any other authority with which they enter into an agreement, has to do so. Does the hon. member now want me to decide which body is to do the work before the municipalities have decided whether they are going to do it or not? I can give the hon. member the assurance that if I were to do this, he would arrive here tomorrow morning with the whole management of the East London municipality to object to it, because he is already protesting in advance against the report of a committee of the Wool Commission on the possible closing of the East London harbour, which has not even been implemented yet. What will his reaction be if the Minister now says: “We are not going to erect an abattoir within the municipal area of East London. It must be erected outside, because the commission is going to erect it and the East London municipality has no say over it.” Will the hon. member support that? Let him reply to that now.

If it is decentralization, yes.

But the hon. member is against centralization as well, and objects to that proposal in connection with the closing of the East London harbour. I want to ask the hon. member a specific question now. If an abattoir is to be erected at East London and the Minister, without any consultation with the East London municipality, were to instruct the Abattoir Commission to erect an abattoir anywhere outside East London, would he agree to that? The hon. member must reply to me now. He must not sit there looking at me as though he does not understand the matter.

I shall reply.

The hon. member can reply now by saying “Yes” or “No”. Sir, as I said yesterday, private abattoirs cannot be erected in the controlled areas under the scheme as it exists at present, because certain functions have to be fulfilled in connection with those abattoirs. A floor price must be maintained and the board must be able to act in certain cases, etc. The only kind of abattoir which can be erected, is one where every person has the right to slaughter. In other words, it must be a service abattoir erected in a controlled area.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. the Minister not know that all our meat markets are within the municipal areas?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s powers of comprehension remain a mystery to me. This scheme has been accepted and approved. The whole of organized agriculture in South Africa, including all the members of the Meat Board, except a few people who are not producer members, have asked for the retention of this scheme. Does the hon. member know how this scheme works, or does he not know that either? This scheme provides that there are to be certain controlled areas where meat is to be slaughtered and auctioned.

We understand that. You need not explain it.

Very well. The hon. member will therefore understand that if we made this scheme applicable within those controlled areas and we stipulated that certain facilities had to be provided within those areas, for example for the slaughtering of 1 000 head of cattle, the authorities concerned would obviously not want to erect such an abattoir with those facilities if we were to allow cattle to be slaughtered at other abattoirs as well and to be brought into that controlled area, because an element of uncertainty would then be created. The authority concerned would not know whether the abattoir would be economic or not, because if it had provided for 1 000 head of cattle, and 1 000 head of cattle not slaughtered at its abattoir were brought in from outside, its own abattoir would not be economic. Cannot the hon. member understand that? He ought to understand it. No authority or person would erect a service abattoir providing for a certain number of slaughterings if it were not sure that slaughterings there would be guaranteed for at least 20 years. Therefore I say it will be impossible to carry out the hon. member’s proposals under this meat scheme.

Therefore nothing is being done in respect of abattoirs.

Yes, precisely. This is one of the reasons, but the whole of organized agriculture refuses to have the scheme changed.

You do not want to do anything about it either.

They do not want to have it changed. Does the hon. member now want me to force a different scheme on the farmers than the one they want? Must I tell the farmers, “You must change that scheme of yours. It will be changed in any case, with or without your approval.” When that hon. member attends agricultural union meetings, he sides with the farmers again.

No. We oppose it.

I have never seen the hon. member take up a different standpoint at any other place, except here in this House, where he is possibly trying to prejudice the Minister. Therefore I said yesterday that we have the problem that we shall not be able to persuade an authority to erect an abattoir without furnishing certain guarantees. If such guarantees cannot be furnished, the possibility exists that such a body will spend millions of rand uneconomically. It must be possible to give certainty. The Meat Board, the meat producers and the farmers themselves, and no one else, caused doubts to arise about the scheme when they started slaughtering outside of the controlled areas. They started making propaganda to the effect that cattle could be slaughtered in South-West and sheep at De Aar and Prieska and that that meat should then be brought into the controlled areas. The municipalities in the controlled areas then immediately said, “We are not spending another penny on providing facilities, because if that meat comes in from outside our abattoirs will be uneconomical.” Surely this is clear. This is one of the very reasons why delays have arisen. I do not want to say that there are no better schemes than this one. Neither do I want to say that I am married to this scheme. However, I want to point out that it is not so easy to change a scheme if the whole of organized agriculture wants to retain that scheme. If the hon. member thinks this scheme is wrong, he has every right to use his influence with the agricultural unions.

The scheme is not enough.

The hon. member says the scheme is not enough. What more does he want?

Decentralization. I said so in my speech.

The hon. member wants to extend the scheme by allowing slaughterings to take place outside of the controlled areas and then allowing that meat to enter the controlled areas. Only a moment ago I pointed out that if we allowed this, even more uncertainty would be created. These negotiations between the Meat Board and the Department of Agriculture have been in progress for a few years already. It took the board a year to decide whether they wanted to retain the scheme or whether they wanted to change it. The board sent commissions overseas to make investigations. They submitted certain findings and after the board had again discussed the matter, the commission overruled its own findings and said that they wanted to retain the scheme. This is the problem we are faced with under this scheme. One cannot make exceptions now; one cannot have two schemes running parallel to each other, in other words, the auctions on the hook with a guaranteed price on the one hand and a scheme with a fixed price on the other hand, a scheme which the hon. member wants to run parallel to the former. One cannot have a fixed price for the producer and a fixed price for the butcher. Surely this is obvious. If we are to have the second scheme, surely we shall force this scheme down to the floor price. Therefore, if the hon. member wants a different scheme, he must tell me precisely what he wants.

I have already done so.

No, not yet. Does the hon. member want a fixed producer price, or does he want auctions with a floor price which can go higher than the fixed price?

Why cannot auctions on the hook also have a floor price?

I think one can have it there too. But then we have to change auction on the hook to one on the hoof. However, that is not what the hon. member is propagating; that is not the statement that was made by the hon. member. The hon. member wants another scheme running parallel to the scheme of auction on the hook. As he said, the better quality meat is doing quite well, but we must make provision for the poorer quality meat. Therefore, according to the hon. member, we must have another method running parallel to the present scheme for the marketing of meat, a method in terms of which the producer will get a fixed price and meat will be sold at a fixed price to the butcher in times of shortage. That is what the hon. member said.

No, I did not say that. Die Burger does not say that either.

Yet it is precisely what the hon. member propagated. Let me put it this way: Is the hon. member in favour of the abolition of auctions on the hook with a guaranteed floor price?

No one has said that.

But what does the hon. member want then? The hon. member wants to retain auctions on the hook with a floor price at the auction. Parallel to that he wants another scheme which guarantees a fixed price to the producer in times of surplus and a fixed price to the butcher. Surely that is what the hon. member propagated; otherwise I completely fail to understand what he wants.

He wants a floor price on the hoof as well.

That is not what the hon. member said. He said that anyone —it does not matter who—should be able to buy in meat at a fixed price in times of surplus and then to sell that meat in times of shortage at a fixed price to the butcher because so he said, everyone would have more certainty that way. That is what the hon. member said. It would be a good thing if we could make such an adjustment; I am not arguing about that. But it would mean that it would immediately create uncertainty on the part of the people who erect abattoirs.

Why?

It would immediately create uncertainty again on the part of the people who erect abattoirs in controlled areas.

But surely the stock sold on the hoof have to come back to the abattoirs?

The hon. member is talking about two completely different things now. He wants auctions on the hook to be abolished completely.

No.

Then I do not understand the hon. members at all. If they do not want that and we have outside of the controlled areas a parallel scheme of sales on the hoof in terms of which the farmer has the assurance that he will get a certain price for his product and that the product must be sold at a fixed price again, surely we have two schemes clashing with each other. Because what auctions on the hook will go above the floor price if, outside of the controlled area, there are quantities of meat which can be sold to butchers at a fixed price? What auction on the hook will give the farmer a price above the floor price if the butcher has the assurance that he can buy at a fixed price outside?

Stock sold on the hoof are usually in an inferior condition. After all your explanations, can you tell us whether you are satisfied that the present scheme is working well?

No. On the contrary, I think improvements can be effected.

Why do you not do so?

I can work out a scheme that will function far more smoothly and entail smaller costs to the producer.

Then do so.

But organized agriculture, therefore all the farmers in the country, are asking for the retention of the present scheme; they are asking for the retention of the scheme as it is at present. Moreover, hon. members opposite are also asking for its retention. [Interjections.] Now I do not understand the hon. members at all. Surely both these hon. members said the system of auctioning stock on the hook should be retained for stock in good condition. In addition they want stock in poor condition to be purchased at a fixed price and to be sold at a fixed price. But surely we cannot have both. For the very reason that there are problems involved in this scheme, the Meat Board has made certain exceptions and meat may, in certain circumstances, be slaughtered outside of the controlled areas and brought into the controlled areas, for example mutton from Prieska. It is in fact the problems that arose that resulted in municipalities not wanting to erect abattoirs. Under these circumstances a choice had to be made between two things: either to create facilities within the controlled areas under the present scheme or to throw the scheme overboard and to introduce a different kind of scheme. But after an all-round investigation organized agriculture decided to retain the present scheme in spite of the problems attached to it, problems which hon. members have pointed out. But now they cannot suggest that abattoir facilities have not been provided because the Minister has not done his duty. On the contrary, the Minister has done more than his duty. For years he has negotiated with municipalities in order to iron out their problems, problems which the Minister saw. He stated the problems to the Meat Board and asked them to investigate the situation. The progress which has been made in the provision of abattoirs has been made because of the very fact that we took the initiative to make this possible. I am not saying that the proposals made by the opposite side are all proposals which cannot work. I am not saying that their proposals are not good in certain respects. But what I do say, is that what they recommend is not possible under the present scheme. Furthermore, they must use the influence they have to convince the agricultural unions and the Meat Board that the scheme must be changed. Then we can again discuss their proposals.

Before the hon. Minister spoke we had a display by the hon. member for East London North. He again wanted to make politics out of certain remarks the hon. the Minister supposedly made yesterday. Although the Minister squared accounts with him properly, I want to make an appeal, on my part, to the Opposition. Our farmers do not deserve the continual politics that is made about their problems across the floor of this House.

Where is the politics?

Let us rather speak constructively about the problems of the farmer, and make constructive suggestions for their solution. I take it that the hon. member for East London North is a member of the Eastern Province Agricultural Union.

I attend their congresses every year.

The hon. member says that he is a member. In that connection I want to quote this afternoon from the Oosterlig of 5th June, 1970 (translation)—

Sir, the hon. member’s own agricultural union does not want it, but he comes along here and advocates that we should change the scheme.

And he says he was there.

I mentioned that.

The report continues—

Sir, the hon. member must first go and convince his own people that the scheme is a wrong one. We do not say that the scheme is a right one.

Will that not be politics then?

The hon. member did not come forward with a single practical suggestion, except to haul the Minister over the coals here at the beginning of his speech.

Sir, when one moves around here in the cities, particularly here in the controlled areas where meat is sold, it strikes one that mutton is one of the most difficult agricultural commodities to obtain on the market. In any cafe one can, from early morning to late at night, and also over weekends, buy butter, eggs, cheese, milk, vegetables, fruit, bread and even broiler chickens, but one simply cannot get meat, particularly mutton, at cafes. We must accept the fact that in the light of the recession that took place in the wool market, an increasing number of wool farmers will begin to devote themselves to breeding slaughter-sheep. Sir, for the purpose of the record and for the purpose of clarity I want to say this: I want to warn our merino farmers please not to go in for cross-breeding now, allowing their merino flocks to disappear. It is a fact that our merino farmers can still market merino sheep and lambs on a profitable basis. I am therefore not advocating here that we should go in for cross-breeding; in fact, I condemn it. But we must accept the fact that our merino farmers will have to sell some of their merino lambs on the meat market. It is also a fact, Sir, that the per capita consumption of meat in our country is increasing, as is clearly evident from the report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and also from the increased slaughtering of our sheep since 1961. It is interesting to note that in the controlled areas in 1961 about three million sheep were slaughtered in comparison with 6½ million in 1970. Some of the control measures applicable to the sale of meat, however, definitely impede the free flow of meat to the consumer, and also have a detrimental effect on the price structure of both the producer and the consumer. This results in the demand for meat not being exploited to the full. Because of the exceptional circumstances in this country, the obvious thing for us to do is virtually to market and use up all our meat locally because, in view of the price factor, we cannot in any way compete on the overseas market.

I therefore, want to advocate, Sir, that consideration be given to the establishment, at our abattoirs in our controlled areas, of a meat processing division where carcasses can be cut up and processed into cuts, where they can be placed in neat plastic containers or packages of various weights and in that way then made available to retailers, cafe owners, supermarkets, chain stores, etc. Sir, a scheme such as the one I am advocating here, would inevitably entail efficient cold storage facilities at the abattoirs for storage purposes. But I claim that such cold storage facilities are, in any case, a basic requirement at all our controlled abattoirs and ought, of necessity, to be established for the storage of carcasses in times of excessive supply. I believe that if a scheme, such as the one I am advocating here, were to be established, one could do away with the requirements, for example, that when a supermarket or a chain store sells fresh meat it must have a butcher on the premises. This would definitely exercise a favourable influence on the consumer and producer prices, and I believe that the establishment of such meat processing units at our abattoirs, together with the establishment of proper cold storage facilities, would promote the free flow of meat from the producer to the consumer, and that both would benefit economically from such a system. I believe that if we could apply our control measures, many of which are absolutely essential—and I am not advocating the abolition of control—in such a way that it is aimed at the easier availability of meat, we would seldom be saddled with surplus supplies of meat or slaughter-sheep. A greater demand and the easier availability of meat must inevitably lead to a better price structure for meat, particularly as far as the consumer is concerned. Control measures that impede the free flow of meat to the consumer, and moreover exercise a downward influence on the price of meat for the producer, ought to be revised.

Sir, then just a second matter: On behalf of my constituency, which in the last few years has been struck by this appalling drought, I want to express my sincere thanks to the Minister, the Department and all the officials involved, for the generous way our farmers, who were in serious trouble, were helped with various emergency and relief measures. Sir, if we bear in mind that, to a greater or lesser extent, the drought prevailed from 1966, and if we compare the estimated number of sheep in our country in 1964 with that of 1970, then only do we get a true image of how efficient, in fact, the various measures such as livestock fodder loans, rebates, livestock fodder subsidies, etc., were. According to the Abstract of Agricultural Statistics we see, Sir, that the estimated number of sheep in the White areas was 36,7 million, 3.4 million of which were not wool sheep. We find that in 1969 there was an estimated 39.9 million sheep of which 35,3 were wool sheep, and 4,6 million were not. In the drought years up to 1969 there was, therefore, an increase of 3,2 million in the number of our sheep, i.e. 1,9 million wool sheep and 1,3 million non-wool sheep. Only when the drought began to assume crisis proportions in the first three quarters of 1970 was there really a decrease in the number of sheep. Sir, it still remains an open question how many of those sheep really died as a result of droughts, if we look at the increased number of sheep slaughtered as a result of the drought and, of course, at the livestock reduction scheme. We must remember, Sir, that at the end of 1970 1,1 million livestock units had already been withdrawn from grazing, as a result of the livestock reduction scheme. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Cradock, who has just spoken, quite obviously agrees with what we are saying. He is saying that the present meat marketing scheme is out of date,

I did not say that.

The present scheme is no good in a modern sophisticated society. We have to get something better and we are trying to suggest something better. Sir, the hon. the Minister says that we twisted the words that he used in the debate yesterday. But our complaint is that what the hon. the Minister said was not doing a service to agriculture in South Africa, and our interpretation of what he said is confirmed by his newspaper. Die Burger. That is what we are quarrelling about. What will the farmers, who are struggling under the present economic climate, think when the hon. the Minister says that the R1 300 million debt of farmers has been incurred by expenditure on such items as seaside houses …

I did not say that at all.

I have not got the Minister’s Hansard, but I think Die Burger put it pretty accurately. Sir. we all agree that the present meat scheme is not working. The hon. member for East London North suggested that we decentralize and have abattoirs in the up-country areas. We on this side of the House believe that this is something which needs the urgent attention not only of the Meat Board but of the Government. Certainly, if we were in power, it would receive priority in our investigation. The hon. the Minister has a problem. He says if we have another scheme outside the controlled areas, the municipalities which are now responsible for erecting the abattoirs will have difficulty and will be reluctant to continue. But the position is that here in Cape Town, where we have one of the most modern abattoirs in the country, already this abattoir slaughters 1 000 fewer lambs and sheep per week than the demand is at present in Cape Town. They already cannot meet the demand that is there. All the hon. member wants is that there should be additional facilities in the platteland, not only to slaughter and to take off surplus stock, but also to feed markets where there is already an existing demand which the local abattoir cannot supply. It may be on the hoof. We believe that the system of auction on the hoof is one which needs investigation. We believe it has tremendous merit. It is done in the U.S.A. and it is done in Britain. Why cannot it be done here? Why must the Meat Board be so adamant that the present scheme is the only possible scheme, when it has already been proved to be ineffective? The Minister knows it, but nothing gets done, and who is suffering all the time? The farmer is paying the burden of the bad policy of the Government which is being forced down their throats.

Sir, I am unfortunately not like the Minister and I do not have all the time at my disposal. I have to say what I want to say in a restricted period of 10 minutes. I would like to discuss this whole subject for a couple of hours, because it is something which needs very urgent consideration.

I now want to speak about the export of 500 lamb carcasses from the Colesberg district. We all know that we may be running into a surplus of production and we all know that hon. members opposite are saying that the farmers must be more efficient and must improve their managerial skill, but every time they do that we are landed with a surplus and the Government has no means of dealing with that surplus. It may well be that there is going to be a surplus of mutton available in the very near future. The hon. member for Cradock referred to the increased production of mutton sheep. I believe this is happening. It is happening right throughout the pastoral areas of our country. There are many thousands more fat lambs available today than there were a few years ago. when the wool industry was still sound. But what has the Government done about it? They have done nothing. I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question not long ago. whether a survey has been undertaken to establish how many sheep will be offered for sale at the controlled markets during the next six months, and if not, why not; and whether any steps are contemplated to deal with surplus sheep on offer, and if so, what steps? The answer I got was: No, efforts to obtain reliable information have failed in the past, and they are not contemplating doing anything further about it. Sir, where is the forward planning? How does the hon. the Minister know that the abattoir facilities we have available at present will be able to cope with the additional sheep which will come onto the market? And if there are additional sheep, what does the Government propose to do about it? Must the farmers keep them on the farms? Because they are perishable items, and if they are not slaughtered at the right time they have to be fed, and that extra feed has to be supplied by the farmer at his own cost. To make the matter worse, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture replied to me that the maximum number of sheep will be slaughtered in. the controlled areas and the balance will have to be taken up by the uncontrolled areas or carried forward. The farmer has to carry them forward, Sir. He has to pay for the carrying forward, and he cannot afford it.

That is the sort of chaos we have at present, under this economic climate when an export market may be a stabilizing factor. What happens? The Colesberg farmers decide that they want to export 500 lamb carcasses to the United Kingdom on an experimental basis to see what the market situation is overseas. I want to relate how we see this case, so that there will be no misunderstanding about it. I have information which makes it absolutely clear that there is no reason whatsoever for refusing permission, and I challenge any hon. member on the opposite side, including the Minister, to give me one single valid reason why this consignment of 500 lamb carcasses from the Colesberg district was disallowed. You see. Sir. the information which I have at my disposal makes it absolutely clear that there was a lot of muddling in this whole matter. There was an unwillingness on the part of the Meat Board to co-operate. and I do not think there was any amount of eagerness on the part of the hon. the Minister to see that this very vital experiment was carried out.

Did you talk to the Minister and ask him the reason?

No, I am talking to him now and asking the reason now. I probably know more about it than the Minister does. The following points are relevant. There is the Port Elizabeth abattoir. The hon. the Minister has visited that abattoir at my request and he knows what a good abattoir it is. That abattoir is acceptable to the United Kingdom for the export of lamb carcasses. There is no question about that. It does not matter what any veterinarian in South Africa says; I am saying that it is acceptable to the United Kingdom, and I can prove my statement. The Port Elizabeth abattoir was visited twice by a United Kingdom Ministry veterinarian, an abattoir inspector, and he issued a clearance on 21st August, 1970, accepting the building as being suitable for the export of carcasses to the United Kingdom. To prove this, the Port Elizabeth abattoir was given an establishment number by the United Kingdom veterinary authorities. It was No. 39. That simply means that if any importer of meat in the United Kingdom wants a licence to import meat, all he does is to quote No. 39, and that means it is the Port Elizabeth abattoir and it is acceptable to the United Kingdom authorities.

It is not as easy as that.

So you see, Sir, we have an abattoir which is available and which is acceptable by the United Kingdom. And we have a group of farmers offering the lambs—and I am sorry that the hon. member for Colesberg is not here, because he should have played the leading part in seeing that this export was made possible. Everything was set for this to happen. It did not happen. Now who is responsible? We want a direct answer from the hon. the Minister telling us who is the nigger in the woodpile. Who stopped this? We want to know. Unfortunately it is a white nigger. We want to know who stopped it at a time when this experimental export of mutton carcasses was so vitally important to the meat industry. I have a letter here from a gentleman in England which I will now quote. I also spoke to him personally over the telephone and so I know exactly what the position is. [Time expired.]

It now pleases the Opposition to split hairs about the difficulties in connection with our meat industry. We on this side of the House know that the Minister and the Department are well-informed about the problems, and it is with great confidence that we leave the solution of those problems in the hands of our competent Minister.

I now want to broach a completely different matter and speak about that. We know that in the near future the Government contemplates certain amendments to our co-operative society legislation as a result of the Steenkamp report. In that connection I should like to request that the Minister come forward with the amending legislation on co-operative societies as soon as possible—next year, it is to be hoped. We know that the co-operative society movement in our country faces great challenges today. Thanks to the sympathetic ear and the goodwill of this Government, the agricultural co-operative society movement has grown to such an extent that it has become an important factor in the economic structure of our country. The following figures prove this: The total turnover of agricultural co-operative societies was, on 30th June, 1968, more than R1 000 million. These co-operative societies’ fixed assets amounted to more than R170 million, while the liquid assets amounted to more than R500 million. Their own means —i.e. their paid-up shares, capital reserves, loan funds and undivided surpluses, exceed R200 million. These figures are very impressive, but the opponents of co-operative societies do not feel very happy about these achievements of theirs. Deliberate efforts are being made today to hamper the co-operative society movement in its growth and progress. Experience has taught us that certain bottlenecks develop on the way from the producer to the consumer, whereby either the producer or the consumer is adversely affected or exploited. I believe that it is and remains the responsibility of the co-operative societies to see to it that the farmer’s products, in their primary as well as their processed form, reach the consumer at the lowest possible prices. I think that this is of national importance. It is true that the primary function of the cooperative societies is the marketing of the members’ products on an organized basis and providing them with the necessary production means. Up to now the co-operative societies have carried out this function with very great success. But the members of the co-operative society today also expect their products to be sold in a processed form and that their production means should be manufactured there. This requirement is laid down, as I have said, because we believe that certain forms of exploitation take place from the producer to the consumer.

Today we must accept the fact that as a result of that the co-operative society movement is heading in a totally new direction. While the co-operative society movement initially evidenced movement on the horizontal plane, it is now moving on the vertical plane. This development results in cooperative societies now furnishing services that were previously furnished by the private industries. Consequently the co-operative societies come into direct competition with private industries. I want to accept that with the laying down of the initial objects of the co-operative societies and their establishment, these secondary functions, which are now envisaged, were never foreseen. The result is that doubts exist in the commercial world about whether the co-operative societies should have the right to manufacture consumer needs free of income tax. In my opinion this is also a doubtful point. I concede that this trend accords with the initial spirit and object of co-operative societies. I want to allege that the co-operative societies do not want to lay claim to privileges they are not entitled to under the present Co-operative Societies Act. If any doubt should exist about whether the co-operative societies, in terms of the present legislation, are entitled to enter the secondary industries, we feel that the time has come for the Cooperative Societies Act to be reviewed so that provision can be made for us also to enter the secondary industries under those circumstances. There is a school of thought to the effect that if co-operative societies undertake the manufacturing of agricultural needs, this should be done in the form of a company. I personally find no fault with this. On the contrary, a co-operative society’s motive should be one of service and not one of profit. Even though it were to fulfil its secondary functions in the form of a company, I do not believe that this ought to be a restricting factor, because the minimum amount of profit is being sought. If the Act could be amended, it can and will help to eliminate the prejudice in the private sector today. It could also help to alleviate the financing problems of cooperative societies. In today’s set-up the agricultural co-operative societies are financed by the Land Bank. The Land Bank only provides finances for its primary activities. In order to obtain the necessary capital for this, it must cede all its assets and property. There is consequently no security for obtaining credit facilities from other institutions.

I should now like to ask that the Government should, as soon as possible, review the Co-operative Societies Act as a result of the Steenkamp report. I hope the Government will see its way clear to including in this Act what we should like included in it, i.e. to make it easier for the co-operative society movement to enter the secondary industries. I think that this is in the country’s interests and in the interests of the co-operative society movement.

Mr Chairman, hon. members opposite often ask us what our policy is in regard to many matters. Well, our policy is always the best.

What is our policy in respect of meat? Our policy is that the people should be given meat. The people should be given lots of red meat. We also say: “Get rid of the red tape.” It is the red tape that is strangulating the meat industry. The case which I quoted here where lambs were prohibited from being exported, is simply a case of red tape. There is a nigger in the woodpile and it is a White nigger. There may be vested interests that are interfering. The hon. the Minister may know who they are. It may be Vleissentraal, it may be another meat organization. I do not know who it is. But somebody has stopped this export of lambs for no reason whatsoever.

The name of our country is at stake.

I believe that if the name of our country is at stake, the export of this lambs meat which is well prepared, would have been an advertisement for our country. The Director of the abattoir in Port Elizabeth said that he would personally supervise the slaughter of these lambs and see that only the very best were exported. Had this meat been exported, it would have encouraged our farmers and it would have brought stability in the outlook of these farmers. In case there is any doubt that the United Kingdom would have accepted this meat, I want to quote the following letter—

This is a plain statement of fact. A certain amount of misunderstanding might have arisen between our veterinary authorities and the overseas veterinary authorities on the question of offal.

Who wrote that letter?

I will give the hon. the Deputy Minister this letter. The letter continues—

Mr. Wight, in his second visit, said certain improvements had to be brought about in respect of the export of offal from South Africa, but as far as carcasses are concerned, there is no problem whatsoever. Mr. Wight assured me yesterday that on the occasion of his visit to South Africa when he embargoed some of your abattoirs from sending meat to the United Kingdom, he did not do so for the P.E. Abattoirs except in the case of offal.

That explains my point. The Johannesburg abattoir is not passed by the United Kingdom authorities. It does not have an establishment number. But the P.E. abattoir as becomes quite clear from this letter, has an establishment number and is therefore accepted as an abattoir for exporting carcasses to the United Kingdom. The person who wrote this letter to me also wrote a letter to the Mr. Wight to whom he refers in his letter to me, asking him what he thought was wrong with the P.E. abattoir. Mr. Wight then replied that the P.E. abattoir was perhaps a little underpowered to reduce the body temperature of bullock carcasses. In other words, the refrigeration facilities are not completely adequate. The cooling process could not be carried out quickly enough. However, this only applies to beef carcasses and has nothing whatsoever to do with lamb carcasses. In other words, the refrigeration facilities for lambs meat at the abattoir are completely adequate.

I think we are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister in the light of all this, what the reasons can be to bring pressure to bear on the Meat Board? The hon. the Minister must tell us whether the Meat Board brought pressure to bear on our veterinary authorities and said that these lambs must not be exported because the consignment has not been given to a particular organization that deals primarily with the export of meat from South Africa. I know that a certain organization even suggested to the Colesberg farmers that if they were prepared to send the lambs to an abattoir in South-West Africa, there would be nothing to stop this export. But how can one possibly send lambs from the Colesberg district to South-West Africa to have them exported from there when one has an abattoir right at one’s doorstep which has been approved of to handle this situation?

Do you not know the reason?

I am not the Minister of Agriculture. I just say that if I had been the Minister of Agriculture, I would have brought pressure to bear in every single quarter to see that this export of lambs meat took place. I believe it is in the interests of the country that this is done. It is in the interest of the stability of the meat industry, it is in the interest of the future of the meat industry that we know that if we have a surplus in South Africa, there is a market to which that surplus can be exported. For these reasons I believe that the strongest pressure should be brought by the hon. the Minister to ensure that this in fact happens. I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister as an ordinary farmer interested in the production of fat lambs what the reason for all this red tape is.

Before I sit down I want to raise another matter, just to take our minds off meat for a while. I have here an interesting letter which is addressed to the hon. Secretary of the House of Parliament, Cape Town. This letter came from the United States and on it is a six-inch stamp depicting a sheep and a lamb. The motto on the stamp is “America’s Wool”. This substantiates a speech I made in this House some time ago. The letter contains an extract from the Philidelphia Times of Wednesday, April 21st, 1971, from an article with the heading “Salute to virility, Cape Town, South Africa”. The following is said:

This hon. gentleman was obviously very impressed with my speech. People overseas are always impressed with the speeches of hon. members on this side of the House. This man says that his father in 1864 drew such a picture to be depicted on a stamp in the American series of stamps. This is the picture of the ram he was referring to. [Interjections.]

Is that a merino?

No, it is not a merino, but it looks to me as if it has fine wool. I think if what I said made such an impression in the United States and if we see that they are using sheep on the American series of stamps, my appeal to have a merino ram on our stamps with “a virile look in its eye”, gets even stronger support.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member for Walmer, who is, I understand, a very good farmer, but I did nevertheless notice that each time he spoke of higher meat prices, the hon. member for Constantia, sitting there behind him, gnashed his teeth. This brings me to the very theme of my speech, i.e. the tremendous gap that does, in fact, exist between the farmer and the consumer.

I am standing up today to stick a feather in the cap of the South African farmer. A tremendous estrangement has come about in the past few decades between the South African agriculturist and the consumer, because we no longer live in a time, as we did earlier, when many of the city-dwellers also came from the farms. Today there is, indeed, little contact between the consumer, the city-dweller as such, and the agriculturist. One can find this not only in social life, where the consumer or the city-dweller tends to display more permissiveness, not only in their political thinking, where the farmer is more conservative and the city-dweller more liberal, but one can find it in various sectors of our South African community life. It strikes one that today’s consumer, or city-dweller, has little appreciation for the South African agriculturist’s task. I think that today there ought actually to be more gratitude for the South African farmer on the part of the city-dweller. I think that the city-dweller ought to realize that everything he eats and every article of clothing he puts on comes from the farmer. He ought to know that virtually every luxury he enjoys today, every glass of wine, has behind it a long tale of sweat and toil on the part of the South African farmer. Then I also think that the city-dweller should be more appreciative of all the problems which the agriculturist, in his capacity as producer, must deal with to keep this population going. The farmer is faced with a tremendous number of plagues that the consumer does not even know of. From the wheat louse to the army worm, from the white-backed jackal to the mildew on the grapes, from the red locust to the liver-fluke—all gnaw at the farmer’s pocket.

Then one also still has the United Party members in between times.

Indeed, there is virtually no disease in the medical dictionary, no plague, that the farmer is not faced with almost every day. All the plagues of Egypt are overshadowed by the myriad plagues of modern times, all of them preying on the farmer. In addition there are disasters such as droughts, hail, winds and storms. They also take their toll. Then, when the farmer arrives home tired and worn-out after his struggle against all these onslaughts upon him, he finds the taxpayer there who also demands his toll. One can almost say that everything, from the wheat louse to the taxpayer, gnaws at the farmer, and therefore the farmer must be very strong indeed to be able to exist today.

Today I want to advocate greater understanding between the consumer and farmer. I think that at some stage or other they must get to know each other more closely. With this in view, I think we should set apart an agricultural year in order to emphasize the farmer’s labours and the fruits of his labours. We must bring the city-dweller to the farm so that he can meet the farmer and get to know him. The city-dweller must know who the agriculturist is. Even the Opposition could profitably do this. For example, the hon. member for Newton Park could profitably make the acquaintance of his bench-mate, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; likewise the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is a very able farmer, can profitably make the acquaintance of the Chief Whip; the hon. member for East London City, who is also a good farmer, can profitably make the acquaintance of the city-dwellers of East London. That is why I say that it would perhaps be a good thing if we were to declare a specific year as an agricultural year so that the farmer and the consumer can shake hands and become more intimately acquainted. I know that we can rely on the hospitality of the farmer. He must invite the city-dwellers to his farm. We just do not want loafers there. The mechanic from the city can get onto a tractor to find out what it feels like to sit on such a monster that he works on in the city with his pliers and spanners. The pharmacist can come along and see what it is like to give a horse, which is dying of bots, tobacco water and sugar. The journalist can come along and see how the seed is sown, what seed falls on fertile ground and what seeds are picked up by the birds. He can even share a pipe with the farmer and philosophize about the future of South Africa. In this way the city-dweller could, with appreciation, take note of the agriculturist’s task in South Africa. He can come along to experience the smell of freshly-ploughed soil and to feel its freshness in his nostrils; he can experience the smell that a sweating horse gives off and the refreshing breeze around a cattle-kraal in the morning. For him the screech of a peewit can be like a rhapsody of Paganini, and the crowing of a cock in the morning like the Hallelujah of Handel’s Messiah.

I am convinced that when the city-dweller, the consumer, and the farmer can get together and shake hands, each will have a better understanding of the other’s contribution to the national economy of the country. For the city-dweller, man himself is the central factor, because man makes the neon lights, the streets, the buses, the trains, etc. For him man is therefore the central figure. Each morning, on the other hand, the farmer is newly impressed by the wonders of Creation, the wonders of the work of the Creator’s hands—the beautiful mountains, the waving grass, the water streams and everything else that refreshes his soul. If we bring these two together, they could very profitably share the same table to see what we can do for future South Africa.

The hon. member has obviously been moved to poetic rhapsody. This is how the great joyous city of Cape Town affects him, coming, as he does, from the wild areas of Middelland in South-West. In the recent past we have had a Festival of the Soil where the same sort of thing was experienced as suggested here by the hon. member this morning. In addition, last year we had a Water Year. These things ought to have brought to the attention of the city dweller the assets which we who live in the country preserve and use to the best advantage of the country. At this particular stage of our economy, and the difficulties we experience, to suggest another festival of this nature may not be entirely justified. Perhaps the hon. member can arrange a special agricultural show which could then travel around the country so that the city people could see the difficulties under which farmers labour, see the mealie stalks which have been blasted by the hail or see army worms in action, or cattle which have been …

Order! The hon. member for Moorreesburg must not sit with his back towards the Chair.

Perhaps the hon. member can arrange for city dwellers to come out and smell the aroma of cattle killed by drought. This is the type of thing which may well bring home to the city dweller the sort of situation the farmers are up against.

But I want to return to the Minister. Yesterday he accused me of making a most irresponsible attack on him in connection with the abattoir in Durban. But that is not so; at no stage did I make an attack upon the hon. the Minister in any respect of the Durban abattoir. I went through my Hansard and I cannot find anything which can be construed as being an irresponsible attack on the Minister. If the Minister is as ticklish as all this, to regard the words I used as being an attack on him, then he is very, very “fyngevoelig” indeed. It is certainly not called for. What I said —and I repeat it—was that the City Council of Durban, as I understand the position, is still engaged today in negotiations with the trading undertakings committee as to whether they are going to undertake the construction of an abattoir or not. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying that the hon. member for East London North is making impracticable proposals when he says that slaughtering might have to take place outside the controlled areas. If the Durban City Council refuses, as they might very well refuse, to erect an abattoir, what is the hon. the Minister going to do about it? Sir, this is the point that I made the other day when I was speaking in the debate, and I want to put the point again to the hon. the Minister.

You said that the Minister had done nothing about it.

Sir, I said nothing of the sort. I did not say that and the hon. the Minister can look through my Hansard. What I said was this—

It is one of the biggest markets in South Africa, but what planning has been done to take care of the situation which has been looming over us for years and years?

The Durban abattoir is becoming inadequate, if it is not inadequate already. We have known for years now that it will have to be replaced. Sir, the Durban abattoir is a special abattoir. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows it. The abattoir is controlled by an ordinance which was put through the Natal Provincial Council in 1934 at the instance of the Natal Agricultural Union, which limited the amount of money that the Durban City Council can take from the profits of the abattoir to 4 per cent.

And they are all United Party supporters.

Very well, they are all United Party supporters; there are no Nats left there. But, Sir, the point is that the Durban abattoir is limited to 4 per cent of the profits that they make in relief of rates, and the balance of the profits goes to a special sinking fund which is used for improvements and any developments that have to take place in the Durban abattoir. The hon. the Minister nods his head. That is correct.

But not other facilities provided by the municipality.

They are limited to the 4 per cent which I mentioned in terms of the ordinance of 1934.

The capital can only be used for the abattoir.

That is correct; it is limited to the abattoir, but that does not help the hon. the Minister. The Durban Corporation is today asking for 4 per cent on the total investment that it is going to make and the Minister, as I understand the position, has offered them I per cent. They are today still engaged in negotiations. I want to know what the Minister’s solution is going to be. The Durban abattoir is an abattoir which serves the whole of the coastal area and the city of Durban. It is by far the biggest abattoir in the whole of Natal. Sir, the position of the City Council is quite easy to understand. This is a health facility. It has always been regarded as a health facility, and the attitude of the Natal Agricultural Union in placing a limit on the amount of more that they can take from deposits is because it is a health facility for the people of Durban. Sir, if added to that an abattoir is going to be created which will allow for exports, and which is going to cause certain improvements and additional standards and qualifications to be called for, which are not basically necessary to meet the needs of the people of Durban, then I think the Durban City Council has a fair case to say to the hon. the Minister that they do not see why they should spend the ratepayers’ money in investments of that nature. Sir, we come back to this question: How is the hon. the Minister going to cope with the problem? The hon. the Minister of Transport has already said that from 1972 he cannot guarantee regular deliveries of cattle to the abattoir in Durban. They will make deliveries but they will not be regular deliveries. There might be periods of two or three days between deliveries. How is the Durban Corporation going to cope with the abattoir that they have now? From 1975 there will be no further deliveries. Sir, it takes at least four or five years to build an abattoir of this size; to spend this kind of money; to get this kind of operation going.

When I said here that nothing was being done, I said that a shuffling of papers was taking place because nobody could bring the matter to a conclusion. Surely it is the function of the hon. the Minister to put pressure on the City Council of Durban, because if they refuse to build the abattoir, then it is going to become necessary for the Abattoir Commission to build an abattoir which will have to be sited somewhere. Plans will have to be made and arrangements will have to be made for meat to be delivered into what was a controlled area. I imagine that if the abattoir is no longer in Durban, there will no longer be a controlled area there. Sir, I would like to know what the Minister has in mind. How is he going to cope with a situation like this? It must be brought rapidly to a head because in 1972 deliveries are going to be irregular and in 1975 they are going to cease altogether. Sir, I do not want the hon. the Minister to say that I am making an irresponsible attack on him. I am merely asking for information and asking that something should be done so that the threat which is looming over the City of Durban and the whole coastal area of Durban and over the farmers of Natal, can be met and we can know what to expect. There is a great deal of new thinking going on amongst the beef producers of Natal. They are themselves extremely interested in outside slaughtering facilities. They are themselves extremely interested in the idea that a public utility corporation might be started which is going to handle the slaughtering of meat. Sir, unless we get some clear directive very soon, I believe that we are going to be in exceedingly deep waters as far as the Durban abattoir position is concerned.

While I am dealing with the slaughtering of cattle, I would like in passing to raise one other matter with the hon. the Minister; I refer to the TB testing of cattle. Throughout the whole Midlands of Natal, which is a very big dairy-producing area, this idea of TB testing is catching on faster than ever before. More and more people are going in for TB testing. The problem arises that if you have a cow which is a reactor, she has to be destroyed. Today dairy cows are becoming extremely expensive commodities.

And very scarce.

Yes, they are becoming scarce and because they are scarce they are becoming expensive. In my own constituency it is estimated that in Lion’s River there are some 10 000 dairy cows, grade cows. The average cost of these dairy cows is rising towards R200 a head today. They are good quality cows, good producers. If, when a herd is inspected, you have 15 or 20 cows condemned, a considerable loss is imposed upon the farmer. [Time expired.]

Sir, in my constituency and in large sectors of the country, concern is developing about the activities of large companies that are entering the sphere of farming. I want to say at once that I myself am not panicking about the matter, particularly if one looks at what is happening overseas. I want to quote a small piece here from an American magazine, Farm Journal, of April 1971. There it is stated, inter alia, under the heading “Big corporations back out of Farming”—

Pity the big industrialist who turned corporate farmer two or three years ago. He poured millions into land and equipment for high-technology farming, expecting fabulous profits from feeding the world. Today he is disillusioned, or limping from the field bankrupt. And all around him, his smaller, tougher neighbours hee-haw a chorus of “I told you so”.

Then the magazine continues by mentioning examples of many big companies that entered the sphere of farming and that have had to relinquish their interests as a result of bankruptcy or other difficulties. They mention, inter alia, the case of CBK Agronomics of Kansas City that wanted to farm on 50 000 acres. They also mention the well-known case of the Black Watch Farm, which conducted the biggest Angus farming project in the country, but which also petered out. Sir, I say that I am not panicking about the matter, but I nevertheless think that the threat is a real one, and that the Government must watch the situation very closely from time to time. Last year the Government gave signs, of course, of being sympathetic towards the small and middle-scale farmers in the advent of such a threat. It illustrated this efficiently and practically with the Egg Production Control Act. I, too, am not a great advocate of the Government always coming along, in the first place, with a negative kind of legislation to counteract this situation. In the first place I would much rather advocate positive steps. There is no doubt that in order to keep the large company farming concerns out, which is in the interests of the country, one must in the first place keep on the land the small and middle scale farmers who indicate that they are worth keeping.

The most efficient way in which to do this is to accelerate the consolidation of uneconomic units. There again we took negative steps which were necessary, by passing the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act last year. But now I want to advocate that the positive measures must also be forthcoming; and although we have certain bodies that can promote this matter, i.e. the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank, it is my humble opinion that these bodies are, in the first place, merely the financing bodies, but that today we do not have the machinery in terms of which conscious initiative can be taken in such cases. I again want to advocate—I have previously done so in this House—that a body or an agency be created with the task, in the first place, of consciously taking the initiative in such cases. I want to advocate that a senior official be entrusted with the task of investigating what is being done overseas in this connection. Profitable investigation could be carried out in many overseas Western countries. I mention here, for example, the case of France, where a statutory agency exists which takes this whole matter under its wing. This agency has the power to purchase land. I think that in many cases it has the pre-emptive right on land. It has the power, when a farmer dies, to intervene and take action to see that only one heir inherits the land and that the other heirs are compensated on a fair basis. Since the relevant commission, which investigated this matter years ago, pointed to the shameful way in which unjustified subdivision of our land took place in the past, I think that such an agency or body could do very useful work.

In conclusion I want to say that there is something else that could still profitably be given further investigation. I know that this is not directly in the Minister’s province, but he could probably, if he is sympathetically disposed, intercede with the Minister of Finance. I am referring to the question of estate duty. I am very thankful that the National Government has, over the years, created the measure of relief that it has done, but even under the present new rates I want to say that it will be difficult, in certain circumstances, for children to continue normally with a farming enterprise that is bequeathed to them. I just want to mention one example. This is the case of an estate where a taxable amount of R200 000 is bequeathed. There the estate duty under the new scales will be R44 500. I myself think that this is still a very heavy burden. Take, for example, the case of the average family which the law usually takes into consideration, i.e. where two children and a wife are left. The wife has usufruct. The two children must continue with the farming, and ten to one there are other burdens as well. I want to say that in such a case those two children do not inherit a big undertaking. They have other burdens, and the estate duty will make things very difficult. This could profitably be investigated with a view to keeping the middle-class farmer on the land, and creating further relief in these cases. Here I am not, of course, advocating specific discrimination in favour of the farmer. It goes without saying that one must place these matters purely on a financial basis, and if further concessions can be granted to the farmer, the same and equal privileges will have to be given to the businessman and to other professions.

I just want to deal with a few matters. Firstly, Sir, on this occasion, a year before the next Budget is to be dealt with in this Parliament, you will allow me to take leave of two of our senior officials who are associated with the two departments Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and Agricultural Technical Services. Both the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Mr. Viljoen, and the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, Dr. Vorster, are retiring in the course of this year.

Mr. Viljoen joined the Public Service in 1924. That is, of course, a very long time ago. He served in various departments, for example in the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Mines and the Department of State Advances. He was vice-chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board, and since 1969 he has been Secretary for Agricultural Credit. Since he has had such a long term of service as an official and has rendered such faithful service, reaching the peak of his career in the Public Service before retiring, I would like to thank Mr. Viljoen for his great services to agriculture in the various branches in which he served. I believe people who came into contact with him as vice-chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board always found him very understanding of the agricultural problems of the farmers, and subsequently, when he was Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, they also found that he had a thorough knowledge of the problems experienced in agriculture and always treated people with the greatest sympathy. We want to thank him very much for the faithful service he has rendered the Public Service over so many years and, as he is now retiring, we want to wish him every success, as well as a pleasant and enjoyable time of rest when he is on pension.

Then I want to come to Dr. Vorster, who is retiring as Secretary for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. He also joined the department many years ago, of course. After a very successful academic study career he started off as a lecturer in 1930. He had matriculated in 1925. Subsequently he had obtained the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees with distinction at the University of Stellenbosch. Eventually he obtained his doctorate as well. All this was an achievement in itself. During the period in which Dr. Vorster worked in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as a lecturer, he also devoted a great deal of his time to research. He rendered a very great service, especially to the Boland region, with his research in connection with the cultivation of crops in the winter rainfall area, nitrogen fertilization, the quality of wheat and so forth. Later on he was transferred to Pretoria, where he served the department for many years, first as head of the Horticultural Division, subsequently as head of the Agronomy Section at the Potchefstroom Agricultural College, then as director of research and education for the Highveld region, and after that as head of the Division of Crops and Pastures in Pretoria. He was also assistant director of technical services in Pretoria. In October, 1958, he was appointed Secretary to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Incidentally, Dr. Vorster became Secretary to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on the same day that I assumed the office of Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. So the two of us have come a long way together in the department; he as head of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and I in the Ministry. Although I was not Minister of his department at that time, I took up that office later on. As the hon. members all know Dr. Vorster, he is not an official who rests on his laurels in the department. He is usually in a hurry and busy. He has also given a great deal of his own time to the department, time that actually fell outside the hours of the department. He has rendered distinguished service to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Various reforms have been introduced in the department itself in his time. I am thinking especially of the last reform which he introduced, in order to make better protection and utilization of the soil the main aim of the department. We want to thank him for his many years of faithful service on various levels and in various fields in the Public Service. We want to thank him particularly for the progress made in the department under his able leadership as Secretary to the Department. I want to express the hope that he will have a pleasant retirement. He has really deserved it. Thank you very much, Dr. Vorster, for your work over the years in the interests of our agricultural industry.

Hear, hear!

Now I just want to deal with a few matters. In the first place I want to reply to a few questions put by the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member gave me to understand that he had not attacked me. I nevertheless understood that the hon. member blamed me for the fact that no progress has yet been made with the erection of an abattoir at Durban. I want to tell the hon. member that when negotiations are conducted with a municipality under the circumstances with which we are faced, it cannot toe taken for granted that they will be concluded without difficulty. Different attitudes are adopted. There are various guarantees which the municipality must necessarily have in the circumstances in which they have to build. The negotiations with the municipality of Durban are therefore fairly protracted and have been in progress for some considerable time. We have solved all the possible problems in consultation with them, except for the problem of the 4 per cent. The hon. member pointed out that Durban does receive 4 per cent on the abattoir it runs at present. However, the 4 per cent which they now receive is paid into a special fund. That fund may only be used for the improvement of the abattoir. The hon. member said so himself. The situation is that, when an abattoir is erected, the municipality receives all the interest and redemption for the total capital investment in respect of the abattoir. Durban is now asking for 4 per cent over and above all the costs which have been mentioned and to be allowed to use it in the interests of the ratepayers in the Durban area. If we grant this to Durban, we will have to grant it to all the municipalities in South Africa as well. As I said yesterday, this would mean that it would cost the industry between R4 million and R5 million a year to pay the municipalities that additional compensation. I think most hon. members will agree with me when I take up the attitude that municipalities should have the first preferential right to erect abattoirs within their areas. However, that service should also be regarded by a municipality as a service which it has to provide to the public, and not only as a service which is to yield large profits to it. It is a service which it must provide in order that food supplies may be made available to its residents as cheaply as possible. This is the snag at the moment, but we hope to iron it out within the next few days. We have conducted frequent negotiations with Durban in this connection and in respect of other matters as well. We have given them a date on which they are to tell us finally whether they are prepared to erect the abattoir or not. We have already put it to them that if they do not build it themselves, another authority will build it. It is possible that the Abattoir Commission will then build it themselves, or else they will appoint another authority to erect it.

Will the abattoir be in Durban?

If any other authority builds it, it goes without saying that it does not necessarily have to be within the municipal area of Durban. We will have to decide about the exact spot where the abattoir is to be erected in the light of railway facilities, etc., and also with a view to serving more than one centre. It may be found possible for two centres such as Pietermaritzburg and Durban to be served by the same abattoir. These two centres are rather a long way apart, perhaps, but I am only mentioning them as an example. The fact remains that that abattoir will not necessarily be erected within the municipal area of Durban, and if that is the case, the Durban municipality will not exercise control over such an abattoir. I may say that, after Johannesburg, this matter is high up on the priority lists of the Abattoir Commission, and I trust that the matter will be settled soon. I should still prefer the Durban municipality, as the local authority, to provide the abattoir facilities there itself, but if no agreement can be reached with them as regards the requirements which are laid down, another authority will have to be found to erect that abattoir.

I now come to the hon. member for Walmer. He spoke on the export of meat. We all agree with him that it is essential for us to find an export market for our meat, but the hon. member will also realize that there are certain problems in connection with the export market. Several investigations have been conducted into the export of mutton to oversea countries. There have also been inquiries regarding the export of very young lambs, one week old, which would then be handled according to a certain process overseas. In addition there have been other requests, to which the hon. member himself referred. The hon. member must keep in mind, however, that our abattoirs in South Africa have deen declared unfit for export purposes. One of the abattoirs declared unfit is the abattoir at Port Elizabeth. Oversea countries are prepared to allow certain quantities of meat, but then the health authorities, the veterinary services here, have to issue a certificate proving that those animals were slaughtered at an abattoir which has not been declared unfit. These are the sort of problems which arise in this connection.

The hon. member also asked why we allow meat to be exported from South-West. The simple reason for this is that the abattoirs of South-West have not been declared unfit for export purposes, while those at Port Elizabeth and other places have. The Deputy Minister will of course be able to deal with this matter in greater detail. He really handled this whole matter. The fact is that we are doing everything in our power to export that meat, but the snag still is that our veterinarians cannot issue the certificate required by oversea veterinary and health services to prove that that meat was slaughtered at an abattoir approved by their representatives here. For that reason the consignment referred to by the hon. member could not be exported from Port Elizabeth. As I said, the Deputy Minister can go into that later.

The hon. member for Kroonstad pleaded for the creation of more economic units. This is something we are already working on, of course. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is already making uneconomic farming units more economic where possible, and where other land is available. I just want to tell the hon. member that it would involve very great expense if it were to be left to the State alone. I shall give him an example. On one of the settlements where there was a water shortage, certain holdings, to which water had been allocated had to be consolidated. To consolidate 22 holdings with 22 others cost the State R1½ million, apart from the amount the purchaser of those holdings had to pay. Thus it is an extremely expensive process, but it is being done all the same.

The hon. member also pleaded for investigations and studies to be conducted overseas. I want to point out to the hon. member that we have already had many studies and investigations of this kind. Some of our senior officials have been sent overseas in this connection from time to time. I also want to point out to the hon. member that I recently appointed a commission of inquiries into rural reform, under the chairmanship of Dr. S. J. du Plessis. The various Departments of Agriculture are represented on that committee, as well as the Departments of Labour, Planning, National Education, Social Welfare and Water Affairs. Two experts from outside the Public Service are also serving on that committee. I want to read to the hon. member the statement I made when this committee was appointed (translation)—

In other words, what the hon. member actually asked was that attention be paid to consolidation and to the accommodation of people who will disappear from agriculture in this way. This committee is charged with just such an investigation, and with making recommendations in this connection.

Sir, I think I have now replied to the few points that were raised.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a few points raised by the hon. member for Newton Park. I want to tell him that in this debate he perhaps made one basic mistake. We saw the same mistake being made last week, and I am afraid that in the process he will go the same way he went last week. His mistake was that he perhaps mentioned too many matters in his short space of half an hour, instead of concentrating on a few matters of current interest in agriculture.

Sir, I want to deal with a few points in connection with the withdrawal scheme. Yesterday, in his reply to the hon. member for Newton Park, the Minister dealt with the withdrawal scheme to a certain extent. I want to tell that hon. member that he has completely lost touch with the people in the interior.

You are talking nonsense.

Sir, the hon. member must now please listen carefully. He said that it was only the prosperous farmers that made use of this scheme. That is specifically where he makes a mistake. [Interjections.] He said that the middle man, the average farmer, cannot make use of this scheme. He did not mention any reason why such farmers could not make use of that scheme. He said that the scheme is not attractive enough. Sir, if the small farmer can make use of that scheme, as he has stated, what prevents the average farmer from doing so? What is more, if the prosperous farmer, who is specifically not benefited by this scheme, is able to go in for it, why cannot the middle-scale farmer also do so?

For a moment I should like to delve back into the history of this scheme. Originally organized agriculture asked R2 per head compensation for withdrawal. After further representations the Department saw fit to increase that compensation to R2-50. Without any further representations by organized agriculture, the Department later increased it to R3 per head for the first 600 and subsequently according to a sliding scale.

Last night the hon. member for East London City spoke with his tongue in his cheek when he said that he supported the hon. member for Newton Park.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. But I would say that the hon. member for East London City did not quite agree with what the hon. member for Newton Park said, even though he said that he supported him. The hon. member for East London City said that he thought that the Department had really gone as far as it could possibly go. In this respect I completely agree with the hon. member. When hon. members on that side of the House speak about the livestock withdrawal scheme, particularly with respect to the Karoo and the southern Free State, they must come to my office and I will give them a file of letters full of gratitude for this scheme that is now merely in its development stage. Hon. members opposite must not, at this stage, judge this scheme too harshly, because it is still merely in its development stage. I can tell hon. members that it is the biggest scheme that has ever been implemented in this country for the sake of soil conservation. This scheme has been in progress a little more than a year, and already I can testify that our farmers are having great success with it.

The hon. member went further and said that if farmers go in for this scheme, they must be required to comply with certain conditions. They must, for example, be compelled to put up wire fences and establish water points. But surely this is already the case. As soon as the farmer concludes that contract with the State in respect of the withdrawal scheme, he accepts certain obligations. He undertakes, for example, to ensure that his livestock does not exceed the required number. If his land is not planned, he undertakes, within two years, to continue with the planning of his land. If, however, his land has already been planned, and the planning has the approval of the Department, I cannot see what else he must do.

The hon. member also referred to drought-resistant vegetation. Is the hon. member aware of what is being done at Grootfontein with respect to drought-resistant vegetation? Is the hon. member aware of the numerous study groups that are carrying out tests on drought-resistant vegetation under the guidance of the Department? If the hon. member does not know this, he may read about it in the report. I can say that tremendous success has been achieved with the thornless prickly pear, with the Australian Royena pollens and with the old man salt-bush. By the way, the hon. member for Walmer said here that the United Party’s policy is the best policy. According to him it is their policy that is being accepted. But who now represents the platteland in this House? During the recent election hon. members on that side of the House spread every story imaginable. In spite of that the platteland representatives are still sitting on this side of the House. Hon. members on that side of the House, who lodge their pleas agriculture, must help us to extend this aspect of soil conservation, i.e. the planting of drought-resistant vegetation, on a scale that will really be beneficial to us in the future in agriculture and particularly in the small-stock areas.

Mr. Chairman, my time is limited, but I still just want to refer to a statement which the hon. member for East London City made with reference to the committee of inquiry into the marketing of wool. I think it would be premature for us to be discussing that committee’s report here at this stage.

I said as much.

Yes, and I agree with that. We must wait for the report to go through the usual channels first. There is just something, however, that I want to say about East London. Apparently the committee recommended that East London must close down as a harbour for the handling of wool. There may be reasons for that. For example, there is the fact that East London is situated very close to Port Elizabeth; in addition there is the fact that the rail freight to Port Elizabeth will not be mentionably greater. In addition, the majority of the processing industries are not situated in or near East London, but at Port Elizabeth. Whatever the case may be, it would be premature for us to discuss the report of this committee here and now. The hon. the Minister must surely first have the opportunity to go into its implications with organized agriculture.

Then just one final matter, and that is in connection with labour. I think it was the hon. member for King William’s Town who spoke here of the scarcity of labour. I now just want to quote what the S.A. Agricultural Union found in this connection (translation)—

This perhaps illustrates one point to us, i.e. that labour, which is the biggest single production factor in agriculture, is increasing in spite of mechanization. Where must we find the answer to that problem? Hon. members will surely agree with me that labour is, in fact, the biggest single production factor in agriculture. And labour is increasing, particularly in the livestock areas. I want to make the statement that if our farmers do not give their labourers better training, and we cannot bring about a drastic reduction in our labour, our production costs will continue to reflect an increasing trend.

There is one thing about which I never cease to wonder—the ability of the governing party to run away from unpalatable subjects. We on this side of the House have been debating the question of the marketing of meat, but what has that side done? They have run away from it as hard as they have been able to. In addition they have tried to draw all sorts of red herrings across the trail in order to draw our attack away. When the Minister got up we thought that now at last we were going to get someone from that side who was going to talk on a subject which we would very much like to discuss. But what happened? He too ran away from it by saying that his Deputy will deal with it. In the circumstances, we shall leave that matter to the hon. the Deputy Minister. We can talk to him about it later.

There is one thing the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said with which I can agree and that is the question of labour. The hon. the Minister will know for how many years we on this side of the House, particularly the hon. member for South Coast, have been pleading with the Government to do something about training labour in this country. I cannot, of course, agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet about reducing labour on the farms. We have a surplus of labour in this country. He must have seen the report in the newspapers that Prof. Sadie estimated that there were at present 1 900 000 unemployed in the country.

That is nonsense.

You cannot say it is nonsense, because that hon. member himself does not know the correct figure. The department which he likes to represent here cannot give the unemployment figures. The hon. member said we ought to employ less; I say we ought to employ more. But I agree with the hon. member about the necessity of training labour to make it more productive.

Why don’t you do it then?

We have tried it. Agricultural organizations in Natal did try to train their labourers and have asked the Government for assistance. However, we cannot even get a permit from the Minister of Bantu Administration to train Bantu labourers. We have been told that these are being trained in the homelands. It is therefore no use for the hon. the Minister to ask such a question. Let him rather use his influence with the Department of Bantu Administration and assist farmers to train their labourers, whether in service or in a school. Surely it is in the interests of this country to see to it that these people are trained.

What type of training do you want?

The hon. the Minister must not ask a question like that. Does he not know what type of training farm labourers need? Surely he ought to know. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet mentioned training, for instance in dairy, market gardening, engineering, tractor maintenance and driving, and training in the genera] rudiments of agriculture. This is what they need, apart from training in building. They ought also to be trained in anti-erosion measures. Have I really to spell it out for the hon. the Minister? Is he then not aware of the troubles of his own industry, an industry which he is supposed to represent? Sir, this is indicative of the answers we have had over the years. That is why when we have a new member here coming forward all keen and enthusiastic, he got the same answer as we have had over the years.

What did I ask for?

Did you not ask the hon. the Minister to make a plan to make our labour more effective, efficient and productive? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I ask you with tears in my eyes whether the hon. member can now say that he did not say so. Because that is what he said.

You do not understand Afrikaans.

The hon. member defended the stock reduction scheme. I want to say that we have always supported this scheme. Measures which have been suggested from this side of the House were designed to improve it and to improve conditions on the platteland. But what has happened under this scheme? It has not stopped the depopulation of the platteland, nor has it put more money into circulation to help the small towns on the platteland to exist. Here I have a report which emanates from the hon. member’s own constituency, his own local newspaper from Jansenville. It says—

Let me quote some figures about the position in his own constituency.

Is the stock reduction scheme supposed to stop that?

But it is not contributing to helping the situation; it is not making it economic for the farmer to remain on his land. If it could do that, it would contribute to solving this problem. As the position is now, small farmers are leaving the land. The stock reduction scheme is helping them to keep their heads above water but they have no other income; consequently they are moving into the cities looking for jobs. The large farmer goes in for this scheme because he is not solely dependent on farming for his income, but the average farmer who is wholly dependent for his income upon farming cannot afford to go in for this scheme now. This is the point which was made by the hon. member for Newton Park. Let us just look at the figures. The Aberdeen district, for instance, now has 459 Whites as against 924 at the last census—almost half of them have left between these two censuses.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the resolution adopted by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, I have to inform you that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture will, for the rest of the day, take charge of the Votes at present under discussion.

Sir, my predecessors in this House and I, have on so many occasions already pleaded the important matter of the establishment of a second faculty of veterinary science here in South Africa. Because I feel that this is an important matter for agriculture and particularly for our stock farming and our meat industry in South Africa, I once again want to plead this matter here today. At the present moment there are slightly more than 700 veterinary surgeons in the Republic of South Africa, and with the normal wastage of about 10 per cent, the present enrolment at Onderstepoort of 45 per annum is hopelessly inadequate. We all agree. Sir. that double that enrolment would be adequate for the foreseeable future, but where differences have in fact arisen is in regard to the question of how and where that doubling is going to take place. Organized agriculture has pleaded for a second faculty, and so has the Medical Association of Veterinary Surgeons. They have also asked for a second faculty, and their membership includes 90 per cent of the veterinary surgeons in South Africa. Sir, what actually happened? As a result of representations by agriculture and the Association, the hon. the Minister appointed a one-man commission, Dr. Mönnig, in April, 1968. The report of this commission was never tabled, but the Minister accepted the commission’s recommendation, which was that the size of the faculty at Onderstepoort should be doubled. Although that report was never tabled and was never actually made public, I have through various contacts and from extracts from various letters acquired a reasonable knowledge of what is stated in that report, and what I have seen and heard in this connection is extremely disquieting, particularly if one feels that a Cabinet decision was taken in regard to this report. For, Sir, there are major deficiencies in this report. In addition, statements were made and figures mentioned which in my opinion are unfounded and which create the impression that they were snatched out of thin air.

How did you get to see the report?

I have my own Bureau of M.P.’s Security. Sir, before I proceed to the report itself, I just want to inform the Committee of what the feeling in organized agriculture and among the organized veterinary surgeons is. The feeling is that the Minister of Agriculture was not doing Dr. Mönnig himself or veterinary science or agriculture any service when he appointed this one-man commission, for the following reasons: The veterinary surgeons feel that although Dr. Mönnig did outstanding work in veterinary science in pre-war days, particularly in regard to parasites, etc., he has since then become better known as a businessman than a veterinary surgeon, and that he is no longer in touch with the profession as such. Secondly, as chairman of the Council of the University of Pretoria it would have been extremely difficult for him to have made out a case for a second faculty at any other university. It would have been extremely difficult for any person in a similar position to have brought out an impartial report.

That is unfair.

It is not unfair. One is only human and I am now informing the Committee of what the feelings among organized agriculture and among the veterinary surgeons are. I leave it at that, but that was the feeling, and that feeling was aggravated by the fact that the report was never tabled or made available.

I come now to the good in the report. Great emphasis was placed in the report on the fact that a committee which had been appointed by the dean of the faculty at Onderstepoort had stated that Onderstepoort could cope with an enrolment of at least 90 persons per year. What was not mentioned in the report was that on 30th November, 1967 16 out of 27 staff members of Onderstepoort, in writing, expressed themselves strongly opposed to this. The grounds on which they expressed their opposition was that there were already too many students at Onderstepoort for them to gain proper practical experience. But they thought that a second faculty would in fact stimulate the profession. As far back as 1964 the Medical Association of Veterinary Surgeons appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. H. P. Steyn, former president of that body, to investigate, inter alia, the training of veterinary surgeons. That committee met on 20 occasions over a period of five years. They made their report during the annual meeting of 1968. That report was unanimously accepted by the veterinary surgeons of South Africa. The report was then sent to Dr. Mönnig, with the request that they be granted an opportunity of giving oral evidence before the commission. This request was refused, as in the case of other requests which were made by other persons in positions of authority. I shall return to them later. In addition I want to point out that although no less than four other universities sent memoranda to the commission, almost no mention of that was made in the report. None of them were granted an opportunity of giving oral evidence before the commission. One of the most important factors in the establishment of a faculty of veterinary science is the availability of clinical material. In his report Dr. Mönnig furnished figures in regard to the stock population within a radius of 15 miles from Onderstepoort. He mentioned in his report that he had obtained those figures from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Sir, I cannot accept this, because these figures do not tally with those of the agricultural census. The agricultural census covers the entire Pretoria district, which is more or less four times the size of the area within a radius of 15 miles from Onderstepoort. Let us take the case of cattle. In the report it was stated that there were 37 760 head of cattle within a 15 mile radius of Onderstepoort, but according to the agricultural census figures there were 33 316 in 1962-’63. In 1963-’64 there were 29 896. In 1965-’66 there were 24 806. In other words, there has been a decrease in the number of cattle. Let us now take the case of sheep. In the report it was stated that there were 17 326 sheep, but according to the agricultural census figures there were 16 588 sheep in 1962-’63. In 1963-’64 there were 14 407. In 1965-’66 there were 13 835. Let us take the case of goats. In the report it was stated that there were 6 502 goats, but according to the agricultural census figures there were only 3 986 in the entire district, and not only in that area within a radius of 15 miles from Onderstepoort. In 1963-’64 there were 3 223. Unfortunately the figures for 1965-’66 are not available. The only type of stock in respect of which the population is increasing, is pigs, and their numbers increased from 7 600 in 1962-’63 to 14 071 in 1963-’64. [Time expired.]

I should like to tell the hon. member for Albany I appreciate it that he pleaded for a veterinary faculty for his constituency, and not only for his constituency, but for the Eastern Cape. In the course of time the need for an additional faculty may arise. From time to time we receive requests from various agricultural organizations from various areas for more experimental farms and additional facilities, but we are very much aware of one matter today, and that is the cost aspect. After all, it is the taxpayers’ money. For that reason I am glad the hon. member said Dr. Mönnig was not only a scientist or an entomologist, but a businessman as well. He said in his report that if provision were made at Onderstepoort for 90 students instead of 45, the additional cost for buildings alone would be R379 000, while buildings to the value of R1,6 million have already been erected. At the moment there are 72 lecturers, and if there were to be 90 students, namely twice as many, only 41 members of staff would be added. Duplicating the facilities would cost five times as much as doubling the facilities at Onderstepoort. On these grounds it is only logical that any sound Government would say that, seen from the point of view of cost and the prestige Onderstepoort has already built up in comparison with similar institutions in America with much larger numbers, it was feasible to train 90 students at Onderstepoort with ease at one-fifth of what the cost would be if we were to do what the hon. member for Albany suggested.

I just want to refer to what several hon. members of the Opposition said here yesterday and this morning. With reference to the newsletter of SAMPI, the hon. member for Newton Park was very concerned yesterday that the maize farmers were not receiving fair treatment because the maize crop had been over-estimated last year. It is true; we did over-estimate the crop. But the hon. member should remember what happened in 1967. In that year the price was determined according to a maize crop which had been estimated at 88 million bags, and we were fairly pleased with the price. But when the crop was harvested, there were 106 million bags in the White areas alone. Now the Minister of Agriculture ean say that the crop was wrongly estimated that year and that money should be claimed back from the farmers. The present price has been determined on an estimate in the region of 88 million bags. I want to make so bold as to say I am sure it is going to be higher. Therefore, if this argument had to stand, we would have to claim back from the farmers again. Some people are already talking of a crop of 93 million bags. I want to say to the hon. member that he and most of the members on the Opposition side are representatives who themselves farm in the Karoo areas, but the maize farmers of our country are really grateful for this maize price. The hon. member says that according to their “You want it, we have it” policy there would be an entrepreneur’s wage plus production costs price for the farmer, and that that aspect would be taken into account each time. The hon. member for Walmer interjected yesterday that it would be based on the average costs throughout the country. I therefore take it he would have one maize price and one meat price. I just want to mention one aspect of this. In the determination of land prices today, farmers in the Eastern Transvaal are prepared to pay R300 a morgen for dry land. Of that they plough only half, and the grazing land is worth much less. In other words, they pay R600 a morgen for arable land and they borrow the money at an interest rate of 9 per cent, or in other words. R54 per morgen in interest. But what farmer can do this? The farmer who has inherited, the farmer who bought land 15 years ago, or the farmer who has perhaps married favourably and whose wife has a lot of land which has cost him nothing in cash. Now you take his average, because hon. members are speaking about averages. Now the young man whom we should like to establish in agriculture today, comes along and has to buy land at R300 a morgen. He has to compete with the man who is already established. We have no solution to this problem. We cannot accept as a policy that we should have a calculation of the average costs. The calculation varies from farm to farm and from district to district because conditions are completely different. This is why it is sometimes difficult for us to bring home to hon. members that the valuations of the Department of Agricultural Credit and of the Land Bank must be such that the man who can buy land is not encumbered to an extent of more than 80 per cent and has enough working capital to be able to manage eventually. Not one of the hon. members on both sides of this House would be prepared to say that we should force down land prices.

On what does the hon. the Minister want to base the price then?

The price is based on our average sales, our domestic consumption, our oversea sales and on what the State can contribute in the form of a subsidy. The State subsidy on this crop of less than 90 million bags was R26 million. I may tell the hon. member that, if the crop were far in excess of R90 million, the Minister of Finance would just have to contribute an additional subsidy. We must view these matters realistically. It is easy for the Opposition to ask why we do not increase the maize price. I am not saying the Opposition are making politics of the matter. That is a popular conception. If I were on the Opposition side, I would perhaps have vented my spleen to an even greater extent in order to impress my voters. But we are responsible and have to view matters rationally.

I now come to the hon. member for King William’s Town. Yesterday he kicked up quite a fuss and said that I had very soon learnt ministerial language. I want to tell the hon. member he is making a very big mistake. The standpoint I have today, I had before I became a member of the House of Assembly. When I was a backbencher here at the beginning of 1966, I adhered to the same standpoint under this Vote as I do today.

I want to refer now to the exports to which the hon. member for Walmer referred. I shall read from a report which appeared in the Daily Dispatch of 16th March—

There is a photograph of Mr. van den Heever next to the report. He does not look a bad sort at all when one looks at the photograph! But this type of story must not be told in the rural areas, because it makes the farmers disgruntled.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Did that report not appear in Die Burger of 19th January, 1971?

I should just like to confine myself first to …

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the possibility existed that South Africa could have obtained such a contract with the French?

If the hon. members would give me a chance to finish dealing with this, they would see that it is simply impossible and that it could never happen under the present circumstances. Organized agriculture, to which hon. members have very often referred in the past, immediately issued a circular which read as follows: “Mutton exports are nonsensical talk.” The circular, went on to say: “They are being spread throughout our country.” We asked the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the veterinary people, whether they could help us to investigate the possible exportation of meat. They said (translation)

Owing to the incidence of bluetongue, it is impossible to export sheep to France, particularly Switzerland, and two or three other continental countries.

Those countries are free of bluetongue. The circular continued—

I do not want to go into this matter any further.

I come back now to the hon. member for Walmer, who referred to 500 carcasses we wanted to export through the Port Elizabeth abattoirs on an experimental basis. That hon. member and I visited the abattoir together and negotiated with the municipality. We asked them to help us export only an experimental consignment of 500 carcasses. Later we wanted to conduct an experiment by using a lorry to transport 500 carcasses to South-West Africa to have them slaughtered there at an approved abattoir in Windhoek so that we could come back later and say: “Here we have the results of oversea sales.” Now he refers to a person who came to see me on several occasions and who wrote letters to me. I want to mention the name of this person. He is Mr. Silcocks. Mr. Silcocks contacted me through the hon. member for Colesberg. We felt we were going out of our way to ensure the success of this undertaking. But the Meat Board wrote to Mr. Silcocks as follows—

Since Mr. Wight’s previous visit, conditions had not changed at all. I do not want to say that he is blowing hot and cold, but our veterinarians have informed me that they gave their word of honour that they would not grant hygiene certificates before these abattoir facilities had been put in order, especially in regard to offal and other unhygienic conditions at the abattoir. This is the undertaking we gave England.

In 1969 Vleissentraal conducted an experiment. Yesterday a lot of abuse was directed at Vleissentraal, an organization which consists of thousands of farmers. I have been told that 80 per cent of the meat marketers were members of Vleissentraal at one time. I do not want us summarily to run down Vleissentraal here. On 22nd October, 1969, 449 lamb carcasses which had been exported by Vleissentraal were sold in England. The price fetched by this meat was 8,43 cents less per pound than the same meat would have fetched in South Africa. At the moment freight charges are still increasing considerably. I do not see why we should let this matter get out of hand now. I can give the undertaking that if an opportunity for export arises, attention will be paid to it, even if it is only, as I said here, for our own satisfaction in order to show that there is a possibility and even if it is done with a small State subsidy, as is being done in the case of some beef at the moment.

In the no-confidence debate the hon. member for King William’s Town said sneeringly that I had said the farmers should disappear. Subsequently he said I had not said that the farmers should disappear, but that the inefficient farmers should disappear. Previously the hon. member for Newton Park had introduced a motion about the depopulation of the rural areas. We discussed the matter on a non-political basis. All the systems of the State are directed at one thing. They are directed at keeping this very section of our nation, which I call the nucleus of our people, in the rural areas if it can be done. However, we cannot grab a man by the throat and tell him he must farm if he can earn much more money in industry. We cannot force him if he tells us he is not as efficient in his farming as he should be. The competition is so keen today that he prefers going to the city. Now this hon. member comes along and says in the rural areas that I said the number of farmers should decrease. He does not state the actual position; he will not achieve anything with such a story, because I believe that honesty prevails in the end. If he understood me correctly, he would stop continually referring to that and saying that the Government was not sympathetically disposed towards the small farmer in particular. I have said to hon. members that today the small farmer is in many respects our greatest asset in agriculture. I have mentioned before—I do not know whether it was here—that in my area an economic unit is 400 morgen. There is a young Afrikaner boy who is farming on 85 morgen and who made profit of R4 200 last year. He farms in the most scientific way as prescribed to him by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Every Friday he weighs every calf on that farm and gets rid of those which do not show the normal weight increase. He works six days of the week and will remain in agriculture until the very end, because he is practically-minded and cut out for agriculture. The Government and my fellow-farmers are not prepared to molly-coddle a man who is not practically-minded and who farms inefficiently. I am prepared to say this anywhere and the farmers accept it too. This man, however, will always remain in agriculture.

The hon. member for King William’s Town said that the slaughtering of cattle at Berlin had been discontinued and that those farmers now have to go and slaughter in East London, 35 miles from Berlin. I want to tell the hon. member that I agree with him. When I received the report, we asked the National Marketing Council to investigate the slaughtering of livestock at Berlin. We asked them to send us a report so that we could reconsider the matter and so that we could see whether we could not return to the previous position.

Then we had representations from the hon. member for East London City. He said we should market our meat like Rhodesia. I visited the Cold Storage Commission of Rhodesia and it is practically possible for it to function in Rhodesia as it is functioning at present. The hon. member for East London North also told us that if there was a drought or a surplus of livestock on one farm, the State granted the farmer a loan at an interest rate of 6 per cent so that the livestock could be transferred to another area until they were ready for the market. After that they went to the Cold Storage Commission in Rhodesia. That is completely true. It may operate in that way in Rhodesia. Rhodesia has a total of not even 6 000 farmers. Rhodesia can concentrate on beef and it has a total of 2,5 million head of cattle. Over against that, South Africa has 8,4 million head of cattle. In all the discussions, our problems has always been mutton. Rhodesia has only 356 000 sheep, in other words, as many as we consume in one month in South Africa. Our total number of sheep is 35 million. And then I am referring only to sheep and not to goats and pigs. If we consider the overall position in South Africa in comparison with that of Rhodesia, that we have a roast-chicken industry here, that our people are more and more tending to eat white meat, that we can obtain fish easily, that our meat must be distributed over large distances and that, unlike Rhodesia, we are not mainly an export country, we cannot implement in practice what Rhodesia is doing today in regard to its cold storage.

I said we should take over the good aspects of the Rhodesian system.

We can investigate it, but it will not be possible for us simply to adopt their system.

After the hon. member for East London North had discussed the Rhodesian system, he was asked why he did not convince the farmers that our present marketing system was wrong. I want to tell the hon. member that he is making a big mistake by saying that when the farmers attend a congress, all of them are upset about our meat marketing system, and that after two members of the Meat Board have explained the matter, all of them are satisfied, drink tea together, and then go home and start complaining again. A farmer is not stupid. One cannot bluff a farmer at a congress. The hon. member insinuated that two people pull the wool over the farmers’ eyes at a congress, that they are then completely satisfied, and then go home and start complaining again. This is not the position.

The hon. member said we did not care what happened about the marketing of the meat. The Minister of Agriculture put our problem clearly to him. On the other hand, does he think we would not care about putting the marketing of meat in order by means of the most practical method, while the State has now, up to the end of April, paid R8 400 000 in fodder subsidies over a period of 12 months? It rained for a large part of that time. But that is not all. In addition to those subsidies, we granted fodder loans amounting to R9 300 000 at an interest rate of 5 per cent. We appreciate the position—the farmer’s stock is ready for the market—but we cannot slaughter away this stock all overnight. The hon. member for King William’s Town said the farmers had lost mutton worth R25 million. Does the hon. member know that they wanted to slaughter sheep worth R3 500 000 within a month in order to export to France? Sheep to the value of R3 million is as much as we slaughter in eight months’ time in this country. Where are the abattoirs which would be able to slaughter meat to the value of R25 million for the French market alone? If the hon. member can see what we are doing in respect of fodder subsidies and assistance, he will appreciate the position.

But what is the problem? Why is there marketing pressure today? I concede that an increasing number of farmers are participating in the livestock withdrawal scheme, which is being praised today by the Opposition. This causes marketing pressure. The farmers are in financial difficulties. They need money. We are experiencing this in the Northern Transvaal at the moment. If the hon. members saw how many breeding animals, cows, were being slaughtered today, they would be alarmed. The farmer has financial obligations which he must fulfil, and on the other side the bank is exerting pressure on him. That is why there is marketing pressure. On the other hand, the farmer is afraid. He has had rain, but he does not know whether the next drought is close at hand; for that reason he wants to get rid of his livestock and off-load as quickly as he can; he wants to get back to his normal number. Fortunately there seems to me to be a more favourable picture in regard to our slaughtering. We are going to try to re-open the Vryburg abattoir. We are going to try to provide additional facilities. An additional abattoir is now being established in Johannesburg, which can make it possible to slaughter 400 extra head of cattle a week. But I do not believe the hon. member will go and say publicly that we should simply grab the Meat Board by the throat, as was said here yesterday, a board which consists largely of producers elected by our fellow-farmers, and tell them that we no longer accept any of their proposals.

I have never said that.

This was said yesterday.

The hon. member for Virginia asked that we should amend the Co-operative Societies Act so as to grant the co-operatives certain benefits. We are reviewing the whole matter, and we shall hold discussions with the Co-operative Board of the South African Agricultural Union, on which he is also serving, before we submit a final Bill to Parliament next year.

Mr. Chairman, since yesterday when the agricultural debate began it has become apparent that hon. members on the opposite side are merely exploiting agriculture for political reasons. When one takes into account the fact that during the time of the National Party and this Government the number of insolvencies did not exceed even by one the number that occurred during the time the United Party was governing, one sees the picture in a different light to the one they are presenting it in. I also want to attribute the fact that insolvencies in the agricultural industry have been restricted to a minimum to the great contribution the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has made since its establishment. Where the United Party gets its information from that there are more insolvencies than ever before, I do not know. We do not deny that there are problems, but the Government is trying to solve these problems by giving assistance to the farmers in order to make them financially strong enough to ward off insolvency. In 1949 the income of farmers was R151 million. Today, after twenty years, the income of farmers has increased to R591 300 000. If that is not progress in the agricultural industry, I do not know what progress is. Farming requisites have shown a price increase of 2 per cent, but at the same time produce prices have also increased by 2 per cent. Hon. members on the opposite side say that the farmers of South Africa are facing a bleak future and that there is no confidence in agriculture. I now want to allege that there are no greater investors in agriculture than United Party farmers. The United Party supporters are today the people who lay the greatest claim to and play the greatest part in agriculture. At the same time they discourage young and small farmers by seeing dangers for agriculture in the future. I now want to allege that the sole aim of these people, who see their future in agriculture, is to keep on enriching themselves, and that is why they want to talk other people out of this industry.

The hon. member for Newton Park alleged yesterday that there were farmers who were no longer interested in agriculture and who no longer wanted to farm. I now want to tell the hon. member that in 1969 there were 14 State farms which were offered for sale by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The applications which were received for these 14 farms, totalled 3 008. So where is the proof of the United Party allegation that farmers are no longer interested in agriculture? Last year 6 farms were offered for sale by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, for which 306 applications were received. These facts completely reject the argument of the United Party that there are farmers who are no longer interested in agriculture today. If there were deficiences in the marketing of produce, it was during the United Party time. After all, we who can still recall those years, know what the position was. The hon. member for East London City, for example, cannot deny that the price of super lamb in their time was 8½ cents per lb. Today the floor price alone is 24 cents per lb. Hon. members on the opposite side must therefore refrain from trying to see only weaknesses in this meat marketing scheme, which has already proved to be a success. I want to allege that pressure is being exerted on the marketing of our products, pressure to which attention must inevitably be given. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just pointed out the various factors responsible for that pressure. I maintain that the pressure will become even greater. It will become greater because the carrying capacity of the Republic of South Africa is limited to 32 million sheep. Arrangements must be made for the five million in excess of that 32 million. Sir, hon. members of the United Party see only the facilities which have to be established and which do not exist at the moment. I allege that they see only the lack of facilities, and that they are not concerned about the marketing costs of the farmer in the future. I am saying this for the following reason: Once the present period of pressure has passed, smaller quantities will be slaughtered and then the costs of RIO, R20 or R30 million which has been incurred to make provision for this period of pressure, will have to be recovered directly from the farmer. If these costs were to be incurred now, that side of the House would have been instrumental in increasing the marketing costs of the farmer to such an extent that the farmers will be unable to recover those costs. That is why I maintain that we must proceed judiciously and must find another method of meeting our needs during this period of pressure. Sir, I know what I am talking about when I say that temporary provision should be made. We must make use of the capacity of abattoirs outside our controlled areas. We must not establish additional, in fact redundant facilities which will cause the marketing costs of the farmer to soar unnecessarily and which will subsequently have to be recovered from the farmer.

That is not what we proposed.

If I may give the United Party a piece of advice, I want to tell it to get off the political shelf and side with the interests of the farmers of South Africa.

Sir, I want to express a few ideas in regard to the locust plague. In the first place, I want to say thank you very much to the Department and to the departmental heads for what they recently did, for this locust plague was the worst we have had during the past 40 years. I take my hat off to the Department for having been able to do what it did under these circumstances. I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister in particular for the attention he gave to this problem. Sir, I spent a few days in the company of the hon. the Deputy Minister and I can assure you that he put every possible measure into operation to cause the combating of the locust plague to function effectively.

But the locusts won.

And the United Party lost. Sir, I know what was done. It is a pity that so much damage was done. I think that certain of our farmers are not very satisfied with the course of events. Of course I am not one of the most fortunate men in this regard either. Despite all the steps taken, the fact remains that we lost some of our veld. We lost that veld while it was in our hands. Sir, I just want to say the following before I conclude. The great deficiency in my opinion is that the method of combating is incorrect in certain respects. We are not interested in killing the locusts as such. What we are in fact interested in is the protection and the retention of our veld, which cost us a great deal of money. Sir, the locust must be killed in its initial stages, and not only when it takes to the wing; that is important. There is only one method of doing that, and that is by enabling the farmer to do his part of the task as well by making poison available to him beforehand. It is of no avail our combating the locust plague after our veld has been denuded; it is our duty and our task to combat the plague while the locusts are still young. They must be destroyed before they destroy our valuable veld. I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to this matter and to accommodate our farmers. Our farmers are eager to play their part and make their services available to the State free of charge. If they had been able to do that, I think we would have had a third or perhaps half as many locusts as we had.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to associate myself with the hon. member for Prieska, because I also represent one of those regions where the farmers have recently been suffering as a result of various plagues. We in the south of South-West Africa were also struck by the plague mentioned by the hon. member. I am very pleased to be able to say today that the hon. the Deputy Minister, together with his officials, acted in time to save our people there. It was as a result of the very quick action they took that poison was made available there in time and that we could check the locusts before the plague got out of hand. We are very grateful for that, and I also want to thank the officials in South-West Africa who took such quick action. However, I also want to thank the farmers in my constituency who reacted so quickly and who were prepared to take action themselves to save their veld from this plague. There were individuals who thought that it was solely the duty of the State to combat this plague, but fortunately there were only a few individuals who adopted that attitude and therefore I shall say nothing further about that unsavoury attitude.

Our agricultural industry has recently had to endure many plagues. There were caterpillars, too, in certain areas, but the greatest plague we have had to deal with, was the drought which has stricken us in recent years. The area I represent is very dependent on assistance during periods of drought, and I am very grateful to be able to testify here that the assistance rendered to farmers was of such a nature that it saved many of them from certain ruin and insolvency. I came into frequent contact with officials and I think that in this connection we have a need I want to state to the hon. the Minister. The southern part of my constituency in particular has many needs and many difficulties. That is why I want to ask for the staff of the extension division in the Department to be increased there in the southernmost part of my constituency, at Keetmanshoop. We are on the point of applying new veld conservation schemes, and will need those officials to a far greater extent in the immediate future than we did in the past. My experience has been that with such an extended area these officers cannot cope with everything and cannot do everything that ought to be done. In my humble opinion, the karakul farms of the south are still on a sound basis. During the past few years we have been particularly fortunate, particularly during the difficult drought years, that the prices of karakul pelts remained reasonably stable. This of course was a great help to the farmers. But in this case the prices of karakul pelts depend on production, and the farmers’ income depends on the lamb crop percentage, and drought in those areas can of course cause the lamb crop percentage to drop tremendously. But I want to say in favour of those farmers that they are all endeavouring to develop this pelt market, which is such a sensitive one, into the best market possible, and to bring the quality of their production, what they deliver, up to the highest possible standard. I also want to say in this connection that our agricultural officers are directly involved in this and are offering our farmers courses, so that every karakul farmer can achieve this goal. I think there are few karakul farmers in the south who have not yet had an opportunity of attending a course on karakul farming, and if there are those who have not yet done so, it is their own fault.

However, there is one little matter we feel a little concerned about in South-West Africa. As I have said, the prices of karakul pelts depend on the overseas market and it has come to my knowledge that farmers feel uneasy about the fact that a start is now being made in the wool-producing areas with karakul breeding or karakul production. We do not begrudge these wool farmers their importing a better type of sheep than the merino, and improving their position in future. All we are concerned about is that the correct breeding stock are used and that we do not have pelts on the market which are the result of a cross between merino and dorper sheep, which could have a detrimental effect on our sensitive market. We have already had this in the past when new areas commenced karakul production.

As I have said, I represent what is almost the largest and probably the driest constituency in the country. Such a constituency of course has many problems. A portion thereof consists almost entirely of desert, the Namib desert. Other adjoining areas are semi-desert or are almost entirely desert. But in those areas adjoining these desert areas, karakul farmers have already for the past 15 to 20 years been making a living. I am grateful that the Department of Agriculture, at the request of my predecessor and I, is also investigating the conditions of these farmers. I should like to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that these farmers are as good farmers as the rest of our karakul farmers. They are not farmers whom we can scorn and think of as inferior farmers. These are people who know no other means of subsistence than farming, and who are fond of it. These are people who want to do nothing else but farm. But recent times have made it impossible for them, too, to make a living out of farming in certain parts of those semi-desert areas. Karakul farming lends itself to semi-desert conditions. Nevertheless conditions have become such that these farmers cannot carry on either. [Time expired.]

Before I come to the point I want to make, I just want to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that this side of the House will discuss the meat industry again. Because I regard the meat industry as being so important, I want to return to the point I was making when my time expired. In the Minister’s reply to my speech, he was under the wrong impression that I was specifically pleading here for my constituency and for Rhodes University. That was a wrong impression, for I am pleading at the moment for the acceptance of the principle of a second faculty of veterinary science. If the principle is accepted, I should like to see a committee being appointed, consisting of representatives of the Council of Veterinary Surgeons and of organized agriculture, in order to determine where the second faculty should be established. The planning done today will most certainly be felt by the end of this century, particularly in our stock-farming industry. If we do not plan correctly today, our farming is going to find itself in a very unfavourable position by the end of this century. I was mentioning figures here. The reason why I went into this matter so thoroughly is because the figures which I read out in connection with the stock population in the vicinity of Onderstepoort prove that the stock population is dwindling there. Every member of the House who goes to have a look at that area, will see that it is gradually becoming an urban area. By the end of the century it will have been completely urbanized, with the result that the stock population will be far from the faculty and that the experience those students acquire will be even less than what they are acquiring today.

You are talking nonsense.

Go and take a look at the situation there.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Has the hon. member made a study of the matter?

Yes, I have made a study of it.

Give us a speech on it then.

In regard to Kaalplaats, it was also mentioned in the report that there are 700 head of cattle at Kaalplaats, a State farm. All of us know that there are only 300 head of cattle at Kaalplaats and that it comprises part of Onderstepoort. Then, too, the idea was mentioned in the report that cattle there could be artificially infected with diseases. This is a dangerous statement to make. Vaccines are being manufactured at Onderstepoort. The least error, the slightest error in this artificial infection could result in diseases being sent out into the country along with those vaccines. I do not want to elaborate on that any further. I do not think that it is in the national interests to elaborate too much on that.

In regard to the question of the expansion of faculties overseas, it was alleged in the report that the faculties in the U.S.A. and in Canada are now being expanded to an enrolment per annum of 100 and 120 respectively. That is not correct either. In the Journal of the Veterinary-Medical Association of the United States, of 1969, it is stated that only three of the 21 faculties in the U.S.A. and Canada have an annual enrolment of more than 100 students. The other faculties have an average of 64 students. In the entire Europe, including England and Russia, there are 72 faculties. Of the 68 for which figures are available, only 11 of the faculties have an enrolment of more than 100 students per annum. There are six faculties in England and two in Ireland. The average enrolment there is 40. I think therefore that we are setting our sights too high here. In the rest of Europe there are 32 faculties, with an average enrolment of 30 students per year. In Australia there are three faculties. The enrolments in respect of these three faculties are 66, 60 and 40 students per year, respectively. A fourth faculty is now being built. It is deliberately being built in a country town, with a view to the clinical material. The enrolment at this new faculty will be between 30 and 35 students per year.

A further important point in favour of smaller enrolments, which was never mentioned in the report, is the recommendation of the two international veterinary science meetings which were held in London in 1960 and in Rome in 1964. The Republic and Onderstepoort was represented at these meetings. Their recommendation was that the annual enrolment figure should not be more than 30.

In this report reference was also made to the medical faculties, I also referred to the medical faculties, when I last discussed this matter. If one talks about clinical material, it is not possible to compare a medical faculty to a veterinary science faculty. It is simply impossible. A medical faculty is established next to a large hospital to which patients are brought. Their clinical material is concentrated there in the hospital. They are also supplied with staff members there, in other words the doctors and specialists working there. This is not the case with a veterinary science faculty. One cannot make that comparison. It is quite a different matter. Or is an animal hospital going to be established now? I feel that this decision in regard to Onderstepoort was made too hastily and without thorough study. I feel strongly that this entire matter should be reconsidered and that we should direct our attention in the direction of a second faculty. I want to emphasize again that it does not make any difference where the second faculty is established, as long as there is adequate clinical material. Clinical material is something which is diminishing, as far as Onderstepoort is concerned. I think we are making a big mistake. I have nothing against Onderstepoort. The institution has a very good reputation. But as I said the last time I was speaking, there are a large number of staff members at Onderstepoort who feel that a second faculty will be very necessary. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he would accept the principle that we should now begin to accept that there should be a second faculty and that, as I have proposed, a commission should be appointed to decide where that faculty is to be established.

The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the costs of such a project here. I do not know whether there was a quantity surveyor on that commission. The other universities with whom I discussed this matter —I did not discuss it with one only—all said that this figure was not acceptable, for any university that already had a B.Sc. faculty, had all the staff members and lecture rooms and hostels which could gradually be converted for the purposes of a veterinary science faculty. There is no need therefore to establish an entirely new faculty immediately, for a first-year veterinary science course is a B.Sc. course in any case. That calculation of costs therefore is not 100 per cent correct. In addition I want to say that it has merely been accepted here that the State will bear all the costs. I am certain that if the principle of a second veterinary science faculty is accepted, the large firms selling veterinary preparations and equipment, will also make a contribution. I myself am prepared to go hat in hand to private organizations and plead for contributions. It is not necessary that the Government alone should pay for it. They will have to contribute. I am certain I know of firms that would be prepared to contribute. Then there are firms who have already said that they would contribute. In addition I can just inform hon. members that there are universities that are already collecting funds. I understand that the University of Stellenbosch is already collecting funds for this purpose. So it goes on. This costs argument is not to my mind an acceptable argument. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany has again discussed Onderstepoort here. He advocated a second faculty of veterinary services, in spite of the assurance the hon. the Minister gave him, which is that it is not possible at this stage. However, if one listens to the speeches made by the United Party members on agriculture, it puts one in mind of a kind of symphony a la Suzman in G. Jacobs major. It is such a hotch-potch that one cannot make head or tail of it. Then they come along and accuse the Government and this side of the House of adopting a callous attitude towards the farmers of South Africa. Do hon. members know what the facts are? If one considers the United Party agricultural policy in that goat fodder pamphlet of theirs, and one listens to the arguments such as those they produced here yesterday and today, then one realizes that they are in fact the people who are adopting a callous attitude towards the farmers of South Africa. They have no respect for our control boards; the same control boards that they extol in this pamphlet of theirs. They have no respect for the Marketing Council and for the farmers who represent the majority in the control boards. They have no respect for our farmers as such. They merely talk about the debt of our farmers, and then, to crown it all, they misinterpret this. Nor is any mention made of what the farmers have achieved over the years. They say nothing about that.

A great deal was said here about this year’s maize price. The United Party took a long time to say thank you for that increased price. Deep down in their hearts they do not want to say thank you for it, because of what benefit is it to them if this National Party Government treats the farmers of South Africa well? After all, that does not suit their purpose, and that is why they are not doing so. Let me now inform the hon. members that the maize price was determined according to merit. The farmers of South Africa asked for that price, the Mealie Board recommended that price and this Government accepted it exactly as it was recommended. One can also hear how these people take notice of what their newspapers say. They have recently been echoing to a great extent what their newspapers say, and they will also have to continue to do so in future because these newspapers will furnish them with guidance in this political situation as it exists in South Africa. Let us take a quick look at the Rand Daily Mail of 16th April 1971. Shortly after the maize price had been announced, that newspaper said—

This is almost the same as the United Party has said in this connection. But then they went on to say—

That is insulting language to use to the farmers of South Africa. When this type of article appears in the newspapers from time to time, we, as farmers of South Africa, take exception to it. I quote further—

Let me inform hon. members that last year the price for white maize was at least 7 cents, while the consumer contributed 8 cents to the stabilization fund, and while there was a 4 cent levy in respect of the offal products fund. All those contributions have fallen away this year as far as the consumer is concerned. Therefore the price only increased by 3 cents per bag of maize. Now I want to ask hon. members what effect this could have on the cost of living of the “Africans”, as they call them.

I have here the report of the Market Research Bureau of the University of South Africa, in which they made a survey of mealie-meal consumption. Among Bantu in Johannesburg the per capita consumption is 150,2 lbs. per annum. The figure for the rest of the Witwatersrand is 197 lbs., for Durban 108 lbs., Port Elizabeth 89 lbs., the Cape Peninsula 80 lbs. and Pretoria 154 lbs. The Mealie Board and the producers of South Africa must obtain the maximum for their products from the domestic market. That must be allowed them at all times. But our control boards are fair and just enough because they know that the consumer in this country must also exist. That is why the Mealie Board always acts fairly, and the United Party need not concern itself about the price of maize when it shows a slight increase, implying that this would cause people to end up below the subsistence datum line.

But there is another very important matter I must deal with. We know that particularly in respect of the small maize farmer and the small farmer in our country, the increase in production costs is a factor which causes us many problems. If we consider the economic development programme, we see that it is accepted that the number of Whites at present working in the country will decrease by 0,4 per cent per annum during the programming period. If that were the case, only 7,1 per cent of the economically active Whites will by 1975 be employed in agriculture. As far as non-Whites are concerned, it is estimated that the increase will be 1.4 per cent over the next five years. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon, because we have farmers who are National Party supporters and who also want to help this Government implement its apartheid policy, but in addition to that we also want to combat increasing production costs. We take note of the Bantu housing scheme which was introduced on 24th February, 1969. I think that this affords us a major opportunity to combat production costs if we determine the productivity of our Bantu on the farms and make provision for better housing for them as well. Because these people also want a better standard of living, I think that we will succeed, by means of this scheme, in keeping the best labour on our farms. Up to now a total of R329 076 has been allocated, but the expectation for next year is that it is not likely that such an amount will be spent again. I think there are certain problems in regard to this scheme, the result of which is that our farmers are not making full use of it. Perhaps it is the health regulations which are having a depressing effect on it. But I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and the Department to bring this fine scheme, which is in the interest of the farmer and which also helps to reduce his production costs, in that his labour on the farms is more orderly and is better organized in a well-cared for house, more prominently to the attention of our farmers. Where there are perhaps problems in this scheme which do not make it very acceptable to the farmers, those problems ought to be eliminated, so that we can succeed in making the scheme a popular one among our farmers, dealing with the Bantu labour position on the farms directly by means of good housing as well, and in that way bringing about a reduction in our production costs.

There is another matter I should like the Department to look into, which is the question of mechanization. If we consider the number of tractors that have been imported into our country, we will note that a very great percentage of them are below 80 horsepower. 86,1 per cent are below 8“ horsepower. Tractors from between 80 to 100 horsepower comprise 27,01 per cent, and the large type of tractor comprises 5 per cent of the total. I think I have every right to request the Mechanization Division to make more particulars available to us in respect of this matter as well. By purchasing the correct type of implement, the implement with the correct horsepower and capacity, we as farmers will also be able to succeed in reducing our production costs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was not necessary to be a prophet to be able to predict where the U.P. would launch their attack this year. It is typical of the U P. to be looking all the time for an opportunity to indulge in scavenging. We know that there are problems this year in regard to the provision of permits and quotas. It was in fact for that reason that the United Party came forward with this whole meat affair. Last year almost nothing was said about meat. When the hon. the Minister had announced that we were going to retain the present system, hon. members opposite did not say a word about meat. Why not? Because at that stage there were no major problems in the meat industry. The whole problem of meat marketing involves permits and quotas. The hon. members for East London City and Newton Park referred to quotas merely in passing. My question to them is whether they want this system to be abolished. Neither of them suggested an alternative system. Do they want there to be chaos again, as there was on the market in Johannesburg at the beginning of 1970, when cattle stood there for two weeks? Does the United Party still not realize today that meat is a seasonal product, and that there are periods of heavy marketing and others of less heavy marketing? There is one system which may perhaps be accepted as an alternative, i.e. that of issuing partly permits and partly quotas. However, this system can only succeed if these permits are made compulsory for farmers, but this the South African Agricultural Union has never wanted to accept. If this is not done, I can predict right now that it will not succeed. Then the same thing will happen which happened under the permit system, i.e. that when the Meat Board wants to draw 10 000 head of cattle, it has to issue permits for 20 000. That was the position at the time, and for that reason it was decided to switch over to the quota system. Quotas are now being given to agents who, in turn, transfer them to clients. That is how the present quota system works. Initially this worked satisfactorily until quite recently, where we were faced with an abnormal period because of the tremendous drought and the fact that at the moment, after the good rains, farmers are keen to dispose of their cattle which are ready for the market. This is quite logical.

There is merit in the argument that to a certain extent there are shortages in respect of slaughter facilities. According to the argument advanced by the United Party, however, so many slaughter facilities should be built that they will at all times be able to cope with the number of cattle. That is entirely impossible, and no municipality will agree to it. But what did the hon. the Minister do last year, for instance, during the drought? Hon. members opposite have been accusing the Ministers of having done nothing in times of crisis. Last year additional slaughter facilities were created at Okahandia. Vryburg, Odendaalsrus, Vereeniging and Bloemfontein. These steps helped to bridge the state of emergency. This year once again. after the hon. the Minister had realized that a state of emergency had once again arisen in the good period owing to the large number of stock offered for sale, he caused certain labour adjustments to be made on the Witwatersrand so that at the moment it is possible to slaughter stock at full capacity in this area, i.e. at Newton, to be specific. This will mean that it will be possible to slaughter approximately 2 000 head of cattle per week extra. The hon. the Minister has also consented to cattle being slaughtered at Vryburg. That in itself means approximately 500 head of cattle per week extra. That does not sound like a large number, but it does help in this pressure experienced in the marketing sphere at present.

There are abattoirs which do not have butchers to do the slaughtering.

Where?

In Johannesburg.

Sir, the hon. member is somewhat behind the times.

That is the reply given to me by the Minister.

At the moment there is not a single one which is in disuse because of labour adjustments made on the Witwatersrand.

Are they now using non-Whites there? Has there been a change in policy?

As far back as last year permission was given for non-Whites to be used, for it is simply no longer possible to obtain the services of butchers. Sir. unfortunately the hon. the Deputy Minister is not here …

Would the Minister of Justice tell him what we have to say?

The hon. member need not be concerned; he will do so.

He is a maize farmer.

I will admit that he is more competent than are the other two.

Sir, I want to make the statement that our present slaughter facilities are inadequate, and that to a large extent they are the cause of this bottleneck; the present slaughter facilities are inadequate for the normal marketing in South Africa. In taking a look at the stock slaughtered over the past number of years, we find that 926 000 head of cattle were slaughtered in controlled markets in South Africa in 1960. Over a period of 10 years the number of stock slaughtered increased by only 8 per cent, i.e. to 1 101 000. We also find that in 1963 we imported 55 660 head of cattle from adjoining areas; in 1969-’70 this increased to 125 402. If we go further and look at the report of the Meat Board, we see on page 9 how much beef was exported. In 1969-’70 it was 5 361 tons, which are equivalent to approximately 23 000 to 30 000 carcasses. We find that in actual fact South Africa has been slaughtering fewer head of cattle than it requires for its own purposes. This is one of the reasons which I want to advance in support of my statement that we do not have adequate slaughter facilities at the moment.

Another reason why I want to make this statement, is that throughout the controlled areas meat prices are relatively constantly being maintained at a high level. Virtually no carcasses are being bought in by the Meat Board at the floor price. Sir, this brings me to the conclusion that the State or the Meat Board will have to give serious consideration to providing us with more slaughter facilities so that it may at least be possible to meet the present needs of South Africa. We can easily do this as a result of the imports we have from adjoining areas, except South-West Africa, by regulating quotas there. Sir, whereas the hon. the Minister has now consented and the Meat Board has agreed to stock being slaughtered at Vryburg once again, I want to request him urgently that the slaughtering of stock should also be continued at Otavi and Okahandja in South-West Africa. My information at the moment is that there are in South-West Africa 99 000 head of cattle awaiting marketing for April and May, but up to now it has not been possible to obtain quotas. There are 130 000 on the list for marketing, whereas the weekly quota over there only comes to 5 860. That proves to us, Sir, that considerable pressure is being brought to bear on our present marketing system.

That is our complaint.

In that case, what are you complaining about?

That is quite correct. We admit that, but it is unnecessary to prey on it, as members of the United Party have been doing. They could at least have helped us to solve the problem, but so far they have not put forward one single positive suggestion. My plea is that permission should be granted for stock to be slaughtered at those places as well, in order that the problem may be eased temporarily. But the plea I actually want to make is that permission should be granted for stock to be slaughtered at Vryburg, Otavi and Okahandja for at least the next five years. It will take approximately five years before real relief will be brought as far as our slaughtering capacity in South Africa is concerned. This is not going to detract in any way from the principles of our present meat-marketing scheme. It will be supplementary and it will afford the South African farmer an opportunity to market approximately 75 000 head of cattle per year extra, and that is a substantial number. It is approximately 7,5 per cent of the slaughterings in the controlled centres. [Time expired.]

Sir, I was very interested in what the hon. member for Vryburg has just had to say, especially in view of the fact that very few hon. members on that side have so far been prepared to discuss the meat industry. Everybody likes braaivleis but apparently today very few hon. members are prepared to talk about the subject.

Sir, I want to come back to the line taken by my colleague, the hon. member for Walmer, earlier today in regard to something which is worrying us intensely. We are indeed very worried about South Africa’s export position as far as meat is concerned. We naturally eagerly awaited the replies from the two hon. Ministers, which they duly gave, to hear the reason why, the Silcock export lambs exercise did not materialize. At one stage, when doing research into this problem, I wondered whether it was possibly because it was a mixed team of black and white lambs, but apparently this is not the reason.

What do you mean by that?

Sir, we in South Africa today, have to contend with countries which export their meat to us. We do not only have to consume local production in South Africa. We have to contend with meat exported from Rhodesia to this country. If it were not for this reservoir for Rhodesia, they could not exist as far as the meat industry is concerned. The same applies to South-West Africa. Where would they be without their export market to South Africa? At least I do see reasons why we should assist these two countries and allow them to export their meat to our country. Then there is also Botswana, an independent Black state; they export their meat to South Africa. There is also Swaziland; then there is Lesotho; they all export meat to South Africa.

What is wrong with that?

The point is this: We in South Africa cannot export our meat, while we are importing all the time. This is why we are faced with bottlenecks and gluts in the market. We have an eratic market, as I showed here yesterday by reading out my sales figures; we have no security whatsoever, and unless we can provide a good export market and do so very soon, we are going to find a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the meat producers in South Africa. What did the hon. the Minister, who for reasons which we accept, is not able to be here this afternoon, say? What were the reasons given by him as to why Mr. Silcock’s 500 lambs could not be exported? The one was: “Ons het baie probleme; julle verstaan nie die posisie nie; ons het baie probleme.” His second point was that the Port Elizabeth abattoir was rejected as an export abattoir. These are the reasons given by the hon. the Minister. Then he went on to say: “We cannot export because not one of our abattoirs in South Africa is suitable for export.” These are the only reasons the Minister gave. Sir, before I come to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reasons, I want to point out—because this was not mentioned this morning by the hon. member for Walmer —that to start with two men came out from the United Kingdom and inspected our abattoir in Port Elizabeth, as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows and they were quite satisfied that the Port Elizabeth abattoir was suitable for their needs. There was nothing wrong with the Port Elizabeth abattoir except perhaps for offal export and they maintained that that too could easily be rectified; it was only a matter of separating the offal into two different grades, edible and inedible. This could then have been accepted as well. Apart from this everything in the garden was fine as far as the British Government and the importers in the United Kingdom were concerned.

Not everything.

I have all the correspondence here to prove my statesmen!. Firstly I should like to quote from a letter received from the United Kingdom. It states: “We are extremely satisfied with the ”samples’ and are very interested in importing meat to the United Kingdom from the Port Elizabeth abattoir.” I should like to mention what the samples were. Mr. Silcock had two Dorper lambs slaughtered in the Cape Town abattoirs and these exported to the United Kingdom. These were found to be very suitable. The letter goes on to say: “We are now prepared to accept 500 Canterbury lambs from Mr. Silcock of Coles-berg.” After that they were prepared to accept a trial consignment of 3 000 carcasses, and they were prepared to pay for them in advance. Imagine, prepared to pay, before accepting these carcasses, so satisfied were they with the samples and the abattoirs in Port Elizabeth! Then they go on to say: “Thereafter we want at least 30 000 carcasses per week.” Well, this is setting sights high when one takes into account our standards in South Africa, but nevertheless the reservoir is there, and this Government is closing its eyes to it.

I now want to quote from a telegram which was sent to Mr. Silcock because of certain queries lodged by him to the United Kingdom Government. He first believed that the fault lay there and that the Wight nigger in the woodpile was in the United Kingdom. This is what Mr. Silcock believed until he received the following cable addressed from Mr. Wight in Plymouth to Mr. Silcock of Knoffelfontein, Colesberg: “Wight cabled acceptance Viljoen February 16th … (This refers to Mr. Viljoen of our veterinary department) … but regretfully declines confirmatory copy stop due official etiquette considerations stop be assured however you can proceed without impediment stop air letter follows.” The air letter duly arrived. Here it is. It was quoted here this morning.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House have proved beyond any doubt that as far as the veterinary department and the importers of the United Kingdom are concerned, they were more than satisfied. I do not see how we can convince this House any further that they were more than satisfied that the Port Elizabeth abattoir was 100 per cent suitable for their needs. Now here are the replies we had from the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to this Silcock catastrophe; in the first place he gave the same reason as the hon. the Minister gave, namely that Port Elizabeth was not suitable. I do not know what standards the hon. the Minister has in mind or what alterations are required in Port Elizabeth. We have not been told, but yet the hon. the Deputy Minister says that Port Elizabeth abattoir is not suitable. Then he goes on to give this rather alarming reason: He says that he wants to retain the trust placed in the Department, and he goes further and says: “We do not want to see South African farmers lose on the ”overseas’ mutton market.”

But the Minister does not mind if I lose on the “South African” market. That does not matter; it is my business. If I lose, as I pointed out yesterday, on consignments of sheep to the East London market, it is my business. It is purely every South African farmer’s business. But when Silcock wants to send lamb to the United Kingdom and should perhaps loose then suddenly it is the Minister’s business. This is not being consistent. After all is said and done charity begins at home. Apparently the Government is not worried about us losing on our market here. That does not matter. But they want to look after the farmers’ interests only when selling meat in the United Kingdom. Surely, if Mr. Silcock wants to send lamb to the United Kingdom or anywhere else and he sells that mutton at a loss, that is his business. I have to do it every second month here, but that is my business.

Do you sell at a loss every time?

Yes, at present I am virtually selling at a loss. [Time expired.]

Then you are bankrupt.

Sir, I did not want to take part in the debate now, but one is trampled until, after a while, it is no longer possible for one to keep quiet. It seems to me as though the hon. member has had his say. I explicitly told him that our veterinarians had given British veterinarians the undertaking that there had to be compliance with the requirements which they had laid down for the abattoirs before meat could be exported. They specifically referred to the East London abattoirs and Port Elizabeth abattoirs. I saw the list of things which had to be remedied, such as toilet facilities, and the offal division is not the only one. Our veterinarians told me that if I granted this permit or issue a certificate, the abattoirs had to comply with the requirements which the health people of Great Britain had laid down for these abattoirs, and we simply find it impossible to remedy these matters. I told the hon. member about all the things we had tried in order to be in a position to come back and to say: “Look, we have now exported the meat and the loss comes to 8,4 cents per pound.” But now the hon. member says I am satisfied about the possibility that he may lose money, but the Government may not lose any money.

On a point of order, Sir, I said the Minister had said he was afraid that Mr. Silcock would lose money.

Order!

That is not a point of order.

A moment ago the hon. member said we were satisfied. Yesterday he referred to the cats hanging on the hooks and he said that we were satisfied about the possibility that he could lose money. Why did he make that statement yesterday? After all, he knows that if that mutton which he offered for sale on the Port Elizabeth market or the East London market, had complied with the grade requirements, it could have been bought in at the floor price, and then there would have been no need for him to give the sheep away at R3 each. Surely he knows what the position is. Here I have the market reports. I do not want to embarrass him by saying: “Very well, you have the market reports, the one before Christmas and the one after Christmas, but what was the grading?” In reply to that he said that the grading was exactly the same; the one was bought in on the floor-price basis and the other was not. Why did the hon. member not mention that?

They were both by public auction.

Oh, by public auction! But the hon. member said it was at the abattoirs. Can you see, Sir? And why was it not bought in at the floor price? It was sub-grade. The hon. member wants to know what standards we want. I told him explicitly. I told the hon. member for Walmer that what was at stake here, was not only our country, but also the reputation of our veterinarians. We tried to put these things in order, but he says we should suffer losses. I am telling him that we are exporting beef at the moment. We are subsidizing it up to 3 cents per pound. You yourself know that in respect of prime grades we are subsidizing it up to 3 cent per pound, but may we say that it should be thrown open? The hon. member referred to the import of meat from Rhodesia, a matter which we are not very keen to discuss every day. Why must we discuss it? And how does that meat enter the country? Not one single head of cattle enters the country from Rhodesia on the hoof. This is no problem, for it need not be slaughtered. Such beef enters the country in cuts. Why does the hon. member drag Rhodesia in by the hair on this point? You have been referring to our own slaughter problems and the facilities which do not exist, but the meat which enters the country, enters it in cuts, already slaughtered. What do you achieve by mentioning that?

We only want an export market for South Africa.

I agree with you. I should also like us to have an export market. But last year we had a problem here with a surplus of eggs, butter and fresh milk. At present we are importing dairy products, eggs and butter. That is how South Africa is. A moment ago I tried to point out the marketing pressure to you, Sir. The hon. member for Vryburg said that hon. members now wish to indulge in scavenging here. Last year they had no objections whatever to our marketing system. A form of marketing pressure has now developed here. Can you believe it, Sir, that we are possibly going to import pork next week? And last year there was a tremendous surplus of pork. That is how our country is, and for all we know we may be faced with an altogether different, new problem when we meet here again in six months’ time. Hon. members should not wrest the matter from its context.

Will you give us time again?

I am a cattle-farmer myself. Do hon. members expect us to have slaughter facilities created in this country, in order to make provision for unusual circumstances, and to maintain them for the next five years? What would my slaughter costs be if an abattoir, built for handling a thousand head of large stock per day, were only utilized for 500? After all, hon. members should be realistic in regard to these matters.

We are concerned about the export of lambs.

I told the hon. member that we were going to make another attempt to export these lambs. France is out of the question as a result of blue-tongue and prices. If we came back to the hon. member and told him that the lambs had been exported at a loss of 8,4 cents per pound, would the hon. member still insist that we go on doing so?

No.

Then the hon. member is satisfied. In 1969 the loss amounted to 8,4 cents per pound. In the meantime freight charges, harbour charges and cold-storage charges have gone up. In the United Kingdom the price has remained constant for the producer. Does the hon. member think that it will be possible for us to export at better prices than at a loss of 8,4 cents per pound?

I would rather come back to those members who made a positive contribution. I did not want to discuss these matters in a negative manner today. I thought the Opposition would understand, and a moment ago I gave them courteous replies. However, hon. members have been persisting in making statements in order to cause confusion amongst our farmers, who are in fact faced with a marketing emergency. The hon. member for Vryburg admitted that, as I said, we had now opened the Vryburg abattoir in an attempt to bring relief. I cannot give way to his proposal that we should give the undertaking that the abattoir will remain open for five years. That is not possible. The carcasses slaughtered at Vryburg must be sold on the Johannesburg market on catalogue. That costs R5, which comes out of the stabilization fund of the Meat Board. Every meat farmer in the country has contributed to that stabilization fund. I cannot allow the fund to be drained for one market for a period of five years in order to bring temporary relief. In regard to Otavi and Okahandja the same question was put to me. The hon. member should not take it amiss of me if I say that I cannot give an undertaking for five years. We must do everything possible in an attempt to ease the situation. Hon. members should remember that if we were to open such an abattoir, the meat, for instance, would have to be graded in Otavi. Staff would be required for that purpose. This would also entail additional costs. The meat would have to be refrigerated in order that it may be conveyed from Otavi to the consumer points on the Witwatersrand. It could cost R7 or R8 to convey one carcass over such a long distance. I say that we shall investigate it as a temporary solution. However, where is the money to come from? The money comes from the person who used to market at East London, and also made his contribution to the funds of the Meat Board. If that person approached his M.P. in five years’ time and asked him whether he should go on draining his funds so as to subsidize slaughterings in Otavi, there would also be trouble. We should approach these matters in a practical manner.

Now I want to come to the hon. members for Prieska and Karas. Before we adjourn, I shall refer to the locusts. I just want to mention this briefly. It rarely happens that a member rises here and thanks members of the Department of Agriculture!

Hold on, Hendrik, I shall do so in a moment.

The Opposition laughed sneeringly at the locust problem. Under extremely difficult conditions more than 2 000 people engaged in spraying locusts. Up to last week this campaign cost as much as R1,25 million. These people sprayed thousands of tons of spray and were far away from their homes. I want to thank the two hon. members, to whom I referred a moment ago, for having thanked the officials who have been doing this work.

While I am expressing thanks, I just want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Ladybrand, the hon. member for East London City and the hon. the Minister in regard to the two officials who are retiring. In regard to agricultural matters we should not forget that it is farmers in our country who have had the opportunity of making money out of agriculture. This applies to the farmers on both sides of this House. How was it possible for them to do so? It was possible for them to do so because there were people who had made it their task in life to provide me and my neighbour with guidance. These two gentlemen started working in this department when I was a two-year-old boy. Today they are getting out of harness. They made it their task in life to assist our farmers in achieving the production we have today. I am referring to Mr. Viljoen and Dr. Piet Vorster. May their old age be pleasant and may their retirement be enjoyable. Faithful servants, may the rest of your lives be pleasant and happy.

Mr. Chairman, further to what was said by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, I should very much like to refer to the latest annual report published by the retiring Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services. This report is a monumental piece of work, which, I think, is a very great tribute to the retiring Secretary. It is a report which for many years in the future will still remind us of the very great work done by Dr. Vorster, especially in regard to soil conservation in our country. If we think of soil conservation in the future, we shall always think of him and try, in all modesty, to carry on with that work. On page 25 of this report, it is stated that the number of planned farming units on which all essential soil conservations works have been completed, was 1 290, only 80 more than during the previous year. That is followed by this significant sentence—

This is one of the last fine, serious warnings which the father of soil conservation in South Africa has left to us and which we shall have to consider more thoroughly.

We have now seen that the past season in the Province of Transvaal was a very good rainy season. Now, there is one way in which one can tackle these accelerated soil conservation measures which are being advocated by the retiring Secretary and which are near to our hearts. By these means we shall make it easier for more farmers to be able to tackle a very specific piece of soil conservation work, something which they cannot do at the moment. This is the kind of soil conservation work which, in farmers’ language, we call the “small earth dams” in the trenches and in the vleis. These earth dams are built in those parts where the rainfall and the soil formation are suitable. The rains of the past season have virtually filled our large dams. The Vaal Dam is filled to approximately 60 per cent of its capacity. Nevertheless, it is likely that more than three-quarters of the rain water once again flowed past down to the sea. This water not only flowed past down to the sea, but also carried the top-soil along with it. In flying past the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and looking down at that beautiful, large expanse of water, one is filled with pride. But when one sees the brown silt of the catchment area of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, one shudders.

Now, my representations are that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure should grant long-term loans at low interest rates to the reasonably needy farmer who wants to build dams, so that they may start with this conservation work on the farms. In this way the rain water which is washed away there, may be saved. Those farmers cannot do so at the moment, for the simple reason that they do not have available in cash that sum of R4 000 or R5 000 for the first dam. These farmers cannot withdraw such large sums from the capital intended for the rest of their farming enterprises in order to build such dams. My urgent request is that these people, who represent a very large section of our farming population, should be helped with that first R4 000 or R5 000 in order that they may build the first small dam in that stream or in that vlei. With the existing subsidy which a farmer will receive on such a dam in terms of present soil conservation measures, plus the extra income which he will derive from the enhanced carrying capacity of his soil as a result of that first dam, the farmer himself can then finance the second, the third and the subsequent dams. The larger the number of these small dams built in the rainfall areas where the soil is suitable for such purposes, the larger the number of permanent feeding resources and permanent water sponges we shall be creating for these large dams which we are planning.

I suppose there are alternative means by which the smaller farmer can finance himself in respect of this first amount of R4 000 or R5 000 which is required in the construction of a dam. I am thinking of alternatives such as production-loan sources and other sources, but these are not effective enough and many of the farmers are not aware of the aids that are available. My representations are that in conjunction with the soil conservation boards and the Department of Agricultural Credit a special scheme be devised for assisting these farmers so that they may do the initial financing. These farmers are willing to do it; it is in the national interest that it should be done in the struggle against soil erosion and in an attempt to enhance the carrying capacity of our soil by creating more natural sponge areas and natural vleis. I am referring to vleis which are dry now or which will soon be dry, in spite of the plentiful rains! Individual farmers in my constituency have shown what can be done. The hon. the Minister visited some of those farms and knows, therefore, that these are not hollow representations. This is being done successfully by practical farmers, and we are asking for additional assistance for them in this sphere.

On page 22 of the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, a certain aspect of extension work is mentioned, an aspect which has so far not been brought up in this House, i.e. the agricultural radio service. I should like to come back to this for a moment. I should very much like to congratulate the agricultural radio service team on the excellent programmes which they have been preparing and broadcasting and for which the S.A.B.C. has now been so kind as to allot ten half-hour programmes a week.

This is a very important source of extension work, and in listening to these programmes, we find that they are really worth listening to. Furthermore, this is a very important means of communication between the producer and the consumer in the city. There is something that troubles me, and that is this new time at which broadcasts are made, namely from 6 a.m. to 6.30 a.m. The programme broadcast at this time of the morning creates problems. The report states that the number of listeners to the agricultural radio service is bigger than it was before. I made a point of taking sample tests at random in this regard, amongst farmers as well as City dwellers. My findings may be faulty, but it would appear to me as though, roughly speaking, only three out of every ten farmers are listening to this important programme at the moment. Especially early in the morning the farmers are at work and busy outside. As against that the city dwellers are still asleep at that time of the morning. I wonder whether another plan cannot be devised. For instance, I am thinking of the stock exchange report, to which one has to listen ad nauseam every day. I believe that very few people in the country listen to this programme. I think that the agricultural radio service can very profitably take up that time. Share prices may as well be broadcast on shortwave or on Springbok Radio. This is merely a suggestion I want to submit to the Minister for his consideration.

Now I should like to refer to the hon. member for King William’s Town. Yesterday that hon. member very boisterously kicked up a fuss in this House by saying that this Government was apathetic towards farmers. Those were his actual words. Were they not?

Yes.

That hon. member has now confirmed it. On behalf of many needy farmers I should like to thank the second most senior official who is sitting in the departmental benches this afternoon, i.e. the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Mr. Viljoen, who is also retiring, for the sympathetic way in which he has over the years dealt with our agricultural credit cases. This only redounds to his credit, and we shall bear it in mind for a very long time to come. He does not have a soil conservation programme which he can leave behind as an inheritance, but he has kept on the land many farmers who would otherwise never have been there today.

To the hon. member for King William’s Town, who says that the Government is apathetic towards farmers, I want to show the figures in respect of the number of people who applied to the Agricultural Credit Board for assistance over the past year. There were 22 727 such applications. The hon. member may as well write that down. The number of cases that were rejected, was only 2 322. [Time expired.]

I am very sorry that time has passed so rapidly. I would not have minded if the hon. member had been able to finish his statistics. At the outset I just want to associate myself with what he was saying, because I, too, do not feel quite happy about the times at which “Landbouradio” is broadcast in the morning. It cannot be broadcast at the same time in winter and in summer and still retain the same effectiveness for the farmers. In summer at half-past four, five o’clock, no one is in the house any more. In winter it would probably suit the farmer, but possibly not the city-dweller. It is a good thing, and something with which I want to identify myself, for an inquiry to be made so as to ascertain whether greater efficiency cannot be achieved by changing the times of the broadcast.

I, too, do not want to range myself on the side of the people who air complaints by the tonload about the agricultural industry. I see agriculture as a calling in life, as a way of life. If one is a farmer to the core, if one has farming in one’s blood, one is not inclined to complain; one does not have the tendency to complain all day long about the elements of nature and about those matters pressing down on one, but one takes the bull by the horns and one rectifies these matters as far as it is within one’s power to do so. The different divisions of the Department of Agriculture lend a helping hand in this effort which the real farmer is making to ensure his existence. To them we want to pay tribute this afternoon. I want to tell hon. members that I can hardly imagine that the four United Party members who are sitting on the opposite side and who are active farmers would have been sitting there if it had not been for the existence of a Department of Agricultural Technical Services and other similar departments. I say this because it is one thing to criticize when one is sitting in the Opposition—I am speaking from experience—but quite another to govern a country. It is very easy to find the fault after a train has been derailed or after a pig has died of measles; but it is far more difficult to prevent these things without any prior knowledge of the events to come.

Now I want to refer to the work being done by the Department of Agriculture in Zululand, as Zululand no longer has an active farmer as its representative.

It has.

He is just a small Durban attorney, and he is much more occupied with other matters.

The previous member for Zululand was not a farmer— he was a second-hand teacher.

I did not say he was a farmer. Where does the hon. member get that from? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must give the hon. member a chance to continue with his speech.

Sir, they do not want to hear the truth. The whole point is that they do not adopt the point of view that farming is a way of life. They do not adopt the point of view that the resources the farmer has to keep on his farm must be kept intact and must be cared for devotedly. That is why they have been gossiping all day long about the problems which exist, about a farm which has been sold and about the abattoirs; but they never penetrate to the root of the evil. They are concerning themselves with the kind of problem which, if one’s approach is wrong, may smack of something in any administration. If I were in their shoes, I would be the last to talk, because that Durban Municipality is not being controlled by farmers. They are the people who have not been able to get the facilities in order for the farmer with livestock to slaughter. Instead of their really being able to make out a case for increasing their fees, they have increased the valuation of the land on which the buildings are standing, buildings which are so dilapidated that no one feels safe in them any longer, so as to enable them to levy higher slaughtering fees for the farmers to pay. Not a single United Party member has had a word to say about that. This is their way of doing these things.

However, I want to return to the discussion of something more positive, something I was busy discussing, i.e. the work being done by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services behind the Lebombo Mountains, despite the gossip in which hon. members on the opposite side are indulging to the effect that the whole area north of the Lebombo Mountains were allegedly to be given to the Bantu. In that area the Department of Agricultural Technical Services conducted a soil survey, which is probably unique of its kind. This department is fully informed as to the latent qualities of the soil in this area and, for example, the story that there was not enough good agricultural land, was summarily given a death blow. When the United Party heard that a soil survey had been made, they were given such a fright by this department that we have never heard from them since. I can give hon. members the assurance that the work was done so well in that area that it has been extended to an area on this side of the Lebombo Mountains, to an area in which sugar is already being cultivated. It has been found that in those areas the soil is becoming brackish to a certain extent and I have now learned that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is ascertaining to what extent the soil is becoming brackish, and what can be done about it. I have also learned that the Department is having difficulty in obtaining enough technical staff to have this work completed expeditiously and without delay so that they may make their intentions known to us.

When one takes a look at sugar production, one sees that, despite the better fertilizers and advice, a declining trend per unit of production per acre has set in. Admittedly, the large quantity of sugar produced in the dry-land areas may cause the average to decline, but the fact remains that on the whole there has been a gradual decline. Because I know what I am talking about, I am convinced of the fact that the main cause of this actually is the fact that the soil is becoming brackish and the injudicious use of water in some parts, and in other parts the use of water not intended for the irrigation of sugar. I want to repeat, however, that the good work and the pioneer work being done there by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, is of great value, and I want to pay tribute to the Department.

I should also like to associate myself with the praise expressed by previous speakers for this monumental report of the department. I have the reports of all years, and want to congratulate Dr. Vorster on this report, because, if a person temporarily ends his career on such a high note, it does him great credit. Those who do not want to read the report now, may save it for their children for the future, because it will be of great value even to them. I now come to the cardinal point I want to mention. In all the debates throughout this year we have had constant attempts from the Opposition to drag the labour question by the hair into every facet of our economy. However, they have been careful to steer clear of the question of farm labour. Hon. members on the opposite side have not mentioned that in a single debate. I want to make a statement with reference to a small paragraph in this report. This paragraph reads as follows—-

In other words, the writers of this report feel as concerned as we do about the fact that agriculture is being carried away systematically from its original purpose. The farmer went to the rural areas and became a farmer because of a certain ideal in life and a certain outlook on life he had. He had labourers, and he got along well with these labourers. He worked with them on contract and acted as their guardian as well as the person who provided them with their food. With our technological development and the major development of the manufacturing industry, and the constant wish of the United Party for more labour, the farm labour of our farmers is being drained away. It has happened here in Cape Town, and it has happened throughout the country, and it is for that reason that the vast majority of our Coloured population in Cape Town is Afrikaans-speaking. It is because they came from the hinterland where they spoke the language of the people in the rural areas. The United Party attracted the Coloureds to the industries, but that very United Party who had a hand in bringing the Coloured people to the urban areas, did not provide them and their families with housing as we in the rural areas do; they did not provide them with food; they simply paid a cash wage which attracted the other members of the family, those who had remained in the rural areas, to the urban areas only to find that, instead of their families being cared for, as was the case on the farms, they had to become the responsibility of the Department of Community Development. They are the children of the State now. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know where the hon. member for Vryheid has been during this debate, when he says that nobody has mentioned the question of labour and particularly non-White labour on the farms. Where was he before lunch? Did he not listen to his colleague behind him, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet? Did he not hear what I had to say to the hon. the Minister? Where has he been in past years when we have made this plea over and over again, as the hon. the Minister of Community Development knows. He knows how, even in the days when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, we pleaded over and over again for the training of labour, particularly non-White labour for the farms, and he knows how little success we had. The hon. member for South Coast in particular, has made this part of his drive every year … [Interjections.] No. I have no time; the hon. member can talk again. The hon. member for South Coast has made this plea to the hon. the Minister here year after year, and we got nowhere at all with it. It is no good that hon. member coming along now and talking about this question of labour.

Sir, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vryheid has said about the officials of the department. I believe that they are doing a good job of work. I believe that they are doing the best job of work that they can do under the circumstances, the circumstances being under that Nationalist Government. I think if they were given more chance, they could do more for agriculture in this country. The only thing which is holding them back is the policy of that Government. That is all that is holding them back; they want to go a lot further. The hon. member for Pretoria District mentioned the warning left to us by Dr. Vorster regarding soil conservation. Sir, what notice is that Government taking of this warning? What assistance are they giving to the farmer if their own member has to plead for further assistance to the farmer to do something about dams? Sir, what about the soil erosion in the Bantu areas, which should also be the concern of hon. members on that side and of the Department of Agriculture. But nobody is doing anything about it. Sir, the officials are doing a fine job of work; I grant them that, and I thank them for it. I also want to associate myself with the words which have been uttered by the Minister, the Deputy Minister and others regarding the two senior officials who are leaving us now. I hope that they will have a happy and worth-while retirement and that they will have many years ahead to appreciate and enjoy what they have well earned.

Sir, I want to come back to the Deputy Minister. The Deputy Minister has tried to reply on the question of the export of the 500 lamb carcasses. But, Sir, what he has not answered is the claim that the United Kingdom have accepted the Port Elizabeth abattoir. Does he deny that now?

Who in the United Kingdom?

Does he deny that the United Kingdom authorities have accepted it? Sir, the hon. member for Walmer pointed out that they not only accepted it, but that they have registered it and given it a registration number.

What authority is that?

That is sufficient authority. Surely it is sufficient authority for the hon. the Deputy Minister at least to investigate, but he has not even undertaken to investigate the matter. He rejects it utterly. That is the arrogance we are dealing with. He goes further. He did not deal with this question at all. He says that the Veterinary Department of the Republic of South Africa have rejected it. But, Sir, he does not tell us why. He does not tell us on what grounds they have rejected it, in the face of a registration by the United Kingdom authorities.

Because England rejected it.

Sir, it is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister sitting there and saying that England rejected it. The hon. member for Walmer has written proof that they have accepted it, but the hon. the Deputy Minister will not even consider it.

I bet you R1 000 they did not accept it.

No, there is no need to bet on it. I wonder whether the Deputy Minister is going to have this matter investigated now. Will you give an undertaking that you will now investigate this matter? [Interjections.] Do you see, Sir? That is the attitude. Then they wonder why we say that this Government has no feeling for the farmer. He throws his hands up and says: “Ag man”. He is not even prepared to investigate this matter for the good of the industry.

The hon. the Deputy Minister went further and said that there were surpluses in one year and shortages in the next. We are all aware of this. That is the problem in South Africa; it has certainly been the problem in South Africa during the last 20 years. The reason for that is that we can get no long-term policy from this Government. All they are capable of are stop-gap measures every time something goes wrong. What did the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us a moment ago? He told us that we have now reached the stage where we are re-importing dairy products because of the serious shortage of dairy products. I have here an article which appeared in the Farmer’s Weekly of 21st May, 1969, following upon a speech which I made in this House. The heading reads as follows: “Dairy Farmers face Lower Prices and Surpluses”, and I quote from the article: “Minister Uys said that the possibility existed that they would have to reduce the price of milk again because of the surplus production”.

We increased it last week by three cents a gallon.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister is very sensitive on this point, but he must wait until I have finished. This is the very point I wish to make. In 1969 we were faced with surpluses, and what did the Government do about trying to stimulate the market? Nothing. What did they do about long-term planning? What did they do in 1962? They reduced the price of milk, and I was one of those who could not make ends meet after they reduced the price of milk. What happened then? Like all the other farmers in the country, I looked around for a more lucrative source of income in the farming sphere. What did I find at the time? I found that pork was selling at a high price, so I started to convert my operations to the production of pork. What happened then? The price of pork went down. This is exactly what is happening in the case of every single commodity. Why do we have these periodic surpluses? When the price of maize is high the mealie farmer plants mealies, but with this Government he never knows where he is. The farmer looks around, finds that dairy prices are lucrative and goes in for dairy production. What happens then? The Government cuts his throat there too. He then has to find something else and he goes in for pork production. He has no sooner done so when everything goes haywire and he has to find something else again. The farmers today do not know which field to concentrate on. They are jumping from the left foot to the right, from the one industry to the other, trying to find some way of making a living. After all, the main interest of the farmer is to make a living.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member can make his own speech. What is the position in regard to the dairy industry, Sir? Less than a year ago I said that the dairy industry was facing ruin in South Africa because of the price policy of this Government. The hon. the Deputy Minister now boasts that the price of fresh milk was increased two weeks ago by 3 cents a gallon in certain controlled areas. How far did that 3 cents per gallon go? It barely made up the leeway in increased costs of production since the last price increase. That is all it did.

What did the United Party say in Witbank?

Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan can make his own speech when the time comes. That three cent increase has barely covered the increased cost of production since the last price increase in 1966, and in his heart of hearts the hon. the Deputy Minister knows this. What are the dairy farmers faced with today? They are faced with a further increase in the price of their concentrates of 20 cents a bag. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister knows this. This has been brought about because of the increase in the price of yellow maize and because the Government has lifted control on the price of maize from the millers. I admit that the millers have to pay 17 cents per bag more for their yellow maize, but does that increase of 17 cents per bag justify an increase of 20 cents on a bag of dairy meal, chicken feed or any livestock concentrate? I do not believe that it is justified and I believe that if that hon. Deputy Minister had the interests of the farmer at heart, he would do something about it. [Time expired.]

Sir, you will probably not take it amiss of me if I do not reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. However, I want to tell him that I do not have R1 000 to help him with in the bet he has with the Deputy Minister.

Nobody has that amount under this Government.

We have discussed the question of productivity in this House on various occasions and when discussing productivity, I want to say that productivity is an attitude of mind. An attitude of mind geared to productivity accepts that good enough is not good enough and that there is always a better method of improving both productivity and quality. This brings us to the fact that we, as far as agriculture is concerned, will have to concentrate to an increasing extent on the better utilization of the soil and the better utilization of labour and on producing an even better product. In this connection it seems to me as if the hon. member for King William’s Town does not really have any idea of what a better product is, because he said quite recently in this House that when he wanted to sell some of his sheep, he had to part with a case of whisky. It appears that what the hon. member had to send to the market was cats and not sheep, as the hon. member for East London North has put it.

I should like to avail myself of the few minutes at my disposal to discuss the citrus industry on this occasion. According to calculations 90 per cent of the production of the citrus industry takes place under irrigation. This brings me to the fact that production costs in the cultivation of citrus are particularly high. If I bear in mind that hardly any irrigation took place in the Sundays River Valley during the last two years and that the rainfall was only 30 per cent of the normal rainfall, one gets an impression of the enormous difficulties which were experienced with production in that area of the Republic. For that reason our production this year, for the current season, will amount to only 15 per cent of the normal production in that valley. It is under these circumstances that one, and more particularly the farmer, is highly appreciative of a sympathetic government such as this one and in particular of the Minister of Agriculture and his department. In this connection I take into consideration the fact that assistance to the extent of R804 000, almost R1 million, was rendered to the farmers in that valley by Agricultural Credit alone during the past two years. I am highly appreciative of this assistance and I want to convey to the hon. the Minister, his department and the Government the appreciation of that group of farmers.

The normal citrus production in the Republic amounts to 38 million pockets of 13 kilograms each at present. According to calculations, there will be an over-production of citrus in the near future, i.e. in the year 1980, when there will be a surplus of 517 000 tons. To this I should add that our present exports amount to 20 million units of 15 kilograms each while 17 million pockets go to the local market for local consumption. There has been a phenomenal increase in the exploitation of the local market. We find that the consumption of fresh fruit locally has increased by 52 per cent, but even more spectacular is the increase in the consumption of fresh fruit juice, i.e. an increase of 202 per cent. In view of the anticipated over-production of citrus, we will certainly have to exploit this marketing channel in full.

I require the active support of the hon. the Minister in regard to the following point I want to raise. At present fruit-flavoured cool-drinks have a fruit-juice content of 5 per cent. In order to encourage the citrus industry, I want to say here that fruit-flavoured cool-drinks with a 5 per cent fruit-juice content were exempted from duty by the hon. the Minister of Finance a few years ago. Representations were made by the Citrus Board to the hon. the Minister to the effect that fruit-flavoured cool-drinks should contain a higher percentage of pure fruit-juice. The cool-drink industry objected strongly to this because, as was alleged, this would upset stability. I have at my disposal a report of the commission of the European Common Market for the council of ministers of the Common Market, in which it is recommended that the fruit-juice content in fruit-flavoured cool-drinks should be increased to 10 per cent. I want to point out that fruit-flavoured cool-drinks in Holland have a fruit-juice content of 10 per cent at present; in Germany, 6 per cent; in Italy, 12 per cent. Hon. members should take notice of the fact that the countries I have mentioned are not fruit-producing countries, while the Republic is a fruit-producing country. The representations are, therefore, to the effect that active steps should be taken for the fruit-juice content of fruit-flavoured cool-drinks to be increased to at least 10 per cent without upsetting the stability of the cool-drink industry. This will give the local product a boost. This will help us to utilize the citrus surplus and at the same time build a healthy nation. What is more, a higher fruit-juice content in fruit-flavoured cool-drinks will reduce the number of accidents on our roads and what is even better, we will have a more effective Opposition in this House.

In regard to the export of citrus, the position does not look good at all despite the fact that we have used quite attractive Outspan ladies to advertise citrus abroad. Important doors remained closed to our citrus industry in the past, i.e. the markets of the United States and Japan. Those countries have laid down such severe conditions that we were unable to export our citrus there. Thanks to the sustained negotiations, publicity and research work conducted by the technical officers of the Citrus Board, we have succeeded by means of strictly hygienic tests in obtaining the desired produce standard with the result that we have gained access to the markets in the United States as well as Japan. The prospects are that a considerable amount of citrus will be exported to Japan this year. I want to say, therefore, that the future of citrus is much more encouraging in that export markets will expand, but the local market will also have to be better exploited. This is a market which has great significance for us, particularly when we bear in mind that, by making a modest attempt, the local consumption of citrus-juice has increased to the extent of 202 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member for Somerset East, i. e. that more attention should be given to citrus-juices. An increase in the duty on spirits was announced in the Budget. We may just as well impose a higher duty on synthetic cool-drinks. I cannot see what objection there could be to these people, who drink this coloured water, paying some duty as well. If this were done, I would like to make this plea to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Finance that they should consider granting further exemptions in respect of fruit-juices. Fruit-juices are much healthier for our public. An exception of this nature will create a bigger market for the fruit industry.

The hon. member for Somerset East spoke about the export of citrus fruit and the promising market for our citrus fruit abroad. I am aware of the fact that we had two increases in shipping freight tariffs in the past year. The shipping contract with the conference lines is being revised again this month. I have heard that they are going to ask for another increase in shippi’ freight tariffs. The time will come when the goose that laid the golden eggs for the shipping contractors will die if they continue fleecing it by insisting on higher shipping freight tariffs. I do not want to deal with this matter today, but I want to put it to the hon. members for consideration that if this were to continue the Government might perhaps be compelled to pay a subsidy in respect of freight in future. This is something we would not like to see. Every industry wants to stand on its own feet. However, I think if this were to continue, the Government would have to consider this in future.

I want to discuss a completely different matter today, i.e. veterinary services. The hon. member for Albany made a few statements here and asked for a second veterinary faculty to be established at Grahamstown. However, the hon. member motivated his attitude by advancing the most peculiar arguments I have heard today. I just want to mention the arguments he used. In the first place, he said that the stock population at Onderstepoort is too small. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there are far better arguments than this. Surely, one can keep the number of stock that is required there, and one can obtain all the samples one wants. The second argument advanced by the hon. member was to the effect that the vaccines at Onderstepoort are contaminated. I think the accusation the hon. member made here was an ugly one. I wonder what the staff at Onderstepoort will have to say about that. The third argument he advanced was that the student enrolment figure was too high. The hon. member made this statement despite the fact that there is such a great shortage of veterinarians. However, I will come back to this point at a later stage. Fourthly, the hon. member queried the figures furnished by the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with the erection costs of an institute of this nature at Grahamstown. I want to assure the hon. member that by the time such an institute is erected, the estimate of the costs made today will be exceeded by far. An institute of this nature will undoubtedly cost a great deal of money. I also want to associate myself with those hon. members who congratulated the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on this report. This is a very comprehensive report. One only wishes that our farmers could see what is contained in this report.

I want to refer to our veterinary services in particular. I see that we are going to spend R1 600 000 on our current account this year on the Animal and Dairy Science Institute. For the Veterinary Research Institute an amount of R2 819 000 is appropriated while an amount of R5 145 000 is appropriated for Veterinary Field Services. We are therefore spending an amount of nearly R10 million to see to it that our stock farmers are able to control the diseases among their stock. Surely, this is proof of the fact that our Ministers have the interests of our stock farmers at heart. In addition, capital expenditure is being incurred to make provision for the future. They are in the process of providing accommodation for the preparation of vaccines. These buildings have virtually been completed and are being erected at a cost of R1 600 000. In addition, the Government is in the process of erecting the Irene Research Institute at Pretoria at an additional cost of more than R1 million. This institute is being established for the purpose of studying animal husbandry and poultry diseases. To me this goes to show that everything possible is being done in this field. We have full confidence in those institutes. What do they occupy themselves with? They occupy themselves by studying all the various diseases. This report includes 40 pages containing particularly sound information on what is being done in regard to each disease. One is amazed at the number of problems which exist and in regard to which the Institute is conducting research work. In addition, they prepare vaccines for all the various diseases. Furthermore, work is being done in regard to the combating of diseases, for example foot and mouth disease, an outbreak of which occurred again during the past year. Steps had to be taken to prevent the disease from spreading from the Kruger National Park and Swaziland into the Republic. They even went to Swaziland in order to combat foot and mouth disease there. We are thinking of the combating of the outbreak of the Newcastle disease we had in Port Elizabeth and Natal. Surely, our farmers would have found it difficult if we did not have an institute to undertake these tasks. I wonder how many farmers are aware of the fact that an outbreak of scabies occurred in seven districts in the Cape Province and in three districts in the Transvaal and that the department had this disease under control within a short space of time. Better facilities have been established for the identification of local problems. Diagnostic laboratories have been established at Onderstepoort, at Ellerton, at Stellenbosch, at Grootfontein and in Windhoek. All these things have been done in order to assist the farmers in keeping their cattle and their stock healthy.

However, I did not rise here today only to sing the praises of the department. I want to point out that State veterinarians are scattered far and wide over our country. Farmers often find it quite difficult to get hold of a State veterinarian or to get them to come and investigate their problems. However, the farmers are still able to make a plan as they have done in the past. I want to tell hon. members of a plan they made at Humansdorp in order to get a veterinarian to settle there. A private utility company has been established there and shares to the extent of R15 000 were sold to the farmers. A farm was made available to a private veterinarian to enable him to continue his practice there. This is a fine example which has been set by the farmers of Humansdorp. They got hold of a veterinarian. But even with a plan such as this one and despite the fact that the veterinarian is able to stay on the farm for nothing, he finds it difficult to make a livelihood, particularly in recent times when heavy droughts were experienced. During that period farmers had a difficult time and the income was often inadequate. In addition, it is a fact that veterinarians are able to earn a much better livelihood in the cities. They can quite easily leave the country and concentrate on cats and dogs in the cities. I wonder whether the time has not come for the Government to give serious attention to helping the veterinarians in the country districts. I am afraid that if we did not do this, all of them would ultimately end up in the cities and that it would be impossible to obtain the necessary assistance for our farmers. I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to go into this matter. I want to ask him to see whether it is not possible to assist the country districts in some way or other.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in complete accord with the final portion of what the hon. member for Humansdorp had to say. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will take note of this plea to investigate the whole question of facilities for veterinary surgeons on the platteland. This is a serious matter, and the hon. member for Humansdorp is quite right when he says that the veterinary surgeon can have a far easier and a far more lucrative life in the city today, looking after the dogs, the cats and the budgies, rather than doing the hard work in the country areas. But this has to be done. Is this not the crux of what my hon. friend from Albany was saying when he pleaded with the hon. the Deputy Minister again for the establishment of another veterinary faculty? There just are not enough veterinarians to go round. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with me. One way to take care of this problem is to consider the establishment of another veterinary faculty. If I may add a commercial to what I am saying, I do hope that when the hon. the Minister comes to consider it he will think in terms of Pietermaritzburg for that other faculty.

The hon. member for Humansdorp also supported the hon. member for Somerset East in his support of recommendations that were made to the hon. the Minister by the Citrus Board and the citrus industry for some protection against the cold drink manufacturers who are using the trade or brand names of some of the products of the citrus industry for their cold drinks, without any content whatsoever of the natural juice of the fruit concerned. I would commend to the hon. the Minister a serious consideration of those recommendations and requests that were put to him.

But I want to come back to the dairy industry and the position in which the industry is finding itself today because of the price fixation policy of this Government. There is no other reason for it. 1971 has been a good season. We have had good rains in the last six or eight months. The veld is better now than it has been for years, but we still find ourselves in the position that we have to import dairy products. Why? I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister has asked himself why. I can name as the only reason the fact that the dairy farmers have become fed up. Production costs, since the last increase in the producer’s price in 1966, have gone up to the extent where it was no longer profitable to produce milk. I have here some figures. The 3 cent rise represents an increase of 8,22 per cent over five years. It is five years since they last got an increase. This is 1,64 per cent per annum, whereas the value of money alone is dropping by at least 5 per cent per annum. No business can and does exist under circumstances of this sort. There was a time when the small dairy farmer was the one who was being warned: “Make your production more efficient, or else you are going to be squeezed out”, but today even the big farmers are going out. Even the combines, even the moguls of commerce and industry who have gone into farming, into the dairy industry, are getting out. They are diversifying and are going somewhere else. The hon. the Deputy Minister only has to look at any newspaper serving any agricultural area, for example at the Farmer’s Weekly to see the number of dispersal sales of dairy herds, the number of dairy farms which are up for sale. He must ask himself why.

It has been like that all these years.

No, Sir. There always have been dispersal sales and sales of dairy farms—I will concede that—but not to the extent to which it is happening today. Let us look at the figures supplied by the hon. the Minister in reply to a question that I put to him recently in this House. Let us look at the production of milk. In 1968, 104,2 million gallons of fresh milk was produced. In 1969, 111,3 million gallons—then they started to catch up with the farmers—and in 1970, 106,5 million gallons, a drop in one year of nearly 5 million gallons of fresh milk. The percentage does not matter—this is 5 million gallons less milk produced. Of course there is a rise in demand at the same time. This survey has been undertaken by the dairy industry on its own. The promotion of the consumption of milk in dairy products and all the figures which I am going to give now must be considered in the light of the rising demand. Last year we only produced, I believe, something like 94 per cent of the estimated consumption in this country. In 1969 production dropped from 48,7 million lbs. to 39,1 million lbs—-a drop of 9,6 million lbs. of cheese that was not produced. If one looks at butter, there was a drop from 1969 of 122,2 million lbs. to 104,2 million lbs.—18 million lbs. less butter was produced in 1970 than in 1969. While we are dealing with butter, let us have a look at exports. In 1969 we were able to export 5,5 million pounds of butter. How much were the exports in 1966?—1,6 million pounds only. 4 million pounds less butter were therefore exported; it was just not produced. At the same time, to meet the demand in this country, in 1969 when we exported 5,5 million pounds, we imported nearly 800 000 pounds. But how much did we have to import in 1970 to meet the demand?—6,1 million pounds, 700 per cent more than in 1969. In the case of cheese, where we imported nothing whatsoever in 1969 we had to import 965 000 pounds in 1970 to meet the local demand. That demand is going up. I am sure, although I have not been able to get the figures from either the hon. the Minister or from his department that the production figures—these figures incidentally, are only op to the 30th September, 1970 —since then have dropped further. I am sure that in his reply the hon. the Minister will admit to us that he is importing now, in the flush season, and has been importing all along. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some statistics in his reply of what exactly has been imported in the last six months. Let us look at the comparison of the value of exports and imports. In 1969 we exported dairy products to the value of R1,4 million while we imported only R188 000, which showed a favourable balance of R1,2 million. In 1970, however the position was completely the reverse. While we exported dairy products to the value of only R587 000, we imported R2,078 million’s worth of dairy products, an unfavourable trade balance of R1,58 million. Why is this happening? It is happening purely and simply through the price manipulation policy of the Government. They learnt their lesson in 1962 and they did not dare reduce the price. But what have they done? They have held back on allowing the producer a fair price for his products. It is now five years since the last increase. The consumer had to face two increases since then, the distributor has had two increases since then, but what does he get after five years? 3c in a gallon. It was estimated that that 3c in a gallon would be eaten up within 6 months. It is gone already because of the 20c increase in the cost of concentrates per bag. What is the hon. the Minister going to do. I pointed out to him that large concerns are going out. It is not only the small farmer who cannot keep his head above water, but the large concerns as well. Surely milk, the basis of all dairy products, is one of the most important products in this country? On it depends the health of the whole nation. What is the hon. the Minister going to do to try to stabilize this business? I want to put it to him that a strong case can be made today for an annual review of the producer’s price of milk; this cannot be left to when the producers finally, in desperation, make representations to the Milk Board for an increase. I know what the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to say, namely that we have greater problems with surpluses than we have with shortages. I concede him that, but what has he done to stimulate consumption and to look after this industry and to find markets overseas? I have raised this question before and have not really had an answer yet. There was the question of the small packs of butter, namely the 5c and 10c ones. This question was first raised in 1967. Nothing was done about it for 18 months. We find that it was introduced in September, 1968, in the Transvaal, on the Witwatersrand. Now, nearly two years later, it is still only available in the Transvaal and here in Cape Town. What about the other areas of the country? (Time expired.]

Sir, a great deal has been said here today about meat. I do not want to follow the hon. member in what he said, because I want to talk about wine.

That is far nicer.

I think the two go together, because a nice lamb chop or a salted rib of mutton and a glass of wine taste delicious! One may almost echo the sentiments of one of the French poets —1 think it was Victor Hugo—who said in one of his poems, “If I have to choose between women and wine, I choose wine time and again.” Sir, actually this is a matter which belongs under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice, and I shall raise it under that Vote as well. But here we need the assistance of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Wine is an agricultural commodity, and as the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the agricultural industry, we require his assistance in this case. When one listens to the talk of people with whom one comes into contact, one would think—and this is a common idea —that the wine farmers are very rich. Sir, this is an utter misconception. As in every other profession or trade there may be a few rich farmers in the wine industry, but they are the exception and not the rule. The wine farmers are a small group and the production of wine takes place on a small surface of the Republic; actually, it is only here in the Western Province, in the Boland, where wine is produced. Sir, hon. members here and members of the Cabinet have had the privilege of meeting a few prosperous wine farmers. But I repeat that the vast majority are small farmers and with the best will in the world they are not able to produce more than that small piece of land is able to yield, because they are subject to a quota system as well. It would not help the wine farmer if he were to produce more on a small piece of land, because he would derive no income from the wine he produced in excess of his quota. Sir, it is a fact that there is no other agricultural product which is affected by excise to the same extent as wine, and there is no other industry in agriculture which contributes as much to the Treasury as the wine industry does. If one takes the market price of liquor, one finds that the producer receives less than one-twenty-fifth of the price of liquor. Less than one-twenty-fifth goes into the pocket of the producer. I do not think there is any other product in the country—I cannot think of a single one—-in respect of which this is the position. Sir, the wine farmers are concerned; that is true. I am not opposed to excise duty, nor are the wine farmers concerned about excise duty, because they do not pay it, but they are concerned because the increase in the consumption of their product is not keeping pace with the increase in excise. There is not a large area of sale for liquor. In fact, many of the export markets of the wine farmer are in jeopardy today. The wine farmers are very grateful that the excise duty on natural wines has not been increased. Sir, this is also in keeping with the ideal expressed by the Malan Commission of Inquiry at the time, i.e. that our drinking pattern in South Africa has to be changed. The fact of the matter is that we as a nation drink too much spirits. I think everyone, including the Government, would very much like us to change over to the consumption of natural wines.

The cultural drink.

Then the Bill, following the report of the Malan Commission, was introduced here a few years ago. The present Prime Minister dealt with that Bill. After passing that measure, which made liquor more freely available, the wine farmers had great expectations because of the very fact that the general feeling in the country was that the drinking pattern should be changed and that natural wine should be obtainable more readily. The wine farmer was of the opinion at the time that he would derive great benefit from the passing of that Act. But matters have not taken the course anticipated by the wine farmers. The fact of the matter is that natural wines are still not so readily obtainable. Up to this day it is the exception to obtain wine in a restaurant or cafe, not even to mention shops. I want to plead here today that no obstacles should be placed in the way of the consumer who wants to buy the product of the wine farmer—it would give the wine farmer satisfaction if he could get this concession. I want to agree that if one were to distribute wine freely, there would be the danger that this might result in a monopoly being placed in the hands of the chain stores. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to help us. I am also going to raise this matter under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice. I want to ask that natural wines should be more readily obtainable and that small cafes and shops in particular should be supplied with natural wines. Sir, we have often heard the argument here that there is an excessive influx of non-Whites into our White cities, because they have to go to our White areas in order to buy their liquor. We must not think of bottle stores in the Coloured and Bantu areas; we must make these natural wines—I am not talking about strong liquor—available in their cafés. There is not one Coloured residential area or one Bantu residential area today in which there are no cafes and in which there are no small shops, and what I am pleading for is that these natural wines should be more readily obtainable by these people in their own residential areas.

Mr. Chairman, it certainly is a privilege for me to rise in this House after having listened to a speaker who has made a positive suggestion, as the hon. member for Malmesbury has just done. We have by now grown accustomed to the negative pattern followed by the Opposition.

During the past two days this debate on agriculture has been characterized by two features in particular. Firstly there is the lack of understanding which was revealed by the hon. member for Newton Park when he talked about the stock-withdrawal scheme. The performance given by the hon. members for East London City and East London North displayed complete lack of contact with the South African Agricultural Union. Then there was also a lack of contact with the farmer himself. The hon. member for “Botterbul”—I mean Pietermaritzburg District—said that when the maize price is high, farmers plant maize, and that the prices then drop, and that as a result the farmers of South Africa do not know where they stand with the Minister of Agriculture. Does that hon. member not know that, if the farmers of South Africa had not known where they stood with the Minister and this Government, there would not have been a crop of 120 million bags of maize in South Africa, the climate being favourable? A farming group which did not have confidence in its Government, would not have planted so much maize.

The Opposition has also shown us that they remain true to character. On the one hand they make promises and on the other they complain. Yesterday the hon. member for Ladybrand pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture, when the Opposition was in power, was given the nickname of “Koos Promise”. The Opposition has carried on that tradition, and today we also have the lamentations of Van den Heever.

But, Sir, I want to get away from a negative Opposition and confine myself to a positive Minister. I should very much like to mention the expansion of what I think is one of the most important aspects in our agriculture. This is the research in respect of soil mapping and soil surveys. I think it is also fitting on this occasion to express thanks for the introduction of a course in pedology at the University of Potchefstroom. I think it would be disloyalty on my part to the work which is being done there if I did not mention the name of Prof. Harmse of Potchefstroom in this respect. At present he is one of the most imminent pedologists in the world. Fortunately the farmer of South Africa now realizes that the geographical distribution of his soils, next to climate, is one of the most important factors as far as agriculture is concerned, and that it controls biological distribution. The one simple fact that soil represents the surface layer of the earth also makes this a unique resource to us. When we consider that the soil controls the biological processes of all non-amphibian life found in any area, we realize that it is not only the surface area or the number of morgen of land which is important, but that the third dimension, its depth and its quality, is of even greater importance. Because these soil types differ, they must be treated and utilized in different ways. One of the most important motives for classifying soil, is that for both the utilization and the conservation of every kind of soil, it must be utilized according to the potential. But what is also important, is that this soil should also be treated according to the needs. Because experience is the basis on which decisions are made as far as specific kinds of soil and the reactions they show are concerned, these results are of very little value if they are not based on differentiated and classified geographical experiments which have been made. In general the statement that up to now the choice of soil use has been left mainly to the initiative of the farmer holds true. Usually crops are therefore concentrated in regions for which they are best adapted.

Unfortunately this statement is not true as far as individual farms and transitional areas are concerned. Here many mistakes are made since diversification of soil utilization, or to put it differently utilization of every solid type according to its potential and its treatment according to its needs, is handicapped by regional farming patterns. W-hat is particularly alarming in this regard, is that recently land prices are being determined by regional patterns; they are being based on regional patterns, on the number of morgen of ploughed land, without taking into consideration soil differences or differences in the potential of the soil. I think one of the biggest reasons why many of our farmers are finding themselves in financial difficulties today, is that the farmer often has to pay for his mistake of not having paid for quality, and perhaps having made injudicious investments as far as buildings and implements are concerned, and the fact that the potential of the soil had not been taken into consideration.

Justice can only be done to agricultural development in South Africa when this soil survey has been completed and perfected. In order to achieve this object we need a far greater number of pedologists in South Africa. Therefore I should like to convey my thanks to Dr. Grobler, the Deputy Director of the Highveld Region, for the particulars he has made available, particulars which also show that progress has been made in this respect. However, I do not think it is presumptious to make a plea in this House today to various organizations and bodies concerned with agriculture.

Here I have in mind particularly the fertilizer industry, the oil industry, companies manufacturing agricultural machinery and even companies manufacturing livestock preparations; because a mistake on the part of these companies could very easily upset the balance of our soil, the texture of the soil, the structure of the soil, the cultivation of the soil and the depth. Therefore we are also grateful for the information we have received from the Department, i.e. that the investigations into the influence of mixed saline solutions on the penetrability, aggregate, stability, crust formation and soil strength is of great importance. But now I want to make a plea to the effect that these organizations and the companies manufacturing agricultural machinery should consider setting aside part of the money they spend on publicity and even for entertainment in order to train people to make pedological surveys and undertake soil mapping work. I am sure the farmers of South Africa would be prepared to do without many of the representatives who call on them, if these people were trained to classify the soil properly.

I think the Free State in particular is an area where a great deal has still to be done in this connection, and here I should like to plead with the hon. the Minister for the possible consideration of establishing a pedological research institute in the Senekal area. I do not think there is a district in the Republic of South Africa which is as representative of different soil structures and soil textures, topography rainfall, etc., as the Senekal area. At the moment the Maize Board has a farm there, Goosens, where the Department is carrying out experiments. Unfortunately we have learnt that the Department considering handing this farm back to the Maize Board, and that it will then be sold by the Maize Board.

I should like to make a plea to the Minister to the effect that he should consider this farm for the establishment of a possible pedological research institute, which could then also serve the entire Free State. I think the time has arrived for the Minister to give further support to this most important aspect for South Africa, i.e. the analysis of its soil, for we are living in a time in which everything changes very easily. Government policy may change and the Opposition may change. The composition of a people or a nation may change, but there is one thing we may not allow to change in South Africa, and that is the soil. Therefore I should like to make this plea to the Minister, i.e. that he should make a start with the establishment of pedological research institutes, and that he should do so in the Senekal district.

In the past decade the most wonderful things have happened under the Nationalist Party Government. One naturally thinks of the millionaire Minister who obtained a Land Bank loan of R118 000 last year in spite of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture said in this House last year that he personally would not have granted the application. One also thinks of the other Minister who denied that he was a director of a certain company, but who subsequently submitted a letter of resignation in his capacity as director. One also thinks of the typists who woke up in the mornings to open their mail and to find thousands of fishing shares in their letters, the typists who, unbeknown to themselves, were the nominees of very important people. The strangest of all still remains the story of the Director of State Settlement and Farmers’ Assistance of South-West Africa, who sold a farm to himself in error. In reply to a question the hon. the Minister of Agriculture told me a week ago in this House that by virtue of delegated powers the Director of State Settlement and Farmers’ Assistance sold the farm “Mahlzeit 232” district of Keetmanshoop, to a certain Mr. H. J. Strauss for R8 761-22. In reply to a further question by me whether Mr. Strauss was also the Director of Lands of South-West Africa, the hon. the Minister said the following—

The hon. the Minister is quite right. In August of last year the deed of transfer of Mr. Strauss was cancelled in the Deeds Office of Windhoek. The farm “Mahlzeit” was transferred back to the South-West Africa Administration with the explanation that the farm had been transferred to Mr. Strauss erroneously. I owe a debt of gratitude to this morning’s edition of the Suidwester, the Nationalist Party’s newspaper. They conducted an interview with Mr. Strauss yesterday, and according to this morning’s Suidwester Mr. Strauss is retiring today as Director of State Settlement and Farmers’ Assistance of South-West Africa after 45 years in the Public Service, of which 22 years were served in South-West Africa and 14 years in the capacity as Director of Lands of South-West Africa.

According to the Suidwester, which had a very frank interview with Mr. Strauss, a series of questions was put to him. The first question was (translation)—

The reply of Mr. Strauss was—

He said that was why he, too, had applied. He said various other chief officials had obtained farms in the past. The second question was—

The reply was—

The third question was—

The reply of Mr. Strauss was—

The Suidwester went on to say that Mr. Strauss had conceded that he had made an error of judgment in this case. In this case he himself should not have signed. The fourth question was—

The reply of Mr. Strauss was—

That is to say, the State Settlement Board—

That was the Minister of Agriculture. Incidentally, in the meantime the Trust Bank gave Mr. Strauss a loan on the farm in the middle of last year. The fifth question was—

The reply of Mr. Strauss was—

The sixth question was—

The reply was—

The next question was—

The reply was—

We then come to the next question, i.e.—

The reply was—

The penultimate question was—

The reply to that was—

Then we have the final question, as follows—

According to the Suidwester Mr. Strauss said—

Mr. Chairman, this is a very strange statement, because the Trust Bank passed a bond for R20 000 on the farm two months after this farm had been purchased by Mr. Strauss. A bond for R20 000 was given on a farm which had been sold for R8 700 two months before. Yesterday the Trust Bank in Windhoek was asked for an explanation of what had happened here. It is not my task, of course, to comment on the loan policy of the Trust Bank. The reply of the Trust Bank was that the loan had been granted on the identity of the applicant more than on the valuation of the farm.

†Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a fantastic state of affairs. An official of the South-West Africa Administration and of the department in his official capacity transfers land to himself in his private capacity. The purchase price was R8 761 but the Trust Bank was prepared to grant him a bond two months after he acquired the farm of 2½ times as much as the purchase price. The Minister of Agriculture has twice so far in this week failed to explain by whom and on what basis the purchase price of the farm was determined. The hon. the Minister has also twice failed to say whether the board has approved the transaction or who the members of the board were. It is public knowledge who the members of the board are. There are three top Government officials including Mr. Strauss, one Nationalist Party member of the Legislative Assembly and three other well-known Nationalists of South-West Africa. Mr. Strauss himself said during his interview yesterday with the Suidwester that the board approved his application for a State farm in principle. Deeds office documents in South-West Africa purport to have been signed on behalf of the Administrator. And yet the Administrator in an interview says: “Een ding kan ek jou sê. Ek het dit nie geteken nie.” In the deeds office it is recorded that the whole transaction was “foutiewelik”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he accepts that this whole transaction was “foutiewelik”? Is he satisfied with this explanation? Or is there a gross irregularity in respect of this whole transaction? In that case this Committee is entitled to a full and proper explanation of it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown has hung a label around his own neck to come here to gossip about South-West Africa. The other day we saw one of his informants, a certain gentleman called Fourie, being taken to him to go and tell him tales of gossip.

That is not true.

Order! I protected the hon. member and I shall protect this hon. member as well.

I did not worry the hon. member while he was speaking. He knows the hon. gentleman I am speaking of now, the one who asked the messenger the way to his office, much better than I do.

You are a spy.

I hope he knows the record of the hon. gentleman as well. I wonder if he has examined this and the credibility of the hon. gentleman?

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question?

No, I have only ten minutes.

I just want to ask whether the hon. member’s facts were not correct.

All this has been happening since they suddenly have a member of the South-West African Legislative Assembly here. When one puts two and two together, one can see why one man has been singled out to tell tales of gossip concerning fish concessions, land transactions and other matters. Now we are able to understand full well where these tales come from. I wonder whether the hon. member for Simonstown has studied the history of South-West Africa. I am wondering about this because he finds it strange that there is land in South-West Africa, for example in certain areas he mentioned here, the value of which is still 20 cents per hectare. In the first place, this reveals the ignorance of the hon. member. It is sheer ignorance, because prior to 1950 … [Interjections.]

Order! I am warning the hon. member for King William’s Town. A short while ago I protected the hon. member for Simonstown and I am going to do the same now. I want no interjections now. The next member who interjects will be sent out.

If the hon. member and his informants had gone back a bit further and had studied the history of South-West Africa, they would have seen that in the 1920s and 30s some of the foremost areas in South-West Africa were sold at 7d. and 6d. a hectare. In 1951, after the National Government had taken over, I requested the appointment of a commission of inquiry into this matter. This was done, because at that time the Land Board started increasing the prices of the Crown land, as we called it at the time, to 3s. 6d., to speak in terms of the currency of that time. The commission of inquiry was appointed to investigate the post-1945 land prices. That commission recommended considerable reductions in price in respect of land allocated after 1945. That land was much better than the land being discussed now. That was not land on which there was no water as in the case of this land which is situated in the Kalahari. I do not know whether the hon. member knows where Mahlzeit is situated. I do not know whether he knows why there still are vacant farms in South-West Africa. It is because they have been declared absolutely waterless by the State geologists. This was done because dry boreholes to the value of thousands of rands had been sunk. The water to be found in that region is in any case unsuitable for man and beast. For this reason, that sort of farm is to be found there still.

In that case, was the Trust Bank’s valuation of the farm wrong?

I have nothing to do with the Trust Bank, but I am concerned with the South-West Africa Administration and with the Department of Agriculture. If the Trust Bank wants to grant a million rand on a farm, it is no concern of mine. It is not my business. It is no concern of the Administration and of the Government. There is still a lot of other land which was allocated during the last sitting of the board and which had been advertised as being waterless. For example, I have in mind an area such as that situated between the Auob and Nossob Rivers in my constituency. Mahlzeit is not situated in my constituency. It is situated outside my constituency. These areas I have just mentioned, are also absolutely waterless and have been declared as such. They have been advertised as being waterless and are being allocated at the prices in respect of which the hon. member today tried to create the impression that a terrible catastrophe had struck the world. We have nothing against it if the hon. member for Simonstown wants to tell this kind of tale. But in that case, let him at least examine the background to the matter. In that case let him at least make sure of his facts and of the position in regard to the land. I agree with him that it was wrong. It was wrong that the official concerned had done that. Nobody is trying to condone it. The Minister, too, did not try to defend the fact that that farm had been allocated to a certain person in that way. The matter was rectified. The hon. member is trying to create the impression that nothing was done about it, but the matter came to the attention of the department concerned and was rectified. Nothing else is wrong with it now. I think the hon. member is sorry that the matter was rectified. He would have wished it to have gone through undiscovered. That is how he would have wanted to have it so that he would have had a more juicy story to dish up to us here. That is how he would have wanted to have it so that it could be on a par with the other stories in respect of which his information was also very wrong. I should like to see the hon. member taking less notice of the people who are dissatisfied about something or other, such as the hon. gentleman whose name I mentioned here this evening. We know that man’s record, from the day he was a minister at Nuwerus.

Would you be prepared to accept my word …

Order!

Would the hon. member also be prepared to tell us that after the man had been a minister and after he had been an inspector of Walvis Bay he was dissatisfied with practically everything except himself. Will the hon. member admit that this man is one of his informants? Will he deny that the person recently inquired here where Mr. Wiley’s office was and that a messenger took him there? That hon. gentleman could at least ensure that his informants would give him a better background. We have nothing against him doing this, but our objection is that the hon. member for Simonstown is presenting the Government or the Southwest Africa Administration in the wrong light in certain circumstances, as though a kind of gangsterism had been entered into at certain times. I just want to tell the hon. member that if he wants to talk about irregularities, he may well take the trouble —we shall provide him with the information if he is interested in it—of finding out what happened in that country prior to 1950. He would come across strange things, things I do not want to mention here this evening. If we wanted to employ the methods he employed here this evening, we would be able to dish up juicy little stories here. If he wanted to talk about what went on in the years from 1927 up to and including August. 1950, we could dish up many of these little stories here, but I do not think one need take up the time of this House with that. I just want to say that we all disapprove of the allocation of that farm. It was condemned by the Minister as well. It was not allowed. The price at which the farm was allocated was not ridiculous; many of those waterless farms are allocated at such prices. There is nothing wrong with that. I have nothing to do with the Trust Bank’s involvement in that matter. It is their concern.

May I ask a question? May I ask the hon. member whether the hon. member for Simonstown himself did not say that the Trust Bank had not granted the loan on the valuation of the farm, but on the financial statements of Mr. Strauss?

Exactly. That is probably the position, but we have nothing to do with that. It is their concern; it is most certainly not a blot on the South-West Africa Administration or on the department. We want to ask the hon. member—seeing that a few of them have now singled out South-West Africa for this type of story—that they should simply make a better check of the background of these occurrences. We are not scared of the record of South-West Africa in regard to administration over the past twenty years, as opposed to the previous period. In any event, we shall not employ the methods they employed and say what went on there in the war years. We will not do this in any event. The day we did that, we would not be worthy of this House.

The hon. member for Mariental has denied nothing, not a single statement made by the hon. member for Simonstown. We understand that everything he said is correct, and that the case has been presented fairly here in Parliament. It seems to me that the matter is getting stranger and stranger. Here is an official of the Administration of South-West Africa who is now retiring after 45 years of loyal service to the department. What has happened is that he had been able to alienate to himself from the resources of the Administration a farm which he is buying for an amount of R8 000 and which is going to be absolutely useless to him. It is a waterless farm. What can he possibly do with this? Is this the kind of reward the people get in South-West Africa for the loyal service they had given for 45 years to the Administration? Is this the kind of thing they do? There are some of our own officials here this afternoon who too, are retiring. Is this the sort of thing that we would do to them, to give them something which will hang like a millstone around their neck for the rest of the time they will spend in retirement—and then charge them R8 000 for it? I really feel that this is an imposition upon that official and I think the South-West Administration ought to apologize to him for having wished that farm upon him in the manner in which they have done. The fact that Trust Bank is prepared to lend him R20 000 is a very unwise investment. Here is a man going on pension and all he has is his pension. He has a farm which is absolutely worthless and on which he must lose money. But in spite of this the Trust Bank lends him R20 000 on this farm. I believe this is an extraordinary position. Perhaps this is typical of the sort of gratitude we have in South-West Africa. I have never been there but I am hoping to go there one day. Perhaps I will then be able to find out some of the facts. The hon. member who casts reflections or aspersions on the character of the person whom he stated was the informant of the hon. member for Simonstown, has absolutely no justification for making them The character of the person giving the information has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the information given. In this particular case, by his own admission, everything the hon. member for Simonstown said was entirely correct.

I wish to return to a matter which is much more important to the farming community. particularly in my part of the world. I wish to refer to a newspaper article which appeared in the Daily News of the 23rd of March, 1971, under the heading, “Silent War on Foot and Mouth”. I have already had the opportunity to discuss the question of the control of the border of Natal with the Portuguese territory with the hon. the Deputy Minister earlier on in this session. The hon. member for South Coast also took part in the discussions. I also want to refer to an article which appeared in the newspaper of the Natal Agricultural Union on the 2nd of April, 1971, under the heading, “Veterinary Services Stretched Thinly”. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows of the concern which is felt throughout Natal because the veterinary division, in other words the stock inspectors and the dip inspectors, is approaching a state of collapse. I am sure the hon. member for Vryheid will agree with me that this is a position which is becoming extremely serious from the point of view of any kind of disease possibly penetrating our borders. The attitude of the department is that the east coast fever is under control, that foot and mouth disease is unlikely to penetrate Natal and that there are no other diseases about which they are worrying. The practical effect of the break-down in the department’s numbers is that the permit system of control by which cattle in Natal are moved from farm to farm or from Bantu reserve to farm or vice versa is going to break down. Nobody who knows Natal and the farming system in operation there can look with equanimity while this process is breaking down. This system is not only an effective means of controlling the movement of stock legitimately, but is also an extremely effective means of controlling the theft of livestock. Dr. Lambrechts, the Director of Field Services in the Division of Veterinary Services, said that his department just could not afford the manpower to keep the permit system operated at the maximum at times when there is no urgent reason to do so and to enforce it just for the sake of doing so. I honestly believe that the attitude of the farming community in Natal as expressed in this newspaper, is that the permit control system is a vital factor both in controlling disease and stock theft in Natal. We are told that the reason for this is that the department, through reorganization, is giving to other provinces a fairer proportion of the officials in that division. If this is the case that they have to take officials stationed in Natal and move them to other provinces in order to give those provinces a fairer proportion, then this system has already collapsed. I mentioned this matter to the Minister earlier this session and I have had nothing from him to say that my information is incorrect; my information is that of the 52 posts which were available in Natal for stock inspectors and dip inspectors, only seven were filled. I may be wrong. The hon. the Deputy Minister has a cynical smile on his face. But that is the latest information that I could get. If that is the case, then the system is hardly in operation at all. Sir, it happens so often when there is a shortage of manpower, that there is a reorganization of the department, and it seems that the re-organization of the department always concentrates more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, higher and higher up the departmental tree. It worries me exceedingly that this department one of these days is going to become like the Panamanian army, which has about 77 generals and two corporals, and they are the chaps who make the tea. This is really a matter of concern; this is the way in which it seems to operate. When the hon. the Minister and this particular department reorganized and tried to transfer members of the staff out of Natal to the other provinces, there was a spate of resignations because those people were not prepared to leave Natal and go to the other areas, for understandable reasons. Their wives were settled there, their children were happy at school and who would want to move out of Natal anyway? Sir, this is one of the problems that the hon. the Minister faces. [Interjection.] No, it is only the Railway people who get the special allowance to go there.

Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the matter of permit control and especially the matter of regular dipping. Sir, the problem of dipping is something which I believe is going to create a very dangerous situation in the Bantu areas if it is allowed simply to develop out of control and if dipping is not insisted upon. We have been told that east coast fever has died out. The last reported case was in 1956. But, Sir, under conditions which can obtain where dipping is not carried out regularly and where ticks are not kept under control, I fail to see why some other kind of disease or that dread disease itself cannot make its appearance again, and we will then be faced with the sort of trouble that we had before.

Sir, the other matter which I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister and his department is the question of soil conservation. This was raised in passing by the hon. member for Lichtenburg earlier on in the debate when he said in a very aggressive and unkind spirit that the United Party Government had done nothing in two years of Government, having passed the Soil Conservation Act, about implementing it. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied and content with the way in which soil conservation is operating. I refer specifically to the Bantu areas, in the catchment area of the Tugela Basin. I want to say straight out that I believe the one glaring failure, the one thing above everything else that the Nationalist Party has done wrong in the 22 years that they have been in power, is that they have not insisted that the Soil Conservation Act shall apply in the Bantu areas. I am unable to understand this attitude. I have a quotation here from Mr. T. C. Robertson who says openly that the Bantu people are the worst farmers of any human society. Sir, this is not only a new statement. We know this. That is the tradition of these people. They are not farming people. They are pastoral people and the pressure on ground has forced them to become that sort of settled farming population to which the whole of their tradition is totally alien. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Mooi River raised a few local matters here. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will furnish him with adequate replies to them. I just find it astonishing that, after so many tributes had been paid to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services today, the hon. member for Mooi River again tried to scoff at these tributes in a subtle way. Sir, I am not at all astonished at what the hon. member for Simonstown mentioned a moment ago. For a long time in this debate I had been expecting some or other member on that side of this House again to come forward with these fish stories which the hon. member for Simonstown produced. This is always the position; when a person does not have something definite and positive to say, he tends towards negativism, and this is precisely what the hon. member for Simonstown came forward with here. He even referred to the Land Bank loans which were mentioned in the debates here last year.

Sir, I should like to proceed to another matter which has not been raised here yet, namely the Fencing Act. It is true that if one wants peace and security in one’s country, one must build up a good defence system, and if one wants to promote good neighbourliness, one must have a very good wire fence between oneself and one’s neighbour. In 1963 our Fencing Act— which is an excellent Act—was consolidated by Act No. 31 of 1963. This Act dealt with and provided solutions to all the problems that could possibly be encountered. But, Sir, in the course of time changes take place and new problems crop up. This has happened in our own area in the Far Northern Transvaal, which is predominantly a stock-farming area— bushy and in some parts mountainous. It is a difficult area. A few other problems have now arisen there, and I should like to touch upon some of these and to request the hon. the Deputy Minister to submit this Act to a close scrutiny once again and to effect a few amendments. In the first place, Sir, when a person wants to fence his boundaries, section 7 of the Act provides that he must give his neighbour 30 days’ notice according to certain specifications set out in the First Schedule to the Act, and if the neighbour does not react to that notice, the person may apply for a board to be appointed, which must then determine these specifications.

Sir, on a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to sit reading a newspaper in this House?

Order!

The hon. member for Florida may not do that.

Sir, when two persons cannot agree to fence a boundary and on how it is to be fenced, a board is appointed, and the Second Schedule to the Act, provides how that board is to be composed. Each person may nominate one member and the two persons nominated, then nominate a third person, who acts as chairman. But often this neighbour is completely negative; he will not co-operate in regard to the fencing; time is lost, and the person who wants to fence in his farm experiences a great deal of difficulty, for understandable reasons. I want to ask now whether it is not possible to lay down minimum specifications in the Fencing Act for certain areas. We know these will differ from one area to another. The Far Northern Transvaal may perhaps differ from the the Free State or the Karoo, but certain minimum specifications can be laid down for the various areas. In our area, for example, I think that six barbed wires, perhaps with iron posts set 15 yards apart and containing three droppers in between, would be suitable. Perhaps it would also be advisable for organized agriculture to be consulted in this regard. I know this matter has already been discussed by our district agricultural union as well as by the Transvaal Agricultural Union. I therefore want to request that positive attention be paid to this matter.

But, Sir, there is a second problem which we often experience as well. When the one party does not want to react to a notice, and the first party then proceeds to erect the fence himself and subsequently informs the other party of the cost in order to try to recover half of it, the other party simply does not react to it. Sometimes the first owner has to sue the second owner and issue a writ. There are various steps he has to take in this connection. Sometimes such a case is contested. In the second place, I therefore want to request that the Act should provide that when such a notice has been issued and the costs are known, interest may be added to the amount owed immediately as from the date of notification. It should actually be interest in the form of a penalty, which would oblige the second owner to pay off the amount as soon as possible. The first owner would then not have all the trouble and bother of claiming that amount.

In the third place, we often find, in the case of adjoining stock farms—I shall call them farm A and farm B—that there is a good wire fence between them. Now it may be expected of farm A to construct a road on its side of the wire fence. The road would run along the boundary fence. The owner of farm A might find it advisable to erect a second wire fence in order to cordon off that road. The wire fence is then erected on his side of the road. This may possibly be done in order to eliminate the gates at the beginning and at the end of that road, as well as to protect his own land. This road which is constructed may also be in the public interest. It would now be the duty of the owner of farm A to maintain the second wire fence which he erected at his own expense. In addition, he would also be responsible for half of the first wire fence, which is in reality still the boundary fence between the two farms. It must be remembered that the road remains part of farm A. Therefore I want to ask whether it would not be possible to divide the responsibility for maintaining the fences so that the owner of farm A would be responsible only for the maintenance of the new fence which he erected at his own cost, and the owner of farm B would in turn be responsible for the original fence.

There is a fourth matter which I want to raise. It concerns the give-and-take line, which is provided for in section 16. We often find that when a river flows between two farms, the two owners agree that the boundary will run on one side of the river for half the distance, and on the opposite side of the river for the other half. However, it happens that such a river sometimes changes its course. I personally had to do with such a case. I happened to go to the farms concerned to hold an inspection there. They were situated far in the Bushveld. We only reached a settlement in regard to that boundary line, the new give-and-take line, at half-past ten that evening, by candle-light. That was after this Act had come into operation. Now I want to request that an owner be allowed to revise a give-and-take line after a certain period of, for example, 10 or 20 years. It would greatly facilitate the procedure in terms of this Act and would also eliminate unnecessary court cases. I have looked up court records in connection with boundary cases, and it is remarkable that, after this Act had come into operation, there were various court cases about boundary lines. Perhaps it would be a good idea if the hon. the Minister’s department considered these cases. Perhaps it would then be possible to eliminate the problems which have arisen in this respect in future.

Mr. Chairman, we shall consider these requests by the hon. member for Potgietersrus and discuss the matter with him again. There may be an opportunity to introduce suitable amendments if it appears that they will be to the advantage of farmers. I believe there are certain aspects which can be rectified.

The hon. member for Mooi River made representations concerning the veterinary services of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in Natal. There was East Coast fever in Natal at one stage, and while it lasted, a considerable number of officials were concentrated in Natal. That number has been gradually reduced. We put up a double stock-proof fence on the border between Natal and Moçambique. As a result inspection services were no longer as necessary there as they had been in the past. In other areas, again, there are outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and we have to transfer some of the officials there. You yourself know of the problem we had with Newcastle disease. Natal is a province with a very large poultry population and we had to protect it by transferring some of the Natal officials to other provinces where the disease had broken out. There are several reasons why there may be a smaller or larger number of officials at a given moment. But perhaps the hon. member is making his presentations in consequence of the article in the Farmer’s Weekly, “Natal Vet services breaking down”. This is an article which causes the reader some concern. We then had an interview with a Natal Agricultural Union and we explained the whole matter. Mr. Sinclair, the president, was in Pretoria, as well as Messrs. Palmer, Ellis and Rayburn, and they were perfectly satisfied after we had explained the situation to them. The hon. member says there are 52 posts, of which 7 are filled. I can only tell the hon. member that there are 18 Government veterinary posts in Natal, of which 17 are filled. At the moment there are also I chief clerk, I senior technician, 13 technicians, 5 stock inspectors, 164 assistant stock inspectors and 36 Bantu assistant stock inspectors in Natal. This figure is therefore quite out of proportion for a province like Natal with a shortage of veterinary surgeons, where 18 posts were created and we filled 17 with Government veterinary surgeons. Consequently the conditions prevailing there at present do not seem very alarming to me. But in addition there are 70 private veterinary surgeons in Natal, 39 of whom have contracts with the department to do the tuberculine tests for it. I would not say there are enough, but under present circumstances I do not think there is any need to be concerned.

I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Simonstown said in connection with Mr. Strauss, an official who completed 45 years of faithful service. The hon. member should also keep in mind that we are beginning to regard him as someone who makes a point of looking for negative things. Here we have an enormous department such as Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, which has to purchase land from one corner of our country to the other, which has to advance loans, and which has 70 000 accounts on which interest has to be recovered. This department has to deal with representations in connection with the purchase of land and with the consolidation of debt. It has to purchase land for all the other departments, land for a post office, for example, or land for defence purposes or anything. It then came to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture that here was a gentleman who had acted like this in good faith, because it used to be the policy in the distant past, when the officials in South-West Africa did not have the pensions benefits that we have and when there was quite a lot of Crown land which was made available at 5, 10 and 15 cents a morgen, the areas referred to by the hon. member for Karas, areas which had three-quarters of an inch of rain in three years. It is that type of land. There it was the practice and the policy in the past to tell the people: “You are retiring; you have given us faithful service; do you want this piece of land, yes or no?” And Mr. Strauss allocated the land to himself. You know the story. Minister Uys heard of it and immediately said that we were revising the whole matter; we were rearranging things. This was no longer to be done in future, and he was to transfer the land back to the name of the State. Now I want to tell the hon. member that he is making a great mistake, to my mind, if he is trying to catch votes or improve his image in this way. Attack me on the grounds of my policy, but if, on account of the multitude of activities one has, a minor mistake such as this happens to crop up somewhere because an official acted in good faith, it creates an entirely false impression to suggest that it is Government policy to give away land without advertising it. I do not believe any voter is going to be very much impressed by that.

The hon. member for Bethlehem made a very interesting speech here in connection with the use and classification of land. The hon. member asked for the establishment of a soil research institute at Senekal. I should like to show the House how the costs of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services have increased, not over the past 23 years, but over the past 10 years. Hon. members are aware of the criticism caused by taxes having to be increased when Dr. Diederichs introduces his Budget every year. The hon. members opposite come along with similar requests for additional services, such as a veterinary training centre in the Eastern Cape, etc. Hon. members know the kind of requests that are put to me. I think we have reached the stage where we have to take a firm stand as regards Government expenditure in certain respects, when the facilities are in fact obtainable.

In 1961 an amount of R18,4 million was provided on the Estimates for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and this year R40,9 million was provided. Ten years ago salaries and wages amounted to RIO,2 million and today they amount to R25 million; subsistence and transport costs were R1,7 million, and today they are R3,2 million; soil conservation works were R1,9 million, today they are R5,5 million; subsidies for soil conservation—I am not talking of stock fodder, etc.—were R1,1 million, today they are R4,5 million; lands for soil conservation amounted to R1,1 million ten years ago, and this has remained more or less the same, because the amount is R1,2 million today. The total establishment consisted of 4 492 officials 10 years ago; today there are 6 496 officials. So there is one official for every 15 farmers. Where are we going? If we take into account the officials who work for farmers directly or indirectly in co-operative societies, control boards, etc., as well as the officials in the other two agricultural departments, it will come as a shock to hon. members if I point out that there is almost one official for every 9 farmers. Ten years ago we had 1 033 technicians; today we have 1 559. The number of clerical officials has increased by 49 per cent. In 1959 there were 1 091 research projects, and today there are 4 600. This represents an increase of 320 per cent. We had 51 research stations, experimental farms and plots in 1959, and today we have 75. We often talk of a manpower shortage and a shortage of personnel. In this professional department we have 1 746 posts, 1 500 of which are filled. We have 263 posts for extension officers, 218 of which are filled. That is 84 per cent. We have 115 posts for field veterinaries, 101 of which are filled. That is 88 per cent. We have 51 posts for engineers, 45 of which are filled. This gives us a total of 6 400 posts. On what else has the department spent money? The cost of the veld reclamation scheme is R2,6 million. The area which has been withdrawn is 2,4 million morgen, which is 13 per cent of the total area. The area of farms which have been entered is 9,1 million morgen. There are 2 511 participants. The stock reduction scheme is just as impressive. It comes as a shock if the figures relating to all these matters are put together.

The hon. member for Malmesbury spoke about the wine farmers. I have a great deal of sympathy with his point of view because, as he rightly said, the wine fanner is today practising one of the oldest industries in our country. But the wine farmers are not doing as well as would appear on the surface. If we take the average farmer, they are not doing so well. I am glad about the announcement that the price the producer gets for wine grapes has been increased by 20 per cent this year. The hon. member should keep in mind that it is not the wine farmer who pays the excise duty, but the consumer. It may, however, have the effect of building up consumer resistance.

Now I come to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. I grew excited while he was speaking. Now he is not in the House at all. The hon. member was absent for the greater part of the agricultural debate and hon. members warned me at the time not to take the hon. member seriously. But I am afraid it is in my nature to get excited when people talk about the prices of agricultural products. He said he had been a meat farmer, but had had to abandon meat farming. He had been a dairy farmer, and had had to abandon dairy farming. According to him this was due to the Government’s price policy. I can show him people in his area who have farmed efficiently and who are still farming today as they did 15 years ago. What is more, they are expanding their farming operations under this very price policy. Now he says that we reduced the milk price in 1962 and that until recently we had no adjustment in the price of fresh milk. The hon. member does not understand it. He would have understood the position if he had read the report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Then he would have seen how the volume has increased. He asks why we are pessimistic and why we do not rather produce surpluses and then dispose of them overseas. He knows that butter can be imported at 10 cents less than we can produce it for. Where are we to go with the surpluses, then? If the hon. member had only stayed in the dairy industry, he would have known today that in the past, and specifically in Natal …

I never said we should export.

The hon. member said we should encourage it— never mind; let us drop the matter. If the hon. member had only been here from the start of the discussions he would have known what we are talking about. I just want to mention for the record that the Milk Board is a board on which the producers are in the majority. The South African Agricultural Union requested us to introduce a quota system for the production of fresh milk. In the past we had the position that the man who made use of grass pastures flooded the market with milk in summer. Particularly in the school holidays and in December, when the rainy season started, we were left with a surplus. There were times when we had a milk surplus of 50 000 gallons, and this was then used as industrial milk. Sometimes the skimmed milk was even thrown away. Then the Milk Board came forward with a proposal, i.e. that we should give a man a quota according to his production in the lean months. He was to be penalized by 16 cents a gallon if he exceeded the quota. Is the hon. member satisfied with that?

No.

This is what the dairy farmers asked for and this is what has caused the producer of fresh milk to be happy today. He is perfectly happy. He says he has now had the first summer during which he has been able to obtain a constant price, a price which is round about 30 cents a pound. Now the hon. member talks of a reduction of prices in 1962. The price of milk has always fluctuated, depending on the volume intake and its marketing. Then the Milk Board came along—and we as well as the producers agreed to this—and provided that, instead of having a surplus which has to be used as industrial milk, it was going to limit the farmers to a quota. The farmers decided that they did not want to be penalized by 16 cents a gallon; accordingly they kept to the quota allocated to them. This had the result that it was not necessary to divert any surplus of fresh milk to the industries. In the meantime there was a heat-wave in January and in February—and I may tell hon. members that a milch cow does not recover overnight. Some farmers had arranged the calving of their cows to coincide with the lean months, so that they could build up quotas for themselves in this way. For that reason we have a shortage at the moment. There is a reason for everything. Now, however, the hon. member comes along and claims that it is as a result of our price policy, and with that he wants to dismiss the matter. The fact that there is a shortage at the moment, has nothing to do with the price. I may also tell the hon. member that the increase in the consumption of fresh milk during the past year was 9 per cent in the Peninsula alone. In Johannesburg and Pretoria the increase was 11 per cent. We could not have for-seen this situation. It arose as a result of the salary increases, not only of the Whites, but of the Bantu as well, which increased their purchasing power. This, of course, gave rise, in its turn, to the greater demand for milk. As I know the farmer in this country, he will see to it that production makes up the backlog very soon, motivated by this increase of three cents a gallon and the prospect of not finding himself in the same dilemma again with surpluses in summer.

Now I would like to reply to the hon. member for Prieska, who apologized for his absence because he had to go to his constituency, and also to the member for Karas, who also spoke about locusts. I am referring to the red locust, which caused tremendous problems in their constituencies as well as in other regions of the country. Locusts are a strange phenomenon. According to our records a locust plague started in 1947 and continued without interruption until 1953, although not on so large a scale. Then a terrible locust plague broke out. The experts point out to us that the red locust of the Karoo is endemic, but that it has dormant periods and then suddenly explodes again in the tenth or eleventh year. This happened again when there were droughts, although there were good rains in between as well. Last year there was a drought, but this year, when the rains came, the locusts broke out anew. The hon. member then asked us to supply individual farmers with the poison. Entomologists tell us that, if one sprays and destroys small groups of locusts, they do not get the opportunity to concentrate in massive swarms. They tell us that there is one thing we must realize, and that is that we cannot destroy locusts by means of spraying in this manner. They are simply distributed throughout the Karoo and the greater part of South-West Africa and the Eastern Cape. Consequently they cannot concentrate in large swarms which can then be destroyed. A locust lays a tremendous number of eggs, millions of eggs. The small groups which remain, spread across the country again, and those eggs can lie there for up to 10 years …

Twenty.

… 20 years before they hatch. I can tell hon. members that we will always have locusts with us. We cannot exterminate them completely. A farmer telephoned me this morning and said: “If I could only get some poison—the aeroplane can do nothing. The truck cannot get to the locusts. They have gone into the cliffs where nothing can get at them. I have to spray them with a hand spray.” Then I asked, “How many will you kill?” He replied that he could kill about 25 per cent of them with a hand spray. I just want to mention for the information of hon. members that we will again go into the entire question of supplying poison to individual farmers.

The climax of the last campaign came in March. At that stage we had 402 vehicles, 16 aircraft and 2 000 men in 58 districts —i.e. in the Karoo, the North-Western Cape, South-West Africa and the Cape Midlands. The poison consumption at that stage amounted to 35 tons of poison powder a day and 6 000 liters of concentrated spray. By that date we had used, in all, 2 276 tons of poison powder and 100 000 liters of spray, at a cost of R1 275 000. The task we have today of combating the most extensive outbreak of locusts in the history of our country, is no easy one. Hon. members must just realize in future that, when something like this happens, we have to keep in mind that we have effective machinery, but that there are periods of nine years during which no outbreaks will occur. The stock inspector you appoint today will be an old man by that time. You have to start again with a young man. You have to tell him, “My friend, come and help us.” You have to organize. You offer farmers R8 a day. As the hon. member said, many of them want nothing. They do not do this work for their district only, but for their country. Those who want to, receive R8 a day and 16 cents a mile, I think, if they use their own trucks.

I think I have replied to all the representations. I just want to thank the members on this side of the House and one or two members on that side very much for the positive attitude they adopted towards the problems we have in agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I was particularly interested to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say about the locust plague, which has covered the whole of the North-west Cape and the Cape Midlands. Today we find them by the millions in the North Eastern Cape. You see, Sir, what has disturbed the farmer generally, is that when we were enjoying widespread rains earlier on in the season, particularly during January and February, and we were celebrating it, there was a movement going on underground. This was the breeding of the locusts. They were ready for action. Those of us who know locusts—I have often worked with locusts myself and I understand how they operate and know their habits—appreciate that when one wants to fight a locust plague one must do so when they are hatching. Even in the “rooi baadjie” stage you can still control them because they are confined to a small area. They also move slowly, always in an easterly direction. It is during this stage of development that they can easily be exterminated without much expense. The information I have is that when the locusts were in fact hatching in their early stages in the North-west Cape the Government was warned that the locusts were hatching. The Government was in fact caught flat-footed when they should have acted. The reasons were that there was no manpower, equipment like sprays and poisons, trucks and light aircraft available.

They were all in the Northern Cape.

Where was the South African army? Why was the army not called in? I was inundated with telephone calls and letters virtually every day, and my colleagues will bear this out, asking me to do something. The hon. the Minister knows that I approached him about this problem. The answer was that the equipment was not available. They then asked me where the South African army was. They pointed out that over R300 million was being spent on defence and maintained that the South African army could have been called in. I am not talking about Mirages and Buccaneers …

You want us to spray the locusts with Buccaneers?

No, of course not. We are talking about manpower. Young men and trucks could have been made available to handle the situation. I will accept that there was not an unlimited supply of poison. There were also very few sprays and trucks available. The few trucks that there were and which are still operating in the North-eastern Cape are so derelict that many of them just will not go any more. There were also very few private aircraft fitted with sprays. It is only reasonable to have expected that the army should have been called in. We called the army in to distribute and transport fodder during the drought. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Defence has often said that the army is not only there to wage war and that there are many other services the army can perform. Those young men can do many other things during their training and this was an excellent opportunity for them to have gone out into those areas and combat this plague. Now that these locusts have taken to wing there is very little we can do about it. Even the army cannot do much.

Once a locust has taken to wing you can write it off; it flies on prevailing winds for hundreds and hundreds of miles. In fact, if a swarm is undisturbed sweeping a whole countryside before it, it will fly right into the sea, as has happened so often before. But what damage do they not do before they reach the East Coast! At the moment the swarms have scattered. The number of swarms have increased four or fivefold and they are breeding from the Cape Midlands through the North-eastern Cape as far as Dordrecht, Sterkstroom and Jamestown. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows this. I agree that the eggs may remain dormant for ten to 20 years. We are warned by the officials who are working with this problem. This is what one gentleman had to say in warning us …

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.