I announce that I have exercised the discretion conferred upon me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

Mr. Chairman, last night the hon. the Minister of Agriculture spoke at length on agriculture in South Africa. He told us, too, that the export of agricultural products was our best export for the creation of goodwill towards South Africa. I agree with him 100% as far as that is concerned. Last night we also learnt from the hon. the Minister, in the course of his reply to the speech by the hon. member for Newton Park, that an agricultural planning board was to be established in November of this year. This is something for which we have been pleading for many years. We appreciate it and we welcome it wholeheartedly. The hon. member for Newton Park will deal with it more fully a little later on.

We also want to associate ourselves with the words of the hon. the Minister concerning the retirement of Dr. Du Plessis next month. We appreciate the work done by him in the department. We fully associate ourselves with what the hon. the Minister said about him.

There is another matter of great importance to South Africa, one which intimately concerns my constituency. Although the agricultural faculties fall under the National Education Vote as do all the faculties of Rhodes University, I feel that the Minister of Agriculture should not forget these faculties, as they perform an excellent service for South Africa.

†Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak particularly about the tick research institute at Rhodes University which is a research institute of international repute. At the moment, this institute receives assistance from the Mohair Board, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, from the Rhodes Foundation Trust and from the Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board. We are grateful for all the assistance that is given to this department. It is important that this department should be able to plan for the future. The reason why I am raising this matter is that a short while ago the Meat Board was prepared to make a grant to this university, covering a ten-year period. If my information is correct, I believe that this grant over a ten-year period would have amounted to approximately R250 000. The hon. the Minister was not very happy about this. I discussed the matter with him and he told me what his reasons were. He preferred the grant to be made on a year-by-year basis because it was felt that Rhodes University might be duplicating work being done at Onderstepoort. I may say that Onderstepoort is also doing a magnificent job of work in the field of tick research.

At the moment the basis of subsidization of Rhodes University by the Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board is in the vicinity of R5 000 per annum. When one has year-to-year subsidization of an institute such as this there is a great deal of difficulty in planning ahead. I am told by the university authorities that one must have the ability to plan at least three years ahead. This is particularly in regard to the post-graduate researchers and the fellowship scientists from overseas who come out to this country for one to three years at a time. I may mention that I have here the Rhodes University Newsletter of 1 February 1972 in order to illustrate my point. “The first person from overseas to take advantage of the followship at Rhodes University for tick research was Prof. Don R. Arthur, Professor of Zoology at King’s College University, London. Prof. Arthur has been given a year’s leave from his university and has joined the tick research unit at Rhodes. He has published more than 70 scientific papers on tick research which range from the classification to the toxicology of ticks and to their physiology and behaviour and association with disease.” There is a great deal said in this newsletter about Prof. Arthur who is a man of international repute. I say that if we wish to attract this type of person, we should be able to plan ahead financially. The universities need additional assistance.

In relation to the question of duplication, I want to say that at the time when Rhodes University applied for a long-term subsidy from the Meat Control Board, they drew up a memorandum setting out their programme for the future because it was necessary to do so. Actually, if one is applying for this sort of thing, one has to draw up a programme of work and indicate the direction in which one is working. This memorandum was available to all researchers and to all scientists not only in South Africa but throughout the world. It now appears to me, without deprecating Onderstepoort, that Onderstepoort itself is making good use of this setting out of a programme by Rhodes University. _ They are possibly to some extent also duplicating the work being done at Rhodes. I want to say that in the Eastern Cape the incidence of OP-resistant ticks is very high indeed. It is phenomenal how the resistance keeps on building up in these ticks. It is definitely on the increase in that area and Rhodes have realized this. They are now studying the whole ecology of the tick with a view to its partial biological control. I believe that it is important that we should have this aspect as I am told that it is impossible ever to eradicate it totally, but we can bring it under control by regular dipping and by the use of biological control by the study of the ecology of this animal. We must remember also, Sir, that the bont tick is found in the East Coast areas only; the bont tick is a virulent carrier of disease, and we should encourage further research into the ecology and the life cycle of this particular tick. We must also remember, Mr. Chairman, that in the East Cape we have 49 out of the 63 varieties of tick, including politics. Forty-nine out of the 63 varieties are to be found around Grahamstown, and this is a great advantage to a researcher in that area. We also find a high incidence of all tick-borne diseases, and that is why we have a diagnostic centre in Grahamstown, a new one which the hon. the Minister has helped us to get. We have it there because of the high incidence of tick-borne diseases, and the research done at Rhodes University can be co-ordinated with the work done at this diagnostic centre to perform a great service for South Africa.

Sir, I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to be in Grahamstown on the 22nd of this month to open a congress there, and I would like to issue an invitation to him on behalf of Dr. White-head, the head of the Tick Research Institute in Grahamstown, to come and visit the Tick Research Institute and to see the work that is being done there. I believe, Sir, that every possible encouragement should be given to this institute, and I appeal to the Minister to have a look at this thing again. If the Livestock and Meat Industry Control Board is still prepared to grant a subsidy to this institute over a long period, a period of 10 years as was proposed, I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider this in the light of the wonderful work that is being done by Rhodes University. I believe it is essential. Sir, if that is not possible, then perhaps the Department of Agricultural Technical Services could give an assurance that steps will be taken to attract fellowship students and post-graduate researchers to the university under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture. Because I can tell you quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that the contact between this institute and both the East Coast Agricultural Union of the Cape Province and the Eastern Agricultural Union of the Cape Province as well as between this institute and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is of an excellent nature. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, just before the adjournment of the debate yesterday, when the hon. the Minister was speaking, he used a sentence which made a deep impression on one and caused one to wonder what would happen if the cooperative movement in South Africa were to be removed from the community and if everything were to be left to private initiative.

Sir, before I proceed to deal with this subject in greater detail, I first want to say a few words about the co-operative movement, as it is now developing and as it has been developing in recent times, and I want to refer in particular to one specific aspect of this movement. Sir, I suppose that all of us in South Africa are concerned about the tremendously high food prices. If the producers themselves had been able to control those prices, it is likely that the prices of many of the commodities would not have been so high today. The housewives of South Africa have always been prepared to pull their weight. Our history offers abundant proof that women have always been the driving force, and instead of appealing to other bodies to do the work for them, they have recently established co-operative home industries. These co-operative home industries are chiefly in the hands of housewives who cannot afford to go out to work, but who can nevertheless undertake some baking and sewing at home and who can grow some surplus vegetables in the backyard or in their gardens. This applies to our bigger towns in the rural areas and particularly to the smaller ones. Sir, as a result of the disorderly marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables in the past, one municipal market after another admitted defeat and leased the markets to private initiative, and this resulted in chaos, so much so that the housewives stepped in themselves to establish these co-operative home industries. Sir, last year one of the control boards launched an attack on one of the sectors of the home industries undertaken by the housewives, namely baking. The hon. the Minister kindly intervened on our behalf. This matter has not quite been resolved yet, but the women of South Africa want to thank him for his action. Sir, more than 130 co-operative home industries have already been registered. They render a service; they supply the product of the housewife and of the smaller farmer to a central place, their co-operative and from there they distribute it. In this way the fruit or the article or the labour of the housewife is supplied to the consumer in a fresh condition and at a reasonable price. Sir, just as in the case of other co-operatives, their books are public documents; they are open to inspection for 14 days before every annual meeting and everyone is free to go and see what the profits of these co-operatives are. They do not make big profits, but they now find that they are continually being criticized, and we want to object to this and to ask the hon. the Minister to help us ensure that our housewives, who took the initiative in this matter and whose boards of directors consist mostly of women, are left alone to manage their own affairs. It has recently come to our notice that the control over the slaughtering of poultry has been tightened to such an extent that the ordinary housewives, who for years have been supplying four or five chickens a week from the farms to friends in town, are not allowed to do so any more. They are now allowed to do so only if they have an approved slaughtering place. We now find that there are stubborn people who arbitrarily disallow these slaughtering places. In addition, a registration fee of R5 has to be paid. Sir, we think this is most unreasonable. It may be reasonable for the commercial poultry farmer. The big poultry farmers apparently complained, and when this hygiene or health regulation began to be strictly enforced, we soon found that the ordinary free-range chicken are not appearing on the market any more, because the housewives did not want to break the law. The result was that the price of chickens fed on fishmeal simply went up, as we had indeed expected. Sir, our request is that these housewives should again be allowed, as in the past, to slaughter their own surplus free-range chickens. Sir, this free-range chicken story is a long one. These days one can no longer buy chicks in small numbers. The housewife cannot buy fewer than 25 at a time, and then she is saddled with a surplus she has to dispose of. For this she must pay R5 for a three-year registration fee, and then she is subject to the arbitrary actions of a health inspector who upsets and annoys her and makes her unhappy and dissatisfied. I think this is wrong and I think attention should be given to this matter, in order that these housewives may manage their own affairs. Sir, we have been eating these free-range chickens slaughtered by the housewives for years, and none of us has fallen ill from eating one of those chickens. The only bad chicken I have ever eaten came from a big factory. Sir, I mention this specifically, but I want to come back to organized commerce which is always trying to harm the co-operative movement in our country. Sir, I do not want to pick a quarrel with them; I just want to mention a few facts. In April, organized commerce made certain allegations in an article entitled “Unco-ops” which appeared in their official organ, Association of Chambers of Commerce. One of the allegations made in this article is the following—

Then they come to the conclusion that—

Then they give a list of prices to substantiate their allegation that organized agriculture is responsible for the increased prices. I shall only give the price increases which occurred from 1950 to 1973. They are as follows, and I shall read them in the form in which they are given here—

†That was the increase from 1950 to 1973. Then we have the increase in salaries from 1960 to 1973 which are the following: Mine-workers, 207%, factory workers, 237% and public servants, 258%.

*On analysing these figures, we come to the conclusion that the prices of the products handled by the co-operatives, and these are mainly the winter and the summer grain products, which are to a large extent in the hands of the co-operative movement, increased by only 73% in the case of summer crops and 58% in the case of winter crops. [Time expired.]

Sir, various references were made on both sides of the House yesterday to the fine qualities of red wine and of good mutton and to the excellence of tobacco for human consumption. Sir, I should like to state here that the more red wine one drinks, the worse is one’s hangover, the more mutton one eats, the greater is the danger of a coronary, and the more tobacco one consumes, the greater is the danger of a lung complaint.

But I want to come to an industry which promotes fitness, namely the citrus industry. I want to recommend the consumption of citrus products to hon. members and to the general public as well, since we hear a great deal these days about the necessity for greater fitness among our people. In this regard we have the hon. the Minister and the department who are very sympathetically disposed towards this industry in the Republic. This is the industry which is characterized by a constantly increasing production, a production which in many countries and in other parts of the world is being hampered, not only in regard to the area of cultivation, but also in regard to climatic conditions. I may mention here that the main reason for this increase in production is the enthusiastic way in which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has given its co-operation to the industry in regard to the development of new cultivars and new fertilization programmes, etc., things from which this industry derives positive benefits in many ways. Contrary to the climatic conditions in the United States and in the Mediterranean area, we have conditions enabling a continuous production throughout the Republic of South Africa, so much so that there is increasing production in the regions of the Northern and Eastern Transvaal, as well as in the coastal region of the Eastern Cape, and there was an increase of approximately four million units of 15 kg each over the period from 1970 to 1972.

In the past, the citrus industry had to rely almost exclusively on the export market. For various reasons, however, there has been no appreciable increase in the citrus exports over the past 12 years. On the contrary. Over the past 12 years there has actually been a decrease of 25% in the citrus products intended for the export market. There has been a sharp increase in production, an increase which is forcing the industry to pay greater attention to the domestic marketing of this product. In this regard I should like to mention the zeal with which the Citrus Board is tackling domestic marketing, particularly the efforts which are being made by the manager of the Citrus Board. The manager and his Board are engaged in an excellent and vigorous effort to develop the domestic market. We find the potential of the domestic market reflected in the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture. According to this report, the per capita consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables among our population amounted to only 113 kg in 1969. In the United States, on the other hand, the per capita consumption was 250 kg. I suppose that this low consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables among our people is to be ascribed to an undeveloped taste as well as a low income level. The domestic sales during 1972 amounted to 19% of the total crop, while in 1971 had it accounted for 23% of the total crop. So the increase in the citrus production of the Republic is forcing us to take a fresh look at the domestic market in order to promote a healthy economic vitality in the citrus industry. We must constantly stimulate the domestic consumption. A significant factor in this regard is the growing income of our people in the Republic. We have to cultivate a new appreciation for citrus as a product. It should no longer be regarded as a luxury; it should also be regarded as a health-giving product. We have to give attention to the internal distribution points for this product. In this regard I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a very great lack of distribution points for citrus fruit in the Bantu residential areas. The hon. the Minister, in co-operation with the Department of Bantu Administration, should please take a fresh look at the potential of this field, which holds great possibilities for us, particularly when regard is had to the fact that during 1972, the sale of citrus fruit in Bantu residential areas exceeded that of the previous year by one million pockets. I also want to draw attention to distribution through municipal markets. Certain markets in certain centres of the Republic—this is really a provincial matter—are supported by the Department of Agriculture. I should like to ask whether the department could not render assistance to markets in more centres in regard to the establishment of better facilities for the distribution of citrus products. The sympathetic approach of the hon. the Minister as well as of the department has been of great benefit to the distribution and marketing of citrus products. Here I am thinking of processing activities which have a great intake of citrus fruit at the moment. In 1972, 35% of the total crop was processed in this manner, while the figure for 1971 had been only 25%. This also applies to the fresh fruit which is supplied to juice factories. I may mention that the consumption of citrus juice in 1972 showed an increase of 53% over that of the previous year. I should like to convey the thanks of this industry to the hon. the Minister and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. We thank them for introducing a better classification of fruit juices. The State has provided, for example, that a drink advertised as a pure citrus drink must contain at least 90% pure citrus juice. We want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department in this regard. With sound guidance and sympathetic co-operation the industry has a great future.

I want to raise a final point. Should attention not be given to the high cost of packing citrus fruit? One grows concerned when one sees the litter and the pollution along our roads. If one goes into the matter, one finds that a lot of that litter consists of discarded packing material. In a report which appeared after a deputation of the Transvaal Agricultural Union had visited Israel, it was mentioned, inter alia, that used packing material was re-used for packing. So this material is used again. I feel that this is a field which should be explored by our people, i.e. the re-use of packing materials for, inter alia, the packing of citrus. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the hon.’ member for Somerset East. I think they were beautifully expressed, although I must add that we as members of Parliament have always had great appreciation for the wines of the boland.

And the mutton!

Yes, and for the mutton.

I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Newton Park in the debate yesterday when he spoke of the various crises in the world which are posing a threat to us as well. He mentioned three different crises, the inflation crisis, the energy crisis and the food crisis. There is no doubt in my mind that the food crisis of the world is the most important. Accordingly, it is the task of the Department of Agriculture and of our farms in South Africa to resolve that crisis as efficiently as possible. The hon. member for Newton Park also pointed out that at one stage the world only had food supplies available for 27 days. This figure sounds appalling to me, and I think that in the light of this we should all realize the importance of the department and of the hon. the Minister. We know that there are many countries in the world, particularly in Africa, where thousands of people die every year as a result of malnutrition and famine. This forcibly directs our attention to the fact that this is not only a problem for the future, but also one which is of immediate importance. We realize what a magnificent task has been performed by the South African farmer as well, with the assistance of the officials of the Department of Agriculture. We really have to congratulate the farmers of South Africa on the fact that they have not only succeeded over the years in improving their efficiency in this country of ours, which is a difficult one from the agricultural point of view, but that they are still providing us with sufficient food. They have been able to do this, of course, with the assistance of those men in the department who are continually conducting research and disseminating information. The challenges to the department and to the farmer will increase in the years to come. In the light of the anticipated doubling in the population of South Africa over the next 25 years, we shall have to double our food production as well, and there is no hope of obtaining additional land. The hon. the Minister mentioned yesterday that we could expect even more land to be taken up by freeways—I think he mentioned a figure of 30 000 ha—and that more land would have to be made available for urbanization, towns and other purposes. In other words, we must expect that the area for agricultural purposes will become smaller. There is only one possibility for a slight expansion in the area of agricultural land, and that is the land which at the moment is still being controlled by the hon. the Minister, and specifically by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. That land may be leased to certain farmers to be utilized until it has been allocated for the purposes for which it is really intended.

It is absolutely essential for us to increase the efficiency of our research, of our extension services and of our production as well. We are attempting to do so at the moment, but it is clear that we shall have to redouble our efforts in order to obtain the maximum production from our available land without causing the land to deteriorate. This is very important, for we dare not exploit our natural resources in such a way as to turn them into dwindling assets. I am referring to our natural resources such as land, water and pasture. It is for that reason that I should like us to retain the stock reduction scheme. I think that the stock reduction scheme has served an excellent purpose and in my opinion there will still be a need for it in the future in order to enable pasture in certain parts of our country to recover. The hon. the Minister may not see his way clear to continuing with this scheme as it was applied in the past, but it may become necessary for the Minister, if he has to curtail this scheme, nevertheless to give effect to recommendations made by the soil conservation body for certain areas which have been badly damaged by overgrazing to be subjected to a scheme similar to the present stock reduction scheme. We are opposed to the total withdrawal of stock in all but exceptional circumstances, for there have been farmers in the past who took advantage of that fine concession. We see that there is already a great shortage of red meat in South Africa, and that even greater shortages are anticipated. There is room for improvement in regard to this potential in South Africa. Animals may be selected in order that we may have more rapid growth. This has been done with reasonable success in the past. We could have a higher lamb percentage. In the Northern Cape the generally accepted practice used to be one lamb from every sheep every year. At the moment most farmers expect 1½ to 2 lambs a year. In other words, they have three lamb seasons every two years. Some even have four lamb seasons every two years. The calving percentages of cattle could be increased. At the moment only 45% to 50% of the breeding cows are calving, and there is no reason why there should not be an average of 80% for the country as a whole. The high mortality of lambs and calves could also be brought down considerably. In Agricultural News it is mentioned that in the Free State region, 23% of the lambs that are born die before they have been weaned. This means that one out of every five lambs die before they have been weaned. After they have been weaned, a further 3,7% die before they have reached the two-tooth stage. Only 62% of the lambs eventually reach the two-tooth stage. This is a tremendous waste, for approximately 1,8 million lambs die every year. This alarming figure represents approximately 5% of the total sheep population of South Africa. There are many problems in this regard. Farmers who would like to practise better farming methods on their farms, for example by enclosing more fields, are frustrated, in the first place, by short supplies, particularly of fencing material. Wire, particularly galvanized high-tension steel wire, is not available, while heavy cattle gates are nowhere to be obtained. I have inquired at many co-operatives, but these gates are simply not available. Stay-wire is likewise unobtainable. I realize that this is not the specific responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, but I do want to draw his attention to these facts, to give him an indication of the problems which the farmers have to contend with today. No matter how much the farmer would like to plan his farm by enclosing fields and by practising better farming methods, in many cases and in most districts he cannot do so. Number 8 stay-wire is not available; it can only be obtained in exceptional cases. Likewise, there is a shortage of dicalcium phosphates in bone meal for feeding to animals in the form of licks. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Benoni, for the first part of his speech fits in like an excellent entrée with the speech I want to make.

The first duty of a farmer is to ensure a livelihood for himself and his family by means of his farming enterprise. In addition to that the farmer has another important task, i.e. to feed and clothe the people of his country. Next to that he has the important task of providing his country and his government with essential foreign exchange by means of the export of his product. The farmer of South Africa has to perform these tasks now and in the future on agricultural land which is unfortunately becoming less and less every year. It is a fact that the laying out of towns and the provision of roads and other essential services require farmers to give up vast tracks of good agricultural land. In addition to this, the world population is increasing at a breathtaking rate. The world population is growing at a rate of 80 million per year, or approximately 1½ million per week. Authoritative sources have it that the number of people living on earth today is equal to a quarter of all the people who have ever lived since man came into being. Apart from the tremendous population growth in Africa, it is a fact that a large part of Africa is already facing famine. At present there are 20 million people in certain African territories who are being threatened by starvation.

South Africa has a population of 22 million at present, of whom 16 million are Blacks. By the year 2000 our total population will be 50 million, of whom 37 million will be Bantu. It is these 37 million Black people who cause me concern. That is why I want to make the statement today, without fear of contradiction, that in future the Bantu farmers in the homelands will to an increasing extent have to contribute their share to the production of essential foodstuffs and agricultural products for South Africa and other African countries. It is true that the Bantu homelands include good agricultural and stock-farming areas. Unfortunately it is also true—and I say this without levelling any reproaches—that these people are handicapped by certain backlogs, that they do not have the necessary know-how as regards agriculture and stock-farming. This is where the White South African farmer can once again extend, as the White man in South Africa has done so often recently and is still doing, a helping hand to his Black colleague in the Bantu homelands. It is impossible for the Bantu homelands to establish agricultural universities, colleges and schools at a fast rate so as to provide Black farmers with the necessary knowledge of agriculture. I want to suggest that the Department of Agriculture, in co-operation with organized agriculture in South Africa, should select a number, say 1 000—it may be more or less—of our good farmers all over the Republic of South Africa, and that the Governments of the Bantu homelands should on their part, select Bantu farmers whom they think could undergo agricultural training to good advantage and send them to these 1000 selected White farmers of South Africa to undergo their apprenticeship in the agricultural industry under the guidance of the White farmers. Basically the Bantu farmer of the homelands is an agriculturist and a stock-breeder. He was born and bred in that rural atmosphere. All he requires is that extra bit of knowledge and technique which the selected White farmer can offer him. This will bring along with it the advantage for the Bantu farmer, firstly, that he will acquire the knowledge which is essential for himself and his country; secondly, that he will not need to pay for that knowledge; and thirdly, that he, while gaining that knowledge, will be compensated by the White farmer, who will be prepared to provide him with that education for a consideration. After all, while this prospective Bantu agriculturist is undergoing his training, he will also be rendering service in the form of labour to the White farmer who is training him. Therefore, the White farmer will also profit by this arrangement. I had the privilege of looking at the farming enterprises of our hon. Minister of Agriculture. I want to say that the scope, precision and scientific character of the farming methods and techniques applied by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, will make it possible for 100 or 200 Bantu agriculturists to be trained there annually, people who would then be able to apply that knowledge in their own homelands. In doing so the White farmer would not only be contributing towards expanding the knowledge of his Black fellow-farmer in the homelands as far as agriculture and stock-farming are concerned, but would also be making a major contribution towards creating and promoting good relations between people, between White and non-White, between peoples, here in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, during the first three months of this year 50 inches of rain fell at Kuruman. This means that within three months we had a rainfall equivalent to the amount which normally falls in three years, with the result that vast areas of the Northern Cape were flooded at that stage and are still flooded at present. We who live in the Northern Cape will never complain about having too much rain. We are grateful for the good rains that fell, for this greatly added to the subterranean water in our area. Fountains are running swiftly and water is gushing out of boreholes. We are grateful for this water. These goods rains have caused vast tracts of land to be under water. Up to 900 morgen of some farms were under water. In some cases two-thirds of peoples’ farms were under water. Pests and diseases also made their appearance in our part of the world. That is something we have not known before. In the first place, I want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and Dr. Verbeek, the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, for the fact that they rushed to our aid when our people had to cope with an emergency. I just want to mention that in the vicinity of Campbell more than 20 000 fully grown sheep and 6 000 lambs died because of these diseases during this period. When we approached our Ministers and the department for assistance, they immediately turned their attention to the matter. Drs. Pienaar and Slabbert, directors of the Free State region, immediately paid our area a visit to come and inspect the position. They also helped us a great deal. We want to express our sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department for this assistance. The pests and diseases which broke out there were to a large extent carried by mosquitoes. Now that summer has arrived in that area, this plague holds great dangers for us. Through the mediation of Drs. Pienaar and Slabbert, Onderstepoort also conducted an investigation into this danger, and we are grateful that their research work, aimed at combating this plague effectively, is fairly far advanced already. We are very grateful for this effective and speedy help which the department offered the people in that area.

There is another matter I should like to touch upon, and that is the question of the existence of uneconomic agricultural units in our agricultural industry. In the Northern Cape, as a result of the uneconomic sub-division of agricultural land which took place over a number of generations, many uneconomic units were created. Although there are many complaints in this regard. I should like to express my thanks today to the Agricultural Credit Board, under the chairmanship of Mr. Jan Retief and Mr. Olivier, for the sympathetic way in which they enable people who own uneconomic units to acquire additional land. I want, to thank them for the way in which they have been treating these people and helping them to obtain economic units. However, it is not always possible to help all the farmers owning uneconomic units in this way. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister for State-owned land to be used in future for placing uneconomic units on an economic footing. Not all districts in South Africa are as fortunate as we are in the Kuruman constituency, where vast tracts of State-owned land will be made available in the near future as a result of the removal of Black spots and the consolidation plans which will be implemented. I know it is the policy of the department to apply this land in some instances for the purpose of extending uneconomic units, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to regard this as an absolute priority. I want to mention an example, i.e. the case of the farm Vlakfontein which consisted of approximately 5 000 morgen. This farm was surrounded by seven uneconomic units. The owners of these uneconomic units were young farmers who had been struggling on these uneconomic units for many years. Instead of dividing this farm of 5 000 morgen between two farmers new to this area and so leaving these seven farmers to struggle along on their uneconomic units, the department divided up that farm among five of those struggling farmers. Today all these farmers are happy and making a prosperous living on economic units in that area. However, at Groenwater and Skeifontein the department apparently did not apply this principle. I want to ask the Minister that when the Gathlose-Maremane Reserve is placed at the disposal of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and consideration is given to making it available to the farmers—i.e. the land which is placed at the department’s disposal as a result of consolidation, and will possibly be allocated to farmers—he will consider using this land exclusively for the purpose of placing uneconomic units on an economic footing. He may do this by allowing adjoining units or units situated close to one another to extend their areas. In a case where another uneconomic unit is perhaps situated 100 miles from that place and where the neighbour also has an uneconomic unit, the one farmer could sell his unit to the other and in doing so create an economic unit. Sir, if the State-owned land which is going to become available in the Northern Cape could be applied in this way by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, I believe it will be possible for us to succeed in eliminating the vast majority of uneconomic units in the Northern Cape and then to settle farmers there who will be able to make a happy and prosperous living on a unit which is large enough.

Mr. Chairman, I want to use 10 minutes of this Committee’s valuable time to talk about a section of our population that has received scant attention in this House and that is the African population living on so-called White farms in the White areas. Sir, we spend a good deal of time in this House talking about Africans in the homelands, as the hon. member for Meyerton did this afternoon, and we spend a good deal of our time in this House talking about Africans in urban areas, but hardly a word is ever said about the 3 million Black people who are living and working on the White farms of South Africa.

Were you not listening here yesterday?

Just over 1 million Africans today are working on the farms and the rest are their dependents. They appear to be in limbo as far as the Government departments are concerned; they do not seem to be anybody’s particular concern.

The farmers look after them.

To the best of my knowledge there has not been an in-depth inquiry into the conditions of farm labour in South Africa since 1939, and that was when the Native Farm Labour Commission, the so called Herbst Commission, reported. Sir, since then, in the ensuing 35 years, vast changes have taken place in the countryside. Apart from changes in farming techniques with mechanization, we have had an enormous emigration of Whites off the land. Today something like 85% of the White population of South Africa is in the urban areas. I must say, Sir, that I, like the hon. member for Rondebosch, am not reduced to floods of tears at the thought of this depopulation of the platteland. I think it has been to the great economic good of South Africa. Indeed the Du Plessis Commission recommends that assistance be given to enable more uneconomic farmers to leave the land than have already done so. Sir, what is in fact the position of Black labour on the farms today? I maintain that we badly need a new inquiry. As far as can be ascertained from the agricultural censuses and from the report of the Du Plessis Commission—the latest figures that they use are the 1968-’69 figures—it is true that wages have risen since 1960; it is also true that there have been improvements in the conditions on the farms, for instance as far as the provision of education is concerned. There has been a big improvement there. Many farmers are providing farm schools and something like 0,3 million Black children are today in these farms schools. I also say at once that many farmers pay good wages, but for various reasons wages on the average remain low throughout South Africa, and the reasons are as follows: First of all, there are still too many marginal farmers on the land and wages naturally come down to the level they can afford. Secondly, agricultural labour is excluded from the operation of the Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act and, of course, there are all the restrictions on mobility, and these factors all tend to depress wages. Then, Sir, there is the attitude of “once a farm labourer always a farm labourer”, which was expressed by a former Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. Sir, these words were said by the hon. Deputy Minister Koornhof when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. Even more recently, the Regional Director of the Cape Midlands Bantu Administration Board said this—

Sir. I am quoting the Head of a Bantu Administration Board. Now, as the result of all these factors, together with another factor which is I am glad to say declining, namely the use of cheap convict labour, there is no doubt that the average wage levels throughout South Africa on the farms are very low indeed, and the hon. the Minister has admitted it. I might say that agricultural congresses throughout the country have been attempting to persuade farmers to increase wages. The national average wage for the regular worker works out, according to the agricultural census—and those, as I say, are old figures but it is not my fault that there are not any more recent figures—to R135 per annum in cash and kind, and of that 30% must be reckoned as wages in kind. It works out roughly at a cash wage of R7-50 a month.

May I put a question?

No, I have no time. [Interjections.] Now, reports in newspapers reveal a depressing state of affairs on farms throughout South Africa. What interests me is the attitude of the hon. the Minister. I believe he is taking a very laissez-faire attitude, judging by a statement he made in an interview in Natal when he arrived for the Agricultural Union Congress in October last year. He said that the Government had no intention at this stage of instigating a nation-wide investigation into farm labourers’ work and wage conditions or of taking steps to force up wages. He said he wanted to see what the farmers’ congresses feel about this position, and then he said that there was no country in the world where a Government laid down what farmers had to pay unskilled labourers. Well, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that farmers’ congresses have made their feelings heard. The Natal Agricultural Union has already proposed dramatic increases of up to 25% in wages in Natal, together with other improvements in regard to housing, leave pay, increased rations, etc. The Stellenbosch Farmers’ Association called for workers to be paid R3 a day in cash and kind. The Boland farmers have called for higher wages, and the S.A. Agricultural Union recently stated that its policy was for farmers to employ a hard core of well-paid, well-fed and well-housed workers who live on the farms with their families, such a hard core of workers to be supplemented by organized teams of seasonal workers. Why does not the hon. the Minister help the agricultural unions to implement these desirable aims? The unions themselves have no way of enforcing them. He is incorrect in saying that no country in the world has a Government which forces farmers to pay unskilled labourers a minimum wage. He is quite wrong. Canada has a minimum wage laid down which is applicable to farmers, and so indeed has Australia, and I am pretty sure also the U.K. and the United States of America.

It is not compulsory.

Of course it is compulsory. It is a national minimum wage. But in any case in our country there are restrictions on the mobility of farm labour which do not apply to these other countries, and therefore the ordinary law of supply and demand operates in the other countries. In other countries there are opportunities for farm workers to get together and form unions. I say that the Minister is abdicating his responsibilities in this regard. I believe that he should abandon his laissez-faire attitude and show a little “kragdadigheid” in this regard. Sir, the lives of over 3 million Black people and of many hundreds of thousands of Coloured agricultural labourers depend on him. If he could do something to improve the conditions of Black workers working on the White farms, and of Coloured labourers on the White farms, he would be helping not only these people, but he would be assisting the problem in the urban areas, because by improving conditions in the rural areas he will be doing something to stem the migration of these people into the urban areas, which is one of the main causes, as far as Coloured workers are concerned, of the chaotic housing conditions which have arisen in the Western Cape. The hon. the Minister must do something, I maintain, to implement the proposals that have been made by the agricultural unions, proposals which, with all the goodwill in the world, they are unable to insist that the farmers carry out. I think we desperately need a new in-depth inquiry into the conditions of farm workers in South Africa, because as I have said, it is something like 35 years since we have had such an inquiry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have just witnessed a fantastic spectacle on the part of the farmer from Houghton. It is absolutely remarkable that this year was the first time the Progressive Party took part in a debate on agriculture. Perhaps farmer Van Zyl Slabbert has something to do with it.

Don’t get personal.

His hon. party is now trying to make a contribution. I should very much like to tell the hon. member for Houghton that I can reproach her with certain things. For example, she must stop talking about the salaries of the Bantu workers on South African farms. She should rather go to the Union Hotel and have a look at the wages of the Bantu who work for her there. So we can sling back at her all the reproaches she levelled here today. Surely it is not true that we as agriculturists do not pay any attention to the position of our Bantu workers. At this very moment the South African Agricultural Union is conducting a study, and this study does not simply cover salary adjustments. The hon. member referred to the Du Plessis Commission. Has the hon. member ever taken the trouble to consult what a lady called Merle Lipton—I do not know whether she is Mrs. or Miss—had to say? She is associated with the Royal Institute of International Affairs and has just concluded an investigation in South Africa. This lady said …

I have just quoted her.

Yes, I know that little book just as well as the hon. member does. This lady said that the position of the farm-workers in South Africa had undergone a radical change since 1961. In fact, from 1961 to 1968-’69 their wages showed a real growth rate of 24 per cent. This hon. member should also remember that when we speak about the salaries of Bantu workers on farms we should be very careful. We should take cognizance of the fact that the Du Plessis Commission and the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture found that 40 per cent of the farmers in South Africa produced only 3½ per cent of the total agricultural production. We should also bear in mind, when we speak about the salaries of Bantu on farms, that over the years the agricultural industry has become the school for training Bantu workers who eventually go to the factories and the cities. I am speaking as a person who is a farmer himself and I invite the hon. member to come and have a look at what is being done for the Bantu workers in the Western Transvaal. The farmer probably does more than any employer in South Africa as far as in-service training is concerned. I know of no other sector in the country’s economy which has an in-service training programme to which that of the farmer of South Africa has to take a back seat. Eighty thousand farmers in South Africa employ 1 million Bantu workers which make them the people who train these 1 million Bantu workers.

I am pleased the hon. member at least had one good word for the farmers. She referred to the educational facilities provided by the farmers on our farms. What is the position at present? The hon. member stopped short at 1968. From 1968 up to the present time that party has been sleeping soundly as far as the Bantu on the farms are concerned. Now all at once they are opening their eyes to have a look at the situation. The hon. member must tell us today whether she is prepared to act tactlessly and unscientifically, as did the people who had the programme “Monitor” over the radio. She must tell us, if she wants us to make salary adjustments in respect of our Bantu workers on our farms, what the effect will be on the production costs of food for the people of this country. In the past year we had the position that on an investment of R10 million 80 000 farmers had a net income of R800 million, of which R250 million constituted labour costs. Does the hon. member want us to double the labour costs? For the information of the hon. member I want to mention the salary position of our Bantu labourers on our farms in South Africa. My figures will not be the 1968 figures, but the figures as they were at the beginning of the year. I want to speak about my own part of the world, i.e. the Western Transvaal. The position there is that the cash salary of the Bantu labourer is R32 per month on the average. One should also have regard to the housing which is provided as well as the medical services the farmer provides for his Bantu workers. We should also take into consideration that they receive firewood, in addition to other facilities which are made available to them. If one takes this salary plus the other privileges which are provided in kind, we find that the Bantu on our farms is compensated for his services to a far better extent than any Bantu who lives in Soweto or in any of the urban areas. That is a fact. The hon. member herself can go and inquire from the Bantu in that area and that is what she will find. If the hon. member had made a contribution such as the hon. member for Newton Park made yesterday in connection with housing for the Bantu on our farms, for example, I would have agreed with her. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Newton Park said, but I should like to say that the agriculturist in South Africa has carried the burden on his own for long enough, the burden of providing basic commodities to almost half of the Bantu population living in White South Africa. It is time the Treasury or the general taxpayer helped us in respect of housing for Bantu on farms. We cannot evade the problem any longer. It is not for 80 000 White farmers in the country to find a solution to this problem on their own. Just as the farmer who pays taxes had to help establish housing schemes in the urban areas, so too the general taxpayer must help the farmer provide proper housing on the farm. The White farmers are doing a great deal today to rectify the matter, but the need is tremendous. The hon. member’s figure of 1 million economically active Bantu on the farms is correct. The survey we made at the beginning of the year indicates that we need at least half a million dwelling units on our farms. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Newton Park said; in fact I want to go further by saying that the incentive measures needed to make the housing available, should go a step further in terms of the National Party’s policy. There are thousands of farmers who farm in areas situated between 15 and 20 miles away from Bantu homelands. There should be a special measure which will serve as an incentive to those farmers to provide housing for their Bantu within the homelands. I am not talking at random; I am giving hard facts and I can furnish hon. members with concrete examples. If I may be quite so vain, I want to say that I am one of the farmers who implement the policy of erecting houses for my Bantu workers within the homelands. I transport them on a daily or weekly basis from the homelands to their places of employment. I centive measures of this kind should be taken for our White farmers, for we have the situation that we should encourage the White farmer to invest in housing for his labourers in the homelands just as our businessmen are being encouraged to invest in some industry in the homelands. For that purpose, however, there should be some incentive measure or some guarantee so that he may have security for any investment he makes in the Bantu homeland. The farmer of South Africa has always done his fair share as far as his Bantu are concerned. Let us now speak plainly and in the terms of the farming community; when I as a farmer am working with a non-White youth (“klong”) a non-White farm-hand (“jong”), not a single discriminatory connotation attaches to any word we may address each other. In that situation we address each other in 6a specific relationship, in an extremely close relationship, for we are sharing in the weal and woe of the farm. Things could be as I myself have experienced them this year. When I concluded my contract of service and entered into a new contract of service and thanked my farmhands for the work they had done, one of them stood up and said, “Hendrik”, for he has never in his life called me master (“baas”) as he has known me since childhood, “you have thanked us now, but your are wrong; you should first have thanked the mudimo for the rain he gave.” That sort of relation which is cultivated on our farms between farmers and Black workers, is one of the most praiseworthy there could be in human relations in South Africa. Far be it from us to act in the way the hon. member did in connection with the relation on the farm between the Bantu employees and the employers. She came along today and gave us the type of information she did without her having any knowledge of the true situation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose commenting on what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke had to say, but I would like to say to the hon. member for Houghton that we on this side of the House are as keen to see the general level of African wages raised whether they be wages paid in agriculture or in industry. We are keen to see the gap between White and Black wages narrowed.

We have no fight with that, it must just be done discreetly.

The hon. member for Houghton, however, has an absolute phobia about agricultural wages. She likes to appear as the champion of the Black agricultural worker. I should like to say to her that as recently as last year the agricultural economics department of Rhodes University, which is by no means a conservative university, produced a survey on working conditions for African workers on farms. The overall result of that survey was that their working conditions, when all the fringe benefits such as housing, rations, etc. are taken into account, do not compare unfavourably with those of urban workers. I do not believe that a minimum wage is the answer. If a minimum wage is raised, whether in agriculture or industry, it is invariably accompanied by unemployment.

In the short time available to me I want to raise two matters which fall under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The first is the Groot Constantia Wine Farm. I would like to say that this operation, which falls within the boundaries of my constituency, is one that does great credit to the department. Not only are the products produced by this farm of very high quality and in great demand, but the farm itself is a showpiece for visitors. I think it has all the appearances of being a model operation. However, I raise the question of Groot Constantia Farm in a different context. The hon. the Minister may be aware that there was recently a court case in regard to sub-division of a property adjoining the Groot Constantia Farm. This sub-division had been granted by the Divisional Council and approved by the Provincial Council with the idea of allowing the development of cluster housing on this adjacent land. The court stopped that development and I believe it is a very good thing that it was stopped. Had that development been proceeded with, it would have opened the way for high-density housing schemes in an area of Constantia which, bordering on the Groot Constantia Farm, has traditionally been a farming area. It is a beautiful rural area which I believe should be kept that way. More particularly, had this development gone ahead, it could well have adversely affected the environments of at least five historical Cape homesteads. I refer to Groot Constantia, Hope of Constantia, Nova Constantia, Klein Constantia and Buitenverwachting. Why I raise the matter under this Vote is because I believe that the Department of Agriculture, as well as producing good wine on the Groot Constantia Farm, has a part to play through that farm in preserving the traditional farming nature of the historical triangle which contains these five Old Cape Homesteads, of which Groot Constantia is the focal point. I am not to any extent a believer in the extension of State activity, far from it, but I do believe in the preservation of historical beauty and culture and, particularly, of tradition. I believe that there are occasions when non-economic considerations must override economic considerations in the public interest. Left as it is at present the historical triangle of Constantia will inevitably become developed away from a farming and rural character towards residential and urban complexes. I would like the hon. the Minister to give very careful consideration to the possibility of the Groot Constantia Wine Farm being expanded in area to take in some of the neighbouring farming lands, particularly those that were affected by this proposed cluster development on Hope of Constantia; if he were to do that I think he would be fulfilling two objectives. Firstly, he would be expanding a very worth-while farming project, viz. the Groot Constantia Wine Farm which produces an excellent product which is in high demand. Secondly, he would be protecting the environment of the historical triangle in Constantia.

The second point I wish to raise relates to the Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens. Along with thousands of citizens of the Cape Peninsula and thousands of citizens of South Africa from other parts of the country as well as, I believe, thousands of people from outside the country, I am deeply concerned at the potential damage which could be done to Kirstenbosch if the six-lane freeway, which the Municipality of Cape Town has agreed to construct, goes ahead. I believe that the hon. the Minister must be concerned about this himself, because a large part of the funds for the Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens comes under his Vote. The lion’s share of what is included in his Vote under “Botanical Gardens” goes to Kirstenbosch. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor, when I raised this question two and a half years ago, did give me an undertaking that he would watch the position and that he would use his influence to see that damage to Kirstenbosch was not done, but I believe that as at present designed this road which has been designed by engineers and not by botanists, will do damage to Kirstenbosch. It will constitute a noise hazard because the topography of the ground is such that it is a natural megaphone and will amplify noise. The director of Kirstenbosch tells me that there will be a fume hazard to the plants. The way this highway is designed to run along the perimeter of Kirstenbosch, it will undoubtedly spoil some of the best ground on the property for nursery purposes. It is north-facing ground that will be spoilt and it is north-facing ground that is needed for this purpose. Kirstenbosch is one of the great national botanical gardens of the world, and it is regarded as such throughout the world, it is not only one of the greatest, but it is also one of the most beautiful. It is the fount of much of the flora of South Africa; it is an absolutely irreplaceable heritage of our country, and I do appeal to the hon. the Minister under no circumstances to allow it to be damaged by road construction. There are other ways in which that road can be built. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I beg the pardon of the hon. member for Constantia for not following him in his arguments. On the face of it the hon. member raised a matter which is of importance to his constituency, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will deal with it.

This afternoon I want to say a few words about what is probably one of the most sensitive industries in the South African agricultural structure, i.e. the wheat industry. I say it is one of the most sensitive industries because when one looks at the price of wheat on the world markets over the past season, one finds that the price fluctuated between R44 and approximately R200 per metric ton. Moreover this industry is influenced by the fact that crop failures in South Africa are frequently accompanied by wheat shortages throughout the world, which can then have the effect that in lean times South Africa will have to purchase wheat at prices which can rise up to R200 per metric ton. On the other hand, it has also often happened in the past that when we in South Africa have had record wheat harvests, a large harvest is also reaped throughout the world and we then not only struggle to sell our wheat, but are also compelled to sell at prices which are as low as R44 per metric ton—exactly half of what is paid today.

In his speech yesterday the hon. member for Newton Park referred to a statement the Minister made at the congress of the S.A. Agricultural Union in Bloemfontein, in which he told the farmers that he could not give the assurance that it would always be possible to produce wheat and maize on a profitable basis. In his speech the hon. member for Newton Park intimated that he suspected that the Minister had made that statement on the grounds of rapidly rising production costs. Rising production costs are a problem for us in this industry too. I think the reason why the hon. Minister cannot give a guarantee in respect of the profitable marketing of wheat and maize, is the fluctuation of prices on the world market from R44—half of what we obtain in South Africa—to R200 per metric ton—more than double the price paid in South Africa today.

A second aspect which complicates this industry, is the different regions which have entered the wheat industry, i.e. the traditional winter rainfall region as well as regions in the summer rainfall area, regions therefore with vastly different production costs and risk factors. A third factor which complicates this industry, is the rise in production costs over the past few years as a result of the tremendous increase in the cost of machinery. Now, this is one of the industries which cannot do without mechanical equipment. Another factor which complicates this industry, is the fact that, in determining the price of wheat, we cannot lose sight of the fact that South Africa makes cheap bread available to the population. I shall come back to this aspect later on.

When one regards these factors against the background of the tremendous problems one has to cope with, such as droughts, hail, late cold spells and frost—one comes to the conclusion that the decision the hon. the Minister made in respect of determining the price of wheat for this season, is the most correct and effective decision. For that reason we want to say thank you to the Minister for the insight he displayed in this regard. It is a fact that, if a wrong decision should be taken at this stage, it could mean that the planting of wheat in certain parts could increase at the expense of other products, such as maize or meat. A wrong decision could, however, result in farmers withdrawing from the cultivation of wheat in various regions. Because the Minister has noticed this balance, we want to thank him for the price we are going to obtain for our products this year. For many years the wheat industry developed at a slow rate. Only at the end of the ’fifties did the department undertake extensive tests for the cultivation of better cultivars and varieties. We also want to extend our special thanks to the department for the varieties which have already come into being and, along with that, ask that no costs, no time and no labour should be spared to make the cultivars available in the future which will further decrease the risk factor involved in this industry. Once we have taken note of the restricting factors in this industry, we notice that there are various ways in which the problems of this industry can be solved. A change over from wheat to other products or commodities may take place in any of the regions if the price is not correctly adjusted. We must, however, sound a note of warning and ask people to guard against a spirit which has increasingly reared its head recently, i.e. a spirit of antagonism between the producers of wheat in the winter rainfall region and the producers of the same product in the summer rainfall region. We who live in the summer rainfall region will immediately concede that as far as the quality of wheat is concerned, we cannot compete with the Boland since they harvest their wheat under optimal conditions during the dry summer months. For the sake of the wheat farmers of the Boland, we want to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to widening the gap between the price of the super-grade and grade 1, and that we should regard the winter rainfall region as the producer of the super grade wheat. On the other hand, we are also requesting that in considering the other grades, especially grades 1 and 2, attention will be paid to the risk the farmer in the summer rainfall region experiences at harvest time. This short period we have in which to harvest, and that in a rainfall season, results in the situation that one shower of rain can cause the quality of one’s grain to drop by two grades. This also brings about that every farmer in the interior today is virtually compelled to erect his own drying installation on his farm. We hope that in the future the hon. the Minister will bear these factors in mind when it comes to price determination.

If the greater productivity we are aiming at in this industry is not applied in a balanced way, it can result in our experiencing a greater problem in the future in connection with soil-borne and fungal diseases. We also want to ask the department to determine whether a suitable crop may not, in the summer rainfall region, be integrated productively and economically into our wheat industry on a basis of crop rotation.

One of the most important restricting factors on which I just want to dwell briefly, is the question of the price of bread. This means that when fixing the price of wheat, one’s thoughts cannot be detached from bread. Yesterday reference was made to subsidies for the consumer or the producer, or general subsidies. The hon. the Minister also referred to an amount of approximately R86 million which will be employed this year to ensure that the price of bread remains at the same level, in spite of the higher wheat price for the producer. When one makes a few calculations, one finds that the subsidy on bread amounts to approximately R¼ million per day. One wonders if this measure of subsidization in respect of bread has not resulted in this very important foodstuff in South Africa being treated with disdain and even wasted. The social division of a university in the Eastern Cape—I am not sure whether it is the University of Port Elizabeth or Rhodes University—instituted an investigation and found that in respect of our Whites, 14% of each loaf of bread is lost or wasted and, in respect of our Bantu—this is extremely high—approximately 11% of each loaf of bread is lost or wasted. When we consider these figures, I think one can say it is not only a disgrace, but also a sin that we treat this product in this way. Sir, I now want to quote a few figures to you to indicate the we in South Africa not only produce a cheap foodstuff—it is the farmer’s privilege to make this bread available to the consumer public—but that there are also other products which may serve the same purpose. Sir, let us consider a product which is more or less the same as wheat, i.e. rice, and analyse its calorie value. The new term for this is “kilojoles”; I think this is the first time the word is being used in this House. If we make a comparison between the calorie value of rice, white bread and whole-wheat bread, we find that in order to obtain the same number of calories or carbohydrates from rice as may be obtained from one loaf of bread, one would have to buy rice at a cost of R1-21. On the other hand, the same quantity of carbohydrates or calories may be obtained from maize or potatoes at a price of 7 cents and 5 cents, respectively. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, no one will quarrel with the hon. member for Bethlehem in the case that he has made out for the wheat farmer zation of bread. Sir, to me it is a great privilege today to take part in this debate when we have a Minister of Agriculture who is in truth a farmer’s farmer. In the same way as the previous Minister of Railways was a railwayman, so our present Minister of Agriculture is a round peg in a round hole. He has a deep grasp of every subject which has to do with agriculture and of the various agricultural sciences in South Africa.

Sir, I want to pass from the topic of com and bread to a related subject very close to the heart of man, namely wine, and I return to the subject of Groot Constantia as a wine farm. A previous speaker, the hon. member for Constantia indicated that he would like to see this wine farm restored possibly to the 900-morgen size that it was originally in the early days when Simon van der Stel was Governor of the Cape and when this farm came into his hands. Sir, provision is made in this Vote that we are dealing with for R46 000 for the maintenance and support of Groot Constantia as a show farm, not necessarily a technical wine farm. It falls under ture and the Research Institute. In 1972 the sales of wine at this wonderful exhibition wine farm realized R64 923; the stock of wine on hand then was 3 014 hectolitres, and the profit made was R31 431, with an accumulated profit then of R104 988. Sir, wine, as long as there has been a Cape, has always been part of the living pattern of the Cape, and it was a fortunate day when Jan van Riebeeck, the first founder of the Dutch settlement at the Cape, could record in his diary on 2 February 1659—

Sir, Jan van Riebeeck was in good company, because the writer of the book of Ecclesiastes enjoined—

In fact, Sir, the natural joy of natural wine has been part of Man’s normal experience from times beyond human memory. Sir, Groot Constantia, which is perhaps the most gracious home that we have in the Cape, is a home of which we can be truly proud. It was written by Barrie Biermann of Groot Constantia—

This indicates the intimacy and the spirit which pervades Groot Constantia as a monument and as a wine farm. In Simon van der Stel, its first owner, in 1692, who created this farm, we again have a monument. The spirit of Simon van der Stel pervades every corner of the building and of the land, but it was not in fact Simon van der Stel who gave greatness as a wine farm to Groot Constantia. It was in fact Hendrik Cloete, who in 1778 became the owner, and in 1791 re-built the farm, which was then crumbling, as a building. He used the expertise and the inspiration of Anton Anreith for the restoration of the pediment and of course of Thibault, who was the designer of the over-all complex. It was Hendrik Cloete who could write about his wines as follows: “My plante is die konings van Pruise, die tsaars van Rusland”. And of Napoleon, when he was exiled at St. Helena, it was said that he consoled himself with a glass of sweet Constantia wine. Today this wine farm, under the control of the department, has become a show farm, and it no longer produces sweet wines. It does in fact produce wine which should be known to hon. members of this House and to the South African public. More specifically, the following varieties of wines are sold on the estate, namely Pinotage, a ruby-coloured red wine, Shiraz, a very lively, fruity, well-coloured red wine with a typically schiraz character, Cabernet, a deeply red-coloured exceptionally fruity and well-balanced medium-bodied varietal wine, and of course the white wine Steen, a light-bodied, well-balanced, very fruity and slightly semi-sweet white wine.

Now, having whetted the appetites of those present, I come to the substance of my comments today, namely a constructive criticism of the way in which these wines are distributed. It is one of the few instances where the Government is in direct competition with private enterprise. I have no complaints on this occasion, but over the years it has become customary for these wines to be made available to members of the public in case lots on Wednesdays, the sale commencing at 10.30 a.m. and going on to 12.45 p.m., re-starting at 2 p.m. and closing at 3.30 p.m. Now, because of the fact that these wines have acquired international reputation and because of the tourists who visit Groot Constantia, they are known throughout the world, and because, too, of the fact that we are all experiencing a tragic scarcity of the noble red wines at the moment throughout the Western Cape and throughout the South African market, there has been such a clamour for the products of Groot Constantia that unfortunately confusion has set in in the minds of those people who endeavour to purchase these wines. It would appear from public comment that today you can go to Groot Constantia at 7 a.m. on a Wednesday morning and you will be joined by the locals and by people from as far as Paarl and Stellenbosch and all over the Western Province, and by their gardeners, and there is one colossal queue which stretches for several hundred yards, and from 7 a.m. you will stand in the summer sun in the boiling heat until your turn at last comes and you have the privilege of buying one case of white wine and two cases of red wine. Only 100 cases are sold of each variety each day. The procedure in selling is archaic and outmoded. A very worthy gentleman writes three or four copies of invoices in longhand, and you are held up in the queue unnecessarily. I make the submission as a constructive one that it is invaluable that these wines should be sold as products of the Cape and of Groot Constantia, but if we are to make the most of our public relations, they could well be sold throughout every day of the week during the early part of summer when we have our high Cape season and when the Cape is at its tourist best and the biggest number of tourists visit the farm. I submit also that not only should this be done, but that these wines should not be sold in case lots. People should be allowed to buy bottle lots, and we should introduce half bottles, so that people coming off airplanes or going off on ships could buy half a bottle of each variety. Further, we should encourage what they have in Basle and other parts of Europe where they have the wine festivals, and tourists on the spot should be allowed to indulge in winetasting at a small fee of 25 cents or 40 cents, which could possibly go to charity. If they have cheese and wine on the spot they could enjoy the flavour of the wine and go away as addicts to South African wines.

My final complaint is that between last year and this year, notwithstanding the profit which this farm has made, the prices of our lovely Constantia wines have been doubled, a 100% contribution to the increase in the cost of living and inflation. This should, surely, be a case for the Price Controller. I can see no other recourse. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister, whom I know is a wine lover himself, to have mercy on those people in the Cape who cannot get all the wines they want. He ought to consider whether this price is indeed a fair one. For the rest I should like to compliment those people who run the institution and those who work there. Groot Constantia can well be said to be the pride of South Africa and pride of the valley of the vines.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens must pardon me if I do not react to what he said. Unfortunately I do not know a great deal about wine. All I know is that it tastes good. I assume the hon. the Minister will deal with his particular problems later on.

I attach great value to the matters the hon. member for Bethlehem raised here. I should also like to raise a few points in connection with the production of wheat. In spite of the great heights which agriculture in South Africa has achieved so many times over, this is not an industry which can rest on its laurels. We should realize that the demands that are going to be made on agriculture in the years ahead will become increasingly severe for obvious reasons, such as the increase in population and the buying power of this very large population which is increasing so rapidly. These feats were achieved in spite of the fact that in 1936, 176 000 farmers were actively engaged in farming as against only 80 000 according to the latest figures of today. The dramatic change which has taken place in the United States of America over the past years in respect of its agricultural situation, should serve as a serious warning to us. For a number of decades this rich agricultural country has had to contend with problems of tremendous surpluses, surpluses which have now disappeared within the short space of a few years. What can happen in the U.S.A., with its vast agricultural resources, can surely happen just as easily in any other country, especially where the natural conditions do not favour agricultural production. I believe that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is fully aware of the tremendous task resting on the shoulders of the South African farmer in respect of the production of food and essential raw materials. All the research and extension measures of the department are geared to assisting the farmer in the particularly unenviable task he often has to perform in difficult circumstances. I personally am very grateful for that. I also want to express my sincere thanks to the Minister for the increase in the price of wheat. In my opinion it was really necessary. I also want to express my sincere thanks for the way in which his department conducts research and provides extension services in connection with wheat-growing in South Africa. That is why it has not been necessary in the past seven years to import wheat, and it has even been possible for South Africa to export wheat. For the first time in history wheat was exported on a fairly large scale during the 1972-73 season. The quantity of wheat available for export during the 1973-’74 season, after provision had been made for domestic consumption as well as a transfer equal to the milling needs for four months, amounted to 506 000 tons. Of this amount 426 000 tons have been exported up to the present. During the past 12 months production costs have risen tremendously. This justifies the increase in the price of wheat. I should like to mention a few examples for the period between September 1973 and September 1974. The price of diesel rose by 67,23%, power paraffin by 66,9% ordinary petrol by 42,8 %, tractors by 18,7% to 26,8%, combines by 21,2%, implements by 25,2%, bulk trailers by 26,6%, weed killers by 80%, fertilizer by 8,5%, Bantu wages by 20% to 25%, not to mention the rise in the costs of spare parts and repairs. I think these figures suffice to prove that the price of wheat had to be raised.

I also want to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister, which is that a great need exists for more funds for the purpose of erecting grain silos. I have great appreciation for what has already been done in this sphere in the past few years, but this cannot be regarded as being sufficient.

In the first place, most of the grain silos are full as a result of the large maize harvest. Problems are expected as far as a good wheat harvest is concerned. Hon. members know that nowadays the farmers are geared to the bulk handling of grain. When our grain silos are full, the farmers have to change back to handling it in bags, which presents many problems and involves tremendous costs and demands extra labour.

Secondly, we are storing too small a supply of wheat in South Africa. The climate in our country fluctuates considerably, and it very easily happens that a surplus in one year is followed by a crop failure the following year. At present the Orange Free State is producing 51% of South Africa’s wheat and it is precisely the Free State which has to contend with the worst fluctuations in climate.

In the third and last and, as far as I am concerned, the most important instance, South Africa is in a very favourable position to provide the whole of Africa with food, as a result of its production powers and its strategic situation. As I see matters, it may shortly be necessary to provide food for the whole of South Africa. Food could become a mighty weapon. Yesterday, the hon. the Minister used the expression, “food for peace and friendship”. I fully agree with him and that is why I think it would be a very wise step to store sufficient supplies of grain in the years ahead.

Another matter I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, is that the wheat cultivar “scheepers” will be graded as a C class wheat as from the 1974-’75 wheat season. In spite of extensive research, “scheepers” remains the cultivar which, taken over a number of years, delivers the best average yield in the Free State region, because it is best able to adapt to the climatic conditions in that area. That is why approximately 80% of the wheat harvest in the Free State consists of the “scheepers” cultivar. It would appear as if climatic conditions play a major role in determining the quality of wheat. In other words, in a year when climatic conditions are favourable, the quality is higher whilst during a bad year the quality is poorer. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to treat lightly the decision of grading “scheepers” as a C class wheat, since there is a fairly big difference between the price of Class B and Class C wheat. This could have a detrimental effect on the farmers in that area.

Mr. Chairman, the debate is proceeding so peacefully that one really feels tempted to put the cat among the pigeons. However, I would rather not do it.

I want to convey my sincere thanks as well as the thanks of my constituency to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs for the assistance we received at the time of the recent floods in that area. It is difficult to explain to people the extent of the disaster that occurred. It was my doubtful privilege to accompany the Ministers from Bloemfontein on a flight along the course of the Riet River as far as the Orange River, and along the reaches of the Orange River to the Aughrabies Falls. The latter was the only attractive sight I saw in the whole of that flood area. From there we flew along the Fish River Valley to Port Elizabeth. Tremendous damage was caused, but the aid and assistance that were given were rendered in such an energetic way that the suffering was greatly alleviated. Assistance is still being rendered in my constituency, particularly in the Riet River area, with the drainage of premises and the determination of the water table to ascertain in which way those premises can be drained further. Even now streams are still to be seen; the rivers are still running. The large Kalkfontein Dam has been overflowing fairly strongly for almost the past seven months in spite of the fact that irrigation from the dam takes place regularly. Large marshes are to be seen everywhere, which brought a tremendous plague of mosquitoes and gnats, just as in Kuruman, which the hon. member for Kuruman spoke about. There are still large areas which can be regarded as swamps. As a matter of fact, we fear the summer rains that are due. In spite of what we and all the scientists expected would happen, this mosquito plague was not stamped out during the winter. When the cicadas are added to this during summer, it will create many problems. I have often said that we do not kill mosquitoes in that area by swotting them, but that we crush them, otherwise one does not get rid of them all.

It is a fact that veterinary surgeons confirmed that lambs suffering from no disease at all were killed by mosquitoes. In addition, it was found that sheep died in large numbers on account of various diseases such as blue tongue, on account of the gnat plague, Rift Valley fever, Wesselsbron disease and other diseases. Unfortunately a shortage of vaccine, as produced by Onder-stepoort, was experienced at one stage. The farmers then decided to dip the sheep every week in order to keep this blood-sucking insects away from the bodies of the sheep. In addition, this caused lumpy wool, foot-rot, bacterial infection, and so on. During this whole episode, thousands of sheep died. I have here a survey conducted by the farmers’ association in Boshoff. On 38 farms no fewer than 25 837 sheep died. At the current prices this means a loss of R750 000. This does not take into account at all the fact that there were no lambs this season. I am not saying this for the information of the hon. the Minister, but for the information of the Secretary of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. He should show some mercy with regard to claims against these farmers who have suffered so much damage in the meantime.

We are grateful for everything that has been done, but there was one salient shortcoming, i.e. the shortage of veterinary surgeons in the employ of the State. The few veterinary surgeons we had and who were quite willing to assist, were inundated with requests to render services. However, they were unable to render such services. As a matter of fact, it is heartbreaking to think that so many of our veterinary surgeons settle in the cities and become doctors to cats and dogs immediately after they have completed their studies instead of rendering the services which are so absolutely essential if we were to provide this nation as well as the rest of South Africa with an income and food in future. I want to add that I do not blame the veterinary surgeons, because what matters to them is rands and cents and a particular standard of living. In the first place, I therefore want to request that we, through the Public Service Commission, regard this group of professional people, i.e. the veterinary surgeons, in a special light and make it possible and attractive for these people to remain in the Public Service. In the second place, I know that extensions are being undertaken at Onderstepoort, and that others are being planned. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in this direction.

Before I conclude, there is one further point I wish to raise. These blood-sucking gnats are becoming a plague in large parts of the country. The same can be said of the mosquitoes. People have even rumoured that an outbreak of malaria could occur, but at no stage was there any danger of this happening, because the mosquitoes were by no means of the anopheles type, which is the malaria carrier. They were of the culex type. These gnats are a terrible plague along the streams, as well as in the vicinity of the Vaal River—I may be asked what I have got to do with the Vaal River, but a portion of my constituency adjoins the Vaal River. During 1966-’67 a similar outbreak of gnats occurred. At that time they were sprayed with DDT from aeroplanes, but on account of steps taken by the health authorities DDT is no longer available on the market. A gnat plague is also developing higher up along the river, particularly in view of the construction of dams taking place at present. The reason for this is probably the zoo plankton which grows in the dams and provides food for the gnats. They are not destroyed by running water. Previously it was found that these gnats are destroyed and prevented from becoming a plague by algae growing below the dams. This year, however, with the enormous floods this algae was virtually washed away and on account of this it was made possible for these gnats to flourish. We appreciate that Onderstepoort does not have a hydro-biological research centre. On the other hand, the Department of Water Affairs does not undertake research on these arthropods either, because it is not their task to control these gnats. In view of the increasing number of dams we are going to build, these are plagues which may create problems for us in future, particularly for those living in the vicinity of rivers. What I want to ask, therefore, is for the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the Department of Water Affairs, to establish a unit to undertake research in connection with the hydrological control of these gnats, the simuliidae.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, outlined the difficulties he was experiencing with mosquitoes in his area. I wonder whether we should not plead with the Minister to make more red wine available to the people in that area because, if the mosquitoes were to get more of that red wine, it would be easier to kill them.

He did not realize that he was pleading for the extermination of gnats (Nats!).

I said mosquitoes, not gnats, although I would include them also.

The Natal Agricultural Union in its magazine produced for the congress reported on a study that was made in America a study of the attitude between farmers and urban dwellers. It is reported as follows:

That is how the “dorpsbewoners” see us farmers. The farmers, however, taking a good look at themselves, added the following: self-reliance, independence, self-restraint, persistence, courage and thrift. If you take all those qualities together you will agree, Sir, that the farming community consists of people who are able to look after themselves and who are people with a conscience. I feel that I am entitled to say that I resent very bitterly the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Houghton here this afternoon where she made a blatant attack on the farming community regarding the wage issue, something on which I do not consider her to be an authority of any fashion whatsoever. I believe that the farming community is well able to take care of the agricultural labour situation on their farms. I believe that they have carried their fair share in maintaining the Black population in this country on farms by providing employment, and schooling to an increasing extent for them. It is significant that the Natal Agricultural Union, without any prodding of any kind from any political party, has been moving in a direction which even the hon. member for Houghton had to admit is the right direction, in providing pension schemes and all kinds of other advantages and incentives to the farming community. I reject that accusation by the hon. member completely. I do not think it is justified at all; I do not think she has the facts at her disposal to make such an accusation.

I wish to speak to the hon. the Minister this afternoon on a matter which concerns my constituency, namely the agricultural college at Cedara. May I say that, if ever there was something which was a tribute to the Department of Agriculture, it is the Cedara College. I think this is one of the outstanding institutions of this country. I am very pleased that in my constituency I maintain a dose relationship with the members of the staff, and also many of the students when it is election time, because most of them, of course, vote for my party. I want to deal with the relationship between the members of the staff and the students. One of the greatest attractions for the staff at the Cedara College is that many of them are engaged in research.

I want to say that this is project-related research dealing with the practical problems of the farming community in the Natal Midlands. It is outstanding work. I want to say that that college has created nothing less than a revolution in farming on our area by means of the outstanding fertilization procedures and research in connection with pastures, irrigation and the aspects I mentioned yesterday. There has come about a complete change in methods of production in the Natal Midlands. It is being spearheaded, perhaps not exclusively, but to a great extent, by the members of the college. They have spearheaded the change in agricultural techniques that have taken place. This has brought about a great measure of trust and almost of affection between the members of the staff and the farming community. I have had the privilege to go to farmers’ days three or four times recently, and I want to say that there is the best possible relationship between Cedara as an institution and the farming community. However one of the problems is that the college does not only provide research, but also undertakes the training of students. One can quite understand the fact that a person who is engaged in research work may regard giving up his time for the training of students almost as a side-show of the important work on which he is engaged. I wonder whether it is not possible that there could be some kind of incentive.

I am sure that when Cedara staff members were lecturing at the University of Natal in Pietermaritzburg, a bonus was paid to them. I understand that the same thing is happening at Onderstepoort, namely that a bonus is paid to people from the research staff who have to lecture the students. This does not happen at Cedara. My information is that there is, perhaps not a conflict, but a measure of strain developing among the members of the staff between their obligations to train students and their own inclinations which are towards the research work they are doing. It is vitally important that you should get the best people on the staff to train the students. In the case of a department of three, four or five members, the chap who is not so intimately connected with research is being loaded with the training work. This is a matter where we are dealing with the minds of future farmers and I want to say that it is of the utmost importance that we should pay attention to the minds of future farmers. We should challenge them with the best possible brains that the agricultural industry can provide to stimulate their interest. We must grip those young minds and prepare them to accept the challenge that the future is going to set them.

One of the problems is I think the amount of time that is allocated in respect of these projects. These project estimates do not include the time for training. This is as I understand it. My information may be incorrect but I think that all projects are estimated on the basis that a person’s time is allocated. It would be an incentive if somewhere on the budget of that college an additional allowance could be made available in respect of incentive payments to staff members who have to undertake the work of training students. I think that there is a real problem in this regard and I can understand it. I do not at all wish to run down anybody for wishing to concentrate on what is his basic and primary function there, viz. the research which has contributed so largely to the furtherance of the prosperity of the agricultural community in that area of Natal.

I want to say this is a problem which is also carried over into the universities. There is a growing concern in the university faculties that any possible cuts that may be forthcoming in the allocations to universities, may well be forthcoming in the agricultural faculties. This seems to be a prevalent concern. This may result in a serious hampering of the recruitment of staff for those agricultural faculties if people have any fears in relation to the department of the university to which they attach themselves. I think that the hon. the Minister will avoid a great deal of trouble if he is able to state here today that he will ensure that agricultural faculties will be maintained at full strength and will receive an adequate allocation of funds from the central Government because of the imperative need to maintain progress in the agricultural sphere in relation to the extension of agricultural research, information, etc.

There is also the problem in relation to research expenditure. The department seconds people to the staffs of universities to undertake research over certain periods. If this secondment and these grants are not continued, university faculties tend to feel that they will lose status and that they will not be able to obtain the best brains that they need—that they will not be able to attract people into the service of the universities. Let us take this matter one step further and go back to Cedara. One of the activities at Cedara is an extension activity, viz., to go out to the farming community in order to make sure that the knowledge gained by research at Cedara is conveyed to and practised by the farming community. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River will pardon me if I do not follow up on his arguments. However, I want to associate myself with the remarks he made in respect of what was said here by the hon. member for Houghton.

I should like to request your attention for a brief review of the red meat industry. Prices were particularly favourable during the past year and, in fact, showed an increase of 36% compared with those of the previous year. On the other hand, slaughtering showed a drop of 14%, and one of the major reasons for the drop in demand has been the reduced supply from adjoining areas. It is estimated that approximately 30% of the red meat consumed in the Republic comes from adjoining areas, including South-West Africa. It is interesting to note that the cattle herd in the Republic of South Africa dropped by approximately 600 000 during the past 15 years. As against that, our population has increased tremendously, the purchasing power of the Whites and the non-Whites has increased and if we consider this state of affairs, we come to the conclusion that there is a bright future for the red meat industry. This presents a great challenge to the producer because, as it is, there is a considerable backlog he has to make up. However, it is a fact, Sir, that only since 1972 did it become possible for the farmer in South-West Africa to share in the favourable prices his counter-part in the Republic received thanks to the assistance and aid the hon. the Minister of Agriculture rendered the farmers of South Africa.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to say thank you once more for this helping hand on behalf of all and every farmer in South-West Africa. Things are going particularly well for the farmers in South-West Africa, and I want to appeal to our farmers to utilize these favourable prices to redeem their loans or at least reduce them drastically. Money is becoming more expensive and more scarce all the time, and it is in their own interests to pay attention to this matter. Sir, there are a few factors which may have a detrimental effect on this very favourable state of affairs, factors which may discourage producers particularly in the remote areas from producing meat, and in this regard I should like to mention a few points.

In the first place, the increased railway tariffs; in the second place, increased imports from overseas; in the third place, too low floor prices; in the fourth place, a slackening in the present feeding tendencies on account of more expensive maize and increased railway tariffs; in the fifth place, buyer resistance on account of too high prices and, in the sixth place, large-scale game farming. Sir, it is a fact that the drastic increase of 60% in respect of the conveyance of livestock could wipe out these benefits. This affected farmers in the Vryburg/Northern Transvaal—South-West Africa areas in particular. According to figures furnished by the Railways itself, this means an increase in the railage of R7-03 per head of stock transported from Grootfontein in South-West Africa to Cape Town. The additional motor transportation costs amount to approximately R1 per head of stock. In addition the 12½% increase in railage on all commodities will amount to approximately R1 per head of stock per year, or R3 per head of stock before one is able to market it after three years.

This means that the farmer of South-West Africa has to pay an additional R11 per head of stock to be able to market it in Cape Town; this is simply deducted from the price he receives after his stock has been slaughtered. I therefore want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to discuss this whole matter with the hon. the Ministers of Transport, Finance and Economic Affairs. Sir, I want to submit to you in all amity a few possibilities for your consideration: In the first place, some or other form of subsidy, such as that applying to the transportation of Bantu, or in certain industrial areas in which the Railways is compensated by the Department of Commerce for services rendered. I know the hon. the Minister is not in favour of subsidies.

But he is in favour of subsidies.

Another possibility is the establishment of shorter routes. The long distances do not only result in higher railage cost, but also cause considerable loss in weight and loss on account of bruises sustained underway. The loss of weight is estimated to be 7 kg per 200 kg from Southwest Africa to Cape Town, and to this is added the loss of weight on account of bruises sustained underway, which vary from one case to another. If a shorter route via the Sishen/Saldanha railway line could be used, it would be possible to transport the cattle from South-West Africa and the Northern Cape via Pudimoe to Johannesburg; but a shorter route still would, of course, be the railway line for which the hon. member for Kuruman has been asking for many years. If that railway line were to be built and cattle could be transported over that route, it would shorten the duration of the journey by up to three days, which would be more economical and which would eliminate to a large extent, or at least a greater percentage of the loss in weight and the loss on account of bruises. A third possibility is the arrangement according to which, if not the whole of this increase, at least a portion of it could be passed on to the consumer or trader in one way or other. As far as the import of beef is concerned, particularly from overseas countries, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that one of the major reasons for the shortages we are at present experiencing locally, is the fact that our farmers throughout the country are building up their herds. If imports were to become a factor, which it is not at all at the moment thanks to the competent way in which the hon. the Minister handles this import situation, we would have the position again where breeding stock are slaughtered, which would cause the number of our herds to be reduced even further. It is a fact that the industry is moving through a phase of shortages at the moment, which will revert to normal as soon as the building up of herds has been phased out and our farmers succeed in pushing up the calf percentage. The present calf percentage of 50% is quite inadequate and it can and should be increased to 80%. But when considering the position abroad, we find that Rhodesia and even Russia are experiencing shortages. Even America is experiencing a mild shortage, while Australia has handsome stocks. However, the largest surplus is in the EEC countries. However, the world is inclined to stare itself blind at the approximately 230 000 tons of meat that accumulated in the EEC countries. This may be regarded as an artificial surplus on account of the high consumer prices prevailing there, but the question is often asked outside why we do not import more meat. However, the hon. the Minister has already given consent for the importation of test consignments, but on analysis the position is not quite as bright as it appears at first sight. The meat coming from Australia is a frozen boned product which can only be used by meat processors. As against this, the meat from the EEC countries consists of frozen carcasses from which the bones have not been removed, in which the ordinary consumer is not interested at all. The only major consumer is the mining industry which has large compound facilities, but even this is a very limited market. In addition, the carcasses cannot be obtained at give-away prices.

Another point I want to raise is floor prices. If we consider that the auction price in 1972 was 48 cents per kg for grade I meat, while the floor price was 44 cents per kg, i.e. a difference of only four cents, and if we consider that the auction price in 1973 was 65 cents while the floor price was 60 cents, and that in 1974 the auction price was 100,8 cents and the floor price only 71 cents, there is a difference of only 30 cents. This low floor price is no guarantee for the producer, and I want to ask that the floor price be increased to at least 90 cents to provide the producer with some kind of guarantee. [Time expired.]

Sir, I have gained the impression once more that agriculture is subject to major fluctuations. I experienced this again last year. In the first place, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for what he has done. As I said the other day during the debate on Water Affairs, 880 km irrigation land along the rivers in my area were affected by the flood this year. In this regard the hon. the Minister assisted our people and he did not only help with the reclamation of land, but he also assured our farmers of a new future. He supported our people through a time of great distress and gave us new hope. The hon. the Minister treated these people sympathetically and came to their assistance with the good intention of rehabilitating them so that they can carve out a new future for themselves in agriculture. For that reason R10 million was made available for loans and R6 million for subsidies in these areas. I am very grateful to the Minister and the Government for what they have done for these people in my constituency, and the people throughout our country. I am grateful for and pleased to see the remarkable change of heart which has taken place in the ranks of the United Party. Two years ago the attitude of these people was quite different. At that time they did not really advocate the withdrawal scheme. Yesterday I heard something entirely new in this House. From 1967 to 1972 agriculture experienced difficult times: it was a period of drought setbacks, floods and water shortages. During those five years every disaster that could possibly befall the industry, was experienced in agriculture. The United Party did its very best to exploit for political purposes these circumstances, over which we had no control. During these five years the Government came along and pumped R385 million into agriculture in order to keep agriculture sound so that we can provide food for the people of this country. Never before has any government considered it necessary to do this and neither do I hope that any Government will have to do this in future. This year the United Party has remained quiet on that aspect. They have no appreciation for what the Government has done in recent times to put our agriculture on a sound footing. Where were the hon. members of the United Party when the withdrawal scheme was introduced? We found them in Brakpan two years ago. At that time they were doing their best to create discord between the producer and the consumer. They did their best to whip up the feelings of the people against the farmer and the producer. They told the people that the meat shortage in the country was due to steps taken by the Government. They said it was a crime that was being committed against the consumer, because the Government was paying R3 for a sheep the farmer did not possess. The people strongly resented the action taken by the Government in this regard. The consumer protested against this, but after the election in Brakpan, they accuse the Government of only paying R3 to the farmers. They objected to it and said it was unfair of the Government not to pay the farmers R6. It is no use acting in this way.

Is that the kind of speech you are making?

Yes. The United Party is no longer speaking in that vein. We have appreciation for what has been done. During the last years of the regime of the United Party things were just as bad for the farmer. That was due to the prices of our products. During the last years of the regime of the United Party, in 1947-’48, 600 farmers in the six districts of the North-West left the rural areas on account of the low prices they had been receiving for their products. At that time the price for super beef was 16,1 cents per kg; today it is 84.5 cents. The price of prima beef was 14.1 cents; today it is 97,5 cents. I continue in this vein. The price of grade II mutton was 9,9 cents; today it is 64,5 cents. In January the average market price was 85.2 cents. I can continue in this vein and also refer to the prices of sheep and goats, which were so low in those years that it was impossible for farmers to make a living. It is no small wonder that 600 farmers had to sacrifice their farms during the last two years of United Party government. I want to tell the consumer quite frankly that if the farmer is unable to produce his meat profitably, there is going to be further meat shortages and consequently he will have to pay more for it. For that reason I want to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member sitting in front of me here as far as his request is concerned that consideration should be given to the floor prices so that our meat producers would be assured of profitable prices. There are many reasons for that. We know that the price of land has increased tremendously, that there was a sharp increase in interest rates, that labour is expensive, that it is impossible for us to buy any fodder because prices are exorbitant, that licks are very expensive and that transport costs of livestock are extremely high. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take these factors into consideration when floor prices are fixed because in this way it will be possible to increase the basic floor price in order to make it profitable for us to produce meat.

At the same time I want to make an appeal to out farmers. Because we are aware of the fact that every year is not a good year, and because we know that, during some years in the future, farming will be less profitable than it had been the year before, I want to appeal to farmers who have liabilities to do their best to reduce those liabilities or eliminate them altogether. Our calculations should not be based on wishful thinking, because that is going to cause our downfall in any case. The production of red meat in our country has to be increased tremendously, and I want to ask that we should help these people to increase their production. There are certain factors we have to take into consideration, and I want to mention these factors. The agricultural industry is subject to fluctuations and because we are aware of this, we should not budget as if every year is going to be a year of prosperity. We should rather work out our budget for those years when we suffer set-backs.

I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister. This concerns the applications in terms of the Land Tenure Act, which are being submitted every day to the Agricultural Credit Board but which are rejected. These people submit their applications for the very reason to be able to obtain an economic unit. Experience in the past has taught us that it is far better for the farmer to become rich through farming than through buying. The applications of many of our farmers who have 1 000 or 2 000 morgen today and want to buy another thousand morgen are rejected because they do not have an economic unit yet. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the political matters which the hon. member for Prieska discussed happened before my time, before my birth, so there is no point in my referring to them.

If I may, I want to tell my own little story. I want to support what the hon. member for Vryheid said today about the slaughtering of chickens and about the problems of those chicken farmers’ wives who have been slaughtering in the past for the local market. He spoke a lot of sense, but he stated one fact which I do not know whether it is correct. He said that the farmer’s wife was allowed to slaughter four or five chickens a week. I do not know where the hon. member gets this figure. It is no use for him to shake his head because here I have the report of his speech.

I did not say that they were being limited but that it was the number they normally slaughtered.

In any case, I heard that the figure was ten. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether there is indeed a limiting number because this is creating a problem. I agree with everything the hon. member for Vryheid said and I particularly agreed with him when he said that the farmer’s wife is at the mercy of the inspector who is applying the Act. That is very true and it should not be so. Apart from that, what I should like to know is whether the slaughtering of farm chickens is actually a danger to public health. Has anybody in the past been influenced by it, except the cock of course? I cannot imagine anybody else suffering.

You mean the rooster.

Yes, I beg your parden, the rooster. I was wondering whether the hon. the Minister can give some consideration to relaxing the requirements of the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act as far as the slaughter of farm chickens is concerned. In the country towns particularly this is establishing another monopoly for the broiler industry. If no fowls are being sold locally, the fowls must be obtained from those in the broiler industry who are charging as much as they like for their chickens.

That brings me to another problem experienced particularly in the country areas. I refer to the scarcity of red meat. In the country we have the small butcher who is accustomed to slaughtering cattle for his own shop. He is now precluded from doing this. I have been given a figure in this connection but I do not know whether the figure is correct. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is true that they are allowed to slaughter four or five head of cattle per week and that, if they require more meat, they must obtain it from the abattoirs. These small butchers do not have the money and they are not prepared to extend their premises to conform to the requirements of the Hygiene Act. The result is that they must not only fetch the meat from the nearest abattoir but they must also deliver it there. This is causing a great deal of extra expense. The stock has to be taken to the abattoir, slaughtered and brought back. In many cases it has to be brought back in refrigerated trucks conforming to health requirements. This naturally costs the earth. All these extra expenses get passed on to the local consumer and this is putting red meat completely beyond the pocket of the African as well as lower income groups in the small towns. This is not achieving what it was supposed to achieve at all. Apart from that, it is forcing people into the dangerous habit of foregoing red meat. They are now beginning to eat substitutes from which to obtain the necessary proteins. This eventually becomes a habit and I doubt if they will ever go back to eating meat again. They now eat eggs, soya products and tinned foods which they feel they can still purchase. I know that in my own area, the South Coast, people limit themselves to one egg on alternate days and that is the total amount of protein they are getting. This is not good, even from the point of view of public health alone. The small butcher is of course also no longer a bidder at the stock sales because he is not interested. The result is that we are simply creating another monopoly for the big slaughterer of meat. The farmer is also losing thereby because he is not getting the best price for his meat.

It is no good merely complaining about these matters, but the question of abattoirs has been dragging on for many months. In the Agricultural News of 11 April this year mention is made of the fact that the supplying of abattoirs in controlled areas is going very well. However, one also reads there—

According to this publication it appears that if there is any joy to be had in this connection, the local authorities whose areas of jurisdiction will be served by an abattoir, should consider the establishment of regional abattoirs. The commission is now investigating this possibility by making an economic survey in the various areas. The article says—

I have another cutting here which refers to the problem experienced in the area of Ladysmith which is now suffering a great deal of hardship because of this abattoir requirement. Mr. Volker is quoted in the Natal Mercury of 4 May as saying that the standards required are up to export standards and that he does not think it necessary for meat in that area to conform to export standards. It appears that butchers in that area are not prepared to spend money on the abattoirs. The local authorities themselves do not wish to spend the money. Although they have agreed that this project should be tackled on a regional basis, nobody seems to be prepared to provide the money to build a regional abattoir. The sums of money required are too large. For example, if Ladysmith were to provide such an abattoir the alterations would cost between R500 000 and R1 million. In any case, it would be for a quantity of meat five times as much as they require. Mr. Volker, the hon. member for Klip River, was interviewed by the butchers, the Abattoir Commission and the farmers and said the following—

This is exactly what the commission’s findings are and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister if he is giving consideration to assisting with the implementation of regional abattoirs and if the Abbattoir Commission is prepared to undertake the building of abattoirs in uncontrolled areas. I think this is the only way in which this matter can be tackled because the money required is just beyond the scope of small local authorities. Ladysmith is by no means a small local authority. There are many smaller local authorities which just cannot afford this sort of money. When I think of the South Coast, this will probably devolve on the Port Shepstone area, and they can just not find this sort of money to extend their abattoir.

The other point I should like to touch on in the minute or two at my disposal is that the hon. the Minister said yesterday—and I could not agree with him more—in reply to an hon. member that a lot of our arable land was being lost to freeways. This is something with which I agree wholeheartedly. I will not speak about the political significance of that remark, because I think a lot of our arable land is being given away for ideological purposes as well. In respect of freeways, however, I agree with the hon. the Minister and I would like to have the hon. the Minister’s support in this regard. In any particular area an excellent piece of farming land is to be cut up by a freeway which is considered quite unnecessary by road engineers, by the farmers and by the roadusers involved. Yet the National Road Transportation Board is adamant in going ahead with cutting this freeway through this wonderful piece of land. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the peaceful atmosphere which has prevailed in this debate up to now, it is rather difficult for someone who prefers a more lively atmosphere to make a speech. Nevertheless, the hon. member who has just spoken made a request to the hon. the Minister which, to my mind, should be replied to by the hon. the Minister himself, and for that reason I shall not follow up on what he said. The hon. member will pardon me for that reason only.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who is unfortunately not here at the moment, yesterday afternoon very briefly expressed his gratitude and appreciation to the Wool Board and leaders of the South African wool industry for the services they have rendered in recent times. Now, it is a fact that the wool industry in South Africa has experienced a period of considerable prosperity during the past two years. However, it is also a fact that the wool farmer of South Africa who is solely dependent on a market overseas for his product, is unable to come along to this House to argue whether the subsidy he receives favours the consumer or the producer. The wool farmer of South Africa has become accustomed to accepting the price overseas countries are prepared to pay for his product. During years past, the wool farmer has become accustomed, as far as the price he receives is concerned, to being kicked around like a flabby football. In times of crisis, as in recent times, the wool farmer and particularly the leaders of the wool industry decided that he could no longer tolerate the situation where he is compelled simply to accept the price which prevails at a certain stage, whether the price is good or poor. After long and sober consideration the leaders of the wool industry and the wool farmer of South Africa decided on a new marketing scheme. That scheme was not decided upon for reasons of crisis, but after long and sober consideration it was decided what the wool farmer should do in order to bring about stability—not only for him, but also for the consumer of his product. The new South African wool scheme was born on account of those ideas and considerations on the part of the wool farmer. Unfortunately it is a fact that the year in which the wool scheme was put into operation was the year in which wool prices increased considerably. Many of our farmers at once forgot the immediate past and sharp criticism was levelled. Unfortunately it is a fact that some of our people forget very quickly, but fortunately it is also a fact that the majority of our people learn from the lessons of the past. We are grateful that the majority of the wool farmers in South Africa gave the new scheme their wholehearted co-operation. How fortunate were we that this was indeed the case! After a period of merely two years, however, a new crisis threatened the wool industry at the beginning of the present season. You know, Sir, this is how things go with the wool price: If Queen Elizabeth’s horse runs second in the Grand National, the wool price drops by 5%. In the beginning of August the wool industry was being threatened by a new crisis when it seemed to us as if the wool market would collapse as a result of international financial problems. Fortunately the South African Wool Board was prepared for a possible crisis. What I should like to record here is that the status of the leaders of the South African wool industry was such that when we had to liaise with our partners in Australia in an attempt to cope with the new crisis, there was no need for the wool industry in South Africa to meet around a conference table and to enter into a formal contract with Australia concerning the steps to be taken during the coming season. The status of the leaders of our wool industry was such that a telephone conversation with the leaders of the industry in Australia was sufficient for an agreement to be entered into between South Africa and Australia. The leaders of the wool industry of South Africa were able to do this because we know that we can trust and rely upon our friends in Australia. We, in turn, were able to do this because we know that our friends in Australia are reliable and because we know who and what they are. As a result of the steps they have taken the leaders of the wool industry not only made friends for themselves overseas, but also friends for our country as a whole. How happy we are to know that, since we are experiencing a crisis year in the wool industry, we in South Africa not only enjoy the support of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, but also of the entire Cabinet. Although the wool farmer in South Africa has no written agreement to the effect that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will support us in a time of crisis, we know that we can automatically rely on his support and that of the Government. We are fortunate in that we have recently learned on the part of Australia—we never said so, but we did have our doubts as to whether the Australians would receive financial support to enable them to boost the market during the present season—that also their Government would accept legislation immediately for the present season to make available to their wool cooperative an amount of 50 million Australian dollars to support the market for the current season. For that reason we are able to tell the wool farmer of South Africa that there is no need for him to have any fear; that we, together with Australia, will see to it that, for the current season, the price of wool will not drop below its present level. We are able to say this to the farmers because we know that our Australian partners enjoy the support of their government and because we know that we enjoy the support of our hon. Minister of Agriculture.

As far as the new wool scheme is concerned, there were many reservations on the part of many of our people. I just want to tell those people who have had any reservations that with this new scheme a new pattern was introduced as far as wool marketing is concerned. We shall never again operate on the old pattern we knew for so many years. New ideas which fit in with the times in which we are living, new ideas of modern marketing, will prevail, also as far as the wool industry of South Africa is concerned. Since we are in the fortunate position in South Africa in that we were able to prepare ourselves for a crisis, it is unfortunately a fact that our partners overseas were caught unawares and that they really had to take emergency measures. As far as the new future is concerned, we have such great confidence in our industry and in the importance of our industry, that we are fully convinced that this industry will only go from strength to strength. As far as marketing is concerned and if there are any wool farmers who still have reservations, I just want to quote an extract from the Primary Industry Newsletter of Australia of last month. It reads as follows—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it must be a very pleasant thing for every representative this year to be able to get up in the Agricultural debate and to say that this year is a particularly good year; this is also the case in South-West Africa. Since we are accustomed to the fact that it is only the northern regions which are blessed we in the south were particularly blessed this year as well. Of course, this also causes some problems, and I share the concern of the hon. member for Fauresmith about the explosion of insects as a result of the rains we have had this year. Sir, we have probably experienced the greatest outbreak of locusts South Africa has ever known. As was said by the hon. member, we also suffered plagues of gnats, insects and diseases we have never known to exist among our stock in the past.

All the plagues of Egypt.

Yes, all the plagues of Egypt. Sir, since I want to dwell for a moment on the locust plague, I am grateful to be able to say that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has, with a small labour force, rendered a service to us in this connection for which we are very grateful. It was such an enormous plague and the scope thereof so extensive that it could easily get out of hand; nevertheless, they succeeded in combating the plague and to re-organize the combating thereof so that we can regard the following outbreak with far more confidence. We want to thank those officials who wore themselves out night and day in order to cope with this plague. But at this stage we are particularly concerned about the gnat plague and the diseases which accompany it. Sir, it may not sound so serious to the uninformed, but one appreciates the extent of this plague only when one visits these farms and notices the condition of the sheep deteriorating in spite of the bountiful grazing. I believe that the department will, in time, give its serious attention to this matter in order to assist our farmers.

Sir, I want to discuss an industry about which very little has probably been said in this House, an industry carried on in the southern areas of South-West and in the northern areas of the Cape Province, i.e. the karakul industry. We are privileged in this respect that few other countries are able to do what we are doing and join in a discussion with us when we talk about the karakul industry; as a matter of fact, there are only two countries, i.e. Afghanistan and Russia. We are privileged, because it is not possible for this industry to be carried on just anywhere. As a matter of fact, it is pre-eminently suitable for those areas with a low rainfall, but I do not want to go into this aspect any further. Sir, over the past few decades we in South-West Africa and in the Northern Cape have developed a splendid industry—the karakul industry or the karakul pelt industry. A few years ago a Karakul Board was established, which concerned itself with advertising and the marketing of karakul pelts in particular. As you are aware, Sir, we are dependent upon foreign countries for a market for these pelts. To our regret there is not yet a significant market for karakul pelts in South Africa. What this Board should do, therefore, is to exert itself to expand the existing markets in those countries buying these pelts and also to try and find new markets in other countries. These pelts are for the most part being marketed under the trade name of “Swakara”. The auctions are held in London, where two auction houses take care of the auctions, i.e. the Hudson Bay Company and Annings. Our major buyers are West European countries, such as Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, as well as quite a number of smaller countries in Western Europe. Because this article is not a food commodity, it is a product which is not easily marketable and price fluctuations can occur quite easily. The Board is now endeavouring to expand to the east, and Japan entered the market recently and we are looking forward with interest to the progress that will be made there. The trade in karakul pelts in the U.S.A. remains disappointing. One does not know why, but we have hardly made any progress in that country. As I have said, we are entirely dependent upon the overseas market, and for that reason we are, of course, subject to the fluctuations and problems, of the international monetary system, as well as everything that accompanies it. In this way, for example, the increased oil prices recently caused confusion in the monetary system to become even worse. Rates of inflation in all Western countries have increased tremendously with the result that trade balances, which were quite favourable until recently, are now showing considerable deficits. Consequently one has to appreciate that the karakul pelt trade is quite sensitive when these fluctuations occur, but in spite of all this Swakara has performed very well up to now and the market has been quite stable. To illustrate this, I just want to quote a few figures of the last few years. I start at 1960 in order to show you, Sir, what the value of this trade is to South Africa. I quote the number of pelts and I also quote the monetary value thereof. In 1960, 2,7 million pelts were marketed and the monetary value was R12 million. In 1962 the number of pelts increased to over 3 million and the monetary value increased to R17,5 million. In 1964 the number of pelts increased to 4 million and the value thereof increased to R20,9 million. In 1966 the number of pelts increased to 4,3 million and the value increased to R27 million. In 1970 the number of pelts increased to over 5 million and the value thereof to more than R29 million. In 1972 there were 5,5 million pelts and the value was more than R54 million, almost R55 million. Over these 12 years the value therefore increased from R12 million to R54 million. Therefore this is an industry that has to be reckoned with. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Karas as he described the growth of the karakul industry, which is now such a valuable asset to South Africa in terms of foreign exchange. R55 million is no mean asset and I would like to join him in congratulating those who have built up the industry in a very fine way. During the two days of this debate, the hon. the Minister, the Deputy Minister and many other hon. members have been telling us, in spite of mosquitoes, midges, locusts and many other plagues, what a good year this has been for agriculture. The hon. the Deputy Minister said it had been the best year ever for agriculture. This may well be the case. However, I would like to say that it has not been a good year for the housewife.

Hear, hear!

It has been a terrible year for the housewife. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it has been the worst year ever for the housewife.

That’s right, you girls will stick together.

Food prices have rocketed to the extent that most families in South Africa are not eating as well as they used to. The family has had to lower its standards. In the case of many of the poorer sections of the community, rising food prices have become a crushing burden. In many cases families which were already hardly able to feed themselves properly, can no longer do so. It has become a hand to mouth existence, except that there is very much less in the hand when it goes to that mouth. There is no doubt at all that food bills are rising at a frightening rate. However, I want to make it clear at the outset that I do not believe that the farmer is getting a square deal either. For a long time farmers have not been getting a fair price for their produce. I am also fully aware of the fact that food prices in this country are low in comparison with prices in many other countries right around the world. Perhaps we have just been lucky. I certainly believe that it is true to say that the farmer’s share of the final price to the consumer has been scandalously low. What particularly concerns me is the enormous difference between what the farmer gets for his produce and the final price to the consumer. I believe that prices at the moment are unfair to the farmer and also unfair to the consumer. This comes down to marketing. I know that the hon. the Minister has already pointed out that a Select Committee on the marketing of agricultural produce has been appointed because of the considerable criticism of South Africa’s current marketing set-up with its proliferation of control boards. This committee was set up in April of last year. Since that time food prices have gone wild. I do not know how much longer this committee is going to take over its deliberations, but I do know that the situation in regard to food prices has reached crisis proportions. The hon. the Minister has said that he would prefer not to see it as a crisis. He would prefer to see it as challenge. I think, with respect, that we are facing a crisis and must see it as such. We must also see it as the challenge. I am afraid that the average housewife is finding it very difficult, though, to regard the situation only as challenging.

Hear, hear!

She is getting pretty desperate about it. The average housewife is desperate because it becomes more and more difficult to balance her budget. I realize that to take action before the report of this Select Committee is before us is a very difficult thing to do, but I believe that something must be done now by the hon. the Minister. In his introduction to the Marketing Amendment Bill earlier this session, the hon. the Minister himself said that an Act which is the subject of an inquiry of this nature, ought not to be amended in principle before the inquiry had been completed. He said, however, that this was just not possible in the case of the Marketing Act. He added that it was not considered desirable to hold over proposed amendments of an urgent nature until after completion of the inquiry. With this I must entirely agree. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that having waited 18 months, the situation has now deteriorated to the stage where it is desirable to take action now on the question of agricultural marketing. It is my contention that the comment earlier this year by Assocom and the Grain Trade Association to the effect that agricultural marketing boards, as presently constituted, are totally unsatisfactory, is a correct comment. Monopolistic trading conditions are created which are unfair to the consumer. I believe that there is good reason for the hon. the Minister to act on this right away. The man in the street looks at the total agricultural scene—he perhaps does not know much about it—and he sees dozens of agricultural advisory committees, agricultural credit committees, commissions like the Abattoir Commission, control boards ranging from the Oilseeds Control Board to the Rooibos Tea Control Board. There are boards such as the Government Brandy Board and the Artificial Insemination Board. There are subcommittees such as the Apricot Price Committee of the Canning-Fruit Board. There are agricultural credit committees all over the place. I feel that the man in the street looks at this busy lot of people, most of whom are probably doing jobs that are vitally necessary, and wonders who is paying for all this. I think that the farmer also looks at all these people and wonders whether he is paying for it. For example, one can understand the dairy farmer who is paid roughly 12 cents per litre for his milk, being a little cynical when he sees the milk being sold in a plastic bottle over the counter for 25 cents per litre. The public, both farmer and consumer, are not at all satisfied with the marketing situation. In view of the extreme urgency of the situation, I should like the hon. he Minister to tell us whether or not it might be advisable for the Committee on Marketing to submit an interim report so that emergency action can be taken. We cannot wait much longer. Something has to be done and it has to be done urgently.

Mr. Chairman, it is striking that almost 50% of the members of the Progressive Party have already taken part in the agricultural debate, although they did not have one candidate in an agricultural constituency in the recent election. When the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, stood up to speak, I almost thought that he was going to talk about oranges or orange farming because the name of his constituency is Orange Grove. Actually, the hon. member told the House nothing new. We all know that prices have risen but we wonder why the hon. member did not also mention the fact that bread, for example, is subsidized to such an extent that today, comparable bread in any country overseas is 100% more expensive than our bread. He can mention any country, and he will find that our bread is cheaper by half than in any country overseas. We subsidize our agricultural products in many other spheres as well. It is owing to these boards which the hon. member criticized that the hon. member is today still able to enjoy the cheapest food in the world. He should be very grateful for the boards’ existence.

I should like to discuss another matter, and that is the technical training of our young boys in the agricultural industry. I do not want to discuss university training, except to say that we are very grateful for the 823 undergraduate students and the 358 graduate students who studied last year at our four universities with agricultural faculties. Taking into account the scientific and technical progress that has been achieved in the world and in this country, particularly in the sphere of our agricultural industry, I believe that there is a need for our agriculturists, too, to stay up to date and to keep themselves informed as far as is practically possible concerning what is going on in the scientific and technical fields. Formal training at the agricultural college level does in fact meet a pressing need in this field. I am pleased that the hon. member for Mooi River was so full of praise for Cedara Agricultural College today. However, I think the same applies to the other five agricultural colleges in the Republic, too. These colleges really do a wonderful job. I note that during the 1972-73 financial year, 464 students studied at the agricultural colleges. In my opinion this is still not enough. I think that there is still a void which has to be filled. If we look at the kind of students that are allowed to enter the colleges, we find that there is very strict selection. The selection is of such a nature that matriculation with a minimum pass mark of 50% is required before a student is allowed to enter such a college. Apart from that, I believe that the students must have a minimum pass mark of 60% in mathematics. The colleges can only accommodate a limited number of students and many students who apply to the colleges annually, are turned away because they simply cannot be accommodated. What is more, if a student fails his first year, he may not return for a second year and take his first-year course over again. For that reason I think that a gap has developed between our university students, the agricultural college students and those young boys who would like to undergo training but who are unable to. What is more, these young boys are often among our finest farmers. It is these boys who, perhaps, are best at reading the weather or who possibly have a better understanding of animals. They, too, would like to have some kind of training. I want to ask, therefore, whether a start could not be made on the training of young boys of this type. I should like to suggest that a kind of technical training lasting, say, six months, be provided for these young boys at our agricultural colleges or perhaps at our experimental farms. The training I wish to advocate is a practical training in which, for example, they could learn to work with a welding machine, in which they could gain practical experience of livestock diseases, and how to handle an injection needle, whether livestock are to be injected under the skin or in a vein. Practical training of this kind could perhaps include elementary bricklaying or building. I have in mind, too, the planning of a bookkeeping system, something that is essential for any farmer. They should be able to undergo this kind of training. I could mention many kinds of training which they could undergo. I have in mind, for example, various plagues and pests they could perhaps study, as well as the servicing of tractors and elementary repairing of parts so that these boys would not need to go to the city or to a mechanic for every little thing, nor would they even need to call a mechanic to help them on the farm. It would have to be a practical course. I know that specialist courses which may be attended by farmers to enable them to be informed about the latest developments, are arranged at these agricultural colleges from time to time. However, I am making a plea specially for the young boys who are unable to attend a university or college or who did not possess the necessary matriculation exemption or other qualification to attend university or college. Such a course could perhaps be held for a period of six months. I believe that if these young boys were to take a course of this kind and if they could perhaps be given a diploma, they would have an achievement to be proud of. This would enable these young boys to plan more effectively when they entered the farming industry, and that is something of great importance in any economic sphere. They would also be better able to organize, give orders and see that those orders were carried out properly and that there was co-ordination in their farming. Then, too, they would perhaps be able to exercise better control over their farming. I therefore want to ask that the hon. the Minister should perhaps consider offering these young men who have not had the opportunity to undergo training, the opportunity to undergo this practical, useful training at one of our colleges or perhaps training at one of our experimental farms.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with pleasure to the fine plea for the training of those boys made by the hon. member for Potgietersrus. There is no doubt that owing to the enormous population growth a wonderful challenge awaits our farming community, that of providing the population with food. In order to be able to accept this challenge. I believe that the most effective farming methods will have to be employed. Among other things, these effective farming methods undoubtedly demand judicious mechanization and an effective labour force. When I refer to an effective labour force, what I really mean is a trained labour force. Since I am talking about mechanization and a trained labour force. I should like to mention a few figures. In the year 1972, 17 006 tractors were purchased. One supposes that not all went to the farming industry. In 1971, farming equipment and implements to the value of R18 million were purchased. When one considers that during those two years alone, an enormous capital amount was invested by farmers for the production of food for your table and mine, one must bear in mind that the labour force that had to man those tractors and implements, the people who had to work with that capital investment, had to be trained by the farmer himself. That is a tremendous achievement that certainly deserves the thanks of all of us. Those trained Bantu and Coloured farm labourers who worked with that capital investment undoubtedly also deserve our thanks. However, the question occurs to me whether it is fair, in view of the enormous capital investment made by the farmer, that he alone should be held responsible for the training of the people who have to work with that machinery. I am grateful to be able to say that through the mediation of the Department of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs, such a training centre for Coloured farm labourers was established here in the Western Province as far back as 1964. People who have been trained there—so say the farmers who make use of their services—are extremely valuable workers. Someone said it was an experience to see the enthusiasm and the new outlook on life evinced by these people on the farm. Now we are very grateful also to be able to announce that the Department of Bantu Education is prepared to grant support to the establishment of decentralized training centres where these farm labourers can be trained. We hope and trust that farming communities will make very thorough use of this opportunity. We are very grateful to the Department of Bantu Education in this regard. While we are grateful for the training opportunities created for people to be able to work with these large capital investments, it is probably also necessary to appeal here to farmers to support those schemes. This, to me, is very important. If various Government departments support these training centres and if support for these training centres is forthcoming from the farmer himself, then I think it is also necessary to appeal to the big firms responsible for the marketing of farming implements and tractors, and to tell them that the time has now come for them to make part of their profits available for the training of our farm labourers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley North mentioned certain efforts which have been made by the Government, more specifically by the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and of Agriculture to train a non-White labour force for the farmers in this country. He made the point that up to now it has been the farmers who have had to do all this training. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development is congratulating the hon. member on his speech. I want to ask that hon. Deputy Minister: Is he satisfied that he is doing enough in this sphere? I do not believe that he is. [Interjections.] He knows and other members who are making a noise at the moment know that for years and years we on this side of the House have pleaded for exactly the things about which the member has now been talking. For how many years did the previous hon. member for South Coast, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, not plead for this? As long as he was in this House, he pleaded fox it. At last we are getting a little bit of daylight, and for that we are grateful. We are thankful for small mercies.

I want to say too that I can agree with the hon. member for Potgietersrus in his representations to the Government for the training of our own people. I briefly want to refer to the hon. member for Parktown too, and say that I am very glad to have support from him and from his party for the pleas which we have made repeatedly in this House, particularly during this session. The hon. the Minister will recollect the contretemps we had here during the Budget debate over this very subject of high prices of agricultural products, particularly the gap between the producer price and the consumer price.

I want to come back to the point I had reached yesterday in drawing the Minister’s attention to the situation in the dairy industry today. I had just come to the stage where I said that he should not view the position with any equanimity at all. The situation is serious because the number of dairy herds continues to fall too rapidly. It remains to be seen whether the recent increases which he has allowed will put a stop to this. I know that he has increased the price by 46% in the last two years, and by 36%, I think, in the last 10 or 12 months; I am not certain exactly how much. However, the violent inflationary spiral in the last 18 months has placed the dairy industry in a complex situation. The policy in the past has been to review the prices approximately every two years. It is true that we have had three increases in the past two years, but I believe that a review of milk producer prices every two years will not do. The hon. the Minister has to accept as policy that he will review the consumer prices, with which I am dealing now, at shorter intervals until such time as the pressure is taken off the farming sector. It is no good thinking that he can wait two years, until there is an outcry from the farmers or until there is a shortage of milk before he reviews the price. I believe that he has to adopt a policy of a regular review of the producer price of milk and other dairy products. But what is the effect on the consumer? Yesterday I mentioned the increase in the consumption of milk in the Durban area alone. It is estimated that the housewives of Durban this year will pay an extra R3 million for the milk they consume. They will pay R3 million more than last year. I do not believe that the housewives can afford it. As I have said, it is iniquitous to expect that in this country of ours with its luscious veld, we have to pay more for milk than we pay for Coke. I believe that it is the duty of this hon. Minister to subsidize the consumption of milk; because the alternative is going to be that our people, particularly those of the lower income group, are going to revert to buying Coke and other mineral waters instead of buying the milk that they should have. I believe that milk must be subsidized as a basic foodstuff supplying the highest quality protein available. Serious consideration must be given to a consumer subsidy on milk. It could prove to be sound national economics from a health point of view, when you think of deficiency diseases such as kwashiorkor and tuberculosis and the amounts which are spent on them. My medical friends tell me that it costs 40 times more to cure a child from a deficiency disease than to prevent that disease. I believe that this subsidy would be an investment in the national interest. It is absolutely essential that we have basic foods available to our less-privileged people at the lowest possible price.

I know the hon. the Minister has practical problems in this regard. First of all, he will ask how and at which point the subsidy should be applied. I want to say to him that he can pay that subsidy at exactly the same point as he pays the subsidy on cream, viz. at the creamery or the dairy which is the distribution centre for the milk in the controlled areas, and in Natal, at the co-operative societies, who undertake most of the distribution of milk in Natal. I do not believe that there is any practical or physical problem in relation to a subsidy on milk. In a statement which the hon. the Minister issued I think a little earlier this year—unfortunately it has no date on it—he said—

On the impracticability aspect of this matter, I think I have told him that as far as the controlled areas are concerned—and he will agree with me—and in those areas of Natal and the Eastern Cape which are controlled by co-operatives, there are no practical difficulties. The only problem which remains is in relation to the uncontrolled areas. However, I do not believe that any problem exists in the uncontrolled areas. Milk in the uncontrolled areas is not being sold at 25 cents a litre. It is being sold at way below 20 cents a litre. Therefore, I do not believe that this need impede the hon. the Minister in providing a subsidy for these people. According to the figures of the hon. the Minister himself, R10 million per annum would reduce the price of milk in the controlled areas by one cent per litre. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether R30 million is too high a price to pay for the future health of our young people. It is the young people particularly who are going to suffer because of the higher price of milk. Families will not have the money to buy the milk for their children. I also believe that the hon. the Minister must consider reintroducing the milk-feeding scheme for schoolchildren of all races. This is a scheme which was suspended some years ago. The scheme was subsidized by his department and I believe he should consider its reintroduction because our young people in this country need this health-giving food. I am afraid that the hon. the Minister cannot ignore the nourishing qualities of milk and must consider any investment by way of subsidy as an essential investment in preventive medicine in relation to the health of our country.

A little earlier in the debate, the hon. member for Omaruru dealt with the question of red meat. He pointed out that 13% of the red meat consumed in South Africa today comes from South-West Africa and other neighbouring territories. He also pointed out that the cattle population had dropped by something in excess of 600 000 head. He then made a plea to the hon. the Minister which I can support. However, I want to ask the hon. member why I did not get his support when we were discussing the Railway Budget. When we were discussing the Railway Budget, I pointed out that the 60% increase in the tariff for the conveyance of livestock was going to amount to between R8 and R9 per head of stock. I was slightly out in my estimate because the hon. member says that it is between R7 and R8 per head from South-West Africa. I was howled down by those hon. members opposite. I got no support from them at all.

I am very glad that at last the penny has dropped and that hon. members opposite are at last beginning to realize what these tariff increases mean. In replying to a question the other day, the hon. the Minister said that the Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board had agreed to the importation of 300 tons of beef from Europe. According to the figures which the hon. the Minister gave us, this is coming through at a very, very competitive price. I do not want to urge the hon. the Minister to import meat with the purpose of reducing the domestic price in South Africa at all. I believe that a policy of importation in order to depress prices in this country would be a wrong one because we have to have a stimulus for the producer to produce. It is no good the consumer complaining about prices if the producer is not going to produce.

I believe that the hon. the Minister has done the right thing in allowing the importation of this meat. Why, however, have only 300 tons been imported? How far is that going to go towards alleviating the shortage? As far as I am concerned, he is importing for the purpose of meeting the demand which exists today and in this respect I must say to him, well done! However, why limit it to only 300 tons? Is it his intention to import more? Similarly, we are faced with the position at the moment where the supply of mutton is also not meeting the demand. This is one of the reasons why the price is so high. Let us stabilize the price with importation, importation, as I say, not to reduce the price but simply to meet the demand. I want to issue a warning, too, to the Livestock and Meat Industry Control Board through the hon. the Minister. A few years ago we had the situation where mutton was imported from New Zealand but a year after it was imported we still had it in our cold rooms. It had not been sold. [Time expired.]

Interesting things happen in this House every day. Just fancy, Sir, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South accusing other members here this afternoon of “making a noise”. I really think the hon. member will pardon me for being unable to give him any reply to a noise, because that is something I really have not yet learnt to do. [Interjections.]

Sir, time and again in the course of this debate I have heard that there are critical food shortages in the world and that we in the Republic of South Africa cannot escape this food shortage; I certainly agree wholeheartedly with this. This food shortage is the more serious if we consider that we are also experiencing a population explosion. It is therefore very logical that we may not waste food and that we should also do everything in our power to consume food judiciously. Bearing this in mind, I should like to draw attention, tonight, to a similar population explosion that is taking place among dogs. I want to maintain that the large number of dogs we have in the Republic of South Africa also creates a problem in regard to this very same question of the food produced here, and, in fact, in any other country, particularly if one bears in mind that these dogs, and the stray dogs in particular, can also cause great damage by attacking the farmers’ sheep. I believe that this is a nation-wide problem and it is for that reason that I raise it in this House this evening.

I discovered the following shocking figures relating to the breeding of dogs, in a survey made by the Animal Anti-cruelty League, beginning with one bitch. We find that such a bitch can bring into the world in one year a litter of four puppies, of which, say, two are bitches. When we come to the second year, we find that these first and second generation bitches can bring an average of 12 puppies into the world of which, say, six are bitches. If we go on to the third year, we find that these three generations of bitches can give birth to approximately 36 puppies, of which, say, 18 are bitches. If we go on to the fourth year, we find that these fourth generation bitches can bring 108 puppies into the world, of which, say, 54 are bitches. [Interjections.] If we take into account the fact that in four years’ time we therefore have a breeding figure of 108 from one original bitch, you will agree with me that we have a major problem on our hands in this regard. I have made it my business to find out about the number of dogs here in Cape Town and its vicinity. In Cape Town itself, 70 758 dogs were licensed last year.

How many Nationalists and how many United Party supporters and how many Progressives?

The hon. member will not understand, after all. Apart from those 70 758 dogs that are licensed, there were 5 200 unlicensed dogs in 1973 that were taken away from their owners, 4 500 of which were gassed. But I also contacted a few of the municipal authorities in the immediate vicinity of Cape Town, closest to Cape Town, and after contacting the sixth municipality I arrived at a figure of over 90 000 licensed dogs and over 10 000 unlicensed dogs. This means, therefore, that here in Cape Town and in six other local managements there are more than 100 000 dogs. Now will you agree with me, Sir, that this enormous dog population must create serious problems, three of which I just want to mention briefly.

In the first place they eat an enormous amount. In the light of what the hon. member said yesterday, viz. that in America we find that 25% of the tinned fish is eaten by cats, you will realize that we have a serious problem on our hands. In contrast we have a country like China where, I am told, they are saddled with a serious food shortage and a large population, but there are virtually no dogs or cats. In the second place we also find that these stray dogs create a major problem because they are starved, and in order to satisfy their hunger they cause damage, particularly in the country areas, where they visit farmers’ kraals and sometimes cause a great deal of damage by attacking the sheep. There is a third aspect, too, arising out of this, namely that this enormous number of dogs must necessarily be exposed to ill-treatment, too, owing to the fact that many uncared-for dogs do in fact lead a dog’s life. They are starved, and injured and have to bear cold and heat. Sometimes they are killed in a cruel way be poisoning or shooting. I believe that this situation is due to irresponsible owners who do not ensure that numbers are limited, and to inadequate control and supervision being exercised over the breeding of dogs, in particular, by the responsible bodies. It is in the non-White areas in particular that ill-treatment of animals occurs most often and that is where the “sheep catchers” usually come from. I am not reproaching the animal lover. In fact, to me there is nothing finer than a close friendship between the owner and his dog. But that is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with the irresponsible owner who has neither a true love of dogs nor the financial means to care for his dogs properly. I believe that this major problem is steadily gathering momentum and a solution for it must be found. In all humility I want to mention a few possible examples.

I believe that breeding must be controlled, even though this should mean that there would have to be compulsory sterilization and even though the State would have to subsidize that sterilization. [Interjections.] Steps should also be taken in regard to the number of dogs an owner may possess. I believe that the number should also be limited to prevent an owner from simply keeping as many dogs as he likes. Local regulations must also be applied more strictly.

But there are a few other bodies, too, which I want to mention. The Animal Protection Societies are very often blamed for the situation. This, I think, is unfair because the task of the Animal Protection Societies is not to control the number of dogs, but only to ensure that the dogs are not ill-treated. I have praise for the work these people do, because it is done on a voluntary basis. It is for that very reason that it sometimes occurs that the work cannot be done well because, if a person who has taken a real interest in this, leaves, we find that the work once again suffers in consequence and that many problems are experienced. They are also dependent on donations for the work they perform. I think the time is ripe for us to help these people, for example by increasing the subsidy paid to them. But I also want to maintain that the owners of the dogs must themselves be trained to take good care of their dogs. The local managements must accept responsibility, because it is the local management that receives the licence fees. In my opinion it is for them to accept responsibility and control breeding. The newly established Bantu Administration Boards can make a major contribution on the farms, and this applies to the farmers’ associations too. Mr. Chairman. I want to conclude by telling you that this problem is a wide-ranging one, and that is why I make the plea today that a vigorous investigation into this problem and, its solution be undertaken. [Time expired.]

Sir, we have the greatest appreciation for the sober approach of the hon. member for Virginia. I just want to give him the assurance that I am pleased that my children’s pets are not in the Free State.

Mr. Chairman, when, with exceptional altruism, I address a few words to my immediate predecessor this evening, hon. members should not take it amiss of me. My immediate predecessor in my constituency is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who is here in our midst this evening. Sir, history has taught us that our predecessors in the constituency of Standerton have played an exceptional role in this House. Outstanding tributes have been paid to these predecessors of ours. On a site very close to this building stands an equestrian statue of General Botha, and a little higher up in the Gardens there is a statue of General Smuts. I just want to say in passing, that if the United Party supporters are going to erect a statue like that for our Minister, he will certainly withdraw all existing subsidies. We want to convey our sincere appreciation to our Minister, his Deputy and the department’s officials for the prestige they have built into our agricultural industry. I think we can say tonight, very proudly and without any fear of contradiction—and I am convinced that the Opposition parties will agree because they have certainly never ever had a Minister like the one sitting here in our midst this evening—that those people have endowed our agriculture with such prestige that the word “farmer” arouses real pride in everyone today. If a man tells you “I am a farmer”, one immediately envies him. But Sir, this has not always been the case with our farmers in our country, and we want to thank the officials for their contribution in this regard. What we have had from them, has not just been empty lip-service. The various departments have proved this through research and the results they achieve. As far as research is concerned, we can but mention the concept of Onderstepoort. Onderstepoort is so world-famous that Americans know where Onderstepoort is, while they think of Pretoria as a little place near Onderstepoort. Sir, we have in mind, too, research at Mara where the strains of herds of cattle are improved. The Bonsmara is world-renowned; people from Rhodesia pay very large sums of money for cattle of this breed. We also have in mind the wool research at Grahamstown; the research work at Nelspruit, where the combating of greening in citrus is a world break-through. We have in mind the wheat cultivars that have been improved at an experimental site near Groblersdal; freshwater fish research in South Africa, with a view to establishing freshwater fish farming in the interior in South Africa, where carp of an improved strain are made available to farmers to supply their dams. Sir, I could mention an experiment in the colder region of the Eastern Transvaal, where the Winkelhaak Mines pump their surplus water into Leeupan and where the carp of an improved strain are fed into Leeupan. Waste food from the mine compounds is fed into the dam as feed for the fish, and every two weeks the mine management nets between one and two tons of fish—fresh, good food for their compounds—from that water. This is a resource that is standing on the threshold of exploitation and development in this country, and it is a particularly profitable source, as one finds when one reads the lectures and the research documents in that regard. Sir, I want to refer briefly to the concept very often mentioned in this House, namely that we are heading for a shortage of food for the people. When they talk about the feeding of a people, we should draw a delicate distinction between the feeding of a people and the fattening of the people. I do not believe that it has ever been the task and the purpose of our agriculture and our farmers to make a people fat, because if one makes it fat, one makes it unhealthy. There is imbalance as far as expenditure on food is concerned. Most of our people do not realize that every body has a characteristic rhythm for food consumption, and a food metabolism. In other words, what the body can us as energy and as food for cell growth it uses, but the rest it stores somewhere. Usually it stores either in front or behind. This is a delicate matter; it causes us great problems. In the end a person with incorrect eating habits turns to doctors and psychiatrists, and they do not tell him that he is fat: they tell him “You are a little overweight”.

“Your mass is too great”.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great friend, a very pleasant man, who went to consult his doctor; and his doctor gave him this very simple, childlike advice: “Man, you are not sick, but you are like a little one-ton lorry that is going to give in, that is going to burst a tyre, because at the moment it has to carry 7 tons.”

As it goes along.

Sir, I think that we should ask for publicity for good eating habits; I think that we should ask that information be distributed to our people to enable them to know how to spend so that they can feed their families correctly and give them the maximum energy so that they can be healthy in order to work. Sir, this also brings us closer to the ideal of our Department of Sport and Recreation. The more people who eat more healthily, the less they need worry about special exercise; this gives us a balance in our whole structure. We want to ask that our dietetic services receive more attention. Here I have in mind the particularly good service provided recently to hotels, hostels etc. by dieticians from our Dried Bean Control Board, with the aim of giving our people useful hints.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the short speech made by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. I regret that the hon. member is not in her seat. I found her speech not only interesting but rather depressing. In fact, her performance this afternoon in relation to agriculture was, I believe, tragic. I do not know whom the hon. member was trying to impress in this House, but she certainly did not impress anybody who has had anything to do with agriculture in South Africa. She dealt with the wages paid to farm labourers. Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the hon. member does not understand the formula used by farmers and how they go about deciding what wages to pay their labourers. I know of only one other speech she has ever made in this House on agriculture since I have been here. Today’s speech was the second. As I have said, her performance was tragic. The farmers usually work on the advice and the guidance of the Farmers’ Associations and on the advice of their particular local labour bureaux. If the farmer is paying wages below the average, he very soon finds himself without any labourers at all. I wonder whether the hon. member for Houghton knows what farmers are paying shearers today to shear their sheep. I wonder whether she knows how much they are being paid and how they are being fed. I wonder whether she knows that they get one slaughter sheep out of every thousand as well. I do not think the hon. member has the foggiest idea of what is going on in agriculture today. I want to mention, as an agriculturist myself, that upon numerous occasions, when I have wanted to dismiss labourers, they have refused to go. I wonder whether the hon. member for Houghton has ever dismissed a garden boy or a domestic servant only to find that the servants have refused to go. We on the farms find this happening. Often, when we dismiss labourers for various reasons, they simply say: “Baas, jy kan maar nou sê wat jy wil en jy kan doen wat jy wil, maar ek gaan nie weg nie. Ek bly hierso.” In fact, one labourer said: “Baas, jy kan my liewer doodskiet, maar weg gaan ek nie.” It surprises me that the hon. member for Houghton should stand up here today and accuse agriculturists not of ill-treating, but of underpaying their farm labourers. She went on to say, and I quote from her Hansard:

I agree with that statement. On the other hand, however, the Black people in the rural areas have been on the increase. To my knowledge—and I attend many Farmers’ Association meetings,—and I have even attended farmers’ congresses—our Black people on the platteland are a very happy people, very happy indeed. As I have said, just try and chase them off a farm for any reason and see if they will go. There are also many fringe benefits which they receive.

Paradise!

I have no more time for quotations, but I have here my own labour pay sheet. When one sees what they receive in fringe benefits, one realizes that they are well paid. In fact, I am not ashamed to show these figures to anybody in South Africa, and that goes for the hon. member for Houghton as well. She evidently came along here today to discuss something which she does not understand. I agree with her; it is correct that recently the local labour bureau has enforced the registration of all farm labourers. Here I have a copy which I received. I received a copy for each farm labourer. Today a farm labourer who is registered as an agricultural labourer must remain in agriculture, but I have not heard any of those labourers complain about it. In fact, before this regulation was enforced, I found that some of the Black people from the villages moved back to the farms because they believe that they are well treated on the farms. Then one must consider the fringe benefits, such as fresh meat, which they receive regularly, fresh milk and vegetables, etc. If they want to plough their own little pieces of land, who but the farmer supplies the machinery and the fuel to do that? The farmer is only too pleased to do it. All this is done in the farmer’s time and not on Sundays or Saturdays when they have the day off. I believe that the hon. member for Houghton should acquaint herself better as to the conditions on South African farms before she comes and shoots her neck off in this hon. House. I do not know whom she was trying to impress; I really do not know, but she is not going to impress the farm labourer at all.

I want to go on to another matter which I believe warrants discussion in this House. I should like the hon. the Minister to listen to this. Two years ago the Government imported mutton and unfortunately we had to keep it in deep-freeze for some 12 months. This mutton was marketed for only 10 cents less than fresh mutton was marketed for in this country. The problem was that the consumer of mutton did not want to buy this frozen mutton for only 10 cents less than what they could pay for fresh mutton. The difference was too small. We shall be importing beef very soon, but before doing so we shall have to see to it—and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to bear this in mind—that the difference in price between the frozen beef and fresh beef will have to be greater, otherwise we shall not be able to sell it. In the end we shall find ourselves saddled, as was the case with the mutton, with so much beef that we shall have to give it away or sell it at a loss in order to dispose of it.

I want to come to another item which I mentioned yesterday but which I could not elaborate on because my time expired. I refer to loans from the Land Bank. As hon. members know, at present most applications are granted by the Land Bank for loans which are payable over a period of 20 years or less. I think that the Land Bank must reconsider this. In the past the farmers received bonds for up to 30 and 35 years. Now these loans are being cut down and in almost every instance the loans are being cut down to a maximum redemption period of 20 years. We find that the redemption payments, together with the interest, and the insurance, are very high. The farmers, particularly the young farmers, find it almost impossible to pay off their bonds within 20 years. This is not only applicable to the established farmers, but is is also applicable to young farmers who are starting in agriculture today. They can only get a bond with a redemption period of 20 years, if they are lucky, because sometimes the period is even shorter. We appreciate that the Land Bank is doing a tremendous amount to encourage our young men to remain on the farms. We also appreciate what the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are doing with their short-term loans of 5%, but I should like the hon. the Minister and the department to bear in mind the possibility of increasing the period for the redemption of the loan to more than 20 years, as is the case generally today.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must excuse me if I do not follow the thread of his argument in the limited time at my disposal. I should like to refer to unimproved State properties in municipal areas. It is generally known that the State—and when I say that I include the provincial administrations—possess a great many properties in the country’s municipal areas. I think the problem I want to raise affects virtually every city council or municipal area in the country. These properties belonging to the State are for the most part acquired by way of donation where new residential areas are established. In some cases the properties were probably bought by the State. It happens, too that some of that State-owned land sometimes lies vacant for years before being used for some purpose by the State. For the purpose of my argument, I should like to use Boksburg as an example. At the moment, 75 pieces of unimproved State land fall within the municipal boundaries of Boksburg. Of those 75 pieces of land, there are 22 that have been vacant for 85 years. I can also mention that nine of them have been vacant for 60 years and another nine for 51 years. It is also of interest to know that of these 75 pieces of land in Boksburg, 13 of them comprise only 2 500 square feet and 11 of them, 5 000 square feet. They are therefore very small pieces of land which could really serve no useful purpose to the State, whatever use it might have in mind for them. The total valuation of that land, according to the latest valuation, amounts to R191 000, involving a loss in rates for the City Council of Boksburg amounting to R9 500 per annum.

I know that it is the procedure that when a local authority requires that State-owned land, the land in question is first offered to each Government department and to the provincial administration. If not one of them requires it, it is offered to the local authority, expropriated at market value and then they may use it for the purpose for which they require it. I want to say at once that I am not in favour of the State disposing of all the land it possesses, for at one time or another it may require it again. In the light of what I have already said, namely that there is land that has been lying unused for more than 80 years and is so small in extent that it will never be required by the State or by the local authority, I want to ask whether a survey of unimproved State properties in municipal areas could not possibly be made at some time or another. Where it is found that the land in question is not required by Government departments or local authorities, I should like to suggest that that land be made available to the public, either by public auction or by way of tender. I ask this because it is only with difficulty that these pieces of land in the towns are kept free of the weeds that grow there. In many cases those pieces of land serve as nothing but dumping grounds for rubbish. This spoils residential areas. What is more, that land can also serve as a source of income for our city councils. [Interjection.] As the hon. member said, those pieces of land usually serve as the hiding and sleeping places of loafers.

Then I should like to touch on another minor subject. It is in regard to meat. A great deal has been said here about the consumption and marketing of red meat. I can give you the assurance, Sir, that I am probably one of the biggest consumers of red meat in this House. I should therefore like to bring a certain matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister in this regard. Let me say at the outset that I think that we should accept that the price of meat will never again be what it was in the past. I think we should accept that the era of cheap meat is gone forever. I want to say at once that I am in favour of the producer getting a paying price for his product. It is right that this should be so. I think that most consumers also accept that the producer should command a reasonable price and that the prices should not go back to what they were before.

Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned for dinner, I said that we should accept that meat prices will not go back to what they were. I think the consumer has accepted this too. But now I want to add that in view of prevailing prices, if one buys meat or goes to eat somewhere one certainly expects value for one’s money. It is in this very sphere that the most flagrant exploitation of the public is taking place. I want to give you a few examples. Hon. members have probably all had a similar experience. One goes to a restaurant or to some eating place and orders rump steak, but I wonder how many people really get rump steak. Sometimes it seems to me as if they have simply cut the meat off the shin. As long as there is no bone with the meat, it is put before you as rump-steak, and one just has to be satisfied with it. After all, these days it has become the fashion for the chain stores to sell meat as well. It is there that the greatest amount of swindling takes place with this so-called “packing” of theirs. Packets of meat lie ready to be selected by the housewife. I have seen this happen innumerable times. The contents of certain packets is slated to be loin chops. The top few pieces really look as if they are, too; but just scratch around at the bottom of that pack and see what you find there. It will be anything but loin chops. I want to give an example. The week before last, my wife was at one of these small chain stores. The packet was labelled “Leg of pork”. It was very neatly packed. It looked wonderful, too. When she got home, however, she found a piece of chop attached to the leg of pork. Where that pig was bred, I really don’t know.

One of our Afrikaans newspapers made a random test of sausage. After all, it has become the fashion these days for every thing to be boerewors. The contents of those concoctions was then ascertained. I do not want to bore you with them. I shall just mention the best example to you. Say for example that we were to make sausage out of this Opposition. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the Old Guard would be used for the meat. It would be rather poor quality, of course. The Young Turks would be added as fat, for the rancidity.

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

Sir, I am giving you an illustration here of sausage recipes that are dished up to you. I shall make it short. They use the H.N.P. as spices, to taste. Everything is then stuffed into a Progressive gut and the English Press is the sausage machine. [Interjections.] I am very serious about this matter. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Marketing Board could not perhaps keep an eye on practices of this kind. There ought to be a degree of control at the restaurants or at other eating places where one can order meat. I would not say that a check should be made everywhere, but I do think that by making random tests here and there, the public could perhaps get better value for their money. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I understand that when Daniel was helped out of the lion’s den, they asked him what he had done to prevent the lions from devouring him, to which he replied, “I told them they could have me, but that when they had finished eating, they would have to make a speech.” I now find myself in the same invidious position, namely that I have just finished eating and now have to make a speech.

After we have had difficulty in chewing the sausage made for us by the hon. member for Boksburg, I should now like to proceed to refer briefly in this debate on agriculture, which really seems to be more of an agricultural congress, to a few things hon. members have already delivered themselves of here. I do not want to refer to a member of the Opposition, but it really grieves me that I have to refer to one of the hon. members on this side of the House. However, I cannot allow this to pass, because I am afraid the hon. the Minister himself will not refer to it. I want to refer to the hon. member for Somerset East who has now linked red wine with hangovers. These two things do not belong together at ail. For the sake of the record I just want to set this matter straight. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that housewives did not have a good year last years. However, the farmers really are not to blame for this. Nor do I think the Department of Agriculture or the hon. the Minister is to blame for it. When one talks about agriculture, one talks about the most important industry there is. Should one have listened to the speeches made here today and yesterday, one could most definitely have gained the impression that we were dealing here with an industry which is absolutely of the greatest importance because it produces what is of primary importance to man’s continued existence, namely food. We are dealing with an industry with a special character and with special problems. I know of no country in the world—if there is one I should be pleased if someone would correct me—where the agricultural industry stands on its own legs, independent of the state. But I am also unaware of any country in the world where the agricultural industry has been fully nationalized successfully. I believe that we in this country, under National Party regime, under the regime of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, have succeeded in laying down a policy which is an excellent compromise between free competition and freedom in practising this industry on the one hand and state interference in the industry on the other hand. It is good that this is so, because this industry is important for the continued existence of our people and our country. It is an industry which is practised by people who do it out of love for the industry and by people who place a very high premium on the way of life of the farmer. They are people who are prepared to forfeit income for the sake of the population of the country. It is an industry which has dose ties with nature and which is dependent on circumstances in nature. The result is that we have to deal with the surpluses and shortages in this industry. As a matter of faco, Joseph had them back in the time of Pharaoh. I just do not know who built the silos at the time. The person who does not want to face these fluctuations in the industry, should not be in the industry, because it is primary to this industry that we sometimes have to cope with surpluses and sometimes with short-ages. We have to deal with perishable produce which is difficult to store, as well as with demand and supply, which is a difficult matter to regulate. It is an extremely difficult matter to regulate the demand and supply in this industry to the satisfaction of everybody. For many years already an ideal solution to the problems of the agricultural industry, and more specifically to the marketing and financing problems of this industry, is being sought in many countries of the world. All over the world the agricultural industry has from the earliest times been exploited by profit-seeking capitalistic undertakings because of its weak bargaining position. As a reaction against this exploitation, the co-operative movement came into being. In my view the co-operative movement has made a greater contribution to the upliftment of the farming community than has anything else. Every farmer sitting here can take stock of his own position and see how important his local co-operative is in his area. As a result of this individual farmers were capable of better farming methods, greater productivity and a better distribution of available food supplies throughout the world. Especially in the present juncture this distribution of food supplies is of cardinal importance to us. The potential of this form of enterprise was appreciated by the state, and in all Western countries in which a free capitalistic system obtains co-operatives are accepted also protected by the State. They are accepted by the state because a responsible government proceeds on the view, firstly, that a strong component of one’s population must remain in the rural areas and, secondly, that this component in the rural areas is also entitled to make a living income from their industry. The co-operative is that one body which assists in making this possible. Because co-operatives are part of the agricultural industry, they are entitled to the protection of the Government. The problems of the farmer are the problems of the co-operative, because, as I am saying, it is an extension of the industry. If an agricultural co-operative negotiates a loan to supply its members with working capital, and the crop fails—and sometimes it does fail; it failed back in the time of Joseph—what happens then? Then, in the first place, the co-operative is responsible for the burden it incurred for the sake of its members. It is responsible for the repayment of the borrowed money. I believe that the value of a co-operative society can no longer be called into question. Its value has been proved over and over again, locally and also abroad. We are aware that complaints are often heard about the place taken by the agricultural co-operatives in our national economy. The argument is advanced that through the establishment of boards of control in terms of the Marketing Act, the co-operative has now lost its marketing function to a large extent, that it has disappeared because it has lost its function of price determination in many cases, I want to make it very clear that apart from the marketing aspect, there are still numerous functions that are being fulfilled by the co-operatives. It acts as the agent of the board of control; it has to provide for the storage and handling of one’s products. It has numerous other important functions, inter alia, the provision of requirements for the industry at reasonable prices in order that the industry may produce at reasonable prices. There are extension services that are being provided and, what is also very important, there are short term financing services that are being provided. This can only happen if there is no overlapping of co-operative services. We want to ask the hon. the Minister very courteously to see to it that there is no overlapping of co-operatives as this only pushes up costs. But, in the second place, Sir, if the co-operative cannot obtain inexpensive funds, it cannot cope with this short-term financing; then it cannot finance its members. Sir, the co-operative has to do this over a very wide field. If we should withdraw our assistance to co-operatives today, I believe that many of our farmers would be in trouble.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Malmesbury, who has just resumed his seat, complained at the start of his speech that he had just eaten and had to make a speech so soon after his dinner. I want to tell him that he made a very fine after-dinner speech, and he actually did so without burring. This is something exceptional coming from the Malmesbury district. Sir, just as the hon. member for Malmesbury did, I also want to enlarge a little on what was said here by previous speakers, before I come to the crux of the matter. The first member I want to refer to is the hon. member for Fauresmith; I am glad that he is here. He made a wonderful plea here in respect of the extermination of gnats (muggies) in his constituency. I am only sorry that he did not make that speech in English, for a “muggie” is a “gnat” in English, and it would most decidedly have affected his majority in his constituency if he had spoken about exterminating the “Nats” in his constituency.

Next I come to the hon. member for Standerton, who said that the people should get used to eating less; that our goal is to feed the people, not to fatten them. I liked his story about the one-ton truck which had to carry a seven-ton load. We on this side of the House are in complete agreement with him, for the South African is inclined to over-eat and our restaurants are inclined to provide too much food at too high a price. This evening I want to appeal to restaurants to provide a little less food at a slightly lower price so that these things may be distributed more evenly among the people of South Africa. The days of the doggy-bag are over; we have to feed our people; we should not order an enormous steak, only eat a quarter of it and then ask for a doggy-bag so as to take the rest home for the dog; those days are over, and I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Standerton.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of what I said here earlier today, I want to ask the Minister very courteously to convey this story to his colleague the hon. the Minister of National Education, for the point at issue here is university training at Rhodes University. Sir, in my maiden speech in this House I pleaded for a second faculty of veterinary science in the Eastern Province. I do not want to repeat that speech here tonight; it was a very fine speech, and I am sure there are many hon. members on that side of the House who agree with me in this regard. The present shortage of veterinary surgeons in South Africa makes it imperative that we open a second faculty, and I am asking the hon. the Minister very courteously to convey this request to his colleague and to give it his full support. Sir, then there is another matter in respect of which I think we require the support of Agriculture at Rhodes University. In this regard I should just like to quote from the newsletter of the Rhodes Development Programme of 1 May 1974—

†Sir, this is a course in agricultural economics, and in charge of that course is a gentleman who was trained by the Department of Agricultural Economics, Mr. Geoffrey Antrobus, a young man, a Young Turk, in agriculture who is now an academic. He has developed this course and I think it is something that needs watching and that we should develop much further. In the first year the course includes sections on agricultural production economics, farm business management and the marketing of agricultural products. In the second year the course is divided into three papers embracing the economics of agricultural production and resource use, agricultural price analysis and problems in agricultural development.

*Now, Sir, I believe that all of these are important matters in the development of agriculture in South Africa. On a previous occasion I said in this House that a man could receive technical training in the sphere of agriculture. If he does not have business acumen and if he does not have the ability to manage his business affairs, he could be trained technically right up to doctorate level and still be an uneconomic unit on the best farm in South Africa. I ask the hon. the Minister tonight to convey to his colleague the Minister of Education the message in connection with this new development at that university, and to tell him to support this thing for he has the full support of the agriculturists. This type of training is very necessary not only among the members of our farming community, but also among those who advise or those who have dealings with our farming community. An acquaintance with the farming community is very necessary in South Africa. We had proof of this here this afternoon when the hon. member for Houghton made such a fine speech about something she knew very little about. Had she perhaps completed a course of this nature, the hon. member might have known far more about it. I am asking the hon. the Minister to give his full support to this development at the university. In the few minutes I have left, I want to raise something which I believe is of great importance to farming in South Africa, i.e. the fact that the stud-breeder in South Africa is not compelled today to have his herd tested for tuberculosis. I think this is something which should receive the hon. the Minister’s attention, for we who are dairy farmers on the commercial side of the agricultural industry are in many cases compelled to have our herds tested. We are not permitted to bring untested animals to our farms. This causes major problems for the farmer who wants to diversify, who wants to go in for red meat or sheep-breeding on a smallish scale. This means quarantine camps, and it also means that those cattle or sheep have to be tested before they can be brought to the farm, for tuberculosis is a terrible thing which could infect human beings too. It is interesting to note that, whereas testing is for the most part carried out on the herds of dairy farmers, it is not done to the same extent on animals bred for meat purposes. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister of Health is here too. He, too, could give this some consideration. This is the position. I had a case in my constituency where a dairy farmer wanted to buy a beef bull and in fact did so. I do not want to mention names here, even though I am speaking under privilege, for I do not want to prejudice the interests of any fellow-farmer. He bought it from a well-known stud-breeder, and because his herds had been tested, he also had that bull tested. The bull was found to have tuberculosis, and when he went back to the breeder …

Was it a “Botterbul”?

It was a beef-bull, like you. He could not recover any of his money, for the breeder said he had sold the bull at buyer’s risk; he had not been aware of the fact that it had tuberculosis. I think it is high time this was taken up by the department and something was done either by regulation, co-operation or legislation so that the breeders of stud-bulls will be compelled to test their herds for tuberculosis. Sir, I see my time has almost expired, and I know the Minister wants to reply. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to talk about meat production and livestock, but before I come to that there are two matters I just want to mention briefly because I think they are important to the farming industry in South Africa. All of us are aware of the oppressive shortage of fertilizer, and I should like to make a request to the hon. the Minister to actively promote the petrochemical industry of which nitrogen is one of the important by-products, so that, as far as our fertilizer industry is concerned, we may become independent.

There is another aspect I just want to mention briefly. With the present needs of organized agriculture, it is becoming more and more important for the farmer to gear himself to more systematic and better production. To make this possible, electricity is one of the most important factors for him. Because farms are situated quite far apart, it is an enormous capital expenditure for a farmer to get Escom power on his farm. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot have an inquiry instituted into some system or other, possibly one which includes the subsidizing of fees for electric standards, to assist farmers in getting Escom power on their farms thereby bringing about more efficient production.

I now come to the livestock industry. I just want to mention a few interesting statistics at the start. In connection with the European Common Market I read the other day that the average size of a farm in the United Kingdom was 57 ha. In France, Luxemburg and Denmark the average size is 21 ha, in the Netherlands and Belgium 11 to 15 ha, in Ireland 17,5 ha, but in Italy only 7,5% ha. The average sizes of the farms have a connection with the high population figure of Europe, which has simply forced people to work more intensively. They are also able to do this because they have a different type of climate there. It is interesting to note that the average size of a farm in South Africa is 970 ha as against Britain’s 57 ha. In 1930 there were 97 000 farms in South Africa with a total size of 83 million ha. In 1971 the number of farms decreased to 90 422, a decrease of about 7 000 farms, but the area had increased from 83 million ha to 89 million ha. Of that 89 million ha there is 11,6 million ha which is being cultivated and 1 million ha which is under irrigation. Therefore, it is necessary in my view that, in view of the population growth and the need in South Africa to provide more food for South Africa and Africa, we should progressively move in the direction of intensive farming. One of the important levels on which we shall have to improve our production substantially is that of meat production. The live stock of South Africa has since the thirties remained unchanged at about 11½ million head of cattle, of which about 8½ million are in White South Africa. Five years ago the White farmers’ live stock decreased to 6,7 million, but fortunately it has once again improved considerably during the past three years. This especially is apparent from the fact that breeding cattle for meat production increased by 33% over the past five years, i.e. from 2,7 million to 3,6 million. This is an encouraging sign. In my view it will become increasingly necessary for us to give attention to increasing our meat production here in South Africa.

According to figures I see that between 33% and 35% of America’s total live stock is slaughtered annually. If these figures are analysed, we find that the stock is slaughtered at an average age of three years. An average percentage slaughtered annually is between 16% and 20%. This means, in turn, our stock is slaughtered at an average age of 4½ to 5½ years. This means, in turn, that our turnover takes so much longer to be realized. If we should give attention to those areas in South Africa where this is possible, namely in the high rainfall areas in the east coast region, which has an annual rainfall of more than 500 mm and constitutes a third of the area which is suitable for meat production, we should also give attention to the improvement of grazing and of the calving percentage, which is between 50% and 60% at the moment as against an ideal of 90%. If we could also give attention to increasing the weight at the weaning age, which can be done at the age of about six or seven months, and if we could, furthermore, give attention to the weight of livestock, especially of heifers or of breeding stock, being sufficient at that age, it would be possible to have the heifers covered by the bull at an average age of 15 to 17 months. At the moment this age is more or less three years.

In my view these are aspects to which scientific attention should be given, especially in those areas where this is possible. In that way we shall be able to speed up our turnover and bring about much better production of slaughter-stock. The prosperity of the farmer will also be substantially increased in that way. It is essential that attention be given to these aspects as well as to the improvement of feeding methods. For the improvement of feeding methods, better fertilizer application is necessary to improve field grazing, planted grazing and artificial feeding. I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister to give attention to encouraging farmers to a greater extent to improve their production systematically in this connection. Connected with this it is obviously necessary for farmers to keep better records and books in order that they may evaluate the data. It is no use simply not farming on a day to day basis. It should be possible to evaluate things in order that they may know exactly when something is a paying concern and when it is no longer so. In this way it will then be possible for them to curtail the unremunerative part of their farming operations and to expand the remunerative part. I am aware that in this regard considerable progress has been made in certain areas, but I nevertheless want to make an appeal that our extension officers should do a great deal more. We can only benefit by it.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I am rising to bring a few small matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. If hon. members on the other side of the House are acting a bit strange, it can only be because there apparently is some problem on their side of the House. It seems to me as though the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was not sure whether the sick bull the hon. member for Albany spoke of was a “Botterbul”.

It is without any hesitation whatsoever that I convey the sincere appreciation of the voters of Waterberg to the hon. the Minister for his approach ability and helpfulness. He is one of those persons who is always at the disposal of people who are in a fix or want to bring some need to his attention. It does not always happen that he says “yes” to a request, but he says “no” in such a civilized and sympathetic way that it almost sounds like “yes”.

Secondly I want to appeal to him not to forget to have a look at the prices of agricultural products and especially at the prices of meat. Waterberg is largely a cattle-farming area and, at the same time, it is an area which is harassed by many plagues and many adverse conditions. Therefore, this area would welcome all the assistance possible in connection with cattle-farming and the production of meat. They are people who have to contend with chronic droughts, and with diseases such as foot and mouth disease. In addition to that, we have the ordinary production costs, the rise in the wages of labourers, and marketing costs. All these things have to be taken into consideration. We therefore want to ask the Minister to give this his thorough attention and to try and determine the best possible prices for our cattle farmers.

The third matter I want to refer to, is the question of financial assistance to our farming community. Over and above the commercial banks, we have two bodies in particular which are involved in this, i.e. the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board. We who have to assist farmers who appeal to these bodies for assistance, sometimes have the problem that one is virtually sent from pillar to post and that one sometimes has to have a keen eye for a gap to arrive at a body which is in fact the right body to offer assistance to a farmer falling in a certain category. We know the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure assists certain categories of farmers only, but I nevertheless wondered whether there is not some way of effecting better and closer co-ordination between these two bodies, although I know that they cannot be regarded as being on the same level. I nevertheless wonder whether one cannot obtain better co-ordination in the assistance rendered by these two bodies so as to obviate one being sent from pillar to post and one having to work out in such minute details where one fits in and at which one of the bodies one is going to obtain assistance.

Finally, there is one small point I want to mention. We are aware of the fact that there is a major shortage of veterinary surgeons. In the Waterberg constituency, in the Ellisras area, which is a major meat-producing region, there is a need for a veterinary surgeon. We realize that veterinary surgeons are scarce, but we should nevertheless like to ask the Minister to see whether provision cannot be made in the foreseeable future for appointing a state veterinary surgeon to the district of Ellisras. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the hon. the Minister for the sympathetic hearing he has given me.

Mr. Chairman, we have now had two days’ debate on the three agriculture departments, and I do not intend to repeat the main points raised by this side of the House, because I think hon. members have taken note of them. I do, however, want to make use of this opportunity to tell the hon. the Minister that we welcome the fact that he has decided that an agricultural planning board is to be established. This is a matter which we on this side of the House have been advocating for a number of years, but without much success. Under the hon. Minister’s predecessor, Mr. Dirkie Uys, in particular, we often had a great deal of difficulty in bringing this idea home to him. For a time the hon. the Minister himself was not well-disposed to this idea either. We are pleased to see, however, that the hon. the Minister has now decided that such an agricultural planning board can in fact be established.

Hon. members on both sides of the House were amazed that we were able to conduct this debate in such a good spirit.

What about Helen?

I am still going to deal with the hon. member for Houghton. I want to say at once to the hon. the Minister that the good spirit that has prevailed, owed its existence to the fact that he, his Deputy Minister, and members of his agricultural group were prepared to listen to this side of the House when our group came up with a good point in the interests of agriculture. If the hon. member, his deputy and his group are prepared to listen to us from time to time—they need not accept everything we say on this side of the House—but when something is proposed by us that is in the interests of agriculture, and they accept it, you will find that we on this side of the House will give them full co-operation and support. We have made this promise before. It is for this reason that we are making progress, and not talking past each other in this kind of debate. I believe, too, that we have come to a stage at which not only we, but the whole world, has become aware of what I called “the possible food crisis”, which we and the world are going to face as a result of the population explosion. The more urgent a problem becomes, the easier it is for hon. members on that side of the House and we on this side of the House to find one another. I believe that in the course of time we shall possibly be able to reach that situation at which we shall be able to speak to each other and not past each other, not only in the sphere of agriculture, but in other aspects of South African politics as well.

I want to refer to what the hon. the Minister said about his planned agricultural planning board. The hon. gentleman told us who would be appointed to this board, and we accept that as such. Now, however, I want to address a further request to the hon. the Minister. His agricultural adviser is now retiring. I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said and also address a word of thanks to Dr. Faan du Plessis for the fine work he has done. After the hon. the Minister has constituted this planning board of his, he must give the board the opportunity of finding its own way in due course. If possible, we should introduce legislation to this House at one stage or another to discuss the composition of this planning board and decide on its functions. We see this board very clearly as a body that will not take over the various departments of Agriculture, but in fact, a body that will coordinate properly the functions of all these departments. Perhaps in the course of time we could even give them an agricultural financing division. I just want to conclude this point by saying that we are prepared to give such a body a chance. I hope, however, that in the course of time we shall have legislation before the House to enable us to discuss this matter thoroughly.

During the debate a few gentlemen also raised the point that we have raised before, namely the question whether food subsidies are essential or not. The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Heilbron are thinking in terms of the possibility that we should rather give the farmer a decent price than consider granting food subsidies. I do not believe that there is an alternative to food subsidies. I think that we should also realize that there are millions of people in South Africa who will not be in a position to afford essential and basic foodstuffs if production costs continue to rise and the farmers were to get a decent price for their product. It is for this reason that we believe that food subsidies are the answer as far as keeping the price stable for all sections of the population concerned, and at the same time ensuring that the farmer gets a decent price for his product.

This has been a good debate, but it is a pity that the hon. member for Houghton should have introduced a false note into this debate. I am pleased that the hon. member is here to hear what we have to say. She said, inter alia, that “Black people on White farms have apparently never been anybody’s concern.”

†If the hon. member for Houghton had been here when the debate was introduced she would have heard that we on this side of the House are indeed very much concerned with the housing, salary and wage position of non-White workers on our farms. The hon. member also made certain illogical statements here. She said: “I am not concerned about the depopulation of the platteland as far as White people are concerned.” At the same time she said: “You must keep the Black people on the platteland.”

I never said that.

Of course the hon. member said that. She said that she was not in favour of allowing Black people to move from rural areas to the cities, because it would add to our difficulties in regard to housing and things like that.

I said nothing of the kind. It is a complete distortion.

I am therefore entitled to ask the hon. member for Houghton, if she is prepared to see that White people leave the platteland, but that Black people must stay, who will be prepared to provide for those people?

*Who are the people who are still providing for them on the platteland? The hon. member is in the habit of making herself out to be the biggest liberal in South Africa, but the trouble with the hon. member for Houghton is that she is a person with the greatest degree of prejudice in South Africa. When she knows nothing about a subject, she employs this kind of tactic, viz. of making a pretence of championing the non-White on the platteland. If there is one group among our population that is concerned about the situation of our non-White labourers on our farms it is our farmers, because they are the people who live closest to these people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since yesterday I have listened to 52 speeches of which only one—and the hon. member for Newton Park was quite right in this respect—was negative. This was very encouraging, and I shall try to reply as quickly as I can to the questions which were put to me.

The hon. member for King William’s Town referred yesterday evening to the problem which he had in obtaining an interest subsidy from a commercial bank on an overdraft or on a mortgage. This 2½% interest subsidy from the commercial bank, apart from all the other institutions from which he is able to obtain this, applies to a mortgage which is used to purchase a piece of land. However, if the commercial bank has a mortgage on a farm and this mortgage is incorporated in an open account, one cannot obtain the interest subsidy. I think it is in this respect that the hon. member does not understand the matter correctly. If this were not the case it would be possible to purchase a beach cottage with that mortgage, and we do not see our way clear to subsidizing anything of that nature. The other matter which the hon. member referred to, was that he could not use the Land Bank valuation on land when he allows his child to inherit. However, the Land Bank valuation may be used when someone sells a farm to his child. The transfer duties are then determined on the basis of a sworn valuation. When a farm is sold to a child at a very low price, the person doing so may, on the other hand, be liable to donations tax. Therefore this matter is more complicated than the hon. member is perhaps aware. I think the hon. member could bring the specific case to my personal attention so that I could look into it.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that the growth in agriculture was a counter to inflation. That is quite correct, and that is why we should so much like to have growth in agriculture. A subsidy of 8% on the gross value of agricultural produce is a figure to which the hon. member for Newton Park also referred. I should like to deal with this matter of a subsidy. The hon. member for King William’s Town asked why we were not subsidizing more foodstuffs. Let us take the case of maize. Suppose we were to subsidize the price of maize, for which the consumer is at present paying R47 per ton and the farmer is receiving R50 per ton. Suppose we then wish to increase the price next year, but keep the consumer price at R47 per ton. But a person could purchase maize and deliver it to the co-operative, for it is being subsidized, and he could make a profit of R10 per ton. It is therefore an impossible situation. We have tried this scheme before. One cannot have a wider margin than the transportation costs are going to be. It is easy to say that a subsidy should be paid, but to implement it so that it will work through as he wants it to work through, is a very difficult matter. We shall go into this matter. I should very much like the food prices to be low, and I also want the farmer to receive a good price for his produce, but I cannot simply come along here and say that I am in favour of subsidies. I have already stated on a previous occasion that the man with the key to the safe, is sitting in front of me here. It is not I who have it. The ideal situation, of course, would be for the Minister of Agriculture to be Minister of Finance as well!

†The hon. member for Albany raised the question of the R250 000 which was offered by the Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board to Rhodes University for the purpose of tick research. We just felt that we could not allow one board to give a quarter of a million rand to one institution for research purposes. We are sympathetic in this regard and I want to tell the hon. member that as the Secretary, Dr. Verbeek, said, the hon. member can have discussions with him on this matter. We want this research to go on and perhaps we can do this through our department. The Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board operates throughout South Africa and South West Africa and we could receive requests for financial assistance from universities throughout the country if we create a precedent of this nature.

*The hon. member for Vryheid referred to co-operative home industries. I want to tell the hon. member that it is not all that easy to create co-operative organizations for the women who go in for home-baking, for example. I am in favour of this. However, we must bear in mind that there are registered confectioners who have obtained their licences from the Wheat Board. They would then say that the housewives were depriving them of business. The hon. member also referred to the matter of licensing in regard to free-range chickens. The housewife could simply, without going to much trouble, telephone the meat hygiene division of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and we shall give her the necessary information. It must simply be a clean place, with running water laid on, and the slaughter room should have a screen door. The place should simply be neat and clean. Then she can slaughter as many chickens as the likes. As long as it is done hygienically.

The hon. member for Somerset East said: Citrus for fitness. I am in full agreement with the hon. member. I know a person who ate an orange before meal every day for seven years, and who never had a cold in all that time. This is a message which we should disseminate in season and out, to keep our people healthy.

The hon. member for Benoni requested that we preserve our resources. He was quite correct. On the other hand, he said that we should retain the stock withdrawal scheme. That, as hon. members know, will cost us between R60 and R80 million. The hon. member said that as a result of the stock withdrawal scheme, there were people who have four lambing seasons in two years. However, we cannot continue with this scheme. It is not that we are unsympathetic either. I said yesterday evening that we would not for one moment allow our soil to deteriorate. We have spent a fortune on saving our soil, and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will therefore go out of its way to ensure that the soil is not destroyed.

The hon. member for Meyerton made a very good point. He said that the homelands would have to make their contribution in the production of foodstuffs. This is definitely the case. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his departments are making the Bantu more agriculturally active, and affording them the opportunity of undertaking their own production. The exchange programme in regard to the Bantu is a matter to which we could give attention.

The hon. member for Kuruman said that we should utilize State-owned land for the creation of economic units. The hon. member is aware that it is our policy, when State-owned land becomes available to consolidate adjoining units if this is practicable, but we cannot declare this to be an accepted policy, for one cannot always implement the policy in the same way in different places. But it is in fact our intention to eliminate uneconomic units, and we are in fact trying, under those circumstances, to consult the persons concerned.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton is not here at the moment.

She is on her way back.

In the meantime, I just want to tell the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that what he said here was really a great encouragement to me. He told us how the farmers were really treating their non-White workers, and how a non-White worker had said to him: “We must thank the mudimo”. Sir, I still remember what was said last year to a farmer by a Bantu worker of his, when the potatoes on his farm were making a wonderful show of pink flowers; as they were driving past, the Bantu said to him: “Our farm is really lovely this year”. Sir, that is the feeling which exists between a farmer and his worker.

†Sir, the hon. member for Houghton started by saying that the right thing was that the uneconomic farmer must leave the platteland. She is always talking about humanity. Can’t she show a little bit of humanity towards the White farmer, too? She does not care two pence for the uneconomic farmer who is struggling under adverse conditions. Sir, I have been a member of Parliament for eight years and not once during these eight years has the hon. member for Houghton got up and said: “I plead with this Government to pay the farmers an economic price for their produce to enable them to pay their labourers higher wages”. Sir, you have got to do both these things. Our farmers are prepared to pay their Native workers at least R3 a day; I know what their attitude is, but they cannot always afford it. Does that hon. member help us when we fix prices, or does she criticize us when we increase the price to the primary producer? The hon. member will never say: “Let us help the White farmer to get a fair profit to enable him to pay higher wages to his workers.” The hon. member says that the farm workers receive R7-20 in cash and kind and she asked me why I did not do what the agricultural unions were asking for. Sir, next week the South African Agricultural Union will be in session in Cape Town and I will be attending that meeting. I am going to give them a copy of the hon. member’s speech, in which she said that the agricultural unions were asking me to increase wages by 25%.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I wrote down everything that the hon. member said.

I was quoting the Natal Agricultural Union’s views, not my view.

I think the hon. members for Newton Park and Schweizer-Reneke replied very effectively to the hon. member.

You are all wrong.

Sir, the hon. member cannot hear what I am saying because she keeps on talking.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia said that the Constantia Wine Farm was a showpiece. We thank him for that. Sir, the Constantia wine took the prizes on the shows in Germany and in France; they are amongst the most popular wines in the world. As the hon. member correctly said, Napoleon wrote about the Constantia wines. Sir, what I am about to say now will also answer the question raised by the hon. member for Gardens: During the next session of Parliament, in January or February, we are going to introduce a completely new Act to enable Constantia, under a separate Act, to do exactly what the hon. member for Gardens and the hon. member for Constantia asked for, and that is to make Constantia a show-piece in the sense that overseas visitors will be enabled to buy half a bottle or a little carton specially packed for them. I know that in making people stand in queues on Wednesdays to buy wine, we are making enemies of them, but we have no other solution at the moment. We must allow Constantia to operate under a separate Act and to use its profits to develop the farm. Now about the freeway at Kirstenbosch. I spoke to the Administrator of the Cape Province and he said he would consult me. He was still awaiting the final proposals of the city council. I cannot say which is the right decision to take. I did not see the plan of the freeway, but I appreciate that one does not want a botanical garden such as Kirstenbosch to be spoiled.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem referred to increases in production costs in the determination of wheat prices. These are always taken into account, but the hon. member must be sure of one thing, viz. that I agree with him on the question of whether it is right to pay a subsidy of R¼ million per day on bread. Ask yourself, too, whether this is a healthy practice. I can say nothing further, but I think the hon. member is right. We are not treating that bread with respect.

The hon. member for Ladybrand said the available facilities for the storage of wheat were inadequate. We have obtained just over R100 million over the past five years. We are trying to obtain more in order to establish more facilities, for it is stupid and a very expensive method to harvest half a wheat or maize crop for bulk storage and then change over to bags. He requested that we do not grade Scheepers wheat as C grade wheat. Remember, the farmer who sows Scheepers wheat in his part of the world, harvests twice, and when there is a drought, he grazes his sheep on the stable as well. He therefore has wool, and meat, and then he has wheat of a slightly poorer quality. The bakers say that Scheepers wheat is C grade wheat. I will allow myself to be guided only by the Wheat Board and by the Wheat Advisory Committee, before we finally make Scheepers a C grade wheat.

The hon. member for Fauresmith discussed the mosquito plague and future research, but the hon. member for Prieska told me in the Lobby the other day that there is a fly in the Prieska area which preys on midges. Therefore, there is now a natural enemy of the midge.

†The hon. member for Mooi River said that the researcher at the Cedara Agricultural College does not have the incentive to lecture, and I agree with him. The principle has, however, already been implemented, because we pay a bonus to veterinary surgeons and to engineering experts to give lectures. We are going further into this matter and we will discuss it with the Minister of National Education. But the hon. member also said we must be careful not to cut the funds of the agricultural faculties, and I spoke to the hon. the Minister of National Education because we cannot afford to cut the funds available for agricultural education and I do not think he need be in the least concerned about it.

*The hon. member for Omaruru referred to excessively low floor prices and consumer resistance in the same breath. I think the hon. member would like the floor price to be increased. He says the farmer has no incentive, because the floor price is not an encouragement. But in the years which he referred to, the prevailing price for meat was the floor price, and the Meat Board had to buy in at that floor price. At present it is not necessary to consider the floor price at all, for prices are far above the floor price. But I say: “Very well, if we have to raise the price, we can do so, but it has no effect at the moment I do not know a single farmer who is concerned about his meat production because he is not receiving a decent floor price.” He looks at what he eventually receives for his product; that is all they are interested in. The hon. member also referred to consumer resistance. There is only one thing which causes consumer resistance, and that is an excessively high price, and therefore we should not mention these two matters in the same breath. The hon. member then referred to the importation of meat; and so did the hon. member for East London North.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also asked why only 300 tons were being imported. It is an experiment.

*I am so pleased he spoke Afrikaans, so that I can quickly get in this reply here. We have imported frozen mutton from New Zealand before. The price margin was not such that it served as an incentive to people. In fact, the housewives said they were not interested at all.

The margin was too small.

In any event, we have now brought over 1 000 carcases as an experiment. It takes a month to thaw a deeply frozen carcase through to the bone. The carcase has to hang and thaw naturally. Do hon. members know what meat which has been hanging for a month to thaw looks like? I almost want to tell them what it looks like.

Don’t.

I won’t. We are now going to carry out an experiment. There is something else we should be careful about, and this is one of the things the hon. member for Omaruru could be concerned about. We should not forget our local people and simply import meat right and left. I know hon. members want us to be careful in this regard. However, I want to carry out an experiment with the 1 000 carcases. There is a need for canning meat, there is a need for meat for the mines and there are various kinds of meat which are used to make meat pies. One could therefore let that meat thaw and also use it to make meat pies from.

The hon. member for Prieska referred to floor prices and he said one very important thing, viz. that farmers who are able to do so, should now discharge their debts. Once again I want to join him in making an appeal to the farmers. When the maize price was announced, I made a similar appeal to farmers. In a bountiful year such as this—with a good harvest, with a good maize price, with good export prices—let us try to consolidate and to discharge those debts.

Together with the tax?

No, the farmer who pays tax … I almost said it now. The hon. member referred to the subsidy for constructing Bantu houses, and now he is referring to tax. Surely he can build those houses and then not have to pay tax.

†That is one point I forgot to mention to the hon. member for Houghton. She was not here when I announced that we had obtained another loan for the Coloured farmer-labourers of the Greater Western Cape. We have got up to R2 400 for a four-bedroomed Coloured house, with electricity and water, at 1% interest to encourage farmers to help their labourers so that we can have a happy labour force on the platteland.

Congratulations!

Thank you very much. Now it is going to rain!

The hon. member for South Coast mentioned the problem of abattoirs. I referred to the chicken question, but now he asks about the small butcher who is forced to go to the big abattoirs. Finance cannot be obtained for the building of regional abattoirs. We find that municipalities are not prepared to build. I cannot argue with the municipalities on these matters. The municipality of a big city like Johannesburg asks why should it build an export abattoir with its taxpayers’ money to help the farmers to get an export venue. They are only prepared to build for their own special needs. We, therefore, obtained a loan from the Minister of Finance and through the Abattoir Commission we are now building an abattoir at Cato Ridge, for example, at a cost of R19 million. The Abattoir Commission is building an abattoir at a cost of R17 million at City Deep. The meat will be transported from City Deep to Pietermaritzburg and to Durban. A smaller abattoir will also be built in the vicinity of Durban. We find that the municipalities are not prepared to shoulder the responsibility. The Pretoria municipality came along and said it was not prepared to go ahead with the construction of an abattoir. The Abattoir Commission had to take over the project. We do not have funds and at this stage it is impossible to say that we can help with the financing of regional abattoirs. At the moment this is not possible. The smaller butcher, about whom the hon. member is concerned, may contact the department if there is an abattoir and it is neat and clean. We cannot disregard the hygiene aspect. Hon. members must have read in the newspapers about the salmonella which was found in meat in one of our big centres. We have to watch the hygiene aspect of meat. With our growing population we must be very strict in regard to the cleanliness of the meat which is sold.

*The hon. member for Barberton referred to the wool scheme and the Wool Board. There are hon. members in this House who serve on control boards and who are attacked quite frequently on those control boards. I am thinking for example of the hon. member for Barberton, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet and the hon. Senator Gideon Joubert. When I think of the approach of these people on the control boards, and their concern in regard to the matters which are discussed there, and I think how they help the Ministry to do what is best for the wool farmer or for the farmer whose produce is controlled by the board in question, then I say thank you very much to them, for it is necessary to do this at some stage or another. The work which they do is one which entails sacrifices, and they are doing it for the sake of a group of farmers who do not always see their standpoint as they ought to see it. The hon. member said that he had no definite assurance in black and white that the Government would support the wool farmer in a time of crisis. I want to give it to him now in black and white, because it will be recorded in Hansard. I am giving him that assurance now.

The hon. member for Karas referred to the midge plague, as well as to the pelt industry. I am pleased that he adopted a positive attitude in the interests of the pelt industry.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove said that the price paid to the farmer was very low but that the consumer had to pay a scandalously high price. He said that the control boards were completely wrongly constituted and that they were a waste of money. Does the hon. member know what the cost of handling maize is? The cost of the control system for the handling of maize is less than 2 cents per bag per annum. He says that it is a waste of money. I think that he is not happy about the fact that the farmers are in the majority on the control boards. The producers are in the majority. How should we constitute the control board?

That is why you appoint the committee.

They are going into these matters. Does the hon. member think that they did not operate correctly in the past? Yesterday I quoted to the hon. member what is happening in Texas today. There farmers have had to kill 1 000 head of cattle and cover them with bulldozers because they do not have the control system which South Africa has. I am not completely happy about the control system and that is the reason why I have appointed the commission. I do not think, however, that it is the right attitude to say that the price paid to the farmer is very low and that the consumer is paying too much which leaves a gap in between. The hon. member took milk as an example. Does the hon. member realize that he referred to milk in a plastic bottle which costs 25 cents per litre whilst anybody can get milk delivered at his house for 18,8 cents per litre? Why take the most …

Not in Durban.

No, in the Witwaters-rand/Pretoria area. Why does the hon. member take the most expensive example, namely milk in a plastic container? Why does he not take milk over the counter for which the controlled price is 18.5 cents per litre? The farmer receives 12,75 cents but after that the milk is transported, pasteurized and bottled. Sometimes people say that the middleman is making a fortune. Can I give that hon. member a licence to operate a retail butchery in any place in the country? Can I give it to the hon. member? Will the hon. member take it? Will he be able to work on a 25% gross profit on turnover? Some of these people are struggling to make a living.

Give it to him.

I am not exaggerating when I say that South Africa is the only country in the world where a bag of mealie meal or a bag of flour can be bought for the same price right through the year. In order to keep the price of maize at the same level from the date when the price is fixed, namely in April, to the next season at the consumer price of R47 per ton, it is costing this Government R23 million for handling and for storage. All this is done to keep the price at the same level. In all the Western countries one finds that the cost of transport and storage is added to the price of the product. We are taking care of all this but we do not get a word of thanks for trying to keep costs down.

*The hon. member for Potgietersrus referred to the good work which was being done by the agricultural colleges. I want to inform the hon. member that a young man may attend a college without requiring university exemption, in other words, he need only pass his matriculation examination. It is not a requirement for a person to have passed mathematics, for if he has matriculated, he can go to agricultural college. Short courses are in fact being introduced. During the past year there were 69 different short courses, and these were attended by 2 463 students. These courses are offered for short periods to afford students the opportunity of learning more about welding, bookkeeping and so on. Those courses have already been introduced and we have already announced that a sixth agricultural college is to be constructed in Nelspruit for students in that area.

Hear, hear!

I am sorry that it is going to be established in Nelspruit and not in Groblersdal. I am pleased that the hon. member for Potgietersrus raised these matters, for it is essential that we give attention to the training of students.

The hon. member for Kimberley North referred to the training of farm labourers, and he pointed out that we would have to consider the right techniques, mechanization and so on, in practice. I am grateful for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South talked about fixing the price of milk every two years. At the moment the price is fixed annually. He also asked why would it be wrong to grant a subsidy of R30 million in respect of milk. If this commodity is sold at 21 cents per litre and it will cost the taxpayer R30 million to reduce that to 18 cents per litre, will such a subsidy achieve anything?

Yes.

It makes a difference of only three cents. However, I can assure the hon. member that the situation is being considered carefully. I can tell the hon. member confidentially if the House can be considered confidential that we are even considering the possibility of a subsidy on powdered milk in order to help the lower income groups. However, one must remember that the fresh milk market will then be in trouble.

You must subsidize powdered milk because at the moment we are paying inflated prices from overseas.

We are looking into this matter. I am concerned about the cost increases in connection with it. Everything has gone up in price and we must look after the farmers as well. Also, we cannot have the price of foodstuffs going through the ceiling. It all depends on the financial situation of the country and whether we have the money in order to pay the subsidies. We must be very realistic about this matter.

The milk-feeding scheme was not a scheme run by this department but by the Milk Board. This scheme was introduced at a time when there was a surplus. I have asked the Milk Board please to reintroduce this feeding scheme to schools if there is another surplus. As far as controlling milk is concerned, if we implement a subsidy, how am I to know that the little piccanin buying milk in Sibasa, for instance, will get the benefit of this subsidy?

But he is not paying 25 cents.

In the hot areas where a Friesland cow cannot survive, he is paying well over 25 cents at the moment.

No.

Of course. Come and see; I shall show you.

The hon. member for Virginia raised a very important matter, namely the problem of stray dogs. I once saw for myself how 41 sheep had been savaged by a dog. It is a tragic sight. I have an agreement with my neighbours. I said to them: “If you see one of my four dogs on your property, shoot it.” If a dog does not know where its home is, it means that its master is not treating it well and that the dog is on the prowl looking for food. No matter how fond we are of our animals, we cannot afford their wiping out our sheep, as happened recently. If a person really cares all that much for a dog, he will ensure that the animal is properly trained. Just like a person, a dog has to be properly trained.

The hon. member for Standerton mentioned various achievements in agriculture. A very important matter to which he referred yesterday evening was the question of overweight and balanced eating habits. Most of us do not eat correctly. I want to tell the hon. member that the people of Standerton treated me well. To tell the truth, the people of Standerton and I are fond of one another. I am pleased that that hon. member is my successor in Standerton, for I know he will look after them well.

I come now to the hon. member for East London North.

†You can see that this hon. member is a farmer from the way he spoke of the problems of the farm labourer. He has helped me a great deal. I have replied to the questions on the importation of mutton. We will pay attention to the price gap. The term for Land Bank loans was 32 years. We have reduced it to 20 years, for specific reasons. We found that too many farmers who obtained loans 20 years ago, are wealthy today. When you ask them when they were going to repay the Land Bank loans, they reply: “I am not foolish. I am getting this money now at 7½%. Why should I pay off this loan? I can rather use this money to do something else.” Well, it stands to reason. However, then the Land Bank asked whether it would not be better to reduce this period. After the 20-year period has elapsed, they can always consider the farmer’s financial position and prolong the period. I think that it would be better to allow as many farmers as possible to obtain loans and to forget about the period, if it is not less than 20 years. In 20 years’ time, under the new management of agriculture, I think all loans will have been paid.

*The hon. member for Boksburg must bear in mind that the Government of South Africa possesses 7% of the surface area of the country, while the Government of Australia possesses almost 40% of the surface area of Australia. In certain places we possess land which we want to reserve because the Government has to pay through its neck when Bantu Administration, Water Affairs or Community Development want such a piece of land. It is not our policy to alienate the land. If the municipality of the hon. member wants a piece of land for a specific purpose, we consider the matter. If it is to the benefit of the community, the municipality may buy it at the market price. However, I cannot say now that the 73 stands in Boksburg may be alienated to the municipality at once. The municipality could do all kinds of things with it, and tomorrow or the day after one of our departments may want a piece of land. As I have said, we do not have very much land.

The hon. member referred to the quality of meat and to meat inspections. We are looking into this. We could give more attention to inspection, but the housewife on her part, should really learn to know what a piece of fillet steak looks like. She gets the illustration of the different cuts from the Meat Board for nothing. When meat is so expensive, she must ensure that she buys more sensibly. She should say that she wants fillet or some other kind of meat which she has come to know well over the years.

The hon. member for Malmesbury referred to the importance of co-operatives. I cannot differ with him. We are trying to combat the problem of duplication as far as we are able. We are helping the cooperatives to counteract duplication by means of the Registrar’s office.

The hon. member for Albany advocated a compulsory tuberculosis test. I can inform the hon. member that we have a tuberculosis compensation system in terms of which we give the farmer R120 for every cow which we destroy because she has tuberculosis. It has now cost us R381 514 for 3 077 cows, which we slaughtered because they had tuberculosis. It will not be possible for us to say that all stud animals should be subjected to a compulsory tuberculosis test. In the first place we do not have enough veterinarians. What I am saying here has a bearing on what the hon. member for Waterberg said. Even at this juncture we are making use of private veterinarians to do this work for us. During the past year it has cost us R173 000 for private veterinarians alone. The hon. member asked for more veterinarians. He asked for the establishment of a second faculty, i.e. at Rhodes University. We announced the year before last that the faculty at Onderstepoort was to be doubled from 45 students per year to 90. To duplicate that faculty at another university would cost us more than R45 million. The Mӧnnig report recommended that the number of students at the one training centre should be doubled, so that 90 students could be trained. It would be a good thing if we could in due course establish a faculty in another province as well, simply for the sake of competition, so that the one could compete against the other. Now the one group of people will say it should be established in Stellenbosch, and the other group will say in Albany.

As long as it is in the Cape Province.

I want to tell the hon. member that it is simply impossible for us to announce today that no stud bull may be sold before it has been tested for tuberculosis. We simply do not have enough people. But I must say that before I purchase a stud bull I want a certificate indicating that it is free of tuberculosis. A farmer is not so stupid that he will purchase an animal if it has not been certified free of tuberculosis. Such an animal is not a stud animal. One does not keep a stud animal which has tuberculosis. It would have died long before it became a stud animal. I hope I have replied fully to the hon. member’s question.

The hon. member for Waterberg referred to the meat farmer and the treatment he receives from the Department of Agriculture. However, the hon. member must bear in mind that the way in which he treats the Department of Agriculture is the cause of the treatment which he receives. That applies to 99% of our M.P.s. A person should not arrive there with a long face when he wants to ask for something. If he is friendly, we try to help him. The hon. member also referred to better co-ordination between the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit. I shall give the hon. member a full elucidation. I have already replied to the question of the shortage of veterinarians, to which the hon. member referred.

The last speech I want to deal with, is the one made by the hon. member for Newton Park. We have given very careful thought to the possibility of an agricultural advisory council and we shall subsequently tell the hon. member precisely what we have in mind. The hon. member is quite correct. We should first establish this council, and then see what adjustments we could make. The hon. member also referred to the co-operation which they gave us. I hope the hon. member for Houghton will take cognizance of what I am now going to say. At the moment we have 80 000 farmers in this country on agricultural units which each have an average value of R200 000. My clients therefore own R16 000 million in this country. These are the people who will still be defending this country on the last day. These are the people who have no other homeland who realize that they are part of South Africa. They speak my language, and these are the people whom I represent here. These are the people to whom I am always sympathetic. These are the people, the farmers, whose language some members will never understand. I am grateful that hon. members help me to represent such people. I could not face participating in a debate at this juncture. In view of the speech made here yesterday by the hon. member for Newton Park, and in view of the atmosphere which prevailed here on both sides, I thought that I would thank hon. members for having made it easy for me. I appreciate that. I just want to say that yesterday was Christian’s birthday.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House experience some difficulty in regard to this motion. We are dealing here with a certain piece of scheduled Bantu reserve or, as it is known in the legislation, a scheduled Native area, and it is proposed to excise some 10 000 ha of the area known as Mayen, a piece of scheduled area in the Northern Cape in the vicinity of Taung. As I say, the proposal is to excise some 10 000 ha of Mayen and to include as a scheduled area in replacement of this land, some 12 000 ha situate further to the north and west of the area known as Mayen. When the area known as Mayen is no longer a scheduled Native area, it will involve the movement of some 300 or more families—one would suppose it would be in the vicinity of 300 people—from the Mayen location as it is known on the map to an area, as I say, of State land to the north and west which falls within the consolidated area of this portion of trust land. The reason given for the excision of this scheduled Native area is that it is an extremity of the Native reserve in question and that if will become cut off from the balance of the reserve area by the construction of the Spitskop Dam. We take the view that any large-scale movement of people, regardless of their race, is a matter which is not to be undertaken lightly. People who have lived in an area for a long period of time, however humble their circumstances, do not like being moved. We believe that this is a matter which should be approached with circumspection and that if it is to be done at all, it must be done in the proper manner. I have said that people object to being moved where they have had their habitation for a considerable period of time, any people, and this applies particularly to Black people in this country who are settled under tribal circumstances in a scheduled Native area. They are people to whom the place where they live is important, and the association with that place with those who have gone before them is equally important. I hold the view that the mere fact that people in these circumstances live in the extremity of a Bantu reserve is not of itself sufficient reason for them to be moved. That is the only reason that is given in this case. Even if a better case were to be made out for the movement of these people, the method and procedure adopted in moving them is in our view equally important.

In our view, the first thing that should be explored and achieved is consultation with the people themselves. Attempts should be made to justify in the minds of the people concerned the fact that it is in their interests that they be moved. In the Select Committee there was in this case no adequate evidence to that effect. Secondly, Sir, if one looks at the map which was provided to the Select Committee, one finds that each of the blocks of roughly 20 000 acres or 10 000 ha that we are here concerned with, is a community of its own, either labelled in respect of the tribe that occupies it or of the headman whose area we are concerned with. This major location, as it is called on the map, appears to be a community of its own. There was no adequate evidence before the Select Committee that the tribal elders or headmen had been adequately consulted and, if they had, there was no evidence as to what their views in this respect were. There was no evidence that the people themselves had been adequately consulted or, if they had, what their views in this respect were; and, finally, Sir, there was no adequate evidence that the homeland Government concerned had itself been adequately consulted as to this move. Not only, in our view, must there be consultation, but where you have a Select Committee there must be evidence placed before it, not only that the consultation has taken place but what the effect of that consultation was. We are sitting in instances of this kind as a Select Committee, and what is the function of that Select Committee? The function of that Select Committee is to go into all those matters, which should be placed before it by adequate evidence, adequate representations, memoranda, documents and oral evidence, if necessary, so that the members of the Select Committee can adequately report to this House on their findings and on the reasons for their findings. This question of consultation and the placing of evidence before the Select Committee, in our view, is particularly important since the passing of the amendments in 1973 to the relevant legislation relating to these matters. According to those amendments, we brought about a position which, according to the speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister who handled this measure and which appears in Hansard of 12 February 1973 at column 394—and this accords with my recollection of the situation—enabled the Government of the day to pass resolutions through this House in advance in respect of consolidation matters and which did away with what one could call the right of appeal of a tribal community such as this who formerly, where they were required to move because of measures of this kind, could, if they objected, appeal to this House, and only after resolutions had been passed in this House and in the Other Place could they be required to move.

Not any longer.

No, they cannot any longer; I quite accept that.

They could not appeal to this House at that stage.

What was the object then of this speech which the hon. gentleman made—I think it was this hon. gentleman—on 12 February last year when he dealt with this legislation?

The Minister has to come to this House; they cannot come to this House.

Now he is arguing a technicality.

Well let me read out what the hon. gentleman said—

That is the object of these amendments—

He then goes on to deal with the types of meetings which have to be held to serve an order. This was the subject of debate, in which my old friend, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, who was here at the time, took part, and I remember very well that we debated this very matter.

And now the Deputy Minister agrees.

Sir, if what I say in this regard is correct—and I believe it is—then the Select Committee’s procedure and what it does assumes far greater importance than it did in the past. As I say, so far as this community of Mayen is concerned, those of us from this side who sat on that Select Committee were not left satisfied that the necessary consultation had taken place. In our view, the very greatest care must be exercised in matters of this kind, and it must be in the first instance, and all that relevant information should be placed before the Select Committee. This House, Sir, is merely asked to vote on resolutions which do not even express in the documents, which are filed in terms of the rules of the House, the fact that there was a difference of views in the Select Committee. Consequently, it is of particular importance that we be fully informed of this matter, and I cannot sufficiently emphasize, in these days and times, that the movement of comparatively large numbers of people is a matter not to be undertaken lightly, and in the nature of things, particularly the movement of comparatively large numbers of tribal people to whom place, area and environment are of even greater importance than to more sophisticated people. Then, I believe, all the precautions necessary should be taken and I believe even if it takes considerable time every effort should be made to persuade them to accept the change as a matter of consent, as a matter of being in their own interest, rather than the apparently superficial attitude which has been adopted in this case. We are accordingly against this first recommendation of the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana says he is opposed to this motion which has been proposed should become a resolution of this House, because, as he put it, in the light of the evidence he received he is not satisfied that proper consultation took place with the people concerned, who are going to be moved and whose land is going to be excised from the scheduled area and to whom compensatory land will be given in the released area. Sir, I cannot quite understand that. The hon. member did take cognizance on the Select Committee of the fact that the department had informed the Bophuthatswana Government of its intention to effect this excision, and that the Bophuthatswana Government did have the opportunity to consult its own people at Mayen and to inform the department of its standpoint, but that the Government in question did not react to the notice it was given by the department. In other words, Sir, you can look upon this as you please, but we can also look upon it as a tacit agreement with this intention. Now I want to tell you, Sir, that the department informed the Government of Bophuthatswana in 1970 that it intended excising this area, and there are good reasons for its having to be excised. The hon. member mentioned one of these reasons. A dam is being built which will cover an area approximately 600 ha in extent, which will cut right through this area and will completely cut off Mayen, a narrow L-shaped strip of land, from the rest of the territory. This will have the effect, firstly, that a better rounding off will be effected if those people are moved just to the other side of the dam, where they will then be with their own people. At the moment there are no other people at the place to which they will be moved. This will place them, as I have said, with their own people, whereas at present they are cut off by the dam and are living on a narrow strip of land situated in White territory. This will amount to better consolidation and better rounding off, and it is to the advantage of those people, as I shall now indicate to you. Two of the then members of the executive of Bophuthatswana, along with the then chief director—at the time they were still in the first phase of self-government—went to Mayen and explained this matter to the people. In September of this year the department wrote to the Bophuthatswana Government again. In other words, due notice was given to the Bophuthatswana Government and the people of Mayen that it was the intention of the department to effect this excision and that neither the local people at Mayen nor the Bophuthatswana Government had lodged any objections with the department and the Minister against this proposed excision. That is why I think the Minister and the department are entitled to arrive at the conclusion that they may proceed. I think the hon. member is not quite correct in saying that he did not have sufficient evidence on the Select Committee to the effect that the authorities in question had in fact been consulted. That evidence was furnished. It was not said that negotiations had been conducted specifically with the people of Mayen, but negotiations were conducted with the Bophuthatswana Government, and this was put to the Select Committee. In this specific excision and removal 433 families are involved. In 1970, or subsequently, as many as 168 of these families voluntarily moved to the new place. In fact, I can understand this very well. The present area in which these people are living is an unplanned area, whereas the area to which they are going is a planned one with 400 prefabricated houses which have been erected there, there are two schools with six classrooms each, there is a clinic, there is a shop, and there are other facilities as well. It is therefore a planned area. One can understand that the people who moved appreciated the advantages offered by this area. Surely they would not have gone voluntarily if there had been no advantages for them there. The hon. member referred to the value of the land being exchanged. Approximately 10 800 ha is being excised from the scheduled area, and they are being compensated with more than 12000 ha. My personal view is that this is absolutely sufficient compensation and that the interests of those people are not being prejudiced.

The hon. member said he wanted the assurance that the removal would take place in a proper manner. Surely the hon. member ought to know that it is the department’s approach and attitude specifically to cause these things to take place in an orderly and correct manner. For that reason it was very seldom necessary in the past to cause removals to take place by order. Things proceeded peaceably and it was seldom necessary to obtain an eviction order or any other order from the State President. These things proceeded orderly and meaningfully. I have no doubt that that will also happen in this case.

That is why I want to conclude by saying that I am convinced in my mind that the circumstances in the area to which these people are being moved are better than those in the area in which they find themselves at present. The new area has better planning and better facilities. That is point number one. Now I want to mention point number two. They are now not going to be cut off from their people because of this dam. On the contrary, they are being placed with their own people. No other tribe is living in that area to which they are being taken. Thirdly, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Department of Bantu Administration will cause this matter to take place in a proper and a dignified manner. If the Bophuthatswana Government and the local people had had any objections, there was sufficient opportunity for them to raise those objections. However, they did not do so, and for that reason I believe that they do not really have any objections against this removal.

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with every word that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has uttered in this House tonight. First of all I want to say that I am not aware of and I may be ignorant of any rules of this House which prevent the hon. the Deputy Minister advancing reasons for the removal of these people. As it is, he comes to this House which does not have the advantage of having served on the Select Committee and therefore does not know the details involved, simply presents the report to the House and asks that it must be adopted. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has pointed out, that report does not even reflect the important fact that there were differences of opinion among the members of the Select Committee. Thus, reading the Select Committee report one is left with the impression that this was a unanimous recommendation. I think it is surely the duty of the hon. the Deputy Minister in presenting this report for adoption to the House to give us the facts of the case and to let us know that there was a difference of opinion on the Select Committee and also to tell us the reasons why the Government had decided that it was necessary to move the Mayen people from where they were residing to another area.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg says that he is convinced that this removal is being done in the right spirit, that better facilities will be provided for the people where they are about to go, and that they will, having been removed, not be cut off from their own people by a dam which is about to be built. He is furthermore convinced that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will carry out the removal in a proper and decent manner. I have not seen the facilities which are to be offered and I have not seen the place where the people are to be removed from, and for that reason I cannot argue with the hon. member about that.

Sit down then.

As for the dam, it depends on whether the people who are about to be removed consider that to be a real disadvantage, i.e. the fact that the dam will cut them off from contact with their own people. On the third point I would say that I have had a good deal of experience with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and its methods of removal. I do not have the same unbounded faith in the manner in which removals are conducted. I have seen people who have been removed in other areas and I have seen the conditions under which they have been removed. I have seen the facilities which have been offered to them in the new areas where they have gone.

Name them.

I shall name them. They are Limehill, Vergelegen and Stinkwater to give the hon. the member just a few names. I know that the people who were removed from Doornkop objected strongly to the manner of the removal and certainly did not find the amenities which were offered to them better than those which they had enjoyed before they were removed. I want to tell the hon. member too that tidying up the map should not be the prime consideration where one is dealing with hundreds of families which are about to be removed. He says that the Bophuthatswana Government has been consulted and that the fact that they did not disagree formally with the removal, means tacit agreement. I think that is rather a facile conclusion to have reached. I want to ask him whether he has any evidence whatsoever that the people of Mayen themselves agreed to be moved. Can the hon. member …

168 families have moved already.

Yes, 168 families have moved but many people moved from Limehill and the other areas because they had no option …

Surely they will still move!

Order!

… because they knew perfectly well if they did not move voluntarily they would be removed by force.

Do you want to go and help them move?

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein must please give the hon. member for Houghton an opportunity to finish her speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your protection. What is that hon. Minister laughing at? [Interjections.] As I was saying, many of the people who were removed from Doornkop went before the final removal because they had no option. The Government moved in with all its forces and the people went because they were nervous of the consequences if they did not go. These are people who have no power and they know that they have no power. For that reason some of them go before they are actually forced to go. Others go only when they are forced to go. Over the past few years, since this Mayen removal was first mooted, I have been putting questions to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and I have been receiving his usual crisp replies. He knows perfectly well that the Mayen people do not want to leave the area where they live. He knows perfectly well from the tone of the questions and from the correspondence which I have had with him that these people strongly object to being moved. [Interjections.]

Who told you that?

Since nobody appears to believe me, I am going to read into the record of Parliament a letter I received last month …

One letter.

… on behalf of Chief Jeffrey Moseki who is the chief of the Mayen people.

When was he a chief?

According to the letter he is a chief. Anyway, I shall read the letter and let the House judge for itself. After all, it will be a little more than we have been given by the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has given us nothing whatever to consider. All he has given us is this Select Committee report which informs us that the Committee, having considered a memorandum referred to it, begs to report that it recommends the following, i.e. the removal of the Mayen people. Neither the report nor the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us any reason. I should now like to read this letter and if the House prefers to disregard it, I will have done my best. At least I will have carried out a mandate. I promised these people that I would read this letter here, or rather, that I would voice my objection …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does she consider one letter by one individual on behalf of somebody else, who purports to be a chief, but apparently is not, as being more important than a report by a Select Committee?

Since the Select Committee gives me no information whatever as a matter of fact I do. Since the report gives me no information whatever, why should I not consider the letter more important? One is better than none. I want to tell the hon. member that I have had several letters over the last few years from the Mayen people and that all these letters express objections. The letter is written by a simple tribesman—he has a rather good handwriting, I may say—on behalf of Chief Moseki, or it purports to be, anyway. The writer says:

Could “Chief” Moseki not have written himself?

Evidently not, but then the hon. member probably cannot write their language very well either. I continue:

They do not know about the other crimes, but never mind.

What is the letter dated?

The date is 17 September 1974.

And the place?

The place is P.O. Jan Kempdorp. Does that mean anything to you?

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to talk about “crimes perpetrated by this Government”?

I was reading from a letter.

You said in parenthesis: “Not to speak of the other crimes that have been perpetrated by this Government.”

I said the gentleman did not know of the other crimes.

Is that in that letter?

Order! Even if it is a quotation, the hon. member must withdraw the words “crimes perpetrated”.

I withdraw those words, Sir. Let me translate them into “the mistakes of this Government”. To continue with the letter:

Obviously, they feel very strongly about this. The letter goes on to say:

Funny, the confluence is where diamonds were discovered, if I remember correctly. A coincidence, no doubt:

Hon. members will be glad to hear that it was not “Ouma”—

This certainly bears out the suspicions of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that the people concerned have not been consulted and that their consent has not been obtained. The letter continues:

And I add with emphasis, says Chief Moseki, that what I am explaining here is what is in every resident’s breast. The Government cannot emphatically deny that, for that is how they have intrigued us and will not return our title deed. At the confluence we were evicted with fire, our homes and our belongings being mercilessly burnt down, only because the Government wanted us to move from there and come to Mayen. From Mayen again we are being forced to go to a place that will be of their choice. We know that the Tswana homeland leaders have no real choice in the matter. If the Central Government deems it necessary that Mayen should be removed, then it will, despite the approval or disapproval of it. They will be regarding the title deed of their own merely making a scrap of paper, like Hitler did. Kindly appeal and make representations on behalf of Mayen to the State President to see that justice is done in this particular. We have every right to refuse to leave Mayen. If we have to leave, we demand proper consultation, not just to be steam-rollered out of Mayen because we are black and occupy a position of powerlessness.

A head of cattle was probably paid for writing that letter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Kuruman allowed to suggest that the hon. member for Houghton paid for this letter? It is despicable.

What did the hon. member for Kuruman say?

Mr. Speaker, I said that a head of cattle had been paid to the writer of that letter. Bantu people often give animals by way of payment.

Was the hon. member referring to the member for Houghton?

No, I was not referring to the hon. member for Houghton. I was referring to the writer.

The hon. member may proceed.

The letter continues—

I remain ever-praying.

Yours most respectfully,

Benson P. Lekaota

(for Chief Moseki).

To me this letter has a ring of truth about it and there are enough facts in this letter to bear out what this man says. I did not appeal to the State President because I knew that that would be useless, but I did write to the hon. the Minister. In turn I was informed by the Deputy Minister for Bantu Development that it had been decided that Mayen be excised from the scheduled area and that the proposed excision had therefore been submitted to Parliament for resolution. As far as the title deed is concerned, he informed me that no deed existed and that the land presently known as Mayen was State-owned land, which land vested in the South African Bantu Trust in terms of the Act since 1936.

The Minister has spoken.

These people have obviously not only not been consulted, but they have themselves voiced their strong disapproval about being moved. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister would tell this House in all honesty if the letter, or the sentiments that I have read out from this letter, in fact reflect what the people of Mayen feel. If so, he should give us some good reasons as to why he is ignoring the feelings of this tribe and is going ahead roughshod and removing people who, if these facts are correct—and the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell the House this as well—have already been moved by Government edict once before in their history, which I might say is equally the same history as that of the people of Doornkop. I think this is an ugly affair, where powerless people are moved around like a lot of pawns on a chess board because of this tidying up the geographic map of South Africa so that it will be reflected in neat little black squares and neat little white squares. I, on behalf of my party, wish to voice our strong objections to this move and we shall vote against the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, if it were not such a terrible tragedy, it could have been interesting that any arrangement aimed at the orderly coexistence of peoples in this country is thwarted by hon. members on the other side of the House without their having any grounds whatever for doing so except vague suspicions that things are not the way they are given out to be. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made great play of the location-orientedness of that group of people which had to be taken into account. However, I should like to have the answer of that hon. member on another aspect. The facts of the matter are that this area of Mayen is an unnatural projection which will eventually be cut off by the waters of the Spitskop Dam. These people are hedged in on 10 000 ha of land. What does the hon. member for Umhlatuzana think should become of those people on that small area with their population growth? We should like to know what is to be done with those people. It is merely natural and orderly that these people should be removed from this unnatural projection to an area which is their own among their own people. We had the argument of location once again, but is location-orientedness more important to these people and to hon. members than ties with their people and to be among their own people? Consultation was mentioned here and the question was put whether these people had been consulted. On 22 January 1971 two councillors and the director visited the people of Mayen. They were informed what the planning for their area was, and they were therefore fully aware of what was going to happen. No objection was received and in the light of the considerations why they were moved, it is reasonable to assume that they were content with it. The hon. member for Houghton quoted one letter. We should be glad if the hon. member would show it to us so that we may read it. It is interesting that this letter was written by a person living at Jan Kempdorp, whereas Mayen has its own post office. Why would that so-called chief on whose behalf this letter was allegedly written not have written it himself from Mayen? One letter from one person who does not even live in Mayen now serves as a mandate for the hon. member for Houghton to raise objections to this reasonable, fair and just resettlement of people. Since the hon. member for Houghton has referred to just one letter, I want to emphasize that we on our part can produce proof that 168 families of the Mayen group voluntarily moved in 1971. We have proof that the people who are living there now, i.e. where they were settled at the time, are very happy. I am prepared to bring 168 letters which will prove that these people are happy where they were settled. Unlike the hon. member for Houghton, I am definitely not prepared to raise objections based on just one letter as a mandate and to say that it is unjust and unfair to move these people, whereas ultimately it will only be for their own good. As the hon. member for Lichtenburg said, all the services, and better services than those which the people at Mayen have at the moment, are being provided to them in the new area. For the sake of the geography, I want to say that Mayen is situated 12 miles from Warrenton, but very far from Taung. Mayen is approximately 50 miles from Taung by road. When these people are being moved into the territory of Bophuthatswana, they will be approximately 12 to 15 km from the Bantu town at Pampierstad. In other words, the whole removal is taking place in order to take them out of their absolute isolation and to settle them among their own people. We already have proof that those people who went voluntarily are happy in the area, where they have been ever since 1970. I honestly think that it is not right and fair of hon. members to advance an argument on the strength of just one letter, which was not even written from Mayen. I cannot imagine that the chief of Mayen himself cannot write and that somebody has to do it on his behalf. On the strength of that the hon. members now want to speak on behalf of those people.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made here by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

What about the hon. member for Houghton?

I shall come to that. When we are dealing with the removal of people, it is a matter which must obviously be regarded in a serious light by all of Us since it concerns the whole pattern of race relations in our country. It is definitely something which ought not to be undertaken lightly. There are two aspects in regard to this matter. The first is the exclusion of a certain area and the inclusion of another area to compensate for it. The second aspect is the purpose of the removal, namely to move the people of the existing reserve of Mayen to the other reserve.

That is consolidation, which you do not understand.

In regard to the purely physical aspect, the area itself, I just want to emphasize here what was said by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, namely that in my opinion sufficient data was not made available to us on the Select Committee so as to allow us to arrive at a properly balanced judgment. [Interjections.] In this regard, I want to add that in my honest opinion there was a too positive statement on the advantages of the new area as against those of the old one. As you know, Sir, section 3(b) of Act No. 18 of 1936 provides that when one area is excised and compensatory land has to be provided, such compensatory land shall be of at least—this is what the Act says—an equivalent pastoral or agricultural value. It is indeed true, as is also indicated in the memorandum, that as far as the size of the land is concerned, there is a replacement of an area of 10 800 ha by an area of 12 758 ha. It is stated in the memorandum that the comparable agricultural or pastoral value is 1,1 in the new area as against 1 in the old one. In other words, as far as that “of at least an equivalent pastoral or agricultural value” is concerned, there is little to choose between the two areas. There is, in other words, no obvious advantage …

[Inaudible.]

Poorer land, really.

The land is poorer and in the light of these particulars there is no obvious advantage for the people of Mayen to be moved to the other area. I say that in my opinion the statements in regard to the new area are phrased too positively, for it is said in the memorandum that the new land is more than sufficient in so far as its value is concerned. It seems to me as though the expression “more than sufficient” is, after all, being qualified very strongly in the light of the facts stated in the memorandum itself. It is also said in the memorandum that the settlement will be to the advantage of these people and, as indicated here, the only reasons mentioned are the fact that the Mayen reserve will be cut off from Taung by the Spitskop Dam and, furthermore, that this Mayen reserve is a finger, a point, projecting into the other area. It does not seem to me as though either of those two considerations does in fact apply in respect of the question whether it is in the interests of the people themselves. It is also stated in the memorandum that sufficient—this is the word they use—land and grazing are available, not only for the existing population and their livestock, but also for reasonable future expansion. If the equivalent pastoral or agricultural value is hardly comparable at this stage, I honestly cannot see … [Interjections.] … how the positive statement can be made …

Order! The hon. members for Kuruman and Stilfontein must keep quiet now, please.

… how the positive statement can be made that sufficient provision is also being made for the reasonable growth of the population. To me this really looks like a statement which does not quite comply with the requirements of the truth. When the Spitskop Dam was built, was proper consideration given then to how this dam was going to affect these people? It seems to me it is the building of the dam which, essentially, made the removal of these people desirable. According to the available information, as far as I can remember, it was said that the Spitskop Dam was not going to benefit the Bantu at all. If my information in this regard is faulty, I should like to be corrected. The impression I have is that it will not be to the advantage of the Bantu. In other words, the impression is created once again that these people are being removed here, not because it is in their interests, but because steps are being taken in the interests of the White community. The hon. member for Houghton also said here tonight that there was no positive approval on the part of the people of Mayen or from the Bophuthatswana Government for this step. The hon. member for Licthenburg himself made it very clear that there was no question of the people of Mayen having lent positive co-operation or approval to these steps. As against that we have here the concrete proof produced by the hon. member for Houghton of a person who wrote a letter.

One person.

If I am told on the one hand that there is no proof that these people positively approved of the proposed steps, whereas there is on the other hand a document, the authenticity of which has not been called into question so far, to confirm this, I as a reasonable person must give preference in this regard to the particulars supplied here to us by the hon. member for Houghton when we determine whether or not those people were in fact consulted. It seems to me a reasonable person cannot arrive at any other conclusion. In the light of the information furnished by the hon. member for Houghton, I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will in fact be able to disprove effectively the impression which this letter created in my mind in order to enable us to arrive at a proper judgment. After all, it is very clear that proper consultation with those people did not take place. Because the Black people of our country are not being represented in this Parliament, an extremely heavy responsibility rests on us in this country to ensure that no injustice is done to them under any circumstances. I am not trying to say that an injustice was done to them in this case. However, it is the task of this House and especially of the Opposition to be on guard all the time so that possible injustices cannot be committed. It is very clear to me that all that was done was that a letter was written to Bophuthatswana Government. After all, if the fact that they did not react negatively to the letter by saying that they were opposed to the removal is construed to be positive approval of the removal, it does not make any sense. It seems to me that when such a removal is being considered, negotiations should at least take place in the spirit of section 5(b) of the relevant legislation, Act No. 38 of 1927.