Mr. Chairman, during the debate last week we pointed out that there was surplus of almost every agricultural product in South Africa. Furthermore, I believe that we agreed in this committee that production costs have increased out of all proportion to the price of the produced product. We also agreed that the prices of the basic means of production, i.e. fuel, fertilizer and fodder, made it difficult for many farmers to make ends meet. Moreover, we saw that the debt of the farmer had increased during the past 10 years from almost R900 million to R2 500 million. Against this background we conducted a long and sometimes very peaceful debate but I believe nevertheless that the problems we are facing have not been discussed to the extent to which we should have discussed them. I also made certain suggestions last week which, in my opinion, can be of assistance in the long term to ease the difficulty, and this afternoon I should like to make a few suggestions which might help to ease the difficulty of the farmer in the short term.

Before I do so, I want to refer to a somewhat misleading publication published by the department. I should like to quote from a newsletter of the department dated 15 April, No. 15. In this letter it is stated—

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the statement made here is correct in the sense that the figure is correct and, compared with the figures for an earlier period, it is also correct. Therefore I do not want to imply that a misleading article was written here deliberately, but I think that I should point out that the figure of an increase of 40% might not be completely correct if one takes the circumstances of the time into account. I want now to quote from the annual report of the South African Agricultural Union for 1977. It is stated here—

This is the year to which I have just referred. It states further—

I felt that I had to step into the breach for the farmer in this regard because that increase of 40%, if it is made known, might create the wrong impression. I think that this should be corrected and the hon. the Minister will I am sure agree with me in this regard.

You are quite right. It is totally confusing.

Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairman, in line with my promise to make suggestions which might help to ease the difficulty here and there in the short term, I should like to refer today, when I have the opportunity to speak, to certain aspects of farming. With the time still left to me in this turn to speak, I should like to discuss the fresh vegetable industry in the Western Cape.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister immediately that I do have some experience of the fresh vegetable industry in the Western Cape but I am not well informed with regard to this industry in the rest of the country. I want to admit that at once because I do not want the hon. the Minister to refer to some of my remarks later on if they are not correct as regards the rest of the country.

The problem here in the Western Cape is as follows. Over the years the vegetable farmers, and especially those farming on the Cape Flats, marketed their products on various markets. Initially it was at the market on the site which is now the new Good Hope Centre. They marketed their vegetables on the open market there initially. Then it was thought fit to build a new, big centralized market. I can remember that already at that stage it was stated that the fact that market was so far from the small buyer of vegetables who could not get to that market with his little cart or whatever it was to buy his vegetables for resale to the housewife, meant that the agency basis here in the Western Cape or in Cape Town itself would have to be extended in order to enable more people who had an interest in the distribution of vegetables to come in. It seems as if this is now the case, so much so that one already finds, for example, that where vegetables are bought at the Cape Town market at, for example, 10 cents per unit—I am merely using 10 cents as an example; that is the price the farmer receives for his product—the levy that is added later on is of such a nature that the housewife has to pay maybe three, four or five times as much for that same product. There are many farmers here on the Cape Flats—I have been speaking to them over the past few weeks and I did so once again this past weekend just to ensure that they still have the same problems they were experiencing a few months ago—who feel that it is impossible for them to carry on this basis. They feel that they are being exploited by the agents and that there are interested groups on the Cape Town market who benefit from keeping the prices of their fresh vegetables low because they are then able to make a profit at a later stage on the resale of that produce which is not rightly theirs but rather that of the farmer. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that very swift action has to be taken in this regard—it should be taken within weeks if not within days. Something will have to be done to get this group of farmers, the vegetable producers, round a table at some stage. Let them come together then to see whether they cannot sell their vegetables on a co-operative and mutually helpful basis to the bidders who are prepared to pay a reasonable price for those vegetables.

The second point I want to mention is that the hon. the Minister should find out urgently whether sites cannot be made available in the Cape Town city area and probably also in other areas where farmers can sell their produce. They will then be closer to the housewives and so eliminate that middle group. If, for example, we can make between 12 and 15 such mini-centres or mini-markets available to the vegetable farmers in the greater Cape Town area, it will contribute greatly towards eliminating the middle-man who is exploiting the situation to the detriment of the farmer, the producer and the housewife. “Exploiting” is a strong word but I am looking for a strong word and I want to use that word because I mean “exploiting”.

Another matter that will have to be considered, and I gather that there is already talk about it, is to see whether that group of farmers cannot get together to pack their own vegetables, preferably at the Cape Town market itself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just taken his seat, stated a case, in a calm and composed manner, which affects many of our people and which is certainly of particular importance to the housewife of Cape Town. The hon. member spoke about the vegetable industry and I am sure he includes the fresh fruit industry as well. Those people who have known the Cape longer than many of the hon. members on this Committee, know that our old system worked very well in this regard. When I came to Cape Town for the first time in 1937, there were hawkers who rode around in their horse carts and even small lorries in the Cape residential areas and sold vegetables, fruit, fish and even bread. This system of hawking these products worked very well.

One of these hawkers made a tremendous impression on me because he could sing just like Bobby Breen. When he sang, all the people in the street heard him and all the housewives came out to buy from him. Unfortunately, this beautiful and romantic period came to an end because municipal regulations inhibited and discouraged this system, to such an extent that one hardly sees these people in the streets today. As an old Capetonian I find it a pity that this period has passed, but I suspect that we shall find an answer somewhere to this matter which may perhaps fall within the province of the department of the Minister of Health or the Department of Health of the Provincial Administration.

If it is possible to create more markets, or mini-markets as the hon. member called them, I think enterprising people like the fanners of the Cape Flats are free to negotiate with the local authorities in order to create such a system. I find his suggestion to negotiate with these people, positive and we should follow it. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me in this regard.

I should like to speak about something else. It is a fact that there are certain matters that come to the force during the agricultural debate every year. Usually these are matters concerning every member’s own constituency. Matters such as the fixing of prices, subsidies, etc., influence the daily lives of all of us, whether we are producers or consumers of agricultural products or not. It is understandable that these matters are clear to us and that much of the time allocated to the discussion of the Votes of the agricultural departments is spent on these matters every year. To my mind this is only natural. There might even be the hardy annuals to which there are actually no answers but it is also a good thing that time is spent on them. There are, however, other needs and other more obscure matters which come to the fore as well which must also receive attention. Today I want to mention one such a matter. I do this because it is a matter that creates problems with which certain of the agricultural departments are faced regularly and which require great ingenuity on their part to solve. This matter deals with the registration of title to land, especially agricultural land, and matters pertaining thereto. It is a well known and generally accepted fact that the Republic of South Africa has an excellent system for the registration of title to land and I think all of us have reason to be very proud of it. It is also true that it is a fairly complicated and expensive procedure to effect transfer of title, but it is worth the money and the trouble to carry the procedure through and to have the certainty that one will be able to defend, prove and maintain one’s ownership of land beyond all doubt against all onslaughts on that ownership.

Title to land is one of the greatest assets of a citizen. It gives him pride and self confidence. It elevates him to the ranks of those who have security for the acquisition of means for development, it removes him from the ranks of employees and makes of him an entrepreneur who, if he handles his affairs correctly, gives himself the opportunity to promote prosperity and progress. Land ownership is sought after and respected in the Western World and therefore in South Africa as well. But because our people think so much of land ownership and value it so highly, they sometimes deal with it in a manner which eventually proves to be foolish. One of the greatest problems our farmers face and in which the Department of Agriculture becomes involved, is that farmers bond their farms to such an extent to acquire money for the purchase of more land at unrealistic prices that they cannot meet their obligations with regard to redemption and interest. They are then in danger of losing everything if the State does not intervene with heavily subsidized loans and often even such State loans can no longer avert such a disaster.

Land ownership, while it is an undoubted asset to the owner, also places great responsibility upon him and requires an insight and ability which should be part of the make-up of anyone who wants to be a successful entrepreneur.

Another evil flowing from the high value our people place on land ownership is the idea of parents that the land should belong to their descendants forever. They make all kinds of stipulations in their wills which make it impossible for even a single one of their descendants to own and utilize this land. One such testamentary stipulation is the bequeathing of the property to so many heirs that none of them can make a living on his portion of the property. Fortunately, we have progressed sufficiently far in our country to have passed legislation in terms of which such actions by testators can be upset. The provisions of the law enable us to frustrate other plans to divide agricultural land into uneconomic units as well. This action on the part of the authorities is not always well received and is most unpopular. Sometimes factors are present which make the strict implementation of the provisions of the law almost a matter for sorrow. I think every one of our MP’s who has had to deal with matters of this nature will agree with me. Nevertheless, it has to be done in the interests of the future and it is not possible to act too softheartedly in this regard. The legislation I have just spoken of, gives us an instrument which can be used to prevent the further fragmentation of the ownership of our agricultural land. But this does not solve the problems that have already been caused in the past in this regard. It does not rectify those cases. It is the rectification of those cases that is the real problem with which we are struggling today. I am sure I do not have to quote chapter and verse of how serious the situation in our country is with regard to the existence of uneconomic farming units.

In the first part of the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Rural Reform a clear picture is given of the situation in 15 ecological areas and a large number of irrigation areas in our country. The picture painted by the report is an alarming one and makes us realize that steps are necessary to improve the position. It is a fortunate fact that during the past decade the normal course of events led to a significant number of uneconomic units falling into the hands of owners of other agricultural land. The result of this was that the average size of farming units was significantly increased and, on top of that, that the economic prospects for successful farming practices from the point of view of the size of farms alone improved. However, to leave the matter to the normal working of economic laws alone will not solve it. It is clear that here is a need which will require ever more urgent intervention by the State. Part 2 of the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Rural Reform gives details of measures taken in this regard in specific countries in Europe. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I move that the hon. the Deputy Minister be permitted to complete his speech?

Thank you, Sir, I appreciate it; I also appreciate the agreement of the Opposition.

It also analyses our own problem and suggests remedial action. This is the second report that merits careful study by every member of Parliament. Much was done by the authorities in the Republic of South Africa in the sixties to put ad hoc cases to right. You are aware of the fact that we piloted an Act through Parliament with regard to Schoemanshoek and also two cases in Knysna and George. Comprehensive steps were taken in respect of various irrigation schemes by means of which the uneconomic land units of irrigators were enlarged into economic units. Except for a few exceptional cases the State had some land on these schemes which could be used for this purpose. In this regard I mention the Sand-Vet Scheme in the Orange Free State and certain irrigation schemes on the lower Orange River and in the Great Fish River valley. Such steps were also taken, for example, in the river catchment area with the additional purpose of promoting conservation farming, the combating of erosion and the diminishing of the flow of silt to important reservoirs such as in the upper reaches of the Orange River. In addition to that State land which became available for alienation and which could not as such be used as economic farming units, was used to enlarge uneconomic farming units and to convert them in this way to economically sound farming units. Last but not least extensive financial aid was given by the State to private owners of uneconomic farming units to purchase additional land in order to rectify their positions as far as the required size of land for successful farming was concerned. In all the cases it was ensured by the registration of restrictive conditions against the title deeds of the land that such enlarged units would not again be reduced to uneconomic units by the sale of part thereof.

All the steps already implemented and their continuation at the same rate in the future will, however, not solve the matter satisfactorily. More drastic action will be required sooner or later and that stage is fast approaching. It is going to be an expensive process and funds are going to be a problem. The existing procedures of re-allotment and/or exchange allotment as far as we know them, may possibly be too expensive to implement in their present form. Careful thinking and planning will be necessary and any ideas that came to light in this regard will have to be followed up and improved upon so as to create a system or systems to suit the needs and available means of our country.

But, Sir, to come back to the problems flowing from the mistakes made by the land owners of long ago and with which the agricultural departments are faced, there is another type of case I want to mention. These are cases that are arising more and more, i.e. where testators in the distant and fairly distant past bequeathed fixed property usually consisting of a whole group of farms to heirs who did not all have the title to their inheritance registered in their names. They in their turn bequeathed the land to heirs who could no longer get registration of title in their names. They, again, bequeathed to heirs who could not get title etc., until today it has become impossible, even after incurring expenses amounting to thousands of rand in respect of applications to court, to register title in the name of interested parties. The result is that the land cannot be used beneficially, it cannot be developed and it cannot serve as security for funding other enterprises, and the question of the determination of ownership has become more and more difficult, even impossible, with every death. In the past the department concerned always came to Parliament with hybrid bill legislation which was regarded as offering a solution in the particular case. Steps have been taken with great success in terms of such legislation to administer such cases although it should be mentioned that it takes years to unravel and complete some of the cases finally.

Consideration has been given to the question of passing a general law in terms of which action could be taken in the latter type of case so as to eliminate the need for a separate Act for every individual case. It seems as if we have found a plan that may work. But now there seems to be the need to provide in the same measure for some kind of re-allotment or exchange allotment procedure which can be applied in the first place as part of the rectification process for such cases, but which can possibly also be implemented to administer other areas or spots consisting of economic units. Careful consideration is being given to the matter. Hon. members who made use of the opportunity recently to see the German film shown to us by the Director-General of Survey will agree with me that this pattern of action is certainly impressive. Although it is true that we cannot follow it slavishly, some aspects of what was shown to us seem to be worthy of emulation. Exceptional co-ordination among the various State departments, i.e. Agriculture, Water Affairs, Transport, Economic Affairs and Planning, is essential and indispensable if success is to be achieved. I think everyone who saw that film will agree with me in this regard. The fact that the agricultural potential is increased in spite of the building of airports, factories, schools, sporting and recreational areas and other facilities, is also striking. The curbing of depopulation and even the reverse of the flow is heartening. Maybe the need of the old countries for the re-allotment of land is much more serious than ours. They have already done much more about it as well. We can learn from their experience. We can prevent the further fragmentation of our agricultural land today. It is our duty to rectify what went wrong in the past and to take timeous steps to do so. I can say that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has already made it its business to start drawing up suitable measure which we will present to Parliament in the near future.

I have touched on a subject here which, in my opinion, is of exceptional importance to all of us. I have kept to a text which was drawn up beforehand and I hope you will pardon me for having done so. But I do expect you to agree with me that it is worthwhile investigating this matter very thoroughly and attending to it in its correct context and perspective.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we, as an agricultural group, can only say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the importance of the matter he mentioned cannot be emphasized too much. In time to come it will, in my opinion, become even more necessary for attention to be given to the creation of economic units where units are no longer economic, and to bring about consolidation in that regard. Therefore I think it is a matter which will also require urgent attention in future. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however, will have to pardon me if I do not follow him further with regard to this matter.

I should like to come back to price structures and price fixing and maybe more specifically in regard to the maize industry as such. I think the hon. member for Paarl will agree with me that the variety to which the maize industry lends itself permits one to say that in the times in which we are living one could even use maize for the manufacture of schnapps, whisky and ethanol. Therefore one can rightly say that whether one travels on foot, by car or by ship, one can never go wrong with the maize industry.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to a few arguments advanced by the hon. members of the Opposition, the Official Opposition as well as the NRP. It has been said that cost structures are becoming too high. In principle one cannot disagree with that statement; in fact, it is quite correct. However, a few aspects have been raised and singled out, and, inter alia, the poultry, pork and dairy industries in particular have been mentioned. It might be quite true, in fact, it is true, that the price of maize has a material effect on the cost structures of the abovementioned industries. If it is said that those increases in costs should not take place because those particular industries will get into trouble as a result, this is a statement with which I shall have to disagree. If it is said that because an increase in costs took place as a result of the increase in the price of maize and that attention has to be given to the sales structures of those specific products, this is another matter which will require attention on another level.

I think one should come back and say that if one regards maize as a foodstuff or a feeding cost item in those industries, it is true that the maize price has a material effect on those industries. But with regard to the cost structure of the maize producer himself there are the other cost items mentioned by the hon. member for Wynberg, e.g. fuel, fertilizer and other items whose prices have increased enormously. These have a material effect on the production cost structure of the maize producer and accordingly justify an increase in the price of his product. I should like to pause here for a few moments, Sir.

I think it is quite right that any industry should see to it in the first place that the producers of the product concerned are remunerated in such a way that they stay in production. On the other hand, the producers of that product should see to it that as far as the marketing of that product itself is concerned, the price structures are of such a nature that the future marketing of that product can be based on the level of production at which they want to produce. For this reason I want to say that if the price of maize increases to such an extent that it has a material influence on the consumption of maize, locally as well as overseas, this might well have an effect upon the total income they can obtain from the product they have to market. I should like to pause here for a few moments.

When one speaks about maize consumption, one has to draw a distinction between the consumption of white maize and that of yellow maize. The few facets hon. members have mentioned concern the consumption of yellow maize, and these other agricultural industries are closely connected with that fact. While I am now speaking about other agricultural industries, Sir, I think it is very important that we in agriculture should take care not to play off one industry against another because basically all the branches of agriculture are interdependent and the problems existing in one industry also apply basically to other industries. Therefore cooperation and co-ordination among the agricultural industries are vitally important. If I have the time, I might refer to this again later on and indicate to what extent it will have to take place in the organized structure of the farming community, as well as the extent to which it has to take place with regard to departmental co-operation and the organizational structure of the farming community.

It is important in the first place that there should be co-ordination from departmental level through the marketing board to create price structures which satisfy all the industries to such an extent that they stay in production. Price structures should be created which will enable the consumer who stands outside agriculture not to become dependent upon sources from outside the country in future. This means that South Africa must ensure that, as far as the consumer is concerned, agricultural production is of such a nature that there will be an adequate supply even in times when we might have to face problems. The strategic value of providing agricultural produce for the local consumer is very great indeed.

When we come to the agricultural industries where yellow maize is consumed, the argument is used that the poultry industry is facing real problems. We now have to go back to see what the situation was earlier on. Earlier on there was a subsidy within the maize industry structure as a result of which maize could be supplied at a cheaper price to the consumer than the price the farmer could get for it on his farm. I want to put the matter quite clearly, i.e. that the farmer could sell it at a certain price. Afterwards it was subsidized further so that the consumer in the town could get it cheaper than the price at which the farmer could sell it. The question may rightly be put: Is this a sound policy to follow? Even this year the maize industry is still being subsidized to the extent of 90 cents per ton. Is this a correct policy? Are we associating ourselves with what the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned just now, i.e. that the farmer is enabled, with regard to the spreading of his risk, to produce at a more competitive price on his farm than the city dweller or large consortiums can in the cities?

Are you speaking about yellow maize?

Yes, for information of the hon. member for Mooi River, I am speaking about yellow maize. I want to make it very clear that those large consortiums that produce chickens and maybe even other industries, for example, the pork industry, enjoy an advantage with regard to the marketing factor. The farmers who produce that product, i.e. poultry or pigs, do not have the advantage of a communal bargaining power as in the case of large consortiums. Is this a correct approach? I want to submit that the time has come for those subsidies at that level to disappear. If a subsidy has to be granted, it should not be done at the starting point but where it is most necessary, where it can do most good and where the people can, in fact, make use of it to their advantage.

As far as white maize is concerned, it is consumed by a completely different group. It is used mostly for human consumption. If we have a price structure and want to have a difference in price, if we want to stimulate production by fixing a higher price for the one colour than for the other, in the country in which we are living and because of variations in its climate this will create practical problems which cannot be overcome. For that reason it is out of the question. If we look at the marketing possibilities of white maize and the existing structures … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that I shall not be able to pursue the sound argument advanced by the hon. member for Carletonville, except to reassure him by telling him that I am quite a good consumer of his product, especially when I have a barbecue.

It is extremely difficult to react within eight minutes to the various standpoints taken up here, and I hasten to refer briefly to some of them. With reference to the problems of the vegetable farmer I should like to say to the hon. member for Wynberg that I share his sympathy with this Cinderella of the agricultural industry in our fatherland. Up to now this has been the neglected orphan. There are many problems, but I should just like to say to him that we in Johannesburg have established a co-operative marketing agency consisting of a group of farmers who have succeeded in holding their own against well-organized efforts to get them off the floor. This system works very well in practice, however, and if one could bring this and the idea of smaller markets in suburbs under the umbrella of a co-operative enterprise, one ought to have success.

I am convinced that our biggest problem at present with regard to the price structure can virtually be solved if we could get marketing points in our non-White areas around and in the major urban areas. In these areas there are extensive markets, but we are experiencing major problems in opening those gates. However, I think, that we as a farming community should not leave this matter at that, and as far as this is concerned we have had a measure of success in the North.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Could the hon. member tell us more about the gates of the non-White residential areas that are closed?

Local authorities have jurisdiction over the establishment of markets. Bantu Administration Boards are also involved as far as the Black residential areas are concerned. This is a very complicated problem, but we are negotiating and we hope to receive good news in this regard soon. The most important problem with regard to our vegetable production in this country is, of course, exports. Over the weekend we heard that African states are dependent on export for 75% of their food. See there, an enormous market at our doorstep which can be served to great advantage and profitably, not only by the producer in Southern Africa, but also as far as good relations with such states are concerned! I am connected with a co-operative society which during the past season handled individual orders for, for instance, 1 000 tons of green beans from Holland, and 800 tons of green peppers from Germany from one single farmer in my constituency. However, we cannot execute these guaranteed orders, even if the money is there. There is no carrier service. The existing transport lines prefer passenger traffic, something I cannot hold against them, because they are business undertakings which have to look after their own affairs. I think, however, that the time has come for a thorough study to be made in this regard, departmentally as well as on the part of the farmer, with an eye to the earning of foreign exchange and the establishment and extension of a developing market. In my modest opinion South Africa is destined to become the larder of Western Europe and the Continent of Africa. If we want to see the matter put 'right, now is the time for the necessary steps to be taken in this direction. Without going into details, I think that if the public carriers see their way clear to doing this, the time has come to be so reasonable and fair as to afford the private carrier who sees his way clear to doing this, the opportunity of doing so. One cannot say “no” twice. One cannot say: I cannot or I shall not, because I cannot do it; but because I cannot do it, I am not going to allow you to do it either. I think we would then be taking the concept of fairness and of justice towards the producer in South Africa somewhat too far.

The second aspect I want to deal with has also been mentioned by the hon. member for Wynberg, and that deals with the idea of technical aid which is coupled to the financing of farmers. I am absolutely convinced that an agro-economical survey of South Africa should be done with a view to dividing the country into climatic zones. I know that this is something which exists on general lines, but it has to be approached differently. It should be done with a view to intensive farming. There will be grey areas and intermediate regions where one will still be able to engage in mixed farming, but in each of these zoned areas there should be extension and research stations, each with its own staff, which may develop along with the industry and the farming community over a period of a decade or more, instead of the committees which at present consist of farmers only. Something of this nature can be allowed to develop to the heights permitted by its potential. This should be done instead of the practice of sending extension officers all over the whole country with a view to gaining experience and merits for promotion. I think merit can be earned at one research station if one commodity or industry is scientifically developed to its highest level. I think there is an enormous waste of time and capital in the sense that we are not paying attention to this. I want to advocate a more intensive agro-economic survey of our country with a view to zoning, linked to the concept of agricultural financing. There are people who take the view that one should not lay down the law to a farmer and that he crows best on his own dunghill.

I think, however, that the time has come for us to say to one another that this is nonsense. I am no longer young, but I should very much like to avail myself of that guidance today. Financing should be linked to the farmer as well as the industry itself, and producers should be told, that they may not, for instance, farm with maize or peanuts in a cattle zone as they would be wasting the money of the State, their own, their fathers’ and the country’s money. Should a person be interested in farming in a certain area, we could tell him which product he is to grow there. We would provide him with financing on that basis, provided that he allow himself to be disciplined in this regard as well. Sir, I stand by this point of view, because in my heart I am convinced that as far as the broader policy is concerned the time has come for us to give very serious attention to this matter. This applies to both large and small-scale farmers. I know we are all referring to this and it has been stated for years in our country; urbanization is a world trend. Our people are leaving the rural areas and going to the cities. In America this has happened on a large scale, and in Europe as well, and it is only normal and natural that it should also happen in South Africa. If my grandfather were to tell me to jump into the fire, I as a level-headed, practical South African will think twice about whether I should jump as well. If we take into account that the number of farmers in South Africa was more than 100 000 a little more than a decade ago—I think it was approximately 116 000—and that today the number is 76 000, we say: Yes, fewer farmers, but higher production! I grant that. It is splendid. We are proud of it, but, Sir, the management factor and the extent of the farming units of a single large-scale farmer also have a maximum as regards carrying capacity. He can only develop to a certain stage before reaching breaking-point. I put this question to the hon. the Minister last year, and he conceded that even his management ability as the biggest single individual farmer in South Africa also has a saturation point.

I want to plead that we take more young men back to the rural areas and enrol them as apprentices on farms for five years. They could qualify for a diploma with a minimum guaranteed salary in conjunction with the Department of National Education or any other department. Let us gain reinforcement in that way, also with a view to the fact that the average age of a White farmer in South Africa is more than 55 years today. Rejuvenation is definitely necessary. If a person has had good training, academically, practically on a farm, as well as at a university or an agricultural college, then he is to my mind a good candidate for an agricultural loan, for unutilized large farms of about 3 000 morgen in the Bushveld, in cases where the owner’s son would rather become a lawyer than a farmer.

I will not be told that there are no young men in our cities today who are yearning, with a twinkle in the eye, to go back to farming if only they could have the opportunity to do so. However, it is simply not possible for them. That is the material we need today, and we should take a long-term view of this matter. This is not a crisis situation, but the signs are there that we are heading for such situation. But taking a long-term of the matter, we must meet this problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is, actually, a pleasure to speak in this debate. I think there is very little conflict here, and I cannot quarrel with the previous speaker at all. We all agree with what he said. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister directly that I am not going to raise railway matters again, but I want to take up the cudgels for the dairy farmers today. I know there are other dairy farmers present who know much more about the matter than I do. I want to discuss a table which I have sent to the hon. the Minister. The table contains the following information—

Figures rounded off and estimated for 1978.

As you see, the table deals with the years 1948, 1958, 1968 and 1978. The population growth for those periods was from 13 million people to 16 million, to 21 million and to 27 million, the volume of milk utilized for butter production for the same years was 572 million litres in 1948; 10 years later, in 1958, it was 910 million litres; in 1968 it was 1 200 million litres. Then the figure dropped phenomenally to what it was in 1948, viz. 572 million litres. The figures are the same for the total milk production in South Africa. In 1948 it was 1 500 million litres; in 1958 it was 2,1 million litres; in 1968 it was 2,8 million litres, and in 1978 it dropped once again to 2 400 million litres.

The figures I have mentioned have been rounded off and are estimates, but they give a fair indication of the existing trend, of how the increase took place up to 1968 and then dropped drastically in the last ten years. According to the tables which are available in the statistics of the department, we see that cheese, condensed milk and powdered milk kept up with the pattern very well. It kept up with the population increase, but the production of butter and the total milk consumption, especially that of fresh milk, dropped tremendously. Why did we have this fantastic drop in the consumption of butter and fresh milk, Sir? This is the question which I ask myself. I think I can advance four reasons for this. The first is the massive and successful campaign in respect of milk substitutes. Statements and insinuations have been made that milk and other animal products are unhealthy. This is the first reason why the consumption of those products dropped to such an extent The second reason is the minimal promotion and advertising campaign which was launched by the milk and dairy industry against that campaign. As I see things, the third reason why the consumption of these products began to drop, is the inadequate expansion of distribution points in the dairy industry. The fourth reason is the increased cost of dairy products.

Sir, I want to deal with the first reason, viz. the total onslaught against milk by the other products which are entering the market. These accusations are sometimes direct, sometimes indirect, sometimes underhand and sometimes insinuating, but it is an incredible, total onslaught against animal products, meat and milk. I think this advertisement has now been dropped, but a while ago we saw the following advertisement on television: “If you love him, if you want to keep him alive, give him margarine.” The insinuation is that if you do not love him, give him butter and then he will die! It is unbelievable that we could allow this campaign against butter, Sir. These people spend R2 million per year on this campaign against butter.

The consumer pays for it

Of course. It cost the dairy farmers of the country 1 000 million litres in the production of milk, milk which would previously have been turned into butter. What has the dairy industry been doing about the matter? We have in fact not been doing anything at all. We put up the price, and this made the position even worse. I am not going to elaborate on this, Sir, because it would require a debate on its own. We must really begin the counter-attack again. The campaign for milk substitutes, the so-called non-dairy products, has taken another large quantity of milk away from us. It is being insinuated that the non-dairy product is better than the dairy product. How healthy does the following sound to you, Mr. Chairman?

This is what it says on Cremora. It contains a large quantity of chemicals and is one of the substitutes for milk. It contains sodium caseinate, dipotassium phosphate, equal to 1% PO3, emulgent, sodium silicone aluminate, artificial colouring, vegetable oil and maize syrup solids. How does this sound to you? Is it a food? This is what we drink. That product and similar ones replace 400 000 litres of milk per day. In a year one could fill 3 000 swimming pools with that milk which we have lost. Half a million litres per day are being replaced by these chemicals. What are we doing about it? This is something which one can become upset about. It is an absolutely unfounded statement, nor is there any proof whatever, that cholesterol which is found in, for example, milk, eggs and meat products, is taken up in our body and settles in the heart. This is an absolute untruth.

Recently the hon. the Minister told us that we were now going to apply a sum of R250 000 in this regard. This is peanuts. I do not know whether this expression is parliamentary, but the hon. the Minister’s words for it are “bugger all”. I withdraw it if it is unparliamentary. Once again I must ask: Where is our farmers’ nerve, the will to fight back against these products? My hon. Whip often says: “Opsaal, boere, die Engelse kom.” What has happened to that old sentiment? Speaking of the English, what do the English spend on advertising campaigns for milk in England? 0,66 cents per litre, two thirds of a cent per litre is what they spend on it. And what have they done? The subsidy was taken away from them and they retained their market. When they joined the EEC they had to withdraw the milk subsidy entirely from their dairy industry. That was when they began to fight. I ask: Please, let us, too, fight for the dairy farmer. If we take that same figure that applies in their case, then we would be able to use R16 million for promotion and advertising. Just multiply that 0,6 cents per litre with the 2,5 billion litres that we produce every year. For instance, if we took only half a cent, we would already have R12 million to spend on advertising. This is a simple calculation. The distributors tell us that if the milk turnover rose by 5% or 6%, they would not need to ask for any increase at all. What are they asking for now? I think the figure is 2½ cents, if I am correct. Is this correct?

1,4 cents.

They say if their turnover could rise by 5% or 6%, they would not need any increase, because their factory has already been built. All they need, is to increase the turnover further. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South happened to speak on the same subject that I wanted to speak about, but I feel that what I have to say is supplementary to what he said.

I also want to speak about this situation of advertisements in magazines, on the radio and on television, where it is alleged that it is a fact that animal products like meat, eggs and dairy products increase the cholesterol in the blood, and that there is a direct link between cholesterol in the blood and the incidence of paralysis of the heart. The manufacturers of products like margarine, artificial coffee creamer and artificial meat have seized upon the myth of the so-called detrimental effect of meat, milk and egg products on one’s heart, and have exploited it in order to promote their generally artificial replacements. That is not all; they have also been allowed to take advantage of the good image, the colour and the popularity of this product. Just look, Sir, at the picture of the cow on one of the containers of this so-called coffee creamer. The cow is shown upon it and then it is called coffee creamer. It must create the impression of milk, but at the bottom it says: “This is not a dairy product.” In other words, I am prepared to use the dairy product to my advantage, but when the harvest comes, it is mine. This is not only a suggestive advertisement which insinuates that other products are dangerous, but according to very good evidence from specialists—and this is important, Sir—it is not justified, because it has not been proved at all in the medical world. On the contrary, in the recent past and at the moment there are many doctors who have proved the opposite.

Many doctors have a strong suspicion that excessive use of the so-called poly-unsaturates results in other diseases like cancer and gallstones, and I shall quote the evidence of this later on. And now I ask: Must the producers of red meat, eggs and dairy products also advertise in the same way and according to the same criterion in our magazines and newspapers, for instance “Protect your people against gallstones and cancer by using dairy products, by using meat and eggs”? Because this is precisely the same criterion which is being used here.

In order to emphasize the point that there is no conclusive scientific evidence for the claims which are made, I quote just a few extracts from the great deal of evidence— there is a great deal, Sir—and I want to make an extremely urgent request to our hon. Minister to take active steps together with his hon. colleagues in order to put a stop to this type of claim and advertisement for the sake of the community. I know that we have the sympathy of the hon. the Minister in this regard and I want to thank him for it. I quote from Die Landbouweekblad of 14 April 1978—and on behalf of the community I want to congratulate this magazine on its interest in this subject. It says—

The same magazine goes on to say that Dr. Johnston discovered the following—

So much for the quotation from Die Landbouweekblad. Now I want to quote how, according to the April 1977 edition of Hoarde’s Dairyman of America, Dr. Johnston concluded his scientific paper, viz.—

Another expert, Dr. G. D. Campbell, who is an internationally recognized authority on this subject, said the following at the Elangeni Hotel in Durban on 20 September—

so-called “beneficial”, Sir—

Mr. Campbell goes on to say—

Based on the recommendations that more poly-unsaturated fats should be used in the diet, the Butter Information Council of America sums up the situation in their magazine as follows. I quote—

Furthermore, Drs. Pearce and Dayton say the following in The Lancet—

Sir, I could quote much more but unfortunately time does not allow me to do so. I promised to be brief.

I just want to ask the following question. Earlier on someone quoted figures in order to prove how the consumption of butter had dropped. As I said the other day, the consumption of butter has dropped from 54 000 tons per year to a mere 17 000 tons since the advent of yellow margarine in 1971. This amounts to a drop of 75%. Since 1971, the consumption of so-called poly-unsaturated fats in the form of margarine has increased by 400%. In the same period during which the people in South Africa used much larger quantities of poly-unsaturated fats instead of saturated fats, and followed the so-called healthy diet, the incidence of heart disease in South Africa increased to such an extent that at the moment our country has the largest per capita incidence of heart disease in the world. And this happened after we had increased our poly-unsaturated fat consumption by 400% and decreased our butter consumption by 75%. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and in this case I think it has been proved beyond any doubt. That is why I want to say that we in this House have a responsibility, not only towards the producers, but definitely towards the consumer as well. We must see to it that advertisements and statements that are made contain the truth. Therefore, I once again want to make a serious appeal to our authorities to see to it, in the interest of all the people in South Africa, especially in the interests of the consumer, that these unproven statements are forbidden by law.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the previous two hon. speakers. I want to be more specific and speak about the miracle animal in the farming industry. This is the cow and her product. A few years ago a teacher in the city instructed his class to write a composition about the cow. One of the English boys returned and handed in his composition entitled “Die Wonderdier”. It read as follows—

This is comical and I am particularly pleased about it because it is characteristic of the farmer always to see the positive and comical side of life and to appreciate it in the midst of suffering. This little boy wrote this composition in all seriousness. Although we find it comical, I want to try to point out in all seriousness today that the dairy farmers in the fresh milk industry have certain problems which, if no solution is found, may have disastrous results for those farmers.

I want to quote figures which I received from dairy farmers in my constituency. Since we are close to the Witwatersrand, I think that I can justifiably say that I have some of the biggest, best and most scientific dairy farmers in my constituency. The figures which I am going to quote here are figures which those scientific and practical dairy farmers have given me. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that I do not blame him and the Government for the tremendously increased production costs which I am going to point out, because I realize that production cost increases today are simply a world trend which has become impossible to stop or to handle. These dairy farmers of mine tell me that during the period 7 June 1975 to April 1978, a period of almost three years, the price of yellow maize meal, which is an important ingredient in the production of fresh milk, rose by no less than 63%. The price of rice bran increased by 77% over that period, the price of wheat bran by 44,9%, the price of fish meal by 53%, that of electricity by 128% and the transport of fresh milk by 100%. Diesel fuel prices showed an increase of 44%. These farmers also allege that in June 1975, the average price they got for their quota milk, plus what they got for their surplus milk, was 15,22 cents per litre. In February this year, they received an average price of 15,99 cents per litre for their milk, that is to say, their quota milk and their surplus milk. This gives them a price increase of 0,5% over a period of almost 3 years, as against an average production cost increase of approximately 50%. A moment ago I left out the smaller ingredients that are required for the production of fresh milk, but the total rise in the production cost has been approximately 50%.

It is easy to identify a problem, as I have tried to do, but it is never easy to solve it. The increase, if there should be an increase in the price of milk, may result in consumer resistance amongst housewives, and this is only human. That is why I maintain that now and in the future it will become even more essential, in order that the farmer may survive and that the consumer may obtain the product which he would like, for the consumer and the farmer to co-operate and for the one to understand the problem of the other. The consumer will have to realize that the production costs of the farmer far exceed the increase in the price of his product and then he should not have serious objections to an increase in the price of the product I also think that the consumer will have to get his priorities right. In 1976-’77 the consumption of alcoholic liquor in South Africa, excluding cool drinks and Bantu beer, was R1 121 million, whilst the consumption of fresh milk was R344 million. So more than three times as much money was spent on the consumption of liquor as on the consumption of fresh milk. Has the time not come for the housewife to tell her husband that he must get his priorities right and that he must buy more milk and be prepared to pay a little more for the farmer’s product because it is nutritious for the family and good for the children, and spend less on liquor?

The last possibility which I want to mention is the exploitation of the potential consumer market which is still partially unutilized at the moment, i.e. the Black townships in our White areas. It is a fact that the Black man is fond of sour milk and curdled milk, but unfortunately pasturized milk cannot be turned into sour or curdled milk. The consumption of milk in the Black townships is therefore not high. I therefore want to ask whether a certain quantity of milk cannot be channelled to the Black cities before it is pasturized so that the Bantu people can have their sour milk and curdled milk according to their custom and liking. If the health regulations do not allow it, I want to suggest that the department select 50 or 100 dairy farms and that they be made to comply with exacting health requirements once a month. The fresh milk from those specific farms can therefore be channelled to the Black cities in an unpasturized form. This would also help to increase the consumption.

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that the future of agriculture in South Africa, and therefore also the future of a healthy social life throughout South Africa, depends, in my opinion, apart from the export market, on the statement which the hon. member made, that the consumer and the farmer must co-operate. My question, not necessarily to the hon. the Minister, but in general, is whether we are doing enough today and going about things in the right way in order to establish a sympathetic understanding amongst the consumers for what the farmer means to South Africa for the price that the farmer should get for his product and for the acceptance of the prosperity and adversity which a farmer experiences. I am not an agricultural expert, but I grew up on a farm not far from here. While I was living there, I learned enough to know that if one wants to farm one must have a natural aptitude for it and that one must have enough capital to manage one’s farm properly, in bad times as well. The most important requirement, and I shall come back to this later, is that one must buy land on which one can make a good living.

Various hon. members have spoken here about propaganda or publicity for certain products, whether they be eggs, fresh meat, milk or whatever. However, we must go much further. We must demonstrate to the consumer that there is in fact nothing unhealthy or wrong in his economic relationship with the farmer. I represent a constituency which consists exclusively of consumers and their attitude towards the farmer—I do not have to prove this—is that the farmer is a burden on the State and the community, actually a kind of parasite, and that all fluctuations in prices and the ever increasing food prices are due to bad farming methods, etc. They are essentially unsympathetic towards the farmers, and in actual fact there is no reason for this attitude of theirs. The trouble is that we have neglected our duty to keep them informed about developments in the agricultural industry and to tell them why certain prices are rising. I am afraid that we are not doing this. As I have said, we do promote for certain products, but in general we do not actually reach the practical realities.

I want to mention a few things. The very first thing I want to mention is the investigation which the research division of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has been conducting since 1974 to ascertain which agricultural product a family normally buys. This pertains to White consumers only, and I hope there will be an opportunity later on to involve Coloured, Asian and Black consumers as well. This is a tremendously informative report. It is the first report by this division which I have seen so far. It gives this committee’s findings and my question is simply the following: Why are these facts not broadcast, even on television, and made known to the consumers? Then the consumer would be able to see that the farmer is not in fact responsible for the increase since 1974 as far as certain basic consumer articles are concerned.

There is the so-called South African food basket. I do not know whether previous speakers have referred to it, because unfortunately I have not been able to attend the whole debate. I may perhaps repeat an hon. member’s speech, and you will please have to forgive me if I do. They took 30 products, including processed, partially processed and fresh products, which come from the farms and end up on the kitchen stove or on the table of the consumer in the city through various channels. They calculated the cost of those 30 types of products on a monthly basis. For the most part, the choice corresponds with the consumer price index, so that we have an excellent and proper basis for these comparisons. What are their findings? In January 1974 the farmer received R36 for such a basket of food. By May 1977 it had increased to R47, i.e. there was an increase of 30% in the price. This is the farmer’s income.

Let us now take a look at what the housewife paid for precisely the same goods. In January 1974 she paid R68 per month, and in May 1977 R96, i.e. an increase of R28, which represents a percentage increase of 42%. In other words, these prices indicate that whilst the farmer’s income increased by only 30%, the price for the consumer increased by 42%. In other words, there is a 12% unexplained difference in the gradual price increase which took place. I am not here to blame anyone; I do not want to say that it is the fault of the middleman or of anyone else. All I am interested in at this stage, Sir, is to point out that the income of the farmer increased by only 10% per annum, whilst the figure on the cost of living index was 12%. Somewhere in between something went wrong, something unhealthy.

But let us not dwell on this, Mr. Chairman; let us tell the consumer that the farmer is not a parasite. The farmer is not responsible for the increase. He is not responsible for the price fluctuations. Somewhere in between there is something wrong.

Let us look at the share which the farmer has. My voters, the consumers, always say that the farmer of course receives a tremendous share of what is paid across the counter for the product. This is not true. The figures prove it very clearly. Let us take the month of May 1974; then the farmer’s share of the total consumer price of this basket of food was 57%. And what do you think it was in May 1977? It was 48%. In other words, whilst the prices have been rising, the share of the farmer has been shrinking. These are facts which must be brought home to the consumers, then we will not get this type of statement. This is the statement made by the Agricultural Union a few years ago, and it reads—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not have much fault to find—in fact, I do not think I have any fault to find—with the contribution of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, in contrast to the previous debate in which I spoke after him, viz. the one on National Education.

Before I make two or three requests of the hon. the Minister it is necessary for me to spend a few moments telling you about the importance of the maize industry as such. I am very pleased to do so because I represent a constituency in the Northern Free State. I am also pleased to use the Minister’s own figures which indicate that 17% of all the farmers are found in the Free State. He said that these farmers in the Free State are farming on only 11% of the surface area of the country, but that this 17% of the farmers of the country farming on 11% of the surface area of the country produced 46% of the country’s wheat, 36% of the maize, 30% of the wheat sorgum, 27% of the wool, and 75% of the country’s powdered milk.

I want to add that the Northern Free State also constitutes part of the so-called Highveld region which I shall discuss later when I bring more particulars in regard to the achievements and the production of maize in this Highveld region to the attention of the Committee.

When I limit myself to maize as such and underline the importance of it, then I do so with the aid of a few figures which I want to mention to you. A total of 4,45 million hectares of land are planted to maize; by far the largest area planted to a specific agricultural product. Of this maize 5,73 million tons were consumed domestically in 1976-’77, which included 2,85 million tons for human consumption and 2,74 million tons for animal consumption. This amounts to 0,2 tons per capita, including the homelands. If we realize the position and take the monetary aspect into consideration we find that the gross income from maize for 1976-’77 was R719,3 million. This is by far the highest of all agricultural products in the country. Second was slaughtered cattle and calves with R375,9 million. Then I can also mention wine, R63 million, deciduous fruit R115, 9 million. I am just mentioning these by way of comparison.

I also want to say that this gross value of R719,3 million represents 42,3% of all field husbandry products and 20,3% of all agricultural products. It is obvious how very important the maize industry as such is. Let us compare the exports, Sir, in order to elucidate that aspect too. In 1976 maize to the value of R236,5 million was exported. This was by far the most of all the agricultural exports. Sugar was second with R209,8 million, while deciduous fruits and grapes to the value of R82,7 million were exported. Of course it is true that the State earns a great deal of money on the excise on wine and spirits. I have the figures here. In the case of wine the excise tax was R25,9 million and in the case of spirits which of course includes brandy as well as cane spirits, the amount was R190,5 million. Even if we should include this, maize is still way ahead.

In as important an industry as the maize industry which I have just tried to outline briefly, I submit to the hon. the Minister, Sir, that we cannot afford the unpleasant wrangle and argument between Sampi and Samso. Various hon. members have already discussed it in this debate and I know that the hon. the Minister has already referred to it. However, this does not do away with the fact that I also want to discuss this this afternoon, in pursuance of meetings which we had in our constituency. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely clear to me that complete mistrust prevails between both these groups. It is true and I do not want to hazard a guess this afternoon as to who is right and who is wrong. But the fact of the matter remains that we most definitely cannot afford this mistrust by a certain section of the maize farmers of the Government or of another group in such an important industry as the maize industry. I think it was the hon. member for Winburg who referred to it, and I want to associate myself with what he said. I am convinced that personalities dominate this wrangle and distrust. I am convinced that 90% of the maize farmers—it does not matter whether they are members of Sampi or Samso—really want unity in the industry, expect it and strive to achieve it.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in my opinion the objection to this levy of 5 cents per ton of maize eminates from this very mistrust and discord. I want to say without fear of contradiction today that I am convinced, after having studied the report of the Wentzel Commission, the report of the Marketing Commission of 1976, as well as statements of the hon. the Minister, that the farmers will simply have to accept today that this levy on maize, which, on the production expected for this year, will amount to approximately R450 000, will be industry-orientated. I do not doubt it. That is why I want to make a serious appeal to the farmers to accept it, but on the other hand I should also like to put it to the hon. the Minister that I want to make a serious request of him to use the largest amount of this levy specifically for research. I want to tell you, Sir, why I say this. I am convinced that efficiency and maximum utilization of the potential of the land by means of better tilling methods, mechanization, fertilization, pest control, the use of the most suitable seed, etc. is the best way to counteract the tremendous increase in production costs. I am aware of the fact that a great deal is already being done in respect of research on the part of the Department as well as on the part of the farmers who make use of the results of that research. In fact, the increase in the yield during the past few years shows this very clearly. I shall quote a few figures only. In the period from 1950-’51 to 1954-’55 the maize yield was 3 146 kg per hectare, in the period from 1960-’61 to 1964-’65 it was 4 775 kg per hectare and in the period from 1970-’71 to 1974-’75 it was 6 917 kg per hectare. This is a tremendous increase which I should like to ascribe chiefly to that.

Taking the importance of the maize industry into consideration, I feel that what is being done, in comparison with other industries, as regards agriculture research for the maize industry in particular is hopelessly inadequate. I want to try to motivate this statement with figures. According to the research figures for 1977-’78 I find the following: R836 000 was spent on maize; R1 037 000 was spent on wine—though I have nothing against the viticulture of the hon. member for Worcester and other hon. members in this House—and R1 003 000 was spent on deciduous fruit. I have pointed out the importance of the maize industry, Sir. I am not underestimating the importance of the other industries, but I want to point out the expenditure on research. Now I come back to the Highveld region as such, because I want to ask for research in the Highveld region in particular. This Highveld region includes— just for the information of the House—the Northern Free State, Western Transvaal up to Lichtenburg, and then on the eastern side as far as Standerton. This region produces approximately 29,5% of the country’s total agricultural products. The region yields 80% of the total maize production of the country; 78% of the total wheat sorgum; 40% of the total wheat production, etc. But this one figure is important, viz. 80% of the total maize production. Yet the maize industry is not serviced by a specific institute. True, there is a summer wheat centre which is involved with research on wheat sorgum and buckwheat at Potchefstroom. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate my contribution this afternoon with the words of three wise men which were uttered a long time ago. The first was the late Professor Madie Taljaardt, the well-known Stellenbosch geologist. He wrote the following in the foreword to one of his books: “’n Land is ’n snaakse ding, hy behandel jou na mate jy horn koester of trotseer.” An unknown philosopher—I could not trace his name—also said: “Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but playing a poor hand well. ” In the third case I could not trace the author either, but to my mind this is one of the most important instructions we have in agriculture. He said: “A baby is God’s opinion that the world should go on.”

Arising out of these ideas, especially the one expressed by Professor Madie Taljaardt, I should like to express my concern in connection with agriculture. I want to say at once that I am not alleging that this is a general source of concern, but it is something I am concerned about. Mr. Chairman, agriculture is a strange thing; it is going to treat you according to whether you treat it with kindness or contempt. It is true that as the result of quite a number of very good years that we have had in agriculture during the past few decades, it was possible for the farmer, particularly the grain farmer, to look after his soil. For the cattle farmer it was possible to look after his animals by fattening and dosing them. I think that looking after our soil and our livestock have to a very large extent paid dividends for the South African farmers. As a result of the increasing pressure which has been brought to bear on South Africa during the past few years, I am concerned that we in South Africa are no longer going to be allowed to cherish the soil to the extent to which it deserves. I do not wish to imply at once that we in South Africa are treating our soil and our livestock with contempt. However, I am concerned that we are going to be compelled, as a result of production costs, to amend the cherishing process to such an extent that it borders on neglect of our soil and livestock. To my mind it is very important that we do not reach that stage where we are taking so much out of our soil and our livestock that it is going to make it difficult for those who are going to farm after us, whether the heir or the next owner, to bring the standard of our soil and our livestock up to that level where one will again be able to continue to cherish the soil and the livestock. We can argue as much as we like, but a recovery of the economic situation in the world and South Africa will be a slow process, and will definitely leave its mark on agriculture. There is talk of an economic recovery. But Western economy will first have to recover and stabilize properly on the road to established growth, before the demand for primary produce, including our own, is going to show an upswing. As far as the immediate future is concerned it seems as though overproduction of our agricultural produce is going to be an everyday phenomenon. It may be that as the result of the surplus production an increasing amount of pressure will arise among our consumers for a reduction in prices. In the meantime, however, the costs of the producer will continue to rise, and he will find himself in the position of having a diminishing income accompanied by an increase in costs. What are we to do now? “How is it possible to realize that farming is not a matter of holding the good cards, but playing a poor hand well.” I think the time has come for us to become marketing oriented to a greater extent. When I say this I do not in any way wish to create the impression that I expect our farmers and our agriculturists to manage their own marketing to a greater extent. But there is one facet which we may not lose sight of, viz. that we as agriculturists are only the starting point of an efficient network which includes traders, processors, banks, etc. All segments of commerce were directly or indirectly involved in the unique establishment which offered an advance cover medium, viz. term markets. The farmer and the agriculturist may never be allowed to fall victim in this process.

I believe that an era awaits us in which a person will not be able to purchase what he needs but only what he cannot do without. I think that this is something which applies not only to those of us in agriculture. I think it is a message which should be conveyed to the consumer at large. The time has arrived when we cannot or may not purchase what we require but only what we cannot do without.

I do not think that anyone will be able to differ with me when I say that we cannot put to a useful purpose many of the commodities which we purchase today. We could argue that we need certain things, but many of these commodities are not those things which we cannot do without. If one takes cognizance of the fact that when there is a price increase of 10% on an average motor vehicle, the increase amounts to approximately R700. Perhaps for a week or two after that there will be a drop in the purchase of motor vehicles. But when one considers a 10% increase in the price of bread, then that increase is approximately 2,5% for white bread and 1,6% for brown. And then there is an outcry.

In conclusion I want to make a plea for the wheat farmer. In order to encourage production, one has to fertilize. As a result of the new varieties which are being cultivated today, as a result of a broader leaf, as a result of a different root system to the one to which we have grown accustomed, it has today become necessary that our fertilizers for our wheat should be of a better quality. When I advocate this afternoon that it should be made possible to fertilize our soil, then I am not making a plea for the sake of the production and the yield to the farmer. I am advocating that we fertilize in such a way that our soil fertility is preserved to such an extent that those who come after us will be able to continue the agricultural process beneficially.

I know that I might have sounded negative. The soil has to be cultivated, and together with the old commandment which we received: “Go thou and till the soil,” I believe that this new instruction has been added today: “A baby is God’s opinion that the world should go on.” It is our duty to feed that baby. I also want to be selfish; not only do I want us to feed that baby so that it may grow up and render a service here in South Africa, my ideal and my supplication is that we in South Africa will be able to feed that baby so that that baby will become a farmer.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to relate the agricultural industry to the present economic situation as it affects the entire world. There must be no doubt that at present we have an international economic set-up in which there is a lack of capital formation, a lack of liquidity of funds, and inflation which is very injurious and prejudicial to the entire world. The agricultural industry is a unique and a very sensitive industry, which is directly affected by these various economic problems affecting the world as such. If one considers the present set-up in agriculture, it does not present a pleasant picture. One will then see certain disturbing signs and symptoms. If one considers the net income of farmers between 1975 and 1977 one finds that the profits during 1976 were less than they were in 1975, despite an absolutely normal and reasonably good year for agriculture. In other words, there was a decrease during the years 1975-’76 of 0,7%, a minus amount. In 1975 the net income from agriculture was R1 194 million and in 1977 R1 336 million. It is important to realize that between 1975 and 1977 there was a growth of only 11,9% in the net income, viz. R1 336 million. If one compares this with the private sector, there is no doubt that during the years 1975-’76 the increase in salary structure in respect of mines and quarries was 20,9%. I just want to indicate the earnings of the private sector, and that various salary earners were looked after. In the manufacturing and textile industries the increase amounted to 18,8%, and in the construction sector, 9,2%. So you will find that in the other industries there was a measure of growth. Under the present economic circumstances there are certain important aspects which we simply have to accept, and these are that we shall find that there will be a degree of criticism among the producers.

The hon. member for Virginia mentioned this point. I want to mention one specific example of what was said—which I thought was very irresponsible. It appeared in Die Vaderland of Wednesday, 10 May 1978. It read as follows—

It was said in Port Elizabeth—

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the background to all this is, but I know the hon. the Minister well enough to state unequivocally here that I am convinced that this was an unfair attack on the hon. the Minister. Let us understand this very clearly. The hon. member for Virginia mentioned that there were differences that developed into disputes, but first of all I want to put this one idea to you for your consideration, Sir. A responsibility rests on every member of this Parliament, whether on the Government or Opposition side, to bring it home to the producers that it does not tend to promote the industry and that it is dangerous if the Minister concerned is made the target of differences and disputes. We must at all costs avoid the hon. the Minister being made the target of differences in agriculture. This is of the utmost importance. And without flattery I think any hon. member in this Committee can say that there is no doubt about the fact that no person works harder for the producers than does the hon. the Minister.

Hear, hear!

But there is another aspect as well, and I am very pleased that the hon. member for Johannesburg North mentioned it today. I am referring to this misconception among the consumers that things are going so well with the farmers. I have already furnished statistics to prove the opposite. The consumer of South Africa must realize that the Minister of Agriculture serves as a buffer between producer and consumer. He has his marketing channels to which he has given serious attention. He appointed the Wentzel Commission and he is trying to cause marketing to function in the most scientific way possible. Despite all the machinery at his disposal, he has to accept the final responsibility when prices are announced. I have been serving in this Parliament for more than a decade and I have been following his progress during these years. In respect of the fixing of prices the hon. the Minister has never laid down exorbitant prices at the expense of the consumer, and I challenge any person to prove the opposite here. Therefore it is not only the hon. members who are present here in this committee today, but also all the members of Parliament who all have a task, in the interests of agriculture and in the interests of South Africa, of bringing home to our electorate—and I accept that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is going to do so—that the agricultural industry is a vitally important one.

What is the position as far as the future is concerned? I do not want to suggest for one moment that I am an expert in this field, but I agree with the concept of the phasing out of subsidies. If one analyses it scientifically one discovers where the funds for subsidies come from. They come from the Revenue Account. In other words, the consumer eventually pays for the subsidy again. As I have already said, agriculture is a unique, sensitive industry, and I believe that one of its greatest bottlenecks today is capital and capital formation which can be utilized by agriculture in general in the form of low interest loans. If we wish to bring about stability in this industry, we cannot do so with the economic rules which apply at present. As soon as an agriculturist is compelled to go to the private sector, with the interest rates at private banks standing at 14%, I tell you that he cannot function effectively and there cannot be stability in the industry. That is why I am convinced that while these subsidies are being phased out, we shall have to think along the lines of making a fund available to give stability to agriculture by way of loans, not by means of direct subsidies to agriculture, but merely by making capital available—at low interest rates—which can be recovered. It is not only in the interests of the producers, but also in the interests of the consumers to realize that we have to keep the agriculturist on his farm.

In the second place there is marketing, and the Wentzel Commission was appointed in this connection. I want to state today that I am convinced that the Minister is in earnest about effecting a saving as far as marketing is concerned. Therefore I want to make an appeal to the parties interested in the marketing of commodities not to think over the short-term. Since the hon. the Minister is in earnest in his attempt to affect a saving, they must realize that it will be to their advantage in the long term, and that they should therefore not pay attention to their own pursuit of profit over the short-term.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk about surpluses, and I want to use Israel as an example. In Israel every square inch of soil is utilized. In South Africa a psychosis that because agriculture is not very profitable there should not be any surpluses should never be allowed to develop. The future of South Africa will to a large extent depend on the initiative of the agriculturist and on his intention to produce to the maximum. I know it may be argued that the farmers have to export at a loss if local prices are taken into consideration, but the agricultural industry is earning exchange which is of vital importance to our country. This is an absolute priority for by so doing we expand and strengthen the defensibility of our country. I want to mention one example, just to illustrate to you how hypothetical it really is to speak of surpluses. A surplus today is a shortage tomorrow, and a shortage tomorrow is a surplus the day after. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is not really possible to react to many of the members’ arguments, but I should like to put a few ideas to you, arising out of what previous speakers said in their speeches. The hon. member for Witwatersberg discussed vegetables here. I do not think there is one of us who has been involved in organized agriculture for a long time who cannot say something about vegetables. We remember only too well the disaster which overtook the SAPD in the old days when we tried to organize the vegetable industry to a certain extent. I do not know how one can do this; in fact, I do not think there is an immediate solution to the problems of the vegetable industry. I do not know how one will be able to find a solution to that problem.

The hon. member for Virginia and the hon. member for Rustenburg discussed the maize industry, and in this regard I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Last week he discussed the price of R95 per ton of maize which Sampi proposed. I should like to inquire whether that amount of R95 includes an amount of money for the formation of capital in the industry itself, so that the maize producer will get some return from his crop which will enable him to build up his own capital. If that can be done, the producers will no longer be compelled to borrow money from the State or the co-operative or whoever in order to continue their farming activities.

†Mr. Chairman, I am very, very concerned indeed about the whole financial aspect of farming today because it seems to me that we are reaching the stage more and more where capital is not being built up in agriculture. We are being reduced to loans from the State, the Land Bank, co-operatives and from Agricultural Credit and other institutions, and I really do not think this is a sound investment basis for agriculture. I have nothing to do with Sampi or Samso or any similar organizations because I am not a maize farmer but I do feel that we have to get back to the point where capital can be built up out of profits. The people who are farming are farming for a profit and they will finance their future investment and future activities out of the profits they make on their crops. I want to pose a very serious question to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Carletonville viz. whether the present price of maize is designed to enable the mealie farmer to do that. Sir, I want to leave that with the hon. the Minister but this is something about which I am most concerned.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister another question. There was a commission of inquiry appointed by the hon. the Minister to go into the question of eggs and the way in which certain breeds of poultry were imported or brought into South Africa. Last year when this question was raised by us the hon. the Minister’s reply was that this question had been referred to the Police to ascertain whether any action could be taken against people who had participated in this activity and whether steps would have to be taken to follow up the inquiry.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give me a further reply to this. I do not have the time at my disposal now but I do want to take this matter further with the hon. the Minister.

I want however to come back to the question I raised in the budget debate regarding the input cost to farmers. We have been talking about subsidies for consumers, etc., and during the budget debate I asked the hon. the Minister whether it was not possible to identify certain costs built into, for instance, the maize producers’ cost. Sir, I have here the explanatory memorandum on the amendments to the Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act. There are certain things which I could read out but I do not have the time to do so. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not consider the appointment of an interdepartmental committee of inquiry between his Department, the Department of Finance and the Department of Customs and Excise, to attempt to identify items which are taxed by the Government, either by means of customs and excise duties, or which are taxed in any other way, and which are built into the price that the maize producer has to meet when he plants his crop. I make the point—and I have done so before—that if one can reduce input costs then the whole plateau of farming costs will come down. One will benefit then not only by not having to pay a subsidy but also by reason of the fact that one has by and large a very efficient group of maize producers—let us take that industry—so that the money one saves on the input side is actually multiplied by the time it comes out at the consumer’s end. I think such a committee of inquiry appointed by the hon. the Minister would be able to identify certain items and would have a positive effect in reducing the cost factors which go into the input side of the farming community.

It would also reduce inflation.

Yes, it would reduce inflation as well. That is a very good point indeed. The inflationary effect of this type of cost which the Government themselves are levying would be reduced. The hon. the Minister has an additional amount of R20 million this year for, let us say, the subsidization of the bread price. If this was utilized on the input side I believe that the ultimate effect would be far more than R20 million. By the time one comes out of the tunnel, as it were, one would be saving more than if one did it the other way round.

The report in regard to the question of farm debt, accepted the fact, and the hon. the Minister said, that the figure of 12% is accepted by everybody. It is accepted that farmer’s debt forms about 12% of their capital investment. I regard this as being of the utmost concern in view of the fact that we have had a period of years, as we have had over the past three or four years, that have been favourable agricultural seasons. These periods of favourable farming conditions, should have enabled us to reduce farm debts. It worries me particularly because the hon. the Minister has said that the price of maize, for instance, is fixed on an average. If we go according to the average, it must rise over the years because people who are not producing and who are below the average, are going to fall out. There will then be more and more people above the average but then the average is going to move up all the time. One still has to maintain an average between the good and poor farmer. One therefore has a factor which is increasing all the time. The efficiency factor is increasing all the time but obviously there are still going to be people who will be below the average. In a situation like that, we ought to be able to reduce the farm debt. I am concerned that according to the present price structure we have—I mention maize in particular—we are not actually catching up on the problem. One of the suggestions I want to make to the hon. the Minister which might help, is that he should appoint an interdepartmental committee of this nature which would be able to meet that particular problem and bring down the cost input of the farming community. There is obviously a limit to the extent to which the State can continue to finance agriculture. I know all of us would like the State to be able to consolidate all farm debt under the Land Bank. However, that is absolutely impossible. That is manifestly an impossibility. One is still going to find farmers today who are battling along trying to produce food for this country at an interest rate of 14% that one has to pay on a commercial overdraft. One cannot do it.

I agree with the hon. member for Rustenburg. Food is power. If we can produce surplus food we will have friends in Africa and anywhere in the world. Certainly we will be able to produce food in this country which will go beyond our borders into other countries in Africa. This will take a great deal of the political pressure off us. This will result in a completely different attitude towards us. One of the things this White community has got, is the ability to produce food. It is a basic organization; it is a knowledge of handling money; it is a dedication to work. This is something which is lacking in so many countries of Africa. Without the example we set and without being able to reach out to those countries with that example, I do not think they are ever going to catch up with the problems they have. I think the agricultural community is one which has a vital part to play in the whole survival of the White community here and the message that we have for the whole African continent. I would make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will consider it favourably. I hope it will bear fruit for the agricultural community.

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned on Monday, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was referring to the floor price of meat and said that it had not risen for the past five years. I quoted figures and indicated that the floor price had in fact risen. What he was concerned about, however, was that the slaughtering fees, the transport agents’ commissions, the meat board levy, etc., had risen to such an extent that they had absorbed the increase in the meat price. There was a period when the floor price was lower than the auction price, but effectively the farmer was receiving less. But the floor price underwent an upward adjustment. I just wanted to rectify this matter.

The hon. member went on to make quite a number of suggestions in regard to publicity. I shall refer to them again later. I am prepared to admit that the control boards will have to be asked to spend more money in this direction. Previously I turned on the brakes. As far as milk is concerned, there was the slogan: “Eat a litre milk a day.” However, when I ask for a subsidy increase now because there is a shortage, I am told that I have a shortage and yet I am advertising. But the people convinced me that one cannot advertise sporadically, but should keep bringing the product to the attention of the consumer.

The hon. member for Graaff Reinet referred to the amount of R67 million of the Wool Board. This is commendable. It is the aim of the Wool Board to have R100 million in the kitty. If all our control boards make provision for such a considerable nest egg, we shall be able to solve the problems.

The hon. member for Wynberg asked a few practical questions today. The group of farmers to which he referred would do well to meet us around a conference table. We have a fresh produce markets commission. The former market superintendent of Cape Town, Mr. Piet Venter, is the chairman of that commission. At such a meeting it would be possible to go into each of those facets. I can give the assurance that in some of our cities where vegetables are distributed to certain population groups, it was done on such a slender profit margin that as soon as the rental of the building, general expenses, rotting, etc. were taken into account, the profit came to a very small percentage. However, I should like to meet those farmers to establish whether we cannot find a solution.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg referred to the co-operative system. However, I can enumerate a string of these co-operative enterprises of the past, such as SAPD, etc. They fell by the wayside because no private initiative was displayed, as is done when a person sells his own crate of bananas, pineapples or peaches. But it will take too much time if I were to go into details now. However, the hon. member has reason to be dissatisfied with the distribution because the Epping market is situated in such a way that when the product reaches Sea Point or Wynberg, so many additional costs have been included in the calculation that in some cases it amounts to an increase of 300% for the consumer.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture referred to the re-allotment of land. I have not yet grown accustomed to this word. However, it is a matter in which the hon. Deputy Minister is very interested.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, and the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Mr. Piet Steyn, together with other officials, are going to Europe in June to make inquiries. It is all above board. Hon. members can institute investigations into the costs which will be incurred and in what kind of hotels they are going to stay. I am pleased that the Deputy Minister is showing such great interest in this important matter because it stresses the value of land tenure.

The hon. member for Carletonville said that we should not play one product off against another. However, we have the problem of yellow maize on which a subsidy of 90 cents is payable, as against the white maize intended for human consumption. The yellow maize is used in the production of daily and meat products. Sir, a 90 cent subsidy is an erroneous expression; in reality it is a subsidy of R50 million. It applies to the human and animal consumer. It is a subsidy in respect of storage costs. The hon. member has a point there. We shall have to investigate the State subsidization of these products. He said that white maize was an entirely different matter to yellow maize. It is very important that the hon. member should have raised this matter. I shall return briefly in a moment to the question of the price to which the hon. member for Mooi River referred.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg referred to the export of 800 tons of green peppers to Germany and 1 000 tons of green beans to Holland. There are farmers in the Western Cape and in the Transvaal who, of their own accord and without a control board, began to export sweet melons, avocado pears and cherries from the Free State by means of existing organizations and without any assistance. If a farmer is able to conclude a contract for the export of 800 tons of green peppers to Germany, he is at liberty to do so. The department will help such a person with the transportation of his product, for there are opportunities to do so by air or by sea. The hon. member for Witwatersberg himself is involved in such an export organization. On our part we are doing everything to encourage such efforts. Last year agricultural produce to the value of R1 200 million was exported, and the hon. member for Mooi River said “Food is power”. It is my endeavour to see that we export agricultural produce to the value of R3 000 million, because I know we can do it. One need think only of the research which is being done in respect of deciduous and citrus fruit. For example trees are not fertilized at all before the leaves have been analysed. Leaves from the trees are analysed every three months so that the trees may be given precisely the correct nutrients and so that its fruit is available for the export market.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to the drop in milk and butter sales. Yellow margarine appeared on the market in 1968, which explains the drop in butter sales, but there has also been a drop in fresh milk sales. As far as butter is concerned, the consumption at the time of the introduction of yellow margarine was approximately 60 000 tons, while only a small quantity of white margarine was being sold. Butter sales have now dropped to approximately 20 000 tons, while yellow margarine sales are approximately 60 000 tons. Fresh milk sales have also declined because more skimmed milk powder has become available as a result of the increases in the milk price. Another contributory factor is the fact that Blacks do not have refrigerators. Powdered skimmed milk does not go off, and can be kept for long periods even in the Bushveld. Black people give their children skimmed milk powder because it is easily obtainable and can easily be stored, which had led to a drop in the consumption of fresh milk in the cities.

The hon. member also referred to publicity. If one advertises Floro and Rama margarine, one is dealing with a specific trademark. One then has the beautiful TV advertisements of yellow margarine, far yellower than it is when one buys it In this way, for example, one can advertise Lexington and Gold Dollar cigarettes. However, if one advertises cigarettes only, or yellow margarine only, and not specific trademarks, one does not have as much success with the product. But I agree with the hon. member that we should definitely bring the good qualities of dairy products to the attention of the public. Nor can I differ with the hon. member when he says that we should spend more on cardiac research. In what he said the hon. member for Heilbron is a man after my own heart, and I easily forget that I am a groundnut and sunflower seed farmer.

The idea was expressed that we should make funds available to some university or other to make a study of the causes of heart attacks, with reference to the propaganda against animal fats. What the hon. member quoted is already happening to an increasing extent in America now. When I was a youngster, there was an enormous surplus of spinach, and the Popeye gimmick was then forced on us. My mother virtually crammed spinach down my throat. When I was older people said that there was no longer a surplus of spinach and that we should eat other vegetables. People in America are realizing today that in reality a false advertising campaign was conducted against animal fat. We could perhaps think of doing something in this connection. Perhaps we could advertise on TV alleging that margarine causes gallstones. The hon. member mentioned this, but I do not know whether we will be allowed to do it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member for Meyerton discussed cows and mentioned figures which I cannot refute. He said that the production costs of dairy farmers had increased by 50%, while the price of their product had hardly risen at all. In spite of this farmers have still retained their sense of comedy. In agriculture one can laugh with tears in one’s eyes, for one can always see the comedy in a situation. I can tell the hon. member for Meyerton that I do not differ with him at all, and that the Cabinet Committee is going to meet again tonight at 6.30 to discuss the milk price and the price of dairy products. Within 10 days we must find an answer to the problem of dairy prices. Dairy and fresh milk farmers find themselves in financial difficulties, and we shall have to do something about it. The question of supplying sour milk and curdled milk to the cities has been under consideration for a long time. Sometimes I am afraid that we are going to die of hygiene in this country. It is hard to believe how much is rejected for the sake of hygiene. For example meat has to be cooled rapidly and may not be conveyed further than 15 km unless the temperature in that truck is below 40°. All these expenses are added to the consumer price. The medical practitioners will probably know better.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North said something that was very true. The figures to which the hon. member referred were quoted last year in another form and I quoted them myself on television on Friday evening to demonstrate what the housewife spends out of her budget, and how many hours her husband, who is perhaps a factory worker or a railwayman, has to work so that she can buy that basket of food which the hon. member for Paarl told us about last year. At present the housewife pays considerably more for a can of peaches than she paid a few years ago. However, it must be borne in mind that the price of the can has increased, the sugar price was raised, transportation costs went up and electricity became more expensive, as did the label, the cardboard box and the labour. Last year, however, we only had one alternative, and that was to reduce the prices of peaches and pear to the farmer. The only solution we had for them was that they should be more efficient, for they were no longer in a position to harvest 25 tons of peaches per hectare; by means of research they have to harvest 30 tons per hectare. I am pleased that the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who represents an urban constituency, raised this matter.

The hon. member for Virginia discussed the importance of maize and said that there should be unanimity in this industry. For two years I have tried to bring the two factions in this industry together, but have not succeeded, and for me it was a personal defeat. However, I am devising a practical plan, but I do not want us to have to experience another episode such as the one we had. On Friday I paid a visit to Hartebeesfontein, and a few farmers who belong to another group came to me and said that I should do my best to improve the position since they could not carry on as they were doing. Who benefits if a few debating points are won and nothing is accomplished? I shall see what I can do. The hon. member referred to research, but he must realize that we should not play industries off against one another.

The hon. member said that a portion of the funds of the S.A. Agricultural Union should be applied for research. An amount of 10 cents is already being deducted from these fees for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, which totals approximately R2 million. As far as the contribution for the summer grain centre is concerned, it is being utilized mainly for maize research. A great deal of research is being done in co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Trials are being carried out at Nooitgedacht, Central West, North West and at Sensako. Where do our big maize crops come from? They are the result of research. Fertilizer companies are also involved in research, for example at Bapsfontein. The people who provide seed also carry out research. In this connection I am thinking of Pioneer’s experimental farm. Various organizations are therefore carrying out research to augment the entire industry. It is always a good thing when one asks for more money for research, and we shall go into this aspect.

The hon. member for Bethlehem said that we should not neglect our soil and our livestock, for then pressure would arise for prices to be reduced. We must not make the mistake in this country of neglecting our soil nutrition as a result of the high fertilizer prices. Some farmers say that they no longer use potash, while others say that they only apply the optimum quantity of fertilizer to ensure a crop in the case of drought. In years such as this, where in some regions with an average rainfall of 30 inches per annum 50 inches have fallen, these farmers are now going tozuse less fertilizer. Ultimately our children will suffer from these methods of wasteful exploitation, and our country cannot afford it. However, it is true that there are surpluses and cost increases, and that world prices have temporarily collapsed. I think I have said this many times. In 1973 I was invited to Wolmaransstad. A mass meeting was to be held there. As we were leaving Pretoria, we saw how maize had been planted everywhere but had not grown very' tall. There were many thousands of hectares under maize. Some people were fortunate in that they had been unable to plant. And then there was a complete crop failure. Two years later I was again invited to Wolmaransstad. We could not drive there; the police stopped us. We had to go there by air, and the same group of farmers was there just to come and say that everything was under water. That is agriculture in South Africa for you, and the same debate we are now conducting we can conduct all over again next year, and hon. members will be able to come with other proposals concerning what we should do in connection with the industry. I just want to tell the hon. member for Bethlehem, in connection with the pressure which is being exerted to have the prices reduced, that one should be careful that the pressure does not come from the consumer in the country who says: “Raise the price, give the producer an incentive, for we are afraid that we shall have to queue up, that we shall not have any food.” We should be careful about that.

That is why it is so correct that we should take the consumer with us.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked, in connection with this proposal of R95 per ton of a certain group, whether provision has been made for capital replacement. In this present price of R80 provision has been made for rapidly wasting assets. There is such an item.

†The hon. member asked whether there is enough compensation for capital investment. If you take an average, then 50% above the line can still invest and still have an additional amount in this price for capital investment. But when working on an average, there are difficulties. Some farmers are not as efficient as others, so what happens? I fully agree with the hon. member. The production cost and the cost of living of the farmer also increased. Four years ago a farm showing R4 000 net profit was still a viable undertaking, but the increase in the cost of living has changed this position. We always talk of the consumer’s cost of living. Do you think the farmer himself is not a consumer? He must also buy coffee, and sugar and clothes and shoes and a second-hand Mercedes Benz, and so on. He must also spend money.

Do you not think an amount of R80 in today’s circumstances, looking at the dairy industry, bearing in mind the subsidy the Government can pay, bearing in mind export prices, was a fair average price. I think it was a fair average price in today’s circumstances, and I think as a practical man the hon. member will realize that R95 a ton is too much. What should the consumer price be then? We are getting R80 now, but the farmer, who is a dairy farmer, must pay R83,10 per ton. That is an increase of over 16% in one year. The hon. member must remember that no land lies fallow. You cannot show me a farm in Natal that is not worked, land that is not ploughed. Agriculture is still going on, but there are less farmers. There is no land which can possibly produce which is not used; it is under the plough all the time.

*I come now to the hon. member for Rustenburg. You know, Sir, Paul Bodenstein and I were bench-fellows, and his is still a support for me in the sense that he looks at things positively and asks that we should understand one another, and that we should take the consumer with us. I want to thank the hon. member for Rustenburg very much for that standpoint.

†The hon. member for Mooi River also asked about the importation of eggs. We decided two years ago that the importation of eggs was possible after quarantine at the Irene station. It was also done to try to put an end to smuggling. We understand that the smuggling has stopped now because people can import new strains. At the moment, I am told by the department, there is no smuggling. There was at one stage because of the prohibition on imports which was very strict.

*The hon. member has questioned me on the allegation by Mr. Carlssen that I was the cause of the small farmer disappearing. Under the circumstances I said three months ago that permit control did not help at all. In 1968 it was said here in Parliament that no person may increase his production by more than 10 000 hens. A story was doing the rounds at the time that Tongaat in Natal eventually wanted to come into production with one million hens. There was general unrest among the farmers. They asked for a prohibition to be introduced under a permit system. My predecessor and I spoke to the egg producers and to the Egg Board and told them that this would not work. We have to prohibit this action in order to be transferable. If a person has 50 000 hens, he was not allowed to sell them to one of the big concerns. Then the scheme will succeed. They stuck to their guns and said that they were not interested in that; they said that they could not penalize a man and that he should remain in the industry. If he wanted to sell he must be allowed to do so. It was with great difficulty that we were able to apply the condition in connection with the 10 000 hens. And what was the result? The hon. member quoted from a report, and I shall have to discuss this with the Egg Board. In 1970 we had a total of 761 farms with 500 to 2 500 hens; these were the small farmers. Do you know what we had last year? There were only 175 of them left. We had a total of 1 672 farms of all kinds in 1970, and what do we have left now? 499. That was before I did away with this thing, but what was interesting was that there was no producer with more than 100 000 hens. At the end of last year there were six producers with a total of 992 000 hens, and seven producers with a total of 2,8 million hens. What also happened? It is interesting, and what Minister would not then say that this does not work? In 1970 the three big companies, Tiger Oats, Premier Milling and Tongaat were virtually uninvolved in the egg industry. At the end of last year Tiger Oats had 1 794 000 hens, Premier Milling 1 680 000 hens and Tongaat 586 000 hens, and together they produced 48% of our country’s eggs in this short space of time. Under permit control they had bought out the small farmer. There were people who told me that I should simply not do away with it; the people are now offering R10 a hen, and I should simply not put a stop to it.

Sir, I had no choice, and here we have this dilemma that a surplus of eggs and an increase in production. In 1970 the egg production was 9,4 million dozen and at the end of last year it was 14,9 million dozen. We shall have to find a solution to this problem. Recently I met these large companies and members of the Egg Board and the Marketing Council around a conference table at Jan Smuts Airport and I told them: Let us find a plan to cope with this problem, for everyone is going to find themselves in trouble now, it makes no difference whether they are big or small. There is adversity in the egg industry. I shall discuss this matter further this evening, after the supper break.

Mr. Chairman, I trust I am a better advertisement for the product I want to speak about and grew up with than the hon. the Minister is for his spinach. I want to speak about bread and wheat. Of course, I did not grow up on bread only, nor do I believe the hon. the Minister grew up on spinach only.

I want to endorse what the hon. member for Bethlehem said. He also referred to the wheat industry. In addition to all the other things one can say about bread and wheat, I want to speak about its quantity tonight. At the turn of the century, we produced 68 000 tons of wheat in this country. After 50 years, the figure was ten times as high, namely 680 000 tons. But during the succeeding 25 years, it shot up to 2 million tons, which was approximately 200 000 to 300 000 tons more than the consumption.

We who grew up with this industry in this country could never foresee that a time would come when, regardless of the growing population and in spite of the Black people having learned to eat white bread, there would be a surplus of wheat. That was always regarded as the foodstuff which was actually always in short supply. I have looked at the graph of wheat production and consumption in our country, and I notice that there are two fairly stable factors, namely the increase of approximately 4% a year in the consumption, and the production in the winter rainfall region. The production in the northern provinces is less stable—during the past six to eight years, in particular, it has fluctuated. The harvest for 1976-’77 was a bumper one, and that immediately resulted in a surplus of 535 000 tons. We were faced with that problem. Of this, 241 500 tons were exported at a loss of R16 million, that is to say, a loss of R67 a ton as against our producer’s price of R123 a ton. The balance of that surplus of more than half a million tons, that is to say, approximately 290 000 tons, was carried over to this season. To this must be added a further 107 000 tons, which will be the estimated excess of production over consumption for the 1977-’78 harvest. According to my information, this gives us a figure of approximately 400 000 tons. Of this, 100 000 tons have been exported. If a further surplus of 300 000 tons is added to that, if we have a harvest of 2 million tons again—which is not improbable, or rather which is possible— during the year 1978-’79, this can easily give us a total surplus of 600 million tons of wheat within a single year. By the way, Sir, I read in The Citizen this morning that Zambia only has wheat for 5 more days; they cannot obtain wheat from Dar-es-Salaam—I do not know whether the trains cannot carry it. The irony of the situation is that on the one hand, one has hungry people, and on the other hand, one has a surplus. If this surplus trend, which we can expect within a year, continues, and if this surplus has to be exported at the present world price, it will bring about a loss of R36 million—a loss which will cost the producer R18 a ton if he has to bear it.

Mr. Chairman, this picture is not likely to change in the future. Shortly after the high world prices of 1973 to 1975, which we ascribed to a sudden shortage in Russia, we had a world hurvest of 416 million tons. The five major wheat-producing countries, namely the USA, Australia, the EEC, Canada and Argentina, are at present carrying over 54 million tons of wheat, and it is estimated that by the end of this year, more than 50 million tons will still be left over. As a result of this, some of these major producing countries have already started thinking of introducing measures to limit production. If we look at this picture realistically, Sir, then it seems to me that the region which I, together with others, have the privilege of representing in this Parliament, that is to say, the winter rainfall region, which is one of the oldest wheat-producing regions, will have to be the first to be affected if certain of the wheat farmers must be phased out. Here, production cost is the highest in the country, and the yield per hectare is the lowest in the country. There is only one argument in our favour, and that is that we have the skill and that we already have the infrastructure of people, buildings, farms and fenced camps—most of these fully paid for—whereas all these requirements still have to be acquired in the new regions. These assets already exist in that area, together with the courage—of which a farmer must have an abundance—and all the other good qualities that have already been referred to. This situation will have to be faced up to. We are not ashamed of that, Sir. The first agricultural deputation that went to a Government, was to Jan van Riebeeck, before 1660, from Rondebosch. They complained about the southeaster which had flattened the wheat, the blight that had destroyed the wheat, and the price of X guilder a bushel, which was so low that no one could subsist on that. We are therefore not ashamed.

But an account of the capital-intensive equipment and the modem methods essential to a grain farmer here in the Boland today, I can tell you, Sir, that if you want to make me a present of a farm here today, and you do not give me the machinery as well, and you tell me to produce wheat, then you may as well keep it; then you may as well produce spinach. With this capitalization, some of our younger farmers, in particular, have been forced into a course of action from which one cannot deviate once one has embarked upon it. Or should I say that one finds oneself in a tunnel without any light ahead.

I do not know how much time I have left, Sir, but there is one more matter which I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, and that is the capital formation and capital investment in farmland, with which we grew up. I suppose I am speaking as one of the oldest members in this Committee. We grew up in a time when it was customary for the savings of an area to be ploughed back into the economy of that area. We had the boards of executors which were the equivalent of present-day trust companies. These boards of executors were found throughout the Western Cape. The nurse, the teacher and the minister deposited their savings there, if they had any. Those boards of executors invested in nothing but farm mortgages. Those boards of executors would have nothing to do with hotels or with blocks of flats, and I can assure you that they would have nothing to do with garages, because in their view they were too risky. Those boards of executors, which the farmers established in their naivety, insured the farmers, arranged auction sales, supplied the farmers with fire insurance, administered the estates of farmers, etc. Today one misses those institutions for they have all vanished. They have all been swallowed up by the banks. If we can do nothing more, we can pray for the poor young farmer who has to pay a bank’s interest on a loan, a loan he had to negotiate in order to be able to farm. He simply cannot do it. [Time expired.)

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Caledon. I am very grateful to him for having paved the way for the speech I want to make. I am very pleased that he has already pointed out the dilemma of the wheat farmer to us.

While he was quoting figures, I checked them with mine. I am sure he and I obtained our figures from the same source. I just want to tell you, Sir, that his figures are perfectly correct. I do not want to quote too many statistics, but I do want to add that while we are now experiencing surpluses, it is interesting to note that what the Wheat Control Board received during 1976-’77 is already 40 000 tons in excess of the estimated consumption by 1983-’84, if we allow for a normal growth in consumption of 4%. It is of course true that during the past year our consumption of wheat did decline somewhat, by 3,3% as compared with the previous year. What is also interesting is the fact that over a period of 15 years, from 1955 to 1970, the area under cultivation increased by 56%, while the production of wheat increased by 62%, so that the yield per hectare has remained fairly constant.

Over a period of seven years, from 1970 to 1977, there were a few interesting phenomena. In the first place, the area under cultivation area increased by only 3%. The production increased by 67%. The consumption increased by 31%, and the surplus by 36% over the production for 1970. The yield per hectare increased by 63%, and the consumption per hectare increased by 27%. In other words, one is justified in saying that the industry itself has done all it can. By means of improved methods of cultivation and better research, the industry has definitely made a valuable contribution.

It is important, however, that we must not only identify the nature of our problem. It is easy enough to say what our dilemma is, but we have to find a solution to our problem. When I say we must try and find a solution to our problem, I want to refer very particularly to the wheat farmer of the Western Cape, who finds himself in a very awkward situation, as the hon. member for Caledon has already indicated, because the wheat farmer of the Western Cape has no alternative. He has to produce wheat. His only alternative is to produce sheep; but he cannot plant maize or tobacco or whatever. It is also true that last year, after we had already absorbed 30% of our production costs the previous year, our producers absorbed 100% of our production costs. We should have received an increase of approximately R8 a ton, but we did not receive anything. I do not know of any other industry that made these sacrifices.

Milk.

I shall take the word of the hon. member who says “milk”. However, we do find ourselves in a difficult situation. The dilemma in which we find ourselves is the dilemma of the hon. the Minister. Our traditional cost survey area is here in the Western Cape, this area which is really indispensable to the country, because it is our more stable production area. Until the year before last, we always worked on a cost-plus basis. That was to our advantage. The wheat farmer was assured that he would recover his costs and that there would be something additional for him as an entrepreneurial reward. However, I am afraid we cannot carry on with this system. We shall have to reverse this system. As soon as one turns something inside out, it becomes revolutionary, and then one creates problems for oneself; and we are, of course, very much aware of the problems this will pose. Let me explain it to you briefly. Let us take, as an alternative basis, a fixed entrepreneurial remuneration which can be arbitrarily determined in the same way as the old entrepreneurial remuneration has always been arbitrarily determined. Instead of having only one production cost survey area, let us now divide the country into four production cost survey areas. In the Swartland, for the sake of argument, we shall then have an entrepreneurial remuneration of R2, plus production costs of, say, R10 a bag of wheat, so that the price for the Swartland farmer will then amount to R12. To the farmer on the Springbok Flats, one says: My friend, the entrepreneurial remuneration per bag of wheat is R2, and we shall adjust your price in the light of your production costs. Let us say for argument’s sake that it is R8 a bag of wheat. That man will then receive R10 a bag of wheat, but his entrepreneurial remuneration will be exactly the same as in the rest of the country. Such a system will mean that if one has have four cost survey areas, one will have four different prices. But one’s producer will receive exactly the same remuneration in every case. The benefits deriving from this are considerable. In the first place, it will mean that there will be no discrimination against producers. In the second place, productivity cannot suffer, because the total production can also be encouraged by increasing or reducing this entrepreneurial remuneration that one has taken as one’s basis. As I have said, it is arbitrarily determined. Furthermore, one will find a variation within the four areas, but one’s variations will be much lower than at present, where one has one great production area.

In the past, as I have already said, the determination of the basis, that is to say, the entrepreneurial remuneration, took place in an arbitrary manner. I think we can do it that way again. This entrepreneurial remuneration can be adapted from year to year, depending upon one’s economy, with due regard to cost indices. The producer who is able to exceed the average production in his area will still have the benefit of this. As I have already said, inefficiency will decidedly not be subsidized.

Last year, producers lost R8 a ton. If that is multiplied by our total production of almost 2 million tons, we arrive at approximately R16 million, which is the burden the wheat industry carried to the benefit of the consumer, because flour was cheaper in this country as a result of the fact that the producer absorbed this amount. It also effected a saving for the State. However, if we do not look into our price-fixing mechanism for wheat at this stage, then I fear that one of our most stable production areas, the Swartland/Ruens area, will not be able to stay in production. At present, we cannot yet feed the people of South Africa without this area. I therefore hope with all my heart that the hon. the Minister will consider the proposal we are submitting here today. We are aware of the concomitant problems. I should appreciate it if he would please look into the matter.

Mr. Chairman, before coming to the point I want to make this evening, I want to react briefly to a few things said by the hon. member for Paarl last week. As a result of our common interests, the hon. member and I are usually on the same wavelength. We have known each other since 7 December 1947, and it is therefore an easy matter for us to talk about a matter of mutual interest.

Last week the hon. member referred here to the fruit industry when he spoke highly of the various fruits developed as a result of research at the various institutes. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member said here, but I do want to emphasize and endorse what the hon. member said.

There was a time in the history of the fruit industry when all fruit cultivars were imported, and the fruit industry was dependent upon those. Most of them were subject to various weaknesses, inter alia, retarded budding, which resulted in a very poor and fluctuating yield. It is understandable, because those cultivars were developed overseas, and were not adapted to South African conditions in any way. Today the position is altogether different, and it is not necessary for us to make use of a single imported peach cultivar. We have a range of table peaches and canning peaches that cover the entire peach season. All of them are particularly well adapted cultivars, with the most outstanding characteristics. In the field of apricots, plums and grapes, too, we are second to none. The research institutes are still engaged in research and come up with very good products.

Twelve new peach cultivars have just been released, and we are very proud of what those people are doing for the fruit industry. But it is also very important, Sir, that the very best use must be made of the material which is released. At present special emphasis is being placed on obtaining virus-free material, and in this regard outstanding work in respect of breeding and purification is being done by the department, which subsequently makes the material available. Then, it is handled and administered by the S.A. Plant Improvement Organization, and ultimately it is made available to the producer by the nursery industry. The breeding and purification work is a very expensive process, and that is why I say we must make the very best use of that material. It may interest hon. members to know that it costs the department approximately R35 000 to make a single virus-free cultivar available to the industry. A point I want to make in this regard, is that after the department has made the material available to the Plant Improvement Organization, the further financing of the improvement scheme is handled by the three boards of control that serve the fruit industry. That actually means that the financing costs of the material are mainly borne by the producers of the Western Cape. I am not very happy about this system, Sir; I am in favour of a scheme in terms of which each person who will ultimately benefit from the use of the material has to make his contribution. I want to request the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter in order to ascertain whether it is not possible to effect a more satisfactory method of financing as far as such material is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, this evening I want to discuss something about which I am deeply concerned. When we consult the various reports relating to the Department of Agriculture, we notice that the burden of debt of farmers is increasing alarmingly, and that is an unhealthy state of affairs. The total burden of debt of the farmers—this has already been mentioned, but I am mentioning it again merely to refresh memories—increased from R2 007 million to R2 311 million during the past year, 1976-’77, alone. The biggest increase is the result of the substantial increase in the prices of agricultural land and capital goods. A point I very much want to discuss, is the incredible increase in the price of agricultural land. This is an unavoidable process, partly due to inflation, but also due to the fact that for various reasons agricultural land is becoming scarcer all the time. It is taken up for industrial development, town development, roads, etc., but land is steadily becoming more expensive also because many people regard it as a safe field of investment. A further reason is that there is a steady increase in the demand for land in proportion to the increase in the demand for food. This constantly rising price of land is, in my opinion, the major reason for the depopulation of the rural areas to such a large extent.

It is true that the high land prices probably enhance the credit-worthiness of the owner, and I do not want to deal with that, Sir. At an opportune time we shall certainly be able to conduct a good and healthy debate about that. What I do want to suggest, is that as a result of the high prices of land, it is becoming more and more difficult for farmers to obtain the necessary financing. It will probably be the ideal state of affairs if a climate or opportunity can be created which will be favourable to capital formation by the farmers themselves. It would be a good idea to have a debate on this at some stage. But the sources of financing we have at present are Agricultural Credit and the Land Bank.

During the past few years, since November 1975, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has no longer been able to make funds available for land purchases. The loans of the Department of Agricultural Credit are at present limited to the financing of farmers who can no longer obtain credit otherwise. As far as the Landbank is concerned, mortgage loans and charge loans are still provided. The bank has wide lending powers, but does not have unlimited loan funds available. The board is therefore obliged to follow a loan policy in terms of which only the most essential needs of the agricultural industry are provided for. In view of the fact that the board of the Land Bank is obliged at present to follow a restrictive loan policy and, on the other hand, has to take into account the Government’s monetary policy, the board constantly strives to follow a positive policy in order to ensure that agricultural production is maintained and is not unnecessarily handicapped by a shortage of essential credit. The Land Bank cannot come anywhere near meeting the demand for the financing of loans. During the past year only 2 054 of 3 021 applications could be approved, and there were applications totalling R54 000 000 that could not be granted. Although all the refusals could not be ascribed to the shortage of loan capital, and other factors also had to be taken into account, the problem remained one of a lack of financing facilities.

Account must also be taken of the fact that it is not so easy for the agricultural industry to compete for loans on the open market, particularly if regard is had to the fact that a return of less than 7% in a good agricultural year has to compete with a return norm of 15% in the industrial sector. In order to ensure that agriculture will retain its position in future, and in order to ensure that agriculture will be able to continue meeting the increasing demand for foodstuffs, and maintain exports which represent 30% of the export market at present, I want to advocate the creation of sources of financing in some way which will enable the farmer to obtain financing on a sound and effective basis.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I want to round off the proposal I made in my previous speech on the basis of the economic relationship between the producer and the consumer. In pursuance of what was said but the hon. member who has just sat down, I want to say that one of the things that must be explained to the public is one of the facts the hon. member mentioned, namely that no other industry exists in which the return is lower and the risk, generally, greater, than in the farming industry. People who do not have the capital, the talent, the personality or the temperament or whatever it may be to venture into this industry, must be discouraged from doing so. Many people in South Africa argue that one does not require any knowledge to be able to farm, and that any person can simply go and farm. That is the idea with which some people have grown up, and many people still hold that view. They invest whatever pension moneys and savings they have in a farming venture which is doomed to failure. However, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise quite another matter.

If in the future the hon. the Minister can arrange for a television programme to be presented in which the ideal food basket is shown on the screen every month with accompanying explanations about the increase or decline in prices and the reasons therefore, it will eliminate many a misunderstanding.

Apart from that, there is something else one must bring to the notice of the general public because it is a fact that is very seldom emphasized. We say the farming community is indispensable but in this respect we think only of economics, the material, the bread and butter aspect. It appears to me that there is in fact another aspect as well that is far more important.

The National Party!

Apart from the National Party. The question is whether there is, or ever was, a society or social dispensation in the world that remained healthy without the action and interaction of the farming community? This question occurred to me for the first time—excuse me for speaking from my own point of view—when Dr. Frikkie Tomlinson reported on agricultural holdings. Do you know, Sir, that virtually 90% of agricultural holdings are uneconomic propositions? One can really not justify them on economic grounds. Do hon. members know on what basis he said we must be very careful not to discourage agricultural holdings? It was from the social-communal point of view. He said the farmers and their families on smallholdings were socially more sound than any group in the cities. The Sunday school and church attendance is better than in the city. The incidence of crime on the smallholdings is far lower than in the city.

They are also more favourably disposed towards the National Party.

They are evidently a sounder community in every respect than the city communities are. This can only be explained by the fact that these people are influenced by some or other element— whether it be because they work with the soil or live in the open air or suffer privations— which keeps them more healthy than the community in the city.

Ownership! It is the fact that they are their own bosses.

I am not quite so sure about being a poor boss. If one is one’s own boss on a little piece of land of 5 morgen or even 2½ morgen, and cannot pay one’s accounts at the end of the month, one feels very little pride of ownership.

I read up on what the great social historian, Arnold Toynbee, had to say in order to ascertain whether anywhere in his study of history—this is a monumental work of 12 volumes—he wrote about cases in ancient history where these two things were weighed up against each other. There was in fact such a case. If it will not weary the committee, I want to outline the circumstances briefly. Approximately 400 b.c. or 200 b.c., when Athens started colonizing and forming settlements—inter alia, in Sicily—the wise men of Athens said one could only have a farming settlement that was based on two conditions. One of these conditions was that it had to be so organized that productivity would be very high. The second condition was that the small-scale farmer had to be eliminated because he was unproductive. Sir, do you see the connection? They did in fact do that in Sicily. Productivity was vastly increased. The words he used were that the increase in productivity took place on a vast scale. In the wake of this development all the small-scale farmers disappeared because there were then bigger, specialized farms. It was no longer a matter of a small quantity of grapes or a small quantity of this or of that; it was only wine or olive oil throughout. Farmers must specialize; in that way their costs decline and as a result they are unable to export. Toynbee also said that this system spread from Sicily to the south of Italy. It had an enormous influence on social development. It even permeated through to Rome.

Toynbee said this new technology and all its concomitant evils—the sterility of the agricultural sector—only collapsed when the Roman Empire collapsed during the third century a.d. I quote—

This is the agricultural disease of technological improvement and specialization in order to increase productivity—

I am not quoting these facts and this example in support of smaller farms or something of that nature. I am merely trying to point out the example from ancient history, something said by no less a person than Arnold Toynbee. If one has a community in which the small-scale farmer is pushed out and moves to the city it results in an imbalance that ultimately leads to the decay of the entire community. Think, for example, of the change that set it in England when the small-scale farmers vanished from the scene there and when there was no longer a farming middle-class as of old.

Yeoman farmers.

Think of the instability that set in. On the other hand, think of the stability one finds in poor countries like Israel, Greece, Italy and Portugal where there are masses of small-scale farmers. They are almost dying of starvation but evidently they maintain the entire structure of society. They are also a bastion against communism. They protect society from the onslaughts of the natural degeneration and demise and death of a society in the long term. This is an idea that merits further investigation and one which, in my view, must definitely be investigated here in South Africa. If the outcome is what I think it will be, we must tell the consumers: “The spiritual welfare of the children and grandchildren of your people who live in the cities depends upon the people who work in the rural areas.”

Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg North that the small-scale farmer is very important. Incidentally, that is also the theme of my speech today. I share the hon. member’s view that the small-scale farmer can be a social factor in enabling us to retain the land. I am in good company; the hon. Deputy Minister also spoke of land tenure and its importance today. He referred to the report of the Committee on Rural Reform. That is a very important report and I want to come back to it again.

The hon. the Minister also said in his speech last Monday that we could not afford to lose any more of the farmers who are still in the rural areas. It is not merely a matter of retaining the farmers in the rural areas. We in South Africa must realize that it is also a matter of the White depopulation of the rural areas that is taking place. That is one of the major factors. When we look at statistics it is frightening to see how the number of farming units is decreasing. We heard the figure of 77 000. That trend is continuing.

We had the commission of inquiry into agriculture and they did immensely good work. I referred to the report of that commission again to see what recommendations they had made in this regard. They made a very thorough study of the position. They went into the problems of drought, production costs, etc. They made a very thorough study of financing and all other relevant matters. They found that considerable assistance in respect of credit facilities, subsidies and price concessions had not stopped the depopulation of the rural areas. They recommended that another committee be appointed to institute a special investigation into rural reform. This committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Faan du Plessis, published a report last year, after an investigation lasting six years. This is the report the hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to. He said that more of our members of Parliament should read that report but it is so expensive that it is virtually beyond the means of the average reader. Members of Parliament did not have the privilege of obtaining that report. I have tried for a number of weeks to obtain a copy of the report but it is very difficult to obtain.

I shall sell you a secondhand one at half-price.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I am really impressed by the work Dr. Du Plessis and his committee did, and I want to refer to a few of the recommendations they made. They recommended, for example, that the aid services of the Department of Agriculture be far better utilized. There are various ways in which improvements can be effected in this respect. I do not want to belittle the aid services of our departments in any way but they really do not reach the small-scale farmer. Our extension officers no longer have the time to visit the small-scale farmer and give him advice. The possibility of the communal ownership of expensive implements was raised, but it seems to me that we have not made much progress in that field. There are also very specific recommendations in regard to the ownership of too much land, and the possibility of a progressive land tax was mentioned.

If we want to use our agricultural land productively, I really think the time has arrived for us to look into the question of the ownership of excessive land, particularly in the light of the White depopulation of the rural areas. There are farmers who own as many as 24 farms and get people of another colour to farm them. This evil is one of the major causes of the depopulation of the rural areas and we must give attention to it. There is also the question of the retirement of elderly fanners and the question of usufruct which links farms to the pension of the retired parent for a period of 10 years. This creates serious problems for the young man when he wants to dispose of this usufruct.

Another aspect referred to in the report is the improvement in the general standard of living in the rural areas. Recommendations are made as to how various organizations should set about improving the standard of living as a whole. There is also reference to the role which farming associations can play. We have 1 600 farming associations in the country which can be activated to effect rural reform. In this respect our farming associations have an immense role to play. The committee also deals with what agricultural co-operatives can do to counter the depopulation of the rural areas. I am pleased to note from the report of the co-operative council that the S.A. Agricultural Union is now going to give this matter specific attention and that it is going to lend its full support to efforts to implement the recommendations in this report.

There is also the question of expensive electricity on farms. We know that a commission of inquiry of the Department of Economic Affairs is investigating the tariff structure at the moment, but it is a fact that electricity is becoming so expensive that most of the farmers cannot afford it. I know that the problem is not as serious in other regions but in the Eastern Cape electricity tariffs have risen by 400% during the past three years.

I grew up at a time when hens’ eggs were still a form of currency. We suffered hard times on the farms and if one wanted to buy something one sent a few eggs to the shop in exchange for coffee or sugar, for example. This may sound ridiculous now but that was actually the case during the 1930s. Today, poultry farming is virtually a thing of the past for the small-scale farmer because we now have chicken factories. The cream cheque that kept the small-scale farmer in business is also a thing of the past. It maintained the household because the cheque went to the farmer’s wife while he paid for the fodder. The small-scale farmers in the district of Humansdorp are among the happiest and most prosperous people I know, in spite of their meagre income; they give their children an education and make the largest contributions to the church. They are the backbone of the country, and I agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg North that we need them.

When one looks at the schedules in the report one notices that in my constituency there are six districts where the farms of more than 60% of the farmers are uneconomic units. That is an alarming figure but I contend that very few of the applications for aid to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and to the Land Bank are from my constituency. I think we must once again ask ourselves whether farming on a large scale is really a success. I grew up at a time when a farmer’s assets were sold in execution because he owed the bank £100, but we have heard today that the burden of debt of our farmers is becoming greater and greater. It is not the small-scale farmers who owe that debt; most of it has been incurred by large-scale farmers. Is it not better to keep 100 farmers on the land with R1 million at R10 000 each, than to give 10 farmers R100 000 each? I am merely asking the question.

We now have the reports of the various commissions that investigated agriculture. We have the report in connection with agricultural reform and, now that we have all the details at our disposal, I think the time has arrived for us to do something positive. I should very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister which of the recommendations of the commission he is prepared to accept.

There is also another aspect I want to raise. Has the time not arrived for us to do something positive to keep our small-scale farmers on the land? The hon. member for Malmesbury mentioned the possibility of a differential price, and I can remember that during the 1930s the Government paid a subsidy to farmers. For the first 1 000 cases of oranges, for example, a farmer received a higher subsidy than for the remaining part of his crop.

In Israel, Agrexco, their trading organization, guarantees farmers a fixed price for the first portion of their products for which it negotiates a firm contract A farmer must be prepared to accept the ordinary market price for whatever he produces beyond that. Has the time not arrived, with our very effective control board system, to look into the possibility of establishing something on similar lines? By so doing we should be able to ensure a proper standard of living for farmers if such a farmer produces a certain quantity of a particular product. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of a private member’s motion in the House of Assembly by the hon. member for Malmesbury and other hon. members, certain matters concerning agriculture were examined. Attention was given to the increase in production costs, the supply of capital and increased food prices. The hon. member for Malmesbury referred, inter alia, to the fact that commercial banks carry 21% of the burden of debt of farmers, the Land Bank, 20,8% and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure 6,8%. I want to confine myself to the last of the three, i.e. the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Before I discuss this matter, I should like to make use of this opportunity to thank the Land Bank, which is the largest financial institution financing our farmers, most sincerely for the excellent service rendered to agriculture and the farming community of South Africa over the past 65 years. As far as the Land Bank is concerned, I have a problem, viz. that the maximum loan of R100 000 granted per applicant is, in my opinion, no longer adequate. When we take into account the way the value of land has increased over past years, I feel that attention should be paid to this matter and that this amount should be increased. I regret that in this regard I have to speak counter to the hon. member for Humansdorp. As far as medium term loans are concerned, I am of the opinion that the credit board’s aid in this regard too is much too limited and that more assistance should be given in this regard as well.

The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure plays a very important role in my opinion and is, in fact, a unique department. The financial aid given by this board is not a substitute for the assistance normally given by other credit institutions but is intended for the deserving applicant who merits assistance but whose financial position is, because of factors over which he has no control, of such a nature that he cannot acquire the necessary funds from the Land Bank, commercial banks or other institutions. The financial aid given should be justified economically. Surely that is logical. Briefly it boils down to the fact that for the applicant who is in difficulties there should be a reasonable prospect of being able to overcome his financial problems in due course by means of the aid given to him by the credit board. That assistance should enable him to cover his running expenses and his interest and capital redemption costs, and leave an adequate income to ensure that he Since the establishment of this department on 1 October 1966, up to 31 March 1978, a period of twelve years, the Agricultural Credit Board has already given loans to farmers to an amount of R229,3 million under all its schemes. For the same period the following amounts were, inter alia, given for certain specific schemes—these amounts form part of the total amount I have just mentioned —i.e. payment of debt, R50,2 million; crop production loans, R15,8 million; livestock, implements, equipment and improvements, R4,1 million; disaster damage, R7,6 million; purchase of land, R86,8 million; soil conservation projects, R11,3 million; housing for farm labourers, R8,7 million; and land grants, R8,7 million.

But, Sir, the rapid growth and development in the agricultural industry over the past few years as well as the large increase in production costs have contributed to a heavy increase in the demand for financing. This need for financing has been increased during the past three years by bad economic conditions. Consequently the board has endeavoured, with the funds at its disposal, to come to the aid of the most deserving cases.

The increase in production costs and the consequent higher demands made by farmers with regard to crop production loans are indicated clearly in the following figures: I quote the year 1973-’74 when the average amount per crop production loan was R2 698; five years later, in 1977-’78, the average figure was R5 155. As far as the payment of debts is concerned, too, a tendency is perceptible on the part of certain suppliers of credit on the one hand no longer to be willing to grant further credit to more and more farmers, and on the other hand to begin to press farmers for payment of debt. As a result of this lack of further financing, as well as the attitude of the credit suppliers, farmers are forced to apply to the Agricultural Credit Board for assistance. What is actually alarming to me is that some of the applications being received at present are from quite a number of large farming concerns. This is proven by the following figures with regard to the analysis of applications for loans for payment of debt. For the period 1 April to 31 December 1976 there were 473 applications for a total amount of R21,l million, of which 143 applications were granted to an amount of R2,7 million. Twelve months later, i.e. from 1 April to 31 December 1977 there were 667 applications for a total amount of R33,5 million, of which 196 were granted to a total amount of R4,4 million.

Mr. Chairman, these figures really alarm me. I should like to know whether it is because there are not enough funds or whether it is because these applications do not meet the necessary requirements. From what I have just told you, it is very clear that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure fulfils a very important financing function or role with regard to a certain category or group of farmers who have really found themselves in financial difficulties because of circumstances over which they have had no control and who, as a result, are not sufficiently credit-worthy to be able to obtain assistance from any existing financial institution.

I am heartened by, and I should like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister and, through him, this department for, the good work done for this type and class of farmers. It is these people who are actually standing cap in hand as a result of circumstances over which they have no control. It is clear, too, that the loans for the purchase of land as well as for the payment or consolidation of debt require the largest loan amounts, i.e. almost 62% of the total loan amount. As far as the purchase of land is concerned, the board has specifically made it its object to enable deserving fanners owning uneconomic units to acquire adjoining or nearby uneconomic units in order to be able to make their own units more economic.

Judging from the amounts granted in respect of loans, it is estimated that approximately 50% of the 3 121 loans granted for the purchase of land were used for this purpose. What I find heartening, however, Mr. Chairman, is that the other 50% of the loans were used to help deserving and mainly young farmers who had already proved themselves as lessees or share croppers to be efficient and able farmers, to purchase land. It appeared from a random test that 64% of the farmers who acquired the land in this manner were under the age of 40 years. In providing this credit, the board made an important contribution towards the establishment of more viable farming units and, by that means, also contributed towards the establishment of a more economically sound farming community.

Unfortunately the purchase of land had to be suspended for the period 28 November 1975 to 31 March 1977, and again from 21 September 1977. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence to make funds available once more in order to enable the Agricultural Credit Board to continue with this process of land consolidation and thus with the gradual elimination of existing uneconomic units. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we who have the interests of the farmer at heart are well aware of the fact that the farmers in South Africa are blessed with a Minister of Agriculture who dedicates all his strength and enthusiasm and talents to agriculture in South Africa. Furthermore we are aware of the fact that the Government realizes how indispensable the agricultural sector in South Africa is, and therefore takes steps from time to time to enable the farmer to produce enough food in South Africa. Food is subsidized by the Government and I want to emphasize that it is subsidized for the consumer of that food. If we move in certain circles, one gets the impression that people are in the dark as far as this aspect is concerned. While the informed person is aware of all these things, a newspaper like The Star published an article on 15 April 1978 with the heading: “Why, they almost pay you to farm.” The writer of this article is a fellow called Jaap Boekkooi. [Interjections.] No, not “bokooi”, Boekkooi. In a scandalous way this article creates the impression among its readers, who are mainly town dwellers, that the farmer gets land for nothing from the State and does so at the expense of the taxpayer, as if the farmer is not a taxpayer as well. This is a scandalous playing off of the farmer against the town dweller. The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to the fact that his voters regard the farmer as a burden on the State. He said that the farmer was a parasite and that his electorate was unsympathetic towards the farmer. It is a pity that this is so. Previous speakers referred to this fact, i.e. that people are not always informed. I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North can undertake good educational work in his electorate by starting to teach them that the milk they use comes from a cow’s udder and is not manufactured in the dairy.

This article of Jaap Boekkooi in The Star reads as follows—

Proceedings suspended at 18h02 until 18h15 to enable members to attend a division.

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended, I was quoting from an article written by Jaap Boekkooi, and therefore I should now like to continue. He said—

Then the writer tells about the loans the farmers can get at an interest rate of 1%, but of course he does not refer to the fact that these loans are only available for the farmer to provide housing for his labourers. The real spirit of this newspaper emanates from this article. It is a spirit of antagonism towards the farmer, and it really seems as if these people hate the farmer. And nowhere have I seen the Official Opposition reprimand this mouthpiece of theirs since this article was published. They dare not, because representation of the Official Opposition is limited; they do not represent the farmer. With the exception of one or two hon. members in the benches of the Official Opposition the rest of that party knows absolutely nothing about the problems which face the farmer.

This article contains errors as well, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to refer to a few of them. He refers here to the plots allocated in the Ramah area situated below the P. K. le Roux Dam and he also says that eventually there will only be 32 farms in this area. Furthermore he says—

What is the position here? The position is that 64 plots will eventually be irrigated at the P. K. le Roux Dam. These allegations that only the Ramah project will be irrigated with water from the P. K. le Roux Dam is also untrue, because in the White Paper, WPN of 1971, the prospect of the following development is held out—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity once again to speak during the last ten minutes before the hon. the Minister leaves to talk to the Cabinet, and in fact I want to refer once again to that milk story. I did not know that the hon. the Minister was going to speak to the Cabinet tonight. Once again I want to refer to the allegation of the distributors, i.e. that with an increase of between 5% and 6% in the turnover they need no increase. What is more, they claim that should their turnover increase by 10%, the price of milk can decrease for them. They suggest that if their turnover should increase by 10% per factory, their costs and even their price could decrease. I therefore suggest that he should let the cat loose among the pigeons in the Cabinet tonight. Furthermore I suggest that he asks for an increase of only 2½ cent per litre, but that 2 cents should go to the farmer and that the half-cent be spent on advertising.

And what does the distributor get?

Nothing. Mr. Chairman, we must keep in mind that that half-cent means R12 million of advertising and other promotion campaigns. I know that the Cabinet might throw a fit if they hear that R12 million is going to be spent on the promotion of milk, butter, cheese and condensed milk, but I hope that the Cabinet will approve something like this. I think that we should really take steps now to protect the farming community of the future. To use funds for the export of milk products is, in my opinion, undesirable. Let us rather spend those funds on promotion and new products.

I do not know whether that R12 million is correct.

If we take the price at a half-cent per litre and the annual production amounts to 2,4 billion litre, we get the amount of R12 million. That is how I calculated it.

As far as the promotion campaign is concerned, the advertisements which we saw on television were good. Basically everything deals with the drinking of more milk. It is, however, not something that sells. The hon. member for Meyerton gave us a very nice illustration of the cow. The cow on the television set and the idea that she produces a natural product is something which the people of our country will understand. We want to return to the land. If we can get the idea across that butter, milk, cheese and all dairy products are natural products, we can achieve much. Let a pretty girl stand next to the cow and you will see how the product sells. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, another direction we have to take, is that milk distribution points should be increased. I referred to this earlier on. In this case we should go to the Black population and request them to distribute milk in their own homelands and areas themselves. I think an hon. member mentioned this earlier on. I fully agree with this. However, I now want to leave the milk aspect.

The second point I want to mention, is where my heart really lies.

Were you speaking about industrial milk or fresh milk?

I was speaking about the total milk consumption.

†Mr. Chairman, the livestock industry is in a parlous situation. The steady decline over the past 30 years has caused the beef farmer to have a rough time. In fact, he has never had it so bad as at the present time. Beef consumption has dropped from the previous 36 kilograms 30 years ago to 24 kilograms per capita at the present moment. Thirty years ago 50% more beef was consumed than at present. Thirty years ago our people ate 50% more meat than what they eat at present. A similar position applies to sheep. At present 6,5 kilograms mutton per capita is consumed while 30 years ago the figure stood at 10,5 kilograms. This is 60% more than what is being consumed today.

Pigs have held their own, viz. about three to four kilograms each year per capita. They have done a remarkable job of keeping their market, but beef and sheep have dropped. Why has the consumption of red meat dropped? I shall give a few reasons and I would like the committee to take note of them. The aggressive marketing and price structure of the chicken industry is one of the reasons for this phenomenon. Another factor is the increase in the cost of red meat to the consumer, but not necessarily in what the farmer received. Thirdly, there is the complete lack of a co-ordinated promotion and advertising campaign on behalf of the red meat industry. The fourth reason is the inadequate distribution network and, lastly, the absence of new market research. I wish to deal with the various reasons one by one.

The first reason pertains to the chicken industry. I am certainly not going to criticize them. In fact, I am going to praise them. I want to take my hat off to them because they have been production as well as marketing conscious. They have done a remarkable job. Twenty years ago the ration of red meat to chicken consumed was ten to one in kilograms per capita. Today the ratio is two to one. Whose fault is it? Not the chicken farmers, because he has done a remarkable job. It is our fault as beef and sheep farmers because we have not marketed and sold our products. Why have the chicken farmers done so well? Firstly, their product is cheaper per kilogram. Secondly, it is easier to divide a chicken. A housewife can cut that chicken up into eight portions and can feed her family on it. Furthermore, the product is available at any shop at any time of the day or night. It is also well advertized and promoted and in the frozen form is acceptable to the housewife. These are the reasons why the chicken farmer has done well. What do we do? What can we do? To compete we have to provide cheaper products. I have dealt with the question of sausages, hamburgers and hotdogs before. There is the picture of the Germans and the Italians going home with their polonies and sausages under their arms, and the Americans with their hamburgers and hotdogs. They are eating the cheaper products and they are the products that are competing with chicken. The point I am trying to make is that the meat must be readily available. Smaller portions and cuts of meat must be provided to be able to compete. Big steaks are wonderful for a braaivleis but we must find ways and means of marketing smaller cuts so that the housewife can give each child a portion of meat, something which she can so easily do in the form of a chicken. Supermarkets and café’s should all be allowed to sell meat or else we must not allow chicken to be sold by them because surely all these products should be governed by the same health regulations. We also have to promote and advertise our products. We have to promote the fact that a frozen meat product is as good as a fresh meat product. We must conduct research as to how to make it more attractive to the housewife to accept the frozen product which is easily marketed for freezers.

At present we have a surplus of approximately 100 000 to 200 000 beef animals, either on the hoof, in the feedlot or in the freezer today. This is a rough estimate of what is presently the surplus of cattle in South Africa. To wipe out such a surplus by way of exports is going to cost either the beef farmer or somebody else approximately R5 million to R10 million, and I wish to plead that we do not waste that money. If we could increase the local consumption by 6% we can wipe the surplus out in no time at all. That means that we have to promote only 3% because the other 3% will be consumed as a result of the natural increase in the population. We have therefore only to advertise and to promote sufficiently to sell an additional 3% of meat and we shall be able to wipe out the beef surplus. We will then be building a future for our meat industry. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, in view of the moving appeal by the hon. member for Bethlehem that we should still bring up and educate a lad to be a farmer, and in view of the fact mentioned by the hon. member for Witwatersberg that the average age of our farming population is 55 years, I should like to make an appeal on this occasion for a particular class and group of young farmers, men with all the required personal characteristics and potential to be successful farmers and who can and will definitely be a positive boon to the agricultural industry. In my opinion it is a tragedy that many of these promising young farmers are excluded from entering and settling in in the agricultural industry because they have not inherited land in the first place. Unfortunately, nobody can do anything about this restrictive factor. In the second place they are excluded because they lack the necessary capital to enable them to afford the high land prices. The high land prices that have already been mentioned here must be attributed to various factors. For example, there is inflation or the drop in the value of money and the limited supply of agricultural land as against an ever-increasing demand, a demand which is increased by the entry of professional people, doctors, dentists, advocates, attorneys, etc. into the market for agricultural land. In the fourth place there are established farmers who have sold farms in trust areas and in industrial and urban areas at high prices and who can now buy agricultural land elsewhere at a high price. In the fifth place there are farmers well provided with capital who are seeking to increase their land and with whom the young farmer cannot compete.

In the face of all these factors affecting high land prices the young farmer is absolutely powerless. He must simply accept it as a fact. In addition we must also bear in mind that Government land available for allocation and alienation is limited and is becoming ever scarcer. In addition to that there is also the new method of the allocation of land under irrigation schemes which also makes heavy capital demands of the young farmer.

There are only two options left to the young farmer: Either he is and remains excluded from the agricultural industry or, driven by his passion for the soil, his enthusiasm and personal drive, he tries in one way or another to find the money to buy land which is, after all, the basis of a successful entrepreneur in the agricultural industry. And for financing this young farmer now has to fall back on, firstly, private loans; secondly, loans from finance companies; or, thirdly, on the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

As far as the first two sources of financing are concerned, he is subject to the present crippling interest rates which he is unable to pay at the slightest setback and then runs the risk of losing everything. The Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are naturally restricted to a maximum margin of financing which is usually much lower than the ruling land prices. The young farmer, the buyer of the land, usually has to register a second bond, normally with the seller. Once again he has to do so at the prevailing crippling rates of interest which result in his running the same risks when droughts and other setbacks are encountered.

In order to get these young farmers into the agricultural industry and keep them there, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to take a close look at the possibility of joint financing by the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for the purchase of land. I am not appealing for a reckless and unrealistic form of financing by the two institutions I have mentioned. But we should be able to find a formula in terms of which financing can be done without discarding sound financial principles and procedures. I am aware of the fact that in the present economic climate the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure cannot make more money available for the purchase of land. But we do want to ask that careful attention be given to this matter when things get back to normal.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact, that there had been cases in which both the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure have accommodated a young farmer, the Land Bank with the first mortgage and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure with the second. But those are exceptional cases; it is not the rule that is applied according to a fixed formula. I am aware of young farmers who have been helped in this way and who are making a great success of their farming and who are in fact an asset and a boon to the agricultural industry.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of these young farmers who would like to farm, who would be an asset to the farming industry, I ask that we take a look at such a system of joint financing by the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

Mr. Chairman, we are together here tonight and we have on this occasion also discussed advertisements and the advertising of various kinds of foods. I should like to refer to what the hon. the Minister told us, namely that when he was a small boy he was the victim of Popeye advertisements and had to eat a lot of spinach. Today he wants to know whether it actually was of any use. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that I think he became a Minister because of all that spinach that he ate. But now that he is an adult I want to advise him again tonight. But in giving him advice and advertising a product, I do not want to do so at the expense of any other product. As you know, Sir, I am an oilseed farmer and I am representing that aspect of the industry here tonight. I want therefore to appeal to the hon. the Minister very strongly to eat fairly large quantities of peanuts every day. He will notice that this helps a lot. He will remain Minister for a very long time and, at his age, he will also notice that this will help him in many other respects which I should not like to mention in this place. So from this side of the House I really do want to do some positive advertising for my industry.

As an oilseed farmer I should like to say tonight—and I mean this sincerely—that I find it a pity that some of the processers of our products are advertising at the expense of other agricultural products. One feels sorry that this has to happen. I believe we are all entitled to advertise our product, but not at the expense of the other man. I also want to express regret that my industry is to a large extent competing with the dairy industry. One feels sorry for the dairy farmers but we hope that the situation will improve in the future and that both the oilseed farmer and the dairy farmer will find a place in the sun here in our country.

I should like to make a plea tonight with regard to the financing of farmers. I have noticed, particularly during the past two years, that a great shortfall is developing in respect of the financing of our farmers. I want to make a special plea on behalf of a certain group of farmers in our country, a group of farmers who are farming on a scale just a little larger than that of the average farmer in the country. The problem of these farmers is that existing financial institutions which traditionally assist farmers, like the Land Bank, do not grant loans in excess of R100 000. The other financial institution assisting farmers, viz. the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, actually concentrates more on category three farmers, but they too will only lend an amount as large as R100 000 in extreme cases. Now it is a fact that it is mainly the small-scale farmer who has experienced financial difficulty in the past but, as a result of the tremendously high input in agriculture and as the result of the risk factor in agriculture, some of our medium and our medium-large farmers are experiencing financial difficulty, and increasingly so. The problem is that where the Land Bank cannot exceed an amount of R100 000, that kind of farmer requires financing of more than R100 000. One finds now that some of those farmers are beginning to go bankrupt and that quite a number of that category of farmer are in trouble, not because they are not financially sound but because they find themselves in the dilemma that although the Land Bank would like to help them, in terms of its policy it is unable to exceed an amount of R100 000. And because the Land Bank has the first mortgage on the land already, the private sector is not keen on granting additional funds to that farmer on a second mortgage. When I talk in terms of R100 000, it may sound like big money and big farming, but…

Small change.

… as the hon. member for Paarl has just said by way of interjection, it has actually become small change in terms of the present capital requirements of farming units today. Inevitably, those farmers whose needs are not met by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure or by the Land Bank will turn to the private sector. That is not the problem, however, Sir; they turn to the grey market. In the past they have turned to institutions like Greater Services and the previous set-up at Westbank as it was, where these people have had to pay up to 22% interest. A man who tells me that he can pay 22% interest out of the profits on his agricultural activities should have his head read! It is simply not possible to recover that amount of interest from agriculture.

I know the Land Bank does not fall directly under the hon. the Minister but in actual fact he is the father of the agriculturists in South Africa and, since we are now dealing with the agricultural Vote, I want to put my request to him and ask him to use his influence with the hon. the Minister of Finance to ensure that the Land Bank will take another look at that R100 000 limit and that it will very definitely raise that limit. I want to tell you that there are quite a number of farmers in that category who are facing bankruptcy as a result of the fact that they cannot obtain other funds.

I should like to motivate this request of mine that more funds should be channelled to the Land Bank as well as to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure should take a look at this category of bigger farmers; in other words, at loans exceeding R100 000. I believe both these institutions should be able to deal with that category of farmer. In motivating this I have mentioned that rates of interest in the private sector vary from 14% to 22%, a return that it is very difficult to recover from the agricultural sector today. I said just now that when one talks of R100 000 in terms of agriculture, one is not talking big money. I should like to illustrate this statement of mine apropos the following statistics, viz. that the value of capital assets in agriculture, according to the 1976 census figures, amounted to R18 527 700 million. Bearing in mind that there were 77 127 farming units in South Africa in 1976, this means that the capital assets per farming unit, at least in 1976, already amounted to as much as R240 000. That is the average. This means that one is dealing here with units with a value of nearly R250 000 and, in those terms, when one takes into account the fact that more than half of these units may be worth more than R250 000—because R250 000 is the average—R100 000 is not in fact big money in agriculture today. This limit of R100 000 is actually behind the times because the capital assets in agriculture are increasing very rapidly. As a matter of interest, Sir, I should like to mention that in 1970—in other words, a mere six years before 1976—the value of the capital assets per farming unit was only R102 000. Because of the decrease in the number of farmers and because of the increase in the value of land and of other capital assets, this figure had risen to as much as almost R250 000 by 1976. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lydenburg has, among other things, made a plea for the oilseed farmers. Perhaps after the many pleas we have had from the dairy industry this afternoon, he was justified in making a plea for another branch of agriculture. However, I must admit that I would agree largely with the dairy farmers. They feel that the oilseed industry, the margarine manufacturers or the manufacturers of the milk substitutes, the coffee mates, and so forth in indicating that these are dairy products, are acting erroneously because they are not dairy products at all. They feel very strongly that if oilseed products are going to stand, they should stand on their own without competing with the dairy industry products.

Sir, this debate has been a somewhat tranquil one and it is with a certain amount of hesitation that I am going to raise certain matters. I feel in particular that there is one that I want to get off my chest and the only opportunity to do so is during the agricultural debate because the hon. the Minister is the Minister responsible.

Firstly, I want to refer to some comments made by the hon. the Minister when we had the first portion of this debate, approximately a week ago, when he talked about matters that I had raised previously in the debate. That was particularly in respect of the building of the abattoirs at Cato Ridge and City Deep.

The hon. the Minister seemed to feel that in raising this matter in the first instance and persuading the hon. the Minister to have a commission of inquiry, all I was doing was seeking some publicity. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that this was not so. I also want to place on record that on many occasions before bringing this matter into the public eye I had raised it privately with the hon. the Minister. I want to say further that the sole Commissioner, Mr. M. J. Prins, the Chief Magistrate of Pretoria, has reported and published his findings. I want to place clearly on the record that I disagree entirely with his findings. I believe that a commission of this nature that sits back and waits for evidence to come to it without conducting any investigations at all has a very limited function. When certain evidence which I had put before the gentleman who was leading evidence to the commission was not led, I found it necessary to approach the police who I believe are still investigating the matter. If the hon. the Minister is interested at all, I am quite willing to play tapes of evidence to him that I have in my possession. I think he will realize that not only was I completely sincere in suggesting that a commission of inquiry be appointed but also that I had every justification in view of the evidence that had been placed before me. I must repeat, that when I look at the findings of that commission I find myself in total disagreement with those findings.

One finds in other countries in the world when investigative operations of this nature are undertaken that the counterpart to a commission in this country usually has a team of investigators who go around and subpoena books of account and investigate allegations, which in this instance were not even put before the Commission, and find out whether they are true or not. I would say that this particularly affects those who are by implication accused, because unless they have the opportunity to have their names cleared completely some mud always sticks. I am afraid that is the situation with this investigation. There are individuals who are still under investigation by the Police and who have not had the opportunity to clear their names completely because no evidence on particular matters was led. I will leave it at that with the assurance to the hon. the Minister that when I approached this matter it was with complete sincerity and, I believe, quite justifiably.

The other matter that I want to raise I am going to try to approach in a completely calm spirit. We have already discussed this matter this session with the hon. the Minister who is in charge of National Parks. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in as quiet a spirit as I possibly can. This is in connection with the future of the survey operations—I will call them that in case I awake any emotions in the breast of the hon. the Minister—that have been carried on in the Kruger National Park. I believe that these survey operations are not surveying. I believe they are prospecting. The hon. the Minister on an earlier occasion said that he was quite prepared to let me have my say on this, that he felt there was justification in terms of the Mining Rights Act of 1967 for any court case that I wished to make because I felt that the actions of the Department of Mines had been ultra vires. I felt that it was necessary for the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure or at least the National Parks Board to take action. As the hon. the Minister well knows, in law, later acts always take precedence. The National Parks Act of 1976 is certainly the Act that takes precedence, and my interpretation of the position and the legal advice that I have had is that certainly there would be a case for bringing an action. But, Sir, there is no point at all in bringing an action if all that it is going to do is precipitate a change in the Act which will allow prospecting in any national park. What I want to do in as calm a spirit as possible, is to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will signify what his intentions are with regard to this sort of operation in national parks in the future.

I accept completely that if, for example, oil were found in the Kruger National Park it would be necessary for Parliament to review the situation. However, I believe it brings the laws of our country into disrepute when they are not obeyed by Departments of State, and I believe it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to rectify the legal position as fast as possible. If a Department can do what the Department of Mines is doing in this instance, I believe that anybody could feel that they have open house when it comes to disobeying the law.

The final matter I want to deal with in the very short time left at my disposal, concerns a very interesting speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. This concerns particularly the depopulation of the platteland. I too, feel very strongly on this. His historical precedents I found very fascinating indeed and I think it gave a lot of food for thought to every hon. member in this Committee. I want, in a sense, to ride a hobbyhorse. Going round visiting many of our platteland towns today one sees the effects of the depopulation of the platteland. There are many of our towns with houses standing empty and unsold. People have left those small towns and gone to the big cities. Perfectly good premises in many of the smaller towns on the platteland are available for a few hundred rand. I believe that it is necessary for the Government to take very concrete action in respect of these buildings because I believe that when there are premises, buildings and houses, perfectly good, liveable houses standing empty—and there are many people in South Africa who do not have that sort of home available—it needs positive action from the Government to do something about it. I can remember specifically going to a little town called Lady Grey which had many houses available. Another town called Sterkstroom also had houses available for a few hundred rand. There are many old people who have worked very hard throughout their lives and have not come out of it with very much capital or a very large pension. I believe that positive action on the part of the Government in settling people like these in cheap premises might be an advantage.

Is the hon. member coming back to the Vote?

Sir, this is particularly the vote, when it comes specifically to what one is going to do about the depopulation of the platteland. The hon. Chairman feels that the depopulation of the platteland has nothing to do with the farmers. Perhaps I should say to the hon. the Minister that this is of considerable interest to many farmers. In fact, the hon. the Minister will remember that when he started farming policy at the time of the election he was also asked, as I was, to comment very strongly on what the Minister of Agriculture was going to do about the depopulation of the platteland. I believe this is a matter of considerable importance. I believe that premises that have been vacated—I think it has been stated in this debate before that, for example, in the Free State … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Caledon spoke about production costs and the problems being experienced in the winter rainfall region with regard to wheat and the hon. member for Malmesbury associated himself with that. These two hon. members represent constituencies which cannot easily find alternatives for wheat cultivation—perhaps a little barley, but mutton and winter wheat are in fact the main production resources of those areas. The hon. member for Malmesbury has put forward an idea for differentiated prices. He spoke of, let us say, R10 per bag for the Springbokflats and R12 per bag for Rûens and the Swartland. These are proposals which we have already considered before. You know how dissatisfied the dairy farmers were when there was a difference of ½ cent in the price for the Western Cape and the price for the Witwatersrand area. There is always a problem or a source of dissatisfaction when there are differentiated prices.

Does this not still apply?

No, it is now being phased out. After this 6.30 p.m. meeting I am smiling a little about the milk price, but my case was so good that they could not shoot it down. I want to tell the hon. member that I feel—and I said so that evening in Malmesbury—that we must devise a plan for solving this problem. For one could not deny a man R8,09 in production costs last year and this year say that he did not have higher production costs. The debts of the Wesgraan Cooperative are increasing, but this is a proposal which has been made which we can consider, although I am wary of it. Perhaps we should devise another practical plan.

I simply cannot differ with the other points which the hon. member for Caledon mentioned. It is a pity that those financial institutions have disappeared, but this matter will have to receive more attention during the discussion of the Vote of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Middelburg and various other members as well spoke of the assistance from Agricultural Credit. In respect of production loans, the Agricultural Credit assistance voted amounted to R15,8 million in 1976, R16 million in 1977, R15 million in 1978, and R18,7 million for the coming year. It is true, however, that we do not have the money at present to enable a farmer to buy a farm; this is for the consolidation of debts. We have also asked ourselves: While there is such a tremendous shortage of money, should we not, except in the case of estates, grant loans to a newcomer? However, I shall elaborate on this later when I reply to the requests by the other hon. members.

Sir, can you believe that the hon. member for Johannesburg North told me in his speech tonight that Toynbee wrote about this being discussed in Sicily in the year 400 B.C. However, this once again proves how unique agriculture is, for what might have been discussed in a Senate chamber like this 400 years before Christ, is also being discussed here tonight. The problem in Sicily, and thereafter in Greece, as the hon. member put it, was that a plan had to be formulated with regard to the small-holding and uneconomical units. This resulted in the collapse of that empire. The words of the hon. member for Johannesburg North which I appreciated very much, were that the children of the man farming on the small farm and the smallholding, still attend Sunday school and form a buffer against communism. Honestly, Sir, one would swear it was an hon. member on our side who was speaking, and I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. We must look after the small man in agriculture.

I have particulars on research to furnish to the hon. member for Humansdorp, but since he has asked to be excused, I shall give it to him personally. However, it is very interesting to see how many visits agricultural officers and extension officers pay. For instance, they arranged 77 000 interviews and office visits, travelled 1,6 plus 3,8 million kilometres to visit farmers. These figures are furnished on pages 130 to 144 of the Agricultural Technical Services Report. However, the hon. member said that when he was a young man—and many hon. members sitting here can say the same—the eggs and the small can of cream which were sent to town every week, paid for the groceries. Those were the happy days in agriculture. In those days one might receive only 8 or 9 pennies for one gallon of cream, but at the same time one could buy a pair of trousers for 5 or 6 shillings. True, it might not have been a modem pair of pants, but perhaps it was even better, for it had metal buttons. Circumstances have changed and I agree with the hon. member.

When we allot land in the Orange River Scheme, we shall have to consider whether we are not going to allot those lands on a lease basis, for people do not have the necessary money to buy the land. Give the man an opportunity to lease the land at a very low nominal rent and to show what he can do over a period of five, six or seven years. This scheme is still in an embryonic stage. We have recently allotted a few plots, but there is no experimental farm at the moment. Those people have to establish for themselves what they can plant, whether it should be cotton, wheat or peanuts. We had to establish a small group of strong men there to get the scheme off the ground, but at the Orange River Scheme we have the opportunity to settle people on economic units.

The hon. member for Ladybrand says the assistance by Agricultural Credit is insufficient, and I agree with him. He also says the ceiling maintained by the Land Bank is too low, but why do one of these hon. members not make a plea and ask why the Land Bank cannot fall under Agriculture? When a farmer cannot obtain a loan from the Land Bank, whom does he approach? He does not approach the Minister of Finance, but he approaches the Minister of Agriculture. The financing of the Land Bank is intended for the purchase of farm land, financing of co-operatives and is therefore exclusively an agricultural matter. Therefore I shall be grateful if hon. members will all help so that the Land Bank can fall under Agriculture, and then I would have said a long time ago that with a ceiling of R100 000 one cannot make the grade. R100 000 is just enough to finance an uneconomic unit, such is the extent to which circumstances have already changed today. So as far as that matter is concerned, I agree with hon. members.

The hon. member for De Aar referred to an article in The Star, and I thank him for that. I was taught that one is as great as the things which anger one. The article was written by a man who was completely uninformed. When one reads the article, one’s blood wants to boil, and this applies to both the Opposition parties and also to my party. When one reads that article, one immediately realizes that the man is uninformed, but also that he is prejudiced against agriculture. Therefore I am very glad that the hon. member paid so much attention to it.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke of R12 million which has to be spent on publicity for milk. This is a tremendous amount, but I have understood his message with regard to the sales of butter, cheese and also fresh milk, in competition with margarine and other products such as Coffeemate, Cremora and all the other products to which he and also the hon. member for Heilbron referred. The hon. member for Heilbron also mentioned the illnesses which can be caused by these artificial products. I am not saying that this is a fact, but the hon. member said that one could develop gallstones as a result of using these products. We shall, however, have to pay attention to publicity and in that regard I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

†The hon. member had such practical proposals in connection with meat that I would like to arrange an opportunity for him to address a meeting of the Meat Board where he could tell them about these proposals. Because I fully agree with the hon. member. I want to have meat available whenever it is needed. But the hon. member must however remember one thing. If one is going to spend money on advertising, one problem arises. The housewife, no matter of what colour, creed or race she is, has to contend with one serious problem, viz. the increase in salary does not keep pace with increases in the price of electricity, rent, rail-age, etc. The housewife has to pay the rental for the flat, the instalment on the television set and the motor-car, the water and electricity bills. These accounts she must pay and there is only one place where she could try to save, and that is by cutting the piece of meat smaller and by drinking half a glass of milk. In other words, she cannot spend as much on foodstuff as she would like to. Advertising would therefore not be the only solution; the economy must improve. That is essential.

*The hon. member for Kimberley North referred to the establishment of the young farmer. I am glad that he referred to the high price of agricultural land. Sir, as soon as the high price of agricultural land drops, we must realize that we have problems. Something which still inspires me with hope, is the fact that the price of agricultural land still remains attractive. This is proof that interest still exists. However, should the day arrive, something which happened during the previous depression in America, that one wishes to sell land to the value of $100 per morgen, and is subsequently prepared to accept $50 per morgen and after that $25, but still receives no offer, then one must realize that there is definitely a depression. In our country there is a single area where this is in fact happening at present, viz. in our extensive cattle areas, and I find this disturbing. When our land prices start dropping, our credit standing declines, and this serves as a barometer to indicate that there is no further confidence in agriculture. Therefore I am not all that concerned about the high price of agricultural land, but our problems is how to establish the young farmer in agriculture. One needs such a large capital investment to establish a new man in agriculture that he has to raise at least 30% of the required capital needed himself. There is only one solution for that, namely that the State loans will have to be increased at lower interest rates. We shall have to pay attention to matters of this nature in future.

The hon. member for Lydenburg is correct; it is no longer the small farmer or the medium farmer who is experiencing financial problems. In fact, it is the medium to large farmers who are experiencing financial problems. The hon. member for Humansdorp asked whether we should talk only of the large farmer. Sir, as a result of economic difficulties we had to enlarge the units and increase the turnover. It is always so easy to talk of the 80% of farmers producing only 20% of the food, but they are still the soul of the nation, and many of them do not ask the State for a cent. He said what percentage of them there are in Humansdorp.

60%.

They do not ask the State for a cent and they turn every cent over twice and handle it with great care. As the hon. member said quite rightly, they allow their children to study further. He is still bound to the soil and part of the earth.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove said he did not seek publicity. I hope that is the case. However, he said he disagreed with the commissioner he asked for. The hon. the Minister of Justice gave me the commissioner, Mr. Prins, in order that he could investigate all the things the hon. member had reported to the Sunday Times and the Sunday Express.

A magistrate at that.

He also spoke about the rule of law. But he says he wants it on record that he differs completely with Mr. Prins. We went to all that trouble and all that expense but he still differs from the commissioner! However, he had the opportunity to go to the commissioner and say to him: “I have heard allegations.” But the whole matter was based on hearsay. He went to the police. I would love them to investigate the whole matter because I do not have anything to hide. I still think, however, that it would be a waste of money. I gave full details as to why the City Council of Johannesburg was not prepared to build another abattoir. There were escalations. Certain things may have been wrong but nobody has been dishonest in this whole operation. I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member for Orange Grove.

*There is such a pleasant atmosphere in this House; to me it feels like the parlour on an old farm.

†We had a debate in Parliament in regard to the geological survey in the Kruger National Park. The Department of Mines may feel that there is a need for geological surveys. Does the hon. member disapprove of the Parks Board sinking boreholes for water? At the present moment they are sinking boreholes to find out what lies below the surface.

That is prospecting.

Actually it is not prospecting, but even if it is I am sure the hon. member will help me to amend the Act. We do not want to disrupt the animal life in the Kruger National Park, but the hon. member, as a good South African, cannot tell me that there is anything wrong in a geological survey to ascertain what lies beneath the surface. It might even be oil. [Interjections.] Eventually we will approach Parliament to amend the Act. But we did not want to have a long debate in this regard. Is it a crime to search for assets which will be to the benefit of the Lorimers and the Schoemans of this country? Everything depends on one’s attitude in life. I want to ask the hon. member please to trust us in this matter. If it is deemed necessary, we will amend the Act next year. We merely want to make 24 boreholes. There are hundreds of boreholes for water and all the elephants, giraffes and all the other animals are still happy in the Park. I may add that a number of the 24 boreholes contain water. The Parks Board will install windpumps there which will be an asset to the Park.

The hon. member also raised the question of empty houses in platteland towns. I agree with the hon. member, but he went on to say that some of these houses can be bought for a couple of hundred rand. But the old people do not wish to live in places like Greytown and Sterkstroom any longer because the doctor has left, the schools have closed down, the chemist shop does not exist any more …

Then you must try to build up the community again.

That is a good suggestion but it actually falls under another department. In respect of farmhouses, I know of owners who have asked people to come and live in such houses without paying a cent, but they say that the price of petrol is too high even to enable them to go to church. Those people want to stay in town.

Mr. Chairman, at a later stage I will reply to the other matters raised.

Mr. Chairman, as we say, I hope the hon. the Minister will not hold it against me if I do not follow up his argument!

I should like to speak on the Mining Rights Act, 1967. Before I do so, however, I want to reply to a few speeches dealing with the burden of debt of the farmer. The district agricultural union in my constituency sent a telegram to the hon. the Minister about the fixing of the maize price for which they are very grateful. At the same time they told him that they agreed wholeheartedly with the levy of 5 cents. Fortunately, the farmers in my constituency have again had a good year. This has been the case over the past five years. Consequently, they have reason to feel happy about the fixed price. There is one problem, however, viz. that our farmers have now also become economists. Our farmers can add up two plus two and get four. There is an inherent shortcoming in our Land Bank financing. Firstly, we get money at a lower rate of interest than it can be made available at any other place. Apart from that there is also the insurance on the loan so that if the borrower were to die the whole of the outstanding amount would be repaid. This shortcoming does not encourage farmers to repay their debts to the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure during the good years. It is a pity that this is so. I believe we shall have to find a method of making people realize in times of prosperity where their interests lie. We have now had five prosperous years. If we want to apply the law of averages we must accept the fact that we are again going to have a dry year when farmers are going to experience difficulty.

If we have to accompany some of our voters to the Land Bank in times like these because their payments are two or three years overdue, I do not know what is going to happen when there is a drought. I want to make a serious appeal to farmers to repay these loans if they possibly can in spite of the fact that they are dealing with cheap capital here. This finance can then be made available to other fanners as well as to young farmers.

But, Mr. Chairman, I actually wanted to talk about the Mining Rights Act. You may ask me why I want to do so in a debate of this nature. A Commission of Inquiry into this Act was appointed in 1966! One thing struck me about this inquiry. Where there is mining development one can be sure that the farmers in the vicinity will have to contend with particular problems. Unfortunately, only I have the English version of the commission’s report which states—

It is a pity that this happened. In terms of the Gold Act of 1908 provision was made for a rental of 30 cents per morgen per month to be paid when a mining lease was granted on the property of a farmer. Provision was made at the time for a rental of 60 cents of which 30 cents went to the Government and 30 cents to the farmer. In terms of the amended Act provision was only made for 30 cents for the land owner. People farming in the vicinity still have to be content with a rental which applied in 1908! When mining activities take place on a farm, the farmer has enormous problems. Firstly, the law allows him to make certain exceptions, viz. regarding his homestead, fields that have been cultivated for two years, etc. But he has to erect the beacons and must also submit a land surveyor’s map to the Mining Commissioner. An official of Anglo-American remarked that the cost of putting up one beacon amounts to R100. According to the Mining Commissioner one farmer in the Free State had to pay R2 500 for the erection of 21 beacons. The mining rights on most of these farms were sold years ago. Where they have not yet been sold, they are in the hands of someone else who can enter into an agreement with the mining authorities on his own terms. He sells the mineral rights to the mine and the surface rights remain in the hands of the owner. As things are today, one has to plan one’s farm in order to be able to farm properly. But when this mining company comes along and one has demarcated one’s few reserved rights at their present cost, one ends up with an uneconomic unit most of the time. Apart from that one has to contend with a concentration of foreign labourers who often create an intolerable situation for these farmers. I do not want to allege that this is the fault of the mineworkers themselves, but their presence there results in any illegality which takes place there being attributed to them. I have accompanied the police who have investigated illegal beer brewing in this vicinity on a few occasions. This occurs on the farms and the Black mineworkers are lured there but, when one arrives on the farm, they disappear like partridges and one simply does not see them. It is impossible to take action against these irregularities. They do occur, however, and as a result there is illegal entry upon the farmer’s property, there is stock theft, his fencing is trodden down, etc. For that the farmer is receiving 30 cents per morgen per month as was laid down in 1908! Two new mines came into operation in my constituency recently, namely the Elandsrand mine and the Deelkraal mine. In that dolomite area so much water is drilled that farmers are no longer able to farm there. Rather than hire the land with all its concomitant problems many of these mining groups simply buy it. In my opinion this is a good, sound principle and something we should insist upon. If land is proclaimed for mining purposes—we do not want to hamper this development—that land must be purchased thereby enabling the farmer to farm economically elsewhere. We are really turning economic farmers in this area into uneconomic and dissatisfied farmers. We are living in an era where we simply cannot afford this any longer. As I have experience of these matters and know the implications for the people living where mines are to and will come into being, I want to ask that we on our part also at least endeavour to have this law amended properly.

This is not the first time that I am bringing this matter to the notice of this Committee. I wrote to the Minister of Mines about it in 1975 and the essence of his reply was: “Myns insiens moet dit in ag geneem word dat die betrokke plaaseienaars van al die feite bewus was toe hulle hul mineraalregte aan die mynmaatskappye verkoop het.” In most cases these owners do not own the mineral rights. It must also be borne in mind, the Minister said, that the land owners will never be able to mine the gold-bearing reefs themselves. That we concede wholeheartedly but we ask that in an Act of this nature protection should be given to the people cultivating our soil.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year a debate on the financial situation in the agricultural industry was conducted in the House of Assembly. There were contributions from both sides of the House which pointed out the bottlenecks in agriculture very clearly. It was a debate which gave every farmer food for serious thought. I want to exchange a few thoughts here tonight on the future of agriculture as a profession for a young man. Various speakers before me, and particularly the hon. member for Kimberley North, spoke on this topic. They appealed for assistance to be given to the young man so that he might establish himself in the farming industry, particularly the young man who is financially not in a position to do so himself.

I myself have three sons who are very fond of farming and who would like to become farmers. What should my advice be to them today? They are still young. Should I encourage them to become farmers or should I advise them to study for some profession or another or to enter the business world? One often hears people expressing the wish to have a piece of land where they can farm peacefully and usefully. That gives one the impression that people are of the opinion that farming is a very pleasant and profitable profession. It is indeed a very pleasant profession, but it is only profitable to the efficient and diligent man who can plan his farming carefully. For a man who takes to farming, must realize that it requires a great deal of capital, a matter about which a great deal has been said here today. The return on it is estimated at approximately 6,2% today. He must also take into account that he has to brave the elements and that he cannot always budget ahead as is the case in any other industry, profession or business. In the fat years there must be consolidation and provision must be made for the lean years ahead.

For the young man who is fortunate enough to inherit a farm on a sound footing, without heavy liabilities, the doors to success and to building up a profitable farming enterprise are wide open. With sound judgment he will be able to develop his farm so that he may also make provision for his children and his sons who might also be interested in farming. The young man who grew up on a farm and inherited the land will realize what is expected of him and that he dare not relax for one moment. Prosperity and adversity succeed each other, and one must always be ready and prepared to avert setbacks. There will not always be a father to give advice and lend financial support.

We are no longer living in the era when the least intelligent son had to take up farming, and this has also been mentioned earlier today. A good practical training—and, if possible, a good scientific and economic training as well—is essential. Over the past decade every branch of agriculture has developed to such an extent that farming operations can only be carried on in a carefully planned and scientific manner. For that reason I told my sons first to qualify themselves for any task or any profession, to acquire practical experience of what is required today in order to be successful in any profession. They are not to take up farming as an experiment first, for that could prove to be a very expensive experiment.

In particular I want to caution young, keen and prospective farmers against purchasing land at exorbitant prices with what little capital they might have. Care must be taken that young, capable and enterprising farmers will not become slaves to their own thoughtless enterprising acts for the rest of then-lives.

In my constituency, and certainly in other parts of the country as well, there are numerous examples of young people who risked and won and are today a great asset to our country, but there are also a great many of them who took the risk and did not make the grade. What is necessary, is to look, and to look well before one leaps. We have a Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and a Department of Agricultural Technical Services today that are always prepared to provide us with the best advice and guidance. Let us avail ourselves of these services, because it is available to everybody, before we embark on a new scheme. Experience, together with the correct advice, is still the best tutor.

But, Sir, agriculture does not only afford opportunities to the practising farmer or farming enterprise. For the person who is interested in agriculture there are tremendous prospects in the field of agricultural research and guidance. A few weeks ago we were fortunate enough to pay a visit to Eisenberg, near Stellenbosch, and it was a pleasure to see what was being done there to assist the farming industry in all circumstances. We were distressed to learn that day—although this is virtually common knowledge—that the enrolment figure at our agricultural faculties at our universities is still dropping. In view of the fact that we are experiencing more and more problems with diseases and pests and decreasing profit margins today, it is of the utmost importance that our research personnel should be sufficient in number and of the best quality. In this field there is a tremendous challenge for young men who do not have the opportunity of being farmers themselves, but who have the aptitude and the ability to keep our agricultural industry on a sound footing as regards research and guidance, thereby ensuring that we will not encounter even more setbacks in future.

Mr. Chairman, after listening to the debate today and last Monday, I think it is clear to all of us that there have been two themes which have persisted throughout the debates, as we have yet again heard from the hon. member for Beaufort West who has just resumed his seat. These two themes are, firstly, the economic pressures and financial problems which farmers are now experiencing throughout South Africa, and secondly, the concern which members have for those young people who would like to become farmers and who, because of financial circumstances, are not able to do so. I think these are two themes, Sir, which warrant concern. It is most encouraging to me to see this Committee paying so much attention to these matters.

In respect of what the hon. member has just said I also feel it is extremely sad that young men, who may be sons of farmers, have to go into research work today, or work for companies involved in supplying agricultural requirements, or perhaps, what is even worse, have to work as farm managers for large corporations because they cannot afford to own their own farms. I think this is a tragedy. As has been said by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, it is a great pity that we cannot keep more of our people on the land.

The point I want to make this evening is that throughout this debate there has been talk of research and the necessity for research in the battle against rising costs. The hon. member for Virginia said that improved agricultural science and technology are weapons against rising costs. The hon. Minister said himself in respect of the deciduous fruit farmers that in order to meet these economic pressures they have to get out and obtain higher productivity from their land, per unit of land area.

I would like to submit that South African agriculture already at this stage in its history has set an extremely high standard when it comes to agricultural technology and agricultural science. Our universities, the various Government departments, and commercial firms which supply the industry with materials, all conduct their own research and experiments in regard to agriculture. This whole effort, I feel, has placed South Africa today among the leading nations of the world as far as agriculture is concerned. I believe it is a fact that today our pure scientists are striving for that top 10% of improvement in the production potential of our land and our resources which we have at our disposal. As such it is extremely difficult to make a major breakthrough, such as one would find with a totally new variety of a particular crop. One recalls that some years ago in the Far East the geneticists bred a new type of rice which caused what they called the green revolution in India. At one stage they thought India would be starving because they could not produce their own food.

Today because of this single technological advance with a new variety of rice they now have a surplus of this grain in their country. However, pure research as such is extremely expensive and when we study the cost-benefit ratio in respect of expenditure on research, we find that this tends to escalate the higher up the productivity ladder we go in terms of production per unit area of land. While I am one of the first persons, having been involved in a research institution for ten years of my life, to say that we must constantly strive for still higher and better technological progress in the field of pure science, I would rather make a plea to the hon. the Minister this evening for greater emphasis to be given to what is termed applied research, i.e. research into how we might utilize to greater advantage the knowledge we already have.

Much has been said about this in terms of extension services and so on. The hon. member who has just sat down has mentioned this. But I want to reiterate that I believe there are many benefits indeed to be derived from more of this sort of work. Pure research is all very fine, Sir, but the pay-off in respect of pure research only comes when it is applied in practice. This is especially so today when the cost of our technology is so high, e.g. the purchase of high quality seed, the purchase of herbicides to control weeds, the cost of fertilizers today and the cost of mechanization, especially mechanization in recent years.

Much has been done in respect of agronomy and so on and the use and design of equipment in order to apply the information we have, but this evening I want to stress the need for more research into the utilization of labour. After all, Sir, it is labour which is involved in the actual application of the know-how in the field, and when one sees the size of the equipment we use, the cost of it, the potential of it, and the loss of this potential because it is incorrectly used, we can see a great area of possible cost savings which would assist us in this campaign against rising costs.

To this end I would like to make a number of suggestions to the hon. the Minister as to how I believe our existing universities and colleges could be used to better advantage. The first way they could be used is to improve the skills of our labour. The second way is to ensure that this skilled labour stays on the farms. Firstly, I would like to suggest that our universities conduct research into what is called job evaluation, i.e. the correct evaluation of the different types of jobs which one finds on the farm. Work evaluation or job evaluation is now common in industry and in commerce where it is used to ensure that the employee’s work is correctly valued relative to other employees in the work situation, and also relative to the other input resources in the overall production picture.

We tend at times possibly to place too high a value on our capital, our land and our equipment, and often too little value on good, skilled and competent labour. Correct evaluation of the job and a follow-up with training and also payment for work, do result in more contented labour, a more motivated labour force and a more productive labour force. Having evaluated the work which is done in a research-type situation, I believe that to ensure that the worker performs efficiently, requires training. Here I should like to add a thought, because much has been said about the training of agricultural labour. I should like to know just what achievements have been made in this respect. I should like to suggest, Sir, that our existing agricultural colleges be used, possibly during vacation periods, for the training of farm workers. The facilities are there, they have the experience, the staffing is probably there, although there may be a language barrier. But I do believe that these problems can be overcome. This training can be given at no extra cost and I do believe that there is a tremendous pay-off in this.

I want to refer to something which I have seen develop over the 20 years of my involvement in agriculture. I should like to refer, in the few minutes left to me, to the simple job of cutting sugarcane. Nearly 20 years ago a committee was set up by the sugar industry to try to solve the problem of cutting sugarcane by using machines. To this end people were sent all over the world to look at machinery and to make an evaluation as to how this job could be done. We learnt in our tours overseas that this was a very expensive job and a very difficult job to mechanize. One thing we did learn in Australia was that if a man could cut cane, he should be encouraged to keep cutting cane. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since we have been listening to various arguments on price bargaining tonight, I did some reference work and from the annals I retrieved the prices of products as they were sold on the market, the “passar” in the Cape in 1665. It is interesting to see that 1 lb. of beef or “kalfsvleesch” was sold for two stivers—that is approximately 6 cents; 1 lb. of rhinoceros or “zeekoevleesch” was sold for 1 stiver or three cents; an expensive item was a “stekelvarken”, sold for 10 pence or 60 cents. A very interesting product was 1 lb. of “versche” butter for 12 stivers, which is the equivalent of 36 cents. In 1665 that was 36 cents, and at the moment it is approximately 80 cents per lb. if we express it in terms of pounds. That gives us a price rise of 122% in 300 years! Sir, let us be fair. For our dairy farmers that constitutes a rise of approximately 4% per annum. I believe we consumers should not grumble; we should be grateful to these farmers.

They must have had a very good dairy board!

Mr. Chairman, we want to thank hon. members very much indeed who expressed the viewpoint in this debate that our small-scale farmers must be retained. We thank them for their plea to keep these people in the industry. We want to thank the hon. the Minister and his departments for their appreciation, their affection and their interest but, most of all, for their support for those farmers. Sir, we can ask ourselves the question: What is keeping the farmer on the land? In the midst of all the problems involved in farming, what is keeping him on the land? I have thought about this, Sir. It involves a more profound philosophy than merely the profit motive. At the root of it there lies a more profound essential aim and singular striving. I want to summarize it this way, Sir: To be a farmer is to live in the universe of space and to dwell in the midst of the vastness of creation. To be a farmer is to see a seedling germinate into new life; to be a farmer is to see the garden growth turning gold on its way to ripeness. It is only the farmer who can exist and linger in the eternity of that space, conscious of his impermanence and living in humble gratitude.

But these farmers cannot live only on that love and on that endeavour. They are also entrepreneurs, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. They become entrepreneurs and those entrepreneurs have an effect upon our economic structure, the structure of capital investment of more or less R250 000 per unit, as the hon. member for Lydenburg quite correctly stated.

But the farmer has to deal with this interesting two-pronged fact. If his crops fail completely, he suffers, but in the good years of complete profusion, he also suffers. Those are the two great conflicting factors which he has to contend with. Nevertheless we appeal to the hon. the Minister, to the department and to the Government never to underestimate the importance of the farmer’s contribution towards feeding the people. For within the framework of this task, lies the survival of the people. Africa’s agricultural productive capacity is decreasing by 2% per annum while in some countries it is falling by 7%. In our neighbouring state, Mozambique, agricultural production has fallen by 75% over the past two years. I just want to quote from this source, Sir—

This remains a fact, Sir. It is the task of agriculture to feed the people. Moreover, Sir, with this potential market of Africa, with the decrease in their capacity to produce food and while the population increase is such that we can expect the population south of the equator to increase from its present 50 million, according to the 1970 census, to 100 million people, an excellent market awaits our farmers in the future if we can achieve a break-through as far as the political barriers are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I have been told to be quick. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture: “Your slightest wish is my command.” If the hon. the Minister says we must plead for the Land Bank to fall under the Department of Agriculture, I cannot agree with him more. The Land Bank has the unhappy habit of helping people only to the extent where they can barely keep their heads above water. But as soon as the first stone is thrown into the dam and there are a few ripples the man goes down. I could not support the hon. the Minister more than I support him tonight.

The hon. member for Orange Grove was appalled because some reports are only issued in Afrikaans. During the course of this debate, the hon. member has had enough time to address the committee in Afrikaans had he wished to, but he has not done so yet. The only thing I can say to him is that I think he is so conceited that he thinks he is not representing Orange Grove but a citrus estate.

*Mr. Chairman, in the days when the British Empire still dominated the world, created chaos, overpowered and annexed the whole world and drew lines across the whole map of Africa, they never took into account the ethnicity of the various peoples. Our Government, in its wisdom and with its policy of separate development and co-existence, is trying to create order and peace out of the chaos we inherited.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to talk about Coloured labour. We acknowledge the existence of peoples, tribes and ethnicity. We try to give to everyone that which is his own; we are giving him what belongs to him. We try to bring together what belongs together, each in his own area.

Thirty years ago Ben Gurion turned Israel into a focal point for Jewry—and quite rightly so. He gave them the territory which belonged to them historically. The fact that each cock wants to crow on his own farmyard, is no insult to the neighbouring cock. In this way I also want to plead as others have done during this and other debates, for White and Brown to link up with each other this side of the Eiselen line. I come from the opposite side of the line, from the borders between White and Black in the Eastern Cape. I believe it is right for the Black man to have Transkei for himself. It is right for the Black man to have Ciskei for himself. Historically it has always belonged to them. There the White man and the Brown man may not compete with the Black man, except as a temporary employee or entrepreneur. It is Black man’s country and the Black man should have preference there. I believe in all sincerity that it is the territory of the White man and the Brown man this side of the Eiselen line. This has always been the case in spite of the nagging by the Progs for one man, one vote and Black domination here in South Africa, of which we do not take much notice. I firmly believe that this side of the line the Brown man and the White man should be protected against Black encroachment. It is not fair for the Black man to be able to claim his homelands and independent States for himself and in addition want to share in what has always belonged to the Brown and White people.

The hon. member must come a little closer to the subject, which is agriculture.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you were not paying attention when I started my speech. I tried to explain at the time that I was going to deal with Coloured labour.

You started there, but keep to the narrow road.

We are spending hundreds of millions of rands on making our Black States viable. Therefore, is the Brown worker in the Western Cape not also entitled to receiving this protection from us? Is he, the Brown man, not entitled to preferential treatment in agriculture and in industry. I want to contend that the Brown man and the White man are the only ones entitled to preferential treatment in all respects this side of the Eiselen line. I want to go even further and say that we as a Government owe it to the Brown people this side of the Eiselen line to protect them against Black encroachment.

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, may I not deal with labour?

You may proceed but you must deal with agriculture.

But I am dealing with labour in the agricultural industry, Mr. Chairman, farm labour, in other words Brown labourers who have to be protected against Black encroachment this side of the Eiselen line.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make another point. But since you have already taken me to task, I do not believe I am going to get away with it, and that is a great pity.

For the first time, and I hope it is for the last time, I unfortunately want to agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg North that farmers here in South Africa have a very bad image. In this case the Press is not responsible for their having that image. I want to state that the farmer himself and also the Department of Agriculture and its officials are responsible for this bad image. There are good as well as bad farmers, and there are good as well as bad officials, and good as well as bad people like in any other department or in any other profession. But if one were to compare the position in terms of percentages, I believe the farmer will do much better than any other occupation. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is doing fantastically good work. I do not want to detract from them in any way. I greatly admire them. But there are officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services who, as soon as they are afforded the opportunity of speaking in public, disparage the farmers on every occasion. They speak of ridiculously high meat prices, and spread the rumour that farmers are incapable of proper book-keeping and administration and incapable of controlling and running their farms properly. They maintain that the farmer should produce more and more cheaply. Were it not for the fact that you would call me to order, I should have asked; “Why does the bugger not become a farmer himself?” I apologize. He would have been bankrupt within the space of one year.

Has the hon. member finished apologizing?

Yes, Sir. There are farmers who, as chairmen of congresses, echo these sentiments and contribute to creating this bad image of farmers.

The hon. member for Wynberg, the Prog over there—and I am not apologizing—spoke about the farmer’s image and went on to disparage the image of the farmer himself. He requested that each farmer in receipt of State aid, should be obliged to follow a previously agreed upon book-keeping system, that the farmer should be inspected periodically so as to ensure that he was administering and controlling his farm in the correct manner. Does he have so little confidence in his fellow farmers, Mr. Chairman? To me he seems to be a very nice chap and to be a very good farmer as well. There he is sitting; I am talking about him. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I do not have much time. I just want to ask, if he has such boundless confidence in the officials, whether the time has not arrived for all the food officials to become farmers and all the bad farmers to become officials? Has this not happened to some extent in the past? I am merely asking. The poor farmer must be taught, controlled and checked. He must produce more and more cheaply. This reminds me of the old Communist Chinese slogan of a few years ago when they were saying: “The farmers cannot farm properly; we are going to take over all the farms and remove all the farmers; we are going to appoint officials to farm in China.” And they added: “More, better, faster, cheaper.” Within a few years the whole of China was starving. Then they had to go begging the few farmers to resume farming. We also know what happened in Russia where the State tried farming. They are still buying wheat from Carter. Surely we do not want this to happen here in South Africa.

The hon. member for Wynberg also said that a dark cloud was hanging over agriculture in South Africa. I know he means well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I suppose the hon. member for King William’s Town will pardon me if I do not reply to all the arguments which his submitted. I just want to refer to one point, however. He pointed out that I suggested that farmers making use of State capital, should have a book-keeping system which must be inspected from time to time. I have already elaborated on this in detail. I just want to bring it to his attention that this suggestion of mine was to some extent supported by some members on the other side of the Committee. Not for one moment was it done because I wanted to offend the farmer. On the contrary, it was done with all good intent. The reason why I did that, was that I am a farmer myself. I come from a farming community and I know many of our shortcomings as well as some of our strong points. I shall leave it at that.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister as regards my suggestion that something could perhaps be done about the fresh vegetable problem here in the Cape area. I am going to try to follow it up after this debate and to see whether we could not perhaps get those people together as the hon. the Minister suggested. I thank him very much for it. I have so little time that I have to speak fast.

Mr. Chairman, I come now to the next suggestion I should like to make in an effort to alleviate the position in the immediate future particularly in the meat industry. I am referring to our obsolete system of market agents and market agencies. It is my limited experience that there are agencies or agents which are controlling the quotas at a number of the larger abattoirs. I want to state specifically that in my experience some of those market agencies are not only agents, but are farmers themselves with their own farms and their own livestock. They are organizations with their own fodder banks, with hundreds, if not thousands of cattle waiting there to go to the market. They are agencies which own auction kraals and which are doing business there. Agencies, Mr. Chairman, which have wholesale trade licences, but also with retail trade licences for butcheries, etc. In other words, we are dealing here with a situation where one concern to a large extent controls the red meat industry and indeed might control it completely. I am not a cattle farmer and therefore cannot talk from my own experience, but I am told that these quotas being granted, are being used from time to time to bring in the cattle of that agency to the detriment of the farmer who has cattle on his farm which are ready for the market. It is alleged that because they have this system of vertical integration in their business, they could have various profit margins. By the time the housewife eventually buys the product the difference between the price she pays and that which the farmer receives for his product, is simply too big. While the hon. the Minister is paying attention to the question of the marketing with respect to the red meat industry, I want to advise him please to take careful note of this system—I call it an obsolete system—of marketing agents in South Africa. I maintain that there are numerous concerns which are exploiting the agriculturist in this regard, and I believe this can be brought to an end fairly rapidly.

Mr. Chairman, the last point that I want to refer to in this debate, is the situation in the pig industry. In contrast to the broiler chicken industry we have here a situation that there are quite a number of independent pig farmers in South Africa. The vast majority of pig farmers are still independent today and their farms vary in size between a 100 sow unit to up to a 400, 500 or 600 sow unit. If we do not take care, however, I am afraid the pork industry, just like the broiler chicken industry, will also, inevitably, be forced into the hands of the great feed companies. For since the fodder companies have begun to control and will eventually completely control the chicken industry, and because they will consequently be able to supply feed at a fairly low price to their own concerns, these feed companies will be in a strong position to supply feed to the independent cattle and pig farmer, but particularly the pig farmer at a loaded price. In other words, the individual pig farmer is going to subsidize that other industry to some extent, and he will do so until he can no longer bear it. Then these pig farmers will be taken over or driven out one after the other. The hon. the Minister must please not tell me that these men are also factory farmers; I am one of them myself and I am apprehensive about the future. I have here a schedule, and the hon. the Minister and many of the hon. members will know exactly what is going on here if I mention one or two figures. It is a production report of an actual pig concern consisting of 300 sow units.

†These are the important points—

This is an outstandingly good unit. The second important point I would like to mention is that the number of piglets weaned per sow per year in this unit, averaged 19,43 in the one year and 19,2 and 19,3 in the other two years. The number of pigs sold per sow was 18,5—they must have lost a few—18,0 and there is no figure for the third year.

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this is an exceptionally good unit.

What was his feed turnover?

Unfortunately he did not want to furnish me with all the information, and the hon. member can understand why people act in that way. But I am referring to his production efficiency. I want to say, however, that this man, who is independent and buys feed independently, put it to me that even he no longer shows the profit which he thinks he deserves. What the profits are, I do not know, but I know what my profits are. I have a 200 sow unit and my production figures are not as good as those which I have just quoted. I must pass form an opinion now, however. But, Mr. Chairman, I shudder to think what is going to happen to farmers who are not doing quite as well as this person. Therefore the request that I am putting to the hon. the Minister is in some way or another to try and prevent the independent cattle and pig farmer finding themselves in a position where they will have to subsidize other units belonging to the feed companies, by having to pay even higher prices for their feed than they have to pay at present. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as a newcomer to Parliament, I have been impressed by the versatility of the agricultural industry. All the hon. members who participated in this debate, made very interesting and positive contributions. I have also gained the impression that the Minister of Agriculture is a very popular person. However, when I think of all the problems that have been raised in this debate, I feel very sorry for him. But evidently he is a man who feels himself equal to anything, and who has solutions for most of these problems. We are grateful for that.

However, tonight I want to discuss the infiltration across the border of South Africa of terrorists from our northern neighbouring states. In the second place, I want to discuss the part the farmer can play in reducing or cutting off the stream of terrorists in co-operation with the police and the Defence Force. In the third place, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister for the compulsory occupation by White farmers of the border farms immediately adjoining Mozambique, Swaziland and Botswana. I am not talking about people whose farms border on the Kruger National Park, or of people who farm on land adjoining homeland farms. Mr. Chairman, please pardon me for raising this matter, but I come from a region situated along the border of Mozambique and Swaziland, and on behalf of the farmers of my community, I want to convey their deep concern to the hon the Minister.

During recent times there have been man reports about these matters in the Press, because it is no secret that this sort of thing has now broken out in our region. However, I do want to assure you, Sir, that the farmers in our environment have been aware of this for a long time and that they very much want to talk about it, because they are worried. Perhaps I might just quote something that appeared in one of the newspapers, namely—

Mr. Chairman, it is true that this has manifested itself in recent times, and that these things are happening. I just want to mention briefly that large numbers of terrorists are on their way to South Africa. Our entire population must assist in combating this evil. The police patrol the border between South Africa and Swaziland, Botswana and Mozambique with success. It is virtually an impossible task. Hon. members who know this region, will know that it is an inhospitable area and that it is densely wooded.

According to newspaper reports, terrorists were arrested in Durban. Fire-arms and explosives were found near the Swaziland border. Brigadier Zietsman said, and I quote—

There was also the case of the terrorists recently arrested in the Free State, near Harrismith, when their car overturned. It is generally known that there is an arms buildup on the other side of the border. This is alarming news, because it appears as if infiltration attempts are going to be intensified. The question must be asked in all seriousness whether action against the terrorists is exclusively a task for the Police. We must take into account that a large number of terrorists have succeeded in infiltrating into the Republic. It is indeed true that the Black people are giving assistance to the police. I want to emphasize once again that it appears as if the infiltration attempts will be intensified.

Mr. Chairman, this, once again, is the task of the police. The farmers of South Africa say that in the past, they were willing to make their contribution, and this is borne out by the history of our country. The farmers are now also willing to play their part. We realize how essential it is to restrict infiltration to a minimum. We also realize that the borders of our country consist of wooded, mountainous terrain. Furthermore, we realize that there are a great many abandoned farms, with Black workers in charge, along the borders.

I want to refer to a speech made by the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Viljoen. He said the following, among other things—

Mr. Chairman, this is the last quotation I am going to read. This was said by an army chief and one must take cognizance of that.

Mr. Chairman, the agricultural sector is the first line of defence between the terrorist bases and our cities. We must have one well-guarded line of defence along the entire border. Government land and game parks situated adjacent to the borders, are excluded from this. The farmer must form the link between the farm worker and the police. I can say that the Black farm workers are quite willing to supply certain information. It is difficult for them to do so, however, because they do not have sufficient contact with the police. They do have the necessary contact with the White man on the farm, to whom they can convey information.

As I see the matter, the solution to the problem is that farms bordering on the Mozambique, Swaziland and Botswana borders, should be occupied by Whites. The owners must be compelled to do so. The hon. the Minister can discuss this with the Cabinet in order to consider the matter. If the owner does not live on the land, a White farm foreman must take up his abode there. If the owner cannot live on the farm himself, and if he cannot or will not appoint a farm foreman, the farm must be placed on the market.

The State should provide preferential financing facilities to intending buyers who want to live on such farms. This could be done with the assistance of the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Preference should be given to young farmers who have completed their military training, or to members of commandos. These border farms are obtainable at very reasonable prices. It is no secret that nobody is keen to live on these farms, and that there is a serious dearth of buyers for the border farms. We cannot allow land values to decline as the Whites withdraw from these areas. As the first line of farmers moves backward, the value of the next line of farms declines. It is in the interests of the farmers and of city dwellers alike that the border routes should be sealed off. Terrorists are sowing panic within South Africa; we must assist in preventing their infiltration. In the long run, the stability promoted by farmers will be inexpensive for South Africa. Nobody is better equipped for this task than the farmer because he knows his terrain like the back of his hand. He has good liaison with his black employees and with the police. They can prevent intimidation of Black workers by terrorists. I request the hon. the Minister please to discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Cabinet. He must ask them to enable the farmer, in the interests of the country, to carry out his duty in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, it is said that we are living in the age of a knowledge explosion. That is indeed true. Hardly a day passes without our having something new on the market in the scientific and technological fields. In the past, science and technology were orientated in particular to the convenience of man, endeavouring to make human existence easier and better. We need merely think of our modem communications and transport systems. Just think of the role the machine plays in the daily lives of everyone of us.

During the past decade or two, there has been a shift in emphasis as regards scientific and technological research. This was caused by the universal problem of increasing population figures. Here in South Africa, attention is also being given to this problem. We have a population of approximately 2416 million in South Africa today. According to projections, we shall have 35 million people in South Africa by the year 2000. This illustrates an opposite and very important problem. The main point is no longer whether man can lead a comfortable and easy existence on earth; the point now is whether man will be able to survive at all. That is why we find that research is being orientated more and more to our food resources. At present research is being conducted into improving the quality of food resources, the enhancing of the production of such resources, the optimum utilization of resources and even the exploitation of new resources. Here I am thinking of the question of food resources from the sea. That, Sir, brings the farmer and agriculturist and the role to be played by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services prominently into the spotlight. The proper utilization of South Africa’s agricultural resources has become of a matter of vital importance to us. It presents the South African farmer and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services with tremendous challenges.

It is necessary for us to attain optimum achievements in agriculture so that sufficient food may be produced for a growing population and so that stability may be ensured in the other sectors of our economy and our society. In the latter regard, the role of agriculture has often been overlooked. There is a saying that a soldier cannot fight on an empty stomach; however, much less can a hungry worker do a proper job of work. Peace and calm depends to a large extent on whether the stomachs of the masses are empty or full. One of the means whereby proper utilization of agricultural resources can be made a reality is research. Research is essential to ensure increased food production and to improve our production techniques. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services has been entrusted with precisely these two aspects. In the Estimates of Expenditure, the object of the R70,2 million voted for this department for the year ahead has been formulated as follows: “To promote the productivity and efficiency of South African agriculture and to protect the natural agricultural resources.” Few people are aware that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is the greatest single research organization in South Africa.

In Africa.

Yes, that is correct. If anybody has any doubts about that, he should go and read the annual report of the department which was Tabled recently. It is a glowing testimonial to the valuable work our agricultural scientists are doing in the field of research in this country. In reading that report, one is greatly impressed by the wide field that is covered, because there is hardly any activity in the field of agriculture that is not covered in that report and by the researchers of the department. I want to furnish a few examples. For the maize farmer, the department undertakes research on disease resistant strains of maize; for the tobacco farmer, they undertake research on planting and harvesting methods; for the fruit farmer, research on pruning methods for his fruit trees; for the dairy farmer, research on manufacturing techniques of cream butter, which has a pleasant farm-butter taste and of which the spread ability is 50% better than that of ordinary butter; and as far as the stock farmer is concerned, I need merely refer to the vast amount of work being done for them in connection with stock diseases by institutions such as Onderstepoort. And so one could continue quoting examples. This research is being done in the department, mainly by eleven research institutes, a large number of research stations, and experimental farms throughout the country. Institutions such as the CSIR, the S.A. Bureau of Standards, the universities and other private institutions also assist in these research projects. Suffice it to say that research is of immeasurable value to the farmer and to the country. Our farmers and the department can justifiably be proud of our achievements. In recent times, agricultural production in this country has increased at a more rapid rate than has the population as there has been phenomenal progress in the field of agriculture. I want to quote two examples in this regard. During the past twenty years, the maize production has increased threefold, and sugar production has doubled. For that reason it is fitting that this Committee should not only thank the department and all its scientists and researchers, but also sincerely congratulate them on their scientific achievements. They are, what is more, rated very highly overseas, and this is something the hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to.

For the sake of my own constituency, I want to single out the two research stations there. They are the research stations Nooitgedacht at Ermelo, and Athole near Amsterdam. We are very proud of those two research stations, because they are doing excellent work, particularly in the field of grazing utilization. They are also experimenting with leguminous plants, with grazing improvement, with the Vigna vexillata and Ermelo selection of the Eragrostis curvula, which is world-renowned. Recently, they also started experimenting with kikuyu grass, which can offer good grazing as standing hay. We are also grateful that in January this year Nooitgedacht was able to take into use a new research building, which was officially opened by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Research in itself is not sufficient, because its results have to be applied in practice. Such results have to reach every farmer and be applied on every farm, or else all the research in the world would be of no avail.

That brings me to the second important function of the department, namely extension services. A great many sources of information are available to the farmer, regardless of what branch of farming that farmer is actively engaged in. On the part of the Department there are extension officers, communication programmes, study groups, crash courses, publications, slide programmes, the SABC programme “Calling All Farmers”, that, in addition to which there are the agricultural library and many other services. The things I have in fact mentioned illustrate that the department is rendering an excellent service to the farmer by ensuring that the results of its research are applied in practice. But the farmer is a partner in that regard, and the question that arises is whether he avails himself sufficiently of the facilities at his disposal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo was absolutely right in regard to the reputation abroad of the department’s research. Recently, an American from Texas in the USA said to me: “We have the Ermelo strain of the so-called love grass.” Strangely enough, the same man also spoke of the “Molopo strain of buffalo grass.” It is interesting to note that our good strains of grass are so well known in America. The research being done in South Africa in this regard is decidedly known far and wide.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for his kind gesture, and I want him to make arrangements with the Meat Board so that I too may trouble them. I deeply appreciate what he said. The producers in the meat industry are very worried, and I want to proceed with my earlier argument by briefly referring to the advertising aspect again.

As all of us are probably aware, the Meat Board spends only R100 000 on advertising for beef and approximately R100 000 on advertising for pork, while the remaining R150 000 is applied for other expenditure. In contrast to that, the fish industry and the margarine industry each uses R2 million for advertising. I have said repeatedly, and I want to emphasize this once again, that the value of our livestock on the farms is R2 700 million. We can therefore afford to use a substantial sum for advertising, thereby making red meat more popular with the public. I am a cattle and a sheep farmer, and I should be very pleased if R2 or R3 of the levies I have to pay for every head of cattle going to the abattoirs could be utilized for promotion and advertising purposes, instead of utilizing it for control purposes. I think we must do away with the name “board of control”. Let us rather talk of marketing boards. I must really say, Sir, that the idea that the farmer should be controlled is not the right idea. However, our marketing boards are necessary, and they, especially the Meat Board, should concentrate on marketing. They should undertake marketing surveys and do research in connection with marketing. If they were to proceed along these lines, we would not have the problems the farmers are experiencing today.

I want to leave meat at that and proceed to another topic. The other day, I was approached by a friend of mine. He is a potato farmer. Perhaps I shall tread on a few toes here, but he told me that during January this year they had paid 8¥2 cents for a paper bag for the potatoes, but that a cartel has recently been formed resulting in the cost per paper bag being 14 cents at present. He requested me to make representations to the Minister to look into this. Is this the position throughout South Africa? This is, however, the position prevailing in Natal now. The increase in the price of that paper bag has now hit the farmer hard. I do not know whether that happened in the Transvaal, too. Over a period of three months, the price rose from 8½ cents to 14 cents.

I now want to come to fertilizer.

†As you know, Mr. Chairman, the fertilizer price has killed a lot of farmers. The price has knocked out half of Natal’s beef industry, and many farmers are going under. The farmer who was exclusively a beef farmer in Natal, who had to use artificial pastures, can no longer keep on with his beef farming. He has to change his method of farming. He has spent millions upon millions of rands throughout Natal and in the higher rainfall areas to put in pastures, and these pastures require nitrogen, tons and tons of nitrogen. But at the price of nitrogen today, as well as the other fertilizers, he can no longer afford to stay in the beef industry, and he is now changing, after spending millions of rands. The farming industry in Natal has spent millions of rands in this regard, and, let me say, with the help of the department which has told the farmers to produce. The department has said over and over again: Produce more beef on your pastures. But it can no longer be done; it is a thing of the past and we can forget about it

You must feed them maize.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to this fertilizer price. We have heard so many times that the fertilizer industry says that they must have a 15% profit in order to progress and cover their costs and, in fact, attract more capital to their industry. But what about the farmers? If we said we wanted 15% on our capital investment—and this is a question we must start asking—we would be laughed at. We realize that the fertilizer industry is a big one, that there are two major firms. They have a tremendous organization and a tremendous capital outlay. But so have the thousands of farmers.

There have been many millions of rand put into farms and at this stage they can only expect 1% or 2% or perhaps 3% on their investment, whereas the fertilizer industry insists on getting an annual increase so they can show somewhere in the region of a 15% return. I believe that at this stage of our economy we can no longer afford to carry on with this system of assisting the fertilizer industry in opposition to the farming industry. Possibly subsidies are required in this instance. I am not one who normally believes in subsidies, but I think if a subsidy needs to be applied anywhere, it should be applied in the form of assisting the farmer with fertilizer costs.

I want to proceed to another point.

*I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to Newsletter No. 21 of March. It deals with the National Testing Scheme for Meat Performance and Offspring. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister how well the large red cattle are doing. I do not know whether you are aware of it, Sir, but a great deal of debating took place on the cattle the hon. the Minister caused to be imported at the time. The Santa Gertrudis have proved for the second time now that they are tops; they are out and out tops, and here I refer to the intercalving period. It is the only breed that was in the inter-calving period for shorter than 400 days. They were in the inter-calving period for 40 days less than was the runner-up breed, which was the Angus. We know that the Angus is a good breed, that it is a breed which is always tops as far as inter-calving periods are concerned. [Interjections.]

It is interesting to mention that the difference between the best breed, i.e. the Santas, and the breed that came last—I am not going to mention the name; the hon. the Minister can look it up for himself—was a 100 days. The inter-calving period of the former was 379 days, and that of the latter, 479 days.

How did the South Devons fare?

The South Devons came eighth, with 452 days. Do hon. members want any further information? Yes, Sir, I am blowing my own trumpet, and I am very pleased to have this trumpet to blow.

There is one other point I want to raise. My neighbour, an able cattle farmer, tells me he has just returned from Mauritius. He says in Mauritius the housewife pays the same price for beef as does the housewife here, if the money is converted into rands, but the farmer in Mauritius receives exactly twice as much. How can that be? I want the hon. the Minister to send someone there, please—I should like to go with him.

A subsidy is paid there.

Then I shall drop the subject. The farmer there receives twice as much. In that case we here should perhaps also ask for a subsidy. The farmer there receives twice as much, but the housewife pays exactly the same price the housewives pay here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have only five minutes at my disposal, and I shall be brief. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has referred more than once in the course of this debate to the importance of advertising, with regard to the red meat industry as well. However, I think that he is making his appeal to the wrong people. I agree with the hon. member that we should not speak of control boards in this country, but of marketing boards. I think that is a sound idea. If he and the other hon. members who have spoken about this want to make an appeal in this connection, then I believe that the appeal should not be made to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in the first place, but to the marketing boards on which the producers are in the majority in any case. I do not believe for one moment that if the marketing boards, on which the producer members are in the majority, were to approach the hon. the Minister with a recommendation to the effect that they want to advertise a particular product of the agricultural industry by means of levies, the hon. the Minister would raise any objections.

In this connection I happen to know what I am talking about, because I happen to be farming with a product which is mainly an export product and in respect of which we cannot go and cry on the hon. the Minister’s shoulder for a higher price. Because we wool farmers produce an export product, we cannot go to the Minister of Agriculture every year and say that because our production costs have risen by 10% or 12% or 15%, we want a higher price. Because we are obliged to accept the price which the world is willing to pay, or which we can obtain in the world, we as wool farmers are naturally obliged to provide the necessary publicity in this connection ourselves. It may interest you, Mr. Chairman, that the Wool Board, which is purely a marketing board, has been spending an annual amount of more than R5 million on overseas promotion and research over the past few years, apart from the amount which is spent inside this country. An amount equal to approximately 3% of the gross revenue of the wool industry in South Africa is spent on overseas promotion and research every year. In this connection we are grateful for the fact that we have received State assistance in the past, but in recent times, because we have not been having such a difficult time, relatively speaking, we have been satisfied and have agreed to do without State assistance in this connection. I just want to say briefly that in the budget we are now discussing I notice that on the part of the hon. the Minister of Finance an amount of approximately R100 million is being appropriated for export promotion. At the same time, one also notices what a small fraction of that export promotion is being devoted to agriculture, agriculture which has been earning R1 000 million and more a year in foreign exchange for South Africa in recent years. I then wonder and I just want to ask whether we have not become entitled to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the agricultural industry, whether, since agriculture has contributed its share throughout the years to South Africa’s exports and to the earning of essential foreign exchange, it does not have the right to claim a fair percentage of that not inconsiderable amount which the hon. the Minister has made available for export promotion in this budget as well.

Mr. Chairman, before I continue, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Mooi River who asked whether we should not rather use the subsidy or the amount of money for food subsidies in subsidizing production costs. He referred to the R20 million that the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned in Parliament in the budget debate. Our total cost of production is over R1 800 million. At the moment we have R20 million plus R45 million on bread and R5 million on butter and R50 million on maize. We cannot immediately do without the bread subsidy. We cannot do without the maize subsidy for storage and handling. We actually only have R20 million. There is a solution in subsidizing production costs but which costs must be subsidized out of R1 800 million? The solution for this problem is that the producers’ price must keep pace with production cost increases. It is an idea which we can consider by subsidizing certain commodities such as fertilizers. However, at one stage we had a subsidy of R18 million on fertilizer which has been reduced to R15 million. The hon. the Minister of Finance does not have the money. If one talks of subsidies the consumer is affected. He has to pay for subsidies. You are therefore robbing Peter to pay Paul.

*The hon. member for Losberg said that if the voters were unable to redeem their debts during the five good years to which he referred, how would they fare in the bad years? Because of problems relating to production costs, some farmers have simply not had the opportunity to consolidate during these good years. However, a percentage of farmers succeed in doing this. I agree with him that we must appeal to them to try to spend their money carefully in the good years when they have good harvests. The hon. member also referred to mining, and in that respect I must agree with him. Some of the mining laws are causing problems and we shall discuss the matters he raised with the Minister of Mining. He is quite right, the man got the farm after the mineral rights had been alienated 50 years previously. The person knows nothing except that he does not have the mineral rights, and in terms of the original mineral rights agreement he has to pay for certain beacons which have to be put up. I agree with the hon. member and I shall take this matter further.

The hon. member for Beaufort West said that a person first had to qualify himself for a job. That is quite right, people should not experiment on farms. Nor should land be bought at exhorbitant prices. These are practical suggestions which the hon. member made. He also referred to research. If only we could bring these suggestions home to the man who is going to practice agriculture, so that he might apply them, it would mean a great deal.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also spoke about applied research. It is no use having all the research in the world if one cannot persuade the farmer to apply it in practice, thereby getting the full benefit of research. That is however one of our intentions. In America extension officers are not sent out to the farmer any more. The farmer is free to pay visits to research stations, and I would like to see our farmers paying more attention to this aspect. He also referred to good, skilled and contented labour as being essential. That is one of the reasons why we started a type of college at Potchefstroom where Black labourers can be trained in agriculture. Indeed, I wish we could have more of these institutions. In the Cape we only have Kromme Rhee where Coloured people are trained and in the Transvaal we have Boskop near Potchefstroom. But we should have more of these institutions where Black labourers can be trained.

*Then I want to reply to the hon. member for Standerton. As you know, Sir, Standerton has produced great men. I am thinking of the late Gen. Louis Botha, who farmed there, and who was member of the House of Assembly at that time. Then there was Gen. Smuts and Wennie du Plessis, and then came Willa Hefer.

Hendrik Schoeman!

The hon. member spoke about the question of being a farmer and said that we should not underestimate this fine industry. It is good to hear that!

The hon. member for King William’s Town agrees that the Land Bank should fall under Agriculture, but he made one mistake. He referred to the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services who told the farmers: “You have to keep accounts,” and who criticise the farmers. He also asked why those officials did not become farmers if they were so competent.

Some of them, yes, not all of them.

However, the fact is that some of those officials have to convey certain messages to the farmer. He must be told: “You will get nowhere if you do not take a paper and a pencil and start making sums and keeping accounts.” However, the hon. member must not be under the impression that this is the attitude of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

Some of them, yes.

Yes, but it is essential for some of these ideas to be conveyed to the farmer. The hon. member asked why these competent officials did not take up farming themselves. However, I want to assure him that we should like to retain those able men. The private sector is enticing them away. Some of the officials are really outstanding.

If he takes up farming, you will lose him.

Yes, that is so.

The hon. member for Wynberg spoke of the permits of some agents. I have certain proposals by the Marketing Board which are not yet acceptable, but we are faced with problems here. There is another problem, too, for if we were to tell the farmer; “Here is a permit quota system,” the farmer would say, “Give it all to me; why do you give it to the agent?” If that were to happen, we would be killing the rural auctions, because the traditional buyer of livestock would simply say: “I cannot bid at this auction, because I do not have a permit or a quota, the farmer has everything.” However, we are going into all these problems.

The hon. member also referred to the obsolete system of the market agent in respect of meat. Some of the systems are almost obsolete and we shall have to give attention to this to make this matter more streamlined.

I can also tell the hon. member that as far as pig farming is concerned, the feed companies have not so far taken up large-scale pig farming, as in the case of poultry, to which I referred earlier this afternoon. However, we are giving attention to this whole problem. He also said, amongst other things, that the independent small pig farmer must not be wiped out. I do in fact intend to prevent that. As far as the small chicken farmer is concerned, I have tried with all the methods available to me to prevent them from being wiped out. However, the small chicken farmer himself has seen the opportunity to sell his farm to the large feed companies which have a share in the fishmeal and milling industries and which have diversified to such an extent that what they lose on the swings, they gain on the roundabouts. Therefore they can easily take over industries of this kind. However, this is an unhealthy trend in agriculture.

The hon. member for Vryheid spoke about terrorist infiltration. I am worried about the depopulation of our border farms. I want to say at once that it is not such an impossible task to farm next to a homeland. In the case of farms bordering on a foreign country such as Mozambique, depopulation is in fact taking place. The proposals made by the hon. member in this connection will be followed up. It is much better for us to have a strong, sound farming population on the border farms than to have them depopulated. The depopulation causes the border to be moved back further and further and to keep on escalating.

The hon. member for Ermelo spoke about optimum production. He referred to the work done by our researchers and the information given to farmers. I am thinking, for example, of the experiments conducted at Nooitgedacht, near Ermelo, where various fertilizing experiments have been conducted with maize, grain sorghum and sunflowers. I have visited Nooitgedacht twice this year. There one can practically see, without paying a cent, how the experiments are conducted and how one can harvest 82 bags of maize per hectare in sandy soil if one uses the right kind of fertilizer. I am glad the hon. member laid such emphasis on this matter.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about meat publicity. He referred to what the fishing industry and margarine distributors were spending on publicity and mentioned the amount of R2 million, while the Meat Board spends only a small amount on publicity. However, I have already indicated that that amount will now have to be increased. However, the hon. member did not mention “chompers” or “bull brand” which are advertised in newspapers, magazines or on television by private people. Just as Rama, Floro or any other firm advertises its trade mark, there are meat industries which advertise their products. I think “chompers” only contains something like 15% or 18% soya bean meal. I pointed this out to the hon. member for Kuruman as well. Mix the main products with additives. This is a means of making the product a little cheaper. “Chompers” contain more than 80% meat and they are not unappetizing.

I cannot understand why the hon. member says that the price of a paper bag of potatoes rose from 8½ cents to 14 cents in Natal last week. Last week, the price of a hessian bag was 12½ cents. The hessian bags are even cheaper than the paper bags in Natal and there is something wrong with regard to these prices. I shall go into the matter. Everything is reported in Hansard and I shall go into these matters and furnish replies to the hon. members.

†The hon. member says that pasturage requires nitrogen and that this is impossible. If the price of red meat was higher today, that would have been possible. If we could embark on a promotion campaign so that we could sell more beef I am still optimistic that the sale of red meat will improve. Anything may happen in adjoining countries, in the entire world for that matter, to increase the demand for red meat. At the moment we have 9,4 million head of cattle. But do you know what happened, Sir? Last week at certain of our controlled abattoirs 50% of the animals slaughtered, were cows. Farmers are cutting down on their beef production and that is a great pity. Eventually the price will go up, but when I cannot say. However, I remain optimistic and I hope the time will come that farmers will still find it necessary to apply nitrogen in order to increase their production because of the shortage that may occur.

*However, I am not predicting that there will be a meat shortage. These are only problems one has to contend with from time to time. Sir, one can have a preference for various breeds of cattle. One person prefers a Ford and another prefers a Chev; one farmer has a liking for a Santra Gertrudis and I have a liking for a Simmentaler and an Afrikaner.

[Inaudible.]

I am so glad that the hon. member is speaking so enthusiastically about his cattle.

The hon. member for Barberton said that the wool farmer was satisfied with the price because that was what he could get on the world market. We have spoken here tonight of dairy products, fresh milk, meat and maize. We have also spoken of wheat. Those few products are the only ones that are protected.

The member of the oil-seed control board is sitting next to me. The hon. member for Lydenburg can tell you that there is a proposal for a slight reduction in the floor price of sunflowers because they are selling at a loss overseas. This applies to deciduous fruit and citrus fruit as well. It is also the case if the market does not want potatoes. We have had export contracts with countries which also happen to have had good rains this year, so they have bought less from us. Next year they may buy more and then the price will rise, or there may be a greater demand on the local market, or the potato crop may fail. As far as that is concerned, the karakul industry and the mohair industry also have to accept the prices they can get for their product on the world market.

We have now come to the end of 61 speeches and I am glad to be able to say that hardly a false note has been heard. I want to thank the Opposition parties and my own agricultural group on this side. If we have this positive attitude towards agriculture and if we can convey this spirit to the consumer so that he will realize, from the mouth of the Opposition as well, that there are some industries which are having difficulties and that we are not increasing prices because we are ignoring the consumer, something which was referred to by the hon. member for Johannesburg North as well, there will be a much better understanding between the consumer and the producer. We want to enable the consumer to buy his food at all times. If we are blessed with a good rainfall for another few years, I believe that with the attitude displayed by the three agricultural departments, the officials and all of us who have made a contribution, we shall be able to feed a growing population of more than 50 million people, and we shall have enough food for a hungry Africa. We shall then be able to increase the value of our agricultural exports to more than R2 000 million. I want to express my sincere thanks to hon. members for their positive attitude.

Votes agreed to.

The Committee rose at 22h26.