Mr. Chairman, when this debate was adjourned on Friday afternoon, we were busy replying to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. One point we made was in respect of the institution of a planning council for agriculture. The hon. the Minister, if I interpreted correctly what he was saying, implied that this may not be necessary; he did not see the need for such a planning council in respect of agriculture. He said it may bring about a little co-ordination here and there, but that in the interests of agriculture as a whole, this was not really necessary. He felt that the affairs of agriculture were in good hands and that all was well. Sir, I doubt very much whether we can accept that in the affairs of agriculture all is well.

We saw very recently problems in the marketing of potatoes. The one moment you have a shortage of potatoes, and the next moment you have a surplus, causing the farmers producing this commodity to have to sell it below the cost of production. During the course of the year we found the situation that at the same time we were importing butter from New Zealand, we were exporting it to the Middle East.

Then I should like to ask what the position is in connection with the meat trade.I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister can tell us what progress is being made in respect of the provision of abattoir facilities in the Republic. We had an inquiry into abattoirs as far back as 1961, and recommendations in this connection were made in 1967, but it seems to me that we have made little or no progress whatsoever. I do not believe that the throughput of our abattoirs at the present time is any better than it was ten years ago. Further, we are dismayed to hear of a report from a veterinary authority from overseas, who has now recommended that many of our abattoirs should be taken off the export list. In my case, in Port Elizabeth, our abattoir was recommended for the export of meat, and now we understand that this abattoir is no longer fit to export meat to the United Kingdom. We should like to know what is going on. In the case of Johannesburg we understand that it is merely patchwork that is being done. R1 million now has to be spent on the old abattoir, which is out of date and inadequate. Every month and year that goes by, the cost of establishing an abattoir that would be worthy of that great complex increases. The costs have escalated from approximately R12 million to what may now be R20 million. If this is delayed much longer, the figure may escalate to as much as R25 million. I think one could, if one had more time at one’s disposal, make a case to prove that it is absolutely essential in the interests of agriculture that we have better planning. I believe the way in which this can be done is to institute an advisory planning board, as recommended by the commission of inquiry into agriculture.

I said in my speech on Friday that we have this year reached a very important milestone in the history of agriculture, in that the report of this commission has been tabled. I think one is entitled to ask: What recommendations is the hon. the Minister going to accept? I believe, as do hon. members on this side of the House, that the recommendations in this report that a planning council be established, are probably the most important recommendations in the whole of the report. It states—

Organized agriculture believes that this will be a very important step forward in rationalizing the whole of our agricultural industry. Another very important consensus of opinion has expressed the same thing. We in the United Party have recommended this for years. For the record, I just want to say what the party’s policy is. The policy is stated as follows—

Sir, we have believed throughout the years, and we have stated it in this House, that the establishment of a planning board or a planning council is essential for the future wellbeing of agriculture. The South African Agricultural Union, as stated in this report from which I have just quoted, reaffirms our belief and this point of view. This very important second report of the commission of inquiry into agriculture restates exactly the same point of view. I think we in this House are entitled to hear from the Minister what his views are on this subject; whether he thinks that this recommendation will be accepted and what positive steps the Government intends to take in this particular matter. The report says—

Sir, we take a strong line on the subject. The hon. the Minister will agree that the farmer in South Africa faces very severe problems. The profitability has gone out of farming. Young people are leaving the land. I believe in all sincerity that the hon. the Minister is as concerned about this aspect of the matter as we are on this side of the House. These are factors that we cannot overlook, and unless we are prepared to take steps to reorganize and rationalize the whole of the industry, I believe this drain of young people out of the agricultural sector will continue. Not only should we halt this loss of young people to this very import industry, but it is also important that our national resources be husbanded. Sir, I was very interested to see a report by an ex-member of the hon. the Minister’s department, who said that something like R25 million per annum would have to be spent on saving the country’s soil. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that we have not even scratched the surface as far as the control of soil erosion in South Africa is concerned. The steps that we have taken in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, which was placed on the Statute Book by this side of the House in 1946 and amended by the Government in more recent years, have not been an effective medium for controlling soil erosion in this country. I believe these are matters that are of urgent importance to the country. I do not believe that in the past we have found the answer. Sir, in saying these things I cast no reflection on the Department of Agriculture and its officials. I believe that they have made every effort to fulfil their tasks to the best of their ability, but the factors which have been lacking are co-ordination and planning. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Walmer has asked the hon. the Minister a few questions. I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to them in due course. I just want to refer to what the hon. member had to say about the meat question. He knows very well that the whole meat problem cannot be blamed on the Government. The unavailability of slaughter facilities in the export abattoirs is really the fault of the municipalities which have not made those facilities available. The Government appointed the Abattoir Commission to go into this matter ten years ago; this just goes to show how the Government has, from that time already, been giving attention to this urgent matter.

Sir, I should like to raise two matters with the hon. the Minister today, and I should be very glad if he could give us greater clarity in this regard. The first matter deals with the plots in the new schemes which are going to be made available under the Orange River scheme and the Fish River scheme and on the Makatini Flats. It happens from time to time that one is approached by people and asked when these plots or areas are going to be made available to the farmers. There are farmers in my constituency, especially at Marble Hall and Groblersdal, who tell me from time to time that they continue taking land on lease because they want to apply for land under these schemes one day. They would appreciate it if we could give them an indication of when this land is going to be made available. If a statement could come from the hon. the Minister himself, these people would know in what direction they should move. There has, of course, been talk in the past of some of these plots perhaps being allocated to young prospective farmers, who could then settle there and prove themselves in course of time. It has been suggested by various people that this land will not be sold to these farmers, but that it will only be allocated to them so that they may settle there in the meantime and try to raise capital. We should like to know the hon. the Minister’s standpoint in this regard. I realize very well that some of this land most probably—we are uncertain about this as well—has to be experimented on first in order to see what crops will be suitable there in the climatic circumstances and on the type of soil. The land will only be made available after experiments have been conducted. We should, however, very much like to have some guidance in this regard.

The second matter which I should like to raise is the question of adapted farming operations. As you know, Sir, droughts are a common phenomenon throughout the Republic of South Africa. Many farmers have had their operations totally disrupted by this drought, and as a result of the drought they have had to change their whole farming pattern. Many of the apparently uneconomic units are due to these protracted droughts.

I also want to talk specifically about the Springbok Flats and the Bushveld of the Northern Transvaal. Sir, surplus capital practically does not exist any more in the Northern Transvaal, especially on the Springbok Flats and in the Bushveld of the Northern Transvaal. There are exceptions here and there, of course. Most of the farmers there live from hand to mouth, and this is all due to these protracted droughts which they have experienced. They need capital to steer their farming operations in a more specialized or specific direction, but with the farming income they have at present, they simply cannot raise that capital to put into farming in order to increase their income from it. With the necessary capital they can gradually steer their farming pattern and agriculture as a whole in that vicinity in a specialized direction again, but this can only be done with capital; in that way they can then protect their farming operations for the future, and this goes for the family farmer in particular. The position of the average farmer in the Northern Transvaal is such that he cannot even use his income to settle all his arrear debts. Sir, the farmers would very much like to plan. They want to plan in order to arrange their farming pattern more with a view to the future, but to do that they need help. We know that grass and cultivated grazing in particular are the only types of vegetation which are really able to survive the regular periods of drought. These types of vegetation have a much greater resistance to drought than any of the other cash crops. This has also been proved by a few of the farmers themselves, who have cultivated grazing on their own initiative. They have proved that they can earn up to R100 per morgen from hay. They get up to six tons of hay per morgen, and if they add artificial fertilizer or some form of manure, they can double this production. They have also proved that they can keep one head of cattle per morgen on this cultivated grazing. This holds a tremendous future for many of the farmers in the Northern Transvaal, particularly in the Bushveld regions. Very extensive research has been conducted in regard to this whole matter. Here I am thinking specifically of the Towoomba Research Station near Warmbad. These people have gone out of their way in recent years to prove that cultivated grazing—and blue buffalo grass in particular—is the most suitable thing in the Northern Transvaal. This has been such an incentive for the farmers that they would like to switch over to the livestock factor, altogether or partially. They realize that it will have to take place gradually, but they would like to make a start with it. The farms are really mechanized to an uneconomic degree at this stage, and the farmers want to get rid of that. Many have come to see me in this connection. It has been proved in the past that the livestock factor brought stability to the farmers on the Springbok Flats, but in time it was ousted by the more risky production of cash crops. The people do not want to switch over immediately and completely; they are only asking for financial assistance to be able to start this new scheme. It is true that there is the assistance by Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and by the Land Bank, but the people are really asking for more dynamic and imaginative assistance by the Department in order to make the switch. They are financially unable to do it themselves. They do not always qualify for assistance by the Land Bank or by Agricultural Credit either. When one thinks of the stock reduction scheme and what a great success it was, particularly in the Karoo, one wonders whether something of a similar nature will not be done for these farmers in the Northern Transvaal and on the Springbok Flats. With proper planning for a certain period into the future some assistance can be rendered here as well and the farmers can gradually switch over. It will be of immense value to them and will establish for them a more mixed pattern of farming, if not a more specialized one.

It is probably not necessary for me to follow my colleague who spoke before me. I think he argued his case well, but I should like to make a few remarks about some of the previous speakers on the other side who put in pleas in this agricultural debate which we would really have expected them to have put in earlier on in the session. But they did not devote so much attention to agriculture then. It is very clear to me why they did not, because if we now read the first sentence which appears in the annual report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, it is very clear that they do not have allies in agriculture this year. The sentence reads: “The year under review was an exceptionally good year for the agricultural industry.” For that reason they would probably like to get away from agriculture, but because we have so often pointed out that they are evading it this time because they do not have a drought or a locust plague for an ally, I am glad, nevertheless, that they have come with a reasonable discussion across the floor of the House this time. I must say I find it very interesting that the main speaker, the shadow minister of agriculture on the Opposition side, who now has a particularly high position as leader of the Cape Province, now comes along here with the old pattern. In fact, according to the notes I made of his previous speech on the same occasion last year, it would really seem to me that he used the same speech and just added a little here and there. But in the main it was just a rehash. But I found it very interesting that he came along here with a fervent plea on behalf of the farmers in respect of assistance to the Land Bank. Perhaps we should just draw attention to the fact that this is the same gentleman who also came along here with a matter concerning the Land Bank some years ago. On that occasion he started a lovely bit of gossiping about the loan of R100 000 which the Minister at that time, Mr. Jan Haak, received from the Land Bank. It is obvious what it was all about, because it was before the election. And when that was still not enough, he brought up Mr. Kolver’s case here as well. This is a very unpleasant way of criticizing a very good institution. We farmers are very grateful for that institution. Where we on this side of the House are grateful for having officials of that quality, he drags them through the mud here for election purposes.

The hon. member delivered quite a touching plea during this debate on Friday afternoon. After having discussed the Land Bank and implied that he was dissatisfied with the fact that the maximum had been reduced to R50 000 in respect of loans and to R5 000 in respect of hypothec loans, he said, inter alia, that it went to prove that the situation among our farmers was far from ideal at the present moment, but that it caused alarm for the future. Therefore we want to know whether the hon. the Minister can hold out the prospect of the Land Bank being able to help us and of its chances of being able to get more money on the open market in future … etc. I found it very interesting that he came along here with the phrase: “… that the Land Bank will be able to help us”. I should very much like to know whether he just happened to express himself in this way or whether he actually meant that if this shadow minister should come into power one day—in this case they are really aspiring Ministers, of course—he also referred to himself in saying: “ … will be able to help us”. Would his plea then be justified?

The “us” are the farmers.

I feel that to a large extent it is a matter of talking at random. In Oudtshoorn, too, we heard wonderful stories about everything the Opposition would allegedly do for the farmers. I should like the hon. member for Newton Park to say whether he agrees with what was said by Mr. Civin. Mr. Civin, after all, is an aspiring member of that side. Surely he was serious about what he said, since he would have come here if he had won the election. The hon. member must tell us whether he repudiates that man. The hon. member now holds a responsible position on that side of the House. He is no longer just a member of that side, he is their leader in the Cape Province and is to be Minister of agriculture if that side were to come into power. With his responsible position he must tell us whether he agrees with this man where he acts in a way which is directly contrary to the interests of the farmer. Sooner or later the hon. member will have to choose sides and repudiate this man so that the farmers outside may know where they stand with him.

To my mind this debate has really taken a very strange course. The voters of Oudtshoorn have indicated very clearly that they are absolutely fed up now with the enormous amount of gossipmongering which has been foisted upon them. They expressed themselves to such an extent that there was a voting percentage of up to 100 per cent at the smaller polls. Hon. members can take it from me that the people who voted at those smaller polls were the fanners. They voted up to 100 per cent and they voted against the United Party. This is a very clear sign that our farmers are rather fed up now with this eternal scandal-mongering by the United Party, particularly when it deals with agriculture. It is very clear to me that these people on the other side—or hon. people, if I must put it like that—who have to come and serve agriculture here on behalf of their voters, have certainly lost all contact with the farmers. It is very clear that they have gradually moved to the cities. There the urban voters really make it hot for them and they actually do not have time to pay attention to the farmers. After such a decisive result as the one at Oudtshoorn, where the farmers told them very clearly that they take no notice of the scandalmongering politics of the United Party, the hon. members on that side of the House still persist with similar stories. Let us look at what was said by the hon. member for Benoni, for example. I have his Hansard with me so that I can just give a summary of all he had to say. He complained, tried to throw suspicion on people and tried to charge the Minister of Agriculture with being responsible for each of these cases. He mentioned no fewer than five minor instances of irregularities. It is very clear to me from his own speech that he is aware of the fact that proper steps have been taken against these people, that proceedings have even been instituted against certain of these people. Nevertheless he has not yet learned the lesson of Oudtshoorn and he still has the temerity to come along and waste the time of this House with such trivialities for which a positive solution could have been found on many other levels. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to devote much time to the hon. member for Swellendam. He has, in fact, not said one word about his constituency in this debate. He began by attacking the hon. member for Newton Park. This hon. member can look after himself, but I just want to tell him that it seems to me that he has not yet lost the Oudtshoorn complex. I thought the dust had settled a little, but now he just jumps from Oudtshoorn to Brakpan. Pardon me, then, for saying nothing about his speech. I have nothing to tell him and I have nothing to ask him either.

I want to make a few remarks, however, about what was said by the hon. member for Potgietersrus, who is unfortunately not here. In the first place I want to say something in connection with the position of the abattoirs. I want to say that if we consider how long the inquiry into abattoirs and abattoir facilities in this country has been going on, it is really a disgrace that they have not made more progress. In addition, I want to say that if this uncertainty is to continue between the municipalities and the Abattoir Commission as such about whether it is worth their while to build abattoirs, it will be years before we have sufficient abattoir facilities. In connection with the general position of meat marketing I should rather not say anything at this stage, because the House knows, after all, how critical I am in respect of this matter.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus also touched upon other aspects. He comes from a very good farming district, Potgietersrus. He said that the farmers had a shortage of working capital and that they were having a difficult time. That is the point which we have raised in this House so many times, namely that things are not going so well for agriculture. The position in regard to agriculture is fairly good at this stage, but this is due to the fact that we have had exceptionally good rains all over the entire Republic, with the exception of very small parts of the country. This is not something of which one has a repetition every year or every day. We are only familiar with the repetition of great droughts, sometimes here, sometimes there and sometimes all over the country. We are all thankful for the rains, but what I really want to confine myself to—and this was also mentioned by the hon. member for Swellendam and in particular by the hon. member for Potgietersrus—is agricultural financing as such. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not here. I was unfortunately unable to discuss this aspect during the Budget debate. I want to refer to it now, however. When dealing with short as well as long-term agricultural financing, by State institutions, by the Land Bank, and by the commercial banks, I want to devote some attention to the whole situation. By way of introduction I should like to read what the Franzsen Commission says in this connection. In paragraph 425 of the third report the commission says—

Which has in fact happened in the past—

In paragraph 427 the following is said—

In the light of what is said in this report and in the light of the argument which we keep raising in this House, namely that the farmer is not in a position to pass on an increase in its production costs as such to the consumer, because of the fact that agriculture is the largest risky industry in any country in the world—particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, where we are so subject to droughts—agriculture as such deserves other and greater financial facilities than those received by any other industry at this stage. These financial facilities must be different and greater, not only because of the fact that the agricultural industry is more risky than other industries, but also because of the fact that the farmer cannot pass on increases in expenditure to the consumer.

In the short time available to me I want to refer to both the short-term and the long-term financing of agriculture. I want to deal with it under two aspects. The first of these is the protection which the farmer can enjoy if the Government should attempt to reduce his production costs and if the Government should also attempt to make working capital available to the farmer more cheaply. In respect of this aspect I want to say that as long as the farmer is subjected to the same customs tariffs on the importation of products which he is compelled to use for agricultural purposes, his production costs will rise and he will have absolutely no control over it. It does not matter to the State, after all, whether it has to subsidize the agricultural industry by way of export assistance or whether it has to Tender assistance in respect of customs tariffs for agricultural products, so that those tariffs may be kept low. These two forms of assistance will cost the State the same, but if the second form of assistance were to be applied, it would become possible for the farmer to produce more cheaply and it would also be possible for the Government to follow a more conservative policy in determining prices. I have said on more than one occasion that it is not possible in this country, or in any country in the world which is an exporter of agricultural products, to keep raising the consumer price and then subsidizing the producer so that he can make a profit. If something cannot be done to curb the production costs, there will not be a market for South African agricultural products in this country nor even in the rest of the world. The prices of agricultural products would become too high. Methods must be employed by means of which the production costs of the farmer may be lowered. I know of no other methods better than the two which I have in mind and the first of which I have already mentioned. I want to suggest that it is not right that the producer should pay the same for tyres and fuel, etc., while he is unable to pass on price increases to the consumer. Where is he to turn to? How is he to meet the deficit? Now we come to marketing boards and price determination. I do not want to talk about these at this stage. We know by now what is going to happen in the maize industry. Because the price of maize has dropped a little there is great dissatisfaction. But it is not possible always to keep the prices high if you are dealing with a great export commodity such as maize. Such a thing is quite undesirable. If methods cannot be employed to help farmers in other ways, how is one to overcome these production costs and the price which the farmer has to pay, largely as a result of Government policy? It will have to be the policy of any Government—it cannot be otherwise—to keep the cost of living as low as possible.

What about labour?

That subject will be dealt with by other hon. members. Personally I do not want to talk about labour now, but specifically about agricultural financing. When I proceed now from this to the Land Bank, I want to allege that unless more capital is made available for agriculture and unless the Land Bank is enabled to obtain its money at a reasonable interest rate as well, the Land Bank will be unable to make available large amounts of long-term capital. That is why we are so sad today when we take a case to the Land Bank. No loan of more than R50 000 is granted any more, and no application will be considered unless an applicant is sued. If the Land Bank is an institution for financing and assisting the farmer and this is the policy which has to be followed by that institution, we are in an impossible situation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since my time is very limited I want to say as much as possible, in the limited time at my disposal, about a very important matter in agricultural today, i.e. agricultural training. Particularly since in the agricultural press very recently we have heard of certain doubts on the part of the agricultural faculties at our foremost universities, I want to express a few ideas in this connection and ask the Minister whether we cannot perhaps put the existing faculties at our universities to slightly better use. The value of the training of the farmers in the progress and in the efficiency of agriculture has already been underlined and proven by many researchers in the past. I therefore do not want to express myself on that issue. I am convinced that in addition to the highly essential, specialized training of agricultural scientists, an urgent need also exists in South Africa for the thorough and purposeful training of prospective farmers who would like to undergo university training but do not comply with the present requirements for admission to our universities. In addition, with respect to the training of dairy farmers and technicians, and the interim training of special groups of farmers, we must also give attention to the settlement of irrigation farmers below the Orange River project, for example, something the hon. member for Potgietersrus also referred to a while ago. The present training at our faculties is chiefly and specifically aimed at training scientists. For this type of student we feel the market is relatively limited, and there is competition from other fields of study for the relatively small number of matriculants available to us. These candidates, we find, can qualify themselves in large numbers in other fields of study, for example in engineering, architecture, medicine, dentistry and so on. The possibility of drawing large numbers of students for agriculture in future, in competition with these fields, is a meagre one. We also find that the number of our people being trained at our universities purely as agricultural scientists is decreasing alarmingly. This is a trend that is also occurring in other fields of study, for example the natural sciences. The development of modern agriculture requires increasingly more and better technology, as well as better-equipped farmers. This emphasizes, on the one hand, that in the future an ever more urgent need will present itself for properly trained agricultural scientists. We must therefore ensure that no damage is done in this field, whether by offering inferior courses, which we do not expect, or by cutting down on funds for this field of study. But on the other hand—and we want to emphasize this strongly—the need in modern farming for better trained farmers emphasizes that additional provision must be made for the purposeful training of prospective practical farmers. Here the point of departure in the training must differ from that for the training of agricultural scientists. In the drawing up of each course care must be taken that all aspects of the subject will give essential and implementable knowledge to the prospective practical farmer. In addition it is absolutely essential that the knowledge the student acquires of the respective subjects be meaningfully integrated at the termination of his training so that the mutual relationship of the knowledge in the overall plan of practical farming can be implemented with a view to profitability and with due regard for the maintenance of our natural resources.

Sir, we want to make haste, and therefore we want to tell you that as a specialized profession, as a single industry, farming is still the biggest in the Republic of South Africa. Consequently it can be expected that a large number of farmers will enter this industry annually. The Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture estimates that annually between 2 500 and 3 000 new farmers have been and will be entering this profession. What is alarming is that a small percentage of these people have really undergone formal agricultural training. This commission further underlines a fact which is alarming. It states, for example, that 97 per cent of active farmers today have a lower qualification than Std. 8. You may now work out for yourself how many farmers there are with this higher training. After thorough consideration I therefore want to advocate that we do everything in our power to organize the existing faculties at our training institutions, and the work they are doing, in such a way that we do in fact train agricultural scientists, but that we also ensure that the existing faculties furnish a contribution, in co-operation and not in competition with our agricultural colleges, to give prospective farmers this university training. I want to conclude by mentioning an example. Is it necessary for us to have an expensive and very efficient experimental farm and college at Glen, for us to have an agricultural faculty at the University of the Free State with an additional experimental farm at Sydenham, which has to be developed at tremendous cost, or is it possible, with the existing faculties for us to supplement our training, thereby offering university training to those who are not normally able to obtain training at our universities with the qualifications now expected from them? I want to conclude with the thought that university training, in particular, also creates an opportunity for the prospective farmer.

I now want to quote the following from the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture—

Mr. Chairman, it is probably not necessary for me to respond to my benchmate’s argument. He stated his case clearly and competently, and I should like to make use of the few minutes at my disposal to say something about our wheat industry. Here I surely do not need to argue the importance of our wheat industry. In the first place wheat is the staple foodstuff of our Whites and Coloureds. The Bantu are also eating increasingly more bread. In the past we were very lucky as far as the production of wheat is concerned. The local demand was greater than what we could produce locally. Shortages could be imported at a reasonable price. But now the over-production stage has dawned. If we reflect that together the wheat crops of last year and the year before furnished a surplus of more or less 8 million bags, we must, as far as this item is concerned, pause for a moment and let our thoughts wander. This great over-production is, in the first place, attributable to the better production methods the farmers used, and also, in particular, to today’s better kinds of wheat that are more drought-resistant. In that connection I want to pay a particular compliment to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for what they have achieved through research in this field. More land is also being placed under cultivation, and all this brought about the over-production.

I must also say that we must not approach this matter in too serious a light, because over-production can easily change to crop failures. We have seen it happen so many times that while we are preparing ourselves for big crops, we are left with crop failures. The over-production can then come in very handy. We shall then be able to use it up. If we continue with the present production we cannot close our eyes to the over-production we are faced with. If one thinks of the storage costs of wheat—at present being produced in excess—amounting to several million rand, as well as the losses involved, and the fact that someone must pay for that, we must take a look at this matter. I therefore think that we can safely say that we have now reached the production planning stage. We shall have to produce as much as we need. When there is over-production there are many methods that can be applied to correct the matter. In the first place one can try to export surpluses. As far as wheat is concerned, we are here up against a brick wall, because while wheat costs more than R6 in South Africa, we shall barely obtain more than R3 for it when we export it. One could perhaps think in terms of introducing a quota system. In that connection I foresee numerous problems. One could also discourage production by considerably reducing the price. In that respect I want to advocate that not a single thought be given to price reduction. In the past, when demand exceeded production, the farmer never had the benefit of the higher price. He did not have that benefit. I do not think it would be fair to penalize him for that now. I believe that this cost-plus principle, which we are maintaining in the wheat industry at present, is the correct one and that we should try to retain it. One could also apply regional control. In the first place one would think of the regions at present irrigated by means of subsidized water. It would be imprudent to open them up for large-scale wheat production. If we were to use all the water of the Verwoerd scheme dam for that purpose, we would be able to produce enough wheat for almost the entire Africa. I believe that in the course of time the Minister and his department will find the golden mean or the right recipe for us. However, in this respect I want to lodge a plea for the winter rainfall regions in particular. I specially want to request that they be taken into account. That region has an historic claim to wheat production. I am surely not wrong when I say that the first wheat was produced in the shadows of Table Mountain and that those farmers also complained at the time that the price was too low. From there this developed into the Western Province and the South Western Districts, the area known as the winter rainfall region. If it is the Government’s policy to keep as many people as possible on the platteland and give them a good living, we shall in fact have to look after these regions properly as far as wheat production is concerned. If the price were to be noticeably decreased, these two regions would land up in serious difficulties. In the past wool, which goes very well with wheat production, furnished a very good income for the wheat producers. At present, however, there is no great profit to be made out of wool. If these regions are prevented from allowing their wheat production potential to develop fully, it will be an evil and a sad day for them. I now want to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister and his department that care be taken that that day never dawns for the farmer.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, proved in his argument what I was saying in connection with the reducing of production costs, and that working capital and the methods of production have a great deal to do with that.

Mr. Chairman, he went much further than I did. He even said that if wheat were to be exported we would eventually obtain only R3 per bag. It is therefore essential that we again give attention to this and that the hon. Ministers of Finance and Agriculture take Specific note of this matter, i.e. how production costs can be reduced, with a view to the fact that prices are not continually going to be increased, which can result in the fact that at a later stage we shall have to export on large subsidies which will have to be paid by the State.

As far as the hon. member for Smithfield’s speech is concerned—it is not my custom to congratulate people on the opposite side of the House—I must say that we on this side of the House endorse every word he said in connection with agricultural training. It is to us a source of concern that so few of our lads today qualify themselves through agricultural training. If we look at the number of enrolments at our agricultural colleges, it is clear that there is a mistake somewhere, and that mistake is manifestly that agriculture is not a paying industry. The Government wants to drive the people off the farms.

Who said so?

Sir, I want to come back to the finances the Land Bank has at its disposal. Although the Government has made R10 million available to the Land Bank this year at 2 per cent interest, as it also did last year, that amount is not nearly sufficient to enable the Land Bank to grant mortgage loans at 6 per cent and short-term loans at 6½ per cent if it has to borrow money on the market at 7 per cent, 7½ per cent and 8 per cent. In the Land Bank’s last report, the report of 1971, where the Land Bank refers to this problem in connection with capital available to it for loans, the Land Bank explains why it had to restrict the maximum loan to R50 000. I have already mentioned the fact that an applicant must first be summonsed before he comes into consideration for a Land Bank loan. We notice from the report that in 1971 there were 4 773 applicants for long-term Land Bank loans. The amount involved was R130 million in round figures, with an average of R27 000 per applicant. The number of applications approved was 3 300, 1 400 less than the number of applicants. We notice that applications to the tune of R66 million were granted. The average allocation was R20 000 as against the R27 000 of the previous year. In other words, the bank’s assessment basis is becoming increasingly conservative. If the Land Bank does not have the necessary capital at its disposal it can obviously not approve all applications for loans. If a farmer cannot obtain a mortgage loan from the Land Bank, he must go and borrow money from a commercial bank or other financial institution, where he must pay 8 per cent, 8½ per cent or 9 per cent interest. I know of cases where farmers must pay up to 12 per cent mortgage interest. If a farmer has to pay 12 per cent interest on his mortgage loan he eventually becomes a category 2 client as a result of the fact that his burden of debt and his interest rate are too high, and in terms of the Land Bank’s policy at this stage it is only a question of two or three years before that farmer becomes a category 3 farmer, whom the Land Bank then cannot help either. We know what happens when a farmer is classified as a category 3 farmer. A very large percentage of the applications of category 3 farmers are simply rejected. Good farmers who were credit-worthy, and could obtain loans at commercial banks, are compelled at a later stage to go to the Land Bank because their burden of interest is too great, and if they cannot be helped at the Land Bank they must go to Agricultural Credit. Eventually they cannot be helped there either and then they become a burden, merely as a result of financial pressure. Sir, I want to suggest that the Minister of Finance makes additional funds available to the Land Bank so as to enable the Land Bank to maintain a reasonable interest rate. I cannot imagine that there is any factor which will more adversely affect agriculture than an increase of the Land Bank’s interest rates. It would be fatal if the Land Bank’s interest rates were to increase any further. If it is not possible for the Land Bank to borrow money from agriculturists, tax-free, at 7 per cent and per cent, the Land Bank will not get the agriculturists, money either.

Where must the agriculturists get the money? After all, you said they are bankrupt.

There are still farmers like the hon. the Deputy Minister who are rolling in money and surely he must also invest his money. Would he not invest his money at the Land Bank? If he could obtain 7½ per cent, tax-free, would he not invest his money at the Land Bank? I know of methods that can be employed to help the Land Bank, whether this comes from the Public Debt Commissioners, who have funds on which the interest is tax-free, or from elsewhere. If the Land Bank is able to borrow money at 7½ per cent to 8 per cent from the agriculturists who still have money at their disposal, then it will get the money; otherwise it will not get the money. Any other person seeking an investment will go to the Trust Bank for 10 per cent and not to the Land Bank for 7½ per cent. The Land Bank is not able to carry out financing if, like last year, it seeks R130 million to R140 million and only obtains R25 million to R30 million on the open market, and then the Managing Director had to wear out his shoes to get hold of that money. Surely it is then in no position to do that financing. I want to state that this is one of the foremost reasons why agriculture and the agriculturists are experiencing such hardships, and then I still want to add this statement, that last year the bank made available almost R700 million on a short-term basis for the ordinary agriculturists who desired short-term credit, a very large portion of the amount not yet having been paid back by the end of the financial year, but I leave it at that. But then we must remember that the stock-breeders as such are not amongst the categories of farmers who can go to the agricultural co-operatives for crop loans and production loans.

He can go to his broker.

No, that hon. member may speak again. We know the broker story and we know what the farmer pays there in interest. He pays 8 per cent, but at the Land Bank he can obtain the loan at 6 per cent and 6½ per cent. [Interjections.] No, I still feel like tackling the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet at some time or other about the statement he made here the other day about wool. I shall still square accounts with him. But I do want to repeat this statement, i.e. that agriculture cannot obtain cheaper working capital, and it deserves to obtain more capital, because where one has a hazardous industry of that nature, more hazardous than any other industry, it surely deserves facilities which the industrialist and other people cannot obtain.

I have now advanced two reasons why I think this is essential, and I want to conclude on that note. I want to say that if the production costs cannot be reduced so that the farmers can produce more cheaply, then it is an irrefutable fact that the price of the product will eventually have to increase and that the State will have to subsidize to an increasing extent, as is already the case with dairy products and many others. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for East London City mentioned two ways in which the problems of agriculture could be solved, i.e. agricultural financing and increased agricultural production. He was half inclined to blame the Government, but it seems to me that after Oudtshoorn he did not quite have the courage to do so. We would have taken the hon. member seriously in respect of those two matters if he had come along today and said that the Government could do a great deal in this connection, and if he had said that he acknowledges that in their time the United Party did virtually nothing and that everything that has thus far been done is chiefly thanks to this Government: then we would have spoken to him, but because he does not do so, I feel I must just give him a brief picture of how bad the United Party Government was in respect of these two matters when they were in power.

Figures do not mean anything. The farmers were then still having a nice life.

I want to tell the hon. member for Walmer that since the Land Bank came into being in 1912 up to 1948, when the United Party disappeared from the scene, the farms of 1 662 farmers were sold by the Land Bank. This gives us an average of 46 farms belonging to farmers that were sold annually by the Land Bank. From 1948, when the National Party came into power, up to 1960, 560 such farms, which belonged to farmers, were sold. This gives us an average of 28 per year. As against the annual average of 46 before 1948, there was an average of 28 after 1948. Therefore, if that hon. member comes along and speaks about agricultural financing, I want him to state clearly to the farmers of South Africa that when they had the opportunity of financing the farmers they made a complete mess of it.

Boer-haters.

The hon. member for East London City said that production should be increased.

And he is right too.

If he is right, I want to say that the maize crop, which came in this year or is going to come in, estimated at 113 …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I shall put the hon. member straight in a moment. The maize crop, which is estimated at 113 million bags on 5,5 million ha, gives an average of 21 bags per ha. When the National Party came into power in 1948 the average per ha under United Party rule was lower than it was 20 years previously in 1928. That is the contribution the United Party made. I want to tell hon. members that the most important factor in agriculture, influencing profitability, is production per unit. The higher one’s yield per unit per morgen, or whatever the case may be, the better are one’s chances of making a bigger profit. That is not the only factor, but it is the most important. From 1948 to 1972 the National Party succeeded, with the technical knowledge made available as a result of research by this department, in enabling the maize farmers to push up their production from an average of 5,5 bags per morgen to 21 bags per ha, while the United Party could not succeed in increasing that production. The production actually decreased while they ruled.

If we compare South Africa’s food production with that of other countries in the world we can see how good the South African farmers’ achievements really are in spite of the fact that those hon. members say that farming is in a perilous position, that the farmers are leaving their farms, that agriculture is collapsing and stories of that nature. If we compare the food production of South Africa with that of other countries in the world—and I obtain these figures from the U.N. Yearbook—we see that in 1953, taken on an index basis, South Africa’s production is set at 96. This increased to 179 in 1969. In France food production increased from 110 to 152; in West Germany from 110 to 143; in the Netherlands from 48 to 146; in the United Kingdom from 98 to 146; in Canada from 105 to 134; in the U.S.A. from 97 to 131; in Australia from 99 to 174; in New Zealand from 99 to 159; in Argentinia from 95 to 130; in India from 101 to 142; in Japan from 85 to 164. In other words, in respect of their function of food production, the achievements of South African farmers exceeded those of the farmers of any of the modern, developed countries I mentioned here.

What is “modern” and “developed” about India?

All these countries I have mentioned are developed countries. I told the hon. member for East London City that in his time they could not succeed in increasing the maize production. What is more, this year the maize crop is being subsidized by the Government to the tune of R38 500 000. Does the hon. member know that this is a larger amount than the total estimate for agriculture in 1947-’48, in the United Party’s time? That is why I, who represent a maize-producing constituency, feel I would be neglecting my duty today if I did not today congratulate and thank the Deputy Minister, the Minister and the Government for the way in which, with respect to the maize price this year, with this record crop …

With a R40 million subsidy.

Yes, and that with this record crop they could fix the price as they have in fact done. If the United Party were to have been in power, what would have happened to the maize farmers of South Africa? I now want to challenge the United Party men. This year we have an exportable surplus of 60 million bags. The effect of that on the price, in comparison with last year, is that there will be an export loss of R60 million. If the industry, the farmer, had to carry that alone, it would have pushed down the price by 55 cents. We would, in other words, have obtained R3-10. I am now telling hon. members that if the United Party ruled the farmer would have had to carry that export loss alone. In other words, if the United Party ruled we would have obtained R3-10 per bag.

How can you make such a statement?

I now want to put it to them that they would not have told the South African consumer that the consumer, the farmer and the Government should carry the export loss together, as this Government has done. They would have done what they did in the past; they would have shifted it off on to the South African farmer. [Interjections.] If that is not the case, I want them to stand up here and tell us how much more they would have let the consumer pay. I am doing this, because in Brakpan they state, do they not, that the Government is paying too much to agriculture. They must tell us, i.e. if they have the courage to do so, how much they would have let the South African consumer pay for maize. If they do not want to do this, then I say they would have shifted off the export loss on to those farmers alone. The debate will go on for a long time yet. They now have the opportunity to tell us how much they would have let the consumer pay. I now want to tell hon. members that the Government took the correct action in handling the matter as it has done, because this R38 million includes a consumer subsidy of R25 million. If the Government had not contributed this in respect of the maize crop, it means the consumer would have had to pay 47 cents per bag more than he now pays. This would have meant that the housewife would have paid more for broilers, milk, meat and all commodities in which maize rations are involved, and not only for mealie meal. Therefore it is right that the Government is handling this matter as it is doing. On the one hand the producer obtains the benefit, but on the other hand the consumer also does so in his turn. Therefore the balance between the producer and consumer’s interests is maintained. I therefore reiterate that this course the Government adopted is the correct one. If we take into account this maize crop that was gathered, those hon. members must come along and tell us in what respect they would have made changes. Where would they have improved matters, apart from the fact that we would not have had as big a crop if they were in power? In their time, after all, they did not have research at heart, and they did not ensure that new maize varieties were cultivated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

Do you agree with the maize price?

I shall come to that in a moment. If one now listens carefully to this agricultural debate, what one hears from the other side, in particular, puts one in mind of the old farmer who, out of habit, asked for beneficent rains every evening. Soon it began to rain and every day the fields were flooded. His sheep died, but come evening the old man would again ask for beneficent rains. Eventually his son, who farmed with him, could not stand it any longer, and said to his father one day that he must stop asking for beneficent rains. His father then said to him : “Gosh, my boy, have I been asking for it every evening?” The son then said “Yes, father”. The father then said to his son: “But then you must give me a kick this evening if I do so again”! We are dealing here with an agricultural debate, and between the lines one could read of the beneficent rains that have fallen in agriculture. One could perhaps not have heard it stated quite so positively, but there were hon. members who spoke of a wheat surplus, and of a maize surplus of so many million bags. I can compare this with my own area where good rains fell and there was good production. We could probably continue attesting to the beneficent rains and the prosperity the good Lord has given the agriculturaralist.

But that is what I have said.

I have not yet heard that sound from the other side. I wonder whether we cannot, for a moment, come to our senses and at times show some gratitude to the good Lord and for everything that is in fact being done for the farmer.

You surely do not listen. I have just said it.

In the Land Bank report mention is made of my region where the approximately 5 000 farmers had a gross income of R75 million in the past year. This represents, therefore, a gross income of about R15 000 per farmer. Perhaps this does not give a clear picture of the true conditions, because for half the year these farmers were faced with a tremendous drought, which resulted in heavy costs. We, the karakul farmers of South West, must be very grateful for this and also for the beneficent rains during the previous season and also during this season. Along with this there are the high fur prices of the past season, which were of inestimable value to us in again placing the drought-stricken farmers on a sound footing. I cannot help also saying that the stock farmers of South-West Africa are still grateful for the fact that the State kept them going through this period of tremendous drought. Were it not for the generous help we did in fact obtain from the State, many of us would have gone to the dogs. Here I also want to express my sympathy, even if it is at a late stage, to my neighbouring constituency, on the floods there were in the irrigation sector of the Hardap Dam, where there was so much damage and where so many small farmers are in difficulties. But we also believe that timely help will be granted to those farmers to get them back on their feet again.

I want to express my thanks to the Department of Agriculture, and particularly to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as well, for the great work being done at this time for the farmer, as far as agricultural extension and so on are concerned. I particularly want to bring one matter to the attention of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, something which can perhaps receive a great deal of attention in future, particularly in these drought-stricken parts. The matter I want to mention here is the planting of drought crops, which have been tested so well at our agricultural schools, particularly at Grootfontein. Perhaps this can be given a great deal more attention and be propagated to a much better extent in the drought-stricken parts. I am speaking here of the old man salt-bush, kochia, cactus and so on, as well as grasses that can bring relief in times of drought. After all, there are many farms on which use can be made of these crops and where they can be planted.

But I also want to make haste and take just a brief look at countries abroad, since there are so many complaints and so much discussion about our own conditions. In this connection I want to quote a short report from Western Germany. In the report it is stated that in the past year 82 000 West German farming undertakings of about 0,5 ha or more were closed down or amalgamated with large undertakings. This represents more than 6 per cent of the total and is considerably more than the average of 33 000 per year for the period 1949-’70. Since 1949 the number of farm units decreased by a total of 778 000. That is about 40 per cent of the original number of farm units. At the end of December there were still about 1 160 000 farms, 63 per cent of which were smaller than 10 ha. 16 per cent were larger than 20 ha. I quote these data to indicate in what a fix the old countries have landed with their agricultural and agricultural land division. Since 1947 the average size of farms has increased by 58 per cent. This happened as a result of consolidation and the enlargement of the land. One of the daily newspapers there, the Kölner Statt-Anzeiger, states that these developments must not be seen as a danger sign for agriculture. They speak here of the disappearance of the small uneconomic farms, and the farmer himself to boot. According to the newspaper this is the logical consequence of a policy of encouraging farmers to withdraw themselves from uneconomic units. The dilemma of agriculture is that there are still too many small farm units producing too much. The newspaper goes further and points to the surplus problems the Euromart countries are faced with. In addition, it states, there are still the predictions of experts that the majority of under-developed countries will also be faced with surpluses in the foreseeable future. The godsend of fertile land could perhaps become a big curse, the article states, because of over-production in agriculture. I also want to quote briefly what one of our economists, Dr. M. D. Marais, first chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture, had to say. He said the following (translation)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me that not one hon. member in this House will deny that things are inded not going well in the farming industry and agriculture. It is true that the farmer has had a good year as far as rains are concerned, but as a result of the years of drought and the enormous debts he still has to carry because he had to buy fodder during the drought, the farmer is indeed having a hard time of it. It is not only the agricultural industry which is experiencing difficulties. Bodies such as the Land Bank, the board of the Land Bank, the staff of the Land Bank, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and its boards and staff, have also gone through a very difficult time during the past year. Anybody who has worked in close co-operation with these bodies will appreciate this. We cannot blame them— I am now talking about the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure —because they are limited by certain funds in regard to the assistance they can render to the farmers. The funds have become exhausted. Towards the end of the financial year the farmer who had applied for loans found it quite difficult to obtain them because there were no more funds available. Consequently this body had to accept the principle that a farmer may not be granted a loan unless a summons has been issued for debt. To me and to many other people this was a tragic state of affairs. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent towards the end of the financial year that farmers who found themselves in an uncreditworthy position could not obtain assistance. The Government has therefore turned its back on uncreditworthy farmers, and they have been unable to obtain loans. As I see the problem, it is our duty and that of the Government to ensure that those farmers do not find themselves in an uncreditworthy position. Once the die is cast it is no use turning round and saying that the farmer now finds himself in an uncreditworthy position. It is no use then. Why is this? It is because the production costs of the farmer are rising tremendously day by day and week by week. The production costs of the farmer are rising tremendously and nobody can deny this. However, the prices of his produce are getting lower or remain the same. These do not rise in proportion to his expenses. I am thinking of the excise duty on imported machinery, such as tractors and all other imported machinery the farmer requires in the agricultural industry. The farmer pays excise duty on those items. I visited the Free State during the past few days where, as we know, the farmers use machinery on a very large scale. There are complaints that the excise duty causes the production costs of the farmer to rise every day. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, spoke about maize prices. Last year production costs of one bag of maize rose by 13 cents. Now we talk of a record crop. This year again the price dropped by 14 cents. This has now been confirmed. The price has dropped by 14 cents, but the production costs of the farmer go up. This is what makes the farmer an uncreditworthy farmer today. [Interjections.] It is no use trying to soft-soap us—these are facts. Who will deny that the farmer received £3 to £4 for one sheep 20 years—almost a quarter century—ago? And what does the farmer get for that same sheep today? Between R6 and R8.

Nonsense!

No, wait a moment; this is the average price. I am not talking about the increase in meat prices now. We all know that meat is scarce today. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, my time is limited and hon. members are making a noise. They will have ample time to make a noise later. Meat is scarce today and that is why it is more expensive. One is very likely to get between R10 and R12 for one sheep today because meat is so scarce. But what did we get for mutton a year ago? I quoted this here myself. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister want to suggest that we are getting much more for our sheep today than what we got 20 years ago? Not one single farmer will believe him when he tells him that. The farmers know better than that. What does the farmer get for his wool today compared to the wool price of 20 years ago? No, Mr. Chairman, the price of wool remains at the same level. The rising prices of machinery and production costs are not taken into consideration.

For example, take the devaluation of the rand. The farmer expects the price of fuel to rise in the near future. Would anybody deny this? The cost to the farmer to have his machinery repaired will also rise. In what respect did the devaluation of the rand help the farmer? In what way did it help the farmer?

Ask the wool industry.

He will have to pay even more for machinery as a result of devaluation.

Let us consider the question of subsidies. I am now talking about subsidies on registered mortgage bonds with the commercial banks. In 1970 this Government decided in principle to subsidize the farmer to the extent of 1½ per cent. We on this side of the House pleaded for 2 per cent. To what extent have those rates of interest risen today? At that time the rate of interest was between 8½ per cent and 9 per cent. That was two years ago. The farmer is very fortunate if he can get money at 12 per cent today. That subsidy of per cent did not help the farmer in any way; it did not help him at all.

Let us see what funds the Land Bank has available with which it has to help the farmer. Last year the Land Bank got R25 million. I am referring to the expenditure on Loan Account. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, referred to the price of mutton. I want to point out to the hon. member that the price of mutton to the farmer was 17,7 cents a pound at auctions ten years ago. That was the average price. In the past year it was 23,2 cents a pound. That is what the farmer got for his mutton at auctions. The hon. member mentions a figure of R5 per sheep, and then he is highly indignant when I correct him.

On a point of order, Sir, I did not say R5.

Last year the hon. member also made a statement here. We then told him to produce the settlement account of the market. When we received it, it turned out to be third grade sheep, viz. blue meat, in respect of which he had wanted to draw a comparison. One just has to put the facts right.

Ten years ago the auction price of beef to the farmer was 11 cents a pound. Last year the farmer received an average of 20,3 a pound throughout the country. That amounts to a 100 per cent increase to the producer within ten years. I just mention this briefly because I do not have much time. One can so easily make a lot of unfounded statements. I just want to refer to the price of maize that was announced three days ago. I want to ask those hon. members now whether or not they are satisfied with that price. Must the price be higher or lower? The one says this and the other says that. Mr. Chairman, I know what is going to happen. Not only Julius Civin, but a whole lot of them are going to say in the urban constituencies that this Government takes the tax-payers’ money to the tune of nearly R40 million to subsidize the price of maize. We are increasing the consumer price as well; we are perfectly honest about it. We show a loss of R60 million on the export of maize. How are we to make this up? Sir, that hon. member will never adopt a standpoint in this House, and that is why we cannot make any progress here as far as agriculture is concerned.

The hon. member is not prepared to say that he is satisfied with this price. What must happen to that loss of R60 million? The hon. member for East London City says that we must discontinue subsidies— and sometimes I am inclined to agree with him—if we can reduce production costs; but this is not so easy, and that is why one has to subsidize. But what is the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Newton Park? After all, he is the United Party’s big man as far as agriculture is concerned. [Interjection.] No, it is not just a matter of interest rates. The interest rate is a minor aspect of the problem. The hon. member asks for larger subsidies. The fertilizer subsidy is R15 million. Will the hon. member for Newton Park tell me whether this is enough, yes or no? The subsidy on the transport of agricultural products by the Railways is R22 million. Will the hon. member tell me whether this is enough, yes or no? Sir, it is no use making wild statements here. The hon. member says we should have an overall body to plan agriculture, but hon. members opposite give us no lead in connection with these matters. They do not tell us what they want us to do. Sir, what I am saying here is not simply without any foundation; hon. members opposite come up with this bluff in the cities that the producer price for maize must be reduced drastically. I quote what the Financial Mail wrote last week—

Do hon. members opposite agree with this statement? Sir, it is said here that we want to push the farmers off the farms. I am disappointed that the hon. member for East London City, who is a practical farmer, said here today: “You want the farmers off the farms.” Sir, hon. members opposite must tell me whether they agree with this—

The price of the farmer’s product must be brought down drastically. This magazine says that last year’s subsidy of R30 million is ridiculous. Now we come and push it up to R38,5 million. Sir, we get no lead from the Opposition. I want an effective Opposition who will say to me: “This is the price I propose; this is how you must treat the farmer.” It is easy to make wild generalizations and to say that we do not protect the farmer. This year we took money out of the tax-payers’ pockets; we took money out of the consumers’ pockets; but we are prepared to suffer that opposition, because it will spark off a chain reaction if you make the consumer pay more in a good year. Our standpoint is that we want to protect the farmers and that, if there is a loss of R60 million on the export of maize, the consumer must also contribute his share.

We put our case straightforwardly; we are prepared to say to the voters in any by-election in the rural areas or in any urban constituency : “here are the hard facts; decide for yourselves whether we are doing the right thing.” But my difficulty is that I cannot tell the voters what alternative the United Party proposes. I cannot go and say to the maize farmer: “Look, you have kept us in power for 24 years; now choose between our policy and the policy of the United Party; this is the United Party’s standpoint on the price of maize, and this is our standpoint,” because the United Party has no definite proposal to make in this regard.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District put quite a number of questions on potato losses and on potatoes which could be exported. Sir, people come here from overseas who tell one that they have to pay so much for potatoes in Belgium at present and that they are prepared to pay 80 cents for a small pocket of potatoes. I had a man from Mauritius here the other day who knows nothing about the matter, and who also said that they were prepared to pay 80 cents. The Potato Board comes to me as a producer and lays down the conditions on which I may export potatoes. This year these conditions are that they have to be exported in 50-lb. pockets to a specific country, and that the potatoes must be graded in a certain way. If you meet all these requirements, you as a producer can realize 30 cents for 15 kg, which is equal to the price you can fetch on the Johannesburg market, without all this bother. Sir, any farmer can say today:“I can export my citrus, or my potatoes, at such and such a profit.” He can go to the control board and if he gets no satisfaction there, he can make further representations. But the Potato Board is not a storage board. The hon. member asked here what quantity of potatoes the Potato Board had in stock. There is no such thing as the Potato Board being able to keep supplies of potatoes in stock. The hon. member does not understand how the marketing system functions in regard to these products.

What price was offered?

It comes to 30 cents for 15 kg; that is what the farmer will net after all the costs attached to that particular transaction have been deducted. Sir, the hon. member carried on here about the profit the Dairy Board allegedly made on the export of a small consignment of butter. He creates the impression among the consumers that we make profits on butter that is exported, instead of our ploughing these profits back for the domestic consumer. He keeps quiet about the subsidy of R5,6 million on the price of butter. If the hon. member takes that one consignment on which a profit was made and does a little sum, he will find that it amounts to 0,01 of a cent per pound of butter; that is the only benefit the consumer would have received. In the meantime the Government is subsidizing the price of butter. [Interjection.] Sir, I have only ten minutes. The impression is being created that this Government is misleading the consumer and taking money from him. Throughout this debate, because it is an agricultural debate, the story is put out that the Government is not sympathetically disposed to the farmer; that the Government wants to push the farmer off the land. Sir, I request hon. members of the Opposition to give us an alternative proposal. The hon. the Minister will shortly reply to the questions that have been put here.

Sir, hon. members opposite spoke of agricultural financing, and in the same breath they spoke of the small man whom we supposedly do not want to help. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank have been criticized vehemently for having assisted larger units. As a result of United Party pressure, we have decided no longer to assist large units. Hon. members opposite made a fuss the other day about assistance rendered to Jan Haak. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has lent more than R130 million to farmers at 5 per cent interest since its inception in 1967. To which farmers? Not to the Jan Moolmans and other well-to-do farmers, but to the small man whom we should like to keep in agriculture. We do not render assistance to the strong man. The strong man already has his foot in the stirrup; he has not the slightest chance of getting assistance from our department. We want to assist the small man to keep him in agriculture. [[Time expired.]

Sir, if I have to draw a comparison between what has just been said by the hon. the Minister and the gossip of the hon. member for Newton Park, I think I am entitled to say that the Government’s basic policy in respect of agricultural financing is not deliberately aimed at reducing the number of farmers in the rural areas. The Government’s standpoint and the policy of the hon. the Minister and his Deputy are to give any promising farmer a fair chance of remaining on his farm and of farming.

Then there is this meat story. I am not a meat farmer. I should like to speak about wine and I hope I shall get a chance to say something about it. But here in my hand I have a cutting from the Sunday Times of 9 th April, 1972, with the headline : “Housewives getting their money’s worth with meat.” And here they draw a comparison between meat prices which our people have to pay in this country and those which are paid in a country such as England. I just want to mention one or two examples. Unfortunately I do not have the Afrikaans words in front of me and therefore I shall mention them in English—

I can continue quoting in this vein in order to show that our meat prices in South Africa are far more reasonable than those in countries overseas. But you will permit me, Sir, to put a few ideas to the hon. the Minister in connection with our wine industry.

It is not necessary for me to tell the hon. the Minister what Louis Pasteur once said, i.e. “A day without wine is like a day without sunshine”. The hon. the Deputy Minister will probably also agree with what a certain French expert said, i.e. “It is the death of all good cookery to have nothing to drink with a meal”. I should like to express a few words of thanks here to the K.W.V. as our wine co-operative which has been doing such a very great deal recently to promote the consumption of light wines. We are doing two things through the agency of the K.W.V., firstly, to cultivate among our people an appreciation for wine as a civilized commodity and, secondly, to establish an image of the Western Cape as a viticultural area with the same economic, cultural and historical significance to South Africa as is the case with the Rhine area in West Germany and with Southern France. But now I have a problem. I know I may not speak about excise duty here, but I may perhaps tell you, Sir, that since the increase of excise duty on brandy last year, the State has suffered a loss of R20 million in income from excise duty on brandy in the period April to November, 1971. The sales of brandy and fortified wines decreased by 19,4 per cent in this period from April to November, 1971. I have been wondering whether we cannot enlist the aid of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to help us to reduce that excise on brandy somewhat so that the sales of this product may increase again. I recently had a conversation with the Deputy Minister about a problem, viz. that certain of our wine cellars have problems with financing by the Land Bank. These wine cellars must continually modernize themselves and buy new plant—modernize and mechanize —because it is the pride of every wine cellar to produce wine of good quality so that we shall not eventually have on our hands wines of poor quality, as has now happened in certain European countries. For this purpose wine cellars often have to incur heavy capital expenditure. I spoke to the hon. the Deputy Minister and he told me that the K.W.V. has R8 million invested with private concerns and that they should invest it with the Land Bank. Then the wine cellars could be assisted more easily by the Land Bank. I then went to the K.W.V. and I asked them what their explanation was. Now, it is a fact that the present K.W.V. surpluses are not invested with the Land Bank. You know, Sir, that most Boland farmers used to farm on a cash basis or, if they were in need of capital, they got it from the local bank cr the local boards of executors. Because these local institutions helped the farmer, the K.W.V. often invested its surplus funds with these boards and local institutions. In the past the K.W.V. has even lent money to divisional councils, and by way of exception to municipalities in the Boland, which in actual fact was again an indirect way of ploughing back the wine farmers’ money into that district. But the request I should now like to make to the Minister is that he should assist us in persuading the State to exempt from income tax the interest earned on investments with the Land Bank by co-operative societies. If this could be done, I am certain that it would probably be easier also to persuade this organization of which I am a member, i.e. the K.W.V., to invest its surplus funds with the Land Bank so as to enable the Land Bank to assist wine cellars financially with capital expenditure.

There is another small point which causes some concern to our wine farmers, i.e. the question of domestic marketing. This probably applies to the fruit farmers in the Western Province as well. I may quote here what the Deputy Minister said in Rhodesia when he pleaded for more purposeful attempts to sell more and more agricultural produce on the domestic market; I may quote the Secretary for Commerce and Industries, who predicted that South Africa was going to have serious marketing problems when England entered the European Common Market, problems as far as fruit, wine and vegetables are concerned; I may quote Prof. Hulme, who said that overseas markets could no longer be regarded as a dumping place for agricultural surpluses; I may quote the chairman of the Apricot and Peach Board. I may also quote the Chief Director, Horticulture, of the Department of Agriculture, who said that the local market is by no means fully developed yet and that, as a result of the rising standard of living of our people, consumption may continue to increase because the consumer has become more quality conscious. In this regard I feel that the State may perhaps assist us in extending the domestic marketing of our fruit and wine. If the wine farmers were to suffer a setback as a result of circumstances overseas or in our own country, our wine farmers are going to have a hard time.

I want to mention something which many people may perhaps not believe, i.e. the precarious financial position of some of our wine farmers. Expressed in rands per hectare, the net income of the top third of our wine farmers is R339-49. Expressed in rands per hectare, the net income from farming of the middle third is R101-01, and the bottom one-third’s net income from farming, expressed in rand per hectare, is minus R32-30. The average for the year 1969-70 was R118-41 per hectare. In 1968-’69 it was only R106-03. Therefore I repeat that the wine sector is a vulnerable industry. Consequently we will have to help this sector too by getting its products marketed more cheaply and more strongly within the country itself in order to impart greater stability to this industry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if there is an hon. member who, by his contribution to the debate, substantiated quite a number of arguments advanced by this side, then it is most decidedly the hon. member for Worcester. In the last throes of his contribution he told us what the net income per hectare of the wine farmer was. Then he pleaded with the hon. the Minister for assistance because it is a vulnerable industry. That is the point we on this side of the House have made umpteen times, i.e. that the position of the average farmer of South Africa is anything but rosy.

I spoke of the wine farmers.

When we raise these points, it is said that we are talking the industry to death and weakening the confidence in the agricultural industry. The hon. member for Worcester asked the Minister to have a chat with the hon. the Minister of Finance on the question of excise duty on liquor. Did hon. members on this side of the House and I, specifically, not warn him last year when the hon. the Minister of Finance increased the excise duty on distilling wine so enormously? At that time we asked the hon. member for Worcester, the hon. member for Paarl and the hon. member for Swellendam—the members who have those farmers in their constituencies—to agree with us. How did they vote? The hon. member for Paarl was not even here when the division took place and that hon. member, the member for Worcester, did not vote for us on this side of the House. Now, however, he feels himself free to get up here and plead for the wine farmers. The United Party warned him last year that he would find that there would be a tremendous decrease in liquor sales as a result of the increased excise duty. Now the hon. member tells the Minister that he must help to encourage domestic sales of liquor. When that hon. member had the opportunity to put in a plea for the wine farmer of the Western Province, he was not prepared to do so. When he had the opportunity to follow the good example of the United Party, he was a yes-man on that side of the House. Now that the hon. member for Worcester sees what is happening and that the warnings of the United Party in respect of this problem are being proved correct, he is not a “meal-without-wine is like a day without sunshine”, but he is “wise after the event.” He is being “wise after the event”, because a year after we warned the Government that it was acting wrongly, that hon. member for Worcester asks, late in the day, for the same things the United Party asked for.

The hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that he is always in difficulties, because the Nationalist Party is prepared to state its policy, especially when it comes to price determination, but we on this side of the House are never willing to state our price policy. What absolute nonsense! We on this side of the House have said on every occasion that, in determining the price of the farmer’s product, we should take the increase in production costs into consideration. That is the first point. Then the risk factor should also be taken into consideration, because there is no industry more risky than the agricultural industry. In the third place a sound entrepreneur’s wage must be attached to the farmer’s product. His approach is, and it is in this respect that we differ from the hon. gentleman, that when there is a shortage of a product, the price for the farmer is increased. When there has been a drought or when there have been circumstances preventing an increase in production, the hon. gentleman is prepared to give a little encouragement. As soon as a surplus develops, however, he is frightened out of his wits and says that the price of the farmer’s product must be reduced. He is again doing so now in the case of the maize farmer. He says that they are on the side of the farmer, but they are not on the side of the farmer, and not on the side of the consumer either. Do hon. members know what he did with the mealie price? He reduced the price for the farmer and simultaneously increased the price to the consumer, instead of having the courage of his convictions to do as we say. We say that if the farmer’s production costs rise, you have to give him an improved price. But if that difference that has to be given to the farmer causes the consumer price to rise, it must not be done. The consumer must be subsidized. It must come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. But the hon. the Deputy Minister does not have the courage of his convictions to do this. Then he says that he is in difficulties, since he cannot argue about the policy of the United Party because we never put our price policy to him. Our price policy is not only what I am saying now, but it is also in writing. He can go and read it in our agricultural policy.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay made a fine plea here—and I agree with him— for the wheat farmers. What did the hon. member for Mossel Bay ask? He asked that the price to be announced one of these days, should not be a reduced price. Why not? Because the wheat farmers have only now, in the past season, received a decent price and had a decent crop so that it could make up for the losses of the past. If that hon. member for Mossel Bay is correct, then, surely, the hon. the Deputy Minister is wrong.

May I ask you a question?

No, give me a chance now.

But I do not have another chance.

If the hon. member for Mossel Bay is correct, then, surely, that hon. Deputy Minister is wrong in the case of the maize producer. The hon. member for Mossel Bay says that the price should not be reduced, because they should now be in a position to make up for the lean years they have experienced. I agree with him. But was the maize farmer in South Africa not in a similar position during the past few years? The maize farmer had a good crop in the previous season and again now. But now the hon. gentleman says that he is completely ignoring the representations made to him that the price should please not be reduced.

This is the price of the

Mealie Board.

Yes, it is the price of the Mealie Board, but I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is the price of the maize producers in South Africa.

Yes.

Who elects the Mealie Board?

Is it the price of the Maize Producers’ Institute, the people who make a scientific study of production costs? We have now had a better season in the case of maize, but I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, if there should now be a surplus of approximately 5 million bags of wheat, he will reduce the wheat price as well.

May I reply now?

Yes.

The hon. member must realize that that surplus is exported at a loss of R60 million. Now he must tell us whether the tax-payer should bear that loss of R60 million.

What about the wheat?

The same goes for the wheat.

Mr. Chairman, there are a tremendous number of factors influencing the situation as a whole. But this is one of the reasons why we say that if we had a proper agricultural planning council in South Africa today, it would have helped us a great deal. We should not allow ourselves to be frightened by surpluses, because surpluses are usually of a temporary nature. In the past 14 years that I have sat in this House of Assembly, I have not seen a surplus of any item taking on a permanent nature in course of time. A surplus has always been of a temporary nature. In the case of maize, for example, we have a product that is not highly perishable. Here is a product that can be converted into many other things. [Time expired.]

I found it very interesting to listen to the reasoning of the hon. member for Newton Park in regard to the method by which they would determine prices for the producers. There are many fine phrases which one may use in this regard. For instance, it may be said that prices will be determined on production costs, or one may talk about an entrepreneur’s wage for the farmer, etc. In the mealie industry this year the same number of morgen was cultivated as was the case last year, i.e. 5,8 million morgen. The anticipated mealie-crop yield will be between 17 and 25 million bags more this year than was the case last year. On what basis would the hon. member determine the production costs for this crop as against last year’s crop? He referred to an entrepreneur’s wage. On the same number of morgen one finds that the crop is 90 million bags one year, whereas the next year —for instance, this year—it may be 114 or 115 million bags. What entrepreneur’s wage is the hon. member going to pay now? Is he going to pay the same entrepreneur’s wage for the same number of morgen? Or is he going to pay it on the same basis per bag on the 90 million bags or on the 115 million bags? What the hon. member has told us here, is therefore a very fine story.

How does one do it in the case of wheat?

One does it by working out an average. However, now I want to deal with a next point. Whereas one is dealing with a mealie industry which is exporting more than 50 per cent of its crop at the present moment, could the hon. member still argue on that very same basis, namely that that 50 per cent in production costs and the entrepreneur’s wage should be calculated on the unit cost of a past number of years? Suppose that an average was taken over a period of four or five years, and that one then has a year when the crop is 25 million bags more, which has to be exported. Let us also suppose that one wants to maintain that basis without calculating by what the unit cost of production per bag has dropped or by what the entrepreneur’s wage per bag unit has risen as a result of the increased production. The hon. member will therefore realize what would happen to the industry if that procedure were followed. Surely, after a while an absolutely wrong impression would be created for the producer as to the marketing possibilities of his product. After all, one cannot do that. That is why I say that all of these factors should be taken into account. The hon. member spoke about entrepreneur’s wages, but entreprereur’s wages on what? On the morgen costs, on the production costs, or what? On the morgen costs, or on 10, 20 or 30 bags per morgen, or what? It is all very fine to mention these things, but then the hon. member must be specific. Then he must be able to determine specifically what the morgen costs per morgen of mealies are, that the morgen costs have increased by so much, that the morgen costs come to so much this year, and that this is his estimated cost.

But how does the Mealie Board do it now?

I am not talking about how the Mealie Board does it, but the hon. member criticized the way in which the Mealie Board was doing it now. After all, he levelled criticism against the way in which the Mealie Board was doing it now; he said he was going to do it differently. The hon. member said he was going to follow a procedure different from the one followed by the Mealie Board. Now I ask him in what way he is going to do it differently. After all, this is what the whole argument is about. The Mealie Board does it by taking all these factors into account. They also take into account what the export surpluses and export losses are. The hon. member also said maize and wheat were easy to store; they were not perishable and could therefore be stored for long periods.

A different use can also be found for them.

Granted! However, does the hon. member think that it costs nothing to store a bag of mealies? Does the hon. member think that it merely lies there? It costs 70 cents or 90 cents to store a bag of mealies for a year. The interest alone which the farmer pays out for that bag of mealies, at 8 per cent, is a consider able amount, let alone the facilities that have to be created. Therefore it is easy to say it should be stored, but it does not cost nothing to store it. One does not merely stack the bags outside and leave them lying there for a year. It costs money to store mealies. In other words, it pays one better to lose 40 cents overseas than to store a bag of mealies for a year. One must choose between the two, now, i.e. between storing a bag of mealies for a year at 70 cents and exporting it at a loss of 40 cents. What would the hon. member do if he had to be the Minister?

Never, he will never become one.

Therefore, these arguments do not hold water. Nobody is denying that the agricultural industry does have problems. I have never done so in my life. The fact of the matter is that all the steps that are taken are in fact taken because the industry experiences problems from time to time. However, to level accusations now and to say that this and that are not being done correctly by the Government and the Mealie Board and that the United Party would do it correctly, simply does not work. In that case the hon. member should not ask us what the Mealie Board is doing at the moment; he should tell us how he would do it. It is very obvious that the crops of any product produced in surplus to such an extent that the major part of it has to be exported, may not only be calculated on production costs plus. That is impossible. One cannot do so with the wool industry, nor can one do so with any other industry which is mainly dependent on exports. The hon. member also said that he had never seen a product remaining in surplus for ever. Of course, the most important means by which a product may be taken out of surplus, is in fact the price. If we guaranteed the price on potatoes in this country at a certain price which took all these factors into account, one would be saddled with a potato surplus for all time. If we guaranteed here a price for eggs for all time, we would not have a 40 per cent export surplus at a great loss, but a 300 per cent or 400 per cent surplus. After all, the price determines for the farmer what he should farm with and what he finds attractive. On the other hand, however, if we are to fix the prices of these products, having regard to the three in which the State does in fact take a hand without paying a floor price or taking other factors into account, all the people in South Africa would after a while produce nothing but mealies and wheat. Surely this is obvious. The other products must to a large extent compete on the foreign market with a domestic market price. These stories do not make any sense to me.

I rose in order to speak about two matters in particular. I still want to speak to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. Whenever the hon. member rises here, he speaks with great prolixity and makes a lot of noise. Then he thinks he is scaring somebody. I want to say this to the hon. member: A person who is frightened by him, must be a baboon, just as he is.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “baboon”.

Very well, Sir, I withdraw it. In any case, I just want to deal with the hon. member’s argument. The hon. member spoke here about potato exports, and claimed that the Minister and the Potato Board were doing nothing to secure better marketing. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture told him what the reasons were. This board is a buying board. Does the hon. member want potatoes to be sold more cheaply outside than they are sold in South Africa, just to get the export market? I ask this question now; the hon. member need not shake his head.

What price …

At a price lower than the domestic price?

Thirty cents.

There the hon. the Deputy Minister has replied to the hon. member.

You know it was not 30 cents.

Are you saying that I am lying?

The Potato Board told farmers that they had two alternatives: They could supply potatoes to it at the export price at which it could sell potatoes, or they could supply them to the domestic market. Does the hon. member think for one moment that the farmer would have supplied them to the Potato Board if he could get a better price outside? In other words, the price which the Potato Board could get outside was not attractive enough to induce the farmer to supply potatoes for export purposes.

How do we know that it was not attraotive enough to the farmer?

But I have just told the hon. member what the position is. He should not argue about it.

No, but …

Very well, Sir; in that case I shall put the question to the hon. member the other way round. If there were a surplus of potatoes in the country, would the hon. member then be prepared to sell that surplus outside at a price lower than the domestic one? This is a simple question. Would the hon. member be prepared for us to export potatoes at a price lower than the domestic price, if there were a surplus?

Surely you export many products at a lower price.

I am asking the hon. member over there whether he would be prepared to do this; I am not asking the hon. member for East London City—I know he has enough intelligence.

What is the price? If you would give me the price, I could reply to the question.

Very well, Sir; now I have the hon. member just where I want him. He says that if there were a surplus of potatoes in the country, he would be prepared for South Africa to export potatoes at a price lower than the one at which it could supply them to the consumer in this country.

No.

What are you doing with butter?

The other day, when the hon. member was not in the House, when he wanted to make propaganda in the Sunday Times, he referred to a “butter scandal”. What was the butter scandal? He attacked the Government, the Minister and the Dairy Board for having exported butter at a price lower than the one for which they sold it domestically. That was the scandal. Is it the hon. member’s standpoint that no product should be exported from this country at a price lower than the domestic one?

What are you doing with the mealies?

But, reply to my questions now. I want to accuse the hon. member of using these matters purely for political purposes, for making a political point out of them. Is the hon. member prepared for sugar farmers in Natal to supply sugar in the Republic of South Africa at the price which they can get on the export markets? Come on; now I want to ask the hon. member for what reason he referred to a “butter scandal”? I want to say this to the hon. member: This is the kind of propaganda made by the United Party. Outside this House he walks about and grants interviews to newspapers, but when he is confronted with the policy and the principle of the State, he does not have the courage to rise and to defend them. Therefore I say that the hon. member cannot blame me if I do not take any more notice of him.

Now I want to come to the question of financing, to which reference was also made. We all know that the agricultural industry in South Africa—and not only in South Africa, but also all over the world—has been going through particularly difficult circumstances, especially here where it is drier than it is in other countries. We all know that agricultural financing is not very attractive to private institutions. For that reason it is essential, and I agree with hon. members in this regard, that to a very large extent financial financing should be undertaken on a basis different from those of other kinds of financing. Farming is not remunerative enough for the agriculturalist to afford a high rate of interest. But certain steps are being taken by the Government in this regard. We talk about credit facilities. What is the credit provision in the country? In the first instance, apart from the normal institutions by which long-term financing is undertaken—just as medium-term financing, for instance, is undertaken by banks—the agricultural industry is provided with a tremendously large amount of credit through Government action and semi-Government institutions. The Land Bank provides mortgages; then there are also mortgage loans by Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. But the Land Bank itself also makes funds available to the corporations for providing their members with short-term and medium-term credit. In other words, it is not a case of no such credit being available here in this country. On the contrary, a large amount of it is available. Hon. members have referred to credit provision, and I agree that it would be ideal if the Land Bank could take over all agricultural mortgages at a reduced interest rate within the foreseeable future. I am not arguing about it, but the funds for it must become available. If the Land Bank were to be enabled to take over from institutions other than the Land Bank the total mortgage burden borne by the farmers in South Africa, it would mean that an additional R500 million to R600 million would immediately have to be placed at the Land Bank’s disposal.

But, surely, one cannot take over everything at the same time.

Just give me a chance; surely the hon. member can speak later on. After all, I am developing my point of argument. Then it would mean that that amount of R600 million would immediately become available for other kinds of financing, so that it may move in the direction of taking over more mortgages and of adopting a more extensive pattern of financing. I agree with hon. members. Now, there is something to which I have not yet received a reply from hon. members opposite. If it is expected of the State to do this by way of its institutions—whether they are semi-State institutions, such as the Land Bank, or purely State institutions, such as Agricultural Credit, because the agricultural industry must be financed by them— to what extent should they finance the agricultural industry? Should they finance any company involved in the agricultural industry, no matter how big it may be? Should it finance any farmer, no matter to what extent he wishes to expand, who invests in the agricultural industry? Or should it finance any farmer, no matter how small and uneconomic he may be? That is an answer I cannot get from hon. members. Therefore, when we talk about agricultural financing, it is easy to say that there is not enough credit available to the agricultural industry. However, I want to make the statement that if one were to make available all the money in the private sector today in order to provide the agricultural industry with credit, if the hon. the Minister of Finance were to remove entirely the credit-provision ceiling of the banks today, and an additional R200 million or R300 million were made available, and even if the interest rate were subsidized, there would still be a section in the agricultural industry, who would not be able to get hold of that money. A great deal of credit would be available to the agricultural industry, but there would still be farmers who would not be able to avail themselves of that credit, because those institutions would have to determine whether the person to whom they are to lend money, is sufficiently credit-worthy. The impression created here by hon. members is that if they should come into power, any person wanting to invest in the agricultural industry and needing money, would be financed, irrespective of whether he is big, small, medium, credit-worthy or not.

No, please!

But this is the impression you are creating by your attack.

We are not silly.

If this is not the impression they want to create, I should like to know what the attack of the United Party is concerned with. The other things are precisely what this Government and the various institutions are doing. The hon. member has said that the Land Bank should have no norm in terms of which it grants mortgages. If the Land Bank were to decide to take over all mortgages unconditionally, hon. members will appreciate that all persons who have mortgages, wherever they may have them, would immediately call on the Land Bank. Therefore, the Land Bank must have a policy providing whom it will help first. I agree with the hon. member that unfortunately it is true that owing to a shortage of funds, the Land Bank does not see its way clear to helping everybody. Why does the Land Bank have a restriction of R50 000 at the moment? This position will improve again later on. Why does it do it? It does so for the very purpose of helping as many farmers as possible. The problem of the agricultural industry is not one of financing only. At present 30 per cent of our farmers produce 3 to 4 per cent of the total agricultural production. Those people’s problem is not only one of financing or credit; it is also a socio-economic problem. In talking about agricultural financing, one should also have regard to the fact that if one wants the rural areas to remain as densely populated as possible, one should not only provide credit. One is also faced with a socioeconomic problem of people who are not credit-worthy. Abnormal and special measures must be taken in respect of them. That is in fact what we do; not for all of them, but in fact for those falling within the prescribed limits. Therefore it is, in the first place, not correct to say that there is no credit for the agricultural industry. In the second place, it is of course also a totally false outlook to say that the provision of credit in the agricultural industry can be effected in an unrestricted manner. It was in fact with a view to all the agricultural problems that this Government went out of its way to make financing available to the agricultural industry. In this way sums of money were made available to the Land Bank at 2 per cent interest. The hon. member referred to this matter. Hundreds of millions of rands were made available by the Land Bank to co-operative societies and other institutions to pay for products.

Let us take the mealie industry as an example. During the first 18 months it will not be possible to export the mealies, in spite of all the facilities that are available. That entire mealie crop is financed through credit provided by the Land Bank. This is also the case with the wheat industry and other industries. Apart from that, we still have the special category 3 cases, in terms of which the Government does financing at 5 per cent interest. These are over and above the assistance granted in the case of products, such as wool and others, which have to contend with problems. Then we have the withdrawal scheme in regard to the small-stock industry. Over the next few years this withdrawal scheme is going to cost the State between R80 and R90 million, or even more. This is not merely a soil conservation measure; essentially it is in fact a soil conservation measure, but it is also meant to give the farmer an income in these circumstances.

The ideal position would have been for the Land Bank to be able to do all long-term financing. That would imply a great deal of benefit in two respects. In the first instance, the mortgagee would be insured. In the second instance, it would also have a rational effect on the unnecessary increases in land prices. What is it that forces up land prices? It is the people competing for agricultural financing; the money is available and that is why land prices have risen. If money were not available, land prices would not have risen the way they have in fact done.

Is this attributable to the remunerativeness of the agricultural industry? That is what you said before.

It is partially attributable to that. After all, a financial institution would not grant a mortgage on a farm which is not a paying concern.

Sir, there is a second item about which I should also like to say a few words. The hon. member for Walmer spoke here about abattoirs and the provision of abattoirs. Of course, this question of abattoir provision is closely connected with the nature of the meat scheme we have. A few years ago I called a meeting of the Meat Board and told its members that as a result of the way in which the meat scheme was being implemented, doubts were being created in the minds of the people who had to provide abattoirs in this country, that they did not want to erect any abattoirs without certain guarantees, and that we had to adapt our scheme to the new requirements. The Meat Board appointed an abattoir committee, which investigated the whole problem and subsequently brought out a report. They said two things; in the first instance, they said that the scheme had to be retained as it was, and, in the second instance, that the scheme could only be implemented on the basis of auction on the hook at abattoirs situated inside the controlled areas. In terms of the Abattoir Commission Act the first right to erect abattoirs is vested in the municipalities. It was the task of the Abattoir Commission to negotiate with the various municipalities, in the first instance, in order to effect improvements at the existing abattoirs where improvements had to be brought about, and, in the second instance, in order to persuade the municipalities to build new abattoirs in places such as Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria and elsewhere. In a case where a municipality is not prepared to build an abattoir, the Abattoir Commission itself may erect an abattoir there. Subsequently this situation developed : One has abattoirs in nine controlled areas and the board has a floor-price scheme operating there. If, in times of surplus, the board has to buy in meat and export that meat, it means that expensive facilities have to be established at those abattoirs. Each of those abattoirs must meet the requirements laid down for an export abattoir, or else the meat bought in there, may not be exported. At the time I asked the Meat Board whether it was necessary for us to bring about that situation at each of these places, and I asked them to go into the matter once again. This they did, and then it became apparent what it would cost to establish abattoirs complying with these requirements. The figure of R20 million was mentioned here in regard to Johannesburg. The estimate of the municipality itself is R28 million. That comes to R7 and more per head of cattle to provide the necessary facilities for implementing this scheme. Then I told the Meat Board again that the situation was simply becoming impossible and that the erection of abattoirs in this country was simply going to lag behind unless the State itself had those abattoirs built by the Abattoir Commission at very great expense, which would be totally unnecessary.

Or by private bodies.

Private bodies cannot build an abbattoir under the scheme as interpreted by them, for it must be a public abattoir where auctions are held in respect of every carcass entering the controlled area. In other words, a private body would not be interested. The board investigated the situation, and now we have eventually arrived at a system which we think ought to comply with the principle of auction on the hook and a guaranteed floor price, and we think that the problems which have arisen in regard to provision, may now be bridged to a certain extent. I want to mention briefly the problems that arose. It was to maintain the floor-price scheme. One of the problems was that the industry was saddled with unfair costs as a result of the continued provision of public abattoirs. I need not elaborate on that matter, but it means that private enterprise does not pass right through its abattoir in one queue, from one side to the other. Then there were inadequate facilities for curbing to a large extent the implementation of supporting prices. The matter was subsequently investigated, and the board arrived at the conclusion that in order to implement this scheme as was suggested by the board in the past, and as we have had it up to now, would involve unnecessary expenses and also unnecessarily expensive abattoirs. A committee was then appointed to inquire into the more economic methods of slaughtering animals, even if these were to involve a change in the existing pattern— alternative methods for the implementation of supporting prices, the desirability of recognizing only one compulsory sales method, the maintenance of defined controlled and outside areas, and the desirability for all controlled-area abattoirs to be maintained as export abattoirs. This committee published its report on 20th April, after I had been negotiating with them in regard to this matter for two years. The proposals of the Meat Board now include, in broad outline, an adaptation in the marketing pattern for slaughter-stock and meat, the implementation of alternative sales methods by dispensing with the compulsory auctioning of all stocks in controlled areas, the provision for the erection of abattoirs on a more economic basis, that defined controlled and outside areas be dispensed with in practice, and the retention of the supporting-price system on the basis of slaughtered mass and grade. In order to meet the needs of the Witwatersrand complex, which includes the controlled area of Pretoria, the Meat Board proposed in respect of cattle—(a) that the construction of the public-service abattoir at City Deep, with a capacity of 1 600 head of cattle per day, be proceeded with at once; floor prices would be implemented in the existing manner and the auction price would still serve as the price barometer; furthermore, these abattoirs were to be maintained as export abattoirs at all times; (b) that in due course three semi-service abattoirs be erected for Pretoria, the East and the West Rand, respectively, with a total throughput of 1 280 head of cattle per day; facilities would be built jointly by agents in commerce, with the requirement that participators had to provide at least 25 per cent of the capital themselves. The most important guidelines in respect of these abattoirs, are that animals will be bought from producers at prices which will be announced in advance for short periods. These prices will now be announced on the basis of the prices fetched at auctions at the service abattoir. These prices will never drop below the floor price, and surplus stocks will be taken up at floor prices by the Meat Board on the existing basis. Of the slaughtered stocks 75 per cent will be refrigerated directly on commercial premises and disposed of at predetermined prices. The remaining 25 per cent of the stocks will be refrigerated in the abattoirs, be sold by auction or by way of negotiation; and (c) and that abattoirs be erected in due course by private commercial bodies, abattoirs with a total capacity of 25 per cent of the estimated needs for 1981, i.e. 25 per cent of the abattoirs of the entire Rand complex will be erected by private persons.

I thought you said private bodies were not interested in it.

As the scheme was implemented at the time, they could not erect them. That is why this change is now being effected. These private abattoirs, which are being erected in this manner and which must also comply with export requirements, must also make provision for 20 per cent of the facilities if surplus stock is offered by the board and the board requires them for its needs.

Then there are a few things I want to emphasize in regard to export abattoirs. In contrast to the existing policy to the effect that all abattoirs in the controlled areas must continuously qualify for export, the board has now proposed, after negotiations, that all new abattoirs erected in controlled areas should be of a Class A standard and comply with the strict requirements of the Hygiene Act, but not that all of them should continuously comply with export standards. They pointed out that meat hygiene was a science which was still developing, and that the standards introduced in other countries were gradually becoming more strict. Continual renovations to all abattoirs, in order to comply with the standards of import countries, will require a considerable amount of money. This can hardly be justified if regard is had to the fact that proportionately a very small percentage of the local supply is available for export purposes. These are the changes which the Meat Board has now proposed to the whole method of meat marketing. On many occasinos in the past I said that one of our problems in regard to abattoirs, was that we had put our entire meat marketing pattern into a strait-jacket, and that within the confines of that strait-jacket we could not find people to establish these facilities.

We often said that.

Yes, but the board never wanted to say it. That is why I have been negotiating with the board about this matter for the past few years. I am pleased the board has eventually come to accept this principle. This principle has now been accepted for the Pretoria-Rand-complex and it will be made applicable to all complexes in which adequate service abattoir facilities are not available; in other words, it means that Johannesburg will go ahead with the abattoirs it has to establish and that a large share of the meat will be handled by the semi-service abattoir and that 25 per cent of the total needs of the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-complex may be established by private abattoirs. This also means that each abattoir which is approved for export, if it is a private abattoir, has to comply with export standards and that the municipal abattoirs or other semiprivate abattoirs need not necessarily comply with export standards. I think this is a step in the right direction. I do not want to say that this is the final step in that direction. I think we can make the marketing of our meat even more streamlined. The producer still has the same protection. He still has his market on which he has his barometer for his price, but now I just want to tell hon. members that these negotiations with the Meat Board commenced more than wo years ago. It was at my request that they met us, and it was not such an easy task to prevail upon them to accept this point of view. I am pleased they eventually went as far as that, and I think this will make matters easier for us to have slaughtering facilities established. In the meantime the Abattoir Commission itself is engaged in conducting negotiations—in cases where the municipalities do not see their way clear of in cases where they demand too much profit on abattoirs —to have abattoirs established through the Abattoir Commission and to provide funds for that purpose through the Commission; also, in cases where municipalities are not prepared to effect improvements to abattoirs, as in Germiston and Benoni, for example to operate those abattoirs on behalf of the Abattoir Commission and to effect the improvements itself, etc. In any event, today a considerably larger number of cattle is slaughtered in the controlled areas and in that complex of Johannesburg. As far as slaughtering pigs is concerned, it also means that pigs may in fact be slaughtered at private abattoirs and brought into the controlled areas under the scheme and that they need not necessarily be slaughtered at service abattoirs, as the position was in the past. To this I just want to add that in my opinion this change in the rigidity of the entire implementation of our floor-price scheme ought to contribute a great deal towards facilitating the establishment of abattoirs and towards private initiative itself being prepared to provide a large share at the abattoirs.

The agricultural policy of the United Party is as bankrupt as their financial policy and their political policy. In the rural areas they tell the farmers that they should get higher prices for their produce. However, they tell the consumers in the cities that they are paying too much for their produce. When one tries to explain to them that they cannot have it both ways, they say the State has to subsidize. But when it comes to taxes from which the subsidies have to be paid, they say the taxes must be reduced. This is the policy they follow. It is such a hot and cold policy that even the farmers of Oudtshoorn rejected them. They keep on telling us that the farmers are having a hard time of it. When we look at the annual report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing for the year ended 30th June, 1971, we see that the net income of the farmers in 1968-’69 amounted to R539 million. In 1969-70 it was R591 million, and in 1970-71 it was R601 million. I can make this prediction that it is going to increase even further for 1971-72.

We now come to the volume indices in respect of field husbandry production. For example, when we take maize, we see that the volume index was 100 in 1960,’61. In 1968-’69 it was 118. In 1969-70 it was 136 and in 1970-71 it was 189. This year it is going to be well over 200, in other words, 100 per cent increase.

The volume index in respect of grain sorghum, or kaffir corn as we used to call it, was only 84 in 1968-’69. In 1969-70 it rose to 160, which represents an increase of almost 100 per cent. In 1970-71 it was 234. This represents an increase of almost 300 per cent on the index figure for 1968-’69. This year, with the crop on hand, it is likely to show an increase of 400 per cent.

Surely, when production increases to such an extent, we have to accept that there cannot be the same increase in prices. In the past, as the hon. the Minister has explained to hon. members, when the profit per bag to the producer was initially calculated, it was put at six or seven bags per morgen. At present the average yield is between 20 and 30 bags per morgen. Hon. members cannot expect the profit to remain at the same level all the time. If, in the past, we had rather based the profit on yield per morgen, we would have had a totally different picture now because of the tremendous increase in yield.

Hon. members opposite talk so easily of what should be done about surpluses. But what they lose sight of is that, when they had the opportunity to show us what could be done about a surplus under very favourable circumstances, they reduced the price to the producer.

At that time we had school-feeding schemes and similar schemes which you abolished.

In 1948 the Maize Board was still able to export maize at a fairly high profit. What did the then Minister say? He said the price had to be reduced and he did, in fact, reduce it by 12½ per cent because the Government of the time wanted to pocket the profits. At that time the Government had R9 million in export profits it wanted to pocket, but which was given back to the maize farmers by the Minister of Agriculture of the National Party, after it had come into power. This was not done by that side of the House. The Government is also being accused of so many farmers having to leave their farms. I blame the old United Party Government for the situation in which the farmers found themselves so that they are, even now, being forced to leave their farms. [Interjections.] In those days, the United Party Government saw to it that no factories were being established in the country. When the father of a family was farming on a fairly large farm, all the children had to stay on the farm because they could not make a livelihood anywhere in the cities. We did not have an Iscor or many of the other factories established under the National Party Government to which those young men from the rural areas could go. All of them had to stay on that farm. The large farms were consequently divided up into small farms. As long as the standard of living was low during the term of office of that side of the House those farmers were able to earn a livelihood on those small farms, but now that the country with its factories, and so forth, has developed under the National Party Government and there has been this tremendous rise in the standard of living, these people can no longer earn a livelihood on these small farms. For this reason the farm becomes an uneconomic unit and the farmer is compelled to turn elsewhere. It is far better to sell one’s farm if one has an uneconomic farm and to go and work in the city. One can easily get a job in the city and thus earn a much bigger income. We are talking about the creation of uneconomic units, but when you have a large number of these small farms and they have to be consolidated—perhaps two or three of them form an economic unit— some of them have to move out. Where else can they go then? Some of the farmers then have to leave the land. Whilst we have this considerable production our farmers will have to realize that it is not merely a question of being able to produce easily—they want to produce as much as they can apart from the production volume of the land for domestic use and conditions on overseas markets. The farmer cannot simply produce and then want the Government to see to it that he receives a higher price every year. The basic price of maize shows an increase this year compared to that of last year. Because the basic price last year was R3-70 per bag, while it is R3-81½ this year. Last year’s price of R3-70 was calculated on a crop estimate of 80 million bags, while the crop yield was 93 million bags in the end. In that respect the farmers enjoyed an advantage. This crop was originally estimated at 102 million bags, and even at this stage it exceeds 113½ million bags. If it ultimately reaches 120 million bags the farmers will enjoy the benefits of it. Now the farmers cannot expect to receive more than R3-81½ cents next year. Then the United Party will come along and say that the price has to be increased even though the Maize Board loses more than R1 per bag. In addition, people talk so easily about the potato prices and the prices of other produce. We have a Marketing Act in terms of which all these commodities are controlled. This Act was not made merely for the price to the producer to be increased every year. The Marketing Act must protect the consumer as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture quoted parts of a very important report here in this House. At this stage we do not really want to comment on that. We should very much like to have copies of that report so that we may study it, because it is sometimes rather difficult to follow the hon. the Minister. He has a natural burr and sometimes he mutters as well. When the burr and the mutter coincide it is rather difficult to understand him.

I should like to talk about the financing of the meat industry. When the hon. the Minister spoke about the financing of agriculture recently, he said that at this stage the Land Bank is not quite ready to handle all the financing of agriculture. I notice the hon. the Deputy Minister is present, and I want to ask him whether it is not possible to handle the financing of agriculture, especially in the meat industry, on the same basis as it is done in Rhodesia, namely by private institutions and by the co-operative societies. In Rhodesia, cattle and breeding cattle are bought with the aid of loans from the Rhodesian Cold Storage. In addition the Rhodesian Cattle Co-op also operates in this sphere. I have here a report of the Rhodesian Department of Agriculture in which this matter is set out well. It seems that this system could be of great assistance to a young farmer in South Africa. The report reads, inter alia, as follows—

This is the Cold Storage Commission of Rhodesia—

†As I have said, it was difficult to follow the hon. the Minister and he may have referred to this. A number of the abattoirs in Rhodesia are scattered about the country at strategic points to serve the main cattle producing areas. They are mainly owned by the Cold Storage. The Rhodesian Cattle Co-op also gives loans to farmers at an interest rate of 7½ per cent plus a commission of R1 per head. I believe that a scheme like this could be of great assistance to our meat industry. It could assist in the financing of the meat industry. I would appreciate it if this Government and possibly the Meat Control Board on suggestion of the Minister, would go into this type of financing to see if it cannot assist particularly our young farmers to stay on the land.

*Mr. Chairman, sometimes one has to borrow money in order to purchase cattle. Since one has to borrow money at today’s high rates of interest, it is not easy to pay back those loans.

†I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister what is being done in respect of the promotion of marketing of our products overseas. I want to refer to the hon. the Minister’s reply in last year’s debate which appears in cols. 5997 and 5998. Here he was replying especially to the hon. member for Kensington. He then told us that we had representatives in Paris, Washington and London. He also mentioned that Mr. J. C. Retief was already appointed to the Argentine. He also said in that speech that there are 18 control boards in this country and that leading members of these boards make regular visits overseas and send specialists of their staff to go overseas to make contact with other countries. I notice in this year’s report that there is no longer a representative in Paris, but that we have one at the South African Embassy in Brussels. Is this a change-over because of the larger E.E.C. and has the Paris representative been moved to Brussels or have we lost the representative in Paris and appointed a new one in Brussels? I notice that the Argentinian representative is not mentioned in this report at all. Last year the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that Mr. J. C. Retief was already appointed to the Argentine. Has that post in the Argentine fallen away or has Mr. Retief been appointed? At the moment, according to this report, we have representatives at the Embassy in London, in Washington, in Brussels and inspectors in Moçambique. This information appears on page 95 of the report. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot extend this representation and have men who are trained in marketing at these places? With the larger E.E.C. we will need men who are trained in marketing. The Citrus Board has done a wonderful job in marketing their own products and we must encourage all agriculture to do the same.

He mentioned that we have these 18 control boards who send representatives overseas. There are some control boards whose membership is stable. The term of office is only two years and members have to be re-elected after two years. Where control boards have no staff trouble, the membership of the board is stable. But as soon as you have some problems with staff, you have a new board every two years. These people cannot have continuity on their boards. I speak from my own experience. I have once served on a board. I believe that the period of office of a member of a control board should be three to four years. After two years you are only starting to find your feet and then there is a control board election and you are not reelected. Very often it is these people who have just found their feet who are not reelected. An experienced board member is sent overseas to do marketing research for his control board.

*When he returns, it is said that too much money was spent during the trip abroad, and that member of the council is discharged. His experience is then completely lost to that board of control.

†I am of the opinion that if the period of office of a control board member is extended in order to establish a more stable continuity you will have far better service and far better marketing of our products through the control boards. The principle is excellent, but I believe that the short two-year period is a hopeless farce.

Oom Jan, there you now have a U.P. man who talks sense.

Ek is bly om te hoor dat die agb. Adjunkminister so dink. In regard to this whole science of marketing I believe we must do everything in our power to encourage, not only the Government, but also the young farmers, the co-ops and the control boards to make a very careful study of the marketing of products, because both internally and externally there is something very definitely wrong with our distribution at times and we can do a great deal more in the exporting and marketing of our products overseas. This is a terrific new field of science. It is not just selling, but also the promotion and the advertising, but above all the making sure that that product which is sold is of such a high quality that the people overseas are going to want it. In conclusion I would like to mention something which we heard over the news the other day and which is very gratifying to us, we would like to say so to the people who are selling deciduous fruit. We were happy to hear that Japan has taken off the 10 per cent surcharge on imported peaches. This is going to make a vast difference to our deciduous fruit exports in the coming year, I believe. This should be a market which can be developed and perhaps it will be a good thing to send an agricultural representative to the embassy in Tokyo. The Far East is a market that can be developed to a great extent, especially those parts of the Far East that are in the Northern Hemisphere where we can get the seasonal advantage from being in the Southern Hemisphere, even if it is quite a distance away. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on what was said by the hon. member for Albany who has just sat down. I should like to refer to what was raised today by various hon. members on that side of this House, namely that produce prices have not increased to the same extent as production costs. With reference to that I should like to quote from the report of the commission of inquiry into agriculture, where the following is said on page 32 (translation)—

I should like to emphasize the last section of this quotation, namely “as long as the basic structural shortcomings, inter alia, uneconomic farm units, continue to exist in agriculture”. It is very clear from this that one of the greatest problems in agriculture today is the existence of uneconomic farming units, in other words, farming units which are so small that the investment therein and the application of production means thereon, cannot assure the farmer of a decent living. On behalf of the farmers of the Northern Cape I want to say to the Government that we are grateful that we now have a Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act. In other words, there is an Act now which puts an end to the further subdivision of our farm units and which prevents the creation of further uneconomic units. Today we also want to ask the Government, particularly the Minister of Agriculture, for a dynamic effort to start transforming the existing uneconomic units into economic units.

In the Northern Cape, and in my constituency, there are several farms which are too small to afford the owners a decent income. They are capable farmers who are making a difficult existence as a result of having too little land. They are farmers whom one would like to afford the opportunity of making a contribution towards agriculture in South Africa on an economic unit, especially because of their ability, their diligence and their love of farming. In the first place I should like to make a plea that the Department of Agricultural Credit as well as the Land Bank adopt a very sympathetic attitude towards farmers who have uneconomic units when they apply to purchase land in order to extend their units. Secondly I want to make a plea today for the utilization of State-owned land in order to eliminate existing uneconomic units. In other words, we want to ask the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, in co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, to make a dynamic attempt at utilizing the existing state-owned land in order to eliminate these uneconomic units, especially up there in the Northern Cape. In the Northern Cape today there are several thousands of hectares of land in the possession of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure as a result of the removal of Bantu to the Tswana homeland. In the foreseeable future even more land will be made available to the Department. In this regard I should like to refer to Khosis Block, which consists of approximately 78 000 morgen.

Therefore I want to plead today that this State-owned land be utilized exclusively to place existing uneconomic units on an economic basis. I want to plead with the Minister to accept it as a principle, when this land is allocated, that adjoining uneconomic units or those in close proximity, should first be placed on an economic basis by allowing them to be expanded before economic units are subdivided and advertised. Furthermore, I want to request that when the Land Tenure Board allocates these economic units which are cut out, they should give preference to other farmers in that vicinity who own uneconomic units. When such a farmer who is perhaps situated some distance away and who owns an uneconomic unit, can be assisted and granted an economic unit in the State-owned land, his uneconomic unit would remain behind to be added to another economic unit in his own area so that a new economic unit could also be created. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in this way the Minister and the department could cooperate to enable more existing farmers to acquire economic units and to place them on an economic basis. In this way more farmers could be kept in the rural areas. By doing this, more of them would be able to make a decent living on this land.

I should like to mention an example. I am referring to the farm Vlakfontein, 5 000 morgen in extent, in the Kuruman district. Initially it was decided that this land should be divided into two and that two farmers would be helped. But surrounding this 5 000 morgen of land there are seven or eight farmers struggling to make a living on uneconomic units. I want to thank the department for deciding that the whole of this farm should be utilized for expansion. If this land had been divided into two economic units, there would have been two new farmers on economic farms, but nine other farmers on uneconomic farms would have had to continue struggling and would eventually perhaps have left. By accepting this principle in this particular case, the Department of Agricultural Credit has now helped seven farmers who had uneconomic units, by providing them with the means to expand so that they could in future make a living on those farms on an economic basis.

What is an economic unit at Kuruman?

According to the Division of Soil Protection the carrying capacity in the district varies from place to place.

Furthermore, I should like to request the Minister to revise the policy of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure in regard to the making available of Bantu land which has been vacated. At present land must remain fallow for approximately three years before it is made available. In the meantime a person is appointed to supervise this land and he is granted the right to keep a certain amount of stock on that farm. I am requesting that immediately after the vacated land has been transferred to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, it should be prepared for allocation to farmers. We want to request that this preparation take place through the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, in co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. In addition, we request that our local Agricultural Credit Committees should be consulted in this respect. Furthermore, I request that when this preparation takes place, they will bear in mind that it will take place on a basis of placing uneconomic units on an economic basis. I am requesting that this land be allocated without delay—in the first place, because it will eliminate the problems in respect of the appointment of supervisors over this State-owned land. You know what problems have already arisen in the past in respect of supervisors appointed over this land. Furthermore, I believe that the interval of time in respect of the preparation before the allocation of State land, should be such that sufficient time is allowed for this land to recover adequately. For example, it has happened in the Northern Cape that this State-owned land lies fallow for three or four years before a start is made with the allocation of the land, and that, as in the case if Vlakfontein, four years elapse before the land is in fact allocated. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down made a plea for the consolidation of uneconomic units in his constituency. It was perfectly correct, and is in accordance with our policy. When voluntarily consolidation does not take place, this problem can develop into an almost insoluble one. Sir, I should like to express my thanks this afternoon to the officials of the department for the way in which they tackled this difficult problem in the consolidation project, namely the Opkoms project, one of the most difficult in my constituency. I think we are in the fortunate position in South Africa that for many decades there will be no problem in our country in respect of living space. Secondly, we are in the fortunate position that probably for many years to come there will be no problems in this country in respect of a food shortage, and thirdly, we are in the fortunate position that the vast majority of our people take the matter of soil conservation seriously. But there is one sphere which may bring about many problems for us in the future if attention is not paid to it in time, and this is our roads in South Africa, I think we all agree that as far as the construction of roads is concerned, the maximum emphasis should be placed on safety for the road user; we all agree that unnecessary costs should be eliminated and we all agree that we are all in a hurry to reach our destination when we set off on a trip, whether it be a trip of 8 km or 800 km. Sir, in order to gain a little more perspective in respect of the problems roads can cause, I have asked the various provinces for statistics in respect of national roads, special roads, primary, secondary and tertiary roads, and as far as the Cape Province is concerned, divisional council roads, and I have received the following astounding evidence from the provinces. In the Free State there are no less than 49 436 km of roads; in the Transvaal there are a few kilometres more, namely 49 808. In the Cape Province we find the most, namely 71 231 km, and in Natal the least, namely 13 116 km. If we add together the roads of the four Provinces, we get the large total of 183 591 km of roads. When we calculate the surface occupied by roads of various types in South Africa, i.e. the roadway and the road reserve, we get the astounding total of 1 040 000 ha occupied by roads in South Africa. I realize that in proportion to the total surface of our country, it is not a very large percentage. But when one takes into account the problems which arise from the construction of roads, I think we have a problem here which deserves our very serious attention. It is an indisputable fact that uneconomic units, to which we are opposed, are created by the subdivision of land and grazing fields, and that the greatest erosion, in concentrated erosion areas, arises along roads where no natural drainage exists. Sir, I realize the many problems which are experienced in the construction of a road. Each of us is eager to have a good road on his neighbour’s land; each of us realizes that a very good foundation must be laid in order to have a good road, but I think the hon, the Minister should take serious steps to obtain more co-operation from the various provinces and also from the various departments, so that there will be closer cooperation with the department of Agricultural Technical Services as well as with the Department of Agricultural Engineering, in order to limit the problems which may arise from the construction of roads, to a minimum. Although there is a slight degree of co-operation, I am afraid a lot of fragmentation still takes place. One very often finds that soil conservation work, which is subsidized to a large extent by the Government, is undone when new roads are constructed or that large amounts have to be made available when artificial drainage has to be created along a new road.

Sir, earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Mossel Bay pointed out that we were entering a period in which we had to contend with the problem of a wheat surplus. I think the time has arrived for us in South Africa to think seriously about the big difference in respect of the standards of quality and that we should adjust our wheat price according to that. At the moment we find that the difference of price between classes A and B and classes B and C, is approximately 15 cents per 200 lbs. In my opinion this difference is rather too small to encourage quality. A producer of Class C wheat, is not encouraged to produce a better quality wheat, and I should like to plead with the hon. the Minister to consider increasing the premium for class A and the discount for class C in comparison with class B wheat, from 15 cents per 200 lbs. to 25 cents per 200 lbs.; in other words, to make the difference between A and B 25 cents, to make the difference between B and C 25 cents as well, where it is approximately 15 cents per 200 lbs. at present. Perhaps the time has also arrived, although at this stage the Minister is not, as usual, going to announce the price of wheat at an early stage, that a warning should be issued to the producer that he will be expected to render a greater contribution this year to the Wheat Reserve Fund because we shall have to contend with big losses in regard to the storage and export of wheat. Possibly such an early warning in respect of a contribution to the Wheat Reserve Fund and also in respect of price differences as far as the various classes are concerned, is necessary at this stage, and I am asking the hon. the Minister to consider it. Sir, since we have only just entered the period of surpluses in the wheat industry, I think the time has also arrived that we should pay more attention to the use of wheat as animal fodder. In this respect I am thinking particularly of those areas situated particularly far from the maize areas. Since maize has to be transported over large areas to these stock areas, I want to ask the hon. the Minister that more attention should be paid to the fodder aspect of wheat. I believe that with the necessary assistance and with the knowledge we already have at our disposal, a way will be found of relieving this problem of a wheat surplus. One realizes that such wheat will have to be supplemented. In this regard one thinks of the trace elements such as carotin, zanthine and zantophil which are essential and which we find in the maize product and not in the wheat product. But I think that if we start discussing in good time in what way and in what quantities these trace elements should be added, this wheat surplus could be fruitfully used for our stock. Not only would it be beneficial to the producer, but it would also be in the interests of the farmer in general in South Africa.

Sir, I have no exceptional knowledge of the matter raised here by the hon. member for Kuruman and Bethelehem, therefore I shall not comment on it what they said. I would prefer to go over to another matter, namely the marketing of our agricultural products on the European Economic Community, with special reference to the export of fruit and vegetables. As hon. members know, the United Kingdom was granted time from 1973 to 1977 to adjust to the tariffs of the Common Market. During those five years the United Kingdom must lower its present tariffs abroad, and accept new tariffs within the Common Market which would then put it on a par with other members of the Common Market as opposed to non-members out side the Common Market. The period granted to the United Kingdom to adjust its tariffs to those of the Common Market, is relatively short; it is only five years, starting next year. In those five years the United Kingdom, which thus far has been our most important market for agricultural products, and still is today, will have to adjust its tariffs. Therefore we only have five years or less to adjust to the new circumstances which are going to be created. The United Kingdom’s entry to the Common Market is generally accepted as something which is going to be very disadvantageous to us. Although the expansion of the Common Market will undoubtedly have certain advantages for South Africa in the long run, our traditional exports to the United Kingdom will be very disadvantageously affected and our export pattern will be disrupted to a considerable extent. Therefore it is extremely necessary that we should adjust ourselves as soon as possible to the changes that will take place, so that we may enable our agricultural industry to gain the advantages which can be gained from the Common Market and suffer the least disadvantage.

In regard to vegetables and fruit, we know what the problems will be. We know we shall have to adjust to new standards of quality in the Common Market in Europe, higher standards of quality than we have perhaps maintained on the British market itself. We shall have to adjust to the question of minimum prices, i.e. the threshold prices applied by the Common Market countries, in order to prevent competition between products produced in their countries and imported products; to prevent imported products being imported at a price lower than the minimum price applied in Europe. Furthermore, there is the question of quotas which will be applied by certain countries in cases where the production of their own farmers may be prejudiced or threatened. This all means a tremendous adjustment for our agricultural industry in South Africa, and particularly for the farmers of the Western Cape. What is being done about it? That is precisely the point of my speech this afternoon. I should like to know what the Government has already done in this regard and what it intends doing.

I have looked at a few of our reports. As far as the Deciduous Fruit Board is concerned, I see that they have collected tremendous amounts from the farmers. For example, they have sold pears to the value R5,5 million. Of that amount. R2.25 million was spent on the expenses of the Board and the farmers received only slightly more than R3 million. Of the entire R2.25 million spent by the Deciduous Fruit Board, there is no reference at all in the accounts that any amount was spent on the promotion of the marketing of the products in Europe. There are other examples as well. Grapes to the value of R13,5 million were sold. Of that, almost R5 million was spent on the expenses of the Board and only R8,5 million went to the farmers. Of that R5 million, nothing was spent on the marketing of grapes in Europe.

The costs of the board include transport costs.

I know. As far as apples are concerned, we have the same story. The total amount of R28 million was collected, of which R12,5 million was used for the expenses of the board and R16 million went to the farmers, but of that R12,5 million, very little or nothing was spent on promoting apple exports to Europe. I can continue in this way. If one looks at the report of the Canned Fruit Board, one finds that no money was spent on the development of markets in the European Economic Community.

It is done by the canners themselves. Last year they spent R½ million on that.

Let me read out what the General Manager of the Langeberg Co-operative said last year. This report appeared in The Argus. He said that according to the 1971 report of the Langeberg Co-operative, export sales already started dropping sharply as a result of the obsolete marketing methods of the Export Control Board and that a further annual loss of R8,2 million should be expected when Britain entered the Common Market. The General Manager added that a new line of thought would be necessary, otherwise there would be absolutely no alternative but that the industry should reduce its production. Well, the people are all in trouble. We know there can be a tremendous setback and we search in vain for examples of what is being done in South Africa to adjust its agricultural production, especially its fruit and vegetable production, to the new circumstances. I have looked at the report of the Department of Agricultural Economy and Marketing and one searches in vain for references to this big new problem which we will have to contend with. In the entire report of 100 pages, I found only one single reference to the Common Market. Only three lines were written about it, namely (translation)—

That is all in the entire report of 100 pages. The problem is very serious and demands much more effective treatment than we have had up to now. Time is passing very quickly. Next year, in 1973, the adjustment of the tariffs will start in the United Kingdom.

As examples of what can be done, there is in the first place the U.S.A. For the past six years they were burdened with a dollar which was overweighed in the exchange rates. In addition, they had tariff problems, and they do not have the advantages of the seasons of the Southern Hemisphere. Nevertheless, over the period of the past six years, they have increased their export of agricultural products to 2 000 million dollars. It shows what can be done. I was in Europe recently where I went in order to study this problem, and in Paris I asked them at their great new market of Rungis what could in fact be done and who was doing it best. They referred me to Israel. In that market, which is responsible for the distribution of agricultural products to 10 million people in that vicinity, there are permanent Israeli inspectors every day. They work there fulltime. Every day they walk through the market in order to see what is happening and what the quality and the prices are, and they immediately telex the information back and adjust the products to the situation of the market. That is marketing … [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he said. My time is limited and in that limited time at my disposal I want to respond to one or two things the hon. members for Mooi River and Newton Park said in this House on Friday. I want to start by pointing out that when one reads the report of the two departments and when one reads these reports in conjunction with the Budget, one can ask oneself: Could any person point a finger at this Government and say that it does not adopt a generous attitude towards the farmer and wants to place the agricultural industry on a firm and sound basis? Just consider the phenomenal growth and development we have had in the agricultural industry during the past 25 years under the National Party Government. During this period the gross value of agricultural produce increased by 144 per cent; the physical volume of agricultural production increased by 112 per cent, the value of capital assets by 126 per cent and land prices by 287 per cent. How can hon. members opposite suggest that there is no confidence in the agricultural industry? Of course, we had an increase in the prices of agricultural requisites, an increase of about 16,9 per cent, but over as against this it is also a fact that the prices of agricultural produce increased by as much as 26,4 per cent. This healthy state of affairs is due in the first place to the fact that we have two Ministers of Agriculture who are farmers through and through, the two best Ministers of Agriculture this country has ever had. It is not difficult to prove this. The mere fact that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has been occupying this office for a record period of time of no less than 14 years, serves as adequate proof. A further proof is the fact that the United Party wants to discredit and destroy him. We know from experience that the United Party criticizes everything which endeavours to bring about prosperity in the country and which is aimed at making this country strong. In the second place, this healthy state of affairs in the agricultural industry is due to the agricultural policy of the National Party Government. I am not merely making this statement, but I am also going to prove this. I want to refer immediately to the farmers of Oudtshoorn, who only last week confirmed this statement with deafening applause. In the second place, I call in the United Party itself as witness. We had the no-confidence debate in the beginning of the year. This debate came and went; the Part Appropriation came and went and the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill came and went and we did not have one single word from that side of the House about the agricultural policy. What does this mean? This means only one thing, i.e. that side of the House has no criticism to offer against the policy of this Government. This means that they approve of it and subscribe to it tacitly. What happens now? Since we are now dealing with this Vote and those hon. members are being taken to task and compelled to speak up, they say that there are, in fact, certain things in the agricultural industry which have to be put right. They say there are problems, and they say that the farmers have no confidence in the agricultural industry. They complain that the production costs are too high; that the rates of interest are too high, and they complain about many other things of similar nature. This is a repetition of all the stories we have had from them in the past, and it is a concoction of all the hackneyed objections the hon. member for Newton Park rattles off in this House year after year. I think those hon. members would be well-advised if they read once more what Colin Eglin has to say about that party and its policy.

I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Mooi River in this House last Friday. That hon. member spoke about the farmers becoming poorer and the reason he gave for this was the price structure created by this Government. Have those hon. members forgotten that they governed this country at one stage in the past? What was the position of the farmers when they were governing this country? I want to refresh their memory by referring them to a White Paper published by their Government in 1946. I quote from this White Paper, as follows—

That was the condition of the soil under the United Party Government, a Government which wasted time and money on a foreign war, but did not care one jot what became of the farmer and his soil. I quote farther—

This was the state of affairs when they were governing this country, and to this extent the position of the farmers deteriorated in the country when they were at the mercy of the United Party and placed in the hands of an advocate. If ever there was a time when one could speak of the farming community getting poorer, it was during those years, and not the present time. Let us consider what their attitude was in regard to prices and price structures. I quote further to show what their attitude was at that time—

That was when they were governing the country. I quote further—

And this is the conclusion they came to—

There the hon. members have it! Where does the hon. member for Mooi River get all the nonsensical allegations to the effect that the deterioration in the farming industry can be attributed to prices? Surely, he knows as well as we do—and his own Government said so—that prices cannot cure all the ills and ailments. But the most interesting thing of all is that they suggest that this sorry state of affairs the farming community finds itself in is caused by the following, and I quote further—

In other words, this is the root of all evil. But what did they do when we wanted to pilot the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act through this House a while ago? They opposed every single clause of that Bill tooth and nail. These are the people who now rise with pious faces in this House and complain about all kinds of things in the farming industry. They will never come into power again, but I think it is our duty to warn the farmers in South Africa that they should not allow themselves to be misled by the irresponsible, false and impractical promises they get from that side of the House.

In the minute still left to me I want to refer to two promises. In that little pamphlet of theirs: “You Want It. We Have It,” it is stated that competent farmers, old and young, should receive financial assistance from the State—hon. members must listen carefully to this—when they need it and for the purposes they need it. Surely this means clearly and unequivocally nothing else but unlimited assistance for the farmers. As a matter of fact, it amounts to total support of the farmer by the State. This is the attitude they adopt. But when the hon. the Minister wanted to know from the hon. member for Newton Park the other day what their norm would be in financing the farmers, he did not have the courage to rise and say that they had no norm at all and that they are in favour of unlimited financial assistance being granted to farmers. I say this is an unscrupulous promise they spread in the rural areas; these are promises they only use in the dark to whip up the emotions of the farmers and sow confusion among them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Winburg had to say about the confusing policy of the United Party. Today, for example, we had the hon. member for Walmer, who said that he wanted an agricultural planning council. He thinks that they would be able to solve all their problems with such a council.

Not our problems, your problems.

That council would determine price policy, it would determine production and would therefore have to tell the farmers what they may produce. But immediately afterwards the hon. member said that he believed in free enterprise. I should like to know how he reconciled these two statements. How can one, on the one hand, have free enterprise, while on the other the farmer is told what he has to produce? Those two things simply cannot be reconciled. The hon. member must go back and do his homework.

The hon. member for Von Brandis is very concerned about the European Common Market. I just want to inform him that the various branches of the agricultural industry are very actively engaged in negotiations. I can tell him that before England decided to enter the European Common Market the citrus industry, for example, paid 15 per cent import duty to the EEC. Through negotiations they succeeded last year in reducing that import duty to 9 per cent. Now, after further negotiations, this import duty is going to be reduced this year to 4 per cent. I want to inform him that these industries are wide awake and that they are through negotiations, creating markets for themselves and remedying the position, also as far as the EEC. is concerned. I do not think that we need be unnecessarily concerned, and that we shall see these industries remedying their affairs in future.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that we should determine our prices according to enterepreneurs’ wage and production costs, and that we should then supply the difference by means of subsidies. It is of course very easy to make such a statement. But I should like to know from the hon. member whether he wants to apply this only to wheat and maize, or whether he wants to apply it to all the other products as well. Is he going to apply it to potatoes, pumpkin and to all the other products? Will the farmer have the right to say that his production costs amount to a certain total and that his entrepreneur’s wage must also then be a certain amount, and will the United Party pay that price?

If one can do it for wheat and maize, why cannot one do it for many other products as well?

You must do it for all products; that is no more than fair and right. However, I should like to know whether it is the policy of the United Party to do this for all products. We will have a position of over-production and confusion if this is done. I am convinced that not even the United Party members, if they reflect soberly on this matter, think that this is a good plan.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am busy now, and I have little time.

I want to discuss our small farmers. So much is said about uneconomic farmers, but it is not easy to determine what an uneconomic farmer is. The United Party also discussed this today. Then, too, we noted that the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture elaborated at length on this matter and recommended that we should assist in some of the owners being withdrawn, and that the necessary financing should be provided so that the remaining owners of uneconomic farms may enlarge their units. This is a very good proposal. However, I want to allege that the finding as to whether a unit is in fact an uneconomic unit depends far more upon the farmer active on that farm than upon the unit itself. The person farming there determines whether that unit is economic or uneconomic. Of course it is not only that person, for there are other factors as well which play a role, such as the availability of markets and a reasonable price for the product.

Recently I read an article in a magazine about a region very similar to the Tsitsikama area of my constituency. The soil there is a very sandy, poor type of soil. However, the area has a reasonable rainfall of approximately 32 inches. The area experiences a very cold winter in which not many products can be produced. That area is eight square miles in extent. Consequently it is not a very large area. That small area carries a population of 63 000 people. There are 1 000 farms of less than four morgen. There are 700 farms less than nine morgen in extent. There are 200 farms which are larger than nine morgen in extent. The yield of that area is R5 million and according to the figure supplied in that article the yield per morgen in 1963 was R650. That is a very good yield. Unfortunately that area is not here in South Africa. It is the island of Jersey. However, what can be done elsewhere can be done in our country. Jersey can do this because their farming is properly integrated with the jersey cow. But what is very interesting is the fact that the bulk of he income is not derived from the jersey cow, but in fact from the production of vegetables. Of the R5 million R4 million is derived from vegetables. Because these things are possible I want to make a plea for our small farmer today, these uneconomic famers of whom so much is being said.

In my constituency there are many of these small farmers, and they are making a good living. I want to allege that from these small farms we get our best human material. We must look after these people and we must make attempts to keep these people on the farms. If we look at the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture—I want to say in passing that this report is a very valuable piece of work and that it will for many years serve as a valuable reference work for us, for there is a great deal of sound material in this report—we find that it contains a few very interesting recommendations.

I want to focus your attention upon a few of them. In the first place there is the question of leasing systems. It is recommended that a study committee of experts be appointed as quickly as possible to go into the possibility of such leasing systems. I see great possibilities in this direction. However, I just want to impose one condition before one proceeds to such a leasing system in respect of farms. A farmer who leases such a farm and makes a success of it should at least be in a position to own such a farm subsequently, otherwise I do not think that this system will be successful. Then there is in addition the establishment of a trust for White agricultural land. The trust has a very fine objective, and this is a very good idea. I should like to recommend this trust and ask that a great deal of attention should be given to this matter. The laws which will have to be amended must be amended as quickly as possible so that we can have this form of trust.

We see that the objective of such a trust will be the consolidation of agricultural land, the buying out of erosion combating areas in order to restore and reutilize it, and in general, the better utilization of agricultural land. Then, too, there is the recommendation in regard to joint mechanics for units of farmers, and private contractors who have to be encouraged to work for farmers, as well as mechanization systems which have to be introduced for groups of farmers. Then, too, there is partnership on a co-operative basis. I just want to point out that these are very practical recommendations and that they deserve the serious attention of our departments and of us all. If we adopt these measures I think we shall succeed in keeping many of the farmers whom we today regard as being uneconomic, in the rural areas. This would be to the benefit of our country as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, we all agreed wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Humansdorp that the uneconomic farmer must be taken off the land. But one first has to decide what an uneconomic farmer is. One also has to decide what an uneconomic unit is. His own example of what happened in the Jersey Island shows how it is virtually impossible to decide what an uneconomic unit is. The hon. member for Winburg who spoke earlier said that if we look at the reports of the two agricultural departments no one can ever criticize this Government. We have been talking for a long time about the dairy industry, and I am sorry that neither the Minister nor his deputy is present at the moment. I do not know who is handling this particular Vote, but we on this side would certainly appreciate it if the Chief Whip on the other side would see to it that at least the Deputy Minister is present, if not both the Minister and the Deputy Minister.

But let me deal with the reports. When one has a look at the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing on page 47, the following is stated: “Since the prevailing supply and demand position justify a stimulus for production and the droughts and the rise in production costs were probably making it difficult for the producer to produce milk or cream economically at the prevailing prices, the price was increased”. Here they blame droughts and say that because of it the producer was unable to produce economically. But we also have the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the same period where in the first paragraph under dairying the following is stated : “Climatic conditions were very favourable for dairy production during the past year, but there was a decline in butter production. Cheese production increased over that of 1969-’70. Production of butter as well as of cheese fell short of consumption during the past two seasons”. Is there any stronger indictment against this Government in its policy towards the dairy farmer, that notwithstanding climatic conditions being very favourable we still have the situation that we cannot produce enough? Have they asked themselves why? It is because of the policy of this Government.

We have been trying to talk to this Government about control boards and the marketing of products ever since Friday. My hon. friend from Von Brandis spoke about overseas control, but here we have another control board. Let us talk about this one for a moment. I refer to the Rooibostee Control Board. I have a letter here, dated 19th November, 1971, signed by the secretary of that control board to a person who inquired about the sale of rooibostee overseas. Inquiries had been received from overseas from people who wanted to purchase our rooibostee and this is the reply of the board which is responsible for the marketing of it:

This is the inefficiency we are talking about. This is what we are talking about. Is it not the policy of this Government to have the boards market and sell their products?

What rooibos tea do you want to export?

But are you exporting rooibos tea? The Minister does not even know that we are exporting rooibos tea. [Interjection.] Why do we want to export? So that we can sell all we are producing. Must we not look for a market overseas? Is that the policy of this Government, that we must not look for markets for our products?

It is exactly the same with our dairy industry in this country. I have been pleading with the hon. the Deputy Minister: Let us market our product. For too long these boards have not had to sell their products, because they have had monopolies, as the Dairy Board had. Now it has to meet competition from margarine. It is time the Dairy Board sold its product. This I have discussed with the hon. the Deputy Minister before. He agrees with me. I want to give him one pat on the back this afternoon. I am very glad to see that the 10 gramme pack of butter is now available in restaurants and hotels. He listened to what I said to him that last time I spoke about it. But I want him to go further. I want him to take the other advice that was given to him and to the Dairy Board in asking them to go further into this matter—get a marketing consultant, get an expert and let us pack our butter properly. Let us find out what the housewife wants and let us pack it the way she wants it packed. Let us pack it in tinfoil. Let us make it attractive. Let us pack it in the sizes that she wants. This is the only way we are going to get on and develop our dairy industry in this country.

I also asked the Deputy Minister to see what he could do about taking control of or using some mark for butter and dairy products, and also what he was going to do about protecting the dairy industry—not only milk, but cream as well. The question of ice-cream was one that I raised pertinently with him. I asked him if he would not see what he could do about these products which are being sold as “ice-cream” which do not contain one single drop of dairy products. But here we find in the Government Gazette of 14th April, 1972, under notice R559, the Department of Health advertising, I must admit for general information, the intention of the Minister of Health to alter the regulations to allow them to make ice-cream out of “wholesome vegetable fat”—margarine, Sir. What is the Minister going to do to protect that name “ice-cream”, which product traditionally has been made of dairy products. Today it is not made of dairy products. Here is the Minister of Health now taking steps to legalize it. What is this Minister going to do? Is he going to defend the dairy industry? Or is he going to let them go ahead and continue with it?

The Minister of Health is a “boerehater”.

Yes, he is a “boerehater” all right. Make no mistake about that.

But it goes further than that. I would like the attention of the Minister for a moment. In 1968 I pointed out to the Minister that certain substitutes for milk were coming on the market. I asked him what he was going to do about it. He gave this Committee an undertaking that he would not allow the sale of these substitutes in this country. I want to send him now a couple of packets of a product called Cremora, which is advertised as a nondairy cream. When he has a look at the ingredients stated on the back, he will find that there are no dairy products in it at all. But it is being used as a substitute for milk and cream in tea, coffee and other beverages. Today it is being given in these small packets in restaurants and hotels throughout the country. Is this the protection that this Minister is giving to the dairy industry in this country? Is this the way he promotes the sale of dairy products in this country? I am sorry, this is not the way to promote it. He gave his word that he would defend the dairy industry and that he would not allow these products. Incidentally, these products are not even manufactured in this country. So it is not as if he is using one set of agricultural products against another. These substitutes are produced overseas. They are imported into this country and are being used to the detriment of our dairy industry.

When we come to the question of price stability, here again the hon. the Minister must protect the dairy industry. At the same time, he is going to assist the consumer, the housewife. We had the situation in 1968 when plastic bags were introduced for the first time, that the supermarkets fastened on to the sale of milk and were promoting the sale of milk, as I am asking the Minister to do today. The result was that here in Cape Town, in the Western Province alone, in one month the consumption of fresh milk rose from 53 189 gallons per day to 57 059 a day, an increase of 3 870 gallons per day. That was the average increased consumption of fresh milk per day when it was marketed through the supermarkets and when they were able to market it at the price they wished. Sir, the following month it rose to 59 183 gallons per day, a further increase of 2 124 gallons per day. Over two months the increased consumption of fresh milk in Cape Town alone was 5 094 gallons per day. But what happened? The Dairy Board clamped down and told the supermarkets, through their distributors : “You may not sell at cost price; you may not cut the price of milk; we are not going to supply to you at the wholesale price any longer; you will have to buy at the bottled price, and you may only sell at the full retail price.” What happened, Sir? Within two months consumption had dropped to 54 056 gallons of milk per day, a drop of 5 100 gallons of milk per day, because of the stupidity of this board under this Government, which said that they would not allow the supermarkets to promote sales of milk. Sir, to this day they are still not allowed to do this. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to instruct the board to allow the supermarkets to sell their milk at the price at which they wish to sell? Does it matter if milk is sold as a loss leader? I believe it was not sold as a loss leader. Although it might have been sold at cost, it was never sold at a loss. Sir, the housewife was getting the product cheaper and the farmer was getting the benefit because of the pool system. It meant that his “agterskot” was higher than it would have been if this milk had all been used as industrial milk. [Time expired.]

Sir, I cannot follow up on what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District said, for he kicked up his customary row here, and it was really impossible to establish what he was trying to say. We on this side could barely make out that he was talking about the dairy industry. But I want to say this, Sir: If we had to follow his advice, whether it is in regard to the dairy industry, or in regard to butter, agriculture in this country would find itself in a catastrophic position, such as it has never been in before. Sir, we have this year a wonderful, scientific report from the commission of inquiry into agriculture, a report quoted here with very good results, a report which is of such a nature that we can build on it for years. One would have expected the Opposition to have utilized this report to the full, and that they would, on the basis of this report, have come up with worthwhile suggestions. It is really tragic to think that instead of doing that, the Opposition merely tried repeatedly to exploit matters in a negative way for political gain. Sir, there has as yet been not one single constructive contribution from that side of the House in this debate.

You were not listening.

The hon. member for East London North had a great deal to say here about devaluation. He asked what devaluation meant to the farmer. Sir, the hon. member was speaking out of complete ignorance. If there is one sector in the country which can testify with gratitude to the benefits of devaluation, then that sector is most certainly the agricultural sector because it definitely benefited from it. May I just mention this example to the hon. member: Since January of this year wool prices have increased by 47 per cent.

Was this all as a result of devaluation?

No, I have never said that, but had it not been for devaluation then a buyer like Japan would not have been able to purchase 20 per cent more wool in this country than it purchased previously. Surely that goes without saying. [Interjections.] Sir, I can understand now why the Wool Board was unable to carry on any longer with a man like the hon. member for East London City, who is sitting there shouting now, in control. Sir, what else did the hon. member for East London North say? He said that this Government had turned its back on the creditworthy farmers. That is the biggest nonsense ever. May I just refer the hon. member to this report, to which we have already referred so often? I refer to page 61, where we read the following (translation)—

That is the finding of this commission. The hon. member for Newton Park alleged here that the private financial sector is no longer interested in any way in the financing of the farmer. I want to tell the hon. member that he does not know what he is talking about. Let us look at the report of the commission of inquiry, which consisted of impartial people. On page 61, paragraph 442, they say the following (translation]—

Sir, this is the actual state of affairs, and I think the hon. member for Newton Park should take note of it. He does not know what he is talking about when he makes allegations of this nature. It is true that agriculture in this country is moving from one crisis to another. There are bottlenecks, but we have had bottlenecks since the meatless and breadless days of Koos Strauss. There will always be bottlenecks; we accept that. Mr. Chairman, our wool farmers have just passed through a tremendous crisis, a crisis which made tremendous demands on them and which sometimes threatened them with complete collapse. We think of the decrease which there was in production; we think of the drop in the price, etc. Sir, there we had a wonderful example of how the wool farmer in this country accepted that this Government, which is well-disposed towards them, stood by them through thick and thin. That shows you what can be done if orderly action is taken and if things are channelized in a proper way.

Sir, I want to testify with praise to what has been done by this Government to see the wool farmer in South Africa through this crisis, but I also want to testify with praise to what has been done by the Wool Commission for the farmer in this country. It has done even more for the wool farmers than the International Wool Secretariat did for them. We welcome—and I think this applies to the whole of South Africa—this revival in our wool market. Sir, these attempts were absolutely praiseworthy. In this connection we also want to welcome the new marketing powers which are being envisaged. We believe that this new dispensation, when it comes, will definitely be able to guarantee the wool farmer against a future recession, and that it will also be able to ensure the wool farmer that competitive ability which he needs so badly.

In conclusion I just want to raise a matter which is of importance to my own area. This is that in the adjoining area of Swaziland a law is being piloted through the Swaziland Parliament which is called the Land Speculation Bill. In that Act it is being provided that the sale and transfer of fixed property in Swaziland may now be limited to Swaziland citizens alone. I am just pointing this out. I know that this Government has nothing to do with it, and has no part in it, and I know that they cannot be held responsible for it, but the result of this will be that some of the wool farmers in the Eastern Transvaal and Northern Natal will suffer tremendous losses as a result of this measure which is now being promulgated by the Swaziland land Government. It will entail their possibly being forced in this way to relinquish to the Swaziland Government for a song valuable properties which they have had over the years in Swaziland and to which they moved in the winter. I repeat that there is very little this Government can do about it, except that I want to ask that when it comes to the consideration of concessions and financial priorities, these people should be taken into account.

We will have another occasion where we will be able to debate with the hon. member who has just sat down, the problem he has just mentioned, the relationship between the farmers of White South Africa and the Swaziland Government. I can see his point; I can see that this is a very serious matter indeed, which can only have the effect of increasing to a very significant extent the production costs of wool farmers in that area. But we shall have to find another occasion to discuss it because it does not really fit into the present debate.

I wish to revert to something I said and which was mentioned by the hon. member for Winburg, when I mentioned the massive pauperization of the platteland. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet nodded his head and took up his pencil as if to make some notes about it. I wish to revert to the point I made, that as the result of the drought and the unfavourable seasons the whole of the platteland has had, the businessmen and the community as a whole, were having an excruciating time as far as the economic life of the whole platteland was concerned. Until such time as the farming community begins to flourish again, the whole of the economic life of the platteland and of the small businessmen there will be adversely affected, and I do not want the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet going around and misquoting what I have said. He may do it, anyway, Sir, but at least I want to warn him that he should not do so.

I should like to come to the milk industry. My constituency has, I think, one of the biggest dairy cow populations in the Republic. While I am dealing with this I should like to ask the Deputy Minister, in relation to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District says in regard to the question of supermarkets, whether supermarkets will be allowed to continue to sell milk at a price which is lower than the delivered price to the housewife at the door; in other words, the price to the Housewife through the supermarkets can be made lower so that the public can have the benefit of something which the supermarkets themselves are carrying. The reason why they are doing it does not matter, but they are going out of their way to ensure that milk, which is a vital protective food in this country, is made available to the families of South Africa at a price which is easier for them to bear, and the action is coming to prevent them from doing this from organizations which are engaged in the retail supply of milk to the housewife at the door. I think the Minister should tell us exactly what he feels about this and whether he is prepared to allow this sort of thing and whether he is prepared to deny to the housewives the advantage of something which the supermarkets are prepared to carry, for whatever reasons they are doing it.

I wish to raise the matter of industrial milk, and I am talking specifically of my own area in Natal, where we do not fall under the milk pool as such and where we are on quotas. There we have two large organizations which are organized by farmers. One of those organizations is a cooperation, whilst the other one is not. I refer to the method of fixing the milk price to the producer. I believe I am correct in saying, but I do stand open for correction, that the prices fixed on the costs of production only—when the price is determined, certain factors are excluded, one of the most important being the cost of land and buildings—leave an allowance of 12½-per cent on selected means of production. On the cost of land and buildings the original cost only is allowed at 12½ per cent, and no allowance is made for the continual increase in cost. This obviously takes place every year. I believe that creditors also do not allow for the fact that every farmer today has a burden of debt which he has to carry. I believe that what we need is a more realistic look to those real actual costs of production. The Minister or his department, or whoever fixes the cost has been fixing the cost on certain selected costs only, and I believe that we should take a realistic look at the whole cost of production pattern of the milk industry and allow a more favourable allocation of costs to the milk farmers in the fixing of this price. Some weeks ago I made the statement to the hon. the Minister that I believe that a farmer who is producing 500 gallons of milk a day is probably making a comfortable living for himself. The hon. the Minister or Deputy Minister at that time said that he was glad to know that I thought that that was a reasonable figure at which to operate and at which a man could make a reasonable living. I must say that I went home during the recess and checked up on some of the farmers in my constituency who operate on that level. I say now to the hon. the Deputy Minister that people who inherited their farms and who are producing 500 gallons of milk per day are doing quite fine. However, people who had to buy the ground on which they are today and who carry bonds at the present rate of interest are battling to make ends meet at the present price of milk. This happens at a production level of 500 gallons of milk per day, which is a large operation. The thought is going on in the minds of my constituents that they must expand to 1000 gallons of milk per day. The cost involved in going for 1 000 gallons per day, the cost of the management required and the oversight required by the farmer himself and the manager, makes me wonder whether there is any reasonable rate at which a man can buy a farm today and go into the production of milk and make himself a living. I have some figures which were taken out by the Natal and East Griqualand Fresh Milk Producers’ Union. They specifically relate to the areas in my constituency and the constituency of the hon. member for Aliwal. This is perhaps a small sample with 50-odd dairy herds which have been included in this survey by the union, but among them we find those herds belonging to the best farmers. These are not just all funny chaps who wander around the edges of the milk industry, but these are the people who are right bang in the middle, the most efficient producers. These people want to know what their costs are. When all the costs are being taken in three areas, which are the Natal Midlands, Ixopo district and Underberg and East Griqualand, the margin of cents per gallon over costs is 4,54 cents per gallon. This does not take into account any return for the farmer of his own effort, and it does not take into account the capital he has invested in his operation. This is one of the best farming areas and one of the best milk-producing areas in South Africa. At Ixopo, which is probably one of the most favoured of the milk-producing areas being only a very short distance from the major market of Durban, the margin of cents per gallon over the total cost is 8 cents per gallon. Again, no allowance is made for various other factors. I want to know how the man who is supposed to save up is to guarantee the future of his family. What is he supposed to put away, when the margin of his costs …

Do you want to increase the consumer price?

The hon. the Minister has it in his hands to determine the price which the consumer will pay. He has it in his hands to subsidize the consumer. He has the whole control of the milk industry in his own hands. I am just asking him to be quite clear and open with this House and to say whether he believes that the milk farmer can continue to produce milk at this figure. I am mentioning this specifically because, I am telling him now, in Natal the Stockholding Association cannot give you one date for the next six months on which to hold a dairy dispersal sale.

I am asking you what you recommend.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking the hon. the Minister to do something about it. He has the control in his hands. He has the department at his disposal; he has his own facts and figures. I have asked the hon. the Minister to take a more realistic look at the basis on which the cost is fixed. If it is necessary to increase the price, he must increase the price. He has to keep the farmers in the business. If we continue in the way we are going about it today, there will very, very shortly be no more farmers left. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River as well as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District put a few questions to me. The hon. member for Mooi River wanted to know whether or not chain stores would be allowed to sell milk at a lower price. On a previous occasion I pointed out to hon. members that if chain stores used fresh milk as a loss leader they could continue to do so for six months. In that case, however, the retailer, the small shop on the corner, that delivers milk to the housewife, is going to feel the pinch. It will disappear, because the chain stores draw its customers. I say I should like food to be provided as cheaply as possible. Some of the hon. members on that side of the House came to see me and said to me, “I want to protect my voter who has a small shop in Johannesburg; do not allow the price of milk to be cut and do not allow milk to be used as a loss leader. Everyone wants his share of the market.”

But that small shop …

Just give me a chance; perhaps you will understand in a moment.

What happened when the price of bread was increased? The chain store owners said at the time that if one bought goods to the value of more than R3 from them one would receive a loaf of bread free of charge. Some sold a loaf of bread at half price. I spoke to them confidentially and asked them for how long that offer would stand. They told me at the time, “Man, this is our best publicity stunt ever.” A woman comes to the shop and buys groceries to the value of R3 and they give her a loaf of bread, but they load the prices of the groceries with those five cents or they make a mistake when they operate the till—that Jewish piano. I am not saying that all chain stares do this. It is ordinary business. I am looking at the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, because he is the owner of a chain store, too, and he knows these ropes. I know them too. He is a businessman. Now I just want to tell the hon. member that the Milk Board is making a study of this matter. As soon as the chain store has the monopoly and has eliminated the retailer, it can increase that price to its heart’s content. However, there are other methods for increasing milk sales which we may investigate. The hon. member for Mooi River is very concerned about the price which the farmer receives for the milk he produces. He says that the man who bought his land at a stage when it was still cheap, is able to make a success, but the young man who buys land today at these high land prices, is not able to make a living. I agree with him 100 per cent. However, are we to have two prices for milk? In that case it should be borne in mind that one dairy farmer maintains an average production of 4½ gallons per cow, whereas another farmer in the same district maintains an average production of 2 gallons per cow. I said on a previous occasion that this was also a matter of efficiency. It is the same mouth that has to be fed and it is the same four teats that have to be milked, but the one man draws twice as much milk as the other. So, must there be two prices for milk? It is also a matter of efficiency. I am not saying that the dairy farmers are doing well—do not make that mistake—but if they sum up the situation correctly, increase their production and use the techniques recommended by Agricultural Technical Services, such as artificial insemination, stock improvement, and the right type of fodder, they are able to make the grade at the present price of fresh milk. Now the hon. member recommends an increase in the price for fresh milk and a resultant subsidy in the price to the consumer. Are we to subsidize the consumer in every field, even in the field of fresh milk? We already have this position as regards butter, as regards bread and as regards maize. Are we to subsidize food in every field? Is that the standpoint of those hon. members? I say, “Very well, I give you full marks for that, but in that case we shall increase taxes as well.”

If the dairy farmers disappear, what are we going to do?

But they cannot disappear.

Why not?

But we have surpluses on our hands. A surplus of fresh milk is being produced in the Witwatersrand area at present.

I cannot reply to all the aspects within 10 minutes. I want to come to what the hon. member for Albany said about men we had in our Departments of Agriculture. He mentioned the names of Mr. Retief and other officials who had departed. He referred to the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing. The people to whom he referred, are still in our service. In Washington we have Mr. L. G. R. Hyman, in London Mr. N. Saulez and in Brussels Mr. A. B. C. Nel. There are two officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in Paris, i.e Mr. J. A. Thomas and Dr. J. G. Boyazoglu. The latter has made a study of the Common Market.

The hon, member for Von Brandis dealt with the advertisements and publicity of the boards of control and pointed out that virtually nothing had been done about publicity. I am able to inform the hon, member that last year the Deciduous Fruit Board spent R440 000 in the United Kingdom and Europe alone in order to advertise our pears, peaches, apricots, apples and other deciduous fruit. Take the Citrus Board. I have here a report used by that board. The total amount it spent on publicity overseas last year, was R1 686 000. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member for Von Brandis, and I agree with him and the hon. member for Albany that there should be more co-ordination among our control boards as well as more co-operation with the Departments of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and of Commerce when it comes to sales overseas, particularly as far as the European Common Market as well as the present World Market in Paris is concerned. These aspects are receiving attention at present, and I may say that we are moving in that direction.

The hon. members spoke of Rhodesia. The hon. member for Albany made a good point when he spoke of the Cold Storage Commission of Rhodesia. In Rhodesia, however, there are only 5 600 farmers. Their total number of livestock is smaller than that of the Republic and they have no sheep. When we refer to Rhodesia—it has many good points—we must take cognizance of what a pound of beef realizes for farmers in Rhodesia. Uncle Jan Moolman will be able to tell you that it is slightly more than 16 cents per pound, but here in the Republic we obtained an average of 20,4 cents per pound last year. One should not have regard to the organization only. In the Republic our problem is the slaughtering facilities. If what the hon. the Minister said today can be carried into effect and we had adequate slaughtering facilities to enable us to slaughter as many head of cattle as we like in this country, and we were to experience heavy marketing, as we are experiencing at present on the part of South-West Africa, with the result that supply exceeded demand, I could tell you in advance that the price would drop to the floor. It should also be borne in mind that all these aspects must be seen as a whole.

Another matter to which I want to refer in brief, is the small units, the cutting up of land and the income of farmers. In this regard I want to express my sincere thanks and congratulations to the hon. members on my side for the positive standpoint they adopt, and here I have in mind particularly what the hon. member for Humansdorp said about small farmers who farmed very successfully. We have repeated time and again that it was not a matter of land and the size of the land only, but also a matter of the farmer, the man who is prepared to farm according to the right methods and earn a practical livelihood. That is the man we should like to protect. This threat of big companies—we are exaggerating it in many respects. The right man who puts heart and soul into the agricultural industry, will remain in the agricultural industry even if he has an uneconomic piece of land. When we say that an economic unit of land has to produce a net income of R4 000 for a husband and wife with three children, I say at the same time that there are people who earn that same income on a piece of land half that size because it is a case of the right man being on that land.

Mr. Chairman, from remarks which came from that side of the House it is obvious that Opposition members’ knowledge of certain aspects of agriculture is so limited that they cannot make even an intelligent remark about those aspects, let alone a meaningful contribution. For instance, the hon. member for Walmer said that owing to a lack of Government control, wheat was being cultivated today where wheat ought not to be planted.

That is just it.

The hon. member says, “That is just it.” I shall come to him in a moment, but this is typical of the Opposition. The hon. member has the political audacity to make a statement like that, but he does not have the courage to tell the farmers of the Transvaal and the Free State that they may not plant wheat. He does not have the courage to do so.

How do you know?

If he did have the courage, he would definitely have done so.

There are only two methods by which the Government can successfully control the planting of, for example, maize and wheat, and these were mentioned in passing by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The first one which I want to emphasize is a quota system under which one will endeavour to produce just as much as one is able to handle economically—and I want to emphasize the word economically—on the domestic and the foreign markets. The hon. member will agree with me that South Africa’s natural conditions are such that we cannot successfully apply a quota system to maize and wheat production. We shall have shortages more often than we shall produce surpluses. The other method is to fix the producer’s price of these products at such a level that it will not be economical and profitable for the producer to cultivate them, as a result of which production will have to be ceased. Now the hon. member should tell us which of these two methods he has in mind for the farmers.

On Friday the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District already got in a sidelong blow, or tried to do so, when he said there was great dissatisfaction about the maize price.

I never said anything about the maize price.

Of course. There were interjections by hon. members on this side that the hon. member should leave the maize farmers alone, because he knew nothing about the maize industry.

Today the hon. member for Newton Park also tried to put forward a specific policy from their side for fixing the maize price on a different basis. I want to make the statement that not a single member on that side of the House has sufficient knowledge of the maize industry to conduct a meaningful dialogue about it in this House.

I do not want to say that there is no dissatisfaction about the maize price. There definitely is some disappointment. I am a maize farmer myself, and I, too, would very much have liked to obtain more for my maize. Who would not have liked that? However, I ascertained that the general economic condition of our country, the Government’s ability to make a contribution to the industry and the enormous export loss which must be faced, confronted the Government in fixing the maize price and that this was the best price the Government could give under the circumstances.

Like any other industry, whether in the sphere of agriculture or industry, the maize industry has its distinctive problems, particularly in view of the fact that the maize industry is our biggest single agricultural industry in South Africa. The bigger this industry is going to become in the future, the more complicated its problems will become. We should make no mistake about that. That is why I said in a similar debate in this House on a previous occasion that the maize industry had various facets. Every one of these facets requires to be studied by an expert if we want to develop this big industry to its full potential in the interests of both the producer and the consumer. Marketing is one of these problems. It is also a fact that our domestic market is our best market for maize. That is why I should like to ask the Mealie Board to take a serious look at this domestic market which is our best market, because this year we are exporting our surpluses at an enormous cost—estimated at approximately R60 million—while our domestic consumers are liberally subsidized by the Government. I am convinced that had it not been for the Government’s contribution, we would not have been able to cultivate maize profitably and economically, for example, last year and this year. In fact, I want to make the statement that had it not been for the Government’s intervention by way of indirect and direct contributions to the maize industry, we would not have been able to cultivate maize profitably and economically for the past two years. The normal operation of supply and demand would have destroyed the maize industry completely during these two years.

But since it is a fact that the domestic market is our best market, I want to address a serious appeal, as I have said, to the Mealie Board to look at this industry as a businessman would, with the object of bringing about maximum marketing of the product on the domestic market, which is the most profitable one. I am aware of the fact that the physical marketing of maize is not a function of the Mealie Board. I am very pleased about that, but at the same time sorry too. I am pleased that the continued existence of the maize farmer is guaranteed by the Government’s intervention in this industry by way of direct and indirect contributions rather than its being completely dependent on the profit and loss account of the Mealie Board as the marketing agency of maize. At the same time, however, I am sorry that the Mealie Board does not act as the marketing agency, because had this been the case, and of this I am convinced, the domestic marketing pattern of maize would possibly have looked quite different today. That is why I want to mention three aspects in this regard for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. The first is the possibility of a cheaper synthetic bag for this industry. The second is that another look should be taken at the existing arrangement, that a person may not buy more than 100 bags of maize per month without a permit from the Mealie Board. The third is that we should take a look at the position of supplies—I feel inclined to say “permanent” supplies—in our traditional consumers’ areas, for example, the Karoo. I know that various problems exist in this regard, as the hon. the Minister mentioned, but I feel nevertheless that we should take another serious look at this matter. For example the question of a cheaper bag. Someone has to pay for the bag, whether it is the consumer or the producer. If it costs 25 cents as against 50 cents—I am just mentioning an amount, whatever it may be—then it means that that difference in price will benefit the industry, either the consumer in the industry or the producer in the industry. But that cheaper synthetic bag, or whatever bag it may be, will definitely benefit the industry. Another advantage it would have, would be that it would save us foreign exchange if, for example, we did not have to import jute bags and could produce a suitable bag here. Therefore I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister’s department, the Department of Economic Affairs and the Mealie Board to conduct a joint investigation as soon as possible with the object of making such a particular bag available to the maize industry.

The other aspect is the question of 100 bags of maize per month to any one consumer, even in our production areas, where there are large supplies. I think this arrangement was made at a time when we could possibly not produce sufficient maize and when control had to be exercised by making only 100 bags per month available to any one person. But, Sir I do feel that this has an inhibiting effect on the consumption of maize. Therefore I should like to see this particular measure revised and maize made available in larger quantities to any one person per month.

The last aspect, Sir—if I still have time to mention it—is the question of supplies in our consumers’ areas. This has special problems; I realize that; there is the problem of storing supplies, smoking those supplies to keep them free from weavils and other insects, the double handling of those supplies when they may have to be sent to other centres in the event of all those supplies not being consumed, in which they are stored, etc. But I feel that if we are able to store a good supply, the consumption of maize in our big consumers’ areas may be more than doubled if the supplies are readily available when a person needs them. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.