Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned on Friday night, I was quoting from the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to indicate that, owing to the fact that certain stock inspector posts had been abolished, and because the transport allocations had been curtailed, it was not possible to keep a watchful eye on the stock-disease position throughout the Republic, while at the same time controlling serious outbreaks of disease. Sir, this is a shocking admission that a topsy-turvy policy is being followed. We hear about a shortage of staff, but there are reductions. We know the shortage exists, and therefore the Minister must explain to us why these posts were abolished. Furthermore, we know that an official is expected to fulfil his duty towards agriculture, the farmer and the State and to visit the farmers. If these officials’ transport allocations are curtailed, how can they reach the farmers to do their official work? We know the farmers as well as the officials are complaining about this. The officials complain because they cannot do their work. We know there was a shortage of money, but in this case there are curtailments with regard to the source of information on agriculture in South Africa. There are curtailments with regard to agricultural technical services and veterinary science, and it is the source of information which is being affected. In other words, there are curtailments with regard to the transport of officials to the farmers, to agriculture. I should very much like the Minister to give us a full reply in this regard.

Sir, I now come to a very important matter. The other day, during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of National Education, I had a few words, to say about the training of veterinary surgeons in South Africa. Although this matter does in terms of the provisions of the University Education Act (Agricultural and Veterinary Matters) belong under the Vote of that Minister, I should like to say a few words more with regard to our veterinary surgeons and possible methods of meeting the critical shortage of veterinary surgeons, and at the same time suggest something for promoting our research work in this field. To my mind we can do a great deal in this direction in South Africa if we act in a practical manner and adopt practical lines of action in our policies. In my previous speech I spoke about the possibility of a year’s “housemanship” for veterinary surgeons who have completed their university courses. Perhaps that was the wrong term; the word “internship” may be a more appropriate word. This is done in the medical profession, and the young doctor then has the opportunity of gaining practical experience while he is being paid for his necessary and essential contributions to our hospital and medical system. I feel that the same can be done with regard to our veterinary surgeons as well. This can obviate this reduction in staff, and also help us with research. I sometimes wonder how our large hospitals would have been able to function without these young interns. To my mind this system can also be used in the case of veterinary science in this country.

†Sir, it could be arranged, I am sure, that a similar period of internship could apply to our young veterinarians. An arrangement could be made between the departments of National Education and Agricultural Technical Services and the South African Veterinary Medical Association whereby students, on qualifying at university, would be sent out into the field for a year. They could be attached to our extension offices or to State or private veterinarians. They should be expected to send weekly reports on the cases they have handled and the experiences they have had in the areas to which they have been sent, to their university or universities—I add “or universities” because I still hope for a second faculty at some time in the future, particularly under this Minister, who is interested in this field. In this way they would not only assist greatly in alleviating the shortage, but they would be gaining practical experience and could contribute greatly to new fields of research by means of these reports they would send back to their university or universities—I use the plural again—for analysis and checking.

If you read what is said in the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on veterinary matters, you find that there is a widely diversified field in which research is needed at the grass roots, and not necessarily at the headquarters of our veterinary services at Onderstepoort. We could have young vets continuing their education, going out into the field, and furthering experimental and research work simply because they would be in contact with animals which may have different forms of a disease which is already known. They would also be in contact with people who know more about that form of the disease than the professor at a centralized research institute. I would urge the Minister seriously to consider this suggestion. I want to ask him to give us the assurance that he will discuss the matter both with his colleague, the Minister of Education, and the Veterinary Medical Association of South Africa. Sir, I believe that so many of our young veterinarians in South Africa today go into the cities because they have not had the opportunity of doing this field research. I have heard from so many of them that they are afraid to take themselves out into the agricultural field where they know there are differences and difficulties for the private and the State veterinarian. They are afraid of doing this, so what do they do? They go into our cities and attend to the dogs and the cats of the wealthier people in our country. It is a lucrative business. But if we gave them a year in the field, then they would get the feeling of field work; they would get the feeling of agriculture; they would begin to understand what they have to contend with; they would know more about the practical application of their science and they would know more about the people with whom they have to deal.

Sir, you will find that a lot of young veterinarians go into the field and give it up after a year or two. They give up because of their lack of knowledge. A farmer pays for good service, of course; he does not pay for bad service. But if you gave this young veterinarian a year under a scheme organized between the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Department of National Education and the Veterinary Medical Association, he would gain experience which would make him a veterinarian who would give 100% service, a service that would be appreciated by the farmers and a service which would pay that veterinarian himself.

Mr. Chairman, I have purposely avoided speaking about a second veterinary faculty in South Africa. We realize that the creation of a veterinary faculty is an expensive business, but I believe that the Minister should also consider this aspect of the matter very seriously, because it is not only our White farmers in South Africa who require veterinarians. What we require is adequate veterinary and extension services, and I am speaking now about South Africa as a whole. I know that under many of our agricultural Acts the Bantu homelands are excluded, but unless we have adequate veterinary services in our Bantu homelands, we will perpetually be sitting with problems of inadequate control on the borders of the homelands, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would listen quietly to this. I think he understands this problem. Sir, we need a veterinary faculty that will train non-Whites as well as Whites. [Time expired.]

I should like to begin by replying to the representations made by the hon. members for Virginia, Bethal and Vryheid in regard to co-operatives and the important role which co-operatives have played in enabling the farmer to produce very economically. I want to agree with them that ever-increasing pressure is now being exerted for co-operatives to pay tax and for certain provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act to be rewritten. I can give hon. members the assurance that it is the standpoint of the Ministry of Agriculture that the rights which co-operatives have at present should not be easily or lightly amended. When I think of inexpensive food production, I have to agree with the hon. members that if there had been no co-operatives, production costs would have been far higher today. I am thinking here, for example of repair work to tractors and pick-up trucks, for which the co-operatives charge R3 per hour, and private garages R8 per hour, to mention only one example. I am thinking of the Western Cape fruit farmer, who in the past did not have a control scheme for the fixing of the price of his product. If one had not had a canning co-operative here, which acted as a stimulus to determing prices and setting the pace, many of these farmers would have been in financial difficulties. In this way I can mention many examples to you, and for that reason I am pleased that the hon. members for Virginia, Bethal and Vryheid elaborated on the co-operative concept and also pointed out that the profits of the cooperatives are only in the region of R25 million, and that it would not be a major source of revenue for the Treasury if these people were to be taxed. And seen as a whole, co-operatives only make a 2% profit; but it is true that co-operatives wish to enter certain new fields, and those cooperatives are prepared to pay tax. We also gave the Co-operative Council of the S.A. Agricultural Union the undertaking that we would consult them in the drafting of the new legislation as far as co-operative tax and the financing of certain co-operatives by the Land Bank are concerned. We will consult them because we do not want to hurt this enterprise, which is one of the finest in the country. But because they are practical people, they realize that certain adjustments have to be made to the Act, and we envisage introducing the Bill in this House next year. Commerce is kicking up a great fuss at their congresses about the alleged favouring of cooperatives. I am very pleased the hon. member for Walmer agreed with what the members had said about co-operatives. Therefore, the Opposition also agrees that one should preserve the co-operative spirit in its present form. But commerce is kicking up a great fuss because co-operatives are allegedly restricting private trade. In reality there are other things which are affecting private trade, such as supermarkets in the rural areas. I now want to inform commerce that once we have amended the Co-operative Societies Act, and the cooperatives are prepared to pay tax, they are going to climb in, boots and all. It is then going to be a free for all, and then you will really see something. That they must also bear in mind. Take a little town like Bredasdorp, where a consumers’ co-operative was established which pays tax in full on its profit and receives no financing assistance from the Land Bank. There the small shops disappeared, and today one finds only the one consumers’ co-operative there, which is in fact operating actively. Private trade must therefore be very careful about saying to the co-operatives: Very well, you may no longer use Land Bank money and you therefore have to pay tax, and then still try to impose restraints on that co-operative. My point of departure is always that here one finds 500 or 1 000 farmers who are making a combined effort, where each one has a say in electing the management; it is, in other words, a jointly-owned business, as against a private company with five or six directors who are perhaps millionaires. Here, on the other hand, you have a group of farmers who axe active in the industry. It is this idea which we would like to protect in this country.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus referred to Escom power and the high price. I want to say it is a good thing the hon. member brought it to our attention; his facts were quite correct, but he should have put the matter to the Minister of Economic Affairs. He is in charge of Escom power. A farmer pays for the line to his farm. Under some of the schemes the line is paid off over 25 years, while power is supplied to the premises of the industrialist at a completely different tariff. It is a good thing he mentioned it, so that it may also be realized that the farmer is not always being given preference over the other bodies.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus referred to the price of bags, and requested that we find a cheaper packing material. The Maize Board and the Wheat Board are definitely desirous of finding another packing material, even if it has to be of plastic. Tests were carried out in the past and plastic bags were not a success. Research is now under way with the object of finding a cheaper bag. I should like to inform the hon. member that we have now received an additional R4,5 million, for 1974 from the Minister of Finance for the construction of silos and the total appropriation is R12,6 million. At the end of this season we will in aggregate have borrowed R90 million from the Treasury for the construction of silos, and this is the course we should adopt to get away from this difficulty of expensive bags. At present we are able to store half of our grain in bulk, and our aim should be to store 100% of our grain in bulk.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus also requested that we reintroduce price control for maize products, as in the past. In practice we find it difficult, in Pofadder for example, to tell a man: This is the price you have to pay for a pound of mealie-meal. For it has to be adjusted from one place to another, depending on transportation, and we felt that the competition was keen enough, especially in view of the co-operative mills which we have. There is a process of price-cutting in progress, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that if we should establish that there are people who are making unwarranted profits, we will definitely reintroduce price control. At present no complaints have yet been made to us, and we have asked the farmers and consumers of mealie-meal to bring it to the attention of our department, or to that of the Mealie Board, if unwarranted profits are being made.

The hon. member for Heilbron requested that we should encourage our younger farmers and should give them loans. Our experience at Agricultural Credit has been that if one has to give a farmer of 18 years a loan, you do not as yet have any record of his achievements, and we have to give him a chance. If he is 18 years old, and he wants to farm, our first question is why he did not attend an agricultural college; if he does not have any money, there are bursaries available. But there is an anomaly in this entire matter, the hon. member is quite correct. If he is married, the situation changes. We shall look into this situation and talk to the Minister in question who administers the Act to see whether we can make adjustments there.

The hon. member for Randburg referred to the air freighting of fruit and vegetables. I could just inform him that the Select Committee on the Marketing Act will look into all these marketing aspects of non-controlled products. There are tremendous possibilities. Last year we exported fruit and vegetables to the value of R10 million, most of this by air freight. With the advent of the jumbo aircraft and with the concessions we envisage obtaining on air freight tariffs, we believe that we will be able to succeed, through this method of export, in earning foreign exchange. I want to point out that air freight tariffs at present are as high as 25 cents per kg. The eventual price of the agricultural produce which has to be exported at such a tariff will of course be too high, and for that reason we are making attempts to obtain a concession in this regard.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the Reynders Report. That committee, as far as I know, did not go into the question of promoting the export of agricultural produce intensively, but dealt mainly with commercial commodities. We shall see whether we can effect certain encouragement. This is of course very important. My standpoint is that our gold mines are in fact a dying industry, for you only extract, you put nothing back. Agriculture on the other hand is a growing industry. Last year, we exported agricultural produce to the value of R652 million, but we must attempt to double this amount. If it is therefore necessary for us to encourage the export of agricultural produce, I know that the Cabinet will consider this very favourably.

The hon. member for Worcester discussed wine. This is, however, a matter which falls under the control of the hon. the Minister of Justice, and not under me. The hon. member referred to the restrictions on the serving of wine in cafés, etc. I see no reason why the control over wine could not fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. The hon. the Minister of Justice is present here, and I do not want to trespass on his domain. However, there are certain adjustments which will perhaps be made in due course. There are many bodies which will have to be consulted. I also have to point out that millions of rand have been invested in the wine industry. This matter will subsequently have to be taken further with the bodies concerned.

The hon. member for Fauresmith referred to the vacant land at the P. K. le Roux Dam. He also asked how we were going to allot land under the Orange River and other schemes. I want to inform the hon. member that we have been working on this matter for a very long time. From time to time we hold conferences in regard to it. The feeling is that we should give a person an economic unit, but it is possible that the economic unit of today will no longer be an economic unit in 20 years’ time. There is even an idea that we should allot 60 morgen to such a person, with the possibility that he will in time receive an additional 20 morgen, depending upon his potential, to what extent he can save on water, etc. We are working on various ideas. Considerable progress has already been made with the canals. Considerable progress has been made with the soil surveys. We should try to prevent the mistakes which were made at some of our previous irrigation schemes being made here. The size of the land is important, but what the person is going to cultivate on it is equally important. This is an area in which frost is prevalent, but will we allow such products as wheat, cotton and groundnuts, certain of the products of which there are shortages at present, to be produced there? It will also depend on whether we think that the person who applies for the land is or is not able to farm profitably.

There are three kinds of farmers we want to settle there. In the first group are those farmers who have to be taken by the hand and given guidance. To them one has to give a previously developed site. The next group consists of persons who have a little capital of their own and who are perhaps able to construct their own houses with their own capital so that there will be no possibility of the usual smallholding complex. The third group consists of those prosperous persons who can afford to buy land offered at an open auction if they want to produce lucerne there for a sheep farming concern for example. There was the idea that we should give preference to the Karoo farmers, but it will not be possible for us to make an exception by, for example, giving a Karoo farmer a piece of land on which he can produce lucerne. It will have to be done on another basis. We want to try to act as fairly as possible in this case.

The hon. member made inquiries about the wine quotas allocated to 200 farmers in the Riet River complex The K.W.V. in its wisdom saw fit to extend the allocation of wine quotas, but we feel that it is not quite fair to apply a quota system within a specific area only, while other farmers are also exerting pressure for the allocation of wine quotas. We have to be very careful in this regard, for in the meantime we are also doing research at Roodeplaat for the development of early varieties of table grapes.

We have developed grapes which ripen in the vicinity of 3rd November, and such grapes are at present being cultivated in Groblersdal. Those farmers also received quotas, but in my opion one cannot give a farmer in a summer rainfall area with an average rainfall of 25 inches a wine quote. One should encourage him to produce table grapes instead. However, the K.W.V. has allocated those quotas, and perhaps this will cause problems in future. We must through agricultural extension inform the farmers not to exert pressure for the allocation of a wine quota if they can make more money from the cultivation of table grapes. The market for table grapes is tremendously favourable, and our population is growing.

The hon. member for Newton Park discussed an ad hoc approach to agriculture, and was rather critical on this score. He said that we should have long-term planning instead. He said that we should inform the farmer, before he starts planting, what his price is going to be, and that we should announce minimum prices before planting commences. He said that we were not taking the risk factor in agriculture into account. It is very easy for the hon. member for Newton Park to say a thing like that. But if the hon. member had to apply it in practice, he would see for himself what wrong thing in allowing maize production the situation was. After the hon. member for Newton Park the hon. member for Walmer rose and alleged that we had done the wrong thing in allowing maize production in marginal areas. I can inform the hon. members that if one were to say to the South African farmer now that you will pay him at least R4 per bag for mealies next year, they will plough up the marginal areas left, right and centre, from Mafeking down, and plant nothing but mealies. It is a quite unpractical approach to say at this early stage to a person that it makes no difference what he harvests, a price is being announced for him at this early stage. These matters simply do not work that way. The hon. member also said that we should establish an agricultural advisory council, a planning council with statutory powers. In the past there was a time when South Africa had three ministers to whom the various aspects of agriculture were entrusted. There was a Minister of Lands, a Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and a Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Today there is one Minister and a Deputy Minister to co-ordinate all these different aspects of the administration of agriculture. The Minister and his Deputy have three departmental secretaries who confer with the Minister almost every day about certain matters. In addition the three secretaries are supported by an Agricultural Advisory Council. Last year I asked the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition to give me the names of the people who could serve on this agricultural advisory council. It would be better for these people to have been known as “Madam Rose”, for they would have to know precisely what is going to happen next year so that they could be of assistance with planning at this stage already. I am now asking the hon. members whether they can remember how concerned they were about the maize surpluses when we met here last year. Now that we have made the final estimate we are afraid that we might perhaps have to import a million bags of white maize this year. As against that we had an enormous surplus of white maize last year. I shall now give hon. members the names of the people who are serving on our agricultural advisory council today. The hon. members must tell me now whether they are satisfied with these people. The members of the advisory council are: Dr. Du Plessis, Dr. Verbeek, Dr. Van der Merwe, Mr. P. L. Steyn, Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, Mr. Franz Van Wyk, Mr. Louis Burhmann, Mr. N. C. van Huyssteen, as well as Mr. A. P. Pretorius from South-West Africa, Mr. Sinclair from Natal, Mr. Chris Cilliers, Mr. Albert Basson and Mr. P. D. van Rooyen. These are the people who are serving on our Agricultural Advisory Council. Do the hon. members merely want us to give this Advisory Council another name? Apart from this Advisory Council we also have the Soil Protection Advisory Council, and in addition there is a total of 21 separate boards, and then I am not referring to control boards which furnish advice in regard to the cultivation of various products. For example, there are advisory boards which advise us in regard to the cultivation of tobacco, potatoes, wheat, cotton, dried beans, maize and pineapples—to mention only a few. In all there are 21 different advisory boards.

There is a good Pineapple Board.

In addition there is a Marketing Council which has under it 21 control boards, and each one specializes in its field. For the rest there is also a central committee which consists of the departmental heads of the three departments. There is also a ministerial central committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of Water Affairs which from time to time discusses among its members and in conjunction with the departmental heads, matters concerning agriculture, water affairs and forestry. They undertake long-term planning. I am asking hon. members whether it is really necessary for another similar council to be appointed. Then, too the hon. members want this council to be a statutory council. In other words, this council must take over my job. Is that what it amounts to? The hon. members are making it more and more difficult.

The hon. member said that the subsidy on bread should not be withdrawn, that we should subsidize agricultural produce to an increasing extent, but on the other hand that we should in addition at least give the producers higher prices. I can inform the hon. member that previously we subsidized bread very heavily. When we increased the bread price some time ago, we again, as always, gave the undertaking that the higher costs to the bakers and the millers would be borne by the State. As matters stand at present, after the 20% increase in the bakers’ wages, the subsidy this year is again going to be almost R40 million, and almost R50 million next year. We are not contemplating raising bread prices again soon, but sooner or later we will have to be realistic. We had a survey made in a Bantu location and our findings were that 85% of the Bantu in a certain location ate white bread only while brown bread in fact has more proteins than white bread. When we compare the consumption of brown bread to the consumption of white bread, we will see that the consumption of white bread is twice as much as that of brown bread. If these people are really suffering such hardships, why are they not paying two cents less and eating brown bread? I am just mentioning this to hon. members. Of course, I am by no means unsympathetic towards the consumers. The hon. member is very dissatisfied, and nags away at me every time about the bread prices which were increased. It is quite unnecessary.

Now the hon. member is saying that we have done nothing to stem the depopulation of the rural areas.

You really are not achieving much success with your plans.

For three days I fought hon. members opposite to get the legislation on egg production through this House. The hon. member is laughing about that now, but he should really be ashamed of himself. At the time I pointed out repeatedly that they wanted to enable a major company to oust the small egg producers from the rural areas; they asked why we could not have cheaper eggs by getting rid of the small farmers. But now hon. members are reproaching me and are saying that we did nothing to prevent this depopulation. In agriculture I did not talk politics, but the strength, the soul, of our people, whether they are U.P., or N.P. supporters is, in my opinion, and I say this with all due respect to the State, still the people in the rural areas. In order to keep them there, we are doing anything which is practicable. We cannot hoist a person up by his shirtfront and tell him that he should make farming his career. Here a firm like Savage and Lovemore is advertising for a young man with matriculation to operate heavy machinery for a salary of R300 per month in the city, where the bright lights are, the swimming baths, the drive-in cinemas and all the comforts. Must I now tell him that he should make farming his career while there is a manpower shortage in this country? The hon. member cannot use that argument here.

The hon. member also discussed co-ordination. We are installing a computer in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services which will be used with effect from March of next year, and which will in fact do the necessary co-ordination. It will keep a record of production planning, with which is incorporated the department of Water Affairs, Agricultural Economics and Marketing and with which we will eventually have programming all along the line to the farmer on his farm. This computer will be able to supply the figures pertaining to very important and interesting particulars in a jiffy. The hon. member also asked whether we would, by the year 2000, be able to feed 50 million people in this country. I want to give the hon. member the assurance, when I look at the production figures during the past 10 years and see how there was a twofold increase in many respects with the type of research and extension services we have today, in spite of all the deficiencies, that it will in fact be possible to do this. One need only read the wonderful reports of the Departments of Agricultural and the bi-annual publication Trends in the Agricultural Sector, to see what research we are doing to improve production. In the light of this I am very hopeful that we will in fact be able to do this.

The hon. member also said that we should not use the increased profits of the farmers to force them to increase their turnovers and in that way their profits. That is an entirely fallacious argument. The greater a person’s turnover, the more effective he is, the more it will affect his profit and determine the eventual price of his produce.

That does not always work in agriculture.

It does not always work in agriculture, but most of the time it does.

The turnover can disappear overnight.

It can disappear, as happened in the case of mealies, that is true. The hon. member says, however, that to render assistance to an industry suddenly, is ad hoc assistance. One will always have ad hoc assistance, for one does not, after all, obtain one’s information in advance concerning what is going to happen in regard to certain commodities. I come now to the price determinations and efficiency. To my mind this is most important of all. Let me mention an example. A price has to be determined for a certain product. But now one has to have a general price for the efficient as well as for the inefficient farmer. The hon. member was referring in this case to the need to feed a great number of people, but I know a young Afrikaner, a pig farmer, who has a few thousand pigs in one shed. His entire system has been automated. There is a conveyor belt across the floor of the shed which is in constant motion and which removes all the waste products. Six thousand pigs are controlled by three labourers. The system has been automated to such an extent that every young pig had its own pen into which it just fits and which gradually increases in size as the young pig grows. It is pitch dark in this shed; you cannot see your hand in front of your face. But every six hours a blinding light comes on automatically. Every young pig is startled and stands up, and at that moment as much food as it can eat in four minutes is deposited in front of it—all automatically. All one hears then is the sound of all the pigs eating at the same time. It is an experience to see this. Within four minutes that light goes off again, and then everything is quiet; every pig lies down again. It only uses energy to stand up and lie down again. It uses no energy to walk around. That person’s pig-farming enterprise shows a profit which is 32% higher than that of the old type of pig farmer where the farmhand went trundling along with a wheelbarrow load full of pumpkins to feed the pigs. This is a completely new departure. In this way there are various branches of our agriculture which are developing in the direction of mass production, factory agriculture. With this kind of encouragement, and with research, I foresee that we will very easily be able to support an increased population in future.

That is probably a U.P. pig farmer.

The hon. member for Walmer referred to the excursion to Stellenbosch which was arranged. I find the hon. member’s thanks, as expressed to the Secretary, Dr. Verbeek, praiseworthy. We decided this morning that the Secretary should make arrangements with the various farming groups to arrange a similar excursion—when it suits you—to Pretoria. There are so many things we should like to show you in Irene, at Nelspruit and at Roodeplaat. We shall make arrangements for you to see more of the undertakings, such as the tobacco research and the dairy institute.

The hon. member discussed the land in the vicinity of the Fish River Tunnel. I can inform the hon. member that the first phase will have a bearing on the irrigators who are already irrigating, who already have their feet in the stirrups, and for whom we just want to make it possible to acquire larger units. It will be a consolidation. It is a complicated process to ensure that the water which is available is distributed correctly. Proper soil surveys are being made, and we are working in very close conjunction with the Department of Water Affairs, which will eventually allocate the water.

I want to refer to the insurance scheme and guaranteed prices for which the hon. member pleaded. If you ask for a compulsory insurance scheme which is supported by the State and you link this to a guaranteed price, you must bear in mind that it is also going to result in a person in a marginal area producing because he knows that he is insured in case of a crop failure, although he may only have one crop every five years. We must sort out considerations of this kind very carefully. Personally I am afraid of a compulsory insurance scheme, sponsored by the State, for one will have to draw a line somewhere, and will have to decide that the one person qualifies for the scheme and the other not because he is a marginal case. The person who will have to draw that line, will have a very difficult task. In the same way we find with the stock withdrawal scheme that the carrying capacity at one place is 24½ morgen per sheep, and at another place three morgen. Consequently there are always problems in having something like this applied. The Agricultural Union have also addressed a request to us, and we shall see whether we are able to apply it.

I agree with the hon. member for Albany that there are too few extension officers. The hon. member asked for a new scheme to get more veterinarians. We can discuss the matter with the Minister of National Education. It was a practical and positive suggestion, and we will look into it, but you must bear in mind that the extension officers in our country are not being utilized correctly by the farmers. A sifting process has occurred here. Many of the young fellows we have in the rural areas today are no longer as dependent on extension services as was previously the case. As I have said before, farming has become a business. What has remained after the sifting process occurred? The business man, the man who has a basic knowledge of engineering; the man who can repair a tractor; who is an economist and his own bookkeeper; and the man who married the right woman. If he did not do that, he would have had it, for he has to have co-operation. That type of man is not all that dependent on extension services, and more and more of these farmers are becoming active in agriculture.

The hon. member for East London North apologized to me for not being able to be here. He discussed agricultural shows. We feel that the railage tariffs result in some of our agricultural shows—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is thoroughly aware of this—having a discouraging effect; the farmers no longer want to enter. We are considering a scheme which will be based on achievement and posterity tests. We do not simply want to render assistance to everything remotely resembling a show animal, but where the animal can be entered on the basis of achievement and posterity tests, we want to see whether we cannot introduce a rebate on the railage for farmers who want to specialize in that direction, so as to be able to help them.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with the question of land below the Orange River project I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I am glad to learn that the hon. the Minister and the department are already exchanging ideas about how the land will be divided up, how large the units will be and to what type of farmer they would like to allocate it. Since they are now exchanging ideas in connection with this matter, I should like clarity to be reached as quickly as possible. Shortly after the Orange River project was announced, the then Minister, Minister P. K. le Roux, and others were urged to give attention to this matter. Well, it is now about five or six years ago that that request was made. Now the hon. the Minister tells us they are exchanging ideas and that complete clarity has not been reached yet. We on this side of the House would welcome it if we could get something more definite about this from the hon. the Minister as quickly as possible.

The hon. the Minister says it is very easy to say that the risk factor must be taken into consideration. He says, in addition, that it is also very easy for the Opposition to say that the price for a specific agricultural product should be announced at the commencement of the season. I have told the hon. the Minister that it is not only a question of the price of a product at the commencement of a season. I have said that one must also think of something like one’s cattle farming. It is necessary to encourage meat farming in South Africa, and one must not only think here in terms of a price announcement at the commencement of the season, but rather at the commencement of a production cycle. There is a small difference. I shall come back later to the point which the hon. the Minister made in connection with the determination of prices at the commencement of a season. It is specifically one of these points that would encourage the South African farmer, particularly the meat farmer, if a projection could be made from time to time and an indication be given of the requisites and the needs of the future. An indication must be given to the farmer about what he can expect after his product is placed on the market. I do not think that is such an impossible task. The hon. the Minister asks how one can say initially what a farmer is going to obtain for his product. The moment there is a tremendous harvest, one would simply be saddled with the surplus and it would be essential to offer the farmer a low price. As far as my memory goes, the wheat farmer has, until recently, been told at the commencement of a season what the price was that he could expect that season. This policy has already been adopted for decades. Why was it done? Specifically with a view to encouraging the production of that specific product. I also want to come back to the point about the Agricultural Planning Council. If this is possible in the case of one product, why is it not also possible in the case of other products? The hon. the Minister can tell the milk farmers and the cream farmers at the beginning of the season what they can expect. The principle we are therefore placing before the hon. the Minister is no new principle. Now the hon. the Minister wants to know from me what more this Agricultural Planning Council could do than what its Advisory Board is doing. In the first place his own Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture recommended that there should be an Agricultural Planning Advisory Council. The hon. gentleman tells us he has dozens of advisory boards. For a relevant sector it is probably essential for one to get the necessary advice, and I have no objection to that, but it seems to us as if the scientific nature of agriculture and the intensive economic nature of this industry results in one need and that is that there should be general planning not only in respect of the departments, but throughout, in respect of almost every facet of agriculture. I specifically see this function in the Agricultural Planning Council. Hereby the necessary correlation can be obtained with regard to the cultivation of certain products in respect of which there could possibly be surpluses, and other products in respect of which shortages may exist. It is specifically to carry out this type of planning properly that I think that an Agricultural Planning Council is absolutely essential. Now the hon. the Minister gives us the names of the people on his Advisory Board. Sir, I have no objection to those specific people, but the hon. the Minister knows what their function is. It is merely advisory, and as the Agricultural Advisory Board they do not even have the right to express any opinion about the question of the prices of products, etc.

The Minister draws up the agenda.

Exactly: there the hon. member for East London City is now giving us the answer—he draws up the agenda. That board has merely an advisory function. What I am speaking about, however, is an Agricultural Planning Council. If we had an agricultural planning council, it would fulfil the functions embodied in the word “planning”. The hon. gentleman knows how he must take young farmers by the scruff of the neck so that they will go farming, since they are being enticed by the lights of the city and the tremendous salaries. That, the hon. gentleman says, is the sifting process that takes place. In other words, the farmers who remain, who have married the right women and for whom conditions are right, will then not “go to the dogs”; they will then have a future. This same argument has been used in South Africa for the past 30 or 40 years, and after every sifting process, after a drought or two, we find that that sifting process has to repeat itself. The hon. member for Carletonville, shortly after the hon. gentleman had held the meeting at Wolmaransstad, said in an interview with a newspaper that a matter which this Government ought to investigate is how farmers could so quickly, after two good years, be in a position where they almost have to come to the Minister and to the Government with their hats in their hands for help. Sir, here lies the basis of our problem in South Africa; here lies the reason for our so-called sifting process. I can mention examples to the hon. the Minister of farmers who have diplomas and degrees and who are competent farmers, but who, as a result of economic circumstances, have been brought to their knees. I have those examples, and the respective departments of the hon. the Minister frequently get some of those examples. Sir, I just want to mention one thing to the hon. gentleman: We have frequently heard, in recent times, that interest rates in South Africa must be decreased. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister how many farmers, who have mortgage bonds with private bodies, have had interest rate decreases in recent years. Now I am not speaking about interest rates on overdrafts. There are dozens of cases that I know of, and which that hon. gentleman also knows of, where farmers are still paying 9½, 10½ to 11% interest on mortgage bond loans. [Time expired.]

The problem of the hon. member who has just spoken, with agriculture still is that he looks for aspects in regard to which he can make political gain, and that he still cannot view agriculture in broad perspective.

Sir, I should like to come back to a matter raised here last Friday by the hon. member for Worcester, namely the exceptional problems of the wine industry which arise, inter alia, because of the fact that there are so many bodies which exercise control over or have a share in matters of concerning the industry. This afternoon I should like to draw attention to one particular aspect of this industry, i.e. the investigation instituted by the Board of Trade and Industry in 1968, which subsequently submitted a report in 1969, in which it was confirmed that it was historically and economically justified for wine spirits, and brandy in particular, to be protected by means of excise duties against spirits derived from other sources. This commission of inquiry recommended that the suspended duty on cane spirit be partially introduced, but as a result of the problems which arose in giving effect to that recommendation, another commission of inquiry was appointed last year by the Board of Trade and Industry in this connection, a commission which had to inquire into the degree of protection wine spirits should enjoy as against cane spirits, and locally produced spirits as against imported spirits. Sir, the point is that the competitive position concerning wine spirits, which is held out as one of the bottlenecks, has weakened considerably as a result of excise duties which have gradually been introduced, particularly in 1971, with the result that the privileged position of wine spirits as against other spirits has gradually been watered down. One does not want to anticipate the report of this commission of inquiry, but it is striking that another interdepartmental investigation has since been instituted by the Departments of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Agricultural Technical Services, and Industries, a commission which is concerned specifically with the production and price of distilling wine. Sir, if one considers this matter more losely, it appears that there should be some concern somewhere among the variety of bodies as to whether the extent and the price of distilling wine is justified. May I just point out on this occasion that the price of distilling wine, which is distilled into wine spirits, is always determined in close collaboration with the Minister of Agriculture, and, in addition, that the increase in the price of wine spirits is due only in very small measure—to an insignificant extent —to an increase in the price of the producer, although it is really due to the increase in excise duties. Sir, the point I really want to make is that the effect on the wine industry of this latest interdepartmental inquiry I have just referred to, following in the make of previous inquiries, has been to cause uncertainty; and if we take into account that this is an industry which operates on a long-term basis—because vines planted today only come into full production after five years at the earliest—we shall appreciate that this factor of uncertainty has a detrimental effect on an industry which virtually forms the basis of the economy of the Western Cape. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture whether he could not do something in this regard to bring about certainty and stability in this key industry.

Sir, there is another associated point I should like to deal with, a point the hon. the Minister has also referred to in connection with a plea made by the hon. member for Fauresmith, and this concerns the allocation of quotas in areas which are traditionally not wine producing areas. Sir, our legislation provides that quotas may be extended from time to time and consequently new conditional quotas were granted during the past decade or so, in 1963, and again in 1970. As the hon. the Minister has just said, it is rather uncharitable only to allocate quotas in the traditionally established areas. I want to agree with him that one should not discriminate. This is one of the disadvantages of the quota system we unfortunately have here. But, Sir, there is another point. When one is dealing with an industry which operates on a long-term basis and one sees that production is falling short— and today production is falling short particularly in respect of our red wine, which has won a good name for itself, for which there is a great demand and which can be sold at a competitive price, particularly in the younger countries of the world, in the United States and Canada, and of which consumption has increased locally to such an extent that we are simply unable to supply the demand—then, surely, it is unrealistic merely to allocate quotas from the point of view of superficial justification in areas where these quotas cannot be fulfilled, whether in terms of real production or particularly in terms of quality products. I therefore want to plead that we should consider anew our legislation in this regard; I think that on occasion we shall perhaps have to be more inclined to think in terms of an extension of quotas in order to keep pace with the increasing demand, particularly for quality wine, but I want to add that in this process we should guard against the allocation of quotas—although it may sound pious to say that we should not discriminate—in areas where the climatic and other circumstances do not lend themselves to the production of wine. Sir, while I am discussing this aspect, I should like to address a word of reproof to our agricultural press, which in recent times has on several occasions been popularizing the idea that estate wine cellars would be established in parts of the country which do not lend themselves to the production of quality wine. Sir, the net result of this, together with the allocation of quotas in those areas, is that people are going to invest money in something which is not going to materialize, and after a number of years the problem is going to be laid at the door of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, at the door of the managing director of the Land Bank and at the door, too, of other bodies —also at the door of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, because it has come to my notice—and I do not want to criticize quotas which have been allocated in the Riet River and the Modder River areas— that under our present dispensation, in terms of which quotas may not be refused, quotas have also been allocated in districts such as Victoria West and elsewhere, where the only water supply consists of boreholes. After all. Sir, it does not require a flight of the imagination to foresee, while the Minister of Water Affairs is also talking about a falling water table experienced in our country, that this is going to create problems, and that is why I want to plead for our farmers to be thoroughly informed about this matter before anything of the kind is encouraged and stimulated and also commended by our agricultural press and before senior research workers in our wine research institute—who are unable even to fulfil the task entrusted to them in this wine producing area—are called away for weeks to investigate the provisional quotas allocated there. This uncertain development in agriculture will simply not work out in the long run; let us rather concentrate in those areas, as the hon. the Minister suggested a moment ago, on the production of fresh table grapes and things of that nature. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to bring some influence to bear and to take the necessary steps to stabilize our wine industry in view of the tremendous demand for our quality wines and that, in the process, where there is still room for expansion, consideration should in the first place be given to that part of the country where the Creator made available the soil and the climate available for this purpose.

Those were fine words we heard a moment ago from the hon. the Minister in regard to co-operative agricultural societies. We are pleased and grateful that a co-operative of his stature occupies that post to keep his hand on the reins of our co-operative agricultural societies. Because we in agriculture become deeply concerned when we read in magazines such as the Financial Mail of 5th April what a prominent man such as Mr. F. A. du Plessis, had to say—

This kind of language sends cold shivers down the spine of the agriculturalist and the co-operative, and we are very pleased that our Minister of Agriculture adopts this very strong attitude. We want to tell him that in this respect he not only has the support of the farmers of South Africa, but also the consumers of South Africa in so far as the rationalization of food distribution is concerned.

My colleagues have already requested investigations in regard to increases in the price of means of agricultural production in various fields and have made some recommendations, some of which the hon. the Minister has already replied to, recommendations which, if they were to be implemented, would bring about a great deal of relief for the farmer as well as the consumer of the agricultural product. We realize that these increases in the price of means of agricultural production constitute a long-term problem, but we think this year is a good one to take the bull by the horns.

In this respect I want to refer to a particular segment of the increased cost of means of production, and that concerns the intensive small farmer in my constituency and also in the constituencies of other hon. members, mainly flower, vegetable and fruit producers. There is one phenomenon which is really becoming a curse on these small farmers. Firms issue colourful countrywide advertisements of certain makes of well-known tractors and garden implements of a good quality from Germany, which they import. These are ingenuously sold by high pressure methods as units, portable power plants, which also include subsoilers and harvesters, and so forth. These are really useful and versatile implements, until a part of that machine gives way. Then all kinds of stories are told and excuses made on the part of those firms who sell these machines. The spare parts are not available and the unfortunate owner of that machine is told he had better buy an entire unit which will cost him R30 instead of the 40 cents or 50 cents or 80 cents the small spare part would have cost him. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that the import permits in respect of such machines should be withdrawn altogether from such firms importing agricultural implements until they can prove that they are carrying an adequate supply of spare parts for all models, all those models which they import so lavishly and sell and for which they are unable to provide adequate after-sales services.

The other matter of importance in this debate has already been dealt with briefly in passing, and that is the relationship between the agricultural producer and the consumer of agricultural products, particularly processed food products and particularly in regard to the price aspect. As we said in the Budget debate, I can furnish rational replies to questions regarding the increase in the price of bread, in the price of milk and other dairy products, in the price of maize and other controlled products where both the producer and the consumer serve on the control board and recommend a price to the Minister. I am once more unable to reply to questions about the strange price increases of processed agricultural products sold over the shop or café counters to the public. This is where control falls away to a large extent and where the consumer himself should really play the role of policeman. I want to ask how it happens that the price of a tin of “bully beef” or tinned peaches or processed maize products which have been standing on the shelf for six months is increased by 15% overnight after an announcement the previous day of a railway tariff increase of 15%, or something of the sort has been made. I ask: How are such price increases justified? The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and our farmers are blamed, while neither the hon. the Minister of Agriculture nor the farmers have anything to do with it.

I want to know how to reconcile the fact that immediately after the increase of the price of bread by the Wheat Board, the latter, when it suddenly sent out some of its inspectors in the Cape Peninsula to various sales points one Saturday, found that underweight bread was being sold at the full price. I ask whether this is not a scandal of the worst kind. How can it be reconciled that the value of milk rises so rapidly from the moment it is delivered in the café to the time it is served with tea or coffee in the café that it almost becomes a luxury commodity which is so expensive it can barely be afforded? Surely, neither the agricultural producer nor the National Party Government can be blamed for this state of affairs.

As a result of these increases in the prices of agricultural products the consumer is often under many false impressions. Often he or she is not in possession of all the facts and simply accepts the stories from the side of the Opposition and particularly from the hon. member for Wynberg that it is the fault of the Government and the farmers. [Interjections.] The hon. member appears to be very surprised, but she does it all day.

I therefore ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to entrust to his department, organized agriculture and the Co-ordinating Consumer Council the task, in consultation with one another and by means of thorough and scientific study, of keeping an eye on these problems of price manipulation of processed food products on a permanent basis and submit recommendations to him. Strong and effective steps must then be taken.

The food producer and consumer are interdependent on each other, and it is in the interests of both these sectors and in the interests of the country that they be co-ordinated in such a way for them to be able to consult each other all the time so that both of them will benefit. In this regard I quote once more what Mr. Raymond Ackerman, head of a very large chain store, wrote in The Argus recently and stated specifically—

Since the co-operative sector is now being accused by Assocom and FCI, I want to ask the hon. the Minister explicitly to have this aspect advanced by Mr. Raymond Ackerman as the reason for the abnormal increases in the price of many of the food products, investigated very thoroughly by a joint committee on which, perhaps, organized agriculture and the Consumer Council may serve and which could be under the leadership of the department.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Stellenbosch spoke about the wine industry. Wine-farming is practised in his constituency and the hon. member is therefore acquainted with it. I therefore find nothing wrong with what he had to say. The hon. member for Pretoria District spoke about spare parts of farm implements, and I must agree with him wholeheartedly in that respect. I want to take this further by saying that I wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to standardize our tractors in South Africa because the exploitation which takes place in that sphere, can only be described as shocking. The hon. member for Pretoria District went further and referred to the exploitation which takes place in the sphere of agricultural products. I may remind the hon. member that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has been saying for the past two years that he would keep an eye on the situation and he is still keeping an eye on it. The hon. member for Pretoria District says it is not the duty of the Government while the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs says he will keep an eye on the situation. However, all the Minister of Economic Affairs does is keep an eye on the situation.

I want to come to the hon. the Minister. He ignored completely the suggestions made by the hon. member for Newton Park on Friday. The hon. member for Newton Park said that, if necessary, foodstuffs should be subsidized even further. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. He increased the price of bread and he increased the price of maize products. Has the hon. the Minister considered the effect this will have on the wage-earner when he has to pay those increased prices? All he can do, is ask for higher wages; as a matter of fact, we already have another wave of demands for higher wages. Then the Minister of Transport comes along and increases the railway tariffs. So it will continue. It would be much cheaper for the Government to pay the subsidy so that the prices of foodstuffs could be kept low. In this way we shall be able to check the insistent demand for higher wages. What did the hon. the Minister do as far as the price of bread is concerned? He increased the price of brown bread by 22%, but he also increased the price of white bread by 18%. At the same time he reduced the price the farmer gets for a bag of wheat by 20 cents per bag.

Thirty cents per bag.

Very well, by 30 cents per bag. The hon. the Minister then submitted that he had done so because the price of the protective clothing for the millers’ labourers had risen by 26%, because the maintenance of the vehicles had risen by 24% and because the price of fuel had risen by 8%. But has there not been an increase in the expenses of the farmer in these spheres as well? Notwithstanding this the hon. the Minister found it necessary to reduce the price of wheat.

The hon. the Minister went further and said that without the assistance of a planning advisory council the Government will be able to feed 52 million people by the turn of the century. He said a planning advisory council was not necessary at all because the necessary planning already exists. What planning do we have? Let us take the position of mutton. What is the position in this country with its great mutton potential? It has progressed to the stage where we have to import meat at the exorbitant price of 92 cents per kilogram now.

Where is the potential?

Now the hon. member asks me where the potential is. What about the whole of the Western Province? If the hon. the member reads Landbounuus, he will know that the hon. the Minister made a speech at Malmesbury in which he pointed out that the people have switched from meat production to wheat production.

Do you want to stop him from doing so?

Why did he do it? I shall tell hon. members why he did it. Two years ago we gave meat away at 18 cents per pound. I pleaded and the hon. member for Prieska assisted me in my plea for the floor price to be raised. We said the floor price should be raised slightly and in this way the farmers would be encouraged to produce meat. However these farmers have been thrown to the wolves and as a result they have stopped production. The upshot is that there is no meat. Now the hon. the Minister comes along and says the price will be increased. I want to thank him for accepting our advice in that he has increased the floor price now, but it is too late! What is the position with mutton in this country? There are 30 million sheep in this country, 13 million of which are breeding ewes. The year before last, 9,3 million sheep were slaughtered; in other words, 70% slaughtering took place. Our lamb crop came nowhere near this figure.

Seventy percent of what?

Seventy per cent of the ewes. [Interjections.] The number of sheep slaughtered amounted to 9,3 million, while the number of our ewes was 13 million. Therefore we need a 70% lamb yield if we want to maintain our flocks, but we do not have this number of sheep. What is more important is that consumption over the past ten years, from 1960 to 1970, has increased from 4,5 million to 9 million. In other words, consumption has doubled in ten years. But with the population explosion it will now double within five years. In other words, we need a lamb yield of 18 million within the following five years and then I am not even referring to the higher wages the non-Whites are going to receive which will push this figure up even further. What plans does the hon. the Minister have in this regard?

What is your plan?

I shall tell the hon. member. After all, we submitted our plan two or three years ago, but at that stage the hon. member did not listen. The floor price must be increased. Now the Minister has done something about it, but it is too late. For years and years the housewife will have to pay for what this Government has done to the meet position in South Africa. For years and years the farmer of South Africa will have to suffer as a result.

Must we import mutton?

But if you do not have mutton, you obviously have to import it, because, after all, you cannot let the people go without meat. The hon. member is also one of the agricultural leaders who was chosen by the Broederbond and afterwards did not give the Minister the proper advice.

I shall also discuss the question of wool now. Three years ago I pleaded in this House for the Minister to subsidize wool by 10 cents per pound and simply to tide the farmers over this difficult period. He did not want to do so. We had to plead for two years. Now wool prices have shot up, but what has happened to the production? It is 20% less.

Nine per cent.

From last year, yes, but surely these matters are not of recent origin. We have always produced a million bales of wool in South Africa in the past, but now we are not even producing 800 000; i.e. 200 000 bales fewer. We lost more than R35 million in foreign exchange as a result of the fact that the Government did not plan properly. I do not blame the Minister for this, because at that stage he was not Minister of Agriculture. When we make suggestions, the Minister simply ignores them. If the Minister would only listen to this side of the House, things would go better with agriculture.

I want to go further and refer to the drought conditions. Let us just look at the aspect of planning. How has the Minister planned? He has allowed rail tariffs for livestock to be increased by no less than 60%. Is that what one calls planning? In regard to vegetables, the increase was no less than 57%; butter, 31,7%; cheese 31,7%; eggs 59,2%, and mealie-meal, the staple food of the Bantu population, 36,4%. Was the hon. the Minister unable to see at that stage what was going to happen? Could he not see how this would affect the cost of living in South Africa and how it would affect wages in South Africa? But then the Minister of Planning speaks. He does not want an advisory council; he knows everything. But is this, then, the way to plan? Anyone who has experienced the most severe drought in human history in this country during the sixties will know the effect it had on us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the agricultural wisdom of the hon. member for King William’s Town is quite interesting, perhaps I should say amusing. He complains about the shortage of mutton …

A renegade like him!

Order! The hon. member for Boksburg must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it but …

The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Piketberg may proceed.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, complained about the shortage of mutton. It seems to me, according to his story, that he has been so impressed and confused by the high prices of wool, that he is now slaughtering his breeding ewes. In other words, he has decided to keep his hamels because of the high wool prices and slaughter his breeding ewes. The hon. member asks what can be done. I want to give him some simple advice, namely that he should keep his ewes and slaughter the hamels. He will probably restore the proper balance then.

The hon. member also referred to the price of bread and the price of wheat. In this regard I should like to express a few thoughts. If one considers the conditions prevailing more than 25 years ago, in the forties, we know that at that time mealiemeal and soya-beans were added to bread flour to make it go further. Those were the days when the United Party was in power. At that stage we had a chronic shortage of wheat, and therefore bread flour, too, and it was in fact accepted that we should never reach the stage when we should be truly self-sufficient as far as our wheat production was concerned. And yet in later years, during the ’fifties and the ’sixties, under the leadership of the Ministers of Agriculture of the National Party Government, the position changed so radically that South Africa became self-sufficient in regard to its wheat requirements, so self-sufficient that we even have a considerable wheat surplus today. If that is not a fine testimonial for the wheat farmer in South Africa, and for the Department of Agriculture, in regard to excellent agricultural technical services, soil conservation, research and agricultural advice, then it is most unlikely that one would ever find such a thing as a good testimonial. I just want to quote a few figures. The hon. member for East London City can also listen to these because he has already forgotten many of the things he used to know at one time. In the year 1970-’71 our wheat production was 1,36 million tons; in 1971-’72 it was 1,643 million tons. In 1972-’73 we had a crop of 1,7 million tons. This has given us a considerable surplus for this year, a surplus estimated at 611 000 tons. This emphasizes to us the efficiency of our farming community. It is true that we have experienced favourable weather conditions in certain parts of the country, but what this does indicate to us is that we have had a steady growth and that the production, even of fewer farmers, has increased to such an extent that today, in spite of our population increase, we have a considerable wheat surplus. Hon. members will do well to note that while they are continually complaining about the fact that the farmers in our country are becoming fewer and fewer, it is striking that with improved means of production and improved wheat varieties and cultivation of the soil, it has been possible to progress towards such a considerable wheat surplus.

Then we come to the question of the storage of wheat. Since we are a country with varying climatic conditions and periodic droughts, one feels that it is imperative for us at least to move in the direction of being able to store sufficient supplies for about one year. Here too, we have proof that the hon. the Minister and his department have for along time been making provision on this score. The hon. the Minister mentioned the round figure. I just want to point out that up to March, 1960, R10 million was appropriated for storage facilities, and in the following year another R10 million was appropriated. In the five year period from 1965 to 1970, R21 million was voted. It is estimated that for the five year period from 1970 to 1974, R48,6 million will be appropriated for storage facilities. This amounts to a total figure of R89,6 million. This is an illustration or a demonstration of the extent to which provision is being made for our growing population, particularly in view of the fact that our production is not all that stable as a result of periodic drought conditions.

Then I just want to say something about the price of bread. The price of bread was in fact increased in recent times, but in order to keep the price of bread at its former and present low levels the Government has had to pay heavy subsidies over the years. In 1970 the subsidy amounted to almost R29 million; in 1971. R29,5 million and in 1972, R41 million. If the factors of cost increases the hon. the Minister referred to are also taken into account, the subsidy for 1973, which is estimated at R36 million, would amount to between R40 and R50 million. The question is not whether bread has become more expensive. Bread has become more expensive. However the question is whether rising wages were keeping pace with the increase in the price of bread. Now I want to point out to hon. members that the section of our population which is consuming more and more bread is the Bantu population. Bantu wages increased by 67% in the past eight years, from 1963 to 1971, while the price of bread has increased by 20% during that period. It has therefore become increasingly easier for the Bantu, who are consuming progressively more bread, to afford it. And this is what they are doing today. It is convenient for them and it is the fashion among them. They even buy white bread instead of brown bread.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid my time has almost expired. The hon. member had better resume his seat. We have proof, therefore, that the wages of our low-income group have risen substantially in proportion to the increase in the price of bread. It has therefore become easy and convenient for these people to afford bread. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that it is even the fashion to buy white bread instead of brown bread. I think we must address an appeal to our people, Whites, Coloureds and Bantu, to eat far more brown bread instead of white bread. If I have enough time left, I should like to tell hon. members a story from the First World War. The German battleship, Kaiser Wilhelm, sank various Allied ships and eventually it was very heavily loaded. One day they sank another Allied ship and wanted to transfer some of its cargo but they noticed it was a cargo of whole-meal. They simply allowed the ship to sink. Shortly afterwards the crew of the Kaiser Wilhelm became seriously ill and hundreds of them died within a few days. They had to surrender in Boston harbour. At the hospital it was ascertained that the crew died of a deficiency disease and if they had loaded the cargo of whole-meal on board and made bread from it for their crew to eat, it would not have been necessary for the Kaiser Wilhelm to surrender. They would then have received the vitamins which would have kept the crew healthy. I think this is an illustration that our people should make a point of eating brown bread otherwise we are likely to become a weak-kneed, unmuscular people which will have to capitulate.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to venture to identify the most important problem or dilemma of the United Party. Something I am definitely sure about, however, is that the support of the United Party among the farmers of South Africa is disappearing at an ever-increasing tempo. One of the most important reasons for this is that the members of the United Party no longer speak the language of the farmer of South Africa. But what is more, the United Party has lost contact with the farmers of South Africa to such an extent that they no longer understand the language of the farmer. To my way of thinking that is a further reason why the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal has decided to direct his attacks on the Government at the Witwatersrand complex, because there the United Party can mar relations between the farmer and the consumer to their heart’s content; that is something that does not matter to that side of the House, and something we in South Africa cannot afford. This year the hon. member for Maitland, who has just left the Chamber, raised a hue and cry about present meat prices during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote. Then he referred to the period 1970-’71 “when the prices were reasonably normal”; those were his words. Unfortunately the hon. member is not in the House now, but we can pose this question to that side now: Were the producer prices of meat “reasonably normal” at that stage? Were they fair? The hon. member for King William’s Town, who sits behind the hon. member for Maitland, said a moment ago that two years ago we were giving meat away at 18 cents per pound. Mr. Chairman, just as that party is unable to speak with one voice when it comes to agriculture, the producer and the consumer, so cannot speak with one voice in this case, and in this way mar relations between the producer and the consumer.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave me conclusive proof to indicate that that side of the House have lost contact with the farmer. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said during the Prime Minister’s Vote that, from discussions under that Vote, he had come to the conclusion that this Minister of Agriculture was not the friend of the farmer. Sir, only a political party which has lost contact with the farmer will make a foolish statement such as this. In the past the hon. the Leader of the Opposition occasionally made a speech in my constituency. He is welcome to do so again, but then I challenge him to say in that farming community that this Minister is not a friend of the farmer. Not only did the hon. the Minister prove to us that he is a friend of the farmer. The hon. the Minister has already proved to us that he is also very fair towards the consumer in South Africa.

Sir, attempts have been made to make political gain in regard to the increased price of bread which has been announced. The hon. member for King William’s Town, who has just resumed his seat, tried to redicule this increase in the price of bread. He said that the Minister was supposed to have said that the price of bread was increased because the price of the employees’ clothes increase and because there was an increase in the maintenance costs of vehicles.

The Minister said so.

Surely, Sir, those are not the only reasons the Minister advanced. The Minister said in that speech that as a result of devaluation and an increase in the cost of machinery and apparatus used in the baking industry, the Government had given the industry the assurance that the 2 cent increase could be used to keep the baking industry on a sound basis. The increase in the price of clothes for the workers in the baking industry is therefore not the only consideration. Sir, let us consider the question of the price of bread in perspective. When discussing the price of bread, I want to say at once that this side of the House does not want the day to come when the price of bread will be on the same level as in those countries where the price is dangerously high. In fact, the farmer in South Africa wants the bread price to be the lowest in the world, and the price of bread in South Africa is in fact the lowest. Let us consider briefly the price of bread and the measures this Minister, this department and this Government have implemented, not only to provide cheap bread and not only to improve hygienic conditions in the baking process, but also to increase the quality of the bread. This is of vital importance, so much so that a low price of bread and rationalization, as a result of registration in the baking industry, are inseparably linked. In fact, the price of bread cannot be kept low without having registration in the baking industry. To appreciate the full effect of registration on the bread price, we must compare the price of bread in South Africa with that in other countries of the world. If the price of bread in South Africa is compared with that in other countries of the world, allowance must be made for the effect of the local subsidy. Allowance must also be made for the lower extraction flour used overseas. Allowance must be made for the fact that overseas bread is sold packed and sliced. But in spite of all these things the price of bread in the Republic is still the lowest in the world. Let us consider a few prices for packed, sliced two-pound loaves in comparable countries. In England the price is 19,2 cents for a 1-3/4 lb. loaf of bread. For a 2 lb. loaf of bread the price will, therefore, be 21,7 cents. In France it is 19,6 cents —these are South African cents—in the Netherlands 21,2 cents, in Belgium 21,7 cents, in Italy 24,4 cents, in Australia 25 cents, in Luxembourg 25,6 cents, in the United States of America 30 cents, in Canada 35 cents and in Germany 38 cents. Sir, this also includes countries which are self-sufficient, and in spite of the fact that they are self-sufficient, some of these countries pay the producer almost half as much as the price of wheat to the producer in the Republic of South Africa. Sir, the quality of our bread is decidedly not among the lowest of the world, but in fact of the highest, and that is why the Wheat Board recently expressed itself in favour of a lower extraction flour and also the dry substance determination for the mass of bread. The council went even further and put its laboratory facilities at the disposal of the baking industry, where they even go so far as to analyse one single grain for its, baking qualities, and so forth. Sir, in contrast to the Opposition, we on this side of the House say that the consumer in South Africa has much to be thankful for, because it was the wheat farmer who not only succeeded in making South Africa self-sufficient, but who also gave the assurance that there would be a sound, tasty loaf available for the children of South Africa in every home today. Sir, it is this same producer who ensured that South Africa is not vulnerable to boycotts, as is the case with Australia and Rhodesia, and I therefore believe that the consumer cannot be grateful enough towards the producer. But, Sir, whereas we have explained the reasonable attitude the Minister adopts towards the consumers, we also take the liberty to plead with the Minister in the interests of the producer. Sir, for the wheat producer in the Free State, particularly in the north-eastern Free State, the risk factor is higher than in the Swartland …

Never.

… and that is why we want to ask for this particularly high risk factor to be taken into account. We also want to ask that a more realistic value of the land be taken into account when the price of wheat is determined. At this stage the producer contributes 35 cents per bag to the reserve fund in order to stabilize his own industry. As a result of world conditions under which the surplus is being exported, this fund has been exhausted and we therefore ask the hon. the Minister to appeal to the Treasury for the latter, as a partner of the Wheat Board, to contribute its share to reduce these costs to us. Sir, in simple language, we want to appeal to the hon. the Minister for an increased producer price for wheat.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

No, Sir, when pleading for an increased price for the wheat producer we on this side of the House do not lose our perspective as that side of the House does because we regard the farmer, the producer, as a partner in a much wider circle, and we therefore want to ask that all possible steps be taken to maintain this healthy spirit in this partnership between the State and the producer, the co-operative societies, the researcher, the Wheat Board and the consumer. Sir, if it is possible to bring about a saving in one of these spheres, let us by all means bring about that saving and apply it to the benefit of the producer in South Africa. Sir, we want to express our gratitude towards the researcher in South Africa, who has made it possible to bake our bread in South Africa today of good quality corn. If we consider the rapid progress which has been made throughout the world in regard to genetics, and if we consider the various congresses, where the genetics of small grains in particular are discussed—I think that there will be another one in Missouri at the end of the year; I think this is a congress to which Prof. Pienaar, one of our geneticists, has been invited—we want to ask that all possible steps be taken not only to enable our researchers who have been invited there to attend the congress and deliver their papers, but that they should also be afforded the opportunity to bring back with them to this country any knowledge gained in other countries as a result of research, so that we may apply it in South Africa in practice in the interests of the partnership I referred to. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bethlehem has made one of the more positive speeches to come from that side of the House. I must say that he supported the plea, about the risk factor and the higher prices to the farmer, of my leader in the Cape, the hon. member for Newton Park, so well that I am surprised that he is still sitting on that side of the House. But I do hope that the hon. the Minister will listen to his plea and that he will do something for the wheat farmers.

I spoke about the risk factor in the North-Eastern Free State.

I find the first half of his speech, and the speech made by the hon. member for Piketberg, quite interesting. The hon. member for Bethlehem may be a little young to remember what happened in the election of 1948, the days when, under the Smuts Government, mutton was very scarce and expensive and there was only brown bread. [Interjections.] Now they are pleading that the people of South Africa should eat more brown bread and should eat the expensive mutton or go without. These are quite interesting speeches, and it is always in agriculture where the political volte-face eventually occurs. If the hon. members on that side now say that we no longer have the ear of the farmer, I can tell them that we understand clearly the language of the farmer; we talk with him and we hear him. But if the hon. the Minister should stop hearing and stop listening at this stage he really is in trouble.

But I really want to say something arising from what was said here by the hon. member for Vryheid on Friday. He said that we should like to keep our farmers on the farms. There I agree with him wholeheartedly and there we must consider two things: The optimal utilization of our agricultural land and the elimination of uneconomic units. Now I can clearly see the hon. the Minister becoming alarmed because he thinks that I am going to talk in a wrong direction, wrong as far as the policy of my party is concerned, but I am not going to do so.

It is not for him, but for you to worry about.

The hon. member for Newton Park laid the basis for this policy in his first speech, but I want to emphasize here that one cannot start talking about these two matters, which are indisputably linked to each other, until our extension service and our approach to agriculture as a whole has been drastically revised and extended. I want to refer here to the contents of the latest annual report and the contents of each annual report we have had through the years. These reports contain everything technical, everything about livestock, everything about the soil, and everything about vegetation, but they contain nothing about our financial or labour control. Now I know that courses are being offered at Stellenbosch where one can take farming economy as a field of study and that one of the subjects at the colleges and at the universities is “businesss control”. But this is not enough because not every farmer’s son can afford this— and now I am not only referring to being able to afford it financially, but sometimes one is also unable to afford the time—to take that course. I feel that these two points, labour control and financial control, are cardinal factors which must be fundamental to our farming.

†Sir, they are basic and cardinal factors in industry and commerce. Good labour relations and a happy and contented staff, and good financial and business control are essential. Without this it is absolutely impossible to carry on.

*There are farmers, as the Minister said here himself, who have taught themselves. I was pleased to learn from his last speech that farmers have taught themselves to apply business control on the farms. But it is not only business control which is required, but also labour control. I want us to expand our agricultural, technical and extension services drastically to teach the farmer how to carry on his business, how to exercise financial control over his business and how to apply his labour productively and keep them happy. So often in my life I have seen farmers who are outstanding in field husbandry, animal husbandry and in soil science, but are unable to practice farming because they do not have the slightest idea how to control their financial matters.

What happens to them? They go bankrupt. Originally they went bankrupt under the Farmers’ Assistance Board and now they go bankrupt under a different body. They borrow money until they are down and out. But potentially they are outstanding and productive farmers, and if they have lost their farms because they are bankrupt, they go and work for another farmer or a company and there they do outstanding work. But so many of them are completely lost to agriculture and then, as the Minister said, they work for Savage and Lovemore, or at the drive-in cinemas, for R300 a month. But if those people had been trained in business techniques and if they had the services of an extension officer who could tell them: “Look, you are wrong here; it is not necessary to take a new tractor; use the old one for another year and plan your farming activities because you have the knowledge and you can go on without buying the new tractor,” then the man would have progressed and he would still have been a farmer. Labour control is another matter. Some people have the ability to control labour.

Now I am not only referring to Black or Brown labour; there are many farmers who also have White labour on their farms. But one gets a farmer who does not have the slightest idea how to control labour. He has neither a foreman nor labourers and then he complains because he cannot obtain labour. Then he must employ migrant labour, as they do in my part of the world. Migrant labour is also used extensively in other parts of the country, but one can also keep one’s migrant labour happy if one knows how to handle one’s labourers. It is most important for our department to inform the farmers as far as these two important aspects are concerned, and I should be pleased if short courses could be introduced for that purpose. I do not know how this could be arranged because it is not an easy matter; however, it is already being done in the business world. The business people and those in industry arrange courses to instruct their employees in these two matters. I should think that it is very important in agriculture today that short courses should be arranged regularly for our young farmers in the same way as the large companies and industry do for their own people today.

Firstly I want to express my gratitude to the hon. members for Walmer and Aliwal for their congratulations and good wishes on Friday on my appointment. I just want to tender my apologies to the hon. member for Albany. Unfortunately I only have ten minutes and if I have time at the end of my speech I should like to come back to the few points he raised here.

I cannot think of a more suitable opportunity than today to say a few words to give a résume of agriculture over the past 25 years. This morning, a quarter of a century ago, the last result of the 1948 election became known.

Hear, hear!

On 14th June, 25 years ago, the hon. S. P. le Roux took over the portfolio of agriculture from Adv. Strauss. The fact that it is a record for one party to have governed a country in the Western democratic world for a period of 25 years, renders this period an epoch in the history of our country. In the short time at my disposal I want to set myself the task of making a short survey of the period.

On the ministerial level these 25 years have been exceptional for agriculture in that two Ministers have given the longest service ever to agriculture in South Africa, i.e. ex-Minister S. P. le Roux, who was Minister of Agriculture for almost 11 years, and ex-Minister Dirkie Uys who was Minister for almost 14 years. These two covered almost the entire period of 25 years of National Party rule—and that in agriculture, which is perhaps one of the most difficult portfolios. Besides all other achievements to their credit, these record periods of service in themselves bears testimony of steady and sound agricultural administration. The fact that at the end of last year—in other words, at the end of this period of 25 years—the hon. the Prime Minister took the step of appointing a dynamic, young and active personality like Mr. Hendrik Schoeman as the first farmer of South Africa because he is a farmer in South Africa in his own right who offered himself for this post, attests to the fact that, politically speaking, the National Party does not yet intend to hand over Government and that it is entering the second period of 25 years with confidence.

There will have to be considerable improvement.

It is certain that agricultural representation in this House has never before been at such a high level as it is now. Never before have there been so many young farming M.JP.s as there are at present and in saying this I am rather reluctant to refer to the other side of the House. Never before have there been so many trained, academically grounded M.P.s who have made agriculture their prime interest as are now sitting in this House at the end of this period of 25 years. I do not want to draw a comparison, but I am definitely convinced that the National Party is entering the second period of 25 years with the manpower potential in Parliament which will enable it to achieve even greater heights than those achieved over the past 25 years.

Viewing the Department of Agriculture over the past 25 years, we are presented with a very encouraging picture. In 1948 the Department of Agriculture was sound, but over the past 25 years this same department has been developed into something which is totally unrecognizable today. It has been developed into something which the people of 25 years ago only dreamt about. In spite of all the technological means of aid available, the number of officials increased to such an extent that their numbers have more than doubled. The department has been so reorientated that the people of 25 years ago will not be unable to recognize it today at all. The department has been streamlined and is definitely far more efficient. For example, we have in mind specialized institutes of which there are not less than ten today and which are simply doing a wonderful job. We have in mind education and the students in agriculture. In 1947 there were only 304 students, when there was plenty of work for these people and also more opportunities. In spite of all these things, we have succeeded in increasing the number of students at our colleges to 485 today.

If I consider the achievements in the field of breeding in this country, I can only describe them as phenomenal. One need only call to mind such crops as wheat, maize and potatoes. I only want to mention a few of the varieties released recently. In the case of potatoes there are the Vanderplank and the Cedara varieties as well as two others. In the field of plums there are the Sungold and Harris Pickston. In the case of peaches we have quite a number of additional varieties such as Golden Dawn, Sunray, etc. In the case of strawberries there are Robyn, Karmyn, Klaradyn and others. Next on the list are new wheat varieties: Flammex, Quarta, Skemer, Bertha and Bella. There are 29 South African types of hybrid maize appearing on the list of varieties. All these developments have taken place only in the course of the past few years.

I should imagine that if one were to mention all these names in the course of a discussion with an old farmer of 1948, he would become confused and might even think that one was pulling his leg. The industry has shown so much progress over the past 25 years that if the past half-century is considered, the first half, from 1922 to 1948, compares so poorly with the second period from 1948 up to the present, that historians will describe it as the golden quarter-century of the country. My time is very limited but I should like to furnish hon. members with a few figures.

The gross value of agricultural production was R357 million in 1947. In 1972 it was R1 657 million. When compiling an index figure we have a basis for comparison and according to the criteria of that basis, one gets an index figure of 67 for 1947 as against an index figure of 169 for 1972. This is truly an achievement The farmers and their organizations have progressed and the other day this was very ably indicated by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. He said that co-operative societies have grown into giant organizations. Agricultural organization has developed and realized the dreams of such people as Dr. Giepie Rossouw, the then president of the South African Agricultural Union. I have in mind, for example, the marketing boards, which have grown up from shaky little organizations into organizations which today have introduced orderliness into marketing to the benefit of the whole country.

Whose Act was that?

It was an excellent Act and we want to thank the United Party for it. The efficiency of the South African farmer in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture by means of agricultural organizations, including marketing organizations and the regulatory hand of the State, has been to the benefit of the South African consumer. That is why South Africa is one of the countries which produces the cheapest food in the world. We mention these things not out of false pride or because we want to boast; we do not mention these things for the sake of bragging, but we do like to mention them as facts by way of survey. We mention these things out of gratitude; we mention these things in humility because many faults remain to be rectified. Mistakes have been made over the period of 25 years—there is no doubt about that. I understand it is only the United Party that does not make mistakes. We on our side should like to regard agriculture in future as an industry on which rests the heavy burden of feeding the people and performing the task which lies ahead and to do so as one partnership in which the following bodies and people should be included: the Ministry of Agriculture, officialdom as a whole and in all its facets, the farmers and the agricultural organizations, including the marketing boards and the co-operative societies as well as other bodies concerned with agriculture. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what was said by those hon. members who congratulated the hon. the Deputy Minister on his appointment. But as a matter of fact I expected better of him than what I heard from him today. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself farms on a large scale; he is a practical man, but all we heard at this stage was a paean of praise for the department and the Minister.

Hear, hear!

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister still says “hear, hear!”, while he himself forms part of the department.

You can leave me out.

All the measures mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister, whether they were the Marketing Act, or the establishment of the first marketing boards, were in fact initiated by this party. If the hon. the Deputy Minister now wants to say that the farmers are so prosperous in this country under the policy of this Government, I want to tell him that there are few countries in the northern or the southern hemisphere where there are more insolvencies amongst farmers than is the case in South Africa.

Give examples.

There are few countries in the world where we have a similar situation, so much so that in fact we have a whole team of financial organizations which have to assist the farmers. In spite of this, half of the applications made by applicants for agricultural credit are turned down. As far as the department is concerned they are no longer “savable”. I do not want to spend too much time on the speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I thought that he was going to talk about agriculture and not just sing a paean of praise. He has now finished singing it, and he is welcome to it. I should like to use my turns to speak to deal with three facets of agriculture, facets which I believe have not been dealt with yet but which, to my mind, are very important.

The first is that the hon. the Minister thought fit to appoint a committee in regard to marketing. We all know the terms of reference of his investigation. One thing which was not included in the terms of reference of his investigation is agricultural financing. Because I regard it as such an important facet for the progress of agriculture, I want to speak now about agricultural financing. I do not want to make political capital out of this matter. When we deal with agriculture and its advancement, we are fortunate enough to be dealing with an hon. Minister who can talk frankly and is able to understand reason and give one a straight answer. It is not necessary for me to play politics with this matter, nor do I want to do so. When I discuss agricultural financing, I want to say to the Minister that the establishment in this country of an agricultural financing corporation, or whatever we might want to call it, under which all agricultural financing would fall, is long overdue. At this stage we have the Land Bank, which is doing a wonderful job of work, but which on the one hand is dependent on the State for its money at a low rate of interest of 2% and on the other hand must go to the private sector and borrow there the further R700 million or R800 million it requires. To have maintained the levelling of the high and the low rates of interest, rates of interest of 6% and 6½%, is an achievement. This is a reasonable rate of interest in comparison with the other rates of interest on loans, particularly those of merchant banks. For agricultural producers, however, this is by no means a low rate of interest. I can mention many agricultural financing bodies in the rest of the world which undertake financing at a much lower rate of interest, but I do not want to argue this point at this stage. This is the best we can do in this country, because we have to borrow the money on the free market, and even for loans our rate of interest is so high that foreign capital is flooding in. If money has to be borrowed from the private sector at a higher rate of interest we surely cannot expect the rate of interest on loans to producers to be low. I do not, therefore, want to discuss the rate of interest as such at this stage. However, I do want to discuss the necessity for all agricultural financing to be combined and co-ordinated under one organization. Then, too, I want to go further and in this respect as well I do not wish to play politics. It will clearly become necessary for each man who applies for agricultural financing, to maintain his activities within reasonable limits, otherwise it should not be possible for him to become a client of the Land Bank. I know that now I am making an unpopular statement, but how can we expect someone who has for example paid an unrealistically high price for land and finds himself in difficulties, to become a client of the Land Bank? It does not work out like that. We shall succeed to some extent in controlling this situation if there were one agricultural financing organization which would indicate in its policy that it would be prepared to grant loans and render financial assistance where the client who applies for a loan has remained within reasonable limits in regard to his production costs. When I refer to reasonable limits, I am referring in the first place to the price of land, which is always the most important item in a farmer’s production costs. If a farmer has paid too much, I do not think that any institution, State institution or whatever the case may be, should finance him, nor should he expect to receive assistance. When someone has acted so unrealistically and landed himself in difficulties, he cannot expect assistance from a financial body. This would have another beneficial effect, as well. I see that my time is going to expire before I can state my case in full, but I should just like to mention that to some extent this would balance and control the situation in so far as unrealistic prices of land are concerned. The hon. the Minister knows what would happen, even under these circumstances. This may not happen this year simply because wool as well as meat has risen in price to such an extent, but if the position were to remain like this for two years, the value of those same grazing lands will soar. Surely we know what may happen in one or two or four years’ time—then both may be back at ground-level again. Then those very same clients who paid such high prices for the land, are going to come back to the Land Bank. That is why I want to make a very earnest plea for us to put our heads together and give consideration to having, instead of two agricultural financing corporations, namely the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit, only one agricultural financing corporation which would cover everything and would have a moderating influence on production increase. It is most important that we in South Africa should learn something about the agricultural economy which my hon. friend, the hon. member for Albany, has referred to. I cannot say that there should be more schools and more lectures, because there are many methods which could be employed, but it is essential that the young farmers in particular, as well as the old farmers who have made mistakes and are still doing so, should learn what agricultural economy is, what he as a farmer may do and ought to pay, how he can protect himself, how he should produce and what he should produce, and so forth. All these aspects can fall under the auspices of one financing corporation or financing body, which could exercise some degree of influence over these matters. I do not suggest that it will be in a position to exercise all the necessary influence because many measures will have to be taken before we get the farmer in our country to realize that he should produce economically, quite apart from the temporary fluctuations in prices, which soar one day and are low the day after. Surely this is done in other countries too. There one finds the situation that the value of land is exorbitant just because the price of one of the commodities on the market has soared temporarily and has dropped later. It is to that end, therefore, that I very strongly suggest that it is time for us as farmers to discuss this matter across the floor of this House. But just do not say that this is our policy and that we have been advocating it for so many years. We must develop a method according to which all of us in South Africa—and that includes myself—can learn to farm economically and not pay high prices for land just because the market is at a temporary high.

I should like to deal with another aspect if I have any time left. It is as essential that we should use the farmer’s money to invest in the Land Bank or in an agricultural financing corporation of this kind. Methods should also be employed to enable the farmer to invest his savings with the Land Bank. Many of them possess savings and they invest these in building societies all over the place but not with the Land Bank. If methods could be employed to make the farmer’s investments with the Land Bank tax-free, we shall receive that assistance from the farmers as well. If not only the boards, but also the farmers are allowed to invest with the Land Bank, more funds would be made available for our own agricultural financing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City said that we should not play politics with agriculture in this House. There is a very good reason why the hon. member for East London City says this. He is aware of the fact that they have no defence in this House against the arguments of the hon. the Minister and members on this side. Outside this House, however, the United Party is chronically engaged in discrediting the agricultural policy of this party. As far as I am concerned, the hon. member for East London City also cast a reflection on the Land Bank. The Land Bank’s valuations are based on agricultural values and not on market values. When one looks at the report of the Land Bank, it is interesting to note that there are very few bad debts affecting the Land Bank. The agriculturists in this country are honourable people; the number of bad debts is minimal.

In the first place, Sir, allow me to congratulate the hon. the Minister very sincerely on this appointment. In 1966, after an election in which we crushed the United Party, we came here together. He was my bench-mate on the back benches. Despite the fact that he caused me quite a few grey hairs, I want to say with great loyalty that I am exceptionally proud of him as Minister of Agriculture.

Hear, hear!

My wish for him is, since his surname is Schoeman, that he will enjoy the same respect from the farmer in South Africa as that which Mr. Schoeman, the Minister of Transport, enjoys from the railway worker in South Africa. That is, to be specific, that the railway worker takes it upon himself to criticize his Minister. It is my wish that the agriculturist in South Africa will retain the right to criticize the Minister, but will not allow other people, for example the members of the United Party sitting here in front of me, to disparage him. The agriculturists in South Africa have a particularly heavy responsibility. They are responsible for the production of a primary product, the basic food. Now it is a fact that in our country with its varying climatic conditions, farming is a very difficult industry. Although I am not involved in the industry, I share in the ups and downs of the agricultural industry. It is an industry where efficiency must definitely be placed first and foremost for farming operations to be successful. The price increases which occurred with the approval of the Government, were completely justified and fair towards the agriculturist. These increases must be seen from the consumer’s point of view. Now it is unfortunately so that when there is an increase in this industry, it has a direct effect on the consumer. The agriculturist was entitled to these increases. However, it is essential that the cost structure and cost increases in this industry be limited to a minimum, in order to make the industry profitable for the agriculturist. In this process I see the co-operative movement in South Africa as one of the most important factors which will enable the agriculturist to enjoy a sound income. If we do not entrench the co-operative movement in South Africa, we shall encounter problems. Today my own M.K.T.V. in Rustenburg is, as far as the tobacco industry is concerned, a jewel among co-operative societies. In the course of the past two years they have managed, through efficiency, to decrease the unit costs considerably. Despite inflation the M.K.T.V. has managed, through the loyalty of its members and that of its directors and staff, to decrease the unit costs of handling. The M.K.T.V. has also had other achievements. It was founded in 1909. The industry enables the aged who retire, to receive compensation which enables them to live a decent life. We must guard against tendencies to undermine the co-operative concept. Because I am not an active farmer today, I can afford to say that the private dealer in South Africa must guard against the undermining of the co-operative concept. This co-operative movement enables the agriculturist to produce efficiently and, because of that, to make a profit which gives him buying power which he, in turn, spends at the private dealer. In various directions in the agricultural industry which is growing and developing economically, the co-operative movement is a prerequisite. What should be a motivation not only for the farmer, but also for the people of South Africa, is that efficiency should be placed first and foremost and that the co-operative concept in the agricultural industry should be encouraged so as to entrench the future of the agricultural industry as an important industry.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg pointed out that the co-operative movement played a very important part in regard to the tobacco industry. I agree with him wholeheartedly for I believe that the emergence of the tobacco industry in South Africa is indissolubly connected with the emergence of the co-operative movement in South Africa. What the farmer does individually on his farm he does collectively in his co-operative. The co-operative is the farmer and the farmer is the co-operative. That is why I am so glad that we have a Minister of Agriculture whose heart beats in harmony with the heart of the rural population and that he is also a great advocate of the co-operative movement. Someone who acts detrimentally towards the co-operative movement in any way whatsoever or who does the co-operative movement a disservice, is undeniably doing the farmer in South Africa a disservice. The co-operative movement has achieved a great deal, as the hon. member said. About 30 years ago I myself started as a tobacco farmer at Brits, and in difficult times of crisis it was the farmer who acted through his co-operative who faced up to that crisis. I am thinking, for example, of the time we were faced with a chronic surplus, and also of the time when we had a shortage. Later on there were the plagues and diseases with which we had to contend. In this connection I think of the research that had to be done. Here the co-operatives joined forces with the State; they acted together to combat those plagues, such as powdery mildew. But I think especially of the time when we were faced with a chronic surplus, and when we had to switch over from the poor, old type of tobacco to the right type of quality tobacco with which we built up an export market. This was due to the collective action of the tobacco farmers.

But, Sir, I did not really rise to discuss this today. I rose to address a few words to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I have often seen that when this Minister of Agriculture has to contend with many difficulties, he is a great supporter of the tobacco industry. I have seen him walk out of the Chamber with his pipe, and I have seen him enjoying himself filling and smoking his pipe behind the Speaker’s chair. Sir, I may just say that this was outside the Chamber and not in the Chamber; I want to give you that assurance! The two Ministers Schoeman in this House have two things in common. The one was referred to a short while ago. As far as the other is concerned, I refer to the handsome container here in the House which is filled with snuff. I have noticed Mr. Schoeman, the Minister of Transport, always passing by this container when leaving the Chamber and helping himself to some of its contents when he is faced with difficult problems. This is a great honour he does to the tobacco industry. I think that handsome container, that snuff-box, contains the only agricultural product used here in the House. This just goes to show you the high esteem in which the tobacco industry is held in South Africa. That is why, when the tobacco farmers were in trouble this year, steps were taken to protect their interests. It is not my intention now to give a pathetic description of the terrible disaster by which our tobacco farmers were struck this year. Hon. members saw it in the newspapers. The hon. the Minister and the members of the Cabinet also saw the pictures which showed how the beautiful tobacco crop was almost totally destroyed, virtually within half an hour’s time. That crop, which had shown such promise and on which the hopes of the tobacco farmers had been set, was almost totally destroyed. I would not like to describe that state of mind experienced by our people. They were virtually plunged into a state of crisis. Since 1939 those farmers had been building up what we call “assurance” to eliminate the risk factor to some extent, for this is a very delicate industry. But overnight this industry was struck not only by hail damage, but also by damage caused by other calamities. For that reason I am now raising this matter on behalf of the tobacco farmers. The other day I attended one of the biggest meetings I have attended in 30 years, and I attended those M.K.T.V. meetings every year. More than 800 people were gathered there. At that meeting there was really a feeling of gratitude to the Minister. If they are as unanimous as this at the next meeting, nothing will be left of the United Party; of this I can assure you, Sir. [Interjections.] Do not put me off my stroke now; I am in a very genial mood today. I am filled with gratitude when I think back to that great disaster, and how the Minister of Agriculture, together with the Minister of Finance and the Cabinet, gave the tobacco farmers R1.4 million in their hour of need. What is more, an increase in tobacco prices was announced, which has already been referred to by the secretary of our tobacco group, the hon. member for Rustenburg. A 25% increase in tobacco prices was granted, the biggest increase the tobacco farmer in South Africa has ever had. We are very grateful for the way in which this was done. Nor can it be otherwise, for if the tobacco farmers are in trouble, our economy will also be in trouble. [Interjections.] Why are you laughing now? One does not laugh like that at the truth. If you do not take care I shall smoke you out in a minute and really make things hot for you! [Interjections.] I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just want to bring home the fact that the Treasury is a big shareholder in the tobacco industry. Last year we supplied the Treasury with more than R12 million in indirect excise duties. To any Minister of Finance this is almost a golden goose. It is the best indirect average taxation you can get, and it is something you can also justify then for certain social reasons.

But I am thinking, too, of the way in which we built up an export market. When we had large supplies of unmarketable tobacco in 1928, we had to set fire to some of it; that was how big the surplus was. Then Mr. Havenga, the then Minister of Finance, said: “You have the wrong type of tobacco.” Then the farmers switched over to the right type of tobacco, to tobacco of the right quality. We built up an export market and over the past five years we have earned R37,6 million in foreign exchange for our fatherland; the tobacco farmer is a patriotic farmer, as all farmers are.

I am very glad, Sir, that I have been able to avail myself of this opportunity, on behalf of the tobacco farmers in the areas of the M.K.T.V. which have been so badly stricken, to express my thanks for the fact that the hon. the Minister acted in such a sympathetic way. The word “Christian” was used a short while ago, and I want to say that the hon. the Minister really shows Christian sympathy. He did not only pay empty lip service; he turned it into a mighty deed. He gave us R1,4 million, as well as a 25% increase in tobacco prices. We are much better off now under this National Government than under a United Party Government.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on what was said by the hon. member who has just spoken. I do not think he expects me to do so either, for when he said that one did not laugh at the truth, he turned round and said, “Not so?” That is bad enough, of course, but when he said that he was going to smoke us out and make things hot for us, I thought that he was not a smoker, after all! He went further and spoke of tobacco that had been set fire to. What else does one do with tobacco? Of course, there is one exception to which the hon. member did not refer, and that is chewing-tobacco. He told us about the Minister of Agriculture enjoying a smoke outside the Chamber and about Minister Ben Schoeman using snuff at the back of the Chamber, but what he did not tell us was that he liked having a chew around the corner every now and again. This is the only form in which he enjoys his tobacco. But I think the farmers of Rustenburg are grateful for the fact that chewing tobacco is in demand now. Sir, I just mention this in passing.

I should like to discuss another aspect in general. In the first place I know that the Minister, as a practising farmer, knows that South Africa is not a rich agricultural country. We have tremendous problems. Our soil is poor; the hon. the Minister knows that we do not only have poor soil, but that we have climatic conditions which make things difficult for the farmer in South Africa. We have rain, in abundance sometimes, and we have droughts, also in abundance. South Africa is probably the only country in the world which has an Act called “The Farmers’ Drought and Flood Relief Act”; a contradiction, but nevertheless true. In addition, Sir, we have a warm climate, as a result of which our humus is burnt practically every summer, particularly here in the Western Province. I assume that this is also the case where the Minister farms; he must know this. Where one has all these difficulties such as droughts, floods, hot sun, stock diseases, etc., one would like to eliminate as many as possible of the other things which can make the farmer’s life even more unpleasant. It is a fact that the rural areas are being depopulated as a result of several factors. One of the factors may be the fertility of our soil. Sir, it is quite interesting to compare the production in other countries with the production in our country. I do not know whom I am to congratulate in this regard —I think it is the Department of Agricultural Technical Services—but I see that the position has improved slightly in recent times. But let us take the production of wheat per hectare in South Africa as compared with the production per hectare in the rest of the world. In France the production is 2 080 kg per hectare, in Italy 2 030, in West Germany 2 800, in East Germany 3 010, in Russia 1150, in England 3 080, and in South Africa 560. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that these few figures are very illuminating. Let us look at the position in regard to the production of maize. The production of maize in America is 3 250 kg per hectare as against South Africa’s 1 010 kg.

Tell us what their soil is like.

That is what I said; does the hon. member not understand this language? The difficulty with which we have to contend is that we are a poor country as far as agriculture is concerned. As I said, the position has now improved slightly. The only way of which I know to increase production, apart from better cultivation and improved technical knowledge, is by using more artificial fertilizer; and when we speak of the use of fertilizer, I want the hon. the Minister to compare the fertilizer position in South Africa with the fertilizer position in England, to take a country we know. Let us see what the Government there is doing and what our Government here is doing as far as fertilizer is concerned. Sir, at the beginning of this session a question was put to the Minister of Economic Affairs in connection with the price of fertilizer in this country. He was also asked whether he was aware of the fact that agreements in regard to the production as well as the distribution of fertilizer had been entered into here between the various fertilizer companies. The Minister of Economic Affairs replied that he was not aware of this. Sir, the Minister of Agriculture is aware of it, is he not?

Yes, I am.

I want him to talk to the Minister of Economic Affairs, for he is aware of this and the Minister of Economic Affairs is not. I put this request to the Minister of Agriculture, our Minister. I just want to tell him that we love him, although this may not always seem to be the case. We like him, but we do not want to praise him too much, for then some of his colleagues will discover that he has already become a supporter of the United Party, but that he is just too scared to admit it. I just mention this in passing, and the hon. the Deputy Minister should not be so pleased at my saying this of the Minister, in the hope that this Minister will be fired and that he will then take over his office; he will come over to us together with the Minister, for he, too, is a practical, practising farmer. Sir, I say that the time has come for the Minister to go into this whole question of the production and distribution of fertilizer. The Minister told us that the only way in which he could bring down the price of fertilizer was by means of subsidies or price control. Sir, we know the subsidies that are paid in this country; let me read out a few to you: The subsidy on urea is R9-89 a ton, but on the other hand the railways rebates that used to be granted have been taken away, with the result that the farmers are no better off. On CNP the subsidy is R6-73 a ton, but on the other hand the railage rebate, which used to be 90%, has been taken away. Then I come to the subsidy on phosphate: On super phosphate the subsidy was R4-48; on double super it was R10-58. Sir, the point I want to make is this: If we want to compete with England, to mention just one country, which is now a member of the E.E.C., and our position in regard to fertilizer and our low production per hectare remains as it is, it will be a physical impossibility for the South African farmer to compete. I want the hon. the Minister to go into these agreements that are entered into. We have been told across the floor of the House that fertilizer companies are allowed 13% for marking up profits. The profit they were allowed was 13,3%, but the same fertilizer company declared a dividend of 20%. This does not seem right to me. Somewhere there must be something wrong.

They get 13% on their investment.

Exactly. I asked them what investment they had in mind. They said that the investment they had in mind was the capital of the company. Now, how can one get only 13% on the capital of the company, while the company pays out a dividend of 20 %? Surely this does not work out. Somewhere there is something seriously wrong, and I think the Minister should go into it, for here you have the biggest monopoly South Africa has ever seen, a monopoly which will not be dangerous, however, if there is sufficient control. Now I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient control. That is all, Sir. I do not want to take the matter too far. But there are other aspects of farming which make things impossible for us. They do not fall under this Minister. This Minister is a practising farmer and he will understand the position. But take the position of the labourer, the Coloured man and the Black man, on farms in this country today. I suggest that as the rural areas are being depopulated of farmers, they are also being depopulated of Coloured labourers. The younger and better type of labourer is moving to the cities, and I do not blame them, for the farmer is not enabled today to provide facilities in any way comparable to those the industrialist can offer him in the cities. Because we do not have the profits we cannot provide them. There is another point, the question of housing. This minister must see to it that the farmer is able to give his farm-labourers houses of the same quality and on the same conditions as those provided by the industrialist to his employees in the cities. [Time expired.]

In rising today to make a contribution in this debate I want to advocate to the Minister that we should assist the farmers in their struggle for existence and that we should arm the farmers with knowledge so that they may emerge victorious from this struggle. Like the hon. member for Albany, I believe that the greatest deficiency in agriculture today is the lack of managerial knowledge on the part of farmers. But the hon. member for Albany stated this case in such a clumsy manner that I have no option. I shall try to formulate the same subject more clearly to the Minister. I believe that the training in agriculture today concentrates too much on technical production instead of on economics. If the farmer finds himself in an economic desert today in the midst of surpluses in almost every field of agriculture, I want to ascribe it directly to an agricultural training policy which concentrates too much on technical production instead of on economics. In saying this I do not want to make any reproaches and I do not want to level any accusations, but I mention these things because this is a fact of which we must take cognisance. I readily concede that there was in fact a time when a knowledge of technical agronomy and stock-breeding practices was sufficient to enable the farmer to make a good living on his farm, but that was years ago when the farmer was still self-sufficient and when production costs did not play the part they play today. But since then there has been a development from subsistence economy to the sophisticated market economy, where production costs and the prices of products are of overriding importance. It is not enough today to have knowledge only of technical production methods. That used to be the solution, but today the modem farmer has to make a success of his farming operations by making a profit. It is no use increasing and improving production. Today the difference between input and output is the decisive factor. If the modem farmer aims at physical maximum production today instead of at the economic optimum, he may find that he has had a record crop on his farm but has nevertheless suffered a financial loss.

The farmer of today is not a stockbreeder or agronomist. No, the farmer of today is an entrepreneur. He is a manager of his farm. If we train him, we should not train him to be an agronomist or stock-breeding expert, but we must train him for his task as a manager. We must train him to be an entrepreneur on his farm. When the farmer of today commences his farming operations, he does not begin with an unlimited supply of capital. Capital is short in supply, and that capital he must apply in such a way as to enable him to realize the maximum profit from it. For what reason we must arm the young farmer with economic training when he starts farming, so that he may have financial success, for this is the decisive factor today.

I readily concede that a background knowledge of agricultural techniques is indeed essential, but if we over-emphasize these aspects, if we make them the central theme in the training program, we are most certainly aggravating one of the biggest problems in agriculture today. Therefore I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that the syllabi at agricultural colleges and training centres should be oriented more towards economic management. I want to make this very clear. It is not enough for economic management training allegedly to have its rightful place within a broad framework of agricultural technical training. No, the training must be training in economic management, and within that framework we must build in an agricultural background.

If I may criticize the universities, I find no fault as far as the syllabi themselves, their presentation and content are concerned. However, I want to criticize in all sincerity the guidance in respect of these syllabi. We must bring home to the prospective agricultural student the fact that certain courses are offered to train specialists in certain subjects, but if a young man wants to be a farmer himself, he must choose a study course which concentrates on economic management, for this is what he will be on his farm—a manager. He will not be a researcher, after all; he will not be a specialist on agronomy or stock-breeding on his farm. After all, he is going to be a manager, and if we train him, we must train him specifically to be the manager of his farm. I want to suggest that this guidance should be extended to the parents as well, so that they, too, may know which course is suitable for the training of the young man for his task as entrepreneur on and manager of his farm. It is only when we are able to equip our young farmers with management expertise that we shall be able to extricate agriculture from its predicament. It is only when we are able to turn our young farmers into businessmen that we shall be able to stabilize a prosperous farming community in South Africa.

In the limited time still available to me I should like to raise another and quite a different matter. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it has now become clear that there is uncertainty about the question as to whether permission was obtained from the British sovereign at the time to call the Natal Show the “Royal” Show. So I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister withdraw the subsidy to that show, which is in the region of R2 600, until such time as it has been ascertained whether permission was in fact granted for this or until such time as it has become a fully South African show.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to dwell for a moment on a few remarks made by the hon. member for Newton Park. This member, as well as the hon. member for King William’s Town, asked whether the Government was aware of the population increase, or the population explosion, as he called it, and what the position by 1980 and by the year 2000 would be. Surely this is a very naïve question. How can one ask such a question? The Government is not only thoroughly aware of this, but it is also making projections to determine the demands that will be made on the South African agriculture in future. The Government is thoroughly aware of all these matters. The Government knows that if we are to provide for the meat requirements of the country by 1980, we shall need 3,3 million cattle carcasses. The Government also knows that in order to provide for those requirements by 1980, we shall need 18 million sheep and two million pigs a year. We also know that if the present production tendencies continue, there will be a shortage of approximately 1,3 million cattle carcasses a year and most probably a shortage of five million sheep carcasses a year.

What are you going to do about it?

I shall come to that. If we take the projections further, we know that the South African population by the year 2000 will be approximately 56 million. If the present per capita consumption continues, we know that by the year 2000 between five and six million cattle carcasses, between 24 and 36 million sheep carcasses and between three and four million pig carcasses will be required. This means that not only the farmer of South Africa, but also the Government of this country will be presented with a tremendous challenge. Apart from the problems we shall have in supplying red meat, we shall also have problems in supplying sufficient food with a high protein content. The principal foodstuffs in this category are red meat, white meat and fish. The extent to which the South African food resources will be able to cope with this enormous demand cannot be determined now. Every means is being put into operation now to meet that tremendous challenge with which we are faced. The authorities are thoroughly cognisant of these future requirements and they are planning accordingly. I am convinced that the farmers of South Africa will face up to this challenge and that they will succeed in meeting it, provided that two prerequisites are complied with. The first is that they must get a good price for food. The second is that there must be sufficient facilities for marketing the products of the farmer. What has the Government done in this connection? In the first place there is the question of the price. It is very easy for the hon. member for King William’s Town to take on here about prices, but he knows, after all, that as far as meat is concerned we are dealing with a floor price scheme. It has been said repeatedly that this scheme is a scheme of free supply and demand with auctions on the hook. The control board only announces the floor prices and buys up the meat if the market is below the announced floor prices. I want to ask the hon. member for King William’s Town whether he would have wanted the hon. the Minister to announce a price higher than the auction prices at the time. I ask this because we are dealing with a market of supply and demand, after all. One was also struck by the fact that the chief spokesman of the Opposition, the hon. member for Newton Park, only referred to meat briefly in a few lines. The problem is that the Opposition is again finding itself in the age-old dilemma where the one is asking for price increases while the other raises a hue and cry about the high meat prices. This is what happened during the Second Reading debate, when the hon. member for Salt River and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens complained about the exorbitant meat prices. Today the hon. member for King William’s Town is speaking from the opposite point of view. I want to thank the Minister very much today for the considerable increase in the meat prices. Has any hon. member on the other side thanked the Minister for this? All I have heard is complaints about the high floor prices. They do not say what they should be, however, and no one has thanked the Minister. In an auction scheme such as I have mentioned one cannot announce a higher price than one’s current auction price. The announced floor prices are approximately 15% lower than the auction prices, which we consider to be a very good percentage. In addition, the hon. the Minister has also retained the support scheme, and we cannot thank him enough for the support price scheme he has introduced. It prevents these tremendous price fluctuations in the markets every day. I hope that the current floor prices, which have already been announced, will provide more incentive to the farmer in South Africa to increase our beef and total red meat production.

I now come to a further point, namely facilities. Restrictions in the past have understandably discouraged production. How can a farmer produce if he does not have the market facilities? But what did this Government do? This Government had the matter thoroughly investigated and appointed an Abattoir Commission. Positive attempts were made to establish abattoir facilities. The Abattoir Commission was also authorized to build abattoirs itself. Negotiations with the municipalities have produced results. In Durban, for example, the Abattoir Commission has decided to build an abattoir itself, at Cato Ridge. In Johannesburg the Abattoir Commission is going to build at City Deep. The following abattoirs have already been taken over by the Abattoir Commission: Germiston, Benoni and Springs. In Pretoria considerable improvements have already been made by the municipality, but the Abattoir Commission itself is also going to build here at a later stage and a site has already been purchased for this purpose. In addition, improvements have been made in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Bloemfontein, and the municipalities of Kimberley, East London and Krugersdorp are investigating the possibility of building their own abattoirs. These are decided improvements which have been made in the facilities for producers. A further announcement by the Minister which we welcome is that permission has been granted to six companies to proceed with the establishment of private abattoirs. It is hoped that these abattoirs will be completed within two or three years. The farmer must be sure that he has the facilities, then he will be encouraged to increase his production. This in itself is not the only reason why I know that the farmers will meet the demands of the future. When we look at the Meat Board’s report for 1971-’72, and specifically at the supply of cattle, we see that in 1938-’39 the index figure was 100. In the year 1955-’56 the index figure was 159. In 1938-’39 the index figure in respect of lambs, sheep and goats was also 100, but by 1955-’56 the supply of these had increased to 120 in controlled areas. The total supply of cattle had increased from 100 to 177. In that year it was also announced that a new scheme had been introduced, that the old scheme of full control up to the consumer had been abolished and that a scheme of auctions on the hook had been introduced. Since those years we have had a considerable increase in this index figure. The total figure has increased from 177 to 288, an increase of 111 points in a corresponding period of 16 years. This in itself proves that when farmers are encouraged, they do not lack initiative.

I want to tell the producers of South Africa that they must continue, in co-operation with the Minister and his department, to produce the necessary red meat for South Africa, for it is still possible to make much better and more judicious use of our pasture. We can increase our percentage of calves. At the moment it is not even 50% in South Africa, compared with 90% in America. Secondly, we can lower the marketing age in South Africa. We find that in the United States they market the calves when they are between 15 and 20 months old. In this country they are marketed when they are between 28 and 30 months old. As far as intensive stock-feeding is concerned, the United States had 10 million head of cattle in feeding stations as far back as 1955. By 1971 this figure had increased to 26 million, which represents 80% of the meat supply of the United States. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom comes from a United Party home, for just as the United Party has always done, he pleads for better educational facilities, something which the United Party has been advocating for years. In every provincial and in every general election we advocate that twice as much should be spent on education in agriculture and in the schools. Now we see that the Nationalist Party is joining us by the mouth of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. As a gesture, just to show that he remains a Nationalist, he attacked the Royal Agricultural Show near the end of his speech, just to pay lip service to the Nationalist Party.

The hon. member for Vryburg also agrees that the farmers should be properly remunerated on the basis of production costs plus an entrepreneur’s wage.

That I did not say.

We are sure that if the farmer is properly remunerated he will in fact produce the commodities. That is what was said by the hon. member for Vryburg as well. There we agree with him whole-heartedly.

But he is getting it now.

The farmers of South Africa have one of the most impossible responsibilities to meet, i.e. keeping down the cost of living in the country. In the first place they have to feed all of South Africa in an economic manner by making their products available at low prices, so that the cost of living to the consumer may be kept down. Then the farmer has to contend with constantly increasing production costs, but at the same time he must remain economically independent and self-supporting. These are the demands that are made on the farmers today. I think the demand for food will more than double within the next 20 years, as a result of the tremendous population increase and as a result of the fact that a larger percentage of the non-White population will be able to afford and will want to buy meat, dairy products, vegetables and fruit. A factor which complicates the demands made on the White farmer in particular is the fact that approximately 90% of the agricultural land in the areas with a rainfall of more than 500 mm are Bantu homelands, where the production is particularly low. So there will be a growing temptation to over-exploit our natural resources of land, soil and water. This is the problem we are faced with. Already there are serious problems with lixiviated and brackish soil, overgrazed land contaminated with weeds, and intruding vegetation and water shortages are evident everywhere. The aim must be: Maximum production without soil or veld deterioration. This is a tremendous challenge to the Department of Agriculture. I know that they are thoroughly aware of this. No wasteful exploitation can be allowed or tolerated in the farming sector in South Africa. It is in the light of this that we see the stock reduction scheme as a good and positive attempt to arrest the deterioration of the grazing land. So the Soil Conservation Act, as well as the Soil Protection Division, has our full support. The support given to the scheme by the farmers exceeds all expectations. In all, 7 648 farmers have participated in the scheme. They were the owners of 28 863 000 ha of land from which the stock has been withdrawn. Of the estimated 3 million units of small stock redundant in South Africa, approximately 5 million will be withdrawn in future. I know that no further participation in this scheme after 29th February, 1972, is being considered. At the end of February, 1972, an amount of approximately R8 850 000 had already been paid out. We believe that there are positive advantages attached to the scheme. In order to achieve veld improvement, lighter grazing is definitely necessary, together with pasture rotation to support it. This is the most efficient way of restoring the veld. I have experienced this myself on my farms. Stock reduction is definitely the most efficient way. Within a very short time the veld responds and improves. One is constantly surprised at what is achieved by this method, even in those arid regions. The industrious and dedicated farmer who has heavy mortgages covered by insurance is assisted by the scheme in reducing his stock and still maintaining a reasonably high income level in order to meet his obligations. To me this is one of the very important advantages of this scheme. It helps to keep the young farmer on the land in spite of his obligations. It also assists him in restoring his land. It makes the farming concern more resistant to drought and prevents high expenditure on drought forage. The scheme also has great educational advantages, for many farmers have seen their lambing and calving percentages improve, have seen the downward trend in the death rate among the livestock and have found that they get a quicker turnover from lambs which are finished for the market at an earlier age and which weigh more. Such a farmer will not easily return to the old farming methods. I believe that he has become a lifelong supporter of veld conservation. I should like to request the hon. the Minister to have an evaluation of veld improvement under the stock reduction scheme carried out every year. I believe that it is not necessary in all the regions to have the land entered under this scheme for a five-year period. There are many areas that are restored to their optimum condition in a much shorter period of time. I feel that one may perhaps streamline this whole scheme to some extent. I should also like follow-up work to be done after the five-year period has expired, when the farmers may carry on their operations on their own again without the discipline of the stock reduction scheme. I believe that most farmers will remain under this discipline, especially if they have experienced the advantages and received a larger income from increased production. However, I know that there are still farmers who will return to their old ways. It will be quite interesting to know what percentage of the farmers will yield again. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister’s approach is in regard to this scheme. Is the Minister going to introduce the scheme again in five years’ time, or is he perhaps considering the introduction of a stock reduction scheme without provision for compensation, which would force the inefficient farmers who overgraze to participate in it? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to express a few ideas about co-operative meat marketing. In view of its organizational composition, it was clear to the farmer that he had created a force and developed a mouthpiece through which he could speak in the common interests of so many thousands of farmers in our country. They have thereby taken joint action to enter the commercial world and to earn the highest income for their products. The idea of co-operative marketing was the foundation stone in driving them together for self-preservation. A hundred years ago a small group of wheat farmers got together, and today the membership of such co-operative societies totals more than one million. In our country co-operative societies developed a few years before the advent of Union, in 1904. In 1922 the Co-operative Societies Act was passed. In 1910 the membership of these co-operative societies was 7 065. Today there are more than 300 000 members of co-operative societies.

As I have already said, the co-operative societies developed to obtain security for the producer’s product. The same applies to livestock and the meat industry. In the years 1929 to 1932 an alarming situation developed in the meat industry. The income from the meat industry was not sufficient to cover the interest on the capital that was invested in the industry. At the time the Government had a thorough investigation instituted by the department. With this investigation it was found that the Johannesburg market, which had to indicate trends and price levels, was in reality not a free market. At that time chaos reigned in respect of the supply of slaughter stock to our large markets. Disordered marketing simply cultivated poverty and bankruptcy. It was the auctioneer who could supply the credit over the longest period and the agents who could take the biggest risks who kept up. Competition was of such a nature that it could not be called competition. Steps had to be taken to increase the farmer’s income and to prevent bankruptcy. At the time the producer simply had to accept the buyer’s offer and in those years the producer simply had no say at all. The farmer had to watch his pride, his labour and his sweat greasing the palms of persons who had not worked for their money. This drove the producer to self-defence. As a result of that we reached the stage where we established the central meat co-operative in 1932, the then Kaapsentraal. The situation was such a difficult one at the time that the Kaapsentraal, a co-operative organization, was established without capital, without a single penny. Since then matters have changed a great deal, and with a steadfast will, faith and confidence in co-operative marketing these organizations reached great heights. In 1932 there were no meat co-operatives, while today there are 36 of them. In 1932-’33 we were only marketing 18 000 sheep and 259 head of cattle. Today we are marketing 656 000 head of cattle annually, 2 200 000 sheep, 250 000 pigs and more than 50 000 calves. The central meat co-operative’s turnover is about R229 million per year. This is really big growth achieved by our co-operative societies over the years. The slaughtering percentage of the central meat co-operative in the controlled areas is today 43% in the case of cattle, 47% in the case of sheep, 34% in the case of pigs and 36% in the case of calves.

Sir, then I just want to say a few words about various aspects affecting the livestock and meat farmers’ marketing interests. I shall mention a few of the benefits which the co-operative movement has brought to the meat farmer: Through the co-operative service a method of handling has been developed. We obtained guaranteed floor prices and support prices, and we obtained a scheme for the marketing of hides and skins. Unparalleled services are being rendered by the co-operative societies on the platteland. The co-operative policy of meat marketing is still in its infancy; it must still be developed for the greater benefit of producers and consumers by every faithful co-operator, something which is indispensable for a sound community and a sound economy. Sir, co-operative meat marketing must still be developed into a co-operative pool system, into a co-operative processing system and into a co-operative distribution system for the benefit of producers and consumers. Then and then only will the producers and the consumers have the full benefit of co-operative ordered marketing. Sir, we have hundreds of marketing agents who keep the farmers in South Africa divided with the slogan that competition is a good thing, and consequently force them to sell their products and not to market them. This is a threat to the economic prosperity of agriculture and thereby also a threat to the economic future of South Africa. Sir, I want to appeal to our meat producers to support their co-operative organization for the sake of self-preservation, because the co-operative marketing system has proved itself to be a friend to both producers and consumers.

Sir, I think that today we have a Minister of Agriculture who is doing wonders for us, and who has the interests of the farmer and the agriculturist at heart. We want to express our thanks and gratitude to him for his action on behalf of the agriculturist and his approach to the problems of agriculture, and we want to say thank you very much to him for the fine things he has already achieved and state that under his guidance we shall go to meet the uncertain future, as far as agriculture is concerned, with great expectations.

I just want to respond briefly to a few statements made here by hon. members of the Opposition. I think it was the hon. member for King William’s Town who lodged a plea here for a crop insurance scheme for agriculture. He expressed criticism because there is no such scheme in operation today. He stated this as if it were a brand new suggestion in this House, but I want to refer him back to 1963 when I myself, together with the then member for Christiana, advocated a production cost insurance scheme or a crop insurance scheme for agriculture in this House. On that occasion we gained no support from the Opposition in that connection. Sir, the hon. member for Walmer spoke here of “a shortage of beef”. I want to quote to him what appears on page 28 of this report. In the first part of this paragraph reference is made to shortages in connection with the supply of beef, etc., and then the paragraph reads further—

Sir, it has irrefutably been proved that the Opposition is completely out of touch with what is taking place in agriculture. But I shall leave the Opposition at that. I want to point out another aspect of the meat industry. I know that a popular misconception prevails to the effect that excessive profit-taking in the industry is one of the biggest causes of the high prices which the consumer must pay for meat. The Opposition has already made tentative, hushed references to a possible subsidizing of this industry. Sir, we know that under the present dispensation it is out of the question to subsidize the price of meat. The National Government is also being blamed for the high prices which the consumer must pay for meat today. Sir, the accusation that there are excessive profit-takings within the industry, and that the National Government is to blame for that, are devoid of all truth. There are various bodies concerned with the question of profit-taking within this industry; the first is the producer; the second is the wholesaler and the third is the retailer. We know that the producer today receives about 65% of the net income which is obtained from the carcass of an animal which is sold on the hook. The wholesaler, as a result of the important task he has to perform, makes about 4% to 8% profit, while the retail butcher makes a profit of 25% to 27%. This 65% means no great profit for the producer, because from that the producer must finance his production costs; he must pay the marketing agent’s commission out of that and he must pay railage, etc. This 65% which the producer collects is his gross income, and in my opinion his net income is very meagre. The wholesaler, who makes a profit of 4% to 8%, has a very important function to fulfil. He must purchase these carcasses on the hook at auctions; he must furnish the meat to the retailer and, in addition, he must also finance the retailer, because these transactions are not always cash transactions. The retailer’s profit margin is 25% to 27% of the consumer price, but the retailers need R15 000 to R20 000 just for the installation of the necessary apparatus; they must pay rent, and their profit is therefore a very meagre one, because 20% of a beef carcass is sometimes offal. I am mentioning this to prove that the allegation that there is excessive profit-taking, is a malicious allegation and that it is not based on facts. For example, take the floor price at which a carcass of beef must be marketed. It varies from 50 cents per kilogram to 70 cents per kilogram, depending upon the grade. As far as mutton is concerned, the floor price varies from 60 cents to 70 cents, and here I want to emphasize that I am very grateful for the fact that a support price has been made applicable to mutton that is sold on the hook, as in the case of beef, where a support price has already, for some considerable time, been made applicable in the interests of meat producers. We heartily want to thank the hon. the Minister for that good step. Sir, it is said that a price of R1-30 or R1-40 per kg for mutton is an excessive price, Sir, if one takes into consideration the fact that certain cuts are sold for 76 cents per kg, one realizes at once that the retail trade does not make a big profit.

Sir, my time is almost up and there is another matter I should like to mention in connection with a telex message which came from the department in February in connection with the steps the Wheat Board wanted to take. It concerns the home industries of the womens’ agricultural unions in our country. Sir, at present there are 16 registered branches; there are 19 other associations, and there are also 36 associations on a co-operative basis. There have been applications from 15, two of which have recently been approved. I should like to quote to the House the contents of this document I have here. It states, inter alia (translation)—

In this I see a threat to the home industry, and I know that the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister are very sympathetically disposed to this Women’s Agricultural Union’s home industries because the quality product which they make available to the town and city housewives for certain occasions, entertainments, etc., is something which the wholesale baker simply cannot compete with. These home industries not only provide the baking, the delicious products, but they also sell vegetables and meat, such as chickens, eggs, etc. They also do needlework which they offer to the public on a small scale in their shops. If these home industries must be curbed at the insistence of these bakers and confectioners and they can no longer furnish this delicious baking, it would deprive not only the housewives of the platteland but also those of the towns and cities who take part in it, of a small but very handy income. After all, these people cannot bake on so large a scale that it could have the slightest adverse effect on the full-fledged bakers and confectioners. Therefore I want to say this afternoon that it is unnecessary for me to lodge a plea with the Minister. I can just say that I appreciate the fact that up to now the hon. the Minister has protected these people, because they are carrying out a tremendous function in the Republic. It is consequently as a result of that that I also want to take this opportunity of saying that not only as far as this facet of agriculture is concerned, but also as far as every other facet is concerned, the farmers of South Africa are right behind this Minister of Agriculture and his deputy.

I should like to reply first to the hon. member for Stellenbosch in regard to the allocation of wine quotas. I think we agree that it is necessary to act very judiciously in regard to the areas in which we want to encourage wine production. But the hon. member has asked whether we should not at this early stage make provision for a possible shortage of wine by allocating larger quotas at this early stage. I wish to add to that that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, in conjunction with some of the control boards has made a great deal of progress with virus free plant material. It has been established that in other countries the existing production on the same land has been increased by 30% and more. That is the direction in which we should develop instead of placing larger areas under vines. We should first utilize the existing vines to the full, with the right root-stock and virus-free material. He also requested that wine should fall under the Department of Agriculture. I do not want to argue with him on that score, because I agree with him completely. My personal feeling is that it would be very sound if one could find a method of making light wines more easily available, and in that way probably reducing the consumption of spirits, particularly by our younger people. The time will probably come when we will be able to obtain a light wine in cafés, instead of drinking brandy and whisky, which is imported, in the bar.

The hon. member for Pretoria District discussed the matter of withholding import permits for machinery when spares are not kept. We shall bring this matter to the attention of the Department of Economic Affairs, which issues the permits. But the exploitation of the public through prices is something which is very important. Several hon. members on both sides referred to this. It is so important that I am grateful that there are various newspapers which publish prices from time to time, particularly of canned products and foodstuffs which are on the shelves. This helps a great deal, for the housewife can see what the price is, and what she should pay for foodstuffs. In addition a request was made to the public to bring such exploitation to the attention of the department so that steps could be taken.

The hon. member for Pretoria District emphasized the important role of co-operatives. It is accepted on both sides of the House that the co-operative system is one of the cornerstones of agriculture.

The hon. member for Aliwal requested a system of long-term credit in agriculture. Various hon. members opposite also asked for this. One of the hon. members opposite referred in passing to the fact that half the farmers could not be assisted. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure was established in 1966, when the old Department of Lands and the Farmers’ Assistance Board were incorporated into it. Since 1966 R20,8 million has been lent to 47 000 farmers in the form of stock fodder loans. An amount of R10,l million was lent to 6 800 farmers for crop production aids. For land purchases an amount of R58,26 million was lent to 2 339 farmers. The total amount which the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure made available to farmers, amounted to R145 million for 67 000 farmers. However, there were also applicants whose applications were refused. One of the hon. members correctly pointed out that it was not possible to help all of them. One of the reasons why it was not possible to help some people was for example that the applicant was not up to it. Hon. members know how the system works. There are local committees which go into the applicant’s application in detail. We allow ourselves to be guided by practical farmers in the vicinity, with the magistrate as the chairman of the local committee. Such a committee then makes a recommendation to the Agricultural Credit Board. It is simply impossible to help all the applicants with loans. In addition we also have to consider the assistance the Land Bank has already made available to an applicant when it comes to long-term financing. At the moment the Land Bank already has a total amount of R289 million outstanding among farmers in the form of long-term mortgage loans, hypothec lands and short-term cash credit loans. These are forms of credit which are covered by means of an insurance scheme.

The hon. member for Walmer requested that the Land Bank should review its scheme of hypothec lands for the purchase of weaning calves. The Land Bank notified me that they have already made a great deal of progress with an investigation in that direction. It is a new production field in agriculture to feed weaning calves. The idea is that hypothec loans should not be granted only for the purchase of stud cows. I am pleased to be able to say that attention is very rapidly being given to this field.

The hon. member for Aliwal also requested that we should hold an agricultural year. [Interjections.] We had a year in which we celebrated the festival of the soil. When the festival was over, all thought of the soil was also over, and we had nothing further to do with it. After that, things went on merrily as before. Festivals of this kind cost between R100 000 and R200 000 per annum. We should rather inculcate in our farmers that every year should be an agricultural year. I do not know whether we should spend the department’s money on such a propaganda campaign What the farmers want from our country is not something like that. The farmers want a decent price for their produce from our country.

Hear, hear!

It seems to me hon. members opposite have undergone a change of heart. I shall come in a moment to how they wanted to do me in because we granted an increase in meat prices.

Such a lot is being said about soil conservation and the protection of the soil. My standpoint is that our tax system is such that if the farmer makes a profit he may make his contours, fence his land and construct his conservation works first, before he has to pay tax. This enables the farmer to make a decent subsistence, and then he can do all this work out of his profits. It is of no avail preaching to a person from morning until night about how he should conserve the soil if he is like a bear with a sore head in any case when he sits down to make a few calculations and finds that there is nothing left. He must make a profit to be able to apply these practices. I hope the hon. member for Aliwal is satisfied with this explanation.

The hon. member for Piketberg discussed bread prices and the wage levels of the Bantu. I was very pleased about his approach. One of the hon. members on this side—I think it was the hon. member for Heilbron—said that the price increase in mealiemeal cost the Bantu six cents per month. If one takes into consideration that the price of bread was increased by two cents, it means that if a family buys one loaf per day, it amounts to an additional expenditure of 60 cents per month. The hon. member also referred to the salary adjustments which completely justify such an additional expenditure.

The hon. member for Bethlehem spoke like a farmer who has both feet planted firmly on the ground. He put forward quite a number of practical suggestions, but when he advocated an increased wheat price, the hon. member for East London City cried out: “Disgraceful.” There is nothing wrong with that. If the production costs of the farmer rise as a result of the rising prices of implements, fuel and spare parts, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the price of the product is adjusted accordingly. The hon. member for King William’s Town stated repeatedly that the Government had reduced the price received by the farmer for a bag of wheat by 20 cents. In reality the price was reduced by 30 cents per bag. In the determination of the price we consider the total crop. This was a situation where we were saddled with a tremendous surplus of wheat.

Do you consider the total crop of a year or two before?

We adjust the price from year to year. There is one thing the hon. member can forget about, however, and that is production costs plus an entrepreneur’s wage. That is what the hon. member for Benoni referred to. It varies from one farm to another, from one district to another and for many of these commodities one cannot have a differentiated price. One will have to have one price, but it is adjusted according to circumstances. I would far rather receive R5 for a bag of wheat when I am harvesting 40 bags per morgen than R7 per bag when I am harvesting five per morgen. After all, I am not stupid. That is the method whereby we determine our prices. That is the reason why there was a downward adjustment last year of 30 cents per bag. I could just inform the hon. member that the storage of that wheat does not cost the farmer or the consumer a cent, for it is borne entirely by the Minister of Finance. The State pays for the storage, the handling …

Where does he get his money from?

From the same source as that from which you want to pay the extra subsidy on foodstuffs. That is where he gets his money from. The hon. member referred to lower extractions, and the wrapping of bread, as well as to cut bread. Since we have now heard all these complaints about the increased subsidies, I could just inform the hon. members that the time may even arrive this year when we will afford the consumer the opportunity of purchasing a cut loaf which has been wrapped and which has a lower extraction without any control being exercised over the price. We now have the position that the smaller, specially baked loaf which falls under the classification of “cake” is sold at 16 cents, and is selling like hot cakes. The people have money. In regard to the man who wants to pay that price for a loaf of bread, if he wants to eat cake three times a day, let him eat it! However, this is the direction in which we are thinking when we think in terms of reducing the subsidy. I shall tell the hon. members what will happen. It will in fact be the less well-to-do person who is going to eat this kind of cake.

I should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the fine contribution which he made in his fine speech on the 25 years the National Party has been in power. We do not play politics here … [Interjections.] … but I do want to say that this is also an opportune moment to congratulate the Opposition. It is truly an achievement to have been in opposition for 25 years. I think that this is the only opposition party which has specialized, and whose members are today experts in the field of being an opposition.

The hon. member for Rustenburg referred to the M.T.G.A. as an example of what a co-operative should be. I should like to add to this that the hon. member for Brits and the hon. member for Rustenburg make representations from time to time on behalf of the tobacco farmers in the country. Their contributions as chairman and secretary of the tobacco group, together with those of the tobacco farmers, make it very difficult for a Minister to say “No”. The adjustment of the price, an adjustment of 25% was in my opinion quite justified, and I think that the tobacco farmers were quite entitled to that contribution of R1,4 million for an emergency situation, for they had never before received State assistance and they have always been great contributors to the State coffers through indirect taxation.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom discussed the economy which is so important. We do not differ from one another at all. The most important section of the syllabus today should be agricultural economy. You can approach a person who has the most beautiful cows and has won all the prizes on the shows. When you ask him what it costs to fatten up the cow to that condition, he will tell you: “I do not know.” When you ask him what his milk production is, he will tell you that it is an average of four gallons per cow for his entire herd. Then you can work out for him that it costs him more than 30 cents per gallon for the force feed he has to provide. He has a wonderful herd of cows, and he wins all the prizes on the shows, in contrast to another fellow who has a herd of tattered old cows, but he is showing a profit. It is the economy of the matter which is so important. One finds farmers in our country today who can tell you precisely what their pick-up trucks cost them per mile. They can tell you: “This is my cost on every item; I cannot buy a new pick-up truck, for it is not justified.” The hon. member for Vryburg discussed the future meat supply.

What about the other plea of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom?

The question of the Royal Agricultural Show? It does not fall under my control. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Vryburg discussed the increase of the floor price, and in that respect the hon. member was entirely happy. Let me state now what the problem in regard to meat production was. We can say to a farmer now: “Here is your floor price; it is guaranteed. We have increased it from 44 cents for grade IAX to 60 cents. We shall ensure that in due course you have enough slaughtering facilities in the country.”—These are all things to which the hon. member for Vryburg referred—. “Now you make your contribution. Put a stop to this 50% calf percentage, put a stop to the trampling of grazing land. We give you the extension services, now take the trouble to look at the tests. We, the Government, are doing our best and in addition have also introduced a support price for you in terms of which the price does not drop by more than 2 cents per day or 4 cents per week.” We are doing all these things to encourage the farmer, and a greater injection than this I cannot imagine for assisting the farmer. The hon. member for Prieska discussed the co-operative marketing of meat and what the situation had previously been. I know the hon. member is a great believer in co-operatives, and I am becoming more and more convinced that the person who injures the co-operative idea in this country in any way, will have the farmers to reckon with. I say thank the hon. member very much for his contribution.

The hon. member for Harrismith discussed the exorbitant prices in the meat retail trade. At present it is true that there are many retail butchers who find themselves in difficulties as a result of the high salaries of blockmen, the hygienic standards of municipalities and also perhaps as a result of over-trading in certain areas. In addition there is the competition from supermarkets. Housewives have changed. Nowadays they want to stop once and make all their purchases under one roof. While she has parking she wants to purchase anything from shoelaces to a head of cabbage, a pumpkin and meat, under one roof. In many cases this hurts the retail butcher. However, we are keeping an eye on this situation.

I want to inform the hon. member that as far as home industries are concerned, we sent out a letter in which we convinced the Wheat Board that the amount of wheat which is being baked by home industries is minimal. There are many housewives in the rural areas who instead of going out to work can bake koeksusters and milk tart in their kitchens, sell them and in this way earn an extra income. I cannot see how there can be any argument in regard to hygiene in this connection. Everyone of us sitting here grew up in the kitchen, and not one of us died. I cannot therefore imagine that there need be any concern from a hygienic point of view. This matter has been settled as far as the Wheat Board is concerned, and will be dealt with in this way.

I come now to the hon. member for Albany. He said there were not enough stock inspectors. He also had a new idea in regard to veterinarians and this is quite in order. I replied to the hon. member on that score. It is the hon. member for Newton Park I have to deal with. The hon. member discussed the allocation of land in regard to the Orange River project. He said we should announce it at this early stage. The final announcement will be made soon; there are still certain surveys which still have to dispose of, and certain talks we still have to have, specifically with the Department of Water Affairs in regard to the cost of water. If the water is too expensive, the unit has to be larger in order to achieve a balance. The hon. member also said that the farmers of Wolmaransstad were coming to the Government, hat in hand, to beg for assistance. Nothing of the kind. I told the hon. member earlier that the farmers simply came together to meet their Members of Parliament …

It was your Rapport which said that.

Yes, that is correct. However, I was there in person, and the farmers did not come to beg. There are no farmers in our country who beg. They simply told me: “Come and see what you think of the situation,” and invited the Members of Parliament to come and see the disaster that had struck them. However, they did not come to beg, definitely not. I think it was wrong of the hon. member to refer to those farmers and say that they had come to beg. Now the hon. member is alleging that we gave them a deferred payment of 50 cents on last year’s crop. That was because we understood the situation. We guaranteed the co-operatives at least R25 million in order to give them loans for their means of production. Now the hon. member is claiming that we do not have any long-term planning and that this is the reason why the farmers came to us hat in hand. A person can have the best long-term planning and the best planning board, one can say that one wants 15 million bags of grain and announce the price at this early stage, but then it does not rain; and in that case it is by no means impossible that we will have only nine million bags of wheat. Hon. members must realize that we do not know, when the farmers sow their seed, how much wheat we are going to harvest. On the other hand, it may happen, if we have announced the price, that we find that the crop is one of 20 million bags, and that we have to export at a loss of R3 per bag, as was the case four months ago. Where must the money come from? On the other hand, the hon. members are fit to be tied when we increase taxation; and then on the other hand they advocate that we should subsidize each of these foodstuffs, although a subsidy of almost R100 million is already being allotted for foodstuffs.

The hon. member for King William’s Town requested that we should standardize tractors. We have discussed this matter on many previous occasions. It is very easy for the hon. member to say that we should standardize our tractors, but he must tell me what tractors we must standardize. Is he prepared to tell the farmers of King William’s Town that they may no longer buy a Fordson or a Massey-Ferguson, because the Government has decided that only three or four specific models may be purchased? In addition, there are already other makes of tractor in the country. There are trade agreements with other countries—you cannot tell a country like Italy that you do not want to allow a single Fiat tractor to be sold in this country. It is not such an easy thing to do.

The hon. member for King William’s Town made a terrible fuss about the wheat price. He said that we heaped scorn on the suggestions made by the United Party. This puts me in mind of the piccanin who came running up—the waggon had passed over Jonah’s head, and Jonah was dead— and said to his master: “Master, the waggon went over Jonah’s head.” The farmer said: “But that is terrible; I am sorry to hear that. And apart from that?”, for the farmer wanted more details. The piccanin then told him: “No, apart from that old Jonah is all right.” It is of no use first arguing and subsequently admitting that we are nevertheless all right. After all, we are still all right if one considers the whole situation. As far as price determinations are concerned, he asked why we waited so long before increasing the floor price. Surely the hon. member is aware of what the circumstances were. Of what use is it increasing the floor price if one does not have slaughtering facilities, if 400 sheep are dying on the Johannesburg market every day because we do not have slaughtering facilities? Of what use is it giving the farmers an increased floor price if, at that stage, there is a surplus of meat?

The hon. member for Albany discussed the determination of production, and this links up with what was said by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. We have an Agricultural Production Economy Division with farm record systems in which 1 400 farmers are participating. We are attempting to expand the system and to get more farmers to participate and send in their statistics, which we could then feed into a computer so that we can advise them as to how they should set to work. Many of the farmers changed over from a loss position to a profit position as a result of this. If only we had more staff we would be able to give far more attention to this division. It is very essential.

The hon. member for East London City said that all aspects of agricultural financing should be dealt with by one organization. The hon. member then went on to say that the person who had paid too much for his land should not qualify; he is not a client of this umbrella organization in which Agricultural Credit and the Land Bank are thrown together. To say to a person today that he paid too much for his land is perhaps incorrect. Land prices are a relative thing. The prices are going to increase even further now; I regret having to say this, but can you tell me what the real agricultural value of land is in every district? If we had to give a person a loan according to the agricultural value of his land we may as well forget about ever giving such a loan; we have to allow the land value to incline a little to the speculative side as well. There are farmers who are today paying R60 per morgen for cattle land. He has to have five morgen for a head of cattle, it amounts to R300 per head. At agricultural credit interest of 5%—but he has to redeem it within 25 years; so it is an effective 8¾%—it already costs him R24 per head. If one then adds the animal as well at R100, and the interest on that, he has to pay R30 per head. Then he can do what he likes but at today’s meat prices with a 50% calf percentage he simply cannot do it. If one wants to apply it in this way, one cannot give anyone a loan for the purchase of land. All these matters have to be approached in a practical way, each on its own merit and in addition to that we are looking after these youngsters. If they are already too old, or are no longer a practical proposition, then we say “No”. It is difficult to lay down a uniform rule.

The hon. member said that the farmers’ investment in the Land Bank should be tax free. This is a commendable idea, but whether we shall ever succeed in doing so, I do not know. However, we could go into it. The hon. member also made certain practical suggestions to which we shall have to give attention. I do not pour scorn on the things which you have suggested because you are a member of the United Party, Uncle John. Because you are a practical farmer I believe that you give us practical suggestions to which we can give attention.

The hon. member for Sea Point then raised another matter. I cannot but agree with the hon. member.

Hear, hear!

The expenditure on fertilizer last year was R114 million. This is one of the highest cost items in agriculture. At present there are for all practical purposes only two fertilizer companies. I shall talk to the Minister of Economic Affairs about this matter. We are giving a subsidy of R15 million in regard to fertilizer which is divided up pro rata, depending on the requirements. If an injection has to be made in respect of nitrogen, potash or super phosphates, the subsidy is adjusted accordingly. However, there is only R15 million available. This is the farmers’ major expense, and when he experiences a drought it is lost. The hon. member discussed the matter of a more intensive application of fertilizer. If we know what our rainfall is going to be we would be able to achieve optimum crops by means of the right fertilization. We have only scratched the surface of fertilization in this country. We shall have to look into this matter. The hon. member also referred to the compensation on investment of 13% by the fertilizer companies, which then announced a dividend of 20%. We shall have to look into that as well. The people say that they cannot make a living. It is perhaps incorrect to continue in that way.

What about Coloured housing?

We have now appointed a committee in regard to Coloured housing. A farmer may today obtain a loan of only R600 from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, at 5% interest. With that one can build almost nothing. In this way an amount of R480 000 has been made available. The industrialist draws his employees from the Bantu locations which have been established by the municipalities. However, the farmer has to build his own location. We must see whether we cannot get an interest-free loan for this purpose. We must devise a method. Those buildings become the property of the farmer. We must in some way or another provide the necessary encouragement, for it is definitely true that the Bantu housing on our farms leaves much to be desired. We shall have to think in this direction.

Would the Minister not consider making applicable to the farmers as well the same conditions in terms of which houses today become the property of the municipality at ¾% interest?

That is something to consider. The hon. member must bear in mind that I do not carry the keys to the safe around with me. I have to go and ask Dr. Diederichs for the money. We are working in this direction. We shall have to give attention to this matter very soon.

The hon. member for Benoni said that demands are being made on the farmers to produce more cheaply. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he will ask the consumers in Benoni whether they are satisfied with the meat and milk prices. The hon. member created the impression that we are squeezing the farmer dry, and that we are giving him almost nothing for his produce. Is that the right approach while our criticism is in fact that the consumer today is having to pay too much for certain kinds of food. I think it was an unfair statement. On the other hand I want to advocate that we should never cause the feeling to arise that when we discuss agricultural matters in this debate we do not take the consumer into consideration as well. The two so hand in hand. My feeling in respect of maize, groundnuts, sunflowers, meat and tobacco, yes, the whole lot, was that we should give agriculture an injection. Let us, with a view to the cost increases with which the farmer has to cope, give him a price so that he can get his sums to work out. We can then review the position from year to year. If there are further cost increases, we shall have to make adjustments. If our economy justifies it, we can subsidize certain foodstuffs to an even greater extent, if we have the funds. However, we must look at these things in a practical way.

The hon. member also discussed the stock withdrawal scheme. The hon. member asked whether farmers would now be allowed to withdraw from the scheme. Now I want to inform the member that this is in fact the case. If a farmer states that his veld has recovered and that he wishes to leave the scheme, he may do so. I am pleased the hon. member asked that question. It affords me an opportunity of replying to it. It is not compulsory for the farmer to participate in the scheme for five years. A great deal of the veld has recovered in a wonderful way. Of course the position differs from one district to another.

The hon. member then paid me a tremendous compliment, for which I want to thank him. He asked me whether I would reintroduce the scheme again in five years’ time. I do not think so, because I think the veld would have recovered fully. It will then not be necessary to reintroduce a scheme. It costs too much money. But I want to thank him for the confidence which he displayed in me, namely that I will still be here in five years’ time to consider such a scheme.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has been given so much praise today that I suspect he is already completely embarrassed as a result. Today we have actually had an experience here, because he was praised, inter alia, by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We also had an experience in that the hon. member for Brits, uncle Pottie, stood up here and instead of speaking politics, as we are accustomed to hear from him, he spoke about agriculture. After that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture jumped up. After his appointment and in his first debate about agriculture, we expected him to make a contribution in connection with agriculture. But instead of that he spoke politics.

Sir, I now come to certain remarks which the hon. the Minister made. In the first place I want to tell him that although there may be many people who can afford to eat cake three times a day, old Jonas is not that well off. There are a few points we shall still be raising in this connection. When I spoke of applicants for agricultural credit, I was not trying to express criticism in connection with the funds which the Department of Agricultural Credit has, or in connection with the assistance they are giving. We are aware of the position as far as that is concerned. What I said was that the percentage of the farmers going bankrupt in this country is greater than in other countries, as a result of the fact that so many of the applicants who approach the Department of Agricultural Credit cannot be assisted. They cannot be assisted; That is all. That is why I used it as a counterargument to what was said about the prosperity of the farmers.

In addition, I have repeatedly heard the hon. the Minister tell of the miracles brought about by the co-operative movement in South Africa. I had also hoped to hear him say, as I have so frequently said before the South African Agricultural Union, and for which I am sometimes blamed, that the farmers must not think that the co-operative societies exist solely for the sake of marketing and distribution. They also have another duty, i.e. to handle production co-operatively. That is their own function. Sir, you must now tell me where production is handled co-operatively like this country. Every farmer in South Africa is such an individualist that he does not want to look at his neighbour’s house. On the other hand, co-operative production is promoted in many other countries. I am thinking for example of Israel, France, Germany, England, Spain, Portugal, the United States and others, where co-operative production takes place on a large scale. Groups of farmers work together and sometimes they live together. In spots where the agricultural land is valuable they live together because they do not want the whole area cluttered up with houses. There they use the same machinery and the same labourers, if they are able to do so. In this way they succeed in bringing about a saving. This co-operative production is done to keep the production costs as such as low as possible. That is one of the prime functions which agricultural co-operatives ought to fulfil, but it is something they do not want to face up to; they speak only of marketing and distribution, and there they are co-operative. Sir, I do not want to criticize this. What I am criticizing is the unwillingness of the farmers in South Africa to produce co-operatively.

Suggest something.

They could, for example, use the same set of machinery, the same workers. Sir, Jonas is not “all right”, and I expect the Minister also to issue that warning to the farmers of South Africa. He must tell them that if we want to produce on a basis that would enable us to compete with the rest of the world as far as international prices are concerned, it would be necessary to produce co-operatively. How many of our products’ prices are not already far above the international standard prices? But the Minister continues to justify his standpoint. He also referred to the hon. member for Bethlehem’s plea for an increased wheat price. Sir, if we were to double the wheat price, every farmer in the Free State would soon begin to sow wheat. We would have so much wheat that we would not know what to do with it. There must be a proper relationship between those things; that is very important. The hon. the Minister also said that the price of land is relative. Sir, before the Land Bank grants a loan it first valuates the land and the same applies to Agricultural Credit. They have a committee which valuates the land and they give a loan of 60% of the valuation placed on the land by that committee, and the hon. the Minister knows this as well as I do. Why can we not then, in future, under a central financing corporation, or whatever we want to call it, make use of the same kind of method? I was not speaking of people who had paid too high a price for their land and who are now applying to the Land Bank for assistance. The water has already flowed under the bridge. I spoke of a measure of control which could be exercized in future. Sir, the hon. the Minister is surely a practical man; he knows that one cannot simply continue to increase the price of products as the price of land increases; there must be a proper ratio between the price of land and the price which the farmer obtains for his product.

Sir, in the few opportunities I may still have to speak, I shall also deal with other aspects of agriculture. At this stage I want to come back to the plea that was lodged here in connection with the livestock withdrawal scheme. Sir, it was a wonderful scheme. In fact, it was proposed by this side.

No.

As far back as four years ago there was talk of the withdrawal of the whole Karoo, and I want to come back to the Karoo and tell the hon. the Minister that as good as that withdrawal scheme has been, and as well as it is still functioning today, it has not yet meant the reclamation of the Karoo: it has not yet meant the rehabilitation of the veld. We shall have to design a scheme to decrease the Karoo’s load until such time as it has been rehabilitated to such an extent that it again draws back its boundaries instead of extending them. Sir, there is so little grazing for cattle and sheep in the Karoo that they constantly have to be looking for a little food; they cannot lie down and sleep; that is the problem we have in connection with our veld. Sir, 80% of the high rainfall area is in the Bantu areas; we have only 20% of the high rainfall area, and there are limits to what that land can produce, even with the use of the most scientific methods. I cannot see how, over the next decade or two, the production capability of the Bantu will increase to such an extent that they will also be able to make their proper contribution to the increased production which we will need in order to feed 50 million people; it will again be the White man who will have to do so, and the Whites have very little high rainfall land at their disposal. If we consider these things, we realize how necessary it is to try to rehabilitate the grazing lands of South Africa, particularly in the large sheep areas. Sir, may I quote to you what has been said in that connection by an expert—

Seventy kilometres over a period of 20 years—

I cannot tell the Minister what can be done about that. I can only say that even the load, regarded by his department as a reasonable load for the Karoo, must be reduced. There is no other method of doing this. It will cost money. Do not think that the withdrawal scheme as such was so remunerative to the farmer that he obtained nearly as much as he could have on the free market for his livestock which were there and which he then had to reduce in numbers. But we acknowledge that it does bring about a measure of rehabilitation and that the lands have been reclaimed to a certain extent. [Time expired.]

I do not want to follow up on what the previous sneaker has said. In the few minutes at my disposal I want to come back to a matter which is of great importance within our agricultural sector, and that is the making available of state-owned land to farmers. The allocation of state-owned land in South Africa has a long history. It gained momentum particularly after the First World War when the well-known “Kompanjesgronde” and other state-owned land were allocated by the then Government of Gen. Smuts to soldiers who had returned. In the Marico district it was the Lewis and Marks lands, in particular, which were allocated by the Land Board on a large scale at the time to the then supporters of the Smuts Government and soldiers who had returned. The prices were at times as low as 10 shillings per morgen, and I want to venture to say that many farms were made available at no more than R6 per morgen. These farms are today worth R100 and more per morgen. This process also took place after the Second World War with the resettlement of soldiers who returned. Irrigation holdings were allocated everywhere to our impoverished farmers, particularly during and after the depression of 1933, and many of those schemes were actually emergency schemes. We still remember the church scheme at Kakamas with its small units of 3 to 6 morgen, and the schemes at Groblersdal and other places, where land was allocated on the basis of small uneconomic units at extremely uneconomic and even sub-economic prices. The loan periods varied, but they even extended to 65 years, with interest rates that were sometimes as low as 1% and 2%. The National Party elaborated on this policy, also by making available the well-known Black snots where Bantu were resettled and where that land then became available for Whites. For efficient administration there was a changeover to the present system whereby all land transactions, like valuations and allocations, are done by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The only real difference is that this department no longer allocates uneconomic units, and also that the loan period has been reduced to 35 years and less. The interest rate is still a reasonable one, i.e. 4% to 6%, in a few cases perhaps a little higher. But the point I want to make is that by the implementation of this policy by the State throughout these years, the land-hungry farmer in South Africa has been rendered a service that cannot be measured or described in words. There are thousands of people who are grateful for that, not only those who received the allocations at the time, but also those who thus found their feet again and could also help their children to take courses of study. This has furnished people who are today occupying dignified positions in our national economy. Literally thousands of farmers were established and rehabilitated. Thousands of young farmers who had their roots in the soil were given the opportunity to begin farming on an economic basis. There are some of these farmers whom we could today easily place in the category of the best and most prosperous of South African farmers, people who have furnished wonderful contributions to agriculture in our country. Today there is a strong trend towards state-owned land also having to be made available at economic prices, at the prevailing commercial prices or at the highest offer and for the money thereby collected to be employed more usefully by the State in other sectors. I want to state that this could be a disaster for agriculture in South Africa. It would be disaster for the land-hungry farmers in South Africa. It would only suit the purposes of the land barons and financially strong farmers to also try to obtain those state-owned lands. It would be a deviation in principle and policy which the hon. the Minister would have to give very good consideration to when representations are made to him along those lines. If he were to consider such representations favourably, this would be a serious deviation from the policy which has been adopted throughout the years to such good advantage for our land-hungry farmers on the platteland. Today there are still numerous extremely promising and capable share croppers, tenant farmers, young farmers and farm foremen who are hankering for land, people who would never be in a position to obtain a farm or economic units at the present commercial land prices. State allocation at low economic prices is the only way—I repeat the only way—in which this category of farmers can get hold of land in order to make a start.

Making land available at a low price is indeed a service being rendered by the State to the agricultural sector and our farming population, a service which cannot be described in words, as I said a moment ago. This has kept hundreds of people, if not thousands of people, on the platteland.

However, I want to proceed by expressing a few ideas about another aspect of allocation. I am referring to the subdivision of existing state-owned lands. The position has always been, as far as subdivisions are concerned, that land can be added to applicants’ farms which are situated adjacent or near to such state land. In so doing, uneconomic farms are transformed into economic units. What I cannot understand is how the State can initially divide up units which come into its possession, into economic units only to cut them up again later in order to add smaller portions to the land of people living nearby so that their land can be converted into economic units. This procedure will never work in practice, as I see it, because there may be farmers in that area who do not need a whole unit—they may, however, need only 100 or 200 hectares to consolidate with their units of 200 or 300 hectares. If state-owned land, situated near the properties of such farmers, has already been subdivided into units of 500 or 600 hectares, how could it again be divided up in order to be consolidated with the surrounding economic units?

The last aspect I want to refer to in this connection, is the order of preference according to which land is made available. It is sometimes said that only local applicants should be given preference. I adhere to the opinion that applications should also be allowed from other provinces and that every application should be dealt with on merit, but if all things are equal, and in addition there is a possibility of consolidation, the local applicant must be given preference. It is also asked at times what the role of M.P.s must be in connection with recommendations for applicants. I want to say that an M.P. should give every applicant a merit testimonial, but should also be allowed, in exceptional cases, which are really deserving, to mention at the bottom of his letter that the relevant person’s case is an exceptionally deserving one. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, not only throughout the debate, but also throughout the session up to now there have been conspicuous signs of the Opposition’s lack of enthusiasm in any of the debates they have conducted up to now. This has been more marked in the agricultural debate.

It is the same story you had before.

On 3rd April I took part in a debate and pointed out that the United Party had not only written off agriculture, but that the voters of the platteland from the farming constituencies had completely written off the United Party.

That is a speech you have already made three times.

The hon. member has just come in and sat here cackling although he knows nothing of what is going on here. I do not know whether he wants to lay an egg but he may speak about chickens and eggs if he wants to cackle. It is striking—and everyone has observed this—that there is no enthusiasm in the United Party. We have an idea why there is no enthusiasm, because we would probably not have been very enthusiastic either if we had had to sit in the Opposition for 25 years and if, after 25 years, there was as much mutual discord as the United Party is experiencing in their ranks. In the hours devoted to this agricultural debate, we have listened in vain to get something positive from the United Party. I want to say in all reasonableness that I think that the hon. member for Newton Park made one positive suggestion, but one which is nevertheless very impractical. The hon. the Minister has replied to it. This suggestion was that prices should be determined in advance for the farmers’ agricultural products. I want to invite the hon. member to come and have a look at what is taking place at Wolmaransstad. Fifteen per cent of the surface area of Wolmaransstad’s magisterial district is under maize this year. In other words, 85% of the surface area is not under maize. What price must we pay to people, not because they did not want to plant, but because they could not plant? Conditions were such that they could not plant. For that reason I am saying that the hon. member for Newton Park was totally impractical in respect of the one suggestion he contributed to this debate. I have previously had the opportunity, on 3rd April, to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister for a better dispensation for the farmers of South Africa. Today I have the opportunity of saying thank you very much to the hon. the Minister for the announcement and concession which he made. In saying thank you to the hon. the Minister, I am not only speaking on behalf of the constituency which I have the privilege to represent, but I am speaking on behalf of the maize farmers of South Africa. And it makes no difference whether they are members of organized agriculture, or whether they are members of S.A.M.P.I. I can tell the hon. the Minister with great confidence that I have made the necessary inquiries far beyond the boundaries of my constituency and that I can speak on behalf of the maize farmers, with great appreciation, of what the hon. the Minister has done for the maize farmers this year, a year in which this was vital.

Of course, according to you.

I am very glad the hon. member has made that interjection, and I hope that other hon. members will take note of that. If he says that the farmers got nothing …

I am saying that that is so according to you.

The hon. member has already spoken a few times, because they do not have any speakers on that side of the House. From the nature of the case he therefore has to speak a few times. The hon. member may speak again, but we are very satisfied and very happy with what we have received from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The farmers are very happy and very satisfied, and therefore I feel myself at liberty to convey my appreciation to the Minister on behalf of the farmers.

People in South Africa, particularly the Afrikaans-speaking people, have strong feelings towards the soil of their country. There is a strong urge on the part of the Afrikaans-speaking boy to own a part of the land on which he can farm. But now we are faced with basic problems. We are aware of the fact that as land is bought up for the Bantu homelands, the agricultural land for the Whites in White South Africa will become less and less.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, agricultural land in White South Africa is becoming less and not more, although there is a great demand. [Interjections.] Yes, thanks to the National Government. I want to tell the hon. member that the land which is, in fact, available is only that belonging to the Whites. As a result of the policy of the consolidation of the homelands, agricultural land will be withdrawn from White South Africa. For that reason it is necessary for us to utilize, to its best possible potential, the land that is left and which is at our disposal, agricultural land with a limited agricultural potential. There is a strong urge, particularly on the part of the Afrikaans-speaking boy, to be absorbed into the agricultural industry. We understand, however, that everyone who would like to live on a farm cannot be a landowner. There cannot be a further subdivision of our agricultural land, particularly not to such an extent that uneconomically small units develop. However, this evening I want to make a very urgent appeal to parents, teachers and pupils to give serious thought to qualifying themselves, if they have the aptitude, and to offer themselves for employment in our agricultural departments, and to render a service to the South African soil, the father-land and the people of South Africa in that way. If, from the agricultural land at our disposal, land with a limited potential, we want to continue to feed a growing people, it will be necessary for us to use that land with greater circumspection, knowledge and judgment. That knowledge about how we must utilize this land is knowledge we must obtain from research. That research must be done by our own boys. I want to appeal to them to come forward and present themselves so that the land can be utilized to the best advantage. We shall have to get the best possible production from every hectare of land and from every animal we have. Another aspect that we shall have to take a very serious look at is the labour on our farms. That labour must be trained. We must do research for the very good employment of that labour. My time is very limited. It is difficult to say in a few minutes what one would like to say on this occasion. I want to tell our young boys that there are fine careers for them in agriculture, i.e. in serving the Department of Agriculture and thereby being of some use. In that connection I want to recommend this brochure. I am aware of what the Public Service Commission is doing, of the bursaries that are being offered, of all the opportunities there are and of the progress that can be made in the agricultural departments, but I fear that not everyone is aware of the possibilities there are for them. Here I now have this fine brochure, “Careers in Agriculture”. I want to suggest that we send a few copies of this to all schools in the Republic of South Africa— if this is not already being done—and that we ask the principals of those schools to bring these careers to the attention of our pupils. We could render no greater service to South Africa than judiciously to conserve its soil and to cultivate it so as to be able to feed a growing people from that soil for all time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad has come with his usual strange mixture of logical and illogical propositions. Perhaps the most illogical proposition had to do with the question of consolidation. Consolidation is going to be dealt with in another debate this session but I find it strange to hear from him the suggestion that, after the consolidation of the Bantu homelands, we must then examine how best we can use the residue of the land that is left over to the White farmers.

You do not understand Afrikaans.

I understood very well what the hon. member said. Surely, when we come to the question of consolidation and the effective use of our land, this is something which should be viewed before we try to break up our country, not afterwards. He made another remarkable suggestion. He said that in a speech he had given in this House earlier this year, he had illustrated how, as he said, the United Party had written off Agriculture …

That is true.

… and how platteland voters had written off the United Party. Very recently we had a by-election in a largely agricultural area. Is the hon. member’s memory so short that he has forgotten what the result was? Does he not know that the majority of the Nationalist Party was substantially reduced? Does he not know that, whereas predictions were being made by senior people on his side of the House that there would be a majority of 2 000 in this agricultural area, the majority was something very much less than that? I think his memory goes back a little further than that, but he has forgotten what he wants to forget.

I want to turn to the hon. the Deputy Minister for a moment. He made a speech that was not, I suggest, very much of an agricultural speech but more the sort of speech one would expect to hear on a “stryddag”.

What is your speech?

I am coming to that. In the course of the speech, he outlined all the “prestasies” that have been achieved by the Nationalist Government over the past 25 years. But he left one out. I want to come to this achievement in talking about the question of marketing. What he left out, was that one of the achievements of the Nationalist Government was to ensure the establishment and the consolidation of an ever-growing Black urban community in our country, and a permanent community at that.

Come back to “landbou”.

I am coming agriculture. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that here, in these Black urban communities, we have, in the light of the evidence furnished by his latest departmental report, a vast potential that has not been exploited by this Government. I can understand that the hon. the Minister might be in some dilemma. If he wants to be a politician and pretend that these urban Black people do not belong there, he must say to himself that these people do not constitute a potential agricultural market. But if he wants to consult his alter ego and wants to be the man who is trying to do something for agriculture in this country, he must forget the politics of the matter. He must forget such things as 1978. As an agricultural marketing man, he must recognize that here we have our biggest potential and permanent market in the country.

I want to test the realism of the hon. the Minister’s department in one field alone, namely the field of citrus marketing. We know that the citrus industry has been looking for a long time for new markets. I do not want to canvass the problems we have overseas in promoting our sales in some countries, but I want to say that the citrus industry—the citrus exchange, for example—have been looking very seriously at the question of increasing our sales within the Republic. One of the places they looked at, naturally, was the area inhabited by the urban Black people of the Republic. If one looks at the latest annual report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, one notes some very interesting facts. He makes the point that, while there has been a slight increase in the total sales of oranges in 1971 under the special so-called “Bantu scheme”, despite a slight average price increase from 43c in 1970 to 45c in 1971, there are some matters which cause grave concern. Sales increased among Bantu, from 1 480 000 pockets in 1970 to 1 511790 pockets in 1971. But if one looks at this report, one sees that things are far from what they should be. Let me read. I quote on page 34 of the report—

This is citrus, but here the report deals mainly with oranges—

I believe that this is an understatement—

This, of course, might well be true. Let us accept that for a moment. The report continues—

I want us to pause there for a moment and to consider that, on the strength of either of these two figures, the higher or the lower, it means that on average the Black people of Soweto consume something less than half a pocket of oranges each per year. This I think is an appalling figure, when one bears in mind two things. The first is that there is a demand for citrus in places such as Soweto, and the second is that the citrus industry wants to sell. Bearing in mind these two elements, what is going wrong? Here we have a food which is highly nutritious, good to eat and full of vitamin C. We have an industry that wants to sell it, and something goes wrong; every person in Soweto, on average, eats something less than half a pocket of oranges a year. This, I may tell you, Sir, is less than the average overall consumption of oranges in this country, if one takes the total domestic sales in relation to the total population. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, from Friday on we have had an extraordinary debate. On Friday we had only three or four “Sap” men here in the House. They had to speak three times in succession in order to use up their time; each of them had to make three speeches. It was a real agricultural drought on the “Sap” side. I cannot even talk of the United Party side any more, because I find it terribly annoying if they talk about a “United Party”; for surely they are no longer united. And now, Sir, we have to hear from the hon. member for Kensington, of all people; they are now bringing him into this agriculture debate. [Interjections.] Worst of all is that that hon. member has now accused the hon. member for Wolmaransstad of making rambling speeches on agriculture. Sir, before that hon. member knew anything about politics, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was up to his knees in politics and in agriculture. The hon. member’s argument on the whole question of citrus in Soweto is a very clear proof of his not having the slightest idea of what it is about. The worst of all, Sir, is that the hon. member then suggested that they did very well in Aliwal and that that was a platteland constituency. He even suggested that the United Party had gained ground. Let us just have a look, agriculturally, at this ground they have now gained. He said they had gained ground. What is the ground on which they tread—to keep this matter within the idiom of the agriculture debate? The only ground they had to stand on, was the speech the hon. member for Simonstown made on the platteland that they, after all, were co-operating as far as state security and the Schlebusch Commission were concerned. I think this was worth a thousand votes to them, because the platteland “Sap” is not like these hon. members. In any case, they do not think as Harry Schwarz does. But, Sir, I think it is a waste of time to refer to a member such as the hon. member for Kensington when he spoke on agriculture. I have much more important matters to mention tonight than to refer to the hon. member for Kensington.

Let us hear then.

The hon. member for Newton Park says: “Let us hear.” He will hear in a moment, Sir. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to challenge that hon. member to come and make a speech in a platteland constituency. Let him come and make a speech in the “bundu”, as the hon. member for Durban Point called it. Let him come to the “bundu” of Christiana. That is a pleasant little place to come and make a speech at. The hon. member is very welcome. It is a purely platteland constituency, a purely agricultural constituency. The hon. member is, after all, now shadow Minister of Agriculture. I must say that in this debate he was more shadow than minister, because the hon. member for Walmer had to do the work. The hon. member for Newton Park could not do it.

Sir, I should like to say a few words in connection with Bantu labour in agriculture. South Africa is, as was also said by other hon. members, a country where we have to deal with varying conditions of climate. We are not really an agricultural country in the sense that we continually have good agricultural years. But notwithstanding all of this the tractor sales in South Africa constitute, for example, 65% of the total tractor sales on the continent of Africa. In this stage the official estimate is that we have 200 000 tractor units functioning in our agricultural fields. I immediately want to add in brackets that I accept these to be licensed tractor units. Sir, 30 years ago we had one tractor per 1 000 ha arable agricultural land. In this stage we have one tractor per 130 ha arable agricultural land. But, Sir, this alone does not mean that we are really so mechanized that the Bantu labour we are using on our farms could be eliminated or decreased. If we look at the labour force on our White farms, we see that in 1946 we had one White person for every 8,21 non-Whites, and, to save time, Sir, I refer you to the figure for 1967, when we had one White person for every 15,70 Bantu on our farms.

And this is now apartheid.

Sir, that hon. member knows nothing about farming. Sir, it is an established fact that we have really become mechanized in agriculture, but we still have the position that we are using Bantu labour. The investment made in farming machinery such as tractors and other agricultural implements is estimated at R700 million, and notwithstanding the fact that we have made such good progress—and this is a lesson to the voters of hon. members on the opposite side— 70% of all agricultural implements in South Africa are locally manufactured implements. This figure is higher than in any other sector of industry in South Africa. The local content of the product of the agricultural engineering industry and the agricultural implements manufacturing industry is higher than the local content of the products of any other industry in South Africa.

This all looks very good on paper, Sir, but the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has established that 95% of the Bantu farm labourers we are using are unable or not trained to use and to handle this machinery we use on our farms. I would just in passing like to point out that the machinery we use on our farms is continually becoming bigger and heavier. The industrial laws in regard to safety, etc., which are applied to the industries are not applied to the same extent to our farms. If we look at the number of accidents in which only tractors were involved, we find that the figure is disconcerting. In 1958 we had 301 accidents in which tractors were involved, and in 1966 we had 968, in other words, an increase of 221%. The total increase in the number of tractors for the same period was from 100 000 to 157 000, that is to say, an increase of 57%. But the number of fatal accidents increased from 59 in 1958 to 131 in 1964, an increase of 122% in six years. Sir, I must hurry, because my time has nearly expired. My whole plea amounts to this, that in these circumstances we will have to see to it that our Bantu, our Coloured and our Indian farm labour will be treated in the same way as our White labour in the sense that these people should be properly trained to be able to use and to handle this machinery. We will then probably find that the high repair costs which the agriculturalist has to pay will drastically be decreased.

Sir, if the hon. the Minister will allow me, I want to tell him that I myself, in my own simple farming system, have seen to it that these people who are using the farm machinery and implements are trained, and I may tell you tonight, Sir, that my own repair costs on my farm have decreased by 200% in two years’ time, after we had trained these people. [Interjections.] I may tell the United Party that I got rid of half my Bantu labourers on my farm and that I paid the other half three times as much in wages as I paid them originally, but I had these people trained. Let other members on the opposite side now tell their United Party supporters in the Christiana district that they should do the same. Sir, it is a challenge to any farmer in South Africa. But it costs the individual farmer a tremendous lot of money if he has to do it on his own. I think it is necessary, where we are giving many short courses for farmers to teach them how to plant carrots, onions, etc., that short courses should be arranged in order to train our Bantu labourers to be able to understand how a tractor works and how it should be handled. [Time expired.]

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in his statement to the effect that the United Party has really furnished a poor contribution in this debate.

Zero.

Sir, this reminds me of what the hon. member for Durban Point said quite recently at Kalkrand when he was addressing a meeting there. He claimed that since 1948 the National Government had made no contribution to agriculture and then said that he wanted to make one exception. He wanted to give the National Government credit for—to use his own words—artificial insemination. Sir, if there is one thing the United Party is in dire need of at this stage, it is artificial insemination. The hon. member for Durban Point is not here now. I do hope that he will not find himself in one of these small cages with the blinding light to which the hon. the Minister referred.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to tell you that things are going well with the farmers in South-West Africa, in spite of a less favourable rainfall season this year; but 1972 was a record year. There are 5118 farmers in South-West Africa and they can boast of an average income of R19 750 or a total gross income of more than R100 million. Sir, I want to tell you that the farmers of South-West Africa know that they have a Government who is looking after their interests. I want to give you the assurance that South Africa has never before, in its history, had a Government who has looked after the interests of the farmers better than this very Government. It is therefore a privilege for me, not only on behalf of the farmers of my constituency, but also on behalf of the farmers of the whole of South Africa and South-West Africa, to say thank you to this Government. We have a great deal to be grateful for. Sir, as an example I want to mention to you that only last year our position in South-West Africa was such that on 31st January there were applications for export permits for no fewer than 607 000 head of cattle. In the first six months there were applications for 331 000, and permits could only be granted for 152 000. But thanks to the intervention and the zeal and hard work of this hon. Minister and his predecessor, ex-Minister Uys, we are today in the favourable position in South Africa that we can market at will. The three slaughtering institutions are functioning excellently. Prices are good and there are really no complaints. I think the hon. member for Durban Point must take note of this, because I want to tell him that even those United Party farmers at Kalkrand agree that things are going well for the farmers in South-West Africa. They laugh up their sleeves at him when he makes such statements.

Go and tell that to the people of Hardap.

Although prices are high, it is my humble opinion that our hon. Minister with his competent department could perhaps take a quick look at certain bottlenecks that still exist. I do not actually want to call them bottlenecks, but because things are going so well and because the prices are high I think it is the right time now to give attention to certain points, specifically as far as the production of red meat is concerned. I should now like to mention four points to you. The very first is a realistic floor price; secondly a method for selecting and rounding off cattle which are not ready for the market, thirdly the revision of our grading system and, fourthly, a valuation of these mushroom feeding stations or contract feeding stations, whatever one wants to call them.

As far as the first point is concerned, I immediately want to tell you that here I need only say thank you very much. The floor prices have already been increased and they are realistic, and this could only serve as an incentive to the farmers to increase their production of red meat. The second point is illustrated by just taking a look at page eight of the report of the Meat Board. There we see that only 19% of the slaughtering in the Republic and South-West Africa was super and prime grade while only 28% of all slaughtering was first grade and higher. By first rounding off the balance of 53% we could increase the mass of our total meat production tremendously. But then it is necessary that we should also have on-the-hoof auctioning, that there can be a choice and that the farmer does not necessarily have to load up these unmarketable cattle and slaughter them; that there be a choice so that these people who have fodder banks can buy this cattle and then round them off and market them in this way. I want to mention that during 1972 no fewer than 172 000 calves were slaughtered and only 47% of these calves were first grade and higher. I think that there is a tremendous potential here that is being lost, particularly when one thinks of the fact, as has already been mentioned in this debate, that there is a predicted shortage of 1 million tons of red meat for the year 1980. By giving attention to this we could possibly help to fill this tremendous gap. I seriously want to advocate a revision of this existing system. Thirdly there is our grading system, a system which is already very old and which chiefly still focusses on the quantity of fat on carcasses, the appearance of meat, etc. To have carcasses covered by a layer of fat as required by the present regulations is a very costly process. Particularly in respect of young cattle that are still growing it is virtually impossible to get this fat on the carcass easily. But it is also a fact that the housewife of today and also commerce have no interest at all in the fat on the carcass. It is also a fact that the export market—and that is the market of the future, a rosy market—has no interest in fat at all. For that reason the question arises: Must we continue to produce meat at great cost which both the consumer and commerce regard as undesirable; must we continue to produce fat at great cost just to have it cut off later; should we not place the emphasis on the matter of producing meat, the commodity which commerce and the consumer want? South-West Africa has already taken the lead here. I should like to mention to you that in South-West Africa only six grades exist. Fixed prices that are paid by these three slaughtering institutions there are as follows: Super at 73c, prime A at 71c, prime B, grade 1A, B and C are grouped together at 70c, grade two 68c, grade three 64c and grade four 58c. Finally I should like to request the Minister’s attention in respect of these mushroom feeding stations that exist, and I specifically want to refer to these feeding stations that take on cattle on behalf of the farmer, feed them for him and then market them on their own account. These people, in contrast to our representatives, do not have to give any guarantees. There is no guarantee that they have to pay the money within three days and I think that this exposes farmers to a very great extent to any form of exploitation or the possibility of bankruptcy or whatever the case may be. I do not think our farmers are aware of this problem and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to this, before it boomerangs on our farmers at some stage or other. I want to finish that by just saying to the hon. the Minister: Go ahead; you have the support of the farmers of South Africa and we owe you a very great deal of thanks.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Omaruru in his desire to make more readily available more and better red meat to the consumers of this country, not only because I represent an area which to a large extent produces red meat from ranching cattle but also because I have interests in that aspect myself. I will say that in contrast with the area which he represents, where the emphasis seems to be on the provision of artificial fodder banks to meet drought situations, and where that sort of land is not threatened by Government policy in other respects, like the consolidations, I come from an area where it is almost unknown to have to feed in times of drought or indeed in winter; there is no artificial feeding at all, but it is an area where a great deal of this type of country which I am sure will appeal to the hon. member, is to be taken out of production for reasons of the Government’s racial policy. [Interjections.] However, I do not wish to deal with the hon. member’s speech. I want to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom earlier today, a young man who is young in years, young in politics and young in this House, but a young man nevertheless whose manner and bearing and whose presentation of his case up to now I have always admired. He is reported as having said earlier—

You know, Sir, that if one considers the millions which are involved in financing in particular the agriculture of South Africa, it seems to me regrettable, to say the least of it, that for a trifling R2 600 one should utter sentiments which might bedevil the very foundations upon which our society exists. Not only is the Royal Agricultural Society of Natal one of the oldest of its kind in this country; not only is it one with a tradition as honourable as anyone can find; not only is it a Society which distinguished people from all walks of life and from all political persuasions have had the honour of opening —from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, from foreign Prime Ministers to Prime Ministers of South Africa, and Nationalist Cabinet Ministers one after the other, Administrators of Natal, also from the ranks of the Nationalist Party, they have all been honoured to be invited to open the Royal Show, as it is known in Natal, a show whose standards of excellence, when it comes to the display of agricultural produce, is second to none in South Africa. Apart from this magnificent tradition, the speech by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom is shortsighted in so far as the historical background of South Africa is concerned and more particularly if you consider that Natal has a monarchical tradition of more than 100 years and a republican tradition of less than ten years. The Cape has a monarchial tradition going back hundreds of years, if you consider both the Dutch and the British monarchies which constituted the constitutional heads of state of this province. On the other hand we had in the two republics of the north, the Free State and the Transvaal, a republican tradition in every way equally as honourable and extending back to the early times of the Voortrekkers. Surely in the days of 1973, surely from one of the younger and one would have thought one of the more verligte members of this House …

That will be the day!

… one would not want to bring up hostility and rake up animosity on a subject of this kind, but rather try to bring a blending of these two historical streams, both honourable, both ancient in the history of this country and to honour them both in the light of today. I believe that both from the tradition of republicanism in South Africa, which is comparatively short in our history, and from the tradition of monarchy in this country, both Dutch and English, which is very ancient, one should try to honour both these streams of thought and of sentiment because from both these streams …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

… can we enrich the lives of our people of today. I believe there should be honour and respect in respect of both these traditions at every possible opportunity.

May I put a question to the hon. member? [Interjections.]

When you have an institution which is ancient, honourable and useful in the agricultural life of today, then one ought not to have the sort of speech that we heard earlier from the hon. member for Wakkerstroom.

Where are your sentiments—with the English language or with the royal house?

That type of speech can only do damage to the sentiments of a large section of the people who still regard that portion of our joint tradition as honourable and with respect in this country.

Say something about agriculture now!

My friend there says that we should talk a little about agriculture. I am very happy to do so. I represent an area which is in the Lowveld. The only agricultural research station which deals with Lowveld matters is in the Eastern Transvaal and it serves a valuable purpose. However, you have in the Lowveld areas of Natal, both the subtropical fruits in respect of which there is a research station near Nelspruit and animal husbandry on an extensive scale under Lowveld conditions, far more wet, very different from those that one gets in the Lowveld of the Transvaal. There has been between myself and the hon. the Minister’s predecessor extensive correspondence with a view to establishing either an agricultural college or a research station or both to cater for the Lowveld conditions in the high-rainfall areas of Natal. This is something which is of considerable importance. One tends to think of the wetter areas of Natal as being an area confined purely to the sugar industry. I may say at once that there is no agricultural research station which caters for that section of agriculture. It is done entirely by the industry for itself. There is no agricultural college where young men who propose to engage in sugar farming are trained. That, too, is undertaken by the large sugar companies in the industry. There is, in my view, an urgent need for Government money to be spent on the establishment of an agricultural college combined with a research station to deal with the wet lowveld conditions of Natal, not only in the field of crops that are grown, which will include sugar, but in the field of animal husbandry as well. I know that there is not enough money for the employment of extension officers, of manpower to man those offices, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister what he probably already knows, and that is that from Durban to the Portuguese border, there are only two extension officers within the hon. the Minister’s department. The one is based at Eshowe and the other one is based at Pongola or Nongoma, an area some 400 to 500 miles. If regard is had to the fact that there is no research station and no type of agricultural college for this area, the hon. the Minister will understand the pleas that I make, not only for additional personnel to serve that area, but also for advanced establishments of the kind that I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House must really join the hon. member for Christiana in saying that we have had a very strange debate on agriculture. I just want to repeat what the hon. member said, by indicating there were no speakers on that side of the House on Friday afternoon. Tonight, however, the hon. member for Kensington came forward to speak on agricultural matters! Furthermore, we had the position that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom made one single remark about the Royal Agricultural Show to which the hon. the Minister replied by saying that it had nothing to do with him. That was the end of the matter, but in spite of that the hon. the leader of the United Party in Natal devoted more than half of his speech to the Royal Agricultural Show of Natal [Interjections.]

Do you agree?

These things amaze us. We are amazed, that one remark by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, to which the Minister was not in a position to reply, actually, occupied the largest part of the speech by the hon. the leader of the United Party in Natal. To my mind the hon. the leader of the United Party in Natal should actually have reprimanded the hon. member for Port Natal a little for certain small things he did. The other evening the hon. member for Port Natal spoke in Afrikaans, whereupon the hon. member for Randburg started laughing. The hon. member for Florida then came along and said the hon. member for Randburg had laughed at the hon. member for Port Natal since he had spoken in Afrikaans.

What does this have to do with agriculture?

I shall tell you in a moment. In a large part of his speech the hon. the leader of the United Party in Natal said nothing about agriculture. The hon. member for Randburg did not laugh because the hon. member had spoken in Afrikaans; he laughed because the hon. member had said he would rather resign as a member of the United Party before speaking Afrikaans. That was what the hon. member was laughing at. [Interjections.] This debate is strange …

Order! The hon. member should rather come back to the Agriculture Vote.

We find this debate strange because the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has not spoken as yet.

He will speak shortly.

We know he is going to speak, for the hon. member is a member who rarely sits down—he speaks all the time. By this time he could have taken three turns to speak in this debate, but do hon. members know why he has not done so? The hon. member has not done so because he knows we shall take him to task about the things he has said about agriculture and because he knows we have been waiting for him this evening. We cannot wait for him any longer, but it is clear to us that the hon. member is going to deal with agriculture when we shall no longer have an opportunity to rebuke him. However, the hon. the Minister is still there and he shall deal with him. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be side-tracked.

In the times in which we are living we are constantly experiencing increases in the prices of virtually everything. This is how it was put in a paragraph in yesterday’s Sunday Times—

This is true. Food prices have increased tremendously in recent times. But now hon. members on the other side, as well as people outside, want to connect this tremendous increase in food prices to the “tremendous” benefits which the farmer in South Africa is supposedly deriving from it. In the short time at my disposal, I should like to say something in this regard and make a correction.

The farmer in South Africa—and now I am speaking only of the dairy farmer in particular—produces a quality product. It is immaterial whether this product is fresh milk, butter or cheese, or even industrial milk, the consumer in South Africa knows he is getting a quality product. He is getting a quality product in comparison to other beverages and he gets it as cheaply as he could wish. The consumer must not forget that to produce this product, this farmer must make a colossal investment. He must render dedicated service. The undertaking of the individual dairy farmer forms part of one of the few remaining industries in which one has a person working seven days a week, and working very hard, something he has to do in spite of the rising labour costs. In fairness towards these people, we want to say that since 1971 to date, the production of cattle mash has increased by 20%. The production of high-protein food concentrates has increased by no less than 65%. The production of fish-meal has increased by 52%. These figures are only for the period from 1971 to date. I can quote the figures for Cape Town, Pretoria and all the other places, but the tendency is approximately the same everywhere. I can only mention that on the Witwatersrand, which constitutes the largest market, the price of milk increased from 7,655 cents per litre to 9,815 cents per litre as from 1965 on, an increase of only 20% over a period of five years. This happened despite the fact that these people’s expenditure on fodder increased by as much as 65% over this period. This calls for appreciation on our part for this section of our farming community who produces this quality product at this price. I do not have a great deal of time at my disposal, but to my mind I shall be neglecting my duty if I do not say—and I think someone should underline this later—that we should get away from the idea that dairy products, especially butter, are not beneficial to one’s heart. I do not want to say a great deal in this regard, but I should like to mention—and I hope hon. members take this to heart— that the lowest per capita consumption of butter is in the United States, a country which has the highest number of deaths owing to heart disease. The highest per capita consumption of butter is in New Zealand, the country which happens to have the lowest number of deaths owing to heart diseases.

Now I want to express appreciation to our dairy co-operative societies, which, during the difficult days of this industry, have made it possible for this industry to become established, to grow strong and to expand in South Africa. [Interjections.] I have just been interrupted by a reference to a “botterbul”, but I do not know what they are talking about. I just want to say that our agricultural co-operative societies did a great deal for us during these years, and over a long period of time. Today a great deal is being said against the co-operative societies; I just want to tell you, Sir, that we can never over-emphasize the importance of a co-operative society. We admit that private companies do render tremendous services. We have taken cognizance of one company which made a tremendous profit, a profit which was so big that it paid the State R3 million, in round figures, and its shareholders only R2 million. This is true: it is a fine service which is rendered by the private company, but we want to put the following question to those people who want to harm the co-operative societies and always want to compare them with private undertakings: What would the position of the dairy industry have been today if the co-operative societies had not existed to keep matters in order for the dairy farmers?

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we once again had to listen to a disjointed tirade by the hon. member for King William’s Town. In reply to an interjection by me, he made a statement to which I want to react briefly. When I asked him whether he wanted the Government to import mutton, because of the shortage of mutton, his reply was a straightforward “Yes”. I just want to ask the main speaker on agriculture for the United Party whether it is the United Party’s policy that we should import mutton.

We said that as far back as last year.

Thank you very much; I accept that.

The hon. member for Albany, also one of their main speakers on agriculture and virtually the only member on that side who represents a rural constituency, allegedly said the following at Jansenville on 2nd November, “M.P. Condemns Importation of Meat”. [Interjections.] Now hon. members must pay close attention. At a United Party meeting on the farm Karoovlakte near Jansenville, the hon. member said …

What are you quoting from?

This comes from the Graaff Reinet Advertiser (translation)—

The hon. member went on to make a very nasty insinuation at that meeting. He said there was a lot of frozen meat lying here in Cape Town waiting to be unloaded but that the people had refused to unload it as they did not want to work overtime. Then he said that the Minister had placed this order for meat long before he had made the announcement. He went on to say that the consultation with the South African Agricultural Union was a farce.

Tell the truth.

I think this hon. member owes the Minister and the South African Agricultural Union an apology. I have here in my hand the statement by the president of the South African Agricultural Union, as well as that by the chairman of the liaison committee of the South African Agricultural Union, in which they thank the Minister for the fact that he first consulted the Agricultural Union on the matter before importing the mutton. But that is the United Party for you! When the hon. member was speaking on a farm in the Jansen ville district, he condemned the importation of mutton. Now. Sir, I can name you many of the M.P.s who are sitting over there and who worked against Dawie de Villiers in Johannesburg West, who said that the Government refused to import mutton because it feared the farmers of the country. There is one of them, sitting over there and looking straight at me. But in the rural areas the hon. member for Albany went along and said that to him the whole matter seemed to be an election trick to help Dawie de Villiers in Johannesburg West if the housewives could be promised a decrease in the price of mutton. I want that hon. member to have the courage to rise in this House and to apologize to the South African Agricultural Union and to the hon. the Minister. To my mind he owes them an apology.

I want to say a few words about the wool industry. The first year of the new scheme will be drawing to a close next week. I am glad to be able to say that the wool industry has had a very successful season. There were price fluctuations. I want to analyse five of the most common types of wool. On the basis of clean wool, the price varied from 204 cents to 560 cents. In spite of this, I think we can say that we have had an exceptionally good season, actually the best season for the past ten years, and a considerable deferred payment—I should say something in the region of between 50% and 60% of the advance payment, is awaiting our wool farmers. But now it is also true that this wool scheme has been criticized very severely. It is very gladdening to have the support of the Opposition in particular for this scheme. In recent times there has been much criticism from Natal especially, but I think that these people are unfortunately judging this scheme on a short-term basis. It is true that the people who sold at the highest level and who now have to make a contribution to people who sold on a low market, do perhaps have reason to be dissatisfied. But when we have regard to the long-term advantages of this scheme, they completely eliminate the short-term disadvantages. I want to elaborate on a few of these advantages. In earlier times, especially with a market such as we had this year, a tremendously speculative spirit used to prevail on our wool market. There were 30 000 wool farmers who had to decide when and how their wool was to be marketed. There were six or eight brokers who decided whether they were going to keep their wool or market it. In fact, chaos prevailed in the wool industry. Especially with a market such as we had this year, it could have happened that many farmers would have withdrawn their wool in the hope that the price would rise. But this year we had the position that there was only one authority in terms of this new scheme, one authority that decided how and when the wool was to be marketed. To my mind the greatest advantage of this, is that the price of the product is no longer linked to the time when the farmer shears or markets his wool. To my mind this is an exceptionally great advantage. In the past, as soon as there was any rise on the market, we all rushed to finish shearing, with the result that the market was flooded. Now the farmer has the satisfaction that it does not matter when he shears. For him there is a great deal of stability on the market. As a result of this tremendous rise on the market, the tremendous demand which was experienced, we could as yet not implement even one-tenth of the scheme. For instance, we want to process certain types of wool a little further. For instance, we want to have the locks washed. We are even thinking of processing wool to the top stage. But we were quite unable to do it during the past season, since there was a tremendous demand and we had to market the wool as soon as it had been delivered. We recall, for example, the tremendous success we had with lot building, where we sold 100 bales of wool or more as a unit, the contents of the bales being guaranteed and consequently achieving tremendous success. These are all possibilities which we want to carry into effect under this scheme, but have been unable to do up to this stage. I agree that we should effect an even greater degree of stability in prices. But this is not such an easy matter, because wool is an international product which has to compete on the international market. It is not such an easy matter to effect stability, particularly not on an open market such as ours. But I am convinced that we shall have the co-operation of Australia and New Zealand in the near future so as to effect stability, also with regard to international marketing. I have wondered whether the time has not arrived for us, especially this year, with our satisfactory market and with a future which does not look unpromising to increase the floor price of our wool drastically.

Then there is one other point which I should like to raise with regard to this scheme. Our greatest problem in implementing this scheme arose from the fact that the wool retained its identity throughout until the auction was over. In my humble opinion the wool should, after it had been valued, lose its identity altogether. Only then shall we be able to make a success of this scheme.

Then I should like to say a few words with regard to our wool ports. A great deal has been said about whether or not our wool ports should be closed. I should like us to consider two points in this regard. These are that we have selling ports as well as export ports. I agree that the time has arrived for an urgent investigation into this matter, in the interests of the wool industry, for I firmly believe that we can no longer afford to have four export ports. Because of the increase in freight charges and the high costs involved in loading goods at the ports, I am convinced that the Minister should take the bull by the horns and should order an investigation from high circles to help us to solve this problem.

Sir, if I still have time at my disposal, I should like to pay tribute to the co-operative societies which have been handling the marketing of wool over the years. I want to pay tribute to them for the fact that they initially instituted orderly marketing in this country. There are three co-operative societies in the country now which handle virtually 90% of the wool clip of our country. There is only one private broker, who is of necessity still rendering good service, but I want to pay tribute to these co-operative societies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, I must admit, ended his speech on a better note than the one on which he started. I can agree with much of what he said when he spoke about the wool industry, about which I think he must know something. But, Sir, when he spoke about my hon. friend from Albany and referred to the import of mutton, he aired his ignorance. He challenged my friend, who had made a statement that the price of mutton would remain the same to the housewife, and I want to ask him now whether it did not remain the same to the housewife. He need only answer “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] Sir, let him shake his head; let him wave that newspaper report around; let him do what he wishes; the fact remains that the price to the housewife did remain the same. I want to ask the Minister now what happened to the profit on the import of mutton. That is the question. That hon. member took my friend from Albany to task for making such a terrible statement. Now I ask the hon. the Minister: What happened to the profit? Who got the profit? That Government got the profit, Sir, just as they got the profit on the import of butter. [Interjections.] Yes, the Meat Board, but was it passed on to the consumer? No, of course not! It was put into the coffers of this Government to make them fatter than they are now.

Sir I want to come back to my friend from Wakkerstroom, before I deal with the hon. member for Smithfield. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom made certain allegations here this afternoon, which I want to ask him now to substantiate. He made the following statement—

Sir, how dare he make such a statement? What is his authority? [Interjections.] Can he produce any evidence at all that there is any doubt as to whether or not this agricultural society received a Royal Charter? I may say that I am proud to be a member of that society. And, Sir, do not forget that my colleague, the hon. member for Mooi River, is a vice president of that society, and at this very moment is in Pietermaritzburg at a show which is now in progress. Where is the hon. the Minister? Why is he not there? He should have been there to have a look. Sir, I want to say here and now that this society, of which I am a proud member, received a Royal Charter over 100 years ago. [Interjections.] Sir, will the hon. member now withdraw his plea to the Minister? Will he accept my word and withdraw his plea to the Minister? No, Sir, he will not, because I believe he was planted by the hon. member for Pretoria District.

If you can prove that, then …

No, Mr. Chairman, he must produce evidence to support the allegation he made here today. He made an allegation and he must bring evidence to support it.

What allegation did he make?

I am coming to that hon. member for Newcastle in a moment, Sir. The second allegation the hon. member made, was the following—

That is the first allegation—

Mr. Chairman, since when is this not a South African show? Sir, I want to ask the hon. member when he was ever there to see whether it was a South African show or not. Did the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. John Vorster, open a show which was not a South African show? Sir, what a wicked allegation to make. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to speak now to my colleagues from Natal. I want to ask the hon. member for Klip River whether he agrees with the hon. member for Wakkerstroom—“yes” or “no”?

Zip!

Sir, if he does not answer, I can only assume that he agrees.

I shall tell you outside. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. member for Klip River must now go on record as agreeing with that member for Wakkerstroom. And what of the hon. member for Newcastle? Does he agree with the hon. member?

I am telling you that you have no sense of humour at all. [Interjections.]

Sir, obviously the hon. member for Newcastle also agrees with the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. I want to ask them, Sir, how many good Afrikaners, how many supporters of the National Party, are members of this Royal Agricultural Society, because every one of them has been insulted by these three members here today. I want to say, Sir, that I reject with contempt the allegations made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, as I am sure the hon. the Minister has done. In fact, he has already indicated what his attitude is, because when I asked him earlier whether he would reply or not, in an attempt to save face, he said: “Dit val nie onder my nie.” The hon. the Minister knows that it falls under him. The subject under discussion is a subsidy granted by his department, and I want to say here and now that I accept that the hon. the Minister need not reply to this point. I accept that he also rejects with contempt his backbencher who dared to make such a terrible suggestion here this afternoon.

Sir, I want to come back to my friend, the hon. member for Smithfield. For the first time I can agree with him.

*Sir, I want to baptize him tonight; I now baptize him the “Botterbul van Smithfield”. (Tussenwerpsels.) Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that he has this year read all my Hansard speeches of the past three years, because he made my speech here in the House tonight.

†Mr. Chairman, I am so glad at last to have got some support, and I hope the hon. the Minister will pay attention to the hon. member for Smithfield in the same way as he has not paid attention to me over the years, on this question of milk and the dairy industry, and the harm which has been done to the dairy industry by statements from that side of the House, particularly by the hon. ex-Minister for Health, Dr. Carel de Wet, who is now 6 000 miles away and does not have to take the responsibility for what he said. Much damage has been done to this industry, and it is a basic industry which is necessary for the health of our people in this country, but at last I have found a supporter on that side of the House. The hon. member is prepared to support me in my plea.

May I ask a question?

If it is a serious question, yes.

I just want to know from the hon. member for, Pietermaritzburg District whether I may go home. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, these are the depths they sink to when they are really in trouble. This, I think, is some measure of the embarrassment they are suffering on that side of the House. Let me join with the hon. member for Smithfield in his plea to the Minister to do something for this ailing industry. It is an industry which is ailing, and an industry whose members, unfortunately, have been made political footballs by this Government. This is the case particularly with the dairy industry. The Government seems to have an idea that they can gain votes by keeping the prices of foodstuffs down at the expense of the farmer and particularly at the expense of the dairy farmer. Sir, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Newcastle is sulking and leaving the Chamber. Sir, this has happened particularly in Natal where, as I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware, in the last five years we have lost 121 out of a total of 603 registered fresh milk producers. Mr. Chairman, that is a terribly high figure for Natal alone, and one would think that this might be the tendency only in our province, but I find in the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing that the same tendency is to be found in the rest of the Republic.

That is not true.

Sir, I must ask the hon. member for Smithfield to turn to page 47 of the report. He can then have a look at Table II, which shows the average number of producers and the average daily production per producer in 1970-’71 and in 1971-’72. He will find there, if he can do a little bit of arithmetic, that in the 1970-’71 dairy year there was a total of 2 091 producers in the six controlled areas of the Republic. As you know, Sir, Natal is not a controlled area, and that is why I quoted Natal’s figures separately. According to this report—if what I say is a lie, then it is this report which is lying, not I—there was a total of only 2 032 fresh milk producers in those six areas in 1971-’72. [Time expired.]

Sir, I will not react to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. I just want to say that I think that it is past the time that we should try in this life to convince hon. members on the opposite side; we had better leave them on the other side of the grave so that they can try and fend for themselves.

Sir, I want to discuss the poultry industry and problems in my constituency and also in the rest of the country. In this debate it is necessary to look at the state of the poultry industry. It is an industry which experiences a variety of great problems these days. Sir, when legislation was passed last year to limit the number of laying-hens per unit to 10 000, it was just in time. I want to thank the hon. the Minister most heartily for that legislation. This has given our small poultry farmer an opportunity to come into the industry again. For this we thank the hon. the Minister very much.

Sir, these small poultry farmers also have to deal with the problem of increasing feed costs, of which we have heard a great deal here tonight, especially the increase in the cost of fish meal. Here we had an increase of more than 40%. This increase in the price of fish meal has dramatically changed and affected the production costs of table chickens—and that is why chickens taste so much of fish meal. Sir, the fish meal producers boast about their bumper year the high prices they are getting abroad. They have now increased the price of fish meal for the local fodder industry from R116 to R150 per metric ton. Sir, I ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to have this situation watched. Price increases here influence the poultry industry detrimentally and in the end, as we know, the consumer must pay for these increasing costs. We ask that the Minister of Agriculture be given strong powers to combat and investigate cost increases—please note, cost increases—in the poultry industry as well.

Sir, the second matter is the problem experienced by the bona fide poultry farmer as a result of the smuggling into the country of breeding material from abroad. This causes Newcastle disease and other diseases to be brought into the country, and the bona fide poultry farmer must suffer. Our poultry producers are also asking the Minister’s protection here by still stricter action against these smugglers. But furthermore we also ask that the department should let good breeding material in, that it should be kept in quarantine for a certain period and that a percentage of that breeding material should be made available to the average poultry farmer as well as to the farmers’ wives. In this way we will be encouraging a healthy development in the poultry industry instead of the monopolistic tendencies that are at present developing to the disadvantage of the farmer and the consumer. We want to thank the Minister very much. In the little time I have to my disposal I just want to repeat my appeal to the Minister to have a look at the poultry farmer so that we can again raise interest in this industry among our housewives who have a great need for and interest in poultry.

I have only five minutes to my disposal and, Sir, you will therefore understand that I cannot pause at the previous Opposition speakers, but should like to go on. I should like to exchange a few ideas on two groups of people who have meant, who still mean and who will in future mean more and more to agriculture and to South Africa. I refer to the White farmer and the Bantu labourer on his farm. It is a fact that a happy man is a good man, and therefore a happy labourer is also a good labourer. It is also true that we can say with conviction that the great majority of our Bantu labourers on the farms are happy and contented people. That is because the Bantu are a tradition-bound people and still have an opportunity of fully or nearly fully observing these traditions. Time does not allow me to elaborate on that.

Sir, we are now living in a time where we hear every day about demands for higher Bantu wages. Demands for higher Bantu wages are heard every day and unavoidably the echo of these demands will also be heard on our faraway farms. Now the position is, and I think it is necessary that this be brought to the people’s attention, that our farmers, apart from the cash wages they are paying their labourers, are also paying the Bantu wages in kind. So we find, for example, that the farmer who gives his Bantu labourers three pints of milk per day, plus one slaughter-sheep every two months and one bag of meal per month, free housing, fuel and water, puts the cash value of those products at R32 per month. If he, as some farmers do, gives one slaughter-sheep per month, the cash value of that is R42, to which his cash wages should be added. I want to say with great conviction tonight that our farmers must realize that in this they have a means of competing with the employer in the cities and towns. They should concentrate on studying in detail this means they have of competing and on developing it further. Where they have an opportunity on their farms of giving their Bantu labourers free housing and better provisions, they should concentrate on making it more attractive for the Bantu labourers to come and work on the farms. It is not only cash that counts, and it is not only I who savs so. I quote an authoritative Bantu leader, who said the following (translation)—

In other words, the farmer finds himself in a position to remunerate his Bantu workers in cash and in kind and in a way which is constructive for the Bantu and which also suits the farmer. I think our farmers must take note of this, and develop it further.

Furthermore, I want to ask whether the White taxpayer in South Africa realizes— and I want us to take note of this—that the White farmer saves the State millions upon millions of rands annually by making housing available to their Bantu workers. There are 90 000 farmers in South Africa today, and if everyone of these farmers had only 11 Bantu labourers it would mean that collectively they have one million heads of families in their service and that they are making one million houses available to those Bantu. Can one imagine what this means by way of capital investment, however simple that housing might be? Where local authorities and the State are making Bantu housing available in cities and towns which is to a large extent financed out of the taxpayer’s pocket, the farmer is making this tremendous contribution to South Africa. I think it is time for us to take note of this and to appreciate this.

We must also realize that the White farmer on his farm and the Bantu labourer have worked together in the course of many years, have come to know, respect and understand each other. In this way they have built up a sound White/Bantu relationship which is a blessing to the whole Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, once again I can agree with an hon. member on that side. The hon. member for Heidelberg spoke about farm labourers and I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. I do believe that there is a large proportion of our farming community which does treat their labourers in the way which the hon. member has described.

I am very glad to follow on the speech made by the hon. member for Stilfontein who spoke about the quarantine station and what this hon. Minister and his Government are now doing or are attempting to do for the poultry industry in this country. I want at the outset to pay tribute to the poultry industry in this country, because, particularly in this time of a shortage of red meat, of the scarcity of mutton, and when the price of beef has gone so high that it is beyond the reach of the pocket of the man in the street, we have this one industry which stands out like a shining light in this country and which is today producing a protein food which is cheaper than it was 20 years ago.

That is why I support it.

I am glad to hear the hon. member for Stilfontein say that is why he supports it, because then I can support him in the sentiments which he has expressed along those lines. This is an industry in which I took a part 20 years ago. This is why I say today, without fear of contradiction, that the housewife today is paying less for poultry than she paid 20 years ago. For that reason we must pay tribute to the broiler industry in this country. The same can be said for eggs, incidentally, because the price of eggs today is no higher than it was 15 years ago—I am not prepared to say 20 years ago. From that point on, I am afraid I must separate from the hon. member for Stilfontein, because I cannot agree with him on what he has said about the quarantine station, the fact that chickens are now being imported legally and so on.

I want to speak to the hon. the Minister about the quarantine station that has been established at Kempton Park. I must start by quoting to him what was written to me by a veterinary surgeon in the Transvaal who visited the station—

It is not only from this one veterinary surgeon that I obtained the information which I have, but I believe that conditions at this station are just too shocking for words.

Are you referring to the station at Irene?

No, to the one at Kempton Park. I believe that anybody who imports birds through that station is lucky if he gets 10% of what he brings in. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will not deny the fact that he recently had a major outbreak of Newcastle disease at that station. That is to be expected when you bring in birds under quarantine, but what shakes me is that I am given to understand that importers at the end of a 30-day quarantine period are allowed to collect their birds and to take them out even if they are still ill. This is a serious allegation that I am making but I believe that this is the position. I am afraid that I cannot comment on the new station at Irene because I have not been able to get information on it.

I would like to discuss with the Minister at some time the possibility of having a look at both of these stations. I believe that he is thinking of establishing a third station. I sincerely hope that he will, because as long as we are going to have a concentration of all birds imported to this country at one point—now possibly two—we are not going to overcome the problem of the diseases that we are experiencing. I believe that there are only two diseases which they are interested in at this station, the one being psittacosis and the other one being Newcastle disease. What about all the other diseases which are being brought in by these birds? I believe that the control at that station is terrible. I want to say here and now that the complaints I have received have not been against the staff. I believe that the staff are doing as good a job as they are capable of doing. This is the case especially when one considers the fact that the trained staff which is there comprises only one veterinarian and two assistants. I do not know how they can be expected to do the work which is now to be done at this particular station. If that is the only staff there is—and that is what I am led to believe—I do not know how this can be done. If the lack of control exists which I am led to believe does exist and if staff and importers are allowed free access in and out of the various cages, I would say that control is sadly lacking. I must quote again what someone wrote to me—

It is put to me that, bearing in mind the way in which the place is run and the way in which the whole question of the importation and quarantine of all birds is conducted—and I am not only referring to birds but to poultry as well—unless a legitimate quarantine station is established and legitimate quarantine measures are applied, we can forget about allowing the importation of birds.

There is no poultry at the Kempton Park quarantine station.

Quite right; there is no poultry, but I am now dealing with the broader spectrum and not only with the birds at Kempton Park. It is put to me that in practice what is happening is that a smuggler is importing a small quantity legally with a permit obtained from the hon. the Minister and his department, and that this is being used to cover up vast quantities which are being smuggled in, and that at the same time that we have this smuggling racket of bringing in the birds, there is also another smuggling racket of exporting South African birds, which must pay for the birds which are smuggled in. I believe that the hon. the Minister is aware of quite a lot of what I have said although I do not believe he is aware of everything I have said. I have a report here which I shall place before him at the first opportunity. I sincerely hope that in the interests of the poultry industry as a whole in South Africa and the wild bird industry in particular, he will investigate these matters in the same way as he is now investigating the illegal importation of poultry. I must thank him at this opportunity, which is the first I have for doing so, for the appointment of this commission for which I have pleaded. I sincerely hope that the work of that commission will only be to the benefit of the poultry industry in South Africa.

In the minute or two left to me, I want to come back to the dairy industry. I am sorry that the hon. member for Smithfield has left the Chamber because, as hon. members will know, in this case we have two hearts beating as one when it comes to the dairy industry. However, I have a problem which I must put to the hon. the Minister. He can perhaps give us the answer to that problem. This is a question which was raised from our side of the House. In the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, page 48, under the heading “Consumer Prices” I read—

In other words, there is no price control on the retail price of milk. But on the 24th April, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for South Coast, the hon. the Minister replied—

We have two conflicting statements right away. We have a third conflicting statement, in reply to a question, by the hon. the Minister on the 1st May …

That report refers to the period up to the end of June, last year. After June there was price control.

Now perhaps we are getting somewhere, because I have here also a Government Gazette which fixes the prices of milk. The prices were fixed by the Prince Controller. But we have another conflict here, because on the 1st May, 1973, also in reply to a question put by my friend, the hon. member for South Coast, the hon. the Minister replied that the producer’s and reseller’s prices for fresh milk sold in the Witwatersrand, Pretoria, Western Transvaal, Cape Peninsula and Bloemfontein are fixed by the Milk Board with the approval of the Minister of Agriculture. He went further and said that the maximum consumer’s prices of fresh milk sold in Port Elizabeth “are fixed by the Price Controller in consultation with the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, permit me first of all to convey my hearty congratulations to our new Minister of Agriculture. We know that he is a man of exceptional competence and abilities, and it is our wish and prayer that he will be of service to the agricultural industry for many years to come. We may say that all our expectations, all our hopes, are centred in him. In the same breath I want to say here that when we think of the 25 years of National Party régime, one can but say that 25 years ago the South African farmer had one of the greatest strokes of good luck, experienced one of the greatest blessings, which could possibly have come his way, namely when the National Party took over the reins of government from the United Party. Mention was made here of the previous leader of the Opposition, Koos Strauss, and all the things he had done for the agricultural industry. Mention was also made of the positive legislation on agriculture that had been piloted through under a United Party Government. However, I find this strange when I think of what happened to that Minister of Agriculture. He became their leader and subsequently the same thing happened to him as did recently to the hon. member for Yeoville. I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Newton Park here tonight. The hon. member for Newton Park said he wanted to have a blueprint in respect of the Government’s agricultural policy, and that his party had a blueprint. Now, if one looks at this goat-fodder pamphlet which they paraded so in 1970, we see that the United Party said there that it would guarantee the farmer a price for his produce, after provision had been made for a reasonable profit over and above production costs. The hon. member went on to say that his party, when they should come into power, would announce, in advance, a price for the various agricultural products. Now I want to put this question to the hon. member for Newton Park, and he is a responsible shadow Minister—although he is not much of a shadow and I would rather describe him as a “spectre”—will most certainly be able to furnish me with a good reply. If they should announce the maize price and we should reap 100 million or 120 million bags in that particular year, who would pay for the losses on exports?

We shall take the responsibility for them.

In other words, I may not assume that the hon. member does not agree with the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member for Parktown says taxes are too high, whereas the hon. member for Newton Park concedes that they would announce the prices of farmers’ products beforehand and would guarantee these prices by using money from the Revenue Account.

Now I want to come to another matter. In this election manifesto the United Party also said in respect of other agricultural products that they would guarantee the producer a price in respect of production costs plus a reasonable profit. Now I should like to ask the hon. member for Newton Park, because I take a great interest in that solution and because we do have that problem, what he would do, for instance, in respect of perishable agricultural products. I am thinking of a product such as tomatoes.

We shall have to wait for that day to come.

No, we are not joking here. I am conducting a dialogue here with a potentially very important person. I should like to know from the hon. member for Newton Park how they are going to get past this election promise of theirs. They have no option but to accept that they stand for this. What is he going to do in regard to the tomato farmer—I have many tomato farmers in my constituency? How are you going to guarantee him a profit? And then, believe it or not, you say that you are going to announce it beforehand! How are you going to guarantee the tomato farmer a price for his product? I put this question to the alternative Minister of Agriculture: Can he reply to that question of mine?

How does one guarantee the farmers a price for their cream?

I am asking the hon. member a question with reference to a statement with which they went to the people. He went to the people with this statement and he cannot deny it. Now the hon. member should just tell me how they are going to keep this promise of theirs which they made during the election? How are they going to guarantee the tomato farmer a reasonable income? Now the hon. member is laughing!

No, I am not laughing at that. That is a fair question.

Yes, but the hon. member does not want to give me a reply.

I have given you a fair reply.

Well, tell me then how you are going to do it; I should like to know that. I also want to know where he is going to get the funds for doing so.

Then I want to come to a third point. When I started, I said that the greatest stroke of luck which the farmer could possibly have had here was that the National Party came into power. When we were discussing the Prime Minister’s Vote and there was uncertainty about the maize price, when everybody was speculating about the maize price, the hon. member for Newton Park, too, spoke here about agriculture and agricultural prices while the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote was under discussion.

I was not even present here.

Very well, let us make it another Vote then. But you did make a speech and it stands recorded in Hansard that I asked you five times what you suggested should be a maize price and when you were going to plead for it. The shadow Minister did not say a word about the maize price. He did not put forward any plea whatever for the farmers as far as the maize price was concerned, because they are afraid. They are afraid that when they ask for a better price for the farmers, this may boomerang on them when a by-election is in progress.

Tonight I want to concentrate briefly on the question of producers’ prices. When a producer’s price is increased, one often hears the criticism that the consumer has to pay for it, and then the impression is often created that sometimes this increase in producers’ prices is unnecessary and that the consumer unnecessarily has to pay for it. In such cases these critics assume that there will always be sufficient food available in South Africa, irrespective of the price obtained by the farmer. We are making a big mistake if we reason or argue in this manner. In surveying the agricultural industry as a whole, we can only say that we in South Africa are in a very fortunate position because we are one of the few countries in Africa which has surplus food. This surplus food which we have is a very great asset to the farmer and to the country as a whole. It places us in a position where we do not have to import food. If we think of a country such as the United Kingdom or Japan, which has to import most of its food and has to use scarce foreign exchange for that purpose, one realizes that the agriculturist, the farmer, is rendering a major service to South Africa in that he is producing sufficient food for the country and so makes it unnecessary for South Africa to have to import food. What is more, the agricultural industry is a net earner of foreign exchange for South Africa. In reviewing the figures for 1971, which are the latest official figures I could obtain, one sees that in that year imports of agricultural products amounted to R48 million and exports to R453 million, which leaves a surplus of R405 million in foreign exchange, earned by the agricultural industry for South Africa. But this happy situation, the fact that we do not really have to import food and the fact that the agricultural industry is an earner of foreign exchange, cannot continue indefinitely if we do not adjust prices. Unfortunately, we are also faced with considerable increases in production costs in the agricultural industry.

Where are you going to get the money from now?

We see that over the ten year period from 1960-’61 to 1971-’72 the combined index for all farming requirements rose by 35%. This is, therefore, the increase in interest, wages, and so forth. That is why it is necessary for us to adjust producers’ prices from time to time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Lydenburg that when the hon. member for Newton Park talks about his policy, he says monstrous things. I, too, have a small question I should like to ask him. But before I come to that, I first want to give him a little information. He and his cohorts on the opposite side have said a great deal about rising food prices. That is true; the food prices have risen, but we should compare these with the increase in food prices in other countries of the world so as to be able to view the position in South Africa in its true perspective. Now I have here the Bulletin of Labour Statistics of the International Labour Office. In this, consumer price increases in food in all countries of the world are indicated on an index basis. They took 1963 as the base year, in which the prices were equated to 100. Then the bulletin gives the index figure for all the countries of the world in September, 1972. If we take 1963 as the base year, the price of food in South Africa rose to 148,5 in September, 1972. In Nigeria food prices rose to 187,2; In Zaïre to 507,8; in the Argentine to 910,9; in Hong Kong to 169; in India to 223; in Israel to 156; in Japan to 169; in Denmark to 182; in France to 148,6; in the United Kingdom to 164 and in New Zealand to 156. In other words, the increase which has taken place in South Africa is less than in any of the countries I have mentioned, which are spread across the whole world.

Then there is another very important figure I want to mention, namely the increase in producer prices, wholesale prices and consumer prices in South Africa. In the Short Survey of Agricultural Statistics the period from 1958-’59 to 1960-’61 is taken as the base and the average prices in those years are equated to 100. On that basis, the producer prices rose to 131,5 up to 1971-’72. The wholesale prices rose to 135,2 and the consumer prices to 142. In other words, in comparison with other countries the rise in food prices which occured in South Africa, was not exorbitant. In fact it compares favourably with the increases in other countries, and what is more, of all the sectors that have to do with food, the farmer has been the least responsible for the increase in the prices of food.

Sir, the hon. member for Newton Park told us about his policy and said that consumer prices must be stabilized, in other words consumer prices in South Africa may never rise again in the future. Is that correct?

Do you not know what “stabilize” means? Prices are not stable if they rise by 6% to 8% per annum.

The hon. member says that prices must be stabilized and that he is opposed to the latest increase in the price of bread. Sir, in South Africa the price of bread has increased six times since 1953, and each time the U.P. has been opposed to that increase in the price of bread. Is that true or is not true? I ask the hon. member for Newton Park to give me one example where he and his party have said that they agree with the increase in the price of bread. [Interjection.] Let us leave all the other matters, then, and talk only about bread. Do hon. members on that side want an increase in the price of bread in future, or not? They must tell me today when they want the price of bread to increase. They are not satisfied with this increase; when do they want the increase to be allowed? Sir, the hon. member does not reply. I shall tell him exactly what he said. He said—

“In order to keep the price stable.” The price must be kept stable. What does a stable price mean? It means that it must not rise.

For the consumer.

Yes, for the consumer. He then went on to say—

In other words, that hon. member is telling us tonight that he is in favour of taxation in South Africa being increased, because he wants to pay more and more subsidies. [Interjection.] Sir, what the hon. member has said, means that the consumer prices of food in South Africa will have to be frozen; that is what he is trying to make the voters in the cities believe. He must stand up now and tell me exactly in what proportion he wants food prices to rise. Must food prices rise together with the salaries of our people, or must they rise more rapidly than the salaries of our people, or must they rise more slowly? What the hon. member said, means that food prices may not rise any further. He was opposed to the increase in the price of bread on this occasion and they have always been opposed to any increase in the price of bread.

Are you in favour of it?

Of course. As the incomes of our people in South Africa rise and as the costs of the means of production for the farmer rise, so the prices paid by the consumer must rise correspondingly, because his income has also risen. I am not in favour of the consumer prices being kept stable for all time, as that hon. member wants. Surely, Sir, that is hopelessly wrong. What the hon. member is announcing means that in the future, as prices rise, the Government will have to impose higher taxes and will have to subsidize prices of food to an ever greater extent.

Do you want the farmers to get less?

Sir, if the price of bread were to have been kept stable from 1948 up to the present, then it means that the subsidy would have been more than the contribution of the consumer, and if this process were to continue for long enough, then the consumer’s contribution would become minimal, and then the party opposite would have to change its name; then it would have to call itself the Socialist Party of South Africa.

May I ask a question?

No, sit down, sit down.

Why are you so alarmed?

The hon. member wants the Government to take back the salary he and other consumers in South Africa are receiving; that the Government should buy the flour from the farmer; that it should pay the baker; that it should pay the retailer and that the consumer should then only pay a few cents. In other words, the consumer no longer decides how much bread he should buy and what he should pay; he should merely decide how much bread he wants to eat. Sir, what the hon. member wants is that the Government should take back the earnings of the consumer in the form of taxation; the farmer must be paid by the Government; the farmer, the trader and the consumer must all work for the Government. Sir, the hon. member for Newton Park must go and render those things which he has included in his policy.

Did you say that you were in favour of the withdrawal of subsidies?

No, he did not say that.

Sir, we are in favour of there being subsidies, but they must be in proportion with the rise in the country’s revenue. We are not in favour of prices being frozen forever. We are in favour of the consumer also making his contribution, just as the producer has to make his contribution, because what we are not in favour of is that we the producers, and the consumers and the workers and the traders should all be sold out to the Government so that we should become a socialist state and that is what the party on that side is seeking to achieve. We do not want to destroy that freedom of the consumer and of the individual in South Africa as the United Party wants to do. In other debates this year we have found the same tendency among them.

You want to take the bread out of the mouths of the old people.

No, we are caring for those people better than you could ever have dreamt of doing. But now I want to tell you this. I am serious on this point. This is not the only occasion in this session in which you have indicated that you are in favour of such things. In other debates you have told the Government that it must determine the wage of the labourers. Eventually you will come along and tell the farmer in the country: “I as the Government tell you that you must pay your labourers so much.”

But the Wage Board is doing it.

No, the Wage Board only sets the minimum wage; the entrepreneur can pay a good labourer as much as he wants. If he has a man whom he thinks highly of, then he can pay him more than the minimum wage. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Lichtenburg took a stand here against subsidies on food. He made a plea here against subsidies on food.

No.

I explicitly said they had to increase normally.

If that is the case, what did the hon. member plead for? [Interjections.] Then the hon. member went on to say that our food prices were the lowest in the world.

No, I said they were the lowest in those countries which I mentioned; not in the world.

All you wanted to prove was how the farmer’s price had been kept down. But why did the hon. member not tell us where in the world cattle mash had also shown an increase of 60%, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Smithfield? But you did not say anything about that. You did not plead for a reduction in the cost of the requirements of the farmer. You had nothing to say about that.

Then I come to the hon. member for Lydenburg. He said that if we were to produce 120 million bags of maize, who would pay the difference? Sir, if we produced 120 million bags of maize, this side of the House would be eternally grateful because we would be able to export it, and does the hon. member know what the export price of maize is today? It is R5-50 in countries abroad, and we could therefore make a profit. But the hon. member did not do his homework. Then the hon. member went on to ask us what we would do if we had a surplus of tomatoes. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is so simple.

We would turn it into tomato juice.

We have plans. We said we would buy up the surpluses and distribute them cheaply amongst the non-White population and in the schools. An amount of R52 million per year is being spent here on health and R14 million on tuberculosis. If one fed these people well on inexpensive food, one would be able to avoid all these expenses. We in the United Party have new plans for the new decade, but those verkrampte members are incapable of thinking about that. When I listened to that side of the House in this debate, I wonder whether we are living in the same world. They are living in a fairyland. We listened here to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s maiden speech. He spoke about the Nationalist Party’s achievements in the sphere of agriculture over the past 25 years, but what did he say? There were two Ministers who had been in office for such a long period, but he did not tell us what those Ministers had done. What did they do? He said the gross income of the agricultural industry had risen from R375 million to R657 million. However, he did not say that the debts had increased to R1 438 million.

From what amount?

From practically nothing. [Interjections.] This debt is just as much as the income. I say they are living in a fairyland, for what does the farmer class look like today? Go to any Karoo town, go to a place such as Loxton, go to a place such as Philipstown, go to those places which were once the proud parts of South Africa, which produced the noble class of South Africa, and see what they look like now. They are homes for the aged. See what Steytlerville looks like.

Fine, much better that you do.

See what their member looks like—he is not very old in years, but see what he looks like! These are elderly people, people who have been forced to their knees.

Boet, you have finished; the only thing is you have forgotten to sit down!

Order!

What is the position today? The farmers owe R1 438 million. That is what they owe today.

What do the farmers’ assets come to?

The investment is R7 134 million. Unfortunately my time has expired, but we shall take this up again.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply first to some of the statements made by Government members. The hon. member for Marico spoke about the allocation of State-owned land. I should like to give the hon. member some information. In his constituency “Bantu land” will be made available to Whites. The intention is to allocate that land in different ways, after we have allowed it to rest and it has recovered. The most important aspect in this regard is that we do not want to offer it for sale by auction so that a wealthy person may be enabled to acquire the land. Suppose that an economic unit in that area consists of 1 000 hectares and we have a farm consisting of 10 000 hectares. We would then divide those 10 000 hectares into 10 economic units. Then we would advertise those units, and this does not mean that only people from the constituency of Marico would be taken into consideration in this regard, for there are many constituencies in which State-owned land will never become available.

I agree.

We would of course, as is our wont, determine first whether it would be possible for us to add parts of that land to the land of farmers in that district who do not have economic units at the moment. The screening would take place after we have advertised the farm at its agricultural value. If we were to advertise the land at its present market value, it would mean that the person who acquires such a farm would be handicapped by a heavy burden of debt right from the beginning.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad spoke about encouraging farmers to enter into the service of the Department of Agriculture. I want to thank the hon. member for the thoughts he expressed in that regard. It is not possible for everybody to be settled in the agricultural industry, but there are great opportunities in the department, and in this regard I am thinking of some of the projects which we are developing specifically as a result of the meat shortage. We have at the moment a beef cattle performance and progeny testing scheme, for which 800 herds have been entered. Furthermore we have a milk recording scheme, for which 893 herds have been entered and 33 900 cows are being tested every month. We need people to do the work for us which is involved in these projects. We have a mutton-sheep performance and progeny testing scheme, in which several farmers are taking part. We have a performance testing of woolled sheep, under which 12 000 wool samples are being analysed at present. We have a boar performance testing scheme with facilities at Elsenburg, Irene and Cedara. At the moment 280 farmers have been entered and we envisage that this scheme will yet be extended a great deal. We also have a pig recording and health progeny testing scheme. Then we also have an egg-laying and broiler test scheme, in which 800 farmers are taking part already. This kind of development is essential for the provision of sufficient food, and for that reason I am pleased that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad mentioned this matter.

The hon. member for Christiana made very interesting figures available to us. He referred to the training of non-Whites as tractor-drivers, for they are the persons who are handling many of our expensive agricultural implements. Attention is already being given to this matter by these bodies which have so pointedly been placed in the limelight today, namely the co-operatives. A co-operative such as VETSAK has a training scheme for Bantu tractor drivers, whereas some of the co-operatives are availing themselves of the facilities created by the Total Oil company. The hon. member is quite correct in saying that the Bantu must be trained to drain a tractor’s oil, to clean its air filter and to service it. It is important that they receive this kind of basic instruction. Once I visited a farm during the planting season. It was raining and the farmer had to start planting that morning. However, he did not have enough tractor drivers. But then he saw a Bantu standing there and he asked him, “Can you drive a tractor?” The Bantu’s reply was, “No, master.” Then he said to the Bantu, “Get on, let go of the clutch and drive! ” That type of farmer allows his own machinery and implements to be ruined. That is not the way to work with an expensive implement. For that reason we must give more attention to this matter, and this is in fact being done.

The hon. member for Omaruru said that things were going well for the farmers of South-West Africa. I do not begrudge those farmers the favourable circumstances they are enjoying at the moment, because for several years they experienced very hard times. The hon. member also referred to the system of auction on the hoof, which could provide the feeders with an opportunity to hold back certain animals in order to improve their condition. As it is, the present system of selling at auctions lends itself to that, and the meat farmers do not want to do away with the system of auction on the hook as implemented by the Meat Board at the moment. The hon. member referred to the revision of the grading system, and he specifically referred to unnecessary fat on the carcasses. In laying down the present floor price, we specifically took the age into account in determining super and prime grades. Grade X and grade Y carcasses are determined on the basis of age, whereas we have raised the minimum weight from 160 kg to 180 kg. Of course, this depends on whether it is a two-tooth animal, whether it is a full-mouthed animal, and so forth. The aim is to get cattle ready for the market as soon as possible within that period so that more meat may be produced. However, we may from time to time look at the grading regulations again.

The hon. member for Smithfield referred to the contribution made by the dairy farmers, and I admit that this is definitely a trying undertaking, for the dairy farmer works seven days a week. The hon. member referred to the cost increase in concentrates. He mentioned that there had been a 60% increase in the cost of fish-meal and that there had been a cost increase of 30% in the case of oil-cake. Seen as a whole, these two kinds represent but a small percentage of the concentrate. For the most part concentrate still consists of maize and milled lucerne. There is a R9,2 million subsidy on the price of maize, apart from the R23 million being paid in respect of handling and storage compensation. By these means the Government has tried to give the producer a 22% increase, whereas the consumer is only paying 11,5% more for white maize and 15% more for yellow maize. It was therefore an entirely wrong statement that was made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, or was it the hon. member for King William’s Town?, namely that the price of concentrates had risen such a great deal. That is not the case.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet set out the wool scheme. I should like to tell the wool farmers that they should not be unpleasant about the wool scheme. They should give it a chance for a year. In fact, so many of our deciduous fruit varieties, our citrus products, our apples, our peaches and our pears lose their identity to such an extent when they are pooled that one no longer knows whether it is one’s own specific carton which is being sold. This is the case because these cartons go into the pool, but unfortunately this scheme is such that the wool farmer is still aware that it is his own wool which is being sold in that specific period. Once the scheme has had a chance to catch on, I think farmers will understand this scheme much better and accept it.

The hon. member for Stilfontein took up the cudgels for the poultry farmer. He, too, referred to the increase in the costs of concentrates, and so forth. What I said a moment ago also holds good for the subsidies on maize in the case of concentrates for poultry. As far as the smugglers are concerned, I may tell the hon. member that good breeding material may in fact be brought in by certain private importers. Because there have been specific developments in America, especially as far as the breeding of broilers is concerned, we gave permission, after consultation with the Poultry Association, for a quarantine station to be built at Irene. It is now possible for a person to import breeding material without having to smuggle it in. At the moment there are financially strong consortiums which have permission to import, but our condition is that 15% of that material, after it has been tested and it has been determined that it does not carry any diseases, must be made available to the smaller farmer, especially those in the Stilfontein and Potchefstroom vicinity, so that with these new mother lines they may also have the opportunity to compete with the other producers.

The hon. member for Heidelberg spoke about the fringe benefits received by the non-White worker, and pointed out that in some cases these were worth up to R40 per month. I am glad that he mentioned this and also referred to the relationship which existed between the Bantu worker on the farm and the owner of the farm, their attitude towards each other. The hon. member forgot to mention a few things. Virtually any farmers will, when a Bantu worker comes to him at 10 o’clock or 12 o’clock in the night in order to tell him that a member of his family is sick, take that person to the doctor. Services of this nature are being rendered all the time, and one cannot calculate them in terms of money. Many of these Bantu do not refer to the master’s farm but to “our” farm. This is the relationship which we should like to see between employees and employers on our farms.

The hon. member for Lydenburg wanted to know how one cold guarantee a person a price, and I simply cannot understand that the hon. member for Newton Park fails to see the point here. Let us take, for example, the case of potatoes. There was a time when the market was overstocked with potatoes and one did not know where to market this product. Countries abroad did not want any potatoes, and we had a surplus on the Johannesburg market of 23 000 pockets on one day. One cannot give a farmer a guaranteed price and tell him that he may go ahead and produce and that we shall guarantee his price. There are some products in respect of which this simply cannot be done. It seems to me as though the U.P. members do not know how the “mechanics” of this whole matter works. The hon. member for Lydenburg quite rightly pointed out to him the problems which are involved when one talks about a stable price and about a subsidy. Surely one may not cause the consumer to labour under the delusion that the price of bread will never be increased, even if the subsidy were to amount to R150 million. There are people who treat bread with contempt because it is so cheap. Salary adjustments are taking place, and the consumer must therefore be prepared to pay a little extra, otherwise this would simply lead to extra taxes, and we do not want to increase taxes.

Now I want to come to the speeches made by Opposition members. The hon. member for East London City spoke about co-operative production amongst farmers. This is a voluntary matter. The hon. member for South Coast approached me in regard to a loan for the Umzumbe Sugar Planters Co-op., where bulldozers had been bought jointly by 24 farmers. They obtained a loan of R60 000 from the Land Bank. It is quite a voluntary matter when farmers want to co-operate in regard to purchasing of farm implements, and so forth. This is quite in order; we encourage it, but we cannot make it compulsory.

Where are you encouraging it?

Whenever representations are received. We have announced this ever so many times. The hon. member for Kensington referred to the Aliwal by-election, but he forgot about the election at Colesberg.

†Why did the United Party not put up a candidate in Colesberg? [Interjections.] The hon. member talked about the Bantu Townships as a potential market for agricultural products. He then referred to the decrease in the sale of citrus products in Soweto and other townships. In certain years you find that citrus farmers are in a position to export up to 70% or 80% of their products. Then the fruit available for the local market is less than the previous years. Now the hon. member compares the two figures, the one for 1972 and the one for 1971.

But haven’t you read the report?

I have read the report.

Are you satisfied with the situation?

I want to explain the situation to the hon. member; I do not want to fight with him. I want to explain to him that the decrease is because of the better export prices and a better crop, because we export only the top quality products. The inferior quality is sold locally. Over a period of 10 years the sale of South African citrus products in England increased by seven million pockets. Another thing the hon. member must remember is that more and more citrus fruit is being sent to juice manufacturing companies also to be marketed overseas.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are you satisfied with the system of marketing in the Bantu areas, because the Citrus Exchange is highly dissatisfied, as you probably know?

I am not satisfied. I am also not satisfied in regard to the distribution of milk. We have made arrangements with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration to have these products freely distributed. I think that in future, with the techniques and methods the Citrus Board is working on, we will approach the Minister of Bantu Administration again to institute a better distribution of fruit in the Bantu areas, [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I have not got much time left and I still have to reply to several other hon. members. The hon. member for Zululand asked for a research station in his constituency. We have a research station on the Makatini Flats. Perhaps the hon. member has been to the research station we have there. That research station is now going to KwaZulu. We will investigate this matter. At the moment we have extension officers in Vryheid, Dundee, Eshowe, and Pongola. In Pongola research work is being done in connection with sugar. However, as the hon. member specifically mentioned, the lowveld area under various conditions are not the same as those at Cedara, and we will pay attention to this. I will reply to the hon. member later as to whether we can shift the research station from the Makatini Flats to another place in his constituency. He will understand, of course, that we cannot place one at Nongoma, Hlabisa or Umfolozi; that would be impossible, but we will look into this matter.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District asked who received the profit on the import of mutton. It is a very small profit, but in the Budget we made provision for the losses which might occur. The Government was prepared to bear the losses, but the farmers of South Africa receive the small profit that is made. It is not the Government’s money.

Did the farmers get it?

It is in the Stabilization Fund of the Meat Board. I will tell the farmers that the Opposition is not happy that they receive a portion of the profit made on imported mutton. Is that right? Is that what I must tell them?

Like with butter.

Yes, like with butter. They are paying the losses there. I will give the hon. member the figures later. The hon. member said we are keeping the prices of foodstuffs down at the cost of the farmers. That is what he said.

Right.

He must remember to tell this to the people in the cities. Tell them that we are keeping the prices of the foodstuffs down to penalize the farmers. Is that what you said? He said we lost 121 dairy farmers in Natal. It is not only the problem of profits but also the availability of Native labour that have to be taken into account. The dairy farmer must work seven days a week. With the high prices of beef, those farmers switched over. I may add that we have a surplus in all those areas. In Natal we have surpluses of milk at the moment. We increased the price by only 18%, whereas we increased the floor price of beef by 36%. They felt it is more profitable to switch over to beef production. Is there anything wrong with that? Yet we still have surpluses of milk!

What have you got against the dairy industry?

I have nothing against the dairy industry. Are you satisfied with the price that the farmers are getting at the moment with the increases since March?

No.

Must we increase it more?

Yes.

Must we then ask the consumer to pay more for milk?

You must introduce a scheme to sell that product to the consumers.

The hon. member referred to quarantine facilities. We spent R1 million on quarantine facilities at Kempton Park to which I paid a visit in November. I make bold to say that the facilities there are the most modern in the world. Overseas visitors have said they are proud to see what we are doing at Kempton Park. We are arranging a visit for the farmer groups on both sides of the House and I think the hon. member will be ashamed of his words that what is happening at the quarantine station at Kempton Park is a “disgrace”. The only animals we keep in quarantine there are parrots and other pets, such as dogs, etc. R1 million was spent on this station.

*Mr. Chairman, let me rather get at the hon. member in my Afrikaans. If the hon. member would take a look at the quarantine facilities that have been created at Irene, where only poultry comes in under quarantine, he would see why these are facilities of which we are proud. Now the hon. member comes along and says that this is the breeding place of Newcastle disease. There was an outbreak of Newcastle disease at Kempton Park as a very result of testings for Newcastle disease, and all diseases are tested at this institute.

The hon. member referred to price control. The milk price is being controlled, he said, by the Department of Commerce and Industry, but in the Witwatersrand areas, Pretoria, Klerksdorp, Krugersdorp and other West Transvaal areas as well as the Cape Peninsula, the Milk Board operates on a basis of full control. However, in Pietermaritzburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth the Milk Board does not operate in a similar manner. There the Minister of Economic Affairs exercises the control. However, my Department is keeping itself informed on the price of milk. Since the last announcement of the new price, we have made it known in the Press and told the distributor to display the price on his till. Hon. members have seen this in the cafés. From time to time we announce the maximum price of milk, but there has been some exploitation; however, at the moment everybody is satisfied with the method by which we are controlling the price of milk.

Now I come to the hon. member for King William’s Town. Let me just tell the hon. member that between June and October, 1972, the Government made a contribution on a 50-50 basis in respect of the butter export losses—an estimated amount of R400 000. The Dairy Board also contributes R400 000. The subsidy to the consumer of butter in respect of this year, up to the end of September, comes to an amount of R10,9 million. This is what the Government contributes in order to subsidize the price of butter. The price of butter has dropped from 54c per 500 grammes, with the special system of promotion we had at the end of November, to 44c per 500 grammes. This represents an additional contribution which was made by the Government and the dairy farmers from their funds because the sale of butter had dropped by 40% after the arrival of yellow margarine. It seems as though it must be accepted by us as a permanent situation that butter will have to give up 40% of its market to margarine. The price adjustments made this year were deliberately aimed, because we have a shortage of powdered milk and cheese, at widening the gap by increasing considerably the price of industrial milk but raising the price of butter only by 6c per 100 kg of butter-fat. This was done for the specific purpose of providing an incentive for the production of industrial milk.

Sir, it seems to me that I am not going to finish. The hon. member for King William’s Town said that the price of cattle mash had risen by 60%. That is nonsense; that is utter nonsense.

The hon. member talks so freely about the burden of debt of the farmers. He said the farmers had no debt in 1948. That is simply not true. I think the hon. member for Christiana said we had 200 000 tractors in the country. Last year alone we imported tractors to the value of R25 million. We bought agricultural implements to the value R23 million. All of these are assets that were acquired in one year’s time. I am not even talking about the sprinkler apparatus and other installations acquired by the farmers. The assets of the farmers are increasing far more rapidly than is their total burden of debt. A great deal of the debt incurred by the farmers has been in connection with land, which is still appreciating. As a result of our agricultural policy and price adjustments this year the position is unfortunately that land prices are going to rise. It is a pity that this is the case. I am not saying that all is well with the farmers of our country—one cannot expect to remedy everything in next to no time —but I do say that the Government is trying to lend a sympathetic ear to the problems of the farmers and to see to the bottlenecks which are developing along the way. We are not stagnant; we shall always be faced with problems and try to solve them. We are not going to lie down.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to do anything about the biggest bottleneck, the railway rates?

In the determination of the price of agricultural products this year, which was adjusted generally after the increase in railway rates, we took into consideration every time the higher costs of the farmer to be able to transport his product. This is being incorporated in the determination of the price. In any upward adjustment on the road ahead, it will be the duty of the Ministry of Agriculture to take this factor into account in the determination of the farmer’s price. If they have that assurance, I know that the farmers are happy, but this is not the case when one gives them those goat-fodder pamphlet assurances and guarantees them all sorts of things. These are things which one only delivers oneself of when one is sitting in the Opposition. But if one is in the “game” and one has to implement a policy, one exercises caution, and then one knows that from time to time one …

The whistle is going to blow now.

Order!

May I have some more time tomorrow?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.