Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, I wish at this stage to express the objection of this side of the House to the manner of dealing with legislation as exemplified by the motion of the hon. the Minister of Justice. The hon. the Minister has just moved that Orders of the Day Nos. 20, the Second Reading of the Liquor Amendment Bill, and 23, the Second Reading of the Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Bill, be discharged and the Bills withdrawn. These are both substantial Bills, amending substantial legislation. He has moved that they be removed from the Order Paper because there is on our desks today the Second General Law Amendment Bill in which is incorporated absolutely every single clause of the Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Bill which he has now proposed should be withdrawn from the Order Paper. Furthermore, the Liquor Amendment Bill, the withdrawal of which he has also moved, is also substantially included in the General Law Amendment Bill. The Acting Leader of the House does, I think, have an explanation to give this House. It was he who a few weeks ago indicated to us that certain items appearing on the Order Paper, including the Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Bill and the Liquor Amendment Bill, would not be proceeded with this session. We have therefore conducted our affairs on that basis. I should not like to say that the Acting Leader of the House has misled the House, but I am sure that he would not have given us this indication had he known that by some kind of subterfuge those Bills were going to be incorporated into the General Law Amendment Bill. This is no way to legislate. As I said, here we have important Bills amending important legislation. In fact, the Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Bill is one which increases the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts and it is an extremely important measure. As far as the public are concerned, all these measures should be seen as separate statutes. They should be able to find these statutes accordingly. They should not have, as is the position here, to look for amendments to the Magistrates’ Courts Act, which affects the lives of everyone, and to the Liquor Amendment Act, in a General Law Amendment Bill. They should be able to look at the list of statutes and see that there is an amending Act in relation to that particular subject. Quite apart from that, the way in which we conduct our affairs in this House and the rules to which we are subject make it impossible for us to deal with important matters like this if they are all going to be lumped together in a General Law Amendment Bill. This is especially true when they are down on the Order Paper to be dealt with by the House and moreover, when we are told that they are not going to be proceeded with. What is worse, the aspects of the Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Act dealing with the jurisdiction of the courts, are not to come into effect immediately. They are only to come into effect at some future date to be determined by the State President. There would therefore appear to be no hurry in relation to these measures. I want to say moreover that in my 14 years as a member of this House and the Other Place I have never known us sit so long every night and then still have this sort of thing thrown upon us. There is also the threat of morning sittings. Bearing in mind these factors, we now suddenly find that the two Bills which we were not going to proceed with, are now to be proceeded with. As the Official Opposition, we object because the burden of carrying the debate and the fight in respect of all the legislation lies on the Opposition and not on the hon. gentlemen sitting on that side. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Defence who has been acting as Leader of the House will assure us that when he becomes the Leader of the House this sort of thing will not happen again. I sincerely hope that either the hon. Minister of Justice or the hon. the Minister of Defence, particularly the latter, will give us an explanation of this matter and an assurance that Parliament will not be treated in this way in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Durban North. He ought not to have a seat here, but nevertheless. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Durban North regards these two Bills as being important ones, but he will in fact have the opportunity of debating them fully. So why does the hon. member complain? [Interjections.] We have removed the most important provisions from those two Bills and inserted them into the General Law Amendment Bill.

Why?

What does it matter? It is more convenient to insert them into the General Law Amendment Bill. This is all that has been done. The hon. member for Durban North wants to discuss them and he will in fact have the opportunity of doing so.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Will he tell us whether he misled the Acting Leader of the House into believing that these Bills would not come before us?

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Did the hon. the Minister of Justice tell the Acting Leader of the House that these Bills would not be proceeded with?

He refuses to answer. [Interjections.]

Order!

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

On this occasion there are certain points which we should like to put to the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Minister because we believe that South Africa, as is the case with any other country in the world, is being threatened by a number of problems at the moment, and unless certain steps are taken these threats may in course of time assume serious proportions. These threats or problems, which I shall mention, are of course being aggravated even further by the tremendous increase in population, not only abroad but also here in South Africa. Firstly, there is the inflationary trend throughout the world, secondly, the energy crisis and, thirdly, the food crisis. Throughout the world these three threats ought to be receiving the serious attention of the governments of all countries. Experts in this field tell us that at a certain stage a month or two ago the world only had enough food for 27 days. The experts also tell us that there are only six countries which have surplus food and therefore have food to export. Apparently South Africa is one of those six countries. I think this is definitely an achievement of which we in this country can be proud. Apparently parts of the world with large populations, e.g. India, are continuously in the grip of famine. I have a large number of clippings to substantiate my statement, but I shall not take up the time of the House by doing so. It is common knowledge that thousands of people to the north of us, in certain parts of Africa, have already died owing to droughts and a shortage of food. The picture everywhere is therefore one of distress, of grief and unhappiness. To come nearer home, we see how our own population groups are markedly increasing in numbers. Prof. Sadie of the University of Stellenbosch recently predicted that our population would number 80 million in 46 years’ time. Our available arable land is not exactly increasing either, whilst our cost structure is getting higher and higher. The efficiency of our agricultural labour force is, I believe, poor because the best people amongst the non-Whites are usually attracted to other sectors. Besides the agricultural industry simply cannot compete with the other sectors when it comes to salaries and wages. And yet this sector must not lag behind. Considering that there is a rising demand for agricultural commodities and that this industry is going to be faced with major challenges in the next decade or two, we on this side of the House—and I think hon. members on the other side of the House, too—should ask ourselves whether the achievements of the past can be lived up to and built on without our planning properly for the demands of the new era which we are entering. That is why we on this side of the House say that the pre-requisite which we should set ourselves should be to plan the development of our natural resources in such a way that we may achieve optimum production without exhausting them in any way. For that reason, too, I should say that the time to sound a warning, as I have just done, about food shortages and grain shortages in particular, is past now. Any Dick, Tom and Harry can pose this problem. What should this Committee occupy itself with in this debate on agriculture? We should occupy ourselves with the question of how we are going to approach that task and how we are going to solve it in the next decade or two.

I want to say at once that I believe we are fortunate to have three efficient agricultural departments. Although some of these departments are struggling with a manpower shortage, our best experts and research workers are nevertheless being attracted to these departments all the time. Any person who has dealings with the, officials of these three departments realizes that there is no lack of enthusiasm for agriculture on their part. If there is any lack on their part, it is through no fault of theirs but because something else is handicapping them. The point I should like to make is that it is not going to be of any use to us if we have the best trained officials and research workers, the people who have to implement the policy, and we are going to place obstacles in their way and so prevent them from conveying to the farmer of South Africa that knowledge and the results of the research they are doing. There is no doubt that there are still too many of our agricultural field personnel who have to spend too much time at the office and are therefore not in a position to visit the farms. After all, this is where the most urgent extension services have to be provided. Here they are needed most. If we make it our aim to meet the demands which will be made on us at the end of the century, we shall have to start pleading with the hon. the Minister for more extension officers, more extension offices and more established technical personnel in our agricultural areas. For instance, South Africa does not have enough veterinary surgeons, whereas we are suffering tremendous losses through the outbreak of diseases amongst our animals. Millions of rands are lost every year. If it is our objective to make agricultural production as profitable as possible, the most important task is surely not only to ensure that the production is increased; it is certainly just as important to ensure that one does not suffer great loss. South Africa suffers tremendous losses every year as a result of the fact that we do not have enough trained veterinary surgeons. This is something which this country simply cannot afford.

Whose fault is that?

I do not want to accuse the Government of being the cause of the shortage of veterinary surgeons, but for years now we have been urging the establishment of an additional faculty for the training of veterinary surgeons. For the present, Onderstepoort simply cannot provide for the needs of South Africa as far as veterinary surgeons are concerned. If the Government had taken the initiative here and had paid attention to this warning, we ought to have had that additional faculty in South Africa by this time. Unless such steps are taken, the country is going to suffer and we are not going to be in a position to exploit the normal agricultural potential in the future as it ought to be exploited.

Recently I saw, for instance, that weed damage amongst agricultural products in South Africa annually caused a loss of about R200 million. This represents approximately one-ninth of our total agricultural turnover. With the necessary personnel, the correct guidance and the best attitude on the part of the farmer, we ought to make a tremendous onslaught against it. You see, Sir, if weed annually cause damage to the amount of R200 million against the background of a turnover of R1 800 million in gross revenue per year by the agricultural industry, what would we not be saving if we could increase our expenditure on weed combating, thus ensuring that we would not suffer tremendous losses to the amount of R200 million per year! If one considers that we do not have enough arable land, it is all the more essential that we should take every possible step to ensure that our losses in this regard are restricted to the minimum. If the figure of R200 million per year in respect of damage caused by weed is compared with other aspects in the agricultural industry, we find that this task is almost just as extensive as that of soil and water conservation in South Africa. We suffer almost just as much damage as a result of top soil being washed down to the sea.

The agricultural industry cannot do without its professional people. It is their function to educate and to do research. What the nature of their work is can be measured in terms of the fact that only 20% of our practical farmers have had any formal agricultural training. If one wants to comply with the requirements of the times, one cannot have a situation where there are 85 000 farmers of whom only 20% have had any formal agricultural training. I am not saying that formal training is the be-all and end-all, for there are many farmers who have made an outstanding success of farming without having had any form of agricultural training. However, when one lives in a scientific age or a technological age such as the age in which we are living, it is most definitely much easier for the educator or for the extension officer if he has to deal with people who have a basic knowledge of the subject concerned. If that were the case, it would not be necessary for the extension officer or educator to teach agriculturists what happens when fertilizer is added to soil or to explain to them what osmosis is, for they would immediately understand these things. After all, it is essential for the person implementing the basic economic principles of the agricultural industry to know these things. That is why I say that the task of the professional officers in our agricultural industry is being made so much more difficult because only 20% of our agriculturists have had any formal agricultural training. This fact does not exactly facilitate their task. For that reason it is my considered opinion that our young farmers who are settled on our land must have a few years’ formal agricultural training. This almost becomes a prerequisite if we want to reach our target. To the credit of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister I must say that there is welcome evidence in this direction. More students are enrolling at our colleges and universities than was the case a few years ago. A few years ago we sounded a warning in this regard from this side of the House. We should very much like to see more of the young men who have completed their training at colleges or universities establishing themselves on farms rather than being employed by the private sector. For that reason the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure ought to go out of its way to encourage young people without the necessary land and capital to take the place of retiring farmers who do not have any heirs or must needs sell their land. I should like to be understood very clearly on this point. It is not my intention to disparage the large, productive farming units; much less is it my object to try to keep the struggling small farmer on the land, but there is a limit to horizontal agricultural expansion. In the end this can only lead to a high production cost per unit, a static production or even a loss in the production volume. For that reason we must encourage these people to take the place of other farmers since only a higher vertical yield per unit, which will be produced by the well-trained agricultural entrepreneur, and the attention of a specialist in his field can increase the volume of production in our country without our land being exploited. I refuse to believe that our agricultural industry ought to fall into the almost monopolistic hands of a small number of financially strong individuals or companies. If we do not attract the individual young trained farmer and our agricultural industry is taken over by financially strong companies or individuals, it will be detrimental to the country and not to the advantage of our rural development in this country. I said earlier on that in my opinion our non-White labour force was not equipped for its task. From force of necessity non-White farm labourers of the kind coming to our farms are drawn from that section of the population that have not had much education and training. In general the productivity of these people is low. In this respect, too, drastic adjustments will have to be made if we want to realize our full agricultural potential. Usually the finger is pointed at the farmer and it is said that he is paying too little for his labour and that the facilities provided by him are inadequate, too. Now, what are the facts of this situation? Approximately 3 million non-Whites are settled on our White farms. Housing and educational facilities will needs have to be identified. This is a sociological as well as an educational task which the agricultural industry will have to perform. But the agricultural industry cannot do this on its own. The hon. the Minister made certain concessions in regard to housing. He announced those concessions recently. They are welcomed by this side of the House, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, under these circumstances, those concessions are going far enough. Under the present circumstances it will cost approximately R2 000 to build a house with a minimum of decent facilities for a farm labourer and his family. In spite of the fact that the hon. gentleman said that the farmer would only have to pay 1 % of his loans, and in spite of the fact that those loans have been raised considerably, I want to tell him that a substantial balance will still have to come from the farmer’s pocket. The subsidy will only relate to the interest that has to be paid. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to extend this subsidy to include the capital amount. Usually the value of this type of dwelling does not increase. It is a waning asset on one’s farm. In the extensive parts far away from the towns we shall also have to have more farm schools for the non-Whites. The obligation on the individual farmer and on his friends will therefore become bigger if they want to join forces in order to build these schools. That is why I ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration, in respect of houses, to not limiting this subsidy to the interest, but to extending it to the capital amount owing to the fact that such a substantial difference will still have to be paid by the farmer. If this is done, it will not be something new. I am not keen to draw a comparison in this regard since these things may not be comparable. However, the farmer receives a subsidy on his soil conservation work. He also receives a subsidy on his fences. He can get a subsidy on his windmills and his dams, but when it comes to the housing of his employees, we say that we are only prepared to subsidize the interest on the capital borrowed from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, namely 4%. That is why I say that the hon. the Minister should give attention to this matter, for if we want to compete with industry and the cities, we shall undoubtedly have to improve the housing of our non-White labourers. The farmer farming on large scale is not the only one who will have to build nine or ten of these houses. Even if he has to build only eight houses at R2 500 a piece, the total already comes to an amount of R20 000. That is why we say that even more provision will have to be made for the further training of our farm workers. Although this training is very simple, it is often training of a technical nature. Who will have to take the lead in this training? It is correct that the farmer has his obligation. If he can train his own people, so much the better. We on this side of the House want to propose that programmes for the training of these people at centrally-situated places be drawn up from time to time and that such training programmes be implemented at intervals. They must extend over a number of days. The local farmers’ associations and the local extension officers can play a very important part in this regard.

I have now mentioned a number of factors which the agriculturist should like to see eliminated in order that he may produce at top speed. Whenever there is a demand for the farmer’s product, there is also a corresponding price. But for a few exceptions there is no downward trend in this regard. We on this side of the House welcome this fact as far as produce prices are concerned. However, we must bear in mind that whereas the increase in the producer’s price is, on the one hand, an encouragement to the farmer when the production costs increase all the time and the profit margin shrinks, we must realize that, on the other hand again, this has a negative effect on the farmer. Labour and maintenance costs are going up every day. In spite of the increase in the subsidy on interest, interest rates are still higher than they were a year ago. The producer simply does not escape from inflation, much less from its effects.

We on this side of the House once again wish to express our strongest disapproval of the marked increases in railway rates that were announced recently. These increases have hit our industry as well as the consumer and supporter of the Railways extremely hard. An enhancement of the efficiency of our agricultural sector is important for counteracting inflation. Furthermore, we want to supply our products at the most reasonable prices to the consumer in the country. However, our increased productivity and increased income must not be swallowed up by the increased production costs, and that is what is happening again now. I can refer to a speech which the hon. the Minister recently. Addressing the South African Agricultural Union in Bloemfontein, he told them that the grain farmers, the maize farmers and the wheat farmers were getting an increased price at that stage, but that he could not guarantee that they would always produce at a profit. Why did the hon. gentleman make that prediction? He did so because he knew that production costs would within a short while overtake that increase in price again. We simply cannot afford this corrosive inflation in the agricultural industry. There is also a constant shortage in respect of essential productive resources such as fertilizer, and we on this side of the House are entitled to ask: Where do these bottlenecks occur, and why do farmers complain that they cannot get sufficient supplies? Recently I once again received complaints to the effect that the latest increases had also been made applicable to orders which had already been placed but had not been delivered in time, and it was especially certain wine and fruit farmers here in the Western Province who were adversely affected by this. Sir, this is the kind of bottle-neck which ought to be removed.

Sir, I want to state, finally, that we on this side have faith in our agricultural industry; that we are confident that the agriculturist will come into his own, and we do not take a perverse delight in saying this because consumers all over the world are shocked all of a sudden about the possibility of a food crisis. However, if we want to meet the challenge of this century and what is yet to follow on it, we shall have to attend to the following things: Firstly, the most comprehensive form of overall agricultural planning; secondly, the highest possible standard of training for the farmer and the farmer’s labour force; thirdly, an attempt to restrict inflationary trends in our agricultural industry to a minimum; fourthly, we shall have to extend our essential food subsidies in order to protect the consumer of South Africa; fifthly, we shall have to apply our research results in our industry as soon as possible, and handle our marketing in such a way that the producer and the consumer will be caused the minimum of loss and the widest distribution of our agricultural products will be rendered possible. [Time expired.]

Sir, being the first speaker to follow the hon. member for Newton Park, I take pleasure in telling him this afternoon that this was the best speech I have ever heard him make in this debate in the 11 years I have been sitting here. In the first place I sincerely want to congratulate him because he examined our agricultural industry in a responsible way here and, secondly, because I am convinced that what we experience together by popping in from time to time at places which are of importance to our agriculturalists, is now starting to bear fruit. I want to trust that the example set by the hon. member will be followed by both sides of the House. I want to say thank you very much to him for his contribution. Sir, I do not want to reply to the hon. member in detail at this stage, but in the course of my speech I nevertheless hope to refer to certain points he raised about which we are in complete agreement. Sir, unfortunately I have a very limited amount of time at my disposal and you will therefore pardon me if I am fairly brief. This is one of the best years the farmer in South Africa has ever had. That definitely applies to the generation to which you and I belong. It was a particularly good year as far as rainfall is concerned. The physical production in respect of all agricultural sectors was fairly high, if not a record. The prices of all agricultural commodities were good on the local market, and on the export market we in fact received the best prices in many years. At this stage the farmer can, in contrast to the exceptionally dry years that have gone before, share in the prosperity of the country and also meet his outstanding commitments. Once again he can feel that he as a citizen of the country can also do his share to meet the commitments the State imposes on its citizens. For this, Sir, we are sincerely grateful and I take it that everyone in this House who has the interests of agriculture at heart, will agree with me. Under these circumstances the South African farmer was able to savour the joys of the fruits of a good year as a reward for his labours. Agriculture yielded the greatest physical production it has ever yielded and it earned the greatest financial returns it has ever done. The net profit of the industry, too, was a record. Apart from its major contribution to the gross domestic product, agriculture, next to gold, was the greatest earner of foreign exchange; an asset, Sir, in which every South African shares and from which he derives benefit. But apart from all of this, the South African farmer succeeded in feeding the population, and everyone ought to be thankful for the standard he achieved in this regard. We did have the odd small shortages, shortages of red wine and dairy products, but viewed against the background of world food conditions, to which the hon. member for Newton Park also referred and of which the experts, as he rightly said, held up a picture which was frightening to us, we are living in a land of milk and honey. If we want to complain bitterly about butter shortages, while margarine is freely available, or complain about red meat shortages, and even about the price of meat, we do not appreciate our blessings and definitely do not know the meaning of the word “famine”, and are simply ungrateful or playing silly politics or tempting the gods. No, Sir, we have reason for gratitude. We have reason to pay tribute to the South African farmer for his hardiness. South Africa is not an easy country for farming. We are grateful for the farmer’s optimism and courage, his loyalty towards his land and also his country, his perseverance, his know-how and his will to do better than the man who went before him. During the past year the farmer had a good income, but not at the expense of the consumer. When we look at the prices our products fetched overseas, we see that our domestic consumer is being favoured with exceptionally reasonable prices. I just want to mention one or two. For maize our South African farmer receives R50 per metric ton, and we sell it abroad at R100 or even more per ton. For ground nuts our farmers receive R185 per ton and we sell it overseas for approximately R300 per ton. Even wheat was exported at a better price this year than the price our producer could obtain for it locally. Truly, the consumer is better off in South Africa than in overseas countries, at least in the countries to which we export our products. The Government’s policy of obliging producers first to provide for the local needs before goods may be exported is fair and right, but the producer may certainly receive credit for making a contribution to the consumer, a contribution which deserves the latter’s acknowledgment if not his gratitude. This exceptional achievement as regards production was rendered possible because the South African farmer employed technological and scientific practices to which he was introduced through the knowledge gained by our scientists and conveyed to him by our extension service. I should like to quote something to you. This also serves as a reply to a part of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Newton Park. I am quoting from the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and I want to congratulate them on this fine edition in the festival year of the extension service—

I do not think anyone can fault that.

I think this answers the hon. member for Newton Park as far as this aspect is concerned. With objectives such as these, backed by 1 700 experts and 1 500 technical staff members under the leadership of a particularly alert directorate and under the guidance of our Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, and with the hearty cooperation of our farmers on a broad level, this achievement was rendered possible. I would be pleased if the hon. member for Maitland would also have something to say about agriculture from time to time, apart from butter and margarine. The whole country owes this smart integrated team which provides South Africa with food, a debt of gratitude and ought to show its appreciation and even pay it tribute.

Is your conscience troubling you?

I should like to convey my congratulations to one division of the department, i.e. the Agricultural Extension Service. That division is 50 years old this year. In 1924 Col. Du Toit, the then Secretary for Agriculture, appointed officials as extension officers. In Afrikaans they were known as “uitbreidingsbeamptes” at the time. The dynamic Gen. Kemp really is one of the dynamic products of the National Party. He jumped at this plan and promoted it enthusiastically. I think there was a group of nine extension officers at the start. Their activities covered the whole country. Their task was not clearly defined, for they themselves did not know precisely what the extension task embraced. The farmers did not know what to expect either and poked gentle fun at these white-collar farmers of the Government. Even their colleagues joined merrily in the game of poking fun at them. Today, however, one cannot imagine the South African agricultural industry being without the positive contribution of our extension officers. There is an extension office in almost every town and the necessary information is definitely within the reach of every farmer. What is more, the farmers avail themselves of this service, contrary to what the hon. member for Newton Park said. I just want to extract a few particulars from the report.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising simply to give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Newton Park. I want to show in what a fine way the report spotlights the co-operation existing between the department and the farmers. Four hundred and fourty-seven farmers’ days were arranged by the departmental officers and more than 3 000 farmers participated. Lectures at occasions other than farmers’ days reached 35 000 people. Lectures in which visual aids were employed, reached approximately 22 000 farmers. Short courses were held and there were also meetings at demonstration plots; 1944 people were reached by these. Departmental officers paid 77 507 visits to farms. I think this is an achievement we really cannot complain about. There were 12 133 follow-up visits in connection with farm planning. There were approximately 103 000 personal interviews. There were more than 112 000 telephone interviews. I think this is outstanding. More than 19 000 letters were dispatched, and in this number I am not including the more than 150 000 circulars. What is even more meaningful is the study groups and programme planning committees which were established. I want to regard these as advanced extension services which are being rendered. The number of study groups increased to 283 and the membership to 3 305. There are 148 programme planning committees with a membership of 1 480. I think this is a real achievement and we ought to praise the extension service for it. This fine year, the fiftieth anniversary of the extension service, in fact sets the crown on the service rendered by these people. We want to congratulate them and trust that in the years ahead they will still render the same service and the department will achieve major feats during the next 50 years. The maintenance and growth of this very essential service is rendered possible because we attract fine men and women as students to the various faculties of agriculture at our universities. It is a source of concern to me that the number of farm lads studying at our faculties of agriculture does not exceed the others. We feel that only a person who has a farming background can be an extension officer in the true sense of the word. I am not speaking of researchers now, for even a town lad may fare well in the sphere of research. It is also essential for the top personnel of the department to have a farming background. If this is not the case, we foresee that we shall be getting people who will not be able to act with understanding and sympathy, where it is called for, towards the farmer. Hon. members will know that the farming community can best be served only if the relevant officials and the farmers are kindred spirits and if these officials are absorbed into that community. Then he may be a true extension officer and may perform a service to the real benefit of agriculture. Consequently we want to appeal to our farm lads to come forward and prepare themselves for this exceptional task. There is also another aspect which causes us concern in this regard. I just briefly want to quote from the 52nd newsletter of the Human Sciences Research Council. It appeared in January 1974 and the period referred to in this letter extends from 1965 to 1970. The following is reported about students at our universities (translation)—

In other words, there will be a drop from 3,9% to 2% in the number of students who receive degrees in the agricultural sciences. In effect, therefore, this is a decrease of 50%. The agricultural sector cannot perform its task with fewer graduates than we have at present, and in this respect I fully agree with the hon. member for Newton Park. This concern ought to be shared by our parents, teachers, university students, lecturers and, in fact, everyone. I therefore want to appeal to all bodies and persons to take cognizance of the warning interest our youth are showing in agriculture. With an increasing number of mouths to feed, the provision of food is becoming an increasingly urgent factor and one shudders to think—the figure has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Newton Park—that experts estimate that the world’s larder has a food supply for only 27 days. Therefore, we can hardly overemphasize the aspects I have mentioned.

There are others in the Department of Agriculture besides our extension officers, who deserve particular praise. We are thinking in particular of researchers, engineers, veterinary surgeons, economists, technicians, control officers and even the white-coat staff of the inspection services. In a bounteous year the pests and plagues do, of course, make an appearance. This year our veterinary surgeons and insectologists were particularly sorely tried. I am thinking particularly of those who had a difficult task contending with the extraordinary outbreak of the locust plague. This plague will probably enjoy further attention during this debate. The officers who had to contend with the outbreak during the past season really did their best. I should like to draw our people’s attention to the fact that they should have special appreciation for these people who are in charge. When things go wrong and there is an outbreak of some kind, we should always remember that there are others who would be pleased to have these hand-picked men of ours. Therefore, we should really restrain ourselves to some extent when we level criticism at these people. I think a bit of praise and appreciation would be far more fitting. Sir, locusts have plagued the world for centuries. Those who still read their Bible will remember that it was one of the Egyptian plagues.

The United Party exterminated them.

Even the United Party had a battle with them. In 1924, when the National Party took over for the first time, you should have heard what the debates in this House were about. The complaints centred on locusts. I just want to add that the complaints also centred on scab-inspectors, but we completely eradicated this disease. We no longer need what was left over from United Party. At that time they kicked up a row about locusts and felt so strongly about the matter that they suggested in this House that a railway line be constructed in the Kalahari in order to help control the locusts. Sir, we have that very same problem today, but we have far better control over it. To tell the truth, we have succeeded to a large extent in keeping this plague in check. I do not foresee this plague ever being eradicated permanently. Even science and technology do not at present hold out the prospect of a permanent solution to this problem. On the contrary. Political instability in the rest of Africa and the lack of coordinated cooperation in respect of controlling locusts present us with all the dangers of a potential famine in Africa. The red desert locust is a threat which was properly controlled in the past by the International Red Locust Control Service, the head office of which is in London. This took place in co-operation with all the Middle Eastern and Far Eastern countries. India and Pakistan in particular, as well as South Africa, in conjunction with all the colonial countries, played an exceptional role in this project. I foresee, if we fail to obtain co-operation in this sphere, that we shall encounter numerous problems in the years ahead. I hope that does not happen. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I should like to react to the speech by the hon. member for Newton Park. He really amazed me. It seems to me that after all these years of debating the hon. member is a convinced man. We say this in a good spirit. I want to associate myself with the remark made by the hon. the Deputy Minister to the effect that the hon. member made a very responsible and positive speech; as opposed to what we have been used to in the past. We are pleased that he also responded to the appeal by the hon. the Minister that we should not make agriculture the subject of cheap politicking. We are grateful to the hon. member for Newton Park for that.

The hon. member made a few remarks. In the first instance, he spoke about threats in agriculture, and he mentioned three points in this regard, namely the population increase, inflation and the food crisis. I should prefer to call them challenges rather than threats. In my opinion we should regard them as challenges to agriculture in South Africa. I am confident that agriculture in South Africa will be capable of contending with these challenges. To prove that agriculture is basically sound, I should like to refer to the season that is just past, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister also referred, and compare it with the previous production season. We have the situation in South Africa that in the 1972-’73 season we had one of the most difficult production years in the history of agriculture. We had a drop of more than 16% in physical production. In the sphere of agronomy alone there was a drop of 37%. As far as maize is concerned, the drop was as much as 57%. It was the poorest harvest since 1959. We therefore had a hopeless production season. Over the past season there was a sudden change, namely a rise of 26% in the physical volume of agricultural products. This is 9% higher than the previous record. To me this proves one thing, namely that our agriculture in South Africa has a fantastic ability to recuperate. The reason for this is that in the first instance, we have a good agricultural policy in South Africa, good departments, as the hon. member for Newton Park said, and a Minister who knows what to do when there are crises in agriculture.

Let us, in the first instance, take a look at the food position in general. Food is always available to everyone in South Africa, and we can therefore say that in South Africa, as opposed to the position in other parts of the world, there is no malnutrition. The availability of agricultural products is such that we were able to export a record amount of maize this year, namely about 4,5 million tons. As far as our other important staple food, wheat, is concerned, we had a shortfall in our production for many years, but over the past seven seasons we have produced sufficient for domestic use. In fact, over the past two seasons we have exported wheat to other countries at a profit. There are certain products in our country of which we have a shortage, such as red meat, for example. We know that there are major problems in this regard, but with the recent good season we see that the livestock position has greatly improved. To be specific, our stock of red meat animals has risen to 8,4 million. The overall picture we have of the availability of our agricultural products in South Africa is therefore a fine one, particularly if we bear in mind that we have one of the highest rates of population increase in the world. In other words, the position is that the demand for food in South Africa is increasing more rapidly than in most other countries of the world. This is so much the more a fine picture if we bear in mind that when we compare conditions, we find that we have to contend with limited agricultural resources. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is also engaged in technical research. This is very important and it serves as evidence to indicate to us that research in South Africa is purposeful and that our research is aimed at developing improved methods of production. What is also very important, is that the results of this research reach the farm. In the third instance it is important that we have sufficient entrepreneurs in the agricultural industry who are able to utilize this improved agricultural production.

In the second instance, our agriculture is economically efficient, too. If we bear in mind that over the previous season, the season of 1972-’73, we had a very poor production year, our farmers nevertheless had the capital resources and the entrepreneuring spirit to put so much into the next season that we were able to achieve a record production. Producer prices rose by 14% over the past season while the price of production requisites also rose by 14%. This gave us a net revenue from farming of R969 million. This is also a record, exceeding the previous record by R110 million. This could be done notwithstanding the fact that we, too, have inflation problems. We want to tell the people of South Africa, the consumers, that inflation does not stop short of the farm-gate. Inflation has affected the farming industry, in all its facets, too. Let me refer to one aspect, namely the enormous increase in the price of land. From 1947 to 1969 prices of land rose by 232 and I should think that the rate has been still higher over the past five years, bearing in mind the enormous rise in the price of land. Despite this our farmers have accomplished this splendid feat. This is an indication of the calibre of our agriculture as a whole.

I want to mention a final aspect. It is also very important for our people in South Africa to realize that there is a very great difference between the price eventually paid by the consumer and the price commanded by the farmer. The farm-gate price or, in other words, the gross income of the farmers in South Africa, amounted to R2 341 million this year. However, distribution and certain forms of processing must still take place and this determines the eventual price the consumer has to pay for the agricultural product. Rising prices of food in South Africa and in the world are a very major problem. I refer here to an article that appeared recently in Landbounus, published by the Department of Agriculture. Under the heading “Rising Food prices a world phenomenon”, they state—

These figures, therefore, are very recent. It is very interesting to take a look at the position in other parts of the world. In South Africa the rise in food prices has been 9%, while in the renowned United States, one of the finest agricultural production countries in the world, the rise was 18,3%, in Denmark 16,2%, in Japan as high as 27%, in the United Kingdom 19%, in Belgium 9,3%, in Italy 14,4% and in France 12,7%. This was therefore another great achievement for South African agriculture. Our position here, therefore, is that we in South Africa have a sound pricing and marketing policy. We do not want to say that certain problems do not exist in regard to marketing. In fact, there is already a commission investigating the marketing position in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have found the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon very interesting. In the short time at his disposal he covered a wide field and, quite candidly, I cannot disagree with anything he has had to say. In fact, he even mentioned the scab inspectors of the olden days and pointed out how very unpopular those unfortunate gentlemen had to make themselves to implement the law at the time. Nevertheless they succeeded in stamping out that terrible disease amongst the merino sheep. The hon. the Deputy Minister also mentioned the locusts which appear from time to time depending on the season, and he went on to discuss the modern scientific and technical methods used in farming today.

I have also listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Bethal. He too gave us a lot of figures to prove that agriculturalists in South Africa today face a tremendous challenge, especially if one considers that by the turn of the century agriculture will have to provide food for no less than some 50 million to 55 million mouths. This is the number of people which will have to be fed. It is no use we South Africans looking abroad; we will have to produce the food here. I believe that with the knowledge of our technicians and staff, and the knowledge which is available to all our farmers, we can accept this challenge.

I want to follow up on what the two hon. gentlemen have had to say. I want to continue with the subject of conservation in South Africa, particularly soil conservation. One can travel to any part of the world, choose your country, and you will find that people are very soil-conservation conscious.

We in South Africa are no exception. We are also soil conservation conscious and I do believe that conditions prevailing here in South Africa make it more difficult for us to combat this problem with any degree of success. As we know, in South Africa we have three schemes which we have introduced from time to time. We have the Soil Conservation Act which came into being in 1946. This was followed by the “veldherwinningskema” or veld reclamation scheme which was in its turn followed recently by the stock reduction scheme. All these schemes have had their advantages as well as their disadvantages. However, in viewing these schemes in relation to the problems we have dealing with soil conservation, we cannot afford to do so on an ad hoc basis. We have to view these schemes on the basis of long-term planning. Long-term planning has always been our policy in South Africa. A great deal of capital has already been spent on the three schemes I have mentioned to the great advantage of the agricultural industry in South Africa. Even if we were to decide to abolish any one, or all three of the schemes which I have mentioned, it would remain the duty of the State to ensure that soil conservation methods were still applied in South Africa.

We still have these three schemes but even if we decide to abolish, even one of them—and I am thinking here in terms of the stock reduction scheme—no matter what we decide to do, we are still faced with the problem that we have to continue with our soil conservation methods in South Africa to the best advantage of all concerned. One has only to travel as far as Holland to see what those people are doing in relation to soil conservation. When one reads and one sees the millions upon millions of rand which those unfortunate people in that small country have had to spend and are spending on building dykes to reclaim soil from the sea, and what that soil means to those people today, then we cannot afford to sit back and watch millions of tons of our soil being washed into the ocean every year. I believe that we are at present losing out on soil conservation; we are losing the battle against soil erosion. It is conservatively estimated that 40 million tons of soil are being washed down our rivers from our hinterland into the ocean year after year. We cannot afford to lose these vast quantities of soil.

In the short time left to me I wish to discuss the main theme of my speech this afternoon, viz. the stock reduction scheme. As I have said, the Soil Conservation Act has been on the Statute Book since 1946. I am not criticizing it; it is a good piece of legislation. We have the veld reclamation scheme which works very well, particularly in the Transvaal. We also have the stock reduction scheme which I make bold to say has been a success, irrespective of what other people may say to the contrary. It has been a success.

I can take hon. members to certain units in areas where the scheme has been implemented conscientiously, and I can show them how the soil and the vegetation has improved. It is remarkable, Mr. Chairman, to see what a success the scheme has proved to be where farmers have tackled it judiciously. We have always felt that the stock reduction scheme from a farmer’s point of view has been uneconomical; we have realized this; it has been no holiday at all. We knew that at most a farmer could expect to receive R3 per small stock unit. Sir, compare this with what a farmer can get today or has been receiving in recent times, namely from R20 to R30 per sheep. Where the farmer has been going in for the stock reduction scheme he has realized that for himself it is uneconomical, but it has been a “must” for the good of the country, and could only be done by long-term planning. Sir, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister today to continue with this scheme. I know that we will meet with opposition, but if we are going to decide to stop this scheme now because of the costs involved, it would be penny wise and pound foolish; we would be throwing away the money which we have already spent and which I believe has been well spent indeed. Sir, we have our extension officers, and amongst them there are some of the best qualified men in the world. Here are these young men prepared to offer their services gratis to all farmers, but I am sad to say that not all farmers acknowledge this fact and make use of the services made available to them by the Department of Agricultural-Technical services. I appeal again to the hon. the Minister and his Deputy and the department, seriously to consider the continuation of the stock reduction scheme.

Mr. Chairman, I want to mention one other point just very briefly. The Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure have been and are still of great assistance to the farmer, particularly the young farmer, and we are very appreciative of the facilities provided by these two bodies. The Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure have not increased the rate of interest payable by farmers on their bonds, but it is not only bond redemption and interest charges which farmers have to pay; most farmers have other debts to pay as well, and with the high rate of interest payable on these debts, the 20-year period for the redemption of a bond from the Land Bank is rather short.

Sir, I think I can place on record the gratitude of this side of the House for the fine, positive tone of this debate up to now. I should like to associate myself with what has been said by previous speakers. [Interjections.] Sir, that hon. member is laughing; unfortunately he does not know what it is all about.

Why are you so worried?

I should also like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for East London North and thank him for the good things he said in connection with the stock reduction scheme and in regard to soil conservation. We agree with him, although we do not, perhaps, agree with everything he said about the continuation of the stock reduction scheme, in regard to which he made a plea here. However, I should like to continue in the fine, positive spirit evinced by him in this connection. Sir, I am reminded of 18 April 1969 when we had a big conference of farmers at Prince Albert. The then Minister of Agriculture, the present Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself travelled there by air and one was really struck by the terrible plight of the 300 to 400 farmers who had assembled there that day. These people were virtually on their knees; they had passed the aggressive stage; they were downhearted and ruined. They had been destroyed by one of the worst drought disasters in human memory, in this country in any event. I am further reminded of a call I paid to a man in my constituency for whom I have a very great respect, when I complained about the disastrous situation and said that I thought that the farmers were being destroyed. He was a sufferer from diabetes and had lost both his legs. He was sitting in a wheel chair, and he asked me to push him out on to the veranda. He pointed out a mountain to me and said: “When I came to farm here, it was impossible to walk there. One had to climb right over the elephant’s food (spekbome), but see what it looks like today. One can see a tortoise walking there. The farmer has murdered nature in South Africa for 300 years and now nature is taking its revenge.” Sir, when I listen to those things, it is a pleasure for me to be able to strike a positive note in this debate today.

Droughts are not foreign to our country. In the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture, we read the following in chapter 2 (translation)—

And then they say (translation)—

I maintain that this statement is not entirely correct and I shall perhaps come back to it later, but I want to say that the consequences of the droughts became steadily more disastrous the longer they lasted. In later years we had the fodder loan scheme and the fodder subsidy scheme, and these schemes were implemented so effectively that nature was unable to take its normal course by getting rid of the surplus and the land did not have the opportunity to recover after good rains. As a result, droughts increased in intensity owing to the gradual deterioration of the natural grazing which took place so slowly that one could not discern it in the course of a normal lifetime. Perennial shrubs made way for annual shrubs. The whole micro-biological structure of our land changed. Large bare patches developed, to such an extent that the land was no longer able to derive optimum benefit from the rainfall.

The Soil Conservation Act, with all its benefits, did not have the desired effect over a number of years. The realization slowly but surely penetrated to everyone involved that we should have to reduce the number of cattle on our soil, and it was from this line of thought that the soil reclamation scheme was born, and then, in 1969, the stock reduction scheme. There were initial problems of adjustment and the scheme had to be amended on various occasions in order to make it as effective and successful as possible. There were misgivings about the scheme. I am reminded of the fact that a few years ago it was even the case that political capital was made out of the scheme during the Brakpan election, but fortunately this disappeared. I can say today without fear of contradiction that this is the biggest-ever scheme in the history of soil conservation in this country. Although the physical advantages were not so noticeable in the early stages, by 1972 participants had proved incontrovertibly that they had withstood the onslaughts of droughts far better than the non-participants.

The above-normal rainfall of 1973 and 1974 in this region accelerated the process of recovery to phenomenal extent and we cannot but be deeply grateful to the Provider of all that is good for this wonderful gift. It seemed as if the Divine One, in His wisdom, decided to open the floodgates of heaven because of the total change in the attitude of mankind towards his soil. Apart from the physical recovery, the most important contribution made by this scheme was decidedly its educational value. A gradual increase in production occurred, with a reduced livestock population. We have ample evidence from farmers who keep thorough records, of wool clips that have risen phenomenally in spite of fewer livestock. We have more evidence of breeding that has increased by 20%. This process is infectious. Farmers are starting to talk about these things and one can feel that the educational value of this scheme has been greater than its physical value could ever have been.

As far as the employment of scientific farming methods is concerned, the role of Agricultural Technical Services is incalculable. Previously the extension officer was in many respects regarded as a nuisance on the farm, while now his services are so sought-after and indispensable that he can barely cope with the demands made on him. Study groups have been established under the leadership of the extension officer and the groups deal with every imaginable problem. There is large-scale research in respect of drought-resistant shrubs, and there are large-scale plantings of shrubs such as prickly pears, cochia, old man salt-bush, etc. Individual farmers are trained to undertake plant survey studies themselves on their farms in a scientific fashion. Is it not a wonderful experience to be able to evaluate for oneself the degree of recovery on one’s farm?

In earlier years people spoke about the fine veld if it had been a good year. Now farmers are in a position to investigate in depth to a greater extent and not to allow themselves to be misled by annual or pioneer shrubs. There is discussion among farmers. On Saturdays, at the co-operative, people are talking. Farmers meet and have discussions. The discussions these days concern soil, newly discovered shrubs, etc. There has been a shift of emphasis from the animal which provides the income to the shrub necessary to feed the animal. To me the finest thing of all is the cooperation between the farmer who is serious about his soil, and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Today I want to pay tribute to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and its technical staff and to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for the administration of this scheme.

I also want to pay tribute to the former Minister of Agriculture, to the present Minister and to the Soil Protection Division of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for their far-sightedness. They identified the problem and made the scheme possible. I want to conclude on a note of warning. We cannot allow our grazing lands to deteriorate again to the condition they were in the ’sixties. Every farmer will have to be his own policeman. We want to give our wholehearted support to soil conservation committees and to the Department today if drastic steps have to be taken to eliminate malpractices in regard to land utilization. There is no longer any room in modern agriculture for people practising exhaustive cultivation. The land is lent to us, must be handed over to our children, always in a better condition than that in which we received it. The Karoo is the mutton larder of South Africa. I have enough faith in its people to state that its valuable resources will be looked after in such a way that they will continue to feed and clothe South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate in this obviously quiet and rural atmosphere. But any moment from now one could expect a merino ram to walk in here. The hon. members have referred, of course, to the fact that there has been a tremendous amount of agreement. I am pleased that this is in fact the case. I humbly suggest, though, that over the years the Government has, as in so many other fields, gradually been taking over our policy. All the good suggestions we have made in the past are being implemented and so all is well with the farmer in South Africa. We welcome this trend. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet made a speech in which he lodged a plea for the continued protection of our veld, our natural resources and our pasture areas. I agree with him wholeheartedly. A little while ago I met someone in Port Elizabeth who asked me: “What is this fellow Hayward like as a politician?” I thought for a while and then said: “Well, as far as I am concerned he is above average, but why do you ask?” The reply was: “Because he seems to have done quite well in the wool industry.” Just in passing, I do think it is worth mentioning that all of us who are engaged in the wool industry could well say to those who have been responsible for bringing about the wool scheme and its continued implementation on a rational basis during this season, when wool prices have slumped, that they deserve the congratulations of all who are involved in this industry, and I do so with great pleasure.

Talking about the department and its activities, I also agree that there is much that we must be thankful for. However, there are one or two observations I want to make. One problem is that our research is far outstripping the application of that research. I think this is something to which the hon. the Minister, his Deputy and the department could well give their attention. I believe that in spite of all the progress we have made there are still too many examples of indifferent farming. There are too many examples of stock grazing on pastures in this country which one can only describe as scrub stock. There are still too many farmers who I do not think are making any use of the valuable research that has been done. Although I am one of the first to acknowledge the efficiency of our extension officers, I believe that somewhere there is a bottleneck. I believe that something has to be done in this regard.

There is just one final facet of our agricultural policy that does not yet seem to have been taken over by the Nationalist Party, namely the advice we are continually giving about an agricultural planning council. I know that this matter has received the attention of the hon. the Minister, but I believe that if some of the advice we have given is accepted, we will be able to phase ourselves out of the sphere in which we sometimes find ourselves, of producing a surplus which is then suddenly converted into a shortage. Sometimes we are over-producing certain commodities and under-producing others. I believe that if we could improve the “oor-hoofse beplanning” in our agriculture we could perhaps iron out these difficulties. I do not have time enough to speak about agricultural planning. This is a big subject and I believe it is a debate on its own. I rather want to go over to a smaller subject which I believe its very important, namely the stock reduction scheme.

Other members have spoken about this scheme, but I feel that I can probably speak with more authority on the stock reduction scheme than any other member in this House, including possibly the Minister and his Deputy. I was the very first farmer in Graaff-Reinet to go in for this scheme, and I have now completed my tour of duty of five years. I therefore think that I am in a position to comment on this scheme. Firstly, I want to say that this is not a one-way traffic scheme. The farmers have made their contributions. On average they have had to reduce their stock by one-third and were compensated about R2 per small stock unit, while on average I believe the net return per small stock unit was somewhere in the region of R10. The farmers have therefore made their contribution in no uncertain terms. But the State has also made its contribution. I understand that the amount which the Government has invested in the scheme is about R80 million. I believe this was a worthy effort on the part of the Government and that every cent invested in the stock reduction scheme was a wise investment by the people of South Africa in their most valuable natural resource, namely the veld and grazing in South Africa. But now this scheme has come to an end. I have been chucked out because I have completed my five years. Other farmers are also going to be chucked out of the scheme in time. Are we going to leave it at that and call it a day? I believe that this should not be the case. I know the scheme has had tremendous administrative problems. I think this is one of the reasons why it is unpopular with the department. It certainly has “knelpunte”, as I have said, but I do not believe that the Government should shy off from the scheme simply because there are “knelpunte”. I believe it should take a good look at the situation and see whether some other scheme, a smaller scheme which could be administrated more easily, could not be put in its place. I suggest that certain camps should be taken out of grazing for a certain period of time, where those camps have been shown to be lagging behind in the improvement process on a farm.

I want to make another statement, too. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me. I believe that all our rural land, including the big areas of the Free State, the Western Transvaal and the Cape Province, in spite of the stock reduction scheme and the tremendous progress that has been made, is still only half-way towards being in optimal condition. There is still a tremendous leeway for improvement. I believe that a smaller scheme, properly administered, with the cooperation of the farmers, is something to which the hon. the Minister, his Deputy and the department should give serious consideration. Time does not permit me to go into detail, and I want to leave this matter there, with the hope that something constructive will emerge.

Finally, I just want to say a few words about locusts. The hon. the Deputy Minister ventured into this field. He spoke about the locust problem. We have had an argument here before as to whether a hopper was a “voetganger” or not. I am not going to argue that matter. However, I do not believe that the Government has given this problem the attention it should have been given. The critical time to destroy these hoppers, or “voetgangers”, is when they hatch out. I do not believe that the Government has really applied itself to the matter during that critical period as it should have done. There is always a shortage of transport. I believe that aid should be called in from the private sector to deal with that matter during the critical period. During the last hatching period, which was in the autumn of this year, many, many swarms got away. They were not destroyed. They have become fliers and laid their eggs, and the hoppers, or “voetgangers”, are again emerging because of the dampness of the soil. If the Government does not apply itself in a far more effective way than it did last time, this problem is going to perpetuate itself. I believe they have to make one very big effort, even if they call in the army and make use of their transport facilities, or do something else more drastic and dynamic, more “kragdadig”, in order to solve this problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central will not take it amiss of me if I do not refer to the matters he raised, since time does not allow me to do so.

However the hon. member for Newton Park referred here to six specific points in accordance with which agricultural production should be increased. By virtue of the fact that he is the chief spokesman of the United Party on agricultural matters, he has far more time at his disposal to put his case than I do. For that reason I shall only refer to one of these matters and will perhaps dwell on it at some length.

Bearing in mind the increased production costs, unavoidable as they are, since they are a world phenomenon, the Government will have to give serious attention to subsidizing consumers of agricultural products in the future to a far greater extent than has been the case up to now, as the hon. member also said. In this way agricultural producer prices may be substantially increased as an encouragement for higher production. We have reached the point where increased production costs as against fixed prices, such as are found in the maize industry, have virtually made this industry uneconomic for the farmer over a period of five years of shifting averages.

On the 25th of last month the hon. the Minister of Transport stated in this House in the course of the debate on his Vote that it was not the task of the S.A. Railways to provide a socio-economic service. It could be argued on precisely the same grounds that it is not the task of the South African farmer to subsidize the consumer, either. The maize industry, to which, for the most part, I want to confine my speech, is a strategic industry, not only because it is the biggest single agricultural industry in South Africa, not only because it provides our domestic economy with a staple food, but also because in these critical times it is earning large amounts of foreign exchange for our country. When the producer price is determined by the authorities, the aspects I have mentioned should, in my opinion, be the overriding consideration and not the consideration—I should like to emphasize this—of whether the consumer can pay the prices necessary to keep the farmer in production. If the price is too high for the consumer, or if the State wants to provide its domestic economy with cheap food—which is good and right—it is the task of the State to subsidize the consumer. It is not the task of the farmer to do so.

Hear, hear!

The hon. members opposite say “hear, hear!”, but we have reached the point at which we must give serious consideration to these matters.

It is not always a valid argument to reply that we can import cheaper foods. For example, this has never been a valid argument as far as the maize industry is concerned. It is true that in the past the overseas purchase price has been cheaper than the producer price of local maize, but the cost of importation has always made the overseas maize, the grade and quality of which, in any event, is by no means to be compared with our South African maize, to be more expensive at the point of delivery than our local maize. In such cases the Government has had to pay fairly heavy subsidies. The South African consumer of maize has therefore always been assured of reasonably cheap maize in the interior. At present the producer price of maize sold in bulk is R4-50 per 90 kg as against almost R11 per 90 kg on the overseas market. If we were to have to import maize this year, it would definitely not be available to the consumer at under R15 per 90 kg. I therefore want to emphasize once again that the domestic consumer has always been assured of a very reasonable and low price as far as maize is concerned. He has, therefore, to tell the truth, received cheap food.

In his speech, to which I have already referred, the hon. the Minister of Transport said that if a contribution were made from the Exchequer in respect of uneconomic services rendered by the Railways, then it is was not a subsidy to the Railways; it was a subsidy to the consumer. This is correct, and I agree with the hon. the Minister. Precisely the same principle applies to the maize industry. Funds from the Exchequer to any branch of the maize industry constitute a subsidy to the consumer. It is just as necessary for the authorities to vote a larger consumer subsidy to the consumers of maize in the future as it is to utilize funds from the Exchequer to pay the Railways for uneconomic services because those services are indispensable and must be maintained.

Owing to the importance of the maize industry it is essential that the maize farmer should not just be kept going—1 am now referring to a period of five years of shifting averages—by means of a more or less fair or reasonable price. No, Sir, this industry is so important that the farmer should be encouraged by means of very good prices to increase and maintain his production. It is essential and in the interests of the country that this should be so; all we have to do to realize this is to look at the food position in the world today.

With the tremendous rise in production costs that has occurred throughout the world, many overseas countries are already realizing that they will have to subsidize the consumer to a far greater extent than has been the case up to now. In this regard. Sake Rapport of 29 September 1974 mentioned inter alia that with the aim of making some slight impact on the tremendous price increases of vital foods, subsidies are going to cost the British Labour Government the gigantic sum of R642 million during this financial year. These are large amounts, but this is so as a result of the enormous increase in the production of food. Our Government will have to bear these aspects in mind in the new season when the producer prices of agricultural products are determined. It is true, of course, that any subsidy to a consumer or to a group of consumers, only comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer again. However, there is no other way of doing this. The farmer will also make his contribution by virtue of the tax he pays from which the State must obtain the funds to subsidize the consumer. I therefore want to submit for the consideration of our hon. the Minister of Agriculture that very serious attention be given to this matter in the future.

In the few minutes that are over, I should like to refer to another important matter. This concerns the question of land valuations by the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board when purchasers of land have to be assisted. Now it is true that in areas where there is reasonably intensive cultivation of cereals, the current market price of the land has risen substantially. I do not want to say that it has risen disproportionately. Now, however, we find that the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board are putting such a low valuation on that land that it is virtually impossible for a beginner to obtain funds to purchase land with the assistance he is able to get. I shall illustrate this in practical terms. In an area such as Bothaville where I live, land prices vary between R400 and R450 per morgen, while the valuation of the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board is approximately R200 per morgen. The Land Bank or the Agricultural Credit Board grants only 80% of this valuation by way of a loan. The result is that about R160 per morgen is available from the Land Bank or the Agricultural Credit Board in the region of Bothaville, Viljoenskroon and other districts in my constituency. Such an amount is insufficient to enable any beginner to purchase land in order to become established. I therefore want to ask that serious attention be given to the possibility of the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board bringing their valuation level in line with the current market price of land.

It is true that the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board advance the argument that they base their valuation on the production value of the land. I do feel, however, that a substantial adjustment should be made in this respect with regard to the current market price. It is pointless to say that this is not the production value of the land. The land has to be bought at the price at which it is available on the market. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to me as an agriculturalist it is a great pleasure to be able to listen to the very positive speeches that have been made here this afternoon. Very fine speeches have been made on this side of the House in regard to research, planning and other aspects, speeches in which reference was made not only to what the department and the hon. the Minister were attempting to do to allow agriculture to take its rightful place in South Africa, but also to other aspects which I do not want to mention at this stage. I want to say that I have great appreciation for what the shadow Minister of Agriculture of the United Party said. I want to agree with hon. members on our side who said that the speech by that hon. member is the best he has ever made in an agricultural debate. One thinks back a few years to the time when not all of us in South Africa had faith in agriculture. We on this side of the House pleaded time and again that we should not lose faith in agriculture, but that we should accept the challenges of the times, that we should hold our heads high and improve the image of the farmer. We did this and I am very pleased that in these times, when there are food crises throughout the world, South Africa is in a more favourable position because we have sufficient food at reasonable prices for our people and that we have been able to achieve consensus in regard to this matter. At the end of his speech the hon. member said that food subsidies should be extended. I know that this is one of the traditional standpoints of the United Party. As they see it, the problem of building a bridge between producer and consumer prices can only be solved by means of subsidies. I want to tell the hon. member that I differ from him in this regard. I shall try to be clear on this point.

When we subsidize the final food product in South Africa—let us take the case of bread, for example—we can make a very big mistake. The hon. member will surely agree with me that when we refer to correct planning and proper utilization of one’s natural resources, then it is also necessary that one’s production should be market oriented. When one does this, what one is really doing is taking into account the natural preferences that have developed over the years as a result of a higher standard of living in one’s consumer market. If, however, one subsidizes an end product wrongfully for example—let us take the case of bread again—if we want to keep the bread price constant as a result of the increased price of wheat, then the subsidy on bread will have to increase this year by R40 million to R50 million. If one were to do that, it would have a harmful influence on the normal consumer preference that has developed as a result of the higher standard of living at the cost of one product as against another product. We should be very careful about this. Looking at the world position as it is today, we must take into account in full all our natural resources and all the potentialities at our disposal.

The hon. member also raised the question of inflation. He did not get so far as to suggest positive steps in this regard. I do not want to detract from what the hon. member said, but when one takes all one’s potentialities in all spheres into account, then in these times, when interest rates are rising as they have been recently it is necessary to subject the financing of agriculture to a close scrutiny. I just want to mention the facts to hon. members as they stand in South Africa. We are very grateful to have been able to progress over the years to the extent of achieving this degree of efficiency, of having this degree of availability of financial aid from government bodies, but I just want to mention these facts. I want to mention the figures used by Dr. Franszen in his report. On 31 March 1970 the Land Bank was responsible for about 18,5% of the financing of agriculture, Government departments, such as Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and others, were responsible for 9%, and agricultural co-operatives for 8,5%. Assurance companies were responsible for about 8%, merchant banks for 22,3%, other financial institutions 12%, private persons 19% and others, 4%. To this extent all these bodies and persons are responsible for the financing of agriculture. If one looks at the situation as it stands, one sees that there are in fact three levels of interest rates. Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure charges a low interest rate, from 5% or 5½%. We know what the reasons are for this and we have no fault to find with it. We see that the Land Bank charges a medium interest rate of between 6 % and 7 %, and here too we know what the reasons for this are. We have had other problems in the country, too, which we have identified by now and which we are trying to solve through the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank, according to merit. If one takes the percentage of these two bodies together, plus the co-operatives which also provide reasonably cheap credit, we see that 36% of the financing of agriculture is done by Government bodies and agricultural co-operatives, 42% by assurance companies, commercial banks and other financial institutions, and 22% by private people, pension funds, etc. My problem, looking at this challenge that agriculture must face, is that as interest rates rise, assurance companies and people who have traditionally invested money in agriculture are no longer willing to invest money in the Land Bank because they can get a higher rate of interest on their money elsewhere. Sir, agriculture cannot afford to carry this high pattern of interest rates, and we must bear the fact in mind that 20% of one’s farmers provide 80% of agricultural production. Sir, I am one of those who pleads day and night for our small-scale and our medium-scale farmers. I do not want to create the impression that I am championing the cause of big farmers here today. I have said that I am satisfied with what Agricultural Credit and the Land Bank are doing for the farmers, but what worries me is the effect on the farmer, if we are to accept the challenge of the times, of the rising rates of interest, particularly if we bear in mind that 64% of the farmers’ financing is done through commercial banks and assurance companies. The position today is that even a strong farmer cannot always get loan facilities. Whether he can get a loan or not depends, not on his capital resources or lack of them, but on the availability of money. Sir, there are many things we can do to protect the hard core of farming, and I want to make a plea here today in this regard. Sir, we can develop our natural resources to the utmost; we can develop all our potentialities to the best of our ability, but if we cannot bring down production costs for agriculture, then we shall not succeed adequately in finding a solution to our problem. A large section of the hard core of our farmers is dependent today on capital that has become extremely expensive over the past year; interest rates have risen to 12, 13 or 14% and my plea is that we should do everything in our power to reduce agricultural production costs. Rather than handing out R40 million or R50 million in the form of extra subsidies on end products such as bread, let us give that money to the Land Bank, even if it be interest free, and let us then try to reduce the farmers’ production costs through the Land Bank, which must provide the production requisites such as tractors, feed, fertilizer, weed killers, etc., via the co-operatives. I also want to make a plea that the Government plough money from other sources into the Land Bank every year. In that way we should be able to bring down agricultural production costs, and then direct food subsidies on endproducts would no longer really be necessary because then one would have established a lower basis of production costs for the agriculturist and then the consumer and the farmer and everyone would derive the benefit from this. Sir, we do not know what lies ahead of us in the agricultural industry. We have a food shortage situation in the world today, but the whole emphasis in recent times has fallen on production and one of these days, perhaps, we shall again be saddled with surpluses and then the South African farmer will again, perhaps, have to export 50% of his maize harvest at a loss. If we could bring down the basis of production costs, then we should place the South African farmer on a competitive basis with the overseas farmer. I therefore plead for sympathetic consideration of my line of thought.

It has been a long time since I last experienced such a calm debate on agriculture. It seems to me the only difference of opinion in this House today is that between the hon. member for Parys, who spoke of a higher subsidy on the consumption of maize, and the hon. member for Heilbron, who said that he did not agree with that. At least, that is how it seemed to me. In fact, I saw the hon. the Minister making a slight turn to face the hon. member for Parys and I wondered whether he was going to put a question to him. I am sure that if I, had made that point, he would have put a question to me.

Maize is a basic product.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Parys.

†I would like to say a few words this afternoon about the position of agriculture generally in the world and then to relate it to what is going on here in South Africa. I do it for this reason, that I think that we in South Africa have to realize that food is power. I think we have to realize our position on this continent of Africa, which is a difficult position. Food in our hands, in surplus, will give us the power to make arrangements, to make friends, to make anything you like on the continent of Africa, beyond anything else that we can do. For this reason I believe that it is absolutely essential that the agricultural industry in South Africa should be in a position to produce food in surplus to our own requirements, and obviously we depend on the natural circumstances like the weather to be able to do so.

I am by way of being an historian of sorts, because I read a lot of history books, and anyone who is an historian and who looks at the world can say that he has seen the sweep of the centuries, seen nations come and go, empires rise and fall, the marching of tribes and the mass movement of people, all of these things based on need and hunger. Sir, I am not a person who despairs and I am not a pessimist in any way, and I believe there is a dispensation which will keep us from the things that have happened in the past, but we have seen mass movements of people which have brought about the most incredible suffering and the breaking down of civilizations, and one wonders, looking at the increase of population taking place in the world today, whether in fact we, as we sit here today, are not looking at a time like that approaching us. If there is one thing we have to do in South Africa, we have to be able to produce food for ourselves and to have surplus food which will enable us to hold off from our borders this kind of situation which, it can be argued, is rapidly approaching us. One of the most extraordinary things happening in the world today is that you see the biggest surpluses of food, particularly of meat, butter and the proteins, being built up in the most highly developed nations. Take Europe, the beef mountain. There is an enormous accumulation of meat which has cost a tremendous amount of money to produce because of the highly developed nature of the agriculture by which it is produced. It is being produced at a cost which the people there cannot afford, and so they cannot afford to consume it. If you think, Sir, that the people of Europe cannot afford to consume the meat which is produced, then where on earth are we going to find people who can afford to do so? One is forced to ask oneself that question in view of the fact that we are being told that there is in the world, or there has been until very recently, a store of only 27 days of surplus food. How long can we afford to go on producing expensive meat by the use of grain foods which may well be desperately needed before long for the feeding of populations in other less-developed countries? I think we stand before a very serious adjustment that the world will have to make, not us or the developed countries but the world as a whole, and I think there was never a time when the challenge to agriculture was greater than it is today. Whenever we get up here to discuss the Vote of a department, we say it is one of the most important departments in the country, but when you see the challenge that faces agriculture then you have to accept that this department is the absolute key around which everything in South Africa ought to revolve, including the demands of the Railways Administration and everything else, because this department is the key to the survival of South Africa and to the food which is power, and we must realize that and take adequate steps to meet that situation which is developing.

Sir, I wish to turn to a matter affecting my own constituency, the question of milk production and the alarming shortage of fertilizer which has developed during the last six months or so. The hon. the Minister, as a milk farmer, knows perfectly well that once a cow has started production and you are unable to maintain that production and it falls off, you will never get that cow back to what its full potential might have been. That has happened and I want to warn the hon. the Minister, it is not only I who say so, because this matter was raised at the Agricultural Union Congress in Natal. More and more the milk producers in Natal are going in for irrigation and highly expensive pastures which demand high fertilization. The milk bowl for Durban is basically in my constituency and there you have more and more people using expensive equipment for irrigation and expensive fertilizers to establish the pastures, and we have seen now in the last couple of months a shortage of nitrogen fertilizer, which might well have put a permanent crimp in the milk supply of Durban for this season which we are entering. One of the problems we have had is that a lot of nitrogen fertilizer is imported through Lourenço Marques. I need not say anything more than that to show that there is a serious shortage developing. The matter was raised at the agricultural union congress. It is a matter which one can trace back to the oil crisis if one wants to because so much of this fertilizer comes from oil basically. I think we are fortunate here in having a coal economy so that we can use our own natural resources for replacement purposes. The question, however, concerns the reserves of fertilizer and the growth of demand for fertilizer. In a good season such as the one this year, when farmers are full of hope and optimism and have actually got the money in the bank to spend on purchasing fertilizer, consumption is up 20% as against a normal increase of only 7%. The milk production industry depends heavily on basic fertilizer for the establishment of pastures and on nitrogen to keep those pastures producing. I know the hon. the Minister will say it is not his department, the Minister of Economic Affairs deals with that matter etc., but what it boils down to is that it is the hon. Minister’s responsibility within the Cabinet to see that there is adequate fertilizer for the agricultural industry. We are told that there are adequate reserves here in South Africa. We are told that Phalaborwa with its phosphate reserves will meet our needs for many years to come We are told that beneficiation has made our phosphate, which is produced at Phalaborwa, one of the richest and at the same time one of the most reasonably priced phosphates in the world. What disturbs me—and this is said openly in the agricultural community—is that there is a rivalry developing among fertilizer companies in South Africa. One company is denying supplies of a certain element or a certain kind of fertilizer to other companies so that those other companies are not able to meet their obligations. I think it is incumbent on the hon. the Minister to have a good look at a situation like this which may be developing in this country. My people tell me openly that they cannot obtain LAN because, for one reason or another, there is an interchange between the only two big producing companies I know of. One of them is deliberately starving the other of supplies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River was in an optimistic mood—and I am pleased he is so optimistic about the fact that we here in South Africa will be able to cope with the challenges that are being issued to agriculture. All over the world more and more doubt is being expressed as to whether the earth will be able to feed the growing population of the world. Fortunately we still have a reasonable growth potential in the Republic. The population explosion however, worries us all, and it seems to us as if the only solution is that the population growth will have to be checked and a position of equilibrium achieved. Therefore, we should make full use of our potential. Up to now we have maintained a reasonable growth rate; our Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing recently said that it is one of the highest agricultural growth rates in the world. We are able to maintain this growth rate because we receive the technical aids from the department, because we are mechanizing to an increasing extent, and because we are producing more intensively all the time. We are proud of our Departments of Agriculture for the research they are doing, for the technology, for the agricultural machinery that is being developed and for the new plant and animal material which is being made available. We are also proud of our agricultural credit system which means a great deal to us. We are proud of our extension service, of our various institutes, of our universities, our agricultural colleges and our agricultural schools because they are creating opportunities for our farmers. We nevertheless ask ourselves whether we shall be able to produce enough food in future to feed our people? I think there is one requirement in this connection and that is that we should keep a healthy farming community on the farms, and the cement that binds such a healthy agricultural community as this together on the farms is nothing but the profit motive. A profit motive should be present in a farmer, for it is the pride of every man to make a profit and to have money in the bank. It is the driving force that will keep people on the farms. Because of it they will not only produce the best quality product, but also the greatest quantity of it. Now, how are we best able to combat inflation, our greatest danger? We cannot do it by forcing agricultural prices down. The greater the production, the lower the unit cost and the greater the profit. Therefore, give the farmer a good price for his product and he will continue to produce. The expectation of the consumer that he is entitled to cheap food is something he should simply forget about. The hon. member for Newton Park said that they, too, agree with that. In addition, the idea of the consumer that it is the duty of the Government and the farmer to work out a system so that food will be cheap and always available, whether by means of subsidies, quotas or whatever, will not solve the problem. The farmer would like to be his own boss. He enjoys living and working in the platteland, close to nature. He likes fresh and unpolluted air, but he also wants an opportunity to relax and to enjoy life. Farming today is no longer, as we always used to say, simply a way of life. It is also a business and the farmer must also be able to pay his accounts. He must be able to give his children an education and be able to pay taxes to keep the State going. Agriculture is the second largest earner of foreign exchange for our country and, therefore, we should look after it very carefully. We must take note of export possibilities and whether we cannot expand further. I am pleased that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said just now that we should expand our exports. Agricultural exports as a percentage of total exports have dropped over the past ten years. Ten years ago agriculture produced 21% of the country’s exports, while it is only 15% today. Nevertheless, about R900 million in foreign exchange is being earned from the export of agricultural products. It is meaningful that the Reynders Commission found the following:

It is imperative to realize that the continuance of South Africa’s economic development is likely in future to depend increasingly on its ability to produce large volumes and new forms of exports to augment the export performance of agriculture and mining. In this regard the fundamental long-term choice facing the country seems clear: A lower rate of economic growth, or more intensive effort to increase exports, thereby maintaining and if possible increasing growth.

When the Reynders Commission made this finding, they really meant that we should increase the production of processed goods. However, I want to say that on the part of agriculture, we should also try to push up the export figure as much as possible. We should also export processed agricultural produce. Agricultural produce, unlike minerals, is self-renewing and could represent an ever increasing percentage of exports in future. In spite of our country not being an ideal agricultural country, that we are far behind other countries as far as our agricultural potential is concerned, we should make every effort to promote exports. We should not be afraid of surpluses. Other hon. members also referred to it. We should see to it that we shall be able to produce to such an extent in future that we will be able to compete on world markets. If there are surpluses, what do we do with them? I want to suggest that the State should then step in and help. It should then ensure that the farmer receives a reasonable price for his product and makes a profit. Only then shall we be able to keep the farmers on the farms and be able to ensure that we will be able to feed our people in future. Therefore, it is important, not only in respect of the local market, but also in respect of the foreign markets, that the State should see to it that the farmer produces economically.

Mr. Chairman, in spite of the encouraging bright side of our agriculture during the past few seasons, as the hon. the Deputy Minister depicted it so well, and for which we are very grateful to the Giver of all good things, there are nevertheless, also bottlenecks and factors which can be looked at to good effect. I want to dwell on these for a while. Owing to the time factor I can only mention three: Firstly, the critical farm labour question; secondly, the unrealistic gap between producer and consumer prices for agricultural products, specifically in respect of vegetables and fruit; and thirdly, the lack of the optimum development of our urban Bantu market, especially in respect of vegetables and fruit.

Firstly, I want to dwell on the farm labour question. The increasing shortage of farm labourers has become really acute in some regions; so much so that many farmers—in spite of a high degree of mechanization—are on the point of giving up their farming operations. It is not merely a matter of efficient labour and wage conditions on the farms, because farmers in South Africa are creating all possible amenities for their labourers and are making wage adjustments in order to keep them on the farms, unfortunately not always with success. My son recently built a number of new, satisfactory and comfortable houses for his Bantu. To create a pleasant atmosphere during the move to the new houses, he even gave them a bonus and a carboy of wine to celebrate the occasion. But the next day three-quarters of his labourers gave notice and left. A more fundamental cause should, therefore, be sought. I want to suggest the following causes for consideration. In the first place, there is the process of sophistication of the Bantu, which goes hand in hand with a growing unwillingness to do manual labour on a farm. Farm labour has acquired a third-rate label and the Bantu, in his emancipation process, wants to shake it off. He is conditioned to it even further by hostile elements. In the third place, there is the natural attraction of the big cities with their lights and the opportunities they offer him. It is an old story we already know. Higher wages are being offered in industry. Although I do not begrudge the Bantu those high wages, it however remains a factor which aggravates the situation for the farmer. Mr. Tony Fleischer, the recently appointed general manager of the Chamber of Mines, according to Die Transvaler of 14 October 1974 had the following to say about the increase in wages and the need for labour on the mines (translation)—

The salaries in the business world and on other levels are sometimes even higher. The farmer cannot possibly compete with this. That is where the crux of the problem lies. The labour demand of our industries usually exceeds the labour supply and if the pressure being exerted to recruit labour in the rural areas for the mines and industries is yielded to. I want to predict that a disaster will befall the farmer in the rural areas. The way I see it the farm labour question offers a fruitful field for reflection and planning.

In the second place, I want to refer to the gap between the producer prices as compared to the retail and consumer prices. In my view a situation has developed here which can scarcely be tolerated any further. This applies in particular to vegetables and fruit. Take the fact, for example, that in our own good country one sometimes has to pay from 5 to 10 cents for an apple in a café or vegetable shop, from 3 to 5 cents for an orange, 5 to 7 cents for a medium to large mango, 25 cents for a lettuce, even in a small town, and R1 for a rather small pumpkin. This pushes the cost of living sky high. This is creating consumer resistance which in turn has prejudicial consequences for the producers of fruit and vegetables. This, too, is an aspect to which serious attention should be given.

Lastly, there should be optimum development of the internal market for vegetables and fruit in our large urban Bantu residential areas, and in our homelands as well. After everything which has in general been done for the stimulation of local consumption and marketing, I believe that a large field with almost unlimited potential still lies fallow here. With the increasing salary structure and growing sophistication of the Bantu, his buying power is growing to a phenomenal extent. According to figures that appeared in Tegniek of September 1974, only 1,2% of the de facto Bantu population was urbanized in 1960. In 1970 it was already 8,5%. The enormous consumer potential which is offered by this category of our population in our urban areas, is clear. From 1970 to 1974, 116 000 homes were erected on a family basis in urban areas by the Bantu Trust at a cost of R200 million. This reveals the consumer growth this could entail. The income of Bantu in White areas was R1 093 million in 1970 and that of commuters and migrant labourers amounted to R696 million in 1970. Ten million rand was paid out in pensions in the homelands alone. According to the Market Research Bureau of the University of South Africa, about R513 million per year was spent on retail commodities in the five major urban areas, namely the Cape Peninsula, Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage, East London, Durban, and the Pretoria-Witwatersrand area. Of this only a meagre 4,2%, or R282 million, is spent within the residential areas themselves. The problem is the limited floor-space and the lack of effective and comfortable marketing facilities. The point I want to make is that there is relatively little space and opportunity for the marketing of agricultural produce, i.e. vegetables and fruit, within those residential areas. The Bantu buys his clothing and other necessities in the luxurious business areas of our cities and towns; and is already so sophisticated that he does not want to carry his vegetables and fruit in a bag or in a basket from thence to his residential area on the means of transport available to him, namely, the train or a taxi. The potential is great, as I tried to prove with figures, and the need is there, but the produce has to be brought to his doorstep in his residential area. Because of all kinds of limitations and a lack of marketing space facilities this lucrative market is being unnecessarily limited and it is a fallow land to which attention should be given by the authorities who have control over it.

Mr. Chairman, I am entering this debate humbly. [Interjections.] There are hon. members who are asking me what I know about farming. I do not know much about it but I do have a lively interest in it. My grandfather always used to say that one does not have to lay an egg to know whether it is rotten or not. There are a few aspects which do interest me and one aspect in which I am particularly interested is a theme that has been touched upon by various members of the House, namely the conservation of the production potential of our agricultural land. I have read the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services attentively and have, as it happens, also attended a few symposiums where this problem was raised. I must say I do not share the general optimism of some of the members who spoke on this matter. Indeed, if one reads the annual report, it is clear that there is a great measure of sombre realism to be found in the evaluation by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in connection with future agricultural developments in South Africa. I must say that one cannot but be impressed by this report. It testifies to a very positive approach and also to a very clear awareness of the problems facing stock-farming in particular in future. I want to touch upon one aspect of this problem, namely, the relationship between population increase and the productive potential of our agricultural land. It is a theme that has been touched upon by various members. In the report it is also mentioned that by the year 2000 we can expect a population of approximately 50 million people in South Africa, and that a mere 20 years later there will be a population of 81 million. Against this background it is clear that there is going to be quite a food problem in South Africa even during the next 30 years. When we consider the stock-farmer, it is clear that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is thoroughly aware of this problem and has already introduced various schemes, which have already been mentioned by various members, to conserve agricultural land. For example, we have the Soil Conservation Act which seeks to force farmers to utilize their land more economically. In the report, however, it is admitted that it is difficult to take action against people who grossly neglect their land. The department gives advice, but as I have said, it is difficult to take action against them. For example, we have a soil reclamation scheme, which has also been mentioned here quite a few times. More than R3 million has been spent on this scheme since it was instituted. Once again there is reference in the report to the fact that this scheme’s results are of doubtful value, on the one hand because many farmers simply cannot afford it to leave land fallow for a season or two to enable it to recover, and on the other hand because if they do let their land lie fallow, the problem then arises that the land that is in fact utilized, will be overgrazed. Then we also have the stock withdrawal scheme, to which reference has been made on various occasions, and also the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act of 1971. This Act seeks to prevent the development of uneconomical agricultural units and also to prevent agricultural land which is suitable for agricultural purposes, being used for other purposes. In this connection I want, just in passing, to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a report I read in the Argus of 12 October 1974. It was a statement by the Director of Local Management of the Divisional Council, Stellenbosch, Mr. Gie, in which he referred to the Croydon Heights township development. According to a proclamation of 1903 this piece of land was set aside for township development, but at the moment it is really agricultural land. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether we cannot prevent this fine agricultural land from being used now for township development. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of it and whether it cannot be stopped because present legislation does not make provision in this connection.

Another method suggested by the department is veld management. In this connection various rotational grazing schemes were introduced. It is striking that the report mentioned that in one district, the Molopo district, there is over-stocking on 63% of the farms there. Here is one of basic dilemmas and problems in respect of the conservation of the agricultural potential for this type of farming. I am mentioning all these things solely to make one important point. It seems to me as if one of our dilemmas—this was also the conclusion at a symposium I recently attended—is that one has a farmer who owns an economical unit and is unproductive. This is so quite simply because his farm is either an inherited farm or because it has been ruined to such an extent because of the wrong farming methods that it takes from three to ten years to restore that farm. Now this farmer—I do not think he does so wilfully—wants to make a living on this farm. He tries to send his children to school; he tries to take a holiday now and again. In reality, however, he is not able to make effective use of the services made available to him by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. We know this can happen. Over a period of 10 or 15 years all that will be left on that farm will in fact be only a bit of bitter Karoo grass and steekgras. No farmer, sheep or cattle will be able to use that farm. It is that pattern that we should try and prevent. I think that what we need in this connection is a programme for the purposeful and controlled depopulation of the platteland. I know this is a very emotional concept, but if we look at the statistics, we note that the depopulation of the platteland is taking place in any case. We should control it purposefully. There is one of two possibilities. What happens to that farmer’s farm? In the end the only person who can afford to buy that farm is the land baron. He is the one who already has a large number of farms and he is the only one who can afford to let that farm lie fallow so that the land can recover over a period of three to five years and become fertile agricultural land again. The other alternative is for the State to buy this farm, and this is what I am advocating. The State should purchase that farm, allow it to recover, and use it for the farm managers of the department who are able to administer that farm properly and ensure that it becomes a productive farm which can contribute to the agricultural potential of the country. I think this will be an excellent way of training affording the people who work on it a training. Here I am now referring especially to the North Eastern Cape. The pattern is clear. It seems to me as though we shall have only a handful of farmers there in 15 to 20 years’ time who will own all that land, quite simply because there are farmers at the moment who, seen objectively, have economic units, but who are not able to farm on them productively because they do not make use of the available agricultural technical services as a result of the fact that they are caught on those farms in the pincers of rising production costs on the one hand and a more or less stable market price on the other. That is the position of the farmer; he tries to make a living on that farm and he cannot improve the farm himself, and therefore I should suggest, although it is possibly a radical step—and perhaps I could suggest this because I am not a farmer myself—that one should preserve that farm, that land, for posterity, because it is clear to me that if it is simply the case that we are pleased every time we have a good agricultural year but are not concerned about a good agricultural future, we could, within the next two to three decades, be faced with the problem I mentioned at the outset.

Sir, the hon. member for Rondebosch raised certain matters which the hon. the Minister will undoubtedly deal with in his reply. In the first place, I want to thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of the districts of Worcester, Robertson and Montagu for the emergency measures he introduced for the droughtstricken wine farmers in those districts. Although no applications have been received from them yet, I want to tell the Minister that applications will in fact be submitted. There was some confusion among many of the farmers, particularly among those who do not have a permanent water supply at the moment or are not going to have a permanent water supply in the near future. Some of the farmers feel very strongly that when a farmer uses his water supply judiciously by means of certain irrigation methods, he should also qualify for these emergency measures. We know the hon. the Minister is very sympathetic towards those farmers, and for that reason I am confident that he will assist them when they submit their applications. Sir, I should like to raise a second matter. You will recall that the possibility was raised on a number of occasions last year that the wine industry should fall under the control of Agriculture. This matter was discussed in a very calm and scientific way at the latest Cape Agricultural Congress, and we should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether any decision has been made in regard to the control of the liquor industry by the Department of Agriculture.

Sir, I should also like to deal with another matter I am deeply concerned about. As you know, all of us are very concerned about the abuse of liquor in this country. This also applies to the wine farmer—perhaps it applies to the wine farmer in particular. The question of liquor abuse is often discussed in this House, and then reference is only made to wine in this regard. I am afraid that the result is that a serious stigma attaches to wine unjustifiably. I want to remind hon. members that liquor is also produced from other agricultural products. Sir, there are ordinary beer, Bantu beer, whisky and cane spirits, and I think that when we refer to the abuse of liquor, we must at the same time refer to the other agricultural products from which liquor is produced. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Krugers-dorp, recently made a very fine speech on the abuse of liquor, but he only referred to wine in this regard, and I think one should be a little more logical.

Sir, there are 6 000 producers in the liquor industry. It is a capital intensive industry. It costs the farmer a capital investment of at least R332 to produce and deliver one ton of grapes. Almost R300 million has been invested in this industry in the way of capital, and this is in addition to the capital, which amounts to several million rand, invested by farmers in co-operative cellars. These 6 000 farmers produce approximately 700 000 metric tons of grapes, from which approximately 5,5 million h1 of wine are produced. These farmers have a gross annual income of approximately R60 million. Of the wine these 6 000 farmers produce, only 10% is being marketed abroad, while 90% is being marketed locally. The farmer receives approximately R5½ million from the overseas market.

Sir, we are greatly concerned about the local distribution of this product of ours. In practice there are really only four wholesalers of significance who buy the product of the farmer. Two of these wholesalers are responsible for more than 80% of all purchases from wine producers. The K.W.V. is prohibited by law from marketing its products locally, except perhaps to the wholesalers, and apart from that portion it exchanges for produce from its members, but basically it is prohibited from marketing the product of the vine locally. Sir, I want to suggest that there is a considerable danger of monopolistic tendencies in the liquor trade, including the system of controlled outlets, something which promotes the fixing and regulating of prices. Although it does not fall directly under this hon. Minister, I think that he, as the Minister of Agriculture, would be interested in this matter and would tell the organized wine farmers that he would help them to see to it that price fixing would not become such a powerful factor that it would prejudice the wine farmer.

I just want to quote one example. As far as the consumers’ price is concerned, an analysis in respect of brandy reveals the following position. I want to say immediately that the wine farmer is not opposed to any excise duties. We appreciate that it is in the national interest that the State should have funds. When it comes to brandy, there are really only two interest groups which control it. The first group is the State itself, Which pockets 53,8% of the price of a bottle of brandy by means of excise duties. In the second place, we have the wholesaler, who pockets 34,7% of the price of a bottle of brandy. In the case of the wholesaler in particular the monopolistic tendency is a decisive factor for price fixing. I want to repeat that the wine farmer is not opposed to the levying of excise duty on his product, because this is in the national interest, but all of us are anxious to see, and we are striving for it, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and to his colleagues in the Cabinet to assist us, that there should be a freer system of distribution in order to ensure a more realistic price structure.

Another point on which I should like to congratulate both the hon. the Minister and his Deputy and the department, is the introduction of legislation for the establishment of regional wines, cultivars, and so on. The establishment of regional wines had a dual effect. The first is that, since this system of regional wines has been introduced, there has been a phenomenal upsurge in regional awareness, quality awareness and pride on the part of the producer as well as the consumer and the inhabitant of a particular region. Sir, when attending a wine show, you will notice with what great pride the farmers of a certain region of a certain area even, discuss with one another and with visitors the sound quality of a bottle of a wine produced in that region. A further result of this legislation was the renewed interest shown in wine shows. You know, Sir, at one time we were doubtful whether the Cape wine show would be able to continue, but since last year we have had three major wine shows in the Western Cape. The Cape wine show aroused new interest, and we arranged a magnificent wine show in the Bree River valley. The hon. the Minister was present this year and he can get up and bear testimony that this was one of the finest wine shows he has ever attended. The Deputy Minister was also there, and I noticed how much he appreciated this product of the vine merely by looking at it, let alone tasting it. These wine shows caused the producers, interested parties and the consumer to set higher standards as far as quality is concerned. The advantage is that one may now visit the Boberg wine show and a little later the Bree River wine show and later still the Cape wine show and taste a bottle of, say, Riesling from the Paarl, Frenchhoek, Worcester or Robertson or Stellenbosch areas and compare them with one another. I think it is a fantastic thing that these wine shows have developed so tremendously, not only in scope, but also as far as its value for both the wine producer and the consumer is concerned.

In conclusion, I believe there is a movement afoot in the Boland for people to object to the wages our wine farmers pay their farm labourers. You know, Sir, a great stigma attaches to the tot system. Many people say the wine farmer buys his labour by means of the tot system. Sir, I reject that argument. I think 90% or more of our wine farmers would like to see this tot system be done away with. Not one single wine farmer buys his labour with liquor. Many farmers try to convince their labourers that they should get rid of the tot system, but on the other hand, when one has to work in the vineyards during the summer months when it is hot, that glass of wine has great value to the labourer—I would not say for the farmer, because the farmer is able to look for some shade if he finds it too hot. It has nutritional value. But if there is one thing the wine farmer tries to avoid, it is for his product, i.e. liquor, to be abused. For that reason I should like to pay tribute today to those farmers in my constituency who, together with the church, are doing such a great deal for the upliftment of these farm labourers, and also those people in other towns who are trying to stop the abuse of liquor among those people. This is a major task, but we appreciate that this is a task which has to be tackled. I think the farmer in the Boland has every reason to be proud, because he pays his people a good wage. Only yesterday a farmer told me that he would be prepared to pay his labourers R4 per day, but then they must give up the tot system and pay a small rental for their accommodation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the last speaker discussed the crowning achievements of the wine industry in South Africa and, from my psychological point of view, I think it is only right that I should deal briefly with another branch of the agricultural industry which is also closely related to the wine industry. I am now referring to the important tobacco industry. Wine has a salutary effect on man’s state of mind. If one smokes a cigarette when one has to cope with serious problems, it also has a salutary effect on one’s mental faculties and it helps one to solve one’s problems. I say this is an important industry. The hon. member referred to the excise duty on wine, but the excise duty on tobacco is also a major source of income. To my mind, the Treasury is a major shareholder in the tobacco industry in South Africa.

I notice that an estimated amount of R146 million appears in the Budget in respect of excise duty on cigarettes and ordinary cigarette tobacco. I think there is a further amount of R14 250 000 in respect of ordinary cigars and other tobacco products. This shows the considerable sum the State derives from excise duties in this respect. Furthermore, the tobacco industry has also succeeded in establishing a large export market and in doing so is earning foreign exchange for our country. However, at one stage this industry was experiencing some lean years. That was when our sales methods had not yet been organized and when the farmer was practically left to the whims and fancies of some dealers. Today, however, we have co-operative marketing, through which the farmer is able to sell his tobacco on a co-operative basis. I say this is very important, because it has certain special advantages. Of course, we have the joint selling of the product and, on the other hand, we also have facilities for bulk storage. The preparation of the tobacco leaf can be undertaken at a fairly low cost and the benefit of this can be passed on to the dealer. These are the benefits we are able to derive from it.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the development of tobacco farming in South Africa is inseparably tied up with the development of the co-operative movement in South Africa. Whereas the farmer suffered considerable damage initially as far as his sales are concerned, he now sells on a collective basis by means of the cooperative societies. This is one of the best organized industries in our country today. The various co-operative societies are affiliated with Sentabak and the prices are then fixed through the Tobacco Board. A new era has dawned for the tobacco farmer in South Africa. There was a time …

Order! Hon. members must restrain themselves.

Yes, Sir, in the old days, too, there was almost uproar among the tobacco farmers on account of the low prices. I want to tell the hon. the Minister, however, that the position has improved. We are now dealing with economic tobacco prices. This is due solely to orderly marketing. I want to tell the hon. the Minister today that he is the uncrowned king among the tobacco farmers, and not only on account of higher prices. Higher prices are not always economic prices. We now have economic prices in the true sense of the word, which I hope would serve as a stimulant and would stimulate the production of tobacco. We were deeply concerned about the tobacco history in South Africa, in the sense that the production dropped considerably in recent times. In 1969 the total tobacco crop only amount to approximately 36,36 million kg. In 1973 the production dropped to about 28½ million kg.

What about …

That hon. member must please keep quiet now and not spoil things again. On account of all the contributory factors, it is estimated that production will exceed 35 million kg this year. This only goes to show again that if the farmer is afforded an economic price he will deliver the product, even though it is only tobacco. It is true, tobacco does not have any nutritional value, but it nevertheless has many other wonderful values I do not want to deal with now. After all, Lamb the famous English author, said: “For thy sake tobacco I would do anything but die.”

It is essential that we should maintain the industry on a sound basis. In order to develop the tobacco industry in South Africa and eventually turn it into a stable industry, I think it is essential that we should ensure economic prices in the first place. In the second place there should be judicious excise duties, i.e. that a point of saturation is not reached which would ultimately lead to reduced production or reduced consumption. In the third place, there should also be research. Research is absolutely indispensable. We have first-rate research already. We must see to it that we grow the right type of tobacco as well as the right quality of tobacco. If we comply with these requirements, our prospects are bright. However, I want to tell the Minister that the tobacco industry is not an easy industry, an industry which involves an enormous risk factor. At Brits, we had another spell of extremely cold weather and early planting was affected. We often experienced extreme heat as well as disastrous hail storms, which virtually compel farmers to leave the industry. I think the time has come for a thorough investigation into the question of crop insurance schemes in our country so that these risks may be eliminated to a large extent.

There are other steps which may be taken in this regard as well. I have already told the Minister that we are enjoying orderly marketing today on account of the co-operative movement in this country. As long as the Minister is fighting the cause of this movement and listens when farmers speak with one voice, all will be well with this industry. This is precisely what the hon. the Minister is doing. In spite of hail storms, uneconomic prices and other setbacks experienced by the farmers, the Minister has always been prepared to listen to what the tobacco farmer had to say, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity of conveying to him our special thanks in this connection.

We have also developed an export market for tobacco. There was a time when we did not have an export market for tobacco. However, we changed over to a new kind of tobacco and in so doing eliminated the bottleneck. Perhaps I should not speak of a bottleneck here; this applies more particularly to the wine industry. I would rather call it a chronic surplus. With the new kind of tobacco we have been growing we were able to develop a handsome export market and earn foreign exchange. In this way we developed the industry, and I am very pleased to be able to tell the hon. the Minister today that the farmers are deeply grateful to the department and the hon. the Minister for the fact that they are receiving economic prices for their product today and that the prospects of the farmers are therefore far better today. The day will come when we shall be able to produce a typical South African cigarette consisting solely of tobacco leaf, with no harmful effects whatsoever. I want to give the assurance that we shall retain the aroma. It will be a wonderful cigarette, not injurious to health at all, and when that day comes, we shall smoke to our heart’s content, but not inside this House, only outside.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to follow on two speeches made by two experts in two spheres, but before I go any further I want to say to the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side that there was no intention on my part to butter him up at all and that there is also no intention on my part to die for his tobacco. He spoke about stimulating the production of this particular product, and I notice that he has recently acquired a little of that, but I want to say that, unfortunately, this product of his is no longer any good to me. But I cannot say the same to the hon. member for Worcester. The hon. member for Worcester spoke about the other product with a stigma attached to it, the stigma of strong drink and various other stigmas. I am very sorry, but I do not accept that stigma.

*Sir, he also mentioned the matter of enjoying a glass of wine. He said it had emotional value. However, I want to discuss another type of drink this afternoon. I am sure hon. members will guess what I am going to discuss. This has no emotional value, but it does have a nutritional value.

Coca-Cola?

I want to come to the hon. member for Bethal who said that the agricultural industry was basically sound, and that there had been an increase of 26% in the volume of production. I want to ask him with tears in my eyes: Does that also hold good for the dairy industry? He does not reply, Sir. Why does he not reply?

†Do you know why he does not answer? He knows that the production of cheese is down by 31%. Taking the last figures which are available to me, for the quarter ended June 1974, 5 962 tons of butter were produced compared with 9 000 the year before. This represents only 65% of what was produced the year before. During that same period in 1974, 2 986 tons of cheese were produced, which is only 62% of the 4 780 tons produced during the same period in 1973. How can the hon. member for Bethal say: “Die landbou is kerngesond”? There may be sections which are; I am prepared to concede that. There are sections of the agricultural sector of our country which are doing very well, which are doing better than they have done for many years. I am very pleased to be able to take cognizance of that fact this afternoon. However, I do believe that hon. members on that side must not go hiding behind a generalization such as that made by the hon. member for Bethal and try to say everything in the garden is rosy, especially when we come to think of the situation regarding fresh milk. Let us look at some of the headlines that have appeared in newspapers recently. I am dealing only with the last few months. Here is a screaming headline: “Milk crisis—curbs on the way”. Sir, who said this? It was not a politician. It was not a member of the Opposition. This was one of the top agriculturists of this country, a man appointed by the hon. the Minister to one of the highest agricultural positions in the country. I quote Mr. H. J. van Rensburg, the Chairman of the National Marketing Council, who said that he feared rationing might have to be introduced if production continued to decline. Another headline reads “Expert warns of milk rationing”, and another “Milk short-age threat to Natal”. Even in the Burger, the mouthpiece of this Government, a headline reads “Meikboere kla oor slawerny ’. It goes on to quote somebody appointed by the hon. the Minister, not a politician or somebody making cheap politics. I quote:

This is what I want to talk to the hon. the Minisber about this afternoon. Dairy products to a total value of R161 million were produced during this past year. Of this total, fresh milk made up an amount of R144 million. Sir, what is the picture in the Western Cape? In the year 1972-’73 production was down by 4%. Last year it was down by 8%. In Natal in 1963 there were 600 registered producers of fresh milk. In 1972 the number had dropped to 502. In 1973 only 474 producers were left.

[Inaudible.]

All right. The hon. member must not be so sensitive. There is no need to be so sensitive. Each year in Natal 2% of the farmers have been falling out. We do not have the figures for the past year, but I am afraid it is going to be close to 10%. Each year that we have had a reduction of 2% in the number of producers, there has been an increase in consumption of 8%. This is the very problem The hon. member for Bethal has put his finger on the problem, namely, that fewer farmers are being asked to produce more. But, they are not being asked to produce more at a higher incentive. In Durban in 1963 the daily average consumption of milk was 204 000 litres. In 1973 it had risen to 361 000 litres per day. This means that there was an increase of 75% over the past ten years in the average consumption of milk in Durban It is estimated that by 1980 Durban will require 750 000 litres of milk per day. Where is it going to get it from? This is the question which this hon. the Minister, his departments and hon. members on that side of the House have to ask themselves. Where will Durban get its milk from? In fact, where will Cape Town get its milk from in three months’ time?

From the cows.

The hon. doctor says that Cape Town will get its milk from the cows. This is a tremendous discovery on the part of the hon. member. The hon. doctor has at last discovered the facts of life. He has discovered that milk comes from cows!

Now tell him about the birds and the bees, Warwick.

The question remains, where are the cows and who is going to look after the cows? This is what the hon. doctor should tell us.

I was talking about Cape Town. At the moment, and the hon. the Minister is aware of it, there is a surplus of between 20 000 and 30 000 litres of milk per day in the Western Cape. It is, however, not being processed into powdered milk, into sterimilk or anything like that for a rainy day. It is being carted from here all the way to Pretoria so that they do not have to have rationing because there is a shortage of milk there The situation is that they are barely able to meet local requirements on the Witwatersrand at present. The supply position in the Western Transvaal is way below demand. As I have said we have a small surplus in the Western Cape which is being sent to Pretoria, but do not forget that it is presently the flush season in the Western Cape. Today production is possibly the highest it will be during the dairy year. What is going to happen in three months’ time in the Western Cape when it has its dry season? Where are they going to get their milk from because there is only one part …

You cannot force the farmers to produce milk.

No, you cannot force them; that is the very point. The hon. member for Bethal has also made a discovery, namely, that you cannot force the farmer to produce. At least you can make it profitable for him. The hon. member for Marico was saying a few minutes ago that it is the profit motive that will keep our farmers on the land, but there is no profit incentive today for the dairy farmer. We still have to introduce it; that is the point I should like to deal with a little later. As a matter of fact, I think I shall deal with it now. It is no good the hon. the Minister and the Government viewing the milk situation with equanimity. The number of dairy herds continues to decrease. Their numbers are falling rapidly and it remains to be seen whether the recent increases in prices are going to stop this tendency. I do not believe that the increases which were granted this year are sufficient to keep those who are in industry today in business, let alone encourage those who have left to come back into the industry or to encourage any newcomers to come into the milk or dairy industry, because there is no profit incentive for them. When we take the very factors mentioned by the hon. member for Marico, the capital expenditure, the hours they have to work and the labour problems they have, there is no incentive whatsoever for any young man to enter the dairy industry today.

Tell us what the remedy is.

I am coming to the remedy. The first remedy is to re-introduce profitmaking, to make it profitable for the farmer to produce milk because milk is the basis of all dairy products. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to express my heartfelt thanks to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and I want to congratulate him on the fact that he did not talk about butter again, but directed his attention to another sector of the dairy industry. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South blamed the hon. the Minister today for the fact that there was a temporary milk shortage. He wanted to know from the hon. the Minister what was going to be done about the position of fresh milk in particular. As the hon. member should know, there is a Milk Board which is composed of a majority of producers’ representatives. The task and function of that board is to take care of the milk industry in its entirety and to submit proposals in this regard to the Minister. It is quite possible that the price of milk was on an unrealistic level until very recently, but what was the reason for this? The reason was, inter alia, a tremendous increase in meat prices over the past year or 18 months, as a result of which many dairy farmers took to stock-farming. The hon. member asked what had been done to stimulate milk production. The fact is that we had two consecutive increases in the price of milk in April and again in June this year. If we look at the price of milk as on 1 June 1974, we see that that price is much higher than the price of a year ago. On the Witwatersrand the price has been increased from 8,95 cents a litre to 12,17 cents a litre, a price increase of 36% in one year. I believe that this price increase will probably serve to stimulate production, because dairy farming has now become more profitable.

I should like to express a few thoughts on the agricultural industry in general. As has been indicated by previous speakers, we as farmers are very grateful for the fact that conditions are so favourable in the agricultural industry and that we have had such a good year. It is fitting that we should thank bountiful Providence for the good year we have had in South Africa. The agricultural industry is an important industry for South Africa. The value of agricultural production amounts to 9,9% of our gross national product. This is an industry which is still growing, as has been pointed out here by previous speakers as well. It is an industry in which there is confidence and I want to say that it is an industry in which one’s money is most certainly the safest.

If we look at what has happening in regard to land prices in South Africa and we compare them with share prices, we see an interesting picture, namely that between 1949-’50 and 1959-’60, i e. over a period of 10 years, the combined index of land prices rose from 49 to 94, and between 1960 and 1970 it rose from 94 to 209. This means that the price of agricultural land in South Africa doubles almost every ten years. This proves that there is confidence in that industry. If there is no confidence in an industry, the value of its capital assets declines. If one looks at the value of the capital assets in the agricultural industry, one sees that between 1950 and 1972 there was a tremendous increase of 264% in the value of the capital assets. It should also be pointed out in passing that the agricultural industry accommodates 28% of the total economically active population of South Africa. Therefore it is very definitely the most important single employer in the country.

There is another point I should like to come to. There are many people who criticize the agricultural industry today and there are many people who complain about high food prices and there are people who insinuate, in fact, that the agricultural industry is being too heavily subsidized. I think that we should rather be very grateful for the fact that we in South Africa are not only self-supporting in respect of our food requirements in this country, but that we are in fact one of the six major exporters of agricultural products in the world. If we look at events during the recent oil boycott and the crushing blow that this was to certain countries, and if we look at the balance of payments problems which resulted in those countries and we see how vulnerable a country is if it does not have an adequate supply of the basic essential commodities, I think that food is one of the most strategic products a country could have today. If we now look at the situation in South Africa, we see that the agricultural industry does not only supply food for the population of South Africa, but that the agricultural industry is in fact one of the most important earners of foreign exchange. The figure in respect of agricultural imports is very low. Over the past 12 years our agricultural imports have only amounted to approximately to R50 million a year. In fact, the increase in respect of the importation of agricultural products between 1960 and 1972 was only 3,4%. As against this, if we look at the exportation of agricultural products, we see that it increased from R293 million in 1960 to R754 million in 1972. In other words, the monetary value of the agricultural exports increased by no less than 157 %. The net earnings in foreign exchange in regard to agricultural exports rose by 188% from 1960 to 1972. We see that it is anticipated this year that South Africa will export agricultural products amounting to approximately R900 million and that its agricultural imports will only amount to R50 million, which will leave us a net profit of R850 million in foreign exchange. That contribution will be made by the agricultural industry alone.

If we look at the foods we are importing, we see that there are absolutely no boycotts against us in regard to food. The most important commodity imported by us is tea. The latest figure in this regard which I have been able to obtain is for 1972, and in that year our tea imports amounted to R15,2 million. If one works this out per capita in a population of 23 million people, we are drinking an awful lot of tea. Tea imports are costing South Africa 66 cents per capita of the population. Our only imported staple food of any importance is rice. This is costing us R11,3 million a year. The fact is that rice could very easily and conveniently be replaced by other starchy foods produced in this country.

In addition to the service rendered by the agricultural industry to South Africa’s economy as a whole—in feeding the population and earning foreign exchange—the agricultural industry makes a very great and a very important contribution towards supplying cheap food for the population of this country. By means of the responsible decisions taken by the industry through its control boards, the agricultural producer makes a very substantial financial contribution towards keeping down the price of food in South Africa. I want to illustrate the point as follows. As the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated earlier on, the domestic price of maize is R50 a ton. As against this, one can realize a net amount of R85 and more a ton through one’s exports. If one thinks that we are keeping in this country, at the domestic price, approximately 5.6 million tons of maize which could otherwise have been exported, then the farmer is in fact making a financial contribution to the tune of R200 million to the domestic price of maize. This is income which the farmer is sacrificing in order to make a cheap product available to the domestic consumer. The farmer is prepared to make this sacrifice for the sake of future stability. I want to go on to oil-seed I have calculated what it costs the oil-seed farmer to sell oil-seed at the domestic price, as against the price he realize abroad. One arrives at the interesting figure of approximately R21 million which is being contributed by the oilseed farmer? in their turn towards keeping down the price of food. [Time expired ]

Mr. Chairman. I have listened with appreciation to the well-considered speech made by my colleague who has just resumed his seat. It was a speech which testified to sound knowledge and wide experience of the agricultural industry. In the first place, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to a matter which concerns my own constituency, and I refer in particular to a report which appeared in the Sunday Times of 8 September this year. The report reads as follows—

It refers to sugar cane fields at Pongola in my constituency. The report goes on to say—

This report then concludes as follows—

Sir, I want to state that the allegations made in this report are completely untrue. I want to state that it was this very hon. Minister who made arrangements in this particular regard for having those fields allocated, where expansions would be profitable, and that it was this hon. Minister who appointed an ad hoc committee consisting of people from that particular area who were asked to make recommendations in this regard to the department, and in allocating these fields the hon. the Minister will be guided by the recommendations made by this committee. I think that this report completely misrepresents the situation, and on behalf of the voters there whom I represent I want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the positive steps taken by him in this regard. I believe that this allocation will take place in the foreseeable future, to the great advantage of the voters in that area. Sir, I believe that the hon. the Minister and this Government are thoroughly aware of the value of those fields as sugar cane fields, but I want to emphasize that cane-land is not the only valuable, sought-after land in this country, and that—and I want to lay great stress on this—there is a constantly growing demand for land in South Africa. This constantly growing demand for end is chiefly owing, perhaps, to the fact that we are experiencing a population explosion and all that this implies. More and more people are being born every day, while the area of our land, of the soil that is available to us, is limited and cannot be expanded. In conjunction with this, we must keep in mind that we shall also have to hand over vast areas of land to the homelands we are creating and are going to create in the interests of South Africa. I am thinking, for example, of the Swazi homeland which is being created in my area and which will alone occupy a total area of 317 000 ha. Furthermore, Sir, we must keep in mind that in this country, in South Africa, the utilization of our soil is already being conducted on an intensive basis. If we compare South Africa with a country such as America, we find that while it is likely that only 50% of America’s soil is already being utilized, we in South Africa are already utilizing 90% of our soil. Sir, if we keep all these aspects in mind, I believe that there are two questions we should ask ourselves, and the first is whether the State should not see to it that our land, our soil, our farms, are more scientifically utilized and controlled. I know that this is a radical thing for a farmer to say. Sir, I had to draw up a lease recently in respect of a farm which is being leased by a client of mine in England. That contract was drawn up in such a way that practically all one had to do was to fill in the names of the parties, for the contract made full provision in every respect for what should and what could be done with that land. It stipulated the type of fertilizer and the type of nitrogen that were to be applied, when and how this was to be done and which crops were to be planted or sown where, now or later. This must be done because they must practise intensive farming, for they cannot afford to waste and to neglect that soil, and I think that we too may have reached that position. Compare our position with that of America. It is true that we deal with quotas, quotas which lay down how much is to be produced and supplied. But in America you are told that you are getting 19 ha or 190 ha for planting maize, and that you may plant nothing more. The quota is therefore tied to the area. It has the advantage that every producer has to try to develop to the optimum the potential of that piece of land which has been allocated to him for that purpose, so that he may get the most out of it. I want to suggest that we too should think and move in that direction. We already have this principle in our legislation. I am thinking of forestry, where we control the catchment areas and where we can already tell our people where they may plant trees and where they may not. I think we might extend this principle, for our soil is precious and it is growing ever scarcer, and for that reason we should control and preserve it with care. While I am on the subject, I want to ask another related question, and I know that this too is of a radical nature. I want to ask whether the time has not come for us to consider providing that when we alienate our land and transfer our property, this may only be done to South African citizens. I have said that I know this is a radical proposal, but compare the position with other countries such as Nigeria, which provides that land there may only be sold to citizens of Nigeria. Sir, you may go to a neighboring state, Swaziland. They have a Land Speculation Act, which provides that when you are selling land, you must first of all sell it to a Swazi citizen. Where our people are making the sacrifices and are willing to make those sacrifices in regard to the handing over of land, etc., I believe that it could have no adverse effect if we were to provide that our land is the property of the citizens of South Africa and that when it is alienated, whether privately or through companies, it may only be transferred to South African citizens, and in the case of a company, only to a company controlled by South African citizens.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. member realize how pleasant it is to listen to a new sound in agriculture?

Thank you. I do not know whether I should reply to that. But I just want to say that we have already embodied this principle in our commercial banks, and for that reason I think that it could also be profitably applied for the purpose of controlling our land, which, as my hon. friend has said, is South Africa’s most valuable asset.

I should like to thank the hon. members of the Opposition, as well as the hon. members on our side who participated in the debate, for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted up to now. I think this is primarily attributable to the fact that it is generally appreciated that we have a food problem in the world, although not in our country. However, if we do not plan correctly now, we will not be able to provide 50 million people with food within the next 30 years. I shall return subsequently to the points raised by the hon. members. Pursuant to what the hon. members on both sides said, I should first like, at the outset while this good atmosphere is still prevailing, to thank the three Departments of Agriculture as well as the three Secretaries, i.e. the three general managers of these departments, together with all their officials. To be able to do this work, one needs good officials. I think I have been blessed with precisely this kind of official, who supports the Deputy Minister and I in managing this industry correctly as far as is practicable.

There is another very important aspect of agriculture which I just want to emphasize briefly. On an international level we tend to keep silent about the important role of agriculture. On two recent overseas visits it was a revelation to me to find how many people had already visited South Africa and how many of our researchers had visited overseas countries. In this way a spirit of co-operation is being built up. Accompany a mission from the Maize Board to Tokyo, and get together with 54 of the top Japanese businessmen, including the president of a business such as Mitsubishi—one of the ten major companies—as well as the directors. They are the people who are buying maize from us. That evening we dined on South African meat. The goodwill which is built up by agriculture in this way can be used as a medium of information in other respects as well. The next day we were taken by the same company to visit a pig-farming concern, where there are 80 000 pigs on one farm. They wanted to show us that these pigs were eating maize from South Africa. Among these people there is much goodwill, there is mutual friendship.

Today South Africa has more researchers than the rest of Africa put together. We have accomplished great things in many fields. At some time or other it is necessary to mention these things. By means of Sarcus, for example, we hold lectures for researchers who come here from other countries. During the past three years alone 35 experts have visited this country, apart from all the students and farmers’ tours. In addition there were 137 visits by officers of the Republic to African countries alone. At Reunion we are working on a joint project in terms of which we provide them with cattle to help them to build up their cattle population. Between July 1971 and 30 June 1974 a total of 10 222 samples were received at Onderstepoort for analysis from Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Rhodesia. South-West Africa, Swaziland, Zambia. Israel and Italy. These things are not mentioned at the United Nations and are never given wide publicity. Between July 1971 and June 1974 a total of 23 481000 dosis of vaccine and antigens were supplied to Angola, Bahrein, Belgium, Botswana, Germany, England, Israel, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, New Zealand, the Persian Gulf, Rhodesia, China, South-West Africa, Swaziland, St. Helena, Zaire and Zambia. They are not all people who are always well-disposed towards us. However, South Africa is a country which is research-conscious and has accomplished many things and as a result of that they come to us and ask for assistance, they ask for vaccines. It would take too long to mention all these facts. Last year, for example, the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services and I paid a visit to France. We concluded a formal agreement with France for the exchange of information. Their researchers will visit our country, and our researchers theirs. Let me mention another example. A country such as Australia is not always well-disposed towards us, but they are faced with a pollution problem. Dung from their cattle is deposited on the artificial pastures, and there is general pollution of their feed-lots. They do not have dung beetles. The solution of course is for dung beetles to take this dung underground. At present dung beetles are being bred at the Rietondale research station. As it happens the name of the man from Australia who is concerned in this matter is Dr. Bornamissa. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is therefore rendering assistance in this regard as well. Australia has no dung beetles, and now they are being bred in South Africa and sent over to that country. Some have already been taken to Australia and released there on a large scale to help combat the pollution problem. There are many other cases as well which give me great satisfaction when I think how we are, by means of research, providing guidance in every sphere—the list is too long to enumerate in full. Recently we had the case of a gem squash. Housewives complained that it turned yellow after a few days. By means if inbreeding it is now possible for this gem squash to be kept for three months without turning yellow. This kind of research is constantly being done in every sphere.

I come now to the question of the provision of foodstuffs. My motto is: Food for peace and friendship. In this respect I associate myself with the hon. member for Mooi River, the hon. member for Newton Park and others who pointed out that we can have peace and tranquillity if we have food, and if we are able to supply other countries with food. The American Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Earl Butts, had this to say last month—

The report states further—

More than 25% of America’s canned fish is consumed by cats alone. One can see how serious the problem is becoming when the population has to be asked to reduce its pet population because of the tremendous demand for food. In the Argus on Tuesday the following report appeared under the headline “Disaster Warning on Food”—

This makes us feel very uneasy, and I repeat that food for freedom is very important. We welcome this concern. I have here list upon list of overseas publications dealing with this matter. People have suddenly realized that as a result of a fertilizer shortage, the population increase and other factors, food shortages may arise. How can one have tranquillity and peace if one does not have food? I should now like to reply to the points which hon. members discussed. I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that on various occasions a request has already been made for the establishment of an overall agricultural planning council. My argument has always been that we have our control boards and our Marketing Council. We now have a commission of inquiry into marketing, and I think that it would create general satisfaction if such a council were established. It will consist of representatives of the department, the South African Agricultural Union and the control boards. These people are all experts. It is very difficult to plan for the long term because we do not know what is awaiting us. At the moment we need rain in the maize triangle in order to have a repetition of last year’s harvest. Last year our first rains fell on 26 September, and we had regular showers after that. But this year it is already 15 October and there are still no signs of general country-wide rains. It is therefore not easy to plan, but the appointment of such a council would perhaps be a good thing and would bring tranquillity. Our agricultural policy adviser, Dr. Faan du Plessis, who performed very good services for us, is retiring in November. We are contemplating appointing such a body instead of appointing an individual agricultural policy adviser. In the same breath I also want to thank Dr. Du Plessis. He dedicated a lifetime to agriculture. He entered the service of agriculture just before I was born, and he is at this moment still a man who is active in our service. I wish him a pleasant retirement.

The hon. member for Newton Park says that food subsidies would have to expand. The hon. member for Parys, as well as other hon. members, also referred to this matter. We must view the question of food subsidies in its correct perspective. Reference was made to a bread subsidy of R50 million. At present it is R86,6 million. The South African housewife is spending less than 25% of her budget on food. We must work this out for ourselves. It is the taxpayer’s money which is being used to subsidize food. As a percentage we received greater salary adjustments than the increase in the cost of living or food prices. Is it a sound argument to say that bread should still be treated with contempt? A brown loaf at 11 cents is not being treated with very great respect. Since a housewife spends less than 25% of her budget on food—one of the lowest percentages in the world, calculated proportionately, so much more money is being spent on other commodities. You know, sir I have mentioned before that in our house there was blue soap in the kitchen. That was the soap we used for washing purposes. Today one can go into any home and it is Fanta, Omo, Swipe and heaven knows what else—all unnecessary items which are being bought. Now one has to subsidize food to keep the prices low and enable the housewife to buy plastic containers and all kinds of other things with which to pollute our environment. These are questions we have to ask ourselves, for the saving is being utilized to purchase other items such as Fanta and Coke, which is not as necessary as milk. I am not saying that I am opposed to food subsidies, but a subsidy of R86,6 million on bread bothers me.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also asked for an increase in the milk price.

For the farmers.

If it is for the farmer, it means a subsidy.

That is correct.

I am coming to that.

The hon. member for Newton Park raised the matter of the cost of a dwelling for non-White labourers. He mentioned a figure of R2 500. The loan is provisionally approved at 1 % interest, in respect of Coloured housing for the Greater Western Cape. We are still trying to have this approved for the entire country. The basic amount has now been increased from R800 to R2 200. The latter amount is made up of R200 for electricity, R200 for water and the remainder for the dwelling itself. However, the farmer can construct more expensive dwellings if he wishes. He need not stop there. But there is something else which he should bear in mind when it is suggested that we should subsidize the building material as well. Let me tell you straight out what my standpoint is in regard to the question of agricultural subsidies, stock withdrawal schemes, etc. Give a farmer a price, so that he is encouraged to produce well, and then forget about all these other things. Before he has to pay income tax, he will erect Bantu houses. I know the farmers. I am not stupid. He will construct houses for his Bantu labourers. I would be very glad if the Opposition, as I experienced for the first time today, would help me plead for a better dispensation for the farmers of our country, so that there could be no criticism if we increased the price of a product to make it possible for the farmer to produce. The hon. member is quite correct—production cost increases are proving to be a tremendous hindrance to us. We are making adjustments to the price. Quite by chance I received a letter today from Mr. Herman Martins, who was formerly my predecessor as Deputy Minister of Agriculture. He writes (translation)—

This is the position in Stephensville, Texas. He then goes on to quote further from the newspaper—

America, the Land of Plenty, is experiencing these problems with rising production costs. It makes one shudder, for you do not know where it is going to end. In our country we are trying to cushion it through the control board system. We have producers on the control boards who advise me and who tell me when they feel that prices should be adjusted, when this is made inevitable, for example, by rising production costs. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Bethal that we should not say we are going through a crisis, but that we should say it is a challenge. I am pleased the hon. member said that the marketing is satisfactory, but not yet entirely what it should be. For that reason we appointed a commission of inquiry to go into the control board system.

†The hon. member for East London North said that we must not stop the stock reduction scheme because we still have to look at soil conservation. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that he wanted a smaller scheme. I ask hon. members whether it is the right thing to spend between R60 million and R80 million on such a scheme. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet stated very clearly that we brought our message to the farmer and that the farmer now realizes that he must look after his soil and his veld. A revolution took place amongst our farmers. They realize that anything might happen to the price of wool. They realize that they should rather look at the price instead of having various loans, like loans for feed. Hon. members will remember that at one stage farmers owed the department R23 per sheep. We must think of the possibility of cushioning the price for the farmer so that he can get an economic price for his products. I do not think it is practical to go in for another five years term of the stock reduction scheme, but we shall discuss these matters with the agricultural unions.

*The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet almost waxed lyrical and really enjoyed telling us how the veld had recovered and how the man in the rural areas could breathe again. That is the kind of language I like. I enjoy hearing that our people in the rural areas can breathe again. It makes no difference whether they are United Party or National Party supporters. I am so pleased that we do not play politics with agriculture, for I have said previously that United Party or National Party supporter. Black man or White, does not pay two different prices for porridge or maize. Everyone pays the same price, and we in agriculture look after everyone. It was a pleasure to hear the hon. member saying that he had confidence in agriculture and to hear that the agronomists had learnt how to protect our soil, precisely as a result of the stock withdrawal scheme.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that he wanted to congratulate the Wool Board on the wool scheme. I am glad to see that attitude. The Wool Board was criticized and I spoke to them on various occasions about this matter. I can tell hon. members one thing and that is that the Wool Board’s attitude is wholly to the benefit of the producer in this country. We cannot have a repetition of what ha opened a few years ago in the wool industry.

Then the hon, member said that the locusts should be dealt with before they reach the hopper stage and that we are a bit slow in taking preventative measures. Last year we spent R2.2 million in fighting the locust plague. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services had meetings with locust inspectors and with farmers. They were all present at various meetings and the farmers were completely happy about the position. At the moment we are importing pumps to spray the locusts. We have built up a large reserve of P.H.C. insecticide and I feel convinced that the coming locust problem will be handled in a much more efficient way than in the past.

*The hon. member for Parys said that we should rather subsidize the consumer. I have already furnished the hon. member with a reply in that regard, and I hope he understands me correctly when I say that we are not unsympathetic when the price of food rises. However, we have to view the matter in its entirety.

The hon. member also said that the valuations of the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, were unrealistic. He said that land in Bothaville cost R400 to R450 per morgen, while the valuation of the Department of Agricultural Credit was only R200 per morgen. If a farmer obtains a loan at 5% interest from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and he has to pay it off within 25 years and redeem the capital, it means that it costs him slightly more than 8% of the amount annually. When he buys a farm at R450 or even R400 per morgen, of which only two-thirds can be ploughed—not all the land in the Bothaville district can be ploughed—that maize land is actually costing him R600 per morgen. At interest and redemption of 8% per annum it is costing him R48 per morgen per annum. Without taking into account the costs of his livelihood, it is costing him R48 per morgen per annum. Surely he cannot make the grade then. If there is only a minor drought, that man is in trouble. This is the tragedy when we want to establish a young man who has nothing at all, in the agricultural industry. It is difficult to help him in this case. We can reconsider the matter of valuations, but we may not allow the State to become an instrument for pushing up land prices. Unfortunately land prices are already being forced up in some cases, for as a result of the inflation people feel that land is the best investment because it appreciates while interest rates are uncertain and unstable and the value of money depreciates. I think we will have to be very careful in this respect.

The hon. member for Heilbron requested once again that instead of subsidizing bread and other commodities, we should finance the Land Bank instead, so that the Land Bank could help farmers to produce cheaper food. That is the other extreme from which this matter may be approached. To a certain extent I am inclined to agree with the hon. member. However, we will not be able to reduce production costs by merely keeping interest rates low. There are so many other things which have increased far more than interest rates. Nevertheless, these are all matters to which we could give our attention.

†The hon. member for Mooi River said food was power. I must agree with him. He mentioned the problem of fertilizer. I admit that in that connection we made a mistake. The fertilizer people applied for a price increase in February this year, when increases are normally announced. We pointed out that, as it was reported in the newspapers, they had made a profit of R7 million and that, consequently, they were not entitled to an increase. We said that the only increase we could allow them was in respect of their raw material. They found people were not prepared to invest their money. The hon. member is perfectly right when he said that the increase amounted to 20%. The increase can be ascribed to the good year and the feeling among people that the farmer must buy more fertilizer to increase his production. Unfortunately the increase was announced too late to enable them to get more than 15%. They feel that with a return of 15%, they will only have 8% or 9% after income tax has been deducted and that, consequently, they may just as well let the money earn 10% or 11% in the bank. The hon. member is perfectly right in saying that the dairy farmer has switched to a new method of fertilizing his fields. He also uses a new method of spray irrigation. That is one of the reasons why we are satisfied that we can produce more milk. It is essential that those people should get enough fertilizer.

*The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the fact that agricultural exports amounted to R900 million. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that we must be able to produce economically. The ideal is that South Africa’s agricultural exports should reach the R2 000 million mark. The gold-mining industry, said with all due respect, is a dying industry; we are simply extracting. The agricultural industry on the other hand is a dynamic and vital enterprise which is growing. For example we can consider what the volume of business or the total turnover—and not only in terms of money—was ten years ago, and compare it to the present situation. Ten years ago we spoke of a record maize harvest of 40 million bags. Today a 100 million bags is a modest harvest. We are now talking about 122 million bags, and we wish that we will be blessed this year with an even greater harvest. We must never allow ourselves to be intimidated because of a surplus. There was a stage when pessimism prevailed here because there were surpluses. We must not adopt that negative attitude.

The hon. member for Marico referred to the Bantu labour which the mines want to recruit. Of course the mines have a specific problem and we should look after their interests as well. They asked whether the Bantu in the rural areas could work for the mining industry when they were not being used in agriculture. However, there are problems attached to that. I said that the Chamber of Mines should discuss this with the S.A. Agricultural Union and that I personally felt that it would be very difficult to apply this matter. The hon. member also requested that we create the opportunity for the Bantu to obtain vegetables and fruit in their own residential areas. In the beginning of November, we held discussions with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in regard to this specific matter to see whether we cannot supply the Bantu with food such as fruit and vegetables closer to their own residential areas.

The hon. member for Rondebosch asked whether our agricultural potential could keep pace with our population growth. I want to tell the hon. member that with the type of person we have in agriculture today, we will in fact be able to do so. Twenty-five years ago there were 125 000 farmers. The decrease in the number of dairy farmers was not exclusively because that branch of farming was not profitable. We experienced a general reduction in the number of farmers because we have a free economy. We cannot take a man by the scruff of his neck and tell him to farm. The successful farmer buys out his neighbour. The picture might possibly seem unfavourable if the number of farmers diminishes, but I want to tell the hon. member that the farmers who are making a success of farming operations in the Republic and are receiving a little sympathy from the Government—which I hope they are receiving—will in fact be able, owing to the research we are doing, owing to the fantastic developments which are taking place in almost every sphere, to make a success of their farming operations. Ten years ago when one asked a farmer about trace elements, he knew nothing about them. When I began farming, there was only one fertilizer, and that was superphosphate. One knew nothing about potash and nitrogen. Today we already have liquid fertilizer and ammonia gas. Last year the maize farmers introduced ammonia gas into the soil of their maize fields to boost production. These are all new techniques. The hon. member does have a reason for concern. Every year we are losing between 25 000 and 30 000 ha of land just for the construction of freeways and cities. I sometimes wonder why it is necessary to build a freeway with a broad island in the middle. We should treat our land with more respect. However, we cannot do anything else. There has to be development and people have to have houses. When application is made for subdivision, and when a new town is established, my department tries to ensure that this is done on unproductive land. I was not aware of Troyeville; we could go into it. These matters are being considered by the provincial authorities, the Minister of Planning and other interested bodies. I shall go into the Troyeville matter, and furnish a written reply in that regard.

The hon. member for Rondebosch also referred to the farmers who have an economic unit but who cannot produce economically. As I have said, we have a free economy. Land prices are increasing to such an extent, however, that if one buys that person out, that does not simply solve the problem. We have legislation covering the unprofitable utilization of agricultural land. We do not want to do all these things by means of statutory provisions. That farmer will discover that he would do far better if he sold his farm to his neighbour who is in fact an entrepreneur or the right man for the job. The hon. member referred to the North-eastern Cape region. I did not know precisely to what region he was referring. In many areas which I know this less efficient person has realized of his own accord that if he can get a good price for his land he should sell his farm. In this manner the matter is gradually being remedied.

The hon. member for Worcester asked whether the liquor position should not fall under the Department of Agriculture. In this regard we had talks with the KWV and the Minister of Justice. The question of the administration of liquor licences is no easy task. In the Department of Justice there is machinery which has been built up over a period of 60 years. There is the question of the allocation of hotel licences, liquor store licence, etc. I think we would be making a mistake if we felt that agriculture would be able to take over this entire operation. As I told the KWV people, we must ensure that the farmer receives a good price for his grapes and his wine. On the part of the Department of Justice, they will see whether they cannot make wine more easily available, particularly as far as cafés are concerned. At the moment these places have to have a five-star menu and that type of nonsense. I feel that wine should be more readily available and the hon. the Minister is contemplating steps to ensure that this is the case in future. I think that provisionally we should keep the liquor question under Justice, and that agriculture should simply see to the problems of the farmers.

The hon. member for Brits thanked me so kindly for what we had done for the tobacco industry. I do not take it at all amiss of him that he does not smoke himself. If one thanks you in such a courteous manner, he could rather drink than smoke cigarettes. [Interjections.] The important point which the hon. member for Brits raised, was the co-operative idea which is a matter very dear to him. If we are able to use the power which we have as individual farmers in a collective way, through our co-operatives, we would be able to accomplish a great deal as a group. I want to say to those hon. members who are perhaps not all that sympathetic towards the co-operatives that if we were to remove the agricultural co-operatives today, we would see what happens to production costs in this country.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South talked about the shortage of dairy products. He must remember that within the space of two years we increased the price of fresh milk by 46%. The hon. member said that we must give the farmer an incentive. Sir, I saw in the newspapers last week that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had sold a Friesland bull for R90 000. All dairy farmers here know that the average price of a heifer on the point of calving at the moment is approximately R400. There is no optimism in the industry at the moment because of various factors such as “stiff-sickness” and excessive rain at the wrong time in the dairy-producing areas. But we are at the beginning of the summer season and I cannot see why production should go down. The hon. member cannot mention the name of one person who in the last year has not been able to get milk when he has wanted to buy it; there are no queues for milk; there is no shortage of milk. We do take milk by tankers to the Witwatersrand because of the shortage which exists at the moment for the reasons which I have mentioned. Although I feel that things may change, we must look at the price, and that is why we increased it by 46%. The hon. member said that this increase was not sufficient. Sir, I have done exactly what the Milk Board has asked me to do. On the last occasion when the price was increased they asked for a further increase of 10% as an incentive to farmers to produce, and we gave them that increase.

*The hon. member for Lydenburg referred to the great contribution of agriculture as an earner of foreign exchange. The hon. member drew an interesting comparison between imports and exports. Sir, it gives everyone in this country a comfortable feeling to know that we have a minimum quantity of imports. Personally I feel that we ought really to refuse to import rice. We could save that R11 million as well, for we have quite enough starch in this country. I was speaking to a group of housewives the other day, and when they complained about the price of food, I said to them that our problem in South Africa was not that our food prices are too high, our problem was overweight. Sir, in Die Huisgenoot, for example, you will find that there are six advertisements for slimming pills. I said to those women: “Look at yourselves; would you not be pleased if you could all lose at least 15 lbs. in weight?”! Sir, at present we are making something called “Maiz-o-rice” from maize in this country and I can tell you that you cannot tell the difference between maiz-o-rice and imported rice. The hon. member for Lydenburg said quite rightly that no one could boycott us in the sphere of food.

I agree with the hon. member for Ermelo that it was unfortunate that that report appeared in the Sunday Times. The chairman of the Pongola Sugar Growers Association, Mr. De Villiers, wrote to me apologizing for such a report having appeared in the newspaper while we had gone out of our way to allocate that land to individual farmers who would be able to utilize it to much better effect. We shall try to dispose of this matter as rapidly as possible.

The hon. member also referred to the correct agricultural techniques and to conditions which determine how land should be used. Sir, should we do this by means of legislation, or should we take a person by the hand and point out to him that we cannot afford land to be utilized unprofitably. Sir, improved production methods are contagious. Recently I heard a remark being made by a person in a queue of co-operative trucks offloading wheat at the co-operatives to the effect that So-and-So was harvesting 73 bags of wheat per morgen this year, and one of the persons who was harvesting 25 bags per morgen said at once: “I shall have to go and see how he does it.” But, Sir, that man who is harvesting 73 bags per morgen, is farming in co-operation with the wheat officers; he applied the new techniques, the correct sprinkler irrigation and the correct fertilizing methods. That man is a dyed-in-the-wool farmer, and that is why he makes such a success of his farming enterprise. There are not many of the farmers to whom the hon. member for Ermelo referred left; they will disappear in time. Sir, I conclude by saying again that I believe that the motto: “Food for peace and friendship”, is one which will be very beneficial to our country.

The hon. the Minister has just given a very informative survey of agriculture, not only of agriculture in South Africa but of agriculture throughout the world. There are, of course, a few small points on which I have to differ from the hon. the Minister. We cannot, of course, agree on everything. The first point on which I wish to differ from the hon. the Minister concerns his statemerits that as far as subsidies were concerned we should not think in terms of subsidies; we should rather think in terms of prices being bolstered. I agree with him as regards the first statement. As far as the farmer is concerned, I do not think any farmer wants a subsidy, but these subsidies on maize and wheat are not subsidies to the farmer; they are subsidies to the consumer, and unfortunately I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister that one can withdraw them, because there are certain sections of the population who cannot afford to have them withdrawn. Such a withdrawal will consequently result in higher wages and I wonder whether subsidies on food are not less expensive than higher wages. Then the hon. the Minister also quoted from a newspaper report in America that the price of tractors had increased to a large extent, that it was impossible to obtain wire, etc. The hon. the Minister brushed it aside as being a world-wide phenomenon, but it is happening in South Africa as well. Today one is unable to obtain a roll of wire and one is unable to obtain creosote poles. I do not want to blame the hon. the Minister for that, of course not, but I at least want to tell the hon. the Minister this; the fiscal policy, the damping policy of the Government is largely responsible for the shortage in production.

Explain that.

Surely it is simple. Surely you remember the debates in this House in 1970 when calls resounded of the country growing too fast and of damping measures having to be applied to the economy. Interest rates were raised as a damping measure. Now, of course, we have a shortage in production and this is due solely to the steps taken by the Government.

But I want to return to agriculture, the bottlenecks in the agricultural industry. Since we were speaking about interest rates, I might as well say that these high interest rates are one of the major bottlenecks today. There are excellent farmers today who will not be able to make the grade because of these high interest rates. Now, we know that the hon. the Minister made a concession, a 2½% subsidy on interest, but what I cannot understand—and this is the matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister—is that one gets that 2½% on private loans, on insurance loans, and on various other loans, but one does not get it from the commercial banks with which one has a mortgage. This I cannot understand, and that is why I raised the matter with the department. But they tell one that if one has one’s mortgage with the trust department of the bank, one is entitled to a subsidy. I have never heard of anyone investing in that way, Sir.

Do you want to have it on your current account?

No, not on current account, but on one’s mortgage with the bank. The bank holds the mortgage on one’s land and on that mortgage one cannot get a subsidy, not if it is with a commercial bank. The argument the department advanced to me, was that a person would then be able to buy seaside cottages or motor cars, because he would not be paying off his overdraft. But if he has a mortgage with some other body or person, he need not pay off that mortgage, and in that case he can still buy motor cars and seaside cottages. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that this used to be the position. Strangely enough commercial banks used to qualify, but not private loans. They changed this so as to make private loans qualify, but at the same time excluded commercial banks. This is something which does not make sense to me and it is something which is grossly unfair towards the man who conducts his business through the bank.

Then there is another matter, viz. the question of labour for the farmer. I believe the most serious bottleneck in agriculture today is the question of labour. The South African farmer probably has to deal with the poorest type of labour in the whole country. This is probably due to the natural attraction of the cities, which does exist but which has the effect of the man on the farm being left with probably the poorest type of labour.

What is the solution?

I am coming to the solution. You will find that the farmer trains those people. Today the farm is the training centre of a large section of the labour force. The farmer trains his labourer to become a tractor-driver so that the labourer may be of some value to him, and as soon as that labourer is trained, the Railways or the Divisional Council employs him. As soon as the labourer has obtained his drivers’ licence, other industries employ that labourer. The hon. member asked what the solution was. The solution is obvious. Just as in the case of the White population, the non-White population, too, should be kept in the rural areas. One hears about squatters’ settlements outside the cities. What right do people have to come to the cities if there is no employment for them? Then it is said that housing should be provided. It would be much cheaper to utilize the money for housing the people where they lived before they moved, as the hon. member for Newton Park in fact indicated.

I also want to say that education may well be the most important factor in this regard today. There have to be 25 children to each farm school. The average farmer has a number of Bantu and a number of Coloureds working on his farm. There may be 7 Bantu among those 25 children, but they are not allowed to go to the same school. Can hon. members imagine such a position! I know the question of school hostels, too, does not fall under the department of the hon. the Minister, but the hon. the Minister may make the necessary requests. We now have compulsory education, and it is necessary to have school hostels for the Coloured population. All those children from the farm have to go to town in order to attend school. Now the department comes along and pays a subsidy of R4 a month. The child has to lodge somewhere in town with a relative and he does not even get his meals for that R4. The money is squandered on drink. It would be far better if school hostels were to be built for those people. For them to receive a proper education, adjustments have to be effected to the school subjects in terms of differentiated education. The children have to be trained in a direction in which they may develop further in future. By the time the child reaches Std. 6, make an artisan of him, for instance a tractor mechanic. Introduce that type of subject into the schools and train the children in the directions in which they have a future. In this way the children may be orientated towards agriculture. A great deal can be done in solving this matter.

I should now like to deal with the question of estate duty and the farmer. I know what arguments are advanced for and against this question. There is, however, one thing I cannot understand. This is the case of a farmer who wants to retire from farming and wants to sell his land to his child. The least the Minister of Finance can do—I am glad to see him here today—is to say: Sell your land to your child at Land Bank value. If the farmer dies, the value of his land will in any event be assessed in terms of Land Bank value. The Government is not going to lose a cent. However, the farmer is not allowed to sell his land to his son at Land Bank value. Is there any sense in this? Every generation in its turn has to buy the land back from the Government, virtually at the amount the parents paid for the land. This is a disquieting business. The solution is so easy; I say, of course, abolish the whole procedure. However, I can see its pros and cons. But I cannot understand a farmer not being allowed to sell his land to his own child.

But surely that is not true.

Is the farmer allowed to sell the land at Land Bank value? Tell me this

He is allowed to sell it.

But not at Land Bank value. The farmer has to sell the land at market value. There is a form which has to be completed and a person has to say whether he is related to the person to whom the land is sold.

Order! The hon. member must not deal with this subject at length. It does not actually fall under this Vote.

Very well, Mr. Chairman; but in that case I should like to put it as follows: The hon. the Minister of Agriculture should refer this as an agricultural matter to the Minister of Finance.

I should now like to deal with another matter. We on this side of the House believe that agriculture occupies a special position in South Africa for various reasons. Our attention has already been drawn to the fact that we shall have to be able to feed a population of 58 million by the end of the century. It has also been said that this is a strategic industry, that we are a vulnerable country and that without food we shall not be able to withstand boycotts. That is why I say agriculture is an industry which should occupy a special position in South Africa. That is also why it is such a disappointment to me that higher rail tariffs could be introduced. I refer, for instance, to an increase of 60% in the case of livestock this year, in addition to a similar increase of 60% 18 months ago, an increase of 16,6% in the case of wool and hides, an increase of 20,9% in the case of maize and wheat, and an increase of no less than 30% in the case of fertilizers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has just asked the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to convey something to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether you would not allow me to convey it directly to the hon. member, because I was disappointed in him today. Thus far the debate has been very calm. I hoped that he would liven up the debate by being true to himself and making a great fool of himself, as usual, but then he only made a small one of himself today. The hon. member said he could not sell his land to his son at Land Bank prices. He can sell it to his son for nothing, as long as he pays transfer duty on its market value. He can sell his land at any price, as long as he pays transfer duty on it.

Then it still goes into one’s estate.

If you sell it to your son, it has nothing further to do with your estate. You only pay estate duty when you sell your land to your son.

Order! I think the hon. member should leave this subject at that now.

Sir, the hon. member also stated that as a result of the damping policy of the Government there is no growth. I do not know how the hon. member views agriculture in South Africa, but taking the year 1969-’70 as basis, the physical volume of agricultural production in South Africa has increased from 100 to 138,5 on an index basis during the last four years, from 1969-70 to 1973-74. This represents an increase of almost 10% a year. I am now referring to the physical volume of production and not to its monetary value. The hon. member for Newton Park also referred to the question of inflation. What is a more substantial counter to inflation than this very growth and increased production in the field of agriculture?

Of course, I agree with you.

Yes, exactly. Under this Government it has now happened that there has been a growth rate of almost 10% a year over the last four years in the case of agriculture. But then the hon. member says that it is as a result of the Government’s policy that there is no growth. Surely it is absolutely ridiculous to make such a statement. [Interjections.]

What about the industries?

I am now talking about the physical volume of agricultural production. Sir, it seems to me the hon. member is not only stupid, but deaf as well.

Sir, the hon. members spoke, inter alia, about prices. Their point of departure is that there should be more subsidies, in order to put the price up for the farmer while it does not rise to the same extent in the case of the consumer. Taking April 1970 as basis, consumer prices in South Africa rose from 100 to 149 over the last four years, i.e. from 1970 to 1974. Producer prices, on the other hand, rose to 153 instead of 149 over that same period. Now hon. members should ask themselves to what it is attributable that the rate of increase in consumer prices over the last four years was lower than in producer prices. It is attributable to two causes. The one is an increase in consumer subsidies or producer subsidies, whatever you want to call them. As far as I am concerned, it is a subsidy to the industry. The second cause is an increase in the prices the farmers’ products are fetching overseas. Some of our products are fetching higher prices there than in South Africa.

While dealing with this point, I should like to associate myself with my hon. friend, the member for Lydenburg, who estimated that if the maize sold locally should be sold overseas at overseas prices, it would bring in an additional R200 million for the maize farmer. We have no objection to it. Our point of view is that it is incumbent on the farmer and every employee in South Africa to provide, in the first instance, for the needs of South Africa. I do not know what the position is in the fertilizer industry. In the past, fertilizer was exported because good prices were also attainable overseas, in particular in the recent past. Therefore I want to say that it should also be our point of departure as far as those industries are concerned—I do not know whether or not fertilizer is being exported at present; high prices are in fact attainable—that provision should first be made for the needs of South Africa before entering the overseas market; no matter how good the price may be there. This applies to agriculture and it should also apply to other industries.

I have said that the consumer price has not gone up at the same rate as producer price in South Africa, because of the subsidies and the higher prices which are being attained overseas. I should just like to mention to you an example of the tendency over the years. In the 1947-’48 season, when the United Party was still in power, the gross value of the agricultural production was R382 million. They then subsidized agriculture to an amount of R11,8 million. It was 3% in proportion to the gross value of agricultural production. In 1972-’73 the subsidy amounted to R102 million. The gross value of agricultural production was R1 629 million. Expressed as a percentage of the gross value of agricultural production, the subsidy was 6,2%. In other words, it doubled. This year the subsidy on agricultural products will not be R102 million—it is two years later now—but more than R160 million, if the present subsidy on wheat is added. Hon. members will then be able to determine for themselves that the subsidy will be more than 8%, expressed as a percentage of the gross value of agricultural production. Those hon. members must not come and tell us now that the Government is not favourably disposed to the subsidizing of food prices. Sir, I want to mention to you the result of this, as far as the increase in food prices is concerned, compared to other countries in the world. From March 1973 to March 1974 food prices in South Africa rose by 9%. In the U.S.A. they rose by 18,3%; in Denmark by 16,2%; in Japan by 27%; in the United Kingdom by 19%; in Belgium by 9,3%; in Italy by 14,4% and in France by 12,7%. Is this not a major feat on the part of the farmers of South Africa, in collaboration with the National Party Government, to succeed in keeping food prices down to such an extent?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.