Mr. Chairman, normally in this debate one would have started by devoting a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of Agriculture and then, as in the past, in the second half of the debate would have dealt with the aspect of Fisheries. However, as a result of the publication of the White Paper and also as a result of the controversy which exists in the fishing industry today, it would be amiss if I did not use the opportunity this afternoon to devote at least some of my time to Fisheries.

And also because The Argus comes out this afternoon.

From that hon. member I always expect a comment with regard to the Press. Obviously he is so involved with and concerned about the Press that he really is less concerned about the things I and others consider to be of importance in this House.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member may interject as he wishes. The fact that the Commission completed its work nearly two years ago and that only now, after practically two years, we are presented with a White Paper, is to me an indication of the lack of attention paid to this industry which has over the last decade or two practically been exploited totally and ruined by those involved in exploiting the industry under the supervision of the Government of the day.

Today we find ourselves with a fishing resource which has virtually been ruined completely. Over the years the sea has been open to abuse and this Government has, through its various Ministers—I want to accentuate “various Ministers” because I cannot include the present hon. Minister—in fact refused to take action to protect this resource. During the investigation (which many of us were involved in) into certain aspects of the conservation and utilization of the living marine resources of the Republic of South Africa we established that it was an incontrovertible fact that the fishing industry was so depleted that we were dealing with a very limited resource which had already been harmed by uncontrolled and excessive exploitation and which was virtually faced with a complete collapse. That is the conclusion to which the Commission came. In its deliberations the Commission pointed out that the fisheries of the coasts of the USA, Japan, Norway, England and probably others had collapsed as a result of over-exploitation so that today only approximately 15% of the former catches in those areas were possible. The Commission feared that something similar would take place in South African waters as well.

The Commission found that during the past decade the dramatic collapse of the pilchard resource along the coast of Walvis Bay and South West Africa had taken place. Obviously the Commission was very concerned that this may take place here as well.

During its deliberations the Commission took note of the fact that the collapse in South West Africa was not unpredicted but that in fact a scientist, Dr. Jan Lochner, had not only predicted the collapse but that he claimed that he had worked out a method whereby the maximum obtainable yield could be calculated so that the limits could be placed on the catch in a manner which would enable the resource to maintain itself so that food could be available to the population over a long period. So impressed was the Commission by the Lochner theory that it proposed that his proposals be submitted to the scientific adviser to the Prime Minister—that was a recommendation which we made—and that Dr. Burger would then be able to refer Dr. Lochner’s work to the most suitable authority for evaluation and acceptance or rejection. During this year, on the strength of this recommendation I put a question on the Order Paper in order to establish whether the recommendations made by the Commission had been carried out. When I look at the question and answer I quite frankly come to the conclusion that the answer is an evasion of the question and just does not make sense.

The recommendation was that Dr. Lochner’s proposals be put to the adviser to the Prime Minister. The following replies were given and I quote—

That was part of the answer. However, that was not part of the question. Therefore, (a) had nothing to do with the question which I had put. In the answer it was further stated, and I quote—

Here again the proposal of the Commission was that Dr. Lochner’s proposal be put to the adviser to the Prime Minister. Here we found that his proposals were not put directly but that he was advised to publish them in a scientific journal.

Then, following on that publication in the journal, there were certain criticisms made of his theory. Those criticisms were then apparently—I can only deduct from the answer which I was given—referred to the CSIR. In the final analysis it is said that the scientific evaluations point to the proposed control system as being unacceptable.

The way in which this question was answered leads me to believe that Dr. Lochner’s theories and proposals were never put to Dr. A. P. Burger in the same form and manner as they were put to the Commission. Nowhere in my question or in the Commission’s recommendations was any reference made to the need for scientists, named or unnamed, to evaluate the accuracy of this theory. There was a very specific recommendation made. The criticism by the scientists in the South African Journal of Science should have had no bearing on whether the true information should have been sent to Dr. Alwyn Burger or not. I am extremely concerned about the whole series of events which flowed from the recommendation made by the Commission. If I am correct in the deduction that the correct information was not submitted to Dr. Burger, then this is a clear breach of faith by the hon. the Minister’s Department and clearly places the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council in a very awkward position. I would like to suggest that before the end of this debate the hon. Minister should be able to give us an answer on this matter, otherwise I suggest that the matter should be investigated inter-departmentally.

If one looks at the controversy surrounding this method suggested by Dr. Lochner, one finds that Rapport has been running a series of articles, the gist of which was that greed and over-exploitation have led to the destruction of the fish resource.

Mr. Chairman I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member.

†While in these articles the direct allegation of corruption is not made, one nevertheless gains the impression that certain people were aware of the destruction, but that they considered money and other interests more important than the protection of our resources. The destruction in fact continues, even today. We have had numerous examples of newspapers reporting on events taking place in False Bay—the hon. member for Simon’s Town will probably refer to it later on as he helped to investigate it—in which it became clear that so-called inspectors were involved in bribes. It was alleged that they were corrupt. If one picks up any newspaper one finds allegations to this effect. I do not believe that we have only small fry involved in these things. Somewhere there must be other people who are involved as well. I believe that the big names behind this debacle in the fishing industry must be found somehow.

*I think that the hon. the Minister should wait and see which way the monkey jumps. We now have a new hon. Minister …

Which way the cat jumps.

The monkey in this case.

The cat!

No, in this case, the monkey.

To see which way the cat jumps and to let the cat out of the bag!

Right. We now have a Minister who has limited experience in the fishing industry. He is relatively new and for his own sake and for the sake of senior officials in the Department I would suggest that a judicial commission of inquiry should be appointed to establish who was responsible for the destruction of the pelagic resource in South West Africa initially and who, if anyone, is responsible for the destruction of our fish in South African waters which is continuing apace. I think this is extremely serious. I also think it is very topical and the public is very keen to see action taken, and that this action should be taken speedily. I believe that the public is alarmed about what is happening. The public sees that big interests simply sweep the bay and that catches are made indiscriminately, and the public and I are also alarmed at the rate at which our fish are being caught by, shall I say, foreigners. Our Government seems to be incapable or unwilling of taking action either to cancel those people’s concessions or at least to make sure that the catches are monitored as are our own catches, in theory.

The need for far more and better paid, and perhaps better qualified, inspectors is something which cannot be ignored either. When one speaks to senior officials in the Department, it is often said, and I believe them when they say so, that they just do not have the manpower to do the work that is required. That may well be true, but it is un acceptable that a Department could find itself so short-staffed that it simply has to accept that the destruction of a natural resource will be allowed to continue as a result of lack of manpower.

In the incidents surrounding the False Bay theft, because that is really what it is, we found that there were a number of people who came forward to give evidence or to suggest what action should be taken and who the culprits were. I wonder whether the hon. Minister should not make far more use of members of the public who are responsible, who probably live on the coast or close to the coastline and who know the sea well, to assist the Department in taking the necessary police action. I believe that in this way a relatively inexpensive source of highly qualified, honourable men will come forward to help the Department do its work.

Finally, I want to say that the public demands that action be taken speedily. I hope that this hon. Minister will make use of the opportunity to explain to this House what his plans are for the immediate future and also to answer the questions which I have put to him regarding Dr. Lochner’s theory as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg tried to upset the normal procedure of the Agricultural debate by discussing Fisheries first, whereas the normal custom has always been to discuss Agriculture first. This side of the House will reply to that at a later and appropriate stage, when the debate turns to Fisheries, and the hon. the Minister will also reply to him in that regard in due course. On the other hand, this side of the House is aware of so many difficulties with regard to agriculture in general and the prevailing drought that at this point we wish to proceed to discuss agriculture as such. [Interjections.]

In general conversation many allegations are made against agriculture, for example, to the effect that things are going well with the farmer, that they are harvesting large crops, that they are getting high prices, that consumers pay too much, that farmers are always complaining, that farmers are inefficient, that the control board system is inefficient, that the free economy would work better and that co-operatives undermine the free economic system. This House and the country cannot allow such allegations to pass unchallenged without seeing agriculture as a whole in perspective. The situation of any industry in the PWV region is quite different to that of a similar industry in a deconcentrated region. If this is true in industry, where climatic factors are not at issue, it is so much the more true in agriculture, which is concerned with climatic factors and which is of a different nature to industry. Therefore one could rightly say that agriculture should be dealt with differently and seen in a different light to the industrial sector as such.

In the first place I wish to discuss the role of agriculture. During the debate this side of the House will go into more detail on specific aspects after I have given a broad survey. The first and most important aim of agriculture is that it must provide the country with food. The country must be self-sufficient. When we look at the South African agricultural industry, we see that South Africa is one of six countries in the world which is a net exporter of food. South Africa’s food prices compare particularly well with world prices, notwithstanding the climatic factors. In most instances, imported food would cost far more. The foodstuffs which are indeed cheaper are heavily subsidized by the countries in question, for example EEG countries, where certain products are subsidized by up to 50%. It is important that it should be possible to produce food as cheaply as possible, but agriculture’s economic virility must not suffer thereby. The reason for this is the following: Food is a basic need of the people as a whole, and the population spends approximately one third of its income on food. To provide food cheaply and maintain a financially healthy agricultural sector in South Africa will require exceptional measures.

A second aspect is that agriculture serves as a provider of employment. In 1978 agriculture employed 1 291 400 workers. This amounts to approximately 18,14 workers per farm.

Thirdly, I refer to agriculture as a supplier of primary products for the industries. Here we see that agricultural products can be divided into two aspects viz. as a primary product for industry, and as a market for industrial products. In this regard we call to mind the grain products, liquor, tobacco, the textile industry, meat and meat products, leather and leather products, timber, furniture, paper, the chemical industry—where all fertilizers are used in agriculture—insecticides that are used, agricultural machinery, electrical machinery and the transport industry. From tables for 1976 it is apparent that the production of industries that are largely dependent on agriculture for their inputs, and industries which are largely or partly dependent on agriculture as a market, amounts to R6 565 million, or 32% of the gross value of the manufacturing industry as a whole.

The fourth point is the influence of agriculture on domestic trade. All rural towns are largely dependent on the financial situation in agriculture. Retail sales in the rural areas comprise 38,7% of the total internal retail sales.

Fifthly, agriculture is an earner of foreign exchange. The exports of the agricultural sector amounted to approximately R2 000 million in 1980. The agricultural sector exports approximately one third of its gross value annually. Climate is a more important factor in agricultural exports than domestic economic factors, although foreign economic factors do have an influence on the gross earnings of agricultural goods.

Sixthly, agriculture has a security value. The occupation of agricultural land in remote areas and on the borders is imperative for the security and stability of the South African economy. Uncertainty and infiltration through rural areas have not only an economic but also a moral influence. A strong, stable, economically sound and densely populated countryside creates a motivated population with an inherent will to protect itself. It will strengthen the spiritual preparedness as a whole, with power as security. To be able to achieve this the inherent deficiencies that hamper the realization of these aims will have to be identified and purposefully eliminated. I shall refer to some of these deficiencies: The poor infrastructure, the economic drawbacks, social deficiencies in rural areas, the lack of basic services, the high cost structures, low net profits, decentralization benefits that do not apply to agriculture as such, a lack of irrigation incentives, lack of electricity services and transport problems. Then I want to refer to Volkshandel of March 1982.I quote—

I quote further—

A further extract reads as follows, and I quote—

That is an extract from Volkshandel which is at issue here. I shall come back to decentralization benefits as such later.

Another point that must be dealt with relates to the economic difficulties. The drought in cattle-farming areas which in some areas has lasted for years is causing grave concern. Thanks must be expressed for the sympathetic approach of the department and the authorities during this period. In the field husbandry areas the drought in January and February caused severe damage to crops. Crops of 50% less than last year are expected, which could mean a reduced income of R900 million for maize farmers. On the other hand, there, are certain farmers who expect almost no harvest at all or much less, even, than 50% of last year’s harvest. This reduced income presents an even graver picture if increased costs inputs are taken into account. The fact that a survey among co-operatives has shown that harvest production loans amounting to approximately R400 million will have to stand over, shows that with one poor year after an exceptionally good harvest year like last year, capital formation has not been possible. In the Eastern Transvaal region there are even problems after more than one good harvest year followed by a poor year. The fact is that steadily increasing cost inputs and interest rates of 20% at banks, and hire purchase with an effective higher interest rate, will create problems. The preparedness of the Government to approach this matter sympathetically once again with a view to subsidized interest on debts that are standing over and financing of the next harvest, necessarily brings me to the Jacobs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member. In 1979 the Jacobs Committee issued the first of its three reports, which contained a series of recommendations. In the first place, a word of thanks for the good work done. Secondly, I want to consider the series of recommendations that were accepted and thirdly, those that have not yet been accepted or that have been rejected. The overall approach of the Jacobs Committee and of the Government in regard to those recommendations imply basic points of departure. I refer, inter alia, to the part where the origin of the problem is chiefly dependent on the farmer himself. In this regard the farmer, too, must himself investigate the situation. I refer to factors such as financial management, where there is injudicious or over-optimistic planning. I refer, too, to the utilization of available capital, the proportions in which it is spent and on what production inputs operating capital is spent. How is available knowledge economically utilized within a certain industry? In this connection a heavy onus rests on the farmer to reduce his risk judiciously. It is true that this is something that is not done equally judiciously by all farmers.

The second point is the extent to which the problem can be reduced by organizations and the farmer has created to assist him, namely, co-operatives and the South African Agricultural Union.

The Agricultural Union can be congratulated on the co-operation and co-ordination that exists in this regard, but also for the positive contribution and furthering of the cause of the farmer by the positive submission of representations, financial aid by the Government to the agricultural co-operatives, research projects and the distribution of knowledge in connection with production. This endeavour must bring about improvement in this regard as well.

Thirdly, I wish to dwell for a moment on the involvement of the Government. I wish to pay tribute to the research and extension services which the department has developed over the years and the service they have rendered. The question I want to ask here concerns the extent to which we can continue, in view of the demands that will be set in future, to spend 1% of the total gross value of agricultural production on agricultural research. The Government will have to give attention to this and make a larger contribution percentagewise in regard to research and agricultural extension. The rise in input costs is causing grave concern. Although consumer prices have increased from 100% in 1975 to 203,5% in 1981, producer prices have increased from 100% in 1975 to 198% in 1981. The price of farming requisites has increased more rapidly than the rate of inflation, and even more rapidly than producer prices. A further increase could place a still heavier burden on the capital demands of the producer in years to come. The return of capital invested was 7,5% in 1975, 6,6% in 1976, 6,5% in 1977, 6,7% in 1978, 6,5% in 1979, 8,7% in 1980 and in 1981, which was a particularly good harvest year, the figure was 10,5%. Capital formation from this return is therefore very limited, and severe pressure is exerted in poor years. Therefore it is an urgent necessity that credit be made available in 1982 with a low income at interest rates recoverable in agriculture. At the least, overdrafts will have to be offered at subsidized interest rates. Although interest is calculated as a cost input when determining fixed price schemes, its recoverability, particularly as regards the exportable section, is uncertain. Levies for export losses neutralize such cost calculations in most instances.

Export promotion benefits that apply to industries and are refused for agricultural purposes for specific reasons, require urgent attention. Decisions in this regard are often made against agricultural goods on an ad hoc basis, and the main purpose of such a benefit is ignored. The importance of according recognition to agriculture as an exporter, and the important earnings in foreign exchange as a result of this, are overlooked.

The expected pressure on the current account of the balance of payments has forced the Government to seek to limit imports. A surcharge has been introduced. As far as this surcharge, which has an effect on agriculture, is concerned, I again wish to make an urgent appeal here for it to be reconsidered that as far as agricultural inputs are concerned.

Capital formation in agriculture is an urgent necessity. As has already been indicated, the return on capital, taking into account the risk factor, is very low. In agriculture a capital investment of R300 000 to R450 000 yields a net revenue of R30 000 before tax, capital and interest redemption and management remuneration is recovered. Therefore it is urgently necessary to be able to make provision in poor harvest years for working capital. The answer of the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to delayed tax, investments with the Land Bank and taxability in the year of withdrawal cannot therefore be accepted without further ado. With proper insight into agricultural problems, these representations ought to be given further attention, and I am convinced that sufficient arguments are available.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I turn to a statement issued by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Department of Agriculture on 21 February 1980 relating to the Jacobs Committee. It was formulated that “income objectives” be aimed for and “realistic adjustments to the farmers’ margin of profit” be made. Here I just wish to argue that as far as certain products are concerned, it is impossible to achieve stability in the farmer’s income where exports are involved. One cannot ignore the price stability, and in that regard I should like to argue that there must be a clear standpoint on this.

Another aspect is that of control boards. The importance and the disparagement of control boards is in my opinion a matter deserving of further attention, and will be discussed again later in the course of this debate.

I now come to decentralization benefits for agriculture. However, to begin with I wish to quote a statement by the hon. the Prime Minister made at the Good Hope Conference—

Mr. Chairman, this was said at the Good Hope conference, which was addressed by the hon. the Prime Minister.

When we consider the promotion of industrial development we see that certain adjustments are going to be made in regard to decentralization benefits, and I wish to mention a few. The purpose in this regard is, firstly, “om nyweraars te vergoed vir sekere langtermynkostenadele in die betrokke gebiede”, and secondly “om sekere korttermynfinansieringsprobleme te verlig”. This is done in respect of rail transport, road transport, electricity, housing of key staff, supporting service industries, cash training rebates and work incentives. In this regard I just wish to pay in respect of those benefits spelt out in this newsletter which are to be granted to the industries in deconcentrated areas, that they will exert further labour pressure on agriculture in those specific areas with regard to competition for labour and the salaries that are paid. In this regard agriculture cannot be overlooked. In certain instances they will be paid interest subsidies by the Industrial Development Board, and rent subsidies are also payable.

Mr. Chairman, looking at all these decentralization benefits which can be granted to the industries, I contend that these industrial benefits must not be regarded as being exclusively for the industries as a single group, but that agriculture as such should be included in this total package, and that there will have to be an investigation into how and to what extent these decentralization benefits can also be implemented in certain areas in regard to agriculture and the farmer, who is operating in the face of severe hardships.

Finally, I might just say by way of summary that in order to serve South Africa and all its people, agriculture must be an economically virile and growing industry. Agriculture must be kept out of the political arena. Agriculture has to involve all sectors in co-operation and promote its own cause by way of persuasion and cogent argument, not by way of confrontation.

Agriculture must pay tribute to the South African Agricultural Union for the strong and motivated standpoints adopted on behalf of the farmers, but in particular for the way in which they state their standpoint. Ad hoc decisions aimed at overcoming difficulties do not offer long-term solutions. The Government, in co-operation with all departments involved, and not only the Department of Agriculture, will have to table a White Paper presenting a global picture of agriculture and in which a quantity survey is carried out and a long-term approach outlined.

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

Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon. member for Ventersdorp. Allow me, firstly, to congratulate him on his election as chairman of the agricultural group of the NP. The hon. member has a record of service to agriculture in South Africa which few people can equal. I wish him success. I believe that, as in the past, he will continue to serve agriculture to the best of his ability.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Ventersdorp and I could not confer in advance on which subjects he would deal with and which ones I would deal with. Therefore it may be possible that we will overlap to a large extent. I can find no fault with what the hon. member for Ventersdorp said here this afternoon. I agree with him about most of the problems in the agricultural industry to which he referred. I think that in the light of those problems, it is necessary to look at the provisions as they are to be found in the present budget. I shall refer briefly to some of them.

The hon. member has already indicated that the free play of supply and demand in the case of agriculture cannot be the solution to our problems. This is true for the simple reason, and I wish to concur with him here, that one cannot compare agriculture with the secondary industries for example, where one is certain of production, where one is to a large extent certain of turnover, and, also to a large extent, of cost. Since one is dealing in agriculture with the uncertain factor of increased production costs, particularly in our time, the further uncertainty, in many cases, of the final prices which may be negotiated, and the main uncertainty in agriculture, that of final production, I believe that it is impossible, as far as the maintenance and stabilizing of a healthy agricultural industry in South Africa is concerned, for one to leave this matter to the ordinary laws of free supply and free demand when it comes to price fixing. I do not think it is going to work in practice, since one of the main problems in agriculture is the very fact that one cannot determine these components of agriculture beforehand. That is why it is essential that Government institutions should intervene in this regard to ensure that the agriculturist receives an equitable reward for his input and his labour. That is why one involuntarily asks why agriculture in particular does not receive the same measure of advantages as the other sectors of the economy, as the hon. member for Ventersdorp has already done. I should like to refer in particular to the export incentives on the part of the State. We ask why agriculture does not also receive its rightful share from the Government. The recent announcement by the Government that railway rebates on exports have been summarily suspended, which was done without consultation with organized agriculture, has caused a great deal of consternation in the ranks of agriculture, particularly in the case of the citrus industry. I understand that it has been restored on an ad hoc basis. However, it is my standpoint that such measures cannot be introduced from time to time on an ad hoc basis only to be abolished as the economy fluctuates from day to day, also on an ad hoc basis. It is absolutely essential that agriculture should consistently be placed on a healthy basis, as far as these matters are concerned as well.

Mr. Chairman, we are now going through a period of strict financial control on the part of the Government. In particular, we are going through a period of rising interest rates, and my contention is that these rising interest rates we are experiencing today, are going to make it almost prohibitive for the agriculturist to remain economically active. If we look at the figures—the hon. member for Ventersdorp has already mentioned this—we see that the expected loss of income of one of the branches of the agricultural industry will be R900 000 000 this year. The expected deferred debt in that industry is calculated to be in the region of R400 000 000. Provision still has to be made for production inputs for the coming year, and if one attempts to calculate the burden of interest alone for the farming industry for the coming year, one arrives at an astronomical figure. The South African Agricultural Union estimates that the single highest production cost item for agriculture in South Africa in the coming year will not be fertilizer or anything else, but interest alone. They estimate that in the coming year it will be in the region of R700 000 000. That is why it is quite frustrating for us agriculturists when we look at the present budget. Then we look in particular at the budget for agriculture as a whole. Whereas the total budget has increased by approximately R2 000 000 000, one sees that the actual budget which has been voted in the interests of the agriculturists of South Africa, is one of the few which has decreased in aggregate, and in real terms. It is a pity that this should be the case. We realize what the economic circumstances of our country are and we realize that the hon. the Minister of Finance must make his decisions within the limits of the capabilities of the budget, but we are of the opinion that agriculture has not received its rightful share in this regard. If the amount voted for food subsidies in the agriculture budget is subtracted, then one sees what the real amount is which remains for the agriculturist himself, since the food subsidy is not, after all, a subsidy for the agriculturist, but a subsidy for the consumer. If, then, we look in particular at the financing aspect of the budget, then we see that this figure has dropped from R83 000 000 in 1980 to R73 000 000 for 1981-’82 and it has shown a further decrease to R34 000 000 for 1982-’83.

Taking the Rotating Fund into account.

Yes, I am coming to that. It is as well that the hon. the Deputy Minister has reminded me of this so that I can speak about the Rotating Fund.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will recall that at that time we were overjoyed when specific provision was made by way of legislation for the establishment of the Rotating Fund for agriculture. We were overjoyed because in it we saw the possibility of the real cash amount which would be available for agriculture being increased considerably. Whereas the money which the State recovered from its borrowers was deposited in the ordinary Revenue Fund in the past, special provision was made by way of the establishment of the Rotating Fund that it would go to that fund, and that it would automatically be available for further provision of credit to agriculture. However, what do we find in practice? Whereas the State provided a certain amount for agricultural credit in the past, and the repayments of farmers were never recorded, they are, in fact, being recorded now, but the additional amount coming from the Treasury for agriculture, is simply the difference between the minimum requirements and the amount which has been recovered. In other words, the establishment of the Rotating Fund—and I wish to argue this—has had no effect whatsoever during the particular financial year we are now discussing. It has had no effect whatsoever. The real result is that, in spite of the establishment of that Rotating Fund for the provision of agricultural credit, less credit has been provided for agriculture this year than in the previous financial year, even if the R34 000 000 is taken into account. This must be seen in the light of the serious financial problems, particularly as far as the obtaining of production loans are concerned, as well as the serious problems with high interest rates looming for agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I foresee—in fact, I think every farmer foresees—that in future there are going to be an increasing number of requests on the part of the farming industry to the State and/or to the Land Bank for credit, for the simple reason that the present interest rates of the commercial banks are pushing the farmers out of the market. That is why I hope that it will be possible, by way of an interim measure, which I believe is going to be necessary, to increase drastically the amount which will have to be provided in this regard to the agricultural industry of South Africa.

I think there is one matter which we are all concerned about. It is not a matter which only affects agriculture as such. It is also a socio-economic and political problem, and that is the White depopulation of the rural areas. I think it will be a sad day if we fail to appreciate the seriousness of this problem. It is our standpoint that on the part of the Government, serious attention will have to be given, more purposeful than in the past, to ensure that a young and healthy White occupation of the rural areas continues to exist, otherwise we foresee serious problems in the future, not only for agriculture but for South Africa in general.

Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon. member for Barberton. As an agricultural expert, he has a sound knowledge of the problems in agriculture, and I can find little fault with his general statement here that planning should take place on a long-term basis in order to seek solutions for the problems in agriculture. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to him on the problems which he pointed out here.

Mr. Chairman, in my maiden speech I undertook to make a contribution in order to promote a more realistic image of agriculture, in this House as well. The meaningful promotion of the true image of agriculture is, however, directly connected with the acceptance of one basic premise, viz. the undeniable strategic importance of the agricultural sector for our country and all its people. I believe this statement to be correct. However, there is at present an alarming and growing tendency to question the importance of agriculture. There is even the tendency to dismiss and to regard as unimportant the contribution of agriculture to our national economy. This tendency mainly results from two statements of fact, viz. the ever decreasing percentage contribution which the agricultural sector makes to the gross domestic product, and the ever diminishing number of farmers in agriculture. These two statements are factually correct. Agriculture’s direct contribution to the gross domestic product shows a downward tendency. In 1971 it was 8,8% compared with 6,8% in 1980. The number of farmers in agriculture also shows a decrease. At the beginning of the seventies there were an estimated 91 000 farmers, compared with 71 000 in 1980. However, those who underestimate, and who even wish to write off the contribution of agriculture to our economy on the basis of these facts, are not only being short-sighted, but are also doing our country and its people a disservice. These people make the fatal mistake of losing sight completely of agriculture’s enormous, indirect contribution to our country’s economy and the strategic contribution of agriculture to the defensibility of the RSA. That is why I believe the point of departure in any meaningful agricultural debate should be the important contribution of agriculture to a stable and growing economy. That is why, by way of summary, and in concurrence with the hon. member for Ventersdorp, I wish to set out clearly and unequivocally the role and importance of agriculture in the South African national economy.

Agriculture was, and still is, more than simply a primary industry in the South African national economy. Agriculture must be seen as a sector within an integrated economy and as such, it is fundamental to the entire socio-economic structure of the RSA. As a primary industry, the basic function of agriculture is the supply of sufficient food to the entire nation at reasonable and stable prices. The South African agricultural sector fulfils this basic function with distinction and with great efficiency. Not only does South Africa feed the entire population, but as has already been indicated, South Africa is also one of the six countries in the world which is a net exporter of food. South Africa is practically the only country on the African continent in which food production is increasing per capita, notwithstanding a decrease in the number of farmers. South Africa’s strong agricultural export trade, which amounts to almost one third of our total agricultural production, gives our country a particularly effective bargaining power in its negotiations with neighbouring African States.

The second basic function of the agricultural sector is the provision of raw materials to the secondary industries. As the participation of the processing and manufacturing sectors in our economy increases, so the direct participation of the primary sectors, such as agriculture for example, in our economic activities decreases. This is a normal economic development process in any country, but this does not mean that agriculture has become less important for industrial development and economic growth in our country. This statement is underlined by the fact that one third of our country’s factories are directly connected with the agricultural sector. Furthermore, it is estimated that 25% of wholesale selling in South Africa is dependent on the agricultural sector, while at retail level, it is estimated that 38% of all retail sales can be attributed to agriculture. The South African rural areas are therefore entirely dependent on the financial position of agriculture for their prosperity. Agriculture forms an extremely essential basis for industrial development in decentralized areas. Agriculture can therefore make an essential and decisive contribution to the Government’s new policy of decentralization. I believe this statement is very important and I am convinced that a realistic development plan for agriculture, which is now being integrated with the new decentralization policy of the Government is an inevitable and natural component for the successful implementation of the Government’s programme. Therefore I wish to congratulate the South African Agricultural Union on its intention to draw up such a development plan.

The agricultural sector is also an important earner of foreign exchange. The agricultural sector has constantly been exporting one third of its production during the past year, the value of which amounts to approximately R2 000 000 000 per annum at present. The value of agricultural exports also represent approximately 20% of the RSA’s annual export goods. With the extremely inconstant climatic conditions and limited high-potential agricultural land, which represents only 4% of our total agricultural land, it is a remarkable achievement for the South African farmer that our country, as has already been stated, is one of only six countries in the world which is a net exporter of food.

The important function of the agricultural sector as the single largest provider of employment in the country is of particular significance. In this regard, agriculture not only provides direct employment for 1,2 million employees, but a further 450 000 employment opportunities are created by the industries which are directly connected with agriculture. With the high priority given to full employment in our economic planning, the agricultural sector therefore plays an extremely important role as a provider of employment. Seen in this light, the agricultural industry, in which an estimated 6 million non-Whites are directly involved, must also be regarded as an extremely important sector for the creation and maintenance of healthy labour and intergroup relations. The South African farmer has a proud record in this respect as well.

It is therefore clear that a stable and growing economy in this country is, to a large extent, dependent on a stable and growing agricultural sector. This truth is also accepted by other countries and is implemented in their economic planning. A striking example of this is the development of the European Common Market, which is mainly concerned with the protection of the agricultural sectors of the countries involved.

Mr. Chairman, if we wish to guarantee stability in the South African agricultural sector, we shall have to safeguard certain important aspects or supports on which the agriculture structure in South Africa is built, in our future planning. We shall have to take steps in our future planning to ensure that, with the establishment of the necessary infrastructure and other measures, the South African farmer and his family as a social and economic unit will remain the basis on which our agriculture is established.

In our future planning we shall have to guard against the dismantling and breaking up of such organizations as the agricultural co-operatives and agricultural boards, without which the retention of a stable agricultural sector and the continued existence of the South African farmer is simply not possible.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister and their top management team in the Department for the following: For conveying the true image of agriculture with enthusiasm so that our young men are inspired to venture upon careers in agriculture; for spelling out the role and importance of agriculture with utter conviction so that the consumer obtains a more balanced view and therefore displays a better attitude towards the farmer and his circumstances; for trying with insight and understanding, to keep the South African farmer and his family on the land under difficult economic and climatic conditions, so that everyone in this country may know that this Government understands agriculture and its problems, as well as having tremendous appreciation for the socio-economic contribution of agriculture; and for wishing to develop and strengthen the co-operative organizations and control board in a positive way so that the supports on which the agricultural structure rests, cannot collapse.

Mr. Chairman, for all this extremely important contraction work on the image of agriculture, I as a farmer say: Thank you very much.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Ceres and I must say that I found his presentation of the socio-economic problems in agriculture to be extremely interesting. There are certain aspects of his speech which I shall also include in my own.

At the outset I wish to express the appreciation of the members of the NRP to the hon. the Minister, to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the heads of his Department for the open door attitude that they have adopted in dealing with the problems and other matters which are brought to their attention. Those of us who represents rural constituencies have many problems relating to agriculture and we are particularly appreciative of this easy access to the Minister and his Department.

When one endeavours to assess the agricultural industry in this country, one must also take cognizance of the state of agriculture in other countries of the sub-continent and I wish to deal with this particular aspect first. It is abundantly clear, from recent overseas reports, that agriculture has completely collapsed in many countries to the north of us. Various reasons have been advanced for this collapse with considerable emphasis on drought, but it is obvious that drought has been called upon to provide excuses for other shortcomings. It is also quite clear that drought is not the only problem that is being experienced. One has only to study overseas reports to learn that certain Western Governments, who provide aid to the Third World countries in the form of foodstuffs and other basic materials, are extremely concerned that a number of these countries who were exporters of agricultural products in the past, now find themselves in the unenviable position of having to import their food requirements. It is not necessary for me to comment further on the detrimental effect that the importation of food has on a country with a weak economy. One cannot, however, disregard the futility of having to make such importations because of a failure of so many of these countries to exploit their own agricultural potential. This is the aspect that has been worrying Western countries that have been assisting agriculture in the developing countries, particularly at the present time when they are experiencing problems of their own and are also hard pressed with their own economies. It is true that a large percentage of Africa’s food requirements emanates from countries in the European Economic Community who, at the present time, are embarrassed by vast quantities of agricultural products that have been built up as a result of the heavy subsidization that has formed part of the EEC agricultural pricing policy. It is no secret that some of these EEC countries are highly dissatisfied with the manner in which their own members are subsidizing agricultural products for domestic political reasons. One has every reason therefore to query whether EEC countries will continue to compete on African markets, to the degree that they have in the past, if steps are taken to remove the causes of their present surpluses.

It is therefore logical to assume that agriculture in this country will be called upon to play a more significant role in supplementing the future food requirements of the countries beyond our borders. This places an enormous challenge at the door of the agricultural sector and one which must be accepted in the interests of stability on the subcontinent. If this is to be achieved the agricultural industry in this country must gear itself to greater productivity. It must provide food, not only for the increasing local population with its increasing purchasing power, but it must also be in a position to provide for the needs of other African countries who wish to do business with us. The crunch point could inevitably be reached when this country faces the dilemma of insufficient agricultural products to meet both the internal and external requirements. This is the target on which agriculture must set its sights and I appeal to the hon. the Minister and his Department to give serious attention to the demands that are likely to be made on the agricultural resources of this country as a result of the impending need to increase productivity. I see this as forming an integral part of a greater long term plan, which, as the hon. the Minister knows, is a matter that I have raised on several occasions in the past.

If one pauses for a moment to relate the present availability of agricultural products to a possible sudden increase in demand it would no doubt come as a shock to find that present production output of many commodities is inadequate. In fact, we are faced with a position at the present time where it is necessary for us to import certain food requirements for our own consumption. This illustrates one of the serious problems that exists in our agriculture today. There is an imbalance of agricultural products, where we have surpluses in some categories and shortages in others. If one takes this a stage further, one realizes that this can be attributed, to a great degree, to severe drought conditions which were experienced in many parts of the country during February and March which reminds us once again, after recent favourable years, that South Africa has an uncertain weather pattern and how easily we forget this in times of good years. It has also illustrated how defenceless South African agriculture is in the face of drought and the enormous hazards that are associated with cash crop farming. It also illustrates how important it is that the water resources of this country be harnessed as a matter of priority. Agricultural production can only be stabilized if the present annual fluctuation in agricultural products is tempered. Erratic tendencies in agricultural production have so often been responsible for the disruption of established agricultural practices where farmers have been injudiciously enticed away from one product to another, and often with disastrous results. Here again we see one of the causes for the present imbalance which exists in our agricultural products today. One of the most significant trends is a move away from livestock farming to cash cropping. This has had the effect of increasing, to a very considerable degree, the risk factor in agriculture and as such can be particularly prejudicial to the small farmer.

Movements of this nature within the industry, as in the case of the trend towards cash crop farming, highlight the important role that the extension services will be called upon to play in the future. In referring to extension services I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that this matter will receive top priority when the report of the Commission of Enquiry is made available to him. I am aware of the problems that the Minister is experiencing in regard to staff but I would urge that all aspects of conditions of employment, including housing, be the subject of an intense investigation.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity. I do not wish to minimize the role that is played by companies and co-operatives in providing extension and field services for their clients and members. One must appreciate that the services that are rendered by these organizations are directed towards stimulating products without adequate attention being given at times to the ecological factors governing the suitability or otherwise of particular lines of farming being practised in particular areas. We, on these benches, are highly perturbed by the economic crisis facing agriculture at the present time and I appreciate the fact that this is receiving the attention of the Government at Cabinet level and that the Jacobs Committee will be issuing a report in the near future. I must, however, warn the hon. the Minister that agricultural financing must not be seen in the same light as commercial financing and must be adapted to meet the peculiar needs that only apply to agriculture. This is a message I would ask the hon. the Minister to convey to his colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Agriculture, in many respects, remains a way of life and it is the backbone of the economy of the rural areas and if its financial requirements are to be thrown into the same melting pot as that of commerce and industry an exodus of farmers from the land will be inevitable and will be followed by a ripple economic effect throughout the rural areas. I also wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister and his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, to give serious attention to the memorandum being prepared by the South African Agricultural Union in regard to the part that agriculture must play in stimulating the rural economy on similar lines to that envisaged in the recently launched decentralization policy for industry.

It is necessary to refer to the Marketing Act in a debate of this nature and I again wish to reiterate that we in these benches whole-heartedly support this Act and the part that it is playing through the control board system in stabilizing the agricultural industry of this country. Criticism is levelled from time to time at control boards for the manner in which they carry out their functions, but the consumer in this country is fortunate to have a wide selection of foodstuffs from which to choose at comparatively reasonable prices when compared with other countries. The control board system has ensured that the gap in price between that which the producer receives and that which the consumer pays is kept to an absolute minimum. It has also created a sense of stability and confidence in the industry, it has offered a certain protection to the small farmer, it has also played a considerable part in improving and encouraging the marketing of high quality products. I am also reminded that we are very fortunate, once again to have a free availability of agricultural products and I have no hesitation in saying that consumers in this country, irrespective of some of the statements that are made by other organizations, would be paying considerably more for their foodstuffs if it were not for the control board system which is operative in this country.

Finally, may I end with a comment which we see displayed in slogan form on stickers in Natal. My Natal colleagues will be able to appreciate it and it is with this message that I conclude my speech: “Don’t criticize farmers with your mouth full.”

The hon. member for Mooi River, in common with other speakers from both sides of this House, set a high standard in this debate. We are fortunate to have such a strong representation from the industry in this House. I cannot find much fault with what the hon. member for Mooi River said; as a matter of fact, there are quite a few matters, to which I shall return, on which I shall concur with him. The speakers up to now have identified certain problems and I shall start with the hon. member for Ventersdorp who, I feel, made an excellent introductory speech to this debate. I shall also refer to the other speakers and consider the problems they identified. These can ultimately be reduced to financial problems in this country.

I want to refer to an interesting article which appeared in Agricultural News of 2 October under the heading “Capital Crisis hits World Farming”. In other words, what we are dealing with here is a phenomenon which is not unique to South Africa but is in fact international. I want to quote a few sentences from this article because I feel it is of real importance for us to take cognizance of this—

I shall also quote another paragraph—

This is a very interesting article which I feel is most relevant to the times in which we are living.

In the 16 April 1982 edition of Agricultural News there is an article entitled “Boere se bruto inkomste in 1981 hoër”. It is clearly spelt out in the article that great progress was made in the agricultural industry during 1981 as a result of particularly good crops and exceptional conditions. However, in 1982 we were faced by what the former hon. Minister of Agriculture always referred to as “’n twee-tand droogtetjie” and we therefore had big problems.

As far as I am concerned it is a “ses-tand droogte”.

The hon. member for Barberton says as far as he is concerned it is a “ses-tand droogte”. That may be so, but what worries me is that after two good years we are not able to weather a bad year. This proves to me that there is something wrong with the financing of our industry. This should not be the case. Our agricultural finance structure should be of such a nature that knowing in what country we live and knowing that we have periods of prosperity and adversity with regard to weather conditions, we are in a position to produce uniformly and to finance uniformly. I find it interesting that the report in the Agricultural News to which I referred earlier concluded with the following words—

This means we are caught in a cost price squeeze. When I thought of this I remembered that years ago in 1972 I made a speech about the cost squeeze in agriculture. On that occasion I said the following—

That was in 1972 and this is now 1982 and we are again in the same position. Some of us have survived the squeeze in the intervening period, but some of us have had to throw in the towel. On that occasion when I spoke about the cost price squeeze, I said we should save ourselves—the agricultural industry should save itself. I suggested a number of ways in which we could do this. In the first place I said we should make use of a good marketing operation so that we could stipulate the best prices for our products and I feel that we have this in our marketing organization. In this regard I want to agree with the hon. member for Mooi River. I went on to say that we should try to make our production more effective and to utilize the capital we employed more effectively. I also referred to quite a number of ways in which this could be done. As a matter of fact I said that we as producers should examine our own consciences and ask ourselves whether we were really producing as effectively as we could. Were we using the capital we had at our disposal correctly and were we using the correct channels for our financing? Today I want to say what I said then, namely that I feel that the salvation of agriculture lies in our developing and strengthening our existing institutions—the Land Bank in the first place as our provider of short and long term funds—in every possible way because agriculture cannot exist without these institutions. Linked to this is the co-operative setup and the co-operatives which act as agents for the control boards and the Land Bank. I feel that if we have an effective co-operative system we can solve many of our financial problems through our co-operatives. However, as far as our co-operatives are concerned we shall also have to examine our own consciences and consider whether we do not have too many co-operatives. We shall also have to consider whether we do not have inefficient co-operatives. I believe that a co-operative which is too small is a bad thing because it probably duplicates the work of a more effective co-operative and prices are pushed up. However, if a co-operative develops into a large undertaking and its administration does not keep pace with its development this could also be a factor which hampers rather than promotes agricultural financing. [Time expired.]

It is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Malmesbury, who also touched on the problems in connection with financing in agriculture, with which we all want to concur.

At this juncture I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the Government, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the officials of the department and also pay tribute to them for their assistance over the years during the very serious drought in the North-Western Cape. During this drought the Government once again displayed its willingness to keep the farmers in the rural areas. Over the years our hon. Minister has always been most sympathetic towards these problems and during these years the officials of the Department of Agriculture worked very hard and often worked overtime to deal with all the applications for agricultural credit and feed assistance in time, to get the farmer’s maize bags to the farm. We are most grateful for this. I also want to take this opportunity to say that our veld in the North West was badly damaged by this drought. In parts vast areas of the veld have become barren and in the years ahead the veld will have to be used very judiciously. This afternoon reference was made to “twee-tand” (year-long) droughts, and since we have just suffered a “volbek” (full-fledged) drought I want to point out that an “ongewisselde” (unbroken) drought could land the farmers of the North West in difficulties. Time is needed for the veld to recover and for this reason I want to advocate this afternoon that the long-term drought assistance scheme be introduced as soon as possible for the North West. This afternoon we can say with much gratitude that there has been tremendous relief. In my constituency I think the figure exceeds 90%. When we enter the next phase, I feel it must be with the long-term drought assistance scheme, in order to ensure that the veld recovers. The problem facing the farmer of the North West is that because the production capacity of his veld has declined in recent years, he is trapped by high interest rates and financing problems. I think it would be fatal to keep the same number of livestock on the same amount of land during the coming year. However, obligations have unfortunately piled up by leaps and bounds and over the years the farmer has lagged far behind. We want to thank the department for assistance measures introduced for 1 000 to 1 200 head of livestock, but there were also people who had to make provision for more. They have co-operative debts, accounts at shops, etc., and following the latest increases in interest rates, e.g. bank rates rose to between 20% and 22% and co-operative interest rates to between 17% and 18%, these people are in an invidious position. That is why I am now asking for patience and understanding, from the State as well, for those persons who have to meet their drought obligations.

This region I referred to is pre-eminently dependent on agriculture, and specifically the small stock industry. For the most part it is not suitable for field husbandry or secondary trades and industries. It would be very difficult and would require exceptionally high subsidization by the State to establish such industries. There are restrictive factors, such as distance, transport and the availability of water, that play a role in the arid parts of the Karoo, which are periodically drought-stricken. This region is therefore not really suitable for anything else and that is why it is so important that the continued existence of the small stock industry, which is pre-eminently carried on in these regions, should be assured and that farmers should be able to make an economic livelihood from this industry.

The people of the North West are denied many things. Everything is against them. Distances are against them and they must do without many conveniences, yet it is a privilege to be able to farm there.

The region is dependent on two products, viz. meat and wool. Wool is a very stable earner of foreign exchange amounting to more than R200 million a year—the quantity of wool delivered annually can vary owing to drought and the like—and I therefore want to appeal to the Government not to withdraw its assistance to this industry, which is carried on in such a large expanse of our rural areas by such a large sector of our farming community. It definitely deserves State assistance in the form of export and other incentives. The Wool Board and International Wool Secretariat are doing excellent work to promote the use of wool throughout the world.

We cannot use all these vast regions solely for meat production. Meat is the other product of cardinal importance to this region. We know that at present it is a very sensitive product as far as the consumer is concerned. Today I want to ask the consumer to show understanding for the problems of the farmer, who must produce under difficult financial conditions and at the same time must take into account the greatest risk factor in his existence, i.e. nature, over which no one, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Government and least at all the farmer, has any control.

Nowadays it is generally accepted that salaries must be increased to keep pace with rising costs and the diminishing buying power of the rand. The problem farmers are experiencing is that nowadays the rand can only buy 32 or 33% of what one was able to buy with it eight or ten years ago. This also affects the farmer. He has the same problems as other people and that is why I am asking the consumer to understand this. When the prices of agricultural products are increased he must remember and be grateful that South Africa is one of the six major food exporting countries in the world. This has already been spelt out here this afternoon. The consumer must not always see higher prices as something leading to a higher cost of living. He also receives salary increases to cope with these cost increases. The farmer must be able to demand the same treatment. After all, we have our control bodies and marketing organizations that can play a role in this connection. No farmer wants to increase prices to such an extent that the product does not sell because the consumer cannot afford it. No branch of farming wants to price the consumer out of the market. However, the consumer must have understanding. If the floor price of redmeat has to be increased, it must be borne in mind that this price is also subject to increases in the price of maize and lucerne and the cost of transport. The floor price does not even affect the consumer price, because the market price is higher than the floor price, but when the floor price, the guaranteed price to the producer, is changed, the consumer is so inclined to see this as a factor contributing to cost increases. That consumer must see the picture in its true perspective. This is merely the minimum price the producer is guaranteed. This serves as the point of departure for the producer, and I am asking the consumer to display the necessary understanding.

Unfortunately the farming sector is always dependent on a market and the principle of supply and demand. I said that this is unfortunately the case, but in a sense it is also fortunate because it is the salvation of the consumer. The price factor is controlled by the demand for a product. If there is a demand for a foodstuff, the price will make it economically worth the farmer’s while to produce it.

I am appealing to the department to be most sympathetic towards these regions, specifically the North West which is the region I come from and which has gone through a very difficult time. Forward planning must be aimed at finding ways of making this part of the world more attractive to the young farmer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Beaufort West has spoken with great feeling about the drought situation in his part of the world. I am sure that there are none of us in this Committee who have an interest in farming who will not sympathize with him, and express the hope that it will not be too long before the rain clouds give relief to those hard-pressed farmers.

We have heard a number of wide-ranging speeches in this Committee this afternoon. It is normally at this stage of the debate that there is a shift from the general to the particular.

Before I start riding my own particular hobby-horse, I should like to refer briefly to the theme which has been evident in this Committee. It was first expressed by the hon. member for Ventersdorp. He is not in the Chamber now, but since I want to be complimentary towards him, it does not really matter. The hon. member stressed the importance of adopting a holistic approach towards agriculture. This theme was also taken up by the hon. member for Ceres, who stressed the fact that agriculture has to be tied in with the entire socio-economic structure of South Africa as an integral part of the whole. When the hon. member for Barberton expressed his concern about the reduced agricultural budget, he did it with a view to his concern about the part which agriculture plays in the entire socio-economic scene in South Africa. We in these benches do not find it difficult to associate ourselves with these sentiments. We, too, believe that agriculture plays a central role in the socio-economic health of South Africa.

My own particular concern with which I want to deal today—I have raised this matter on a number of occasions in the past—lies with those farmers who have suffered financially as a result of homeland consolidation. Whereas in debates in the past this has tended to be a political issue, I do not intend to make it a political issue in this particular debate, because it is in fact not the particular concern of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Whereas in the past I have been unable to convince the Department of Co-operation and Development and the Department of Finance as to the seriousness of the situation, I want to raise it with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I want to appeal to him to take up this problem on behalf of the farmers. I am therefore appealing to him for his co-operation.

I believe that if the hon. the Minister does not take up the cudgels on behalf of these farmers, it will be a sad state of affairs. We hope that if he can do so—and I know the hon. the Minister has influence in this caucus and in his Cabinet—the present stalemate can be broken. I believe in any case that it will be to the Government’s advantage to keep this particular issue out of the party political arena. If I were in search of short-term political gain and popularity, I would welcome any hesitation on the part of the Government to attend to the matter. To me personally it is a good issue to take up, particularly in the Eastern Cape where feelings among a number of farmers are running high. However, as I have said earlier, I do not wish to make this a political issue and I am appealing to the hon. the Minister in a spirit of co-operation.

The basis of my argument concerning these farmers rests on a solemn undertaking made by the Government when it first started buying up white farmlands on a large scale for consolidation purposes. This undertaking was that no farmer should be financially worse off after being bought out than he was before. This was only fair after all. The farmers did not ask to be bought out. Many had to sacrifice family farms that had been in their families’ possession for a hundred years and more. The heartache that this caused can of course only be understood by someone who had been put in a similar position. However, many of these farmers found, when their turn came to be bought out, that the State was unable to pay them out fully in cash because of the financial climate of the time, and so they accepted 60% of the value of their farms in Government stocks. The cash value of these stocks has, as we know, depreciated to such an extent that farmers who cash in their stocks stand to lose up to 30% of their capital. Obviously they are in a worse off position now than they were before they were bought out. They are very much worse off than their fellow farmers who were subsequently paid out fully in cash under the new system.

As a result of pleas made in Parliament by myself, the hon. member for Mooi River as well as by organized agriculture the hon. the Minister of Finance has paid some attention to the problem, but no more than to make Government stocks acceptable to the Land Bank as security—but not at face value; the Land Bank takes them at market value. At that time I pointed out in this house that this was an inadequate measure. I claimed that it might be of some use to those stock-owners who wished to continue farming, but in my experience, and judging from the people who have asked me to intercede on their behalf, the vast number of those wanting to cash in their stocks, were not interested in continuing to farm. They were either too old, or they wanted to retire, or some of them were too disheartened to start farming all over again. They needed to have the money invested in the most profitable way in order to ensure a secure future or retirement. The measures announced by the Minister of Finance held no comfort or relief for their people. Now that the new concession has been in operation for the best part of a year, we are able to evaluate the success or otherwise of the concession. I have it on very good authority that only a handful of farmers—less than ten in total, in fact—have so far applied to the Land Bank for this concession. In other words, this so-called concession is a non-concession. These ex-farmers want their money; they do not want to buy more farmland. While it is a tragedy that these people have been lost to agriculture, we cannot continue turning our backs on them. Again, I have it on good authority that a sum of about R20 million is involved. I believe that this is an amount which can and must be made available by the Ministry of Finance to pay these farmers out in full, the way everybody else has been since 1976. When I make the claim that these farmers are worse off than their fellow farmers who have been bought out since the scheme was changed, I am not sucking this out of my thumb. I do not have the time to elaborate now, but I shall be happy to bring some of the letters I have received to the hon. the Minister to show him the plight that these farmers are in.

In closing, the appeal that I want to make to the hon. the Minister is for him to use his good offices on behalf of these farmers. He has influence in the Cabinet. Let him take this matter up on their behalf, for us and for them. These farmers, through no fault of their own, now find themselves holding the short end of the stick. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to raise this matter in the House again and that perhaps, with the hon. the Minister on our side, we will get somewhere.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany referred to a specific problem affecting his constituency, but I should like to refer to a more general problem.

During 1980 a committee of agricultural experts under the chairmanship of Mr. Pikkie Baard published an interesting and at the same time alarming report. It deals in the main with Karoo and desert encroachment in the Republic of South Africa. It is alarming. Hon. members will agree with me when I say that in South Africa we farm on approximately 85 million hectares of land, of which approximately 55 million hectares is subject to Karoo or desert encroachment.

If this process of deterioration is allowed to continue, a dark and terrible future indeed faces the livestock industry in South Africa and therefore every person who has to earn a living in the Republic. The main area of deterioration covers approximately 41 million hectares which include mainly the Western Cape Coast, Namaqualand, the vast Karoo Region, Gordonia and the South Western Free State. There is also a transition zone of approximately 10 million hectares which include the livestock areas of the Free State and the Northern and Eastern Cape. The third sensitive zone of approximately twelve million hectares which is showing signs of deterioration, stretches as far east as the borders of Granskei and Lesotho. Approximately five million hectares of the main zone are for all practical purposes already desert, the largest portion of which lies within the Namaqualand constituency. However, hon. members must not deduce from this that it is a Namaqualand problem. It is a national problem because the disaster which has already befallen Namaqualand will simply befall the rest of the region later. Even if certain areas never become desert, account will still have to be taken of a chain reaction of deterioration which has only to last long enough to force this country and its people into bondage as far as dependence on food is concerned.

This committee I referred to made some other important findings. The committee found on the one hand that the region had been overgrown and on the other hand that it had been overgrown with better crops than at present and that there was no proof of large-scale climate changes that had caused the vegetation to degenerate and also no proof that the rainfall and temperature had changed significantly over the past century. In other words, the deterioration had resulted from the use of the land, particularly from the injudicious use of the land for farming purposes.

What is the challenge now facing us in this connection? Not only must we halt this process but we must also try to reverse it. In layman’s language this means that every farmer must leave his farm in a better condition than that in which he acquired it. This is a national threat that will require a national effort to overcome. That is why in the first place I want to advocate more water conservation works in the form of thousands of small and relatively inexpensive schemes and that the State aid granted for water conservation per se be equivalent to that granted for combating soil erosion. In the second place—and this is far more important—we must take the available water which is now flowing into the sea, particularly the silt-rich water of the Orange River, to the farms, not in pipelines, but in the form of stock feed. From below the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam to the mouth of the Orange River there is approximately 137 000 hectares of unused irrigation land, and I want to ask today that it be made available on a co-operative basis for the large-scale production of fodder. I am asking that the land remain the property of the State in order to ensure that nothing but fodder is produced on that land. The important point is that this fodder must reach the farms at cost price and without any entrepreneur’s wages. In this way livestock withdrawal, even when the veld is good and the soil is damp, can become a fixed and integral part of the farming pattern. For example, I should very much like to bring my livestock home for four months of the year, i.e. during the mating season of two months and the lambing season of two months. This will result in a better lamb yield and will allow of a withdrawal of 33%. However, I can only do this if I can obtain fodder at a reasonable price. The viability of what I am proposing here and the realistic determination of carrying capacity can reverse the process.

In conclusion I just want to make a general observation in connection with the debate. Relatively speaking, South Africa is a poor agricultural land but, in spite of this fact, which is also closely linked to what I have just said, we feed our entire population and, as other hon. members have said, we also export agricultural products to the value of approximately R2 000 million annually. This speaks volumes for the achievements of the South African farmer. However, having said that, I also want to say that it says a great deal for the system under which the farmer in South Africa farms. In South Africa with its climatic set-up this is only possible if farming is undertaken in accordance with a basically sound agricultural policy. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department most heartily in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Namaqualand because we come from the same region and therefore have the same drought problems. Upington, which is fairly centrally situated in this drought region, has 8800 as its postal code and the people now say that the 88 represents the temperature and the 00 represents the rainfall.

Although we are aware that the request that the net surpluses of farmers be invested tax free with the Land Bank was turned down, we cannot stop seeking ways and means of mobilizing funds to meet the steadily growing capital needs of agriculture. The suggestion I want to make deals with the possibility of channelling the net surpluses of co-operatives to the Land Bank. If this can be done it will in the first place bring relief with regard to these funds that are subject to a tremendously high tax rate which came into effect after the passing of the Co-operative Societies Amendment Act.

In the second place it will encourage greater financial independence and it will also encourage co-operatives to strive for larger net surpluses without prejudice to their members.

When one considers the various ways in which capital is formed in co-operatives, nowadays in terms of this new system of taxation, one finds that some co-operatives fix lower profit margins than others and pay less tax but in the process build up insufficient funds whereas other co-operatives maintain a normal profit margin and pay the normal tax but then retain only approximately half the amount. Other co-operatives again plough the net surpluses in the form of bonuses all back in favour of their members but do not build up any capital in this way. A popular method that is followed is to pay part of their net surplus in cash and the rest into member interest funds for an unspecified period. Another method which is followed as to rotate these funds. In this way the money comes back to the farmer once again. An amount of R296,5 million has already been built up in this way by means of member interest funds.

It is quite clear that all these methods I have mentioned to hon. members do not offer a satisfactory solution as regards the building up of capital in co-operatives; that is the reason for the suggestion that the net surpluses of co-operatives be channelled to the Land Bank and invested there in the short or medium term tax-free at reasonable interest rates, after which they can be redistributed through the Land Bank to agriculture. The possibility can also be considered of making use of these funds on a rotating basis by means of which a continuous supply of net surpluses through the co-operatives to the Land Bank and simultaneously a continuous flow back to the co-operatives will take place.

The surpluses of co-operatives totalled R68 million in 1980. This in itself is not a significant amount when one considers that it was obtained from 300 co-operatives with a turnover exceeding R6 000 million. Loans granted by the Land Bank in terms of section 34 of the Act totalled R82,5 million in 1981. If one could increase these net surpluses by means of a little stimulation, in theory one could cover the loans entered into in terms of section 34 by means of these net surpluses one has invested with the Land Bank. The interest which can be earned by placing the fund on a rotating basis will, if for example, such a fund rotates for five years, lead to a considerable decrease in taxation if the fund is returned to the co-operative and tax is paid accordingly. The return in interest therefore lessens the tax pressure on that specific fund. If we want to reduce our dependence on the State the necessary machinery must be created to keep the funds earned by the co-operatives rotating. As far as this dependence on the State is concerned, Dr. Jacobs, the chairman of the Jacobs Committee, had the following to say—

Who is the farmer other than the co-operative or, to put it another way, what is the co-operative other than the farmer? Under the present dispensation it is not possible to build up capital in our co-operatives. It is too inefficient and too expensive. There is a greater risk factor involved in agriculture than in any other industry and in any other sector of our country’s economy. Agriculture is subject not only to the normal fluctuations in our economy but also to uncertain and unfavourable weather conditions. This risk factor in farming is also reflected in the co-operative which is simply an extension of the farmer. That is why we ask that special terms be stipulated for agricultural financing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure and a privilege to be able to take part in this debate again after a number of years. I should like to compliment the hon. member for Gordonia on the ideas he expressed, because I think they were very positive ideas which deserve further consideration.

It seems to me that to a large extent the theme of the debate is the importance of agriculture. We on this side attach more than ordinary value to the importance of agriculture. We regard agriculture as a strategic industry in South Africa, even more strategic than gold, diamonds and oil. One cannot make food out of oil, but one can indeed manufacture fuel and other materials from agricultural products. Therefore I regard agriculture as one of the most strategic industries in South Africa and it ought to be dealt with as such. If one wants to know what value is to be attached to agriculture, one way is to ascertain what amount is voted for agriculture in the budget. The fact is, however, that if one analyses the budget over a number of years, a disturbing picture is unfolding. In 1949 the agricultural budget amounted to £9,7 million out of a total budget of £133 million. This meant that 7,3% was devoted to agriculture in that budget. Ten years later, the amount voted for agriculture was 8,3% of the total budget. In 1969 the amount was 6,9%; in other words, it remained in that region. Ten years later, in 1979, that percentage had dropped to 2,9%. In 1980 it was 2,3% and in 1981, 3,3%. In 1982 it was 2,7% and this year a mere 1,8%. Looking at the amount voted for commerce and industry, one finds that the amount has remained more or less constant as a percentage of the budget. In 1949 it was 1,9% and in 1983, that is to say, at the end of the present financial year, it will be 2%. Therefore it has remained more or less constant. As far as mining is concerned, the amount was 0,8% in 1949 and increased to 2,3% in 1981. In 1982 and 1983, mineral and energy affairs were a little confused, and are deleted. What has happened is that this year, for the first time, the total amount spent on agriculture is less than that spent on commerce and industry. Last year the total amount spent on agriculture was R100 million more than this year. The amount the hon. the Minister has at his disposal this year is less than the amount voted for agriculture two years ago. If things were to go on like this and agriculture were to continue to receive a smaller proportion of the vote, the amount spent on agriculture within 10 years would be meaningless. We on this side shall do our best, in all humility, to restore agriculture to its place of honour and enable it to play its important role.

There is another aspect, too, that I should like to touch on, viz. the maize price, which has not yet been announced. If what I read in the newspapers is true, viz. that the maize price is going to remain more or less constant, it will be a great pity. This is a year in which we have had a very poor harvest—approximately 50% of last year’s harvest—and a year in which production costs have risen tremendously, and I think it would be a mistake if the price were to remain constant in these circumstances. I want to call upon the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power, even at this late stage, to ensure that the price will be adjusted in accordance with the increase in production costs. It is true that we shall probably receive more because the same contribution will not be made to the Stabilization Fund, but that still does not mean that in spite of the poor harvest the price ought not to be adjusted to keep abreast of the increase in production costs.

What must the price be, Ferdi?

The price must be at least R145 per ton or even more, but I should settle for that.

Is that the price for the consumer or the producer?

For the consumer too. The consumer can easily go from R134 to R136, whatever the price may be, to R145. Or have I put it somewhat low? Did that hon. member want me to go higher? I am a modest fellow and I have no wish to squeeze the consumers dry, but we shall be satisfied with R145.

We shall do better than that.

That will be good. If the hon. member can do more than that, we shall be very grateful.

Is the price of R145 per ton that you are advocating, a gross price?

That is the price the farmer gets out.

Is it net, then?

What the farmer gets out. I should like to touch on a third aspect, before time catches up with me, which relates to the exchange transaction that took place earlier this year involving fertilizer and maize. I believe that as a result of this transaction a few aspects which require attention came to the fore. In the first place, it came to light that a great deal of the fertilizer component is imported. Secondly, because the production is increasing more slowly than the demand, imports will increase within a few years. Thirdly, production by Foskor, in comparison with the total consumption of fertilizer, is very limited, but the corporation’s price has increased very little in comparison with the price of fertilizer as a whole, and this is therefore an indication that this State corporation has acquitted itself extremely well of its task. The production of fertilizer is a basic and strategic industry which exerts an influence on the entire economy. There is not a single agricultural product that is not affected by the price of fertilizer. Even the production of beef is influenced by the price of fertilizer to a small extent. There is not a single aspect of agriculture that is not influenced by the price of fertilizer, since this is one of the prime items of expenditure. Accordingly, I believe that this matter is deserving of special attention. I believe that although this is a matter which falls under the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries ought to have a very major say in this matter. Since a tendency can be discerned which could lead to the development of a monopoly in this industry I want to urge the Minister to encourage agricultural co-operatives and make it possible for them to enter this industry to ensure that costs be kept as low as possible. The hon. member for Namakwaland said that fodder should be produced at cost price, but I think that the fertilizer industry is of such a nature that the cost and the price should be kept as low as possible, because it will influence the entire economy. If it is impossible for the agricultural co-operatives to enter this field on an adequate scale, I want to ask whether consideration could not be given to the possibility of a State corporation entering this field on a larger scale than Foskor is doing at present, thus being able to exert a significant and even greater influence on the production of fertilizers, and in this way limiting price increases. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is many years since the hon. member for Lichtenburg last took part in an agricultural debate and accordingly I wish to welcome him back in this debate. When I say that he last took part in such a debate many years ago, that does not mean that he has less knowledge of agriculture. Basically I have no fault to find with what he said here. He asked for a maize price of R145 per ton, and to that the hon. member for Ventersdorp, a former chairman of the Maize Board, replied that we could do better. I am pleased to hear that, and I hope that that will be the case.

I wish to devote my speech to matters touched on by the hon. member for Barberton, viz. the depopulation of the platteland, to which he referred towards the end of his speech, but I also wish to discuss agricultural financing by the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit. It is true that the depopulation of the platteland has other causes apart from economic aspects and risk factors which may deter prospective farmers. However, odd as this may sound, it is also related to the situation of prosperity we have experienced in this country over the past decade and longer. A mere 20 years ago farmers could barely afford to send their children to university, and nowadays, their sons are studying to become advocates, doctors, architects and clergymen. Once they are qualified in these fields, they do not return to the farm to practice agriculture. Moreover, this situation of prosperity has also meant that very highly paid posts have been created in industry and other sectors which offer young men better prospects than returning to the farm to practice agriculture, which requires a major capital outlay from every beginner in any event. However, the depopulation of the platteland does not necessarily mean that less food and fibre will be produced, or that the optimum utilization of the soil will not be realized. This is a misconception, with the exception, of course, of depopulation related to lengthy droughts such as those we have encountered over the past years in some parts of our country. It is true that the depopulation of the platteland entails economic and social problems for the platteland, in that schools and magistrates’ offices close, business enterprises decline and communities bleed to death. The fact is that denser population of our platteland, particularly in the border areas, is of essential importance from the point of view of national security, and accordingly it is of great importance that the authorities assist in effectively checking the depopulation of the platteland, a process in which the Government must take a leading role. Therefore the Government must make a greater contribution in respect of extension, research and financing for agriculture and the creation of infrastructure—once again, in our border areas in particular—to keep the farmers in operation, but more specifically, to attract young people to the industry. Land Bank and Agricultural Credit loans are still the most effective way of helping the young farmer to obtain land and to establish himself in agriculture. Therefore it would be a tremendous pity if the funds of these two institutions were so limited as to make them unable to continue to provide this kind of assistance to young farmers on a reasonable scale. I should be obliged if the Minister would tell us in his reply what is envisaged for these two bodies with a view to a dispensation in terms of which we would be assured that aid as regards the purchase of land could be made available to young farmers. However, the fact is that over the past 20 months land prices have risen to an unprecedented degree, in some instances by more than 100%. This is not the doing of the farmers themselves, nor is it related to the price of products. In fact, if production costs and producer prices were the determining factor in land prices, land prices would in fact have had to drop, particularly in the maize-growing regions. Nevertheless, land prices are rising and we cannot get away from it; it is a fact. This is due to matters such as inflation, scarcity of land, the free market mechanism and several other factors. I have said that Land Bank and Agricultural Credit loans are still the most effective way of assisting-young farmers to obtain land, but one gains the impression that the capacity of these two institutions to adapt to changed circumstances is years behind the times. Why this should be so I cannot say, but one gains the impression that these institutions are only interested in financing bargains. To that I wish to add that as far as land transactions are concerned, there have not been any bargains for a long time now. That is already common knowledge. Nor is there any point in refusing loans on the basis that the prospective purchaser will supposedly be paying too much for land, when in fact he is confronted with the current market value of land. The key word is: Current market value. It is the price a willing purchaser will pay in a free market. What is the prospective purchaser to do to force the price of land down if the Land Bank or Agricultural Credit Board tell him that the price of land is too high. He is faced with the fact of a current market price. Nowadays such an application is refused on the basis that the price is supposedly too high, but six months later the price of the same land is considerably higher, and if such a purchaser has conceded the point to the Land Bank or the Agricultural Credit Board and failed to purchase, then he is in an even greater difficulty. This creates severe problems for us, because the fact that young farmers are unable to obtain long-term loans from these institutions at reasonable interest rates, as well as their limited personal funds, means that they are obliged to purchase uneconomic units. Soon afterwards they are in difficulties due to the uneconomic farming unit and then the people say: You see! It is as well that we did not assist him because he would not have made the grade in any event! Another effect of these refusals of loans to the young farmers is that they are obliged to negotiate short-term loans at high interest rates elsewhere. Who, other than the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board, are today still prepared to grant long-term loans—and I am speaking about a period of 20 years—at reasonable interest rates to the farming sector, with its high risk and low profit potential? By compelling these young farmers to negotiate these loans at high interest rates, we are sending them to their downfall. Then it does not help to shrug one’s shoulders and say that these people should never have entered farming in any event. There have to be farmers, and new farmers have to enter the industry, particularly young farmers. They are already ominously few in number. Another example of this lack of financing is that established farmers have now become virtually the only purchacers of land. Their units are becoming larger and larger, and the young farmer has to look on, powerless, and disappear from the industry. This is an unhealthy situation for South Africa and I trust that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will give serious consideration to this situation and that the hon. the Minister or the Deputy Minister will tell us, when they give us their reply, how young farmers are to force land prices down if the Land Bank or the Agriculture Credit Board tell them that the prices are too high, when in fact they have to buy at current prices. Surely it is putting them in an impossible situation to say that the prices are too high and that they must try to obtain the land more cheaply. What is one to do to obtain it more cheaply? Secondly, I should be obliged to hear from the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister what the prospects are for long-term financing through the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board as far as young farmers are concerned. There are also some who have to carry out planning together with their parents as regards how they will enter the industry and what methods of financing will be used to establish them in agriculture. We often hear about people applying to purchase land, but time and again they get a negative answer, and such applications are not approved. However, we hear that in fact money is not available for the financing of any purchases of land. I should be pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister in this connection. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Parys. I have no fault to find with what he said here. On the contrary, I think it was a very good contribution, the kind one can expect from a Free Stater.

With the implementation of the rotating fund at Agricultural Credit we have entered a new phase as far as the financing of the category three farmer is concerned. We have the hon. the Deputy Minister to thank for this, and he deserves the sincere thanks of this Committee for his efforts. It is certainly an important milestone which has been reached. Of necessity the success of a rotating fund lies in the fact that there must be a constant return flow of funds and it is therefore in the interests of agriculture for farmers to make their Agricultural Credit payments conscientiously in order to strengthen that fund. I hope that our farmers will conscientiously meet their obligations in this regard. In addition a very important concession has been made with the passing of the Second Agricultural Amendment Bill in which the hon. the Minister of Finance accepted the principle that funds for the purchase of land for farming purposes may come from the Treasury. I am referring, for example, to agricultural land which can be made available for irrigation purposes to prospective young farmers. The redemption of this debt will devolve on Agricultural Credit. In addition large amounts of money have been spent in the flood disaster areas and those areas ravaged by droughts through loans which of necessity can have a great effect on the funds of Agricultural Credit in a few years’ time. This will serve as a guarantee for the future to ensure that there will be constant growth in the account of Agricultural Credit which will spread the effect of this sort of financing over a far wider area than is at present the case. In my opinion this is very sound development particularly because input costs are rising so tremendously that I foresee that the pressure on this kind of financing will increase considerably in the future. However, we now have a problem—and here I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Barberton—namely that the rotating fund of Agricultural Credit has only been in existence for a year and that there are two aspects which will have a definite effect on the fund during the present financial year. Firstly it is unfortunately the case that only a year after the establishment of the rotating fund, the country is experiencing a very serious drought. On the one hand this will have an adverse effect on the return flow into the fund and on the other hand there will be particularly great pressure for production credit from farmers who had a crop failure. In addition the drought in the sheep grazing areas has not been broken sufficiently and there will therefore not be a return flow of the feed loans. Secondly it is also unfortunately true that our country has found itself in financial difficulties, as indicated by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. It is therefore unreasonable to expect the Treasury to make more funds available to the account of Agricultural Credit. Climatic conditions in South Africa make it extremely difficult to determine the return flow and the growth of the funds accurately and that makes it extremely difficult for the department to budget for funds. I want to give an example. During November and December there was every indication that a record maize crop could be expected. However, there was a drought in January and February which led to what was virtually a complete crop failure. That is why it is very difficult for the department to draw up an accurate budget. I note in the budget that only an additional R2 million has been allocated to the department for agricultural financing for the various schemes. Owing to all the contributing factors I foresee that the department could experience problems with the financing of its various schemes during the current financial year. As a result of the rising interest rates in the private sector we must accept that the applications for the consolidation of debt will increase considerably and that as a result of the drought the applications for production loans will also show a marked increase.

It is therefore clear that the Department is faced by the accomplished fact that there will be a smaller return flow of funds whereas the application for credit will increase considerably. What I therefore want to request is that in view of all the circumstances, discussions should be held in time to spell out this dilemma to the Treasury. I want to express the hope that the investigation of the Jacobs Committee will strengthen the Department’s hand in its representations for more funds. Because agricultural financing is so extremely important for the provision of food, I trust that the Jacobs Committee will due course consider in greater detail the future policy of business financing in agriculture.

I feel that I must also express my sincere thanks to the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa, which is the other arm doing tremendous work in connection with the financing of agriculture, for the sympathetic way in which they deal with applications for short-, medium and long-term loans. I was privileged during the past 12 months to liaise quite frequently with the Land Bank. If one is seeking excellent service, it is to be found at the Land Bank. For this reason I want to thank the Managing Director and his staff most sincerely and congratulate them on this service. I think they deserve the sincere thanks of this Committee. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Ladybrand will forgive me if I do not follow on what he has said. However, I would like to follow on what the hon. member for Parys said this afternoon in connection with establishing young farmers on the land. I have another opportunity to speak later on and then I would like to speak on land prices.

First of all, let me say that I completely agree with his sentiments. I think we face a serious problem in South Africa. We had 116 000 farmers in 1950 and today we have approximately only 71 000. I am aware that the hon. the Minister had appointed a committee to investigate this problem. This decline in farm numbers means that we have fewer farmers to support the local communities, less people to buy in the local shops and fewer children to send to the local schools. The local communities as such therefore become less viable because they depend on agriculture and this is the core of the problem relating to the depopulation of rural areas. However, if we look at farming as such it is one of the few professions that a young man cannot get into. Any young man with reasonable ability can become an accountant or a doctor. He can choose any profession he likes and, as long as he has the ability, he can enter that field. The only profession he cannot choose and which he cannot get into is farming and the problem obviously is because of the lack of capital, the high interest rates and high land prices. I would like to come back on this aspect later on tonight.

I know the hon. the Minister has another problem as far as agriculture is concerned and that is the shortage of extension staff. This problem crops out throughout his report elsewhere. From my previous position in agriculture in the Natal region I know that there were fairly serious shortages of extension staff. Many people in these jobs were relatively young and were only there a short while and as such did not really enjoy the confidence they should have from farmers. Here I can speak from experience as I have been in both situations. I was one of those young extension officers which the farmers believed first had to learn a bit about agriculture before he could come to talk to them. At one stage I even thought about going into farming. Many students I came across wanted to farm. They were farmers at heart but many of them could never farm because of the difficulties of getting into farming. Therefore they joined agriculturally related businesses such as milling companies, fertilizer companies and machinery companies. Few of them stayed in the Department because the hon. the Minister would not give them a decent salary. I would like to suggest something to the hon. the Minister this afternoon which could possibly solve both these problems. First of all we should devise some way of getting young farmers on the land and secondly we should somehow try to solve the problem of qualified extension staff. I have discussed this with a few other hon. members who are involved in agriculture. Let us presume that when someone qualifies he signs a contract for four years as an extension officer. Thereafter he can qualify for an agricultural credit loan provided the loan is based on reasonable economic principles. This will enable him to start farming part-time. I know this will entail having another look at the question of financing part-time farmers. The other part of his time would be devoted to extension work. It would mean that we would be establishing someone on the land who first of all does not rely on the farm for his income. He is getting part-time income by way of his extension work. We also have someone as an extension officer who has in fact been an extension officer for four years. He is farming in the community and has enough experience and the knowledge of that area to have the trust of the farmers. After four years and after he has established himself as a farmer it is entirely renegotiable with the Department whether he stays on on a part-time basis or not. I will be interested to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say in this regard.

I would also like to touch on another matter, i.e. the question of farm labour. I know that the hon. the Minister of Manpower has asked the Manpower Commission to look into the question of farm labour, but I would also like to raise a few problems in relation to farm labour, which I think we should all be aware of. I would like to look at farm labour first of all from the farmer’s viewpoint and, secondly, from the labour viewpoint as well.

First of all, there are 1,2 million farm labourers working on White farms. If you include their families, there are something like 3 million people living on White farms. This gives us a figure in the region of 60 people per farmer. Many farmers in the Free State whom I know and who I have visited, have 200 to 300 people on their farms. This shows how many people there can be on a farm. I do not believe the farmers really need all these people. It is often very difficult for them to get rid of them because these people have nowhere to go. I believe that farmers as such carry a great burden for society as a whole. They have to house these people, they have to provide schooling for these people, although the Government does subsidize them to a certain extent, but they have to look to the buildings and to the problems related to the schooling. As regards their family lives, the farmers are never free of their problems as far as medical services and related problems are concerned. I therefore think that farmers as a whole carry quite a large burden for society. I think that in many cases they are doing an excellent job.

When we look at the position of farm labour, we find that the average farm labourer is tied into agriculture as such. In the first place he cannot move from the farm into town, because laws prevent him doing that. I am not going to argue that point today as it is beyond the scope of this debate. I know that some of them leave their families on the farm and go and work in the towns, but this is also another question. Secondly, the farm labourer cannot go back to this homeland because he has no job there. He is therefore really tied into agriculture. Thirdly, the farm labourer’s home is tied to his job, which I think everybody agrees is an undesirable situation. The schooling he gets is dependent on the farmer and he has very limited access to higher forms of education past Std. 5. I believe that this is not a desirable situation either. I would like to suggest that perhaps organized agriculture could look at some way of getting around this problem. The one suggestion is and I know that this has been used with a certain amount of success in the Western Cape—is the establishment of rural villages. In these rural villages people can get 99-year leasehold or freehold. It means that they have stability and their jobs are not tied to their housing. They can have pride in their own homes and can also enjoy a better community life. Better schooling and medical attention and facilities of that nature can be provided. I believe that agricultural workers can then commute to work just like any other worker elsewhere.

Another problem, which I again think falls outside the scope of this debate, is the freer mobility of agricultural workers between commerce and industry. However, I certainly think that the establishment of rural villages could go a long way towards bettering their particular situation.

Mr. Chairman, I am following the hon. member for Parys, Ladybrand and Pietermaritzburg South, because they all referred to the subject I should like to discuss in detail, namely the question of agricultural financing.

Of course, agricultural financing involves many different facets. The facet I want to concentrate on is long-term financing of young entrants to the agricultural industry, a matter to which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also referred. In this connection I want to refer in particular to part time farmers. The hon. members for Parys and Ladybrand concentrated to a greater extent on the lack of funds and although I want to agree with them in this regard, I shall not go into this aspect now.

The establishment of instruments such as the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit Board is aimed, inter alia, at making it easier for young farmers to enter the agricultural industry in order to stimulate and ensure succession and renewal in that industry. However, it is in this very regard that we are experiencing problems, namely with the application of the policy, with the result that we cannot succeed in our aim. Over the years it has been found that fewer farmers have to feed more mouths as a result of putting science to work in the service of agriculture. This in itself, of course, is not a bad thing. However, the problem we are now facing is that it is becoming ever more difficult for younger farmers outside agriculture to migrate towards agriculture. This is happening as a result of various factors which I cannot go into at the moment. In my opinion the most important of these factors is mounting capital requirements.

In this connection I want to refer in passing to the report of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in which specific reference is made to this matter. In order to indicate that the Department does in fact realize the importance of this, I should like to quote a few sentences from the report, as follows—

However, this is unfortunately all the report has to say about this matter. No real solution is offered. The upshot of all this is that many young men outside agriculture long to enter the industry, but they are hesitant to forfeit their assured salary income for an occupation to which a tremendously high risk factor is attached. This is in fact what is expected of them if they want to come into consideration for preferential State assistance. Agriculture is therefore constantly losing promising young people.

If we make an analysis of the age distribution in agriculture, we find that it is actually following an aging pattern. In other words, this involves both a diminishing ratio in the youngest age category and an increasing ratio in the highest age category. If we compare the figures for 1960 and 1970 respectively, we find that in 1960 27,6% of all farmers were under 35 years of age and the same percentage were over 55 years of age. However, the figures for 1970 are shocking. The figure for the younger group dropped to 22%, whereas the figure for the older group rose to 36%. It would be interesting to compare these with the 1980 figures, but unfortunately these figures are not yet available. There is therefore no doubt that additional measures will have to be taken to stimulate succession and renewal in agriculture.

In my opinion in the first place the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries must give greater preference to this and more specific reference must be made to this in the formulated objectives of the Department. In the second place very serious consideration must be given to the policy of making long-term financial assistance available, particularly with regard to certain categories of part-time farmers.

Part-time farmers are defined as entrepreneurs in agriculture who also work outside farming and in this way obtain a larger family income. Owing to perceptual differences in regard to the definition of a part-time farmer there is tremendous prejudice against this form of entrepreneurship in agriculture. How does one categorize a part-time farmer? If one approaches the matter scientifically, there are only two variables which play a significant role in categorizing. In the first place there is the relative contribution of the sources of income to the total family income, and in the second place the direction of migration of part-time farmers using this form of entrepreneurship as an interim measure for the eventual migration to or from farming.

For our purposes we can divide part-time farmers into four categories. In the first place there are the entrepreneurs carrying on a profession or practice; these are medical doctors, businessmen and men pursuing other careers. In my opinion these part-time farmers cannot lay claim to preferential financing because financially they are primarily linked to the non-agricultural sector of the economy. However, they are welcomed as farmers, because we are aware of their positive contribution to the industry in the form of inputs as well as succession. In the second place we have part-time farmers who obtain their main source of income from farming and work outside farming to supplement their family income. This is the group which as a result of droughts, disasters or increased family expenditure such as university fees for children is forced to exploit additional sources of income. Agricultural financing bodies already meet their needs on a temporary basis and they have therefore been taken care off. The third group contains the unsuccessful entrepreneurs in agriculture who cannot make the grade. They frequently use part-time farming as an interim step before they leave the industry. We are not concerned about them either, because they have already given up. It is only a question of time before they leave the industry. In the fourth place we have those entrants to the agricultural industry who frequently use part-time farming as an interim measure for migration to full-time farming in the agricultural sector.

The first years of adjustment in farming frequently cause problems with regard to cash flow and they are resolved by this category by working outside farming in order to supplement the family income. However, our dilemma is that the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board do not make provision for this category of part-time farmer. I contend that the agricultural industry is suffering a great loss because of this, since potential full-time and efficient entrepreneurs are in many cases being kept out of the farming sector. It is in fact in this case that we want the relevant bodies to have a change of heart. We feel that this category of farmers ought to be helped. We prefer to call them phasing-in farmers rather than part-time farmers. They can also be called prospective bona fide farmers.

I have said that this group of farmers usually ends up as full-time farmers. As a matter of fact, it could be stipulated as a prerequisite for long-term assistance that the phasing-in farmer must become a full-time farmer after a specific period. The period of grace must depend on circumstances. The point of departure must always be to get the best person on the land and every case must be treated on its merits. In other words, we must try to get the right person on the land. It is usually very easy to identify the right person because he has specific personality traits. This group we are now discussing represents approximately 2% of all farmers. They usually maintain a high level of production because they are usually relatively young, they are well-trained and they are enterprising. After all, they see their way clear to successfully pushing two careers at the same time.

It is therefore a pleasure for me to make a serious and urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to give thorough consideration to this very important matter.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to follow the hon. member for Humansdorp. He touched upon a very important matter and I support his plea. I believe that the hon. the Minister will deal in full with the matter he raised.

I should like to participate in this debate because I, too, find it necessary to point out the importance of certain bottle-necks in agriculture. The Western Transvaal has had a dry year and consequently I do not believe that we in that area will be able to make the same contribution to the country’s economy as last year.

Agriculture is a dynamic, growing sector. Changes and innovations are the order of the day. Initially the success motive in agriculture was aimed more at self-sufficiency, and farming largely retained the character of a way of life. Today, however, there is to an increasing extent an endeavour, in addition to self-sufficiency, to supply food and raw materials according to demand. On the wide domestic market the fields of commerce and industry have been embarked upon and positive attempts have been made to participate in foreign marketing as well. The agricultural sector has taken care of local needs, but was also able, during 1980, to earn for South Africa foreign exchange to the value of R1 787 million in the form of unprocessed or semi-processed agricultural products exported. According to present indications the total export earnings of agricultural products will amount to approximately R1 895 million in 1981. South Africa can rightly be termed the sixth biggest exporter of agricultural products in the world and the biggest in Africa.

Turning to Africa for a moment, one finds that Africa’s grain imports of 5 million tons in 1960 have increased to 18 million tons at present. It is estimated that between 25 and 35 million tons of grain will have to be imported by the year 2000. Looking at these figures, I am grateful that in the agricultural spheres South Africa has developed in time so that we are able to feed not only our own people, but the people of Africa and the world as well—in spite of the fact that South Africa is classified as a poor agricultural area. This is certainly an achievement for which the agriculturalists are not always given due credit.

Despite this important achievement and the contribution of agriculture to the South African economy, there are still many problems which will have to be given active attention. Agriculture is today facing one of its biggest crises in many years. It is not merely a matter of poor weather conditions, but the strenuous economic climate, too, which is causing the farmers’ position to become untenable. It is feared that a large number of farmers will abandon the agricultural industry. Several speakers have already pointed out what will happen if the situation is not promptly brought to a head.

New entrants to agriculture are finding it more and more difficult to make the grade. The hon. member for Humansdorp pointed that out very clearly. After last year’s good summer grain harvests it was hoped that the prospects for this year’s summer grain would be good. Sowing was a month late, however, and during January and February the situation changed drastically. At critical stages the rain did not come and the plants died without any grain being formed. The present situation is cause for concern. A yield of between 30% and 50% is expected, and in some cases there will be total crop failure. It is estimated that the loss in revenue as far as summer grains alone are concerned amounts to R900 million. A major part of the debt which farmers have incurred to finance the harvest of the past season will have to be carried forward. Furthermore, the farmer knows that he will also have to make provision for next year’s inputs at unprecedentedly high interest rates.

The risk factor in agriculture has increased enormously. Apart from the fact that the farmer is subject to the same economic factors as the rest of the economy, weather conditions play a decisive role. In a dry year like the present one, one sees this very clearly. In 1979, which was also a dry year, farmers had to incur expenditure of R186 for a net income of R100. In 1980 and 1981 the situation improved slightly, but this year is a bad one again, and the tendency of 1979 will repeat itself. During 1980, total agricultural debt increased by about 19% to R3 830 million. This increase can be attributed primarily to the increase in the price of agricultural land and capital goods. An analysis of the various financing resources shows that commercial banks, agricultural co-operatives and the Land Bank to be the largest single sources, with R802 million, R867 million and R676 million respectively at the end of 1980. Financing by agricultural co-operatives and commercial banks increased by approximately 32% and 36% respectively in 1980.

I recognize that agriculture is part of the South African economy and therefore subject to the same economic cycles and policies as the rest of the economy, but agriculture is also subject to climatic factors, which require that special concessions in this regard be made in the country’s economic policy and that appropriate assistance will be necessary from time to time. The long-term solution lies in adequate adjustment of the price of the farmers’ products, so as to provide the required net income, and in giving serious consideration to ways in which the ever-increasing production costs in agriculture can be contained. In addition, attention will once again have to be given to the recommendations of the Jacobs Committee in terms of which the farmer will be able, during a good year, to build up funds for himself in the Land Bank, and withdraw them as production capital in a dry year. The hon. member for Ventersdorp also made specific reference to this. For various reasons announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, these recommendations were not accepted. I find this a pity, because in this way the farmer himself would in the long term have been able to contribute towards solving his financing problem. In the short term we shall have to make it possible for the farmer to carry forward his existing carried-over debt. In addition, steps will have to be taken to ensure that the farmer will have enough credit available and that the process of growing food can proceed next year.

The Jacobs Committee was directed to investigate the present situation in agriculture and subsequently to report to the Government. I want to convey my gratitude to this committee because I believe that this was surely one of the most important committees ever appointed to investigate agriculture. One would be justified in calling this committee a good friend of the farmer.

I want to express my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister, the Deputy Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for looking after the farmers in the past year. The hon. member for Lichtenberg referred to the maize price. I believe that the maize price will be what it should be and on behalf of the maize farmers of the Western Transvaal I want to thank the hon. the Minister, even at this stage, for the price which he is going to announce tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to follow the hon. member for SchweizerReneke, and for the sake of the farmers in his part of the world, I hope that the maize price will be a pleasant surprise.

When I write a speech I usually add a heading. The heading of the speech that I want to make this afternoon is “The South African farmer and his problems”. If one participates in this debate, however, one may as well change the heading to “The Member of Parliament and his problems”, particularly if one’s turn to speak is late in the debate, because then one finds that so many of one’s colleagues have exhausted the subject which one wishes to discuss. Actually it is not a problem but a privilege to raise the same matters relating to agriculture once again. The hon. member for Parys did so in respect of the depopulation of the rural areas, particularly the border areas and I want to thank him for that. Other colleagues of mine covered the same field, and in my contribution I, too, should like to say a few words about that.

Before I do so, however, I want to refer to the very valuable information documents which are from time to time made available to us, viz. the MP’s who are members of agricultural groups. We receive memorandums which really not only furnish us with valuable information on bottle-necks but also point out exceptional achievements by farmers. Very recently we received memoranda from the South African Agricultural Union, for which we want to thank the mouthpiece of organized agriculture in South Africa most sincerely. The South African Agricultural Union performs a special role on behalf of and in the interest of the South African farmer. However, there are other organizations, too, which do this. Just recently, for example, the HSRC held a conference in Pretoria on the depopulation of the platteland and the border areas, and the resulting problems. In this case, too, I believe it is appropriate that we in this House should take cognizance of this and convey our gratitude to those bodies. I want to ask them, too, that the papers and information documents issued on occasions such as these be made far more readily available to us. Invitations to attend such conferences could even be sent to members of the agricultural groups in the House of Assembly. With the valuable information becoming available in that way, we shall be able to state the case of the South African farmer so much better.

In the little time available to me I want to single out certain problems of farmers in the border areas and also point out possible benefits to border farmers. I want to talk in particular about the farmers in the border areas in my part of the world, the North Western Transvaal. I want to refer to a few bottlenecks. In one of the memoranda which the South African Agricultural Union made available to us, there is a section in which reference is made to the physical problems, the economic problems, the social problems and the security problems in those areas. To the border farmer there are innumerable problems and bottle-necks arising, inter alia, from the consolidation of White land in terms of the 1975 proposals. I have been encouraged to touch upon this matter here because the hon. member for Albany, too, ventured to enter what is really the sphere of another department in this debate. I am convinced, however, that the hon. the Minister will not take it amiss of us because this affects the South African farmer materially, particularly the farmers in the border areas.

I also thought of telling the hon. the Minister about the problem we in those areas have with the lease and leaseback of White land which has already been or is to be, bought up. We shall appreciate it very much if uniform measures in this regard are applied by the Department of Co-operation and Development. As farmers we count on our Ministers to support us in this matter.

I also want to appeal for consideration to be given to another problem which border farmers are constantly encountering and which should receive the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture. This problem is in connection with the finalization of the international borders in those areas where consolidation is taking place. Obviously this is closely connected to the announcement of the recommendations in the final report of the Van der Walt Commission on consolidation. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give us an indication of when this report might be published. Uncertainty about any border between farmer and farmer is not a good thing. It causes anxiety and leads to friction. It creates mistrust and has a detrimental effect on the productive capacity of the border farmer.

This affects land prices and increases tension between neighbouring countries. Inadequate or uncertain international borders are really not in the interest of the South African border farmer. It promotes theft of stock and implements, and vandalism is the order of the day. One of the most important effects of the uncertainty which prevails as a result of the uncertain international borders in these areas, is the departure of Whites and the consequent depopulation of those areas. If we were to study the history of our country, we would find that where there were problems with borders, the farmer eventually went elsewhere.

The HSRC held an important conference and an agricultural economist, Mr. De Kock, paid particular attention to the consequences which the depopulation of these areas would entail. Depopulation means that the provision of several services necessary for the maintenance of a reasonable standard of living, becomes increasingly difficult. In his paper Mr. De Kock mentioned a few examples of such services, and I should like to refer to them. He referred to effective transport, telecommunications, electricity supply, medical and educational facilities and open facilities. As numbers decrease, the provision and maintenance of these services become more difficult and more expensive until sometimes, in some areas, they fall away completely.

During this particular conference many other problems, too, were highlighted. I want to pause for a moment at a very apt summary by one of the speakers. He put it as follows—

He went on—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. What he said about the White flight from the platteland is perfectly true and I should like to quote what the hon. Minister Hendrik Schoeman said when he was Minister of Agriculture—

I therefore agree fully with what the hon. member said.

I should like to direct two questions to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The first question is: Are the marketing control boards established to look after the best interests of the farmers and obtain the best prices possible for their produce, yes or no?

Yes.

Are members of the marketing boards persons who are well acquainted with the commercial operations of their producers and do they act in their best interests?

Yes.

This is the story of the big Dry Bean Board débâcle. Agricultural marketing boards operate in principle in two major ways. The first way is a floor-price scheme or a surplus disposal scheme. This guarantees to the farmers that, if they cannot obtain a specific price for a type or grade of product, the Board will buy up that product. The farmers can then shop around for a better price and can sell their product to the trade, rather than to the Board, for local consumption or for export. This is basically a surplus removal scheme. The Board appoints agents, usually co-operatives, who handle only the surplus of the crop, because the bulk of the crop is routed through private enterprise without incurring handling and storage charges.

The second is a one-channel or fixed price pool scheme. This obliges the producer to sell his grain, maize, wheat or oilseed to the Board at a fixed price. The Board then resells the product at a fixed price on the domestic market, or for whatever it can obtain on the open market. The Board appoints an intake agent, usually a co-operative, to purchase the grain from the farmers on its behalf, who is usually highly remunerated for the handling and storage of the extra crop. Ever since its inception years ago, the Dry Bean Board operated under the floor-price scheme. Suddenly, about a year and a half ago, the South African Agricultural Union applied to the hon. Minister of Agriculture to impose a one-channel scheme for the marketing of dried beans. The hon. the Minister, I assume, purports that the South African Agricultural Union represents the dry bean farmers, and he instructed the Dry Bean Board to examine the advisability of introducing the one-channel scheme for dried beans, with particular reference to the viability thereof. The Dry Bean Board, like all other marketing boards, has a majority of farmers. The Board agreed, with one dissenting vote, namely that of private enterprise, to recommend to the hon. the Minister that such a one-channel scheme should be introduced. In terms of the Marketing Act the hon. the Minister promulgated a notice in the Government Gazette of his intention to give effect to this recommendation and called for any objections to the one channel proposal to be lodged with the Marketing Board. Naturally, private enterprise objected. However, a very strange thing happened, and that is that the Board received a petition against the one-channel scheme from about 500 farmers who planted 65 000 ha of beans and produced 95% of the 60 000 to 70 000 ton annual crop. The Marketing Council in dismay convened meetings of the bean farmers in the main bean-producing areas such as Bethal, Middelburg, Delmas and Koster, as well as the Free State.

Delmas produces 80% of the crop.

At these well-attended meetings the bean farmers expressed their intense displeasure at the Marketing Council’s not accepting the bona fides of their overwhelming petition with a 95% majority and requested to know why the Marketing Council had called these meetings to try to persuade them to have a one-channel scheme when the farmers themselves had through their petition, by their own signatures to the petition, indicated quite clearly that they did not want a one-channel scheme, but a retention of the floor-price scheme.

Shortly thereafter, the hon. the Minister, to his credit, announced that the introduction of the one-channel scheme would be rescinded.

Hear, hear!

There are a number of questions that must be asked about the bona fides of the two applicants, the South African Agricultural Union on the one side, and the Dry Bean Board on the other side. In the light of the 95% petition, who did the South African Agricultural Union purport to represent? They could certainly not be representing the bean farmers. As the constitution of the South African Agricultural Union allows strong representation of the co-operatives in its decision-making process, was this another attempt by the co-operatives to secure another monopoly for the handling and storage of an entire crop? The Dry Bean Board has a majority of farmers—why did this Board not ascertain from the growers of dried beans whether they wanted a one channel scheme? Is it coincidental that the overwhelming majority of the producer members of the Dry Bean Board are directors of co-operative societies? They serve on the boards, wearing two caps, so-called representatives of the producers and representatives of the co-operatives. These are the questions I ask. If this is so, who do they really represent? If it is the South African Agricultural Union which makes recommendations to the hon. the Minister, who should represent the producers on the Dry Bean Board?

What do you ask me? You should ask them.

I am asking the hon. the Minister of Agriculture the question. Has the time not come for a more democratic system of direct election of members to control boards to be instituted? Why did the hon. the Minister accept the recommendations of the Dry Bean Board and promulgate a one-channel scheme without first consulting with the farmers themselves? Why was it necessary for the farmers to draw up a petition while they were responsible for 95% of the total production, before the hon. the Minister was compelled to withdraw the scheme? The hon. the Minister of Agriculture is put into a most invidious position. It is he who introduced the Co-operatives Bill into the House last year, who showed his bias towards co-operatives. He has been a director of a co-operative. It is impossible for the hon. the Minister per se not to be prejudiced in favour of the co-operatives. I do not hold it against co-operatives endeavouring to get control of the marketing boards and thereby trying to get control of one-channel schemes so that they can act as agents and earn profit. I do not hold it against them; they are making use of the law to their best advantage.

However, that is only half the problem. These marketing boards were originally established as regulatory boards to obtain the best price possible for the farmers. The fact that the law allows co-operatives to become trading concerns, legally aided and abetted by the Board to the exclusion of private enterprise, is a very worrying aspect that needs to be investigated. They, by the Bills passed in the House, have access to the Land Bank to obtain loans which are not market-related and so compete against private enterprise, which must operate in the open market at market-related interest rates. When the hon. the Prime Minister went to the Carlton Conference and pleaded for the assistance of private enterprise in the building-up of a better South Africa, did the hon. the Minister of Agriculture agree with the hon. the Prime Minister to give private enterprise an opportunity of competing in the agricultural products market? The Dry Bean Board débâcle shows without any doubt that there is something radically wrong in the operation of the marketing scheme, because it exposes a plot by the South African Agricultural Union and the Dry Bean Board to enforce through the hon. the Minister a scheme on the dried bean farmers which they themselves never asked for and never wanted. I believe the hon. the Minister should appoint a judicial commission to investigate who contrived against the best interests of the bean farmers, and for what reasons.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very attentively to the debate thus far and this afternoon I should very much like to begin on a positive note. The majority of speakers referred to problems in agriculture today and I feel that they are fully entitled, in a debate such as this, to point out problems to the Ministry of Agriculture. However, I should like to pay tribute today to several highly successful farmers in our country. On Thursday I was at a farmers’ day in the Bathurst District, and it was incredible to see the astronomical development on some farms, while one could not believe one’s eyes when one looked at the lack of the necessary developments on neighbouring farms. I want to pay tribute today to our farmers who, with limited agricultural means at their disposal, nevertheless make an exceptional success of agriculture. They succeed in doing so chiefly due to sound managerial ability, because they are prepared to bring about change—I wish to stress this point—in their farming activities and because they are prepared to apply the research results which are available to agriculture in South Africa to their farming activities to a very great extent. I think we should also pay tribute to a Department which, although also having limited means and manpower at its disposal, has, over the years, been able to develop agriculture in South Africa, with its complex problems, and assist it, in co-operation with the entrepreneurs in agriculture, to make of South Africa a highly successful agricultural country. I wish to pay tribute to this Department which, over the years, has achieved enough success to keep us debating for a year.

Accordingly I wish to begin in a positive spirit today and say that in this country—and here I agree with other hon. members— there are highly successful farmers who have to produce in spite of the elements, but who nevertheless succeed in doing so with the means at their disposal. Financing in agriculture is of the utmost importance and no fewer than 10 hon. speakers have discussed that today. It is essential that in a debate such as this one should discuss finance. I say without fear of contradiction that in a country like South Africa, where one has limited resources, it is necessary to have a special method of finance for agriculture. We cannot get away from that basic principle. For that reason we have two organizations that undertake financing for agriculture, the Land Bank and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, through its Financial Assistance Division. In this regard I wish to emphasize very strongly that I do not think that these two organizations possess sufficient funds to make a meaningful contribution to agricultural financing in South Africa. We shall have to develop these two bodies in the years ahead so that in time—this is the ideal—they are capable of undertaking all agricultural financing in the country. When I say this I am not overlooking the contribution made by commercial banks, for example, in regard to agriculture, nor am I overlooking the contribution made by insurance companies, but I contend that in times like these, when interest rates have had to rise—nothing could have prevented that— we must have organizations capable of providing agriculture with finance at a reasonable interest rate. It is not merely in the interests of the producer of this country, but is of cardinal importance to the consumer as well, that agriculture be financed in a special way, chiefly due to the fact that South Africa is a relatively poor agricultural country.

To begin with I want to refer to the speech by the hon. member for Beaufort West. In the course of my speech I shall also reply to all hon. members who have raised matters that fall under those divisions of the Department that are my responsibility. The hon. member for Beaufort West referred to the drought disaster in the Karoo and the North-Western Cape. That was indeed a disaster. Last year we also had the flood disaster, which indicates yet again that South Africa is a country of extremes. If there are no droughts, then there are floods, earthquakes and so on. I want to thank the hon. member for Beaufort West and all other hon. members whose constituencies fall in areas of drought or flood. The hon. member for Beaufort West not only experienced a disastrous drought, but also disastrous floods. I want to thank the hon. members for what they have done and for having always advised the Ministry with regard to the steps that have had to be taken to provide relief.

I want to make a further statement: I think that the Government of this country has an exceptionally fine record as far as the handling of disasters is concerned. Perhaps it would be of interest if I were to give hon. members some figures relating to drought relief measures since they were introduced in 1978. Almost R20 million has been made available to farmers in the form of loans in this period, viz. up to March 1982. The figure in subsidies is very close to R45 million. In other words, a total of almost R65 million has been spent during this period in drought-stricken areas. A further interesting aspect relates to the figures I obtained only last week in order to put myself in the picture as regards the precise amount of fodder debt per small stock unit, because that is the aspect that worries me. This is also a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West. We merely took a sample at random, and one must be very cautious about the inferences one draws from a random test. In a district such as Calvinia the average debt—in other words, the loans per small stock unit—amounted to R20,81 according to our random test. Hon. members must also bear in mind that a farmer is only permitted to obtain a loan up to a maximum of 1 200 small stock units. Therefore it may be that in some instances a farmer possesses more stock, but has only been able to make application in respect of 1 200 small stock units. The average debt in the Calvinia District is R20,81.

As far as the Pofadder District is concerned—still in the heart of the drought-stricken area—the average debt is R15,60, in Namaqualand it is R13,43, in Williston R19,37 and in Carnarvon R19,70. I mention these figures as a matter of interest. Hon. members will recall that during the disastrous drought of the late ’sixties and early ’seventies we had instances of farmers owing up to R37 per small stock unit. In my opinion, particularly in the light of the present position as regards meat and wool, this amount of debt, although considerable per small stock unit, is still fully in accordance with the return on a sheep for a farmer today. One can only hope that the drought will be totally broken in these regions. Although the area of drought has diminished considerably after the recent very good rains, there are still some parts in Bushmanland and particularly in the Upington District that are suffering serious damage due to drought. One can only hope that Providence will bring relief there, too, in due course.

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Can the hon. the Minister tell this House what the market price of a small stock unit was during the drought at the end of the ’sixties and the beginning of the ’seventies, when the amount of debt per small stock unit was even higher than R30, in comparison with the present market prices? I think that that is in fact the important comparison we must draw.

It is very interesting that in the late ’sixties the income from a merino sheep—I am now speaking under correction—was in the region of R8 to R9. Nowadays the income from a merino sheep is in the region of R18 to R20. Therefore prices have more or less kept pace. In fact, on comparison, the debt relative to the yield from the animal is lower than during the previous drought. However, I wish to stress that this was a random test and accordingly one can very easily be misled. Nevertheless, I do think that it is a good indication.

As far as future droughts are concerned, hon. members are aware that since 1978 we have been working on a long-term plan, and this plan is now in a final stage of completion. At this stage we are only awaiting final approval from the Treasury to put the plan in operation. Discipline is built into the new plan, because the hon. member for Namaqualand and the hon. member for Beaufort West made it very clear that we could not permit our soil to be destroyed further. Future generations will take us to task for doing so even if we are already in our graves. We have built discipline into the new drought plan, in the sense that we qualify a drought disaster. Hon. member referred earlier to these minor “tweetand” droughts. I want to tell the hon. member for Barberton that as yet he has only had a “tweetand” drought, because he had a very good year last year. When we in the Karoo have had a good year we do not speak about a drought in the following year. Therefore we are building discipline into the plan at this point, and are defining the concept of a drought disaster. In the new plan, assistance is given to the soil rather than the man, to the soil rather than to animals, in an effort to protect the soil. New grazing capacities, as the Department calls it—I call it “long-term carrying capacity determinations”—have been introduced. Hon. members will encounter a great deal of criticism in this regard. However, the Department has been carrying out this very important task for the past number of years, thus dividing the country into grazing capacity areas and trying to define grazing capacity norms for each region. I think that this was the first task of the Department, because it is so important in the implementation of the new long-term drought relief plan. To be able to do this, scientifically based data has been used to reconsider and refine the broader carrying capacity divisions which applied previously. For example, 41 separate grazing capacity areas have been identified in the Karoo, in contrast with the 15 areas identified in 1971 for the purposes of the stock reduction scheme. The department has made considerable progress in this matter and I repeat that we are going to encounter a great deal of criticism with regard to the determining of the grazing capacity norms. The hon. member for Beaufort West was right when he said that people were going to have a hard time of it to repay these loans, and if on top of that, they have to reduce their stock, they will at once think that they will never succeed in repaying their loans, and therefore we shall encounter criticism. However, experience has taught—and I wish to emphasize this very strongly—that fewer stock with sufficient food produce far more than more stock with less food. This is a recognized and scientific fact that we cannot get away from.

I think it is appropriate that on this occasion I should convey my thanks to our officials, to the Agricultural Credit Board and the agricultural credit committees for the tremendous task they have performed during this period. Hon. members will realize that we had to deal with the drought disaster as well as with the flood disaster, using the same staff. One need only speak to people in the flood disaster area to find that they have only the highest praise imaginable for the officials and what they have done. We sent officials to these areas and enlarged agricultural credit committees to be of temporary assistance, and we have received the highest praise for the work done by these people. I want to associate myself with that and thank these people for the hours of overtime, without compensation, that they put in in this regard. I really think that this speaks volumes for them.

I also wish to thank people who donated fodder in this period. Here I have in mind, for example, farmers’ associations such as the Farmers’ Association of Virginia in the Free State, that made a few truckloads of fodder available. Iscor, too, made fodder available, and I think that six truckloads were sent to Pofadder and the rest to the cattle grazing regions in the North Western Transvaal. These are really fine gestures which it is a pleasure to mention in this House.

I shall deal in due course with the very interesting discourse by the hon. member for Namakwaland.

As far as the provision of fodder is concerned, I wish to say that in our country vast quantities of fodder are available, but we simply do not use it. The department has estimated that 100 million to 120 million tons of low quality grass hay is lost in the Republic annually. The recoverable portion potentially represents energy sufficient for the maintenance of 8 million to 10 million additional large stock units. By-products of the South African grain industries that could be used as stock fodder amount to 8 million to 10 million tons per annum and could maintain a further 1,6 million large stock units. Can hon. members see how much potential fodder goes lost in our country because we do not use it? There are certain mechanical and chemical treatment methods which the department is investigating at present, which hold tremendous promise as regards the more effective utilization of low grade grass hays and crop residues. There are still certain problems to be overcome—but I believe the department will overcome them—before we are able to exploit these potential sources of production to the full.

The hon. member for Namakwaland made a very interesting speech today concerning the utilization of our available water for fodder production. My biggest headache as far as this drought is concerned has been this very matter of the provision of fodder in our drought-stricken areas. We baled mealie cobs for grinding because lucerne was simply not available. The hon. member advocated that we use available water resources for fodder production on a co-operative basis so that farmers can obtain their fodder at cost price. This is a very interesting idea, and I want to say to the hon. member that we shall follow this matter up. Indeed, there are officials in the department who have very praiseworthy ideals with regard to the provision of fodder, particularly in the region below the Rama canal. In the Plooysberg region, in the constituency of the hon. member for De Aar, is the most fantastic land one could dream of, and all that is necessary is to extend the Rama canal to get the water there. An enormous amount of land is available for fodder production. We shall certainly research the opinions and recommendations which the hon. member has aired and provide him with an answer in this regard in due course.

My time is running out, but I want to refer briefly to financing. I have already pointed out the importance of financing and the fact that several hon. members have discussed financing in agriculture. It is indeed true that financing is important. As far as I am concerned, the hon. member for Ladybrand provided an excellent summary of our problem with regard to agricultural credit financing. I do not really want to discuss Land Bank financing now, because it does not fall under the Department of Agriculture, and therefore I do not wish to express an opinion about that, although some things I shall say in regard to my area of concern apply to the Land Bank as well. The hon. member for Parys also touched on a very cardinal aspect of financing which I, too, wish to dwell on briefly. The agricultural credit account which was created last year in terms of the legislation on the revolving fund was a great ideal I have been striving to achieve for a very long time and which was realized last year. I think the hon. member for Ladybrand referred to that, but it is indeed a pity that in the first year of its operation we should have encountered this problem with our country’s financial position, and that in the second instance, there was a drought which, of necessity, will have a considerable influence on the flow of money back to this fund. Last year R59 million was available for the agricultural credit account. Initially we estimated in October/November last year that the flow of funds back to the account this year would be in the region of R40 million, as it was last year, but immediately, in February, we had to revise this estimate due to the drought. Hon. members will realize that due to the drought there will necessarily be a reduced flow. Our estimate at this stage is a flow-back of a mere R35 million, plus a further R2 million which the Treasury has allocated to us, and hon. members will see that this is considerably less than the amount last year. However, there is something I want to add at once. The hon. the Minister of Finance has told us repeatedly that we must watch the situation and check how much money flows back into the fund. The hon. member for Ladybrand said that it was very difficult, when budgeting, to determine exactly what the cash flow will be. Accordingly we have to state our requirements at a later stage, in the interim budget, particularly in the case of disasters. It is unfortunately true that we have had to terminate certain schemes, such as the land purchase scheme which the hon. member for Parys mentioned here. We had to terminate it because in these times one has to determine one’s priorities, and with the means at one’s disposal it is simply impossible to implement these schemes further. Our estimate for further crop production loans for this year is R15 million, and repayments of debt about R20 million, and I want to say even at this stage that both of these amounts are too low. Accordingly, I am eagerly waiting to see what the Jacobs Committee will recommend in this regard, because this will strengthen our position as far as future financial requirements are concerned. I firmly believe that in this year of drought we shall definitely grant more assistance by way of production loans, because one really should enable a man to produce again.

This brings me to the question of the establishment of young farmers, and several hon. members discussed this, inter alia, the hon. member for Ventersdorp, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Parys. If there is one cause in this department for which I work my fingers to the bone, that it is of establishing young farmers on the land. In this regard I agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp. In my opinion this is one of the top priorities of this department, apart, of course, from the provision of disaster relief, and in that I include drought relief, because when a man has been stricken by drought, one does wish to help him to get through it. It is one of my greatest ideals to establish farmers on the land, and when land becomes available, it is our number one priority that a young farmer be established on that land. For the rest, we do everything in our power to keep young farmers on the farms, by way of our financing. In this regard I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Parys. The market value of land has moved so far from the production value that it is simply out of the question to settle on the land any man who does not receive a little outside help. However, I wish to support the hon. member further. If a man has acquired a little capital and wants to establish himself on the land— that man whom the hon. member for Humansdorp discussed who wishes to migrate to agriculture—one should not look at what he has paid for the land. One should judge him according to what he will owe, and on that basis, whether he will be able to make the grade with the burden of debt he carries. That is how one should judge him, and there are methods of doing this. In any industry today we have economists who can tell one precisely what the net revenue of a good farmer will be on such land. That, I think, is the basis on which one should judge him, and not in accordance with what he has paid for the land, because one is not going to make land cheaper by telling people that they have paid too much for the land. That will be pointless, because another man who has a great deal of land will simply buy that land. That is a fact one cannot get away from.

This, of course, brings me to the question of the depopulation of the platteland. I do not know what we must do about this matter. To begin with I want to refer to the platteland as a whole. I had a survey carried out in one district. More than 49% of the farmers in the district in question farm with fewer than a thousand ewes. Our norm nowadays is 1 300 small stock units for an economic farming enterprise; however, 49% of the farmers in that district farm with fewer than a thousand sheep. What, then, is one to do to keep such men on the land? How does one do it? This is a problem we are battling with. I simply do not know what one can do in this regard. Farms are simply getting bigger and bigger, and one has to have the wisdom of Solomon to find a solution for this.

This brings me to the question of the border areas. Several hon. members, inter alia, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, the hon. member for Ventersdorp, the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Parys referred to our border areas. We have introduced a financing scheme in our border areas and have spent very large sums there. We have largely succeeded in stabilizing the people living there by means of cheap financing and also by attracting new people there. However, what I find really disturbing is the fact that speculation in land is rife there, and the hon. member Mr. Theunissen knows about that. Tremendous speculation has started. I do not take it amiss of people if they can make large profits on land they have bought, but when it is a question of border areas, I say that they are not doing their country a favour by speculating in land there. Accordingly—and for other reasons, too—we have put a stop to the land purchase scheme in the border areas; we had no choice but to do so; but I just wish to point out in conclusion that the Department of the hon. the Prime Minister has taken an interest in this whole matter of border areas, and that includes all border areas, not only those in the Northern Transvaal, but the top priority is, of course, the border area of the Northern Transvaal. Together with the Transvaal Agricultural Union the department paid a visit to that region. Now that the Department of the hon. the Prime Minister is interested in this matter, I believe that his department will be able to co-ordinate all departments, particularly so as to co-ordinate matters relating to the infrastructure, in such a way that each department does not act on its own. This is necessary so that the needs of the region in question may be determined and so that the necessary services may be provided there. There are certain services that will have to be provided by the State in our rural areas, even if it be at uneconomic tariffs. It will simply have to be done.

My time has expired and accordingly I shall not be able to comment further. I just wish to extend my very sincere thanks to hon. members for the fine discussion in this debate of the matters which affected me. There is a great deal I have not replied to, but in the short time at my disposal it was simply impossible. I should like to conduct a further discussion with hon. members in this regard at a later stage. Many thanks, in any event. I think it was a fine debate, a debate which in my opinion was certainly worthy of this House.

Mr. Chairman, the agricultural sector of the Republic of South Africa is a very important component of the country’s economy, and a successful agricultural industry will always be indispensable and become more and more important to the production of food and fibres. It is important for the RSA to retain its rightful position amongst the export countries, not only as the supplier of domestic needs but also as an exporter of agricultural products. When we consider the projections concerning the population growth and the tendency of the South African population to become urbanized, it is very clear that the demands on the production of agricultural goods will increase tremendously. In addition we should not overlook the fact that in a country such as South Africa, in which industrial development is of the utmost importance in order to provide a growing population which shows a tendency towards urbanization with employment opportunities, the establishment of industries and the mining industry continue to claim more and more agricultural land. I could have mentioned series of statistics indicating how much agricultural land is required each year for industries, mining and associated services if time had permitted me to do so. However, for the purpose of this speech it is not necessary to do this. The point is that agricultural land is becoming progressively scarcer. A further point is that because of inflation production costs are increasing at a rate which causes agricultural inputs to become so high that the result is a decrease in the profitability of farming. The third aspect is a factor which gives rise to tremendous concern and which has an extremely adverse effect on the agricultural industry. I am referring to the unrealistic increase in the price of land, about which a great deal has already been said this evening, an unrealistic increase which is out of proportion to the production capacity of the land. When one combines all the factors I have mentioned and a few others, it is very clear to one that an agricultural industry of the highest efficiency will undoubtedly have to be established, otherwise it will not be possible to come up to the high expectations. If the agricultural industry is to come up to these expectations in the future, agriculture will have to be based on sound production, marketing and financing principles.

I should like to confine myself to production principles. We are living in an era in which it is simply impossible to compete if agricultural production is not increased to the optimum. This, however, can only be achieved by sustained and efficient research. In this regard good work is being done by various bodies, including the business or private sector, especially in the field of cereal production, in which production-orientated research and development are primarily being undertaken. Universities concentrate mainly on basic research, whereas the research of the public sector is concentrated mainly on development with a view to production. Research remains at all times of basic importance to success in the future, and one cannot escape from the accusation that too little research is being undertaken in South Africa. This is probably true, because it is being said that there are only 2,4 researchers per 10 000 of the total population in South Africa as against a figure of 10,2 for Israel, 35,6 for Japan, 13,6 for Britain and 19,5 for Australia. The shortage of trained staff is a factor which inhibits research. Perhaps we also do not have efficient facilities everywhere, and funds, too, are in many respects an inhibiting factor.

I want to suggest that there should be cooperation and co-ordination of research projects on very high level amongst Government Departments, as well as between the Departments and other bodies such as universities. This will obviate research work being duplicated. In addition it will provide a solution to the problem of one body enticing away the trained staff of another.

Having said all this, I want to draw the attention to the outstanding work being done in the field of research, particularly by the research institutes of the Department. Upon consulting the annual report of the Department for 1980-’81, one is presented with a very clear picture of the extent of the research being undertaken in connection with field husbandry, and this includes summer and winter cereals, oil seeds, potatoes, cotton, tobacco and horticulture. I want to recommend to hon. members that they read that annual report, specifically as regards the research aspect. It is interesting. Reading the report, one gains an impression of the comprehensive and valuable work being done by the researchers in the interest of increased production.

I want to refer in greater detail to the research being undertaken by the institutes in connection with the breeding and purification of deciduous fruit cultivars with a view of achieving an inherent high production capacity and optimum quality, with the emphasis on disease-free materials. Research is a very laborious process which is concerned with crossing, selection and phytosanitary purification in order to obtain the envisaged quality. From the nature of things it is extremely expensive and time-consuming. I want to refer hon. members to the annual report, and more specifically to the paragraph dealing with the evaluation of pear rootstocks and cultivars, and I quote (p. 41)-

This gives hon. members an idea of what is being done and eventually achieved. If the end result of the aforementioned project is one or two cultivars which comply with the high standards set and those cultivars are released, the researchers has achieved something which he will be very pleased about. It has inevitably cost a great deal to achieve that end result. Unfortunately I do not have the latest figures at my disposal, but I think that it is not far-fetched to say that it costs in the vicinity of R50 000 to release one suitable cultivar.

This brings me to a final and very important point. Over the past 35 years, in which I have been intensively involved with the organized nursery industries through the South African Nurserymen’s Association, we have anxiously been struggling to find a channel for conveying improved plant material to the producer without such material being lost, contaminated or incorrectly used in the process. Ultimately, as a result of the co-operation among the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Canning Fruit Board, the Dried Fruit Board, the South African Nurserymen’s Association and the Department, a body was established which is known as the South African Plant Improvement Organization. It is an organization through which all improved material is handled and increased and distributed in an orderly fashion. The organization has been in operation for eight years, and the progress is remarkable. Although the organization still concentrates mainly on serving the deciduous fruit producer in the Western Cape—in which there is, in fact, the largest concentration of deciduous fruit producers and grape and wine-growers—I am looking forward to the day when progress has been made to the stage when only improved, disease-free propagation material will be used. This will mean that only the best material will be used, even by the man planting only one tree. In order to achieve this, the organization will have to expand tremendously, all the way to the north.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look into the financing of the schemes. The system in terms of which the scheme is financed by three boards and certain producers only, is not satisfactory. This may promote monopolistic trends. On the other hand the financing of the entire scheme cannot be the responsibility of certain sectors only. This is a scheme for the entire industry, and the entire industry should contribute its share of the financing.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks concerning agricultural problems in the Crocodile River Basin. I have dealt with this matter in the past and have met with a very fine reception from the hon. the Minister, his predecessors and other colleagues, but this matter has become of such pressing importance that I should like to deal with it once more this evening.

The Crocodile River Basin extends from the region where the Crocodile River, the Hennops River and the Magalies River flow into the Hartebeespoort Dam, and from there all along the Crocodile River past the confluences of the Apies River, the Sterkstroom and the Elands River up to the Limpopo River. There are seven dams, and six of the seven are directly involved in agriculture in this entire setup. This area, which I want to call the heart of the North-Western Transvaal development area, is one of the most picturesque and fertile parts of the country. In addition it is of absolute strategic importance to agriculture, mining, industry and the security of the north-western flank of the Transvaal. A large part of this area is classified as remote area adjoining Bophuthatswana and Botswana, which ought to enjoy special preferences in various fields. As far as its agricultural value is concerned, it is a key area for the cultivation of tobacco, wheat, soya beans, maize, ground-nuts, cotton and vegetables. Although the agricultural potential is practically unlimited, virtually insurmountable problems are encountered in this area. A large percentage of the farmers, and especially the tobacco and vegetable farmers, are facing a crisis as far as their existence is concerned. It is particularly the agricultural area of Brits, and the area all along the Crocodile River, which, agriculturally speaking, is dying, slowly but surely. This is a severe statement to make, but it can be proved statistically.

I want to refer to two aspects only. I want to indicate the problem areas and then, because we are concerned here with the tobacco industry as such, I want to pose this question: Does this industry still have any future in that area which I have just defined? My reply is “yes”. The tobacco industry has a very fine future, provided certain things are being done. In the short term certain steps will have to be taken, as well as in the long term. There are a few plus factors—something for which we are extremely grateful— for the tobacco industry in those areas at the moment. In the first place the surpluses for the past two, three or four years have been used up, so that there is no longer a surplus of good tobacco in the country at the moment. In addition there is the fact that production has been considerably lower than the domestic consumption. Thirdly there has been a very strict application of marketing quotas which were introduced two years ago. I think that was a very wise step on the part of the Tobacco Board. Moreover, there is the fact that there is always a strong demand for good quality tobacco. I say the tobacco industry has a fine future, provided the plus factors apply and the tobacco industry is not threatened by factors over which it has no control. We must remember, however, that in this particular area we have to deal with the most acute form of the basic problem, because the symptoms have already appeared in that area. These symptoms are emerging very strongly in other areas or parts of our country as well.

The tobacco industry is indeed a threatened industry. As regards the region from which I come, this industry is facing the biggest crisis in its existence, particularly in certain areas with heavy, red and clayey soil. I am referring in particular to those areas in which industrial pollution has become an acute problem. There is, for example, the entire area below the Hartebeespoort Dam, all along the Crocodile River, where water is pumped from the river for the cultivation of tobacco and other crops, right down to the Limpopo River. The entire problem is one of chlorine pollution. This problem is hanging like an enormous cloud over that entire area, which was known and is still known as the nursery of South Africa’s tobacco industry. The crisis is aggravated by the fact that virtually no other crop except tobacco can be cultivated economically on the existing small farms. We must also remember that approximately 35% of all tobacco is being cultivated in the so-called border areas, a matter which definitely raises the security aspect as well.

I want to give a few facts concerning pollution. There is statistical proof of a dramatic increase in the pollution threat. The chlorine content limit of tobacco is at present 3,2%. Today, all tobacco with a higher chlorine content is rejected and sold at a quarter of a cent per kilogram instead of R2 per kilogram, which is the price which it normally fetches. Only last week I was in the constituency and paid a visit to the entire area. The spirit is good but the people feel despondent, because they know a letter will be received from the co-operative informing them that the next tobacco crop will not be acceptable and that their farms are regarded as scheduled farms. In other words, if a person wants to sell his farm he is faced by the problem that it has already been scheduled as a threatened farm. There is no other practicable economic alternative to tobacco in that area, because if one were to cultivate vegetables only, the equilibrium in that market will in turn be disturbed. I have here a sample of dried tobacco with a chlorine content of 5,6%. Last year that same farm yielded tobacco with a chlorine content of approximately 1,1%. This gives hon. members an indication of the extent to which the chlorine content—and consequently the threat— has increased within the space of two seasons. I have here a small bottle of water drawn from a borehole on the same farm. Last year there were 45 per million parts of chlorine in that water, but this year the figure is 86 parts per million in the water from that borehole. It exceeds the acceptable limits for human consumption.

Order! Does the hon. member want to teach people to smoke or drink, even though it is water? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an extra minute or so to enable me to say everything I want to say. I also thank the hon. the Minister, who is paying such close attention to what I have to say. This small group of farmers in my area is being forced right out of the industry because of circumstances which are completely beyond their control, and what is causing them to do so is industrial pollution. There is no point in putting facts to this House in a negative way without our looking in a positive way for solutions to this problem, and I am sure that we can solve the problem.

For that reason I want to submit the following few possibilities to the hon. the Minister for his friendly consideration. The present Water Act has to be rewritten—Dr. Van der Merwe is aware of this and I know the Department is engaged in doing this—because the Water Act, which is 30 or 40 years old, is no longer suitable for the modern South Africa of 1982. The norms and standards laid down at that time are simply no longer relevant to the solution of our present problem. The penalties for pollution—and we have caught many people who were guilty of pollution—should stop just short of the penalties for drug pedlars, and all of us know that these stop just short of the gallows. In the case of a second or third offence the factories concerned should be closed for a few years. Research will have to be undertaken in order to determine a method of purifying these sources. There is only one solution to the problem of the polluted water flowing into the Hartebeespoort Dam, and that is to divert the water before it flows into the dam. From there it has to be taken to below the Crocodile River. Next it has to be taken across the river to the industries and the mines which can use that polluted water. Then we need not use that water on our lands.

I also advocate tobacco subsidies.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by addressing the following two requests to the hon. the Minister: Firstly, that a subsidy system be introduced at cooperatives for farmers with unacceptable tobacco and that the funds be channelled through the Tobacco Board to the co-operatives for the purpose of the subsidy and, secondly, that the Tobacco Board be given some muscle since manufacturers increase their prices arbitrarily without the co-operatives or the farmers having any say in the matter. Finally I just want to mention the one fact that in an area such as this the consolidation of small farms does not provide a solution to that problem.

Mr. Chairman, allow me at the outset to express my thanks and appreciation to hon. members who have participated thus far for the exceptionally high standard of debating maintained here. I think there are hon. members who made exceptional contributions and who must therefore have made a thorough study of their subjects. The hon. members really made a productive and substantial contribution to the debate.

Mr. Chairman, in the second place you will allow me, right at the start of this debate, to take this opportunity to express my special thanks and appreciation to the staff of my Department for the support I received from them during the past year. In some divisions of this Department we have a serious shortage of professional, technical and also administrative staff and I can say without fear of contradiction that an extremely heavy work-load is being borne, particularly in the ranks of the top hierarchy of the Department. These officials frequently have to make an extreme effort to satisfy the existing requirements and to accomplish the task which must be carried out. I appreciate this. I am also thinking of the exceptional conditions during the flood disaster. Some officials were away from home for several weeks to carry out surveys among farmers to enable the Government to determine the nature and the extent of the damage within a very short period and to announce financial assistance measures. I also want to point out that the serious drought which prevailed and which still prevails in certain regions—particularly in the Cape Province—placed an additional work-load on the Department with regard to the granting of financial assistance to many of our farmers.

Moreover I cannot neglect to say that since an entirely new field, namely fisheries, has been allocated to us, it required an extreme effort on the part of the Department to become acquainted with this very complex industry with its many problems. This is a completely new field for the scientists in our employ and it is a pleasure for me to be able to say here this evening that so far I have received very favourable feedback from the industry regarding the way in which sea fisheries has been dealt with by this Department.

This year, as I did last year, I again want to start by announcing a few highlights with regard to research in the agricultural industry. In order to meet the growing and ever more sophisticated research requirements of the grain and oilseeds industries, a Grain Crops Research Institute was established in 1981. This institute, with its head office in Potchefstroom, serves the summer grain, winter grain and oilseed and albumen-rich seed industries. Each of these industries has its own centre and its own staff and facilities. Here I want to mention with great appreciation that a great deal of financial assistance was received from the respective grain and oilseeds industries for the establishment of the necessary housing and facilities for this institute.

In the second place, there have recently been specific achievements with regard to improvements in yield and quality of field crops. In this field of high lysine maize hybrids the Republic of South Africa at present has cultivars that do as well as the best in the world. We have also succeeded in developing a yellow high lysine maize hybrid which is in the final experimental stage and which is doing as well as the white high lysine maize hybrid. Whereas the white high lysine hybrids make a very important contribution with regard to feeding people, we foresee that the yellow hybrid will in future make an exceptional contribution to improving the feed rations of our farm animals, and poultry in particular.

By means of the importation of sunflower germ plasm with a high oil content and the development of sunflower hybrids, the entire sunflower industry has succeeded within the past five years in switching from the cultivation of open pollinated cultivars to hybrids, which not only led to a dramatic increase in oil yield per hectare but also led to the development of more desirable agrotypes. This programme was so successful that in South Africa at present, we are up to our ears in oil. I am now referring to plant oil.

Another matter which is of course receiving serious attention is the increasing need for protein in South Africa. In this connection tremendous breakthroughs have been made with soya beans, with a view of developing the soya bean into a source of high quality protein. Country-wide soya bean cultivar tests culminated in the selection of new adapted cultivars which on a country-wide scale, i.e. in practice, have already produced yields which were between 20 and 30% higher than the standard cultivars at present being cultivated. An increase in production of this magnitude is indeed a unique achievement by the researchers of this Department.

As far as grazing legumes are concerned, I can just say that with a view to increasing the carrying capacity and the quality of our natural veld, tremendous success has been achieved with the introduction of legumes in our natural veld. We are watching the tremendous research work being done in this connection with high hopes and we are delighted with the promising preliminary results that have been achieved.

In the fourth place great progress has been made in the rationalization of horticultural research in South Africa in particular. Changing conditions require adjustments in the provision of our services. Consequently it has also become necessary for the Department to undertake internal rationalization in the organization of its horticultural research services in order to enhance such services to the country’s horticultural industries progressively through the better utilization of existing staff and facilities. It was therefore decided that research on all forms of grape production, i.e. wine grapes, table grapes and dried vineyard fruits, will in future only be dealt with by one research institute for the entire country, namely the Oenological and Viticultural Research Institute. The table grape research previous undertaken by the Horticultural Research Institute at Pretoria and the Fruit and Fruit Technology Research Institute at Stellenbosch and its substations, has now become the responsibility of the Oenological and Viticultural Research Institute.

In the same way all research on deciduous fruit throughout the country will in future be dealt with by one organization, namely the Fruit and Fruit Technology Research Institute.

In the fifth place I want to mention that there was also a remarkable achievement with regard to the improvement of citrus plants. South Africa is at present one of the foremost countries in the world as regards its awareness of the necessity for top quality plant material, its plant improvement legislation and its plant improvement schemes. Plant improvement is a long-term matter and all progress in this connection always takes place step by step.

During the past year a remarkable milestone was reached in this connection when it became possible for the Department to release the first certified bud stick of the super plant scheme for citrus plants, and it was formally handed over to the chairman of the Citrus Board in January 1982.

Tremendous progress was also made in connection with meat research to utilize the yield of meat producing animals to the optimum while retaining the inherent quality, in order to allow the producer, marketer, processor and consumer to derive the greatest benefit from it. Evaluation programmes for all species of red meat producing animals are regarded as priority research.

I also want to mention that the researchers of my Department were awarded medals by the South African Association for Animal Production and received a special award from the Witwatersrand Agricultural Union in recognition of the great progress made with regard to the handling of meat after it has been slaughtered so that maximum quality can be retained for the consumer.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned, research is also being carried out in connection with the utilization of crop residue as stock feed. This source, which is only being utilized to a very limited extent at this stage, offers the tremendous potential of maintaining a further 1,6 million large stock units. In this connection the Department is applying certain mechanical and chemical methods of treatment which hold great promise for the more effective utilization of low-grade hay and crop residue. Certain practical problems still have to be overcome, but here we are dealing with a very large potential source of fodder.

The livestock improvement schemes have also gained further momentum. In a joint undertaking the Animal and Dairy Research Institute and the S.A. Stud Book Society have made great progress in the computerization of the Stud Book Society’s progeny records and their integration with the performance records obtained from the livestock improvement scheme. The combination of these sets of data affords the South African stock farmer a golden opportunity to increase the performance and effectiveness of his herd. Participation in the various performance testing schemes initiated and developed by the Department, has gained momentum during the past few years and it has now become essential in the interests of the livestock industry to establish a sound financing programme to which the Department and the private sector will contribute. I also want to take this opportunity to say that where one has such a commendable scheme, I can in fact say a remarkable scheme, in which such high standards are maintained, I feel that the entire livestock industry in South Africa, the sheep industry, the cattle industry, the poultry industry, even the Egg Board and all the other boards handling agricultural products and benefiting from the improvement of the stock have a joint responsibility with the State to make a financial contribution to the further enhancement of this scheme.

In addition I cannot but express my special thanks and appreciation here in this House to the officials of Onderstepoort. In 1981 part of the vaccine factory there was razed to the ground and there was a great deal of damage. As a result a backlog developed in regard to the preparation of certain vaccines. If there was ever an occasion when officials ignored the clock and worked overtime and also made practical suggestions then it was at Onderstepoort. In spite of the setbacks we experienced last year the institute again succeeded in becoming the world leader in the development of vaccines. The institute now manufactures 180 million doses of vaccine for 46 different diseases or types of diseases annually. No other institute in the world manufactures a wider range of vaccines than Onderstepoort. I can just mention that last year we exported no less than 18 million doses of vaccine to countries in Africa. This illustrates once again the huge contribution agriculture and the agricultural scientists in particular can make to improve the lot of millions of people in Africa. The hon. member for Mooi River mentioned this in the course of his speech. This shows what great benefits friendship with South Africa can have for the states of Africa.

There were various other achievements. I have already mentioned disaster aid. Perhaps I should just mention briefly that the Department is drawing up an inventory of agricultural resources, soil, forms of terrain and climate. This information can be widely used, inter alia, in the first place to promote decision making in connection with agricultural production and in the second place as a basis for planning and purposeful research. The inventory is therefore of great importance to agriculture in its striving for and application of the principles of optimum soil utilization.

I can just mention that the collected data is being used to delimit areas with a high degree of uniformity with regard to various factors, and to map them with a view to meaningful planning and the scientific utilization of our agricultural resources. The Republic of South Africa will be covered by a total of 69 maps on a scale of 1:250 000. As a whole about 75% of this important survey has been completed and this includes most of the crop producing areas of the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and the Western Cape.

Surveys are also being made of peri-urban areas. As hon. members know, cities, industries and other organizations will in future make increasing demands for land. The scarcity of agricultural land makes it imperative that we give thorough consideration to when and what agricultural land can be used for purposes other than agricultural development. Progress has also been made in this connection. My colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister, has already mentioned what progress has been made with regard to grazing capacity norms and the like. I shall therefore not elaborate on this.

Later on I shall have more to say about the actual theme of this debate, namely the importance of agriculture in the national economy, the effect of agriculture on the economy as a whole, the demands which will be made on agriculture in South Africa in future and what measures we shall have to adopt in order to accommodate those demands which are going to be made of us so that agriculture can continue to fulfil its primary function in this country, namely to supply the population as a whole with food and fibre and to keep South Africa as self-sufficient as possible in this regard.

I also want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that I shall reply to the points he raised in connection with the fishing industry tomorrow. I should now like to reply to the speeches of hon. members on this side of the House.

I should like to start with the hon. member for Ventersdorp who in the first place made the point that there is so much criticism of agriculture, the control systems in agriculture, co-operatives, etc., which is frequently quite unjustified. I just want to tell the hon. member that I agree with him wholeheartedly. I want to reiterate that the Marketing Act, the Co-operatives Act and the Soil Conservation Act are the three foundation stones on which agriculture in South Africa is built. I shall definitely stand or fall by this.

The hon. member went on to emphasize the importance of the agricultural industry and in this connection I can also not do otherwise but agree with him wholeheartedly.

The hon. member made mention of the serious drought experienced in the summer rainfall area this year. On this occasion I should once again like to express the Government’s great understanding for the problems of our farmers who were hit by this drought. This drought was extensive and, what is more, it was disproportionate. This year there were areas with virtually no crops. Because the Government is sympathetic towards our farmers and because we do not want to destabilize agriculture, we directed the Jacobs Committee, in co-operation with the Department, to investigate the entire situation in order, in the first place, to ascertain the extent of the drought damage, and in the second place, to quantify for us the nature and the extent of the financial and the financing problems which will result from this drought. In the light of the information which the Jacobs Committee will submit to us the Government will consider the measures it is able to take, bearing in mind the financial carrying capacity of the economy of the country at that stage, to help tide these farmers over this difficult period. As the Government has done in the past when serious droughts hit farming communities, it will consider this entire matter most sympathetically in this case as well.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp went on to request a larger contribution by the Government for research and extension. I agree with the hon. member that research and extension in agriculture should be accorded greater priority in future. I want to make the point that I do not think there is any better investment a country can make than an investment in research in agriculture. Seen in the light of the present tight economic situation we are experiencing in South Africa, and seen against the background of the relative backlogs certain other research institutes in the country have as compared with agriculture there has, on the advice of the scientific adviser of the Prime Minister, been a certain consolidation phase with regard to the allocation of funds for certain research institutes. Consequently, in view of the financial circumstances prevailing this year, there was no significant increase in the allocation for agriculture, but in this connection I should like to mention that for this reason and to enable a critical evaluation to be made of the priority of and the need for research extension in agriculture and in order to identify deficiencies, I appointed the Committee of Inquiry into Services to Agriculture. This Committee will make a critical evaluation to ascertain where the problems lie and where the problems originate. I am able to announce that the committee is already sitting and that it should be able to publish its first interim report by the end of the year. The terms of reference of this committee entail not only an investigation into the services in respect of extension and research and the fragmentation of the existing limited manpower, but also methods of additional financing for research and extension in agriculture. I feel that the work of this committee and the matter it is investigating are of cardinal importance to agriculture in South Africa and to South Africa as a whole because—and I should like to emphasize this point—since 86% of the surface area of South Africa is used for agriculture, the weal and woe and the position of agriculture determines the state of affairs in 86% of the Republic of South Africa. That is why agriculture is important and why it is a priority.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp also referred to the deferred debts which are going to arise as a result of this difficult year and asked that these debts should be borne at subsidized interest rates. In view of the recommendations of the Jacobs Committee and also in view of the financial means of the State at that stage, we shall be extremely sympathetic in this regard as we already have been in the past, and shall make an attempt to bear some of these deferred debts at subsidized interest rates.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp also referred to the liability to taxation of farmers and co-operatives. I am afraid this is a matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance and I must abide by the reply of the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, in pursuance of a point made by another hon. member in this debate I want to say that I agree that there is a problem with regard to capital formation by co-operatives after they have become liable to taxation. This tax liability of co-operatives is, inter alia, a result of the package agreement entered into. If it appears that this entire matter is causing a serious problem in the process of capital formation by co-operatives, I am prepared to discuss this matter again with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, at some time in the future. However, I want to make it quite clear that I cannot commit myself or my colleague, but if it can be proved to me that this is really a problem and that co-operatives are really not able to form capital, I am prepared to approach the Government again on this matter.

The hon. member went on to refer to the matter of income stability mentioned by the Jacobs Committee in one of its recommendations and said that this matter should be reconsidered. The person who can give agriculture in South Africa income stability and who can devise a formula to do this when one is dealing with products of which more than half have to be exported, when one is dealing with fluctuating prices on world markets, when one is dealing with overseas recessions, when one is dealing with changes in the rate of exchange in one’s monetary unit against the monetary units of one’s most important trading partners, will not only deserve the Nobel Prize, but we shall have to erect a statue for him here in Adderley Street on top of Jan van Riebeeck’s statue because it is just not possible.

The hon. member for Wynberg says he can do it.

If the hon. member for Wynberg can help in this regard I shall erect the statue for him myself. One can only strive for a degree of price stability in agriculture, but owing to all the variable factors over which one has no control, this remains a difficult matter. Provided one can apply rigid control over production and provided one can control rainfall, temperature and heat units, one can begin to speak of income and price stability. For me as an ordinary human being however it is not possible and I do not believe it is possible for any of the hon. members sitting on this Committee today. I want to repeat that the Government is sympathetic and where there are tremendous fluctuations in the income of farmers which will of necessity lead to financial hardship, the Government is and has always been prepared to come to the assistance of agriculture within the limits of the financial carrying capacity of the country. No responsible government can go further than that.

The hon. member referred to a long-term approach with regard to planning. I believe we must have a long-term approach in agriculture. The long-term approach we have thus far had is, inter alia, contained in legislation such as the Soil Conservation Act which deals with the conservation of our soil, the Marketing Act which is aimed at maximum stability in the marketing of products, and innumerable other financing measures. One must set oneself certain long-term goals. Mr. Chairman, I think the greatest and the main long-term aim in agriculture is that agriculture should perform its basic function, namely to provide the population with sufficient fibre and food at prices the market can bear. That is the long-term aim. But, Sir, one gets changes in the structure of the demand for certain products owing to the elasticity existing in the demand, the income elasticity of the population, the growth in population and the growth in the per capita income of the population. There is interaction between all these factors. This can have a tremendous effect on the future demand, and can also change the entire structure of the demand in agriculture. For this reason I also want to say that I think even King Solomon would have had problems with the long-term prediction of the demand in agriculture. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Ventersdorp that I am prepared to hold discussions with the South African Agricultural Union and with this group on a long-term approach, and to discuss and consider any positive suggestions in this connection which are in the interests of agriculture and the agricultural sector.

As far as the matter of decentralization is concerned, I can just mention to the hon. member that with regard to the investigation into the various regions, it has now been stated that the matter of agriculture will be considered. I do not want to say more than this at this stage, Sir, because you will concede that since it is the point of departure in respect of decentralization to establish new industries in areas where they would not normally be established, one is dealing with a special matter here. If one was dealing with the natural point where industries would be established, as a result of current economic considerations, it would be another matter, but here one is dealing with a special matter where one must take extraordinary measures to establish an industry at a certain point, because one wants to deconcentrate or decentralize, and one wants to provide work in an area where a labour source is available. I now want to tell you this: Agriculture is not quite like this, because agriculture is to a large extent a locality-bound industry. In the decentralization programme one does not really find assistance for locality-bound undertakings, and agriculture in fact falls into this category. But, Sir, the attitude which is slowly gaining ground is that agriculture has a very important role to play in this decentralization, particularly since agriculture is a labour-intensive industry and agricultural produce could serve as raw materials for secondary industries which could be established in that area. A great deal of work could of course be provided in this way. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I shall approach this matter in this light when it is discussed in the future.

The hon. member for Barberton said the working of the free market mechanism could not accommodate the problems of agriculture and agricultural prices. I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. The fact of the matter is that in the process of marketing agricultural products, if one allows free rein to the free market mechanism one gets such a degree of instability that would be completely destroyed. It is a world-wide phenomena for the State to intervene in the operation of the free market mechanism in this field. Admittedly this happens to a greater or lesser extent depending on the policy prevailing in that country. The hon. member voiced criticism and said we were acting on an ad hoc basis with regard to the matter of the rebate on railage and the export promotion aid, inter alia, in the case of the citrus industry. For the record and for the sake of accuracy I want to tell the hon. member that this does not apply only in respect of agriculture; it applies in respect of all export promotion measures administered by the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. However, I can also mention that as a result of representations received the Government has reconsidered this matter. These measures were not repealed because the Government no longer wanted to promote exports but because we found ourselves in an extremely tight financial situation. We had to cut State expenditure to the bone. You know what the alternative is, Sir—an increase in tax, which would have a serious and detrimental effect on our growth rate and on our level of prosperity in this country. As a result the Government had to curtail certain measures, because the country simply does not have that financial carrying capacity at this stage. But, Mr. Chairman, owing to the unique position of the citrus industry, and owing to the location of that industry, we reconsidered the matter after earnest representations, and in order to prevent this industry from suffering serious harm, it was decided that on the budget of this department approximately 50% of the aid given last year would nevertheless be given to that industry subject to certain conditions. This applies to both the citrus industry and the deciduous fruit and canning industries.

The hon. member also referred to the matter of interest rates, and said that this would be one of the highest costs. Various hon. members raised the matter of interest rates in this debate, and at the outset I want to say that interest rates are a serious and important matter for agriculture at this stage. I want to state my standpoint and the standpoint of the Government in this regard. One cannot totally isolate agriculture from what is happening in the rest of the economy and in the rest of the capital market. One cannot view agriculture in isolation. If one keeps agriculturist’s interest rates artificially at a level which is completely at variance with the market level, one will get distortion, and one will run into serious problems. Our standpoint is that as far as interest rates in agriculture are concerned they should be offered to agriculture in a favoured way, although the trend in the market must be followed. In other words, these rates in agriculture cannot be isolated from the tendencies in the capital market. It is impossible to do so, unless one has unlimited State Funds. We say that the rates can follow the tendency in the market, but that there must constantly be favoured rates as against those prevailing in the open market. In other words, Mr. Chairman, if there were to be a drop in interest rates, it goes without saying that we would lower the interest rates on agricultural credit, and the interest rates of the Land Bank. However, one must follow the market; one cannot isolate it, otherwise one gets excessive pressure and the excessive subsidising of a particular interest rate, which places a further large additional interest burden on the State.

Mr. Chairman, tomorrow I shall have more to say to the hon. member about the decrease in the budget. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to the hon. member with regard to the matter of depopulation.

I now come to the hon. member for Ceres, who made a speech after my own heart. The hon. member emphasized the importance of agriculture in the national economy, and emphasized and spelt out the contribution of agriculture to the national economy and its relative importance, and I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member said. The hon. member pointed out that it was the fundamental aim of agriculture to supply the population with sufficient food at reasonable prices, and that agriculture had done this. He made the point that agriculture had succeeded in doing this. I contend that this is a huge achievement of agriculture in South Africa. If one considers the achievements of agriculture, even on the export market, one finds that success was achieved to a greater or lesser extent in the case of certain industries, but nevertheless I want to contend that agriculture not only satisfies South Africa’s food requirements, but has also become an important supplier of food in Africa. In respect of certain industries, agriculture is also an important supplier to the rest of the world, and is in fact in certain respects considered one of the largest suppliers in the world. I am referring here, inter alia, to the deciduous fruit and canning industries, because in this regard the Republic is considered to be one of the largest suppliers in the world.

The hon. member also pointed out that agriculture was a supplier of raw materials for various secondary industries and that it was also a very important provider of employment.

†Mr. Chairman, I now come to the hon. member for Mooi River. That hon. member is one of the positive members of this House. I want to congratulate him on his speech, and express my appreciation for the kind words he directed to me and my Department. I appreciate, too, the fact that he thanked us for our “open door” attitude, as he put it. We always have open doors for any member of this House, but I want to put on record our appreciation for his words, directed towards me and my Deputy Minister, and also to the Department.

The hon. member referred to the position of agriculture to the north of our borders and to the collapse that took place in the rest of Africa as far as the production of food is concerned. The hon. member also mentioned the fact that the countries to our north blame this decline in food production and this disaster that is taking place on drought. He said, quite rightly, that they use that as an excuse for aid, and that this collapse in food production is due to political changes that have taken place in Africa, and to destabilization in those countries, as a result of which they are not in a position to produce enough food to feed their own people. He also mentioned the fact that they import food from the EEC countries at subsidized prices and that this, to a certain extent, provides competition to exports from South Africa.

The hon. member also made the important point that we in South Africa should increase our agricultural productivity. I agree with the hon. member as far as that is concerned. The hon. member referred to certain structural problems in agriculture, in that we have surpluses in some commodities and shortages in others. He also mentioned, however, that in some instances this was due to the uncertain weather and especially rainfall which we experience in this country of ours. The hon. member made a very valuable point when he said that there was a tendency in South Africa to move away from animal production to the production of cash crops. That, Mr. Chairman, is increasing the risk in agriculture.

As far as extension services are concerned, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that a Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Jacobs, will look into this situation and make recommendations to the Government. The hon. member also mentioned that agricultural financing should not be seen as ordinary commercial financing. I have already put my point of view as far as that is concerned.

The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Ventersdorp, also referred to the question of decentralization, and the benefits to be derived from that. He also referred to a memorandum which will be submitted by the South African Agricultural Union. I shall give my serious attention to that.

*The hon. member made another point I should like to emphasize. He pointed out that control boards and co-operatives play an important role, but that the impression is created among the public that control boards only exist for the benefit of the farmer. The hon. member also made the point that control boards in fact also ensure the consumer greater stability with regard to prices. This is a valid point. It is a point people often conveniently omit to mention. The control system is frequently criticized, but when it comes to the benefits it has for the consumer in the country, there is no dispute as far as I am concerned. I must add, however, that there are certain persons for whose financial interests it is not expedient that there should be control in this country. They are the people who criticize control, and then they use consumer interests as a pretext to ensure that they get a sympathetic hearing. I could quote you examples in this connection. I have already quoted examples in this connection, but for the sake of peace I shall not quote them again this evening.

The hon. member for Malmesbury said that financial problems in agriculture are a world-wide phenomenon. He also referred to the congress of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, where the two major constrictions in world agriculture were identified as high interest rates and the availability of capital. One really feels at home when one hears these words. I agree with the hon. member. The hon. member also said that what worries him—and I also agree with him in this regard—is that after two good years we cannot cope with a drought now. After we had two relatively good years, and we now have a poor year— actually only a poor year relatively speaking—there are serious difficulties in agriculture. This indicates that there must be a fault somewhere in the structure. Sir, that is a very valid point. The cost pincers have a great deal to do with this, but the fact is that it is a problem, and it is of no use when one has a problem to simply ignore it and to pretend that it does not exist. This is a matter which ought to receive the attention of the Government, of organized agriculture, and of everyone who means well by agriculture. I agree with the hon. member that the Land Bank must be enlarged and strengthened because it is an important instrument, together with co-operatives, for satisfying the financing needs of the farmer. There is also a role for the private financial institution to play in agriculture. I do not want to dispute this and I do not want to disparage it either. However, I do want to say that I see the Land Bank and the co-operatives as two of the important institutions in connection with the financing of the farmer. The hon. member also asked if we did not perhaps have too many co-operatives, and whether there should not perhaps be rationalization. In that connection I want to say that the Co-operatives Board and the expert committee of the South African Agricultural Union must take the initiative in this connection.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has replied to the hon. member for Beaufort West, but I just want to add that I feel that the hon. member made a wonderful and moving appeal here this evening, one which really touched me. He made an appeal for the veld and for the farmers of his part of the world. I want to thank the hon. member for the thanks he expressed to the State for the aid given in that connection. I hope and trust that that hon. member’s constituency will receive a good and regular rainfall in the years which lie ahead. Of course the hon. member raised a very important point. He said, inter alia, that we must not price our products out of the market. I do not want to say much about this at this stage. I just wanted to mention it in passing.

†The hon. member for Albany referred to the question of Government stock and to the question of consolidation. I am sympathetic as far as that is concerned, and whenever this is discussed, I shall be sympathetic towards our farmers, but I think the hon. member should take this matter up with my colleagues the Ministers of Finance and of Co-operation and Development.

*Mr. Chairman, I now come to the hon. member for Namakwaland. I want to tell the hon. member for Namakwaland that it must be a privilege to be able to make an appeal for such a wonderful part of the world as that for which the hon. member for Namakwaland made an appeal. Sir, it is a fascinating part of the world, with an allure all its own which moves one’s heart and one’s emotions. The Deputy Minister has already replied to the hon. member, but I just want to add that in my opinion the hon. member raised a very important point when he referred to the matter of provision of fodder in our arid regions. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the South African Agricultural Union are attending to this matter.

The hon. member for Gordonia referred to the “double eight-double nought” of his part of the world. He said the “double eight” is the temperature and the “double nought” is the rainfall. I hope for the hon. member’s sake that the eights and the noughts are reversed for a while so that Gordonia can have some rain.

He is 007!

The hon. member says he is 007. I believe the hon. member is also a private pilot, so one never knows! The hon. member also referred to a problem I referred to before, namely the problem co-operatives have with capital formation. The hon. member asked whether methods could not be found to channel the net surpluses of cooperatives in order to facilitate financing and to build up capital, and if these funds could not at a pinch be invested in the Land Bank. The reply I gave to a previous speaker will suffice, which is that if it is really a problem we could discuss this matter again with my colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance. Sir, I just want to say that he is really sympathetic towards agriculture.

I shall reply to the hon. member for Lichtenburg tomorrow. I do not want to announce the maize price this evening—he must give me until tomorrow!

The hon. member for Parys referred to the very important matter of the depopulation of the rural areas, and the hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to him on this point. The hon. member in fact indicated that the depopulation of the rural areas also has security implications for South Africa. Sir, that is why we dare not underestimate the interests of agriculture, the farmer and the rural areas. I want to thank the hon. member for that point he made. The hon. member also asked that the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit should receive sufficient funds to assist the farmers. In this connection I can just tell him this—and I shall return to this point again tomorrow: As far as the printed estimates are concerned, the amount provided for Agricultural Credit is a preliminary amount. If the need should arise in the future I want to give the assurance that the Government will vote additional funds for this purpose.

The hon. member for Ladybrand referred to the rotating fund. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already referred to this.

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply further to the speeches of other hon. members at a more opportune moment.

Mr. Chairman, before responding to one or two of the items referred to by the hon. the Minister this evening, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Brits when he spoke about the pollution of irrigation water. In many instances this is not entirely due to industrial sources, but comes about as a result of natural pollutants in the water as well. As I have said, I associate myself with his remarks, but I do think that laws which relate to pollution control should have more teeth. It is extremely difficult to get any type of conviction and I certainly hope that this is something which will be looked into. As we know, industries which pollute impose an externality upon society. This is a cost of production which they do not pay, because they can foist it off onto somebody else. When an externality is imposed, it is a clear indication that Government action is required.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister tonight in his speech spoke on the various achievements of agriculture over the last year. He went into some detail on the Grain Research Institute, developments with regard to maize, sunflower hybrids and soya beans, and referred to a number of other achievements as well. In reading through the Annual Report of the Department, one can also not help but be impressed by the amount of research which is being done, especially research based on physical production, diseases, yields, new varieties, and similar research.

In the process a vast store of knowledge is being built up, and I do not think we should forget the contribution that this can make to the rest of Africa. We all know, for example, the contribution it made to Zimbabwe. Their extension service for example, was considered the best in the whole of Africa, and the research they were doing there was also considered to be some of the best in Africa. The people who did that work there were mostly trained in this country. This was the case almost without exception. This was an incredible contribution which we made to that country. This also applies, to a certain extent, to countries further to the north, such as Zambia, for example, and in this context I want to associate myself with remarks of the hon. member for Mooi River and of the hon. the Minister on the contribution which agriculture can make in furthering relations between South Africa and the countries to the north of us. I should like to relate a short story, by way of an example. I was in Zambia last year on business, and could not help but be impressed by the vast agricultural potential there. One also cannot help notice how inefficient agriculture in fact is, and the enormous contribution that South Africa could make in this regard. I saw a number of overseas agencies working there, but in all honesty, the type of contribution they were making was quite inadequate related to the needs of the country. What also struck me was the desire by many of the people in that country for co-operation with us. Virtually no malice at all was expressed towards me by virtue of the fact that I was a South African, and I certainly hope that the initiative that the Prime Minister is now taking will in fact help to improve relations. I am sure that agriculture, through our agricultural research, can make an incredible contribution.

While referring to agricultural research, I should like to say that I think that we put too much emphasis on production-orientated research. We are always looking for improved varieties, improved yields, and this type of thing. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think that in doing this we are neglecting research in the fields of marketing and economics. I hesitate to say that production research has been too successful, but in some countries one might be able to say this, because economic policies are aimed, in some instances, at cutting down on production. For example, quota systems are aimed at cutting down on production. We have land retirement systems, and so on. We also have similar policies here in South Africa.

Most speakers today have dealt with the financial problems of farmers. The hon. Minister has mentioned structural problems in agriculture as such. It is in this field that I feel economic research can play an important role. Just by way of an example, we are waiting for the hon. the Minister to announce the maize price tomorrow. The type of research which I believe we should be interested in relates to the maize price which is to a large extent based on production costs. However, do we in fact know what effect this method of determining price has on land values? There are many people who believe that basing a price on production costs in fact pushes up land values. I think research could answer this question.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he has any suggestions as far as the maize price is concerned?

R145. What does the determination of prices on this basis for example do to land use patterns? The hon. member for Namaqualand earlier spoke eloquently on desert encroachment. However, we are perhaps making some crops so attractive that people plough up the desert where they should not be ploughing at all. This is the kind of research where I believe we should put a lot more emphasis. How will the determination of the maize price tomorrow for example affect dairy and beef farmers? How will it affect the demand for the product? We all know what it is going to do to the costs of the inputs. I believe this is important.

Another thing I think we should look at is the financing of agriculture. This has been dealt with in some depth today and a lot of statements have been made in this regard. Is agriculture for example worse off now than it was a number of years back? In some sectors it might be, but I do not believe the debt equity ratio in agriculture in many sectors is worse now than some years back. In most sectors it is far better than it is in commerce. Is there a price cost squeeze? Yes, for some sectors and for other sectors, no. When we look at a price cost squeeze, we cannot simply look at ratios. We have to look at what happens to the quality of the inputs and we have to look at what happens to yields as well. These and many other accusations against agriculture, like those mentioned by the hon. member for Ventersdorp, e.g. criticism of control boards, could be sorted out by more sound economic research. I hope the hon. the Minister will in fact give more attention to directing research in this direction.

I should also like to refer very briefly to one other matter which was mentioned today, i.e. the question of border area problems, homeland consolidation, etc. All these relate to the redistribution of land for different reasons. I want to make a plea that we should in fact remove agricultural land from the political arena. I do not believe it has any business being there at all. The purpose of land, I think, is to provide a nation with its food and fibre and policy should be aimed at in fact maintaining the productive capacity of that land. If we look at the distribution of land in South Africa we find that it is very unevenly distributed amongst Whites. Only a small percentage of farmers own most of the land. Nobody really minds that. There is also the same situation amongst Black people. Therefore, redistribution of land to Black people is not in fact going to give the vast majority of them any significant amount of land at all. They will therefore be exactly where they are. It is not going to add much to productive capacity of that land as well. The only way to take the land question out of the political arena is in fact …

Are you saying that they cannot produce?

I am saying that they can but what I am trying to do is to get land out of the political arena. I believe the only way to do this is to make land available for anybody to purchase. One might say that this is Prog policy, but the hon. member for Klip River has already opened the door to that. That is the reason why I bring it up today. He said that in black spot removals Blacks should in fact be entitled to stay on and farm the land productively.

Who is he?

The hon. member for Klip River said that. I could not believe my ears when I heard it, but I believe that that is important. What we want are stable prosperous Black farmers, particularly in border areas. I think that by opening up the whole land question, and letting anybody come in as long as they can farm properly, we can in fact depoliticize the whole land issue.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to research and the hon. the Minister referred to the stock industry. I should like to exchange a few ideas about this.

The importance of the stock industry derives from the fact that approximately 70% of the total surface area of South Africa comprises natural veld, and accordingly most of it can only be utilized from stock production. South Africa is pre-eminently a stock breeding country, and accordingly the importance of the industry cannot be over-emphasized. Moreover, the importance of this industry is further emphasized by the fact that the total gross value of animal products during 1979-’80 comprised R2 105 million of the total agricultural production of R5 712 million, viz. 37% of the total agricultural production. In addition, it is a recognized fact that Britain, Europe and North America are showing great interest in the exploitation of the stock breeding potential of countries in Southern Africa, including South Africa. We must therefore take due cognizance of this fact, and accordingly the South African stock farming industry must not only try to meet the local needs of the country, but must also provide the necessary adapted breeding material to the other African countries. In this way important bridges to the countries north of us can also be built, as hon. members have already pointed out.

Over the past number of years all sectors of the livestock industry, and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries as well, have realized not only the essential need for change in the methods used by the stock farming industry, but also the essential need for all facets of this industry to be placed on a properly co-ordinated basis, to enable the entire stock farming industry to meet the future needs of the country and our neighbouring States. The breeding and upgrading of animals is a long-term process, Sir, and to ensure that the breeding policy being implemented at present will be meaningful, it must be based on the expectations and needs of the future.

Accordingly, it is clear that the South African Stud Book Association must play a key role in the stock farming industry of the Republic of South Africa and the primary task of the stud book stock industry is to provide the commercial producer with improved genetic breeding material. Sir, over the past number of years the Association has been confronted with the challenge of keeping abreast of technological development in the field of animal production in order to place stud book stock breeding on an increasingly scientific basis. The Association has accepted these challenges and in recent times has been devoting itself with unflagging zeal to placing stud book stock breeding and animal production on a scientific basis by the use of modern breeding techniques and aids.

Sir, over the past number of years, the Association has also undergone a total metamorphosis in many respects. Whereas previously, activities were mainly concerned with keeping pedigrees up to date, nowadays this has become a matter of secondary importance, while the primary function centres around the genetic improvement of animals. Artificial insemination, ovum transplants and performance and progeny testing are at present being judiciously utilized and encouraged in the stud book stock industry.

Sir, the Association is also doing everything in its power to encourage stud book stock breeders to link up with the national performance and progeny tests schemes of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in order to make maximum use of the modern and scientific aids, so as to ensure that breeding animals that are substantially superior in terms of genetic production potential are provided to the industry, and so that an animal’s registration certificate must be an indication of the real genetic superiority and not merely a proof of pedigree. It was with this in mind that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the South African Stud Book Association decided in 1977 on the joint development of an integrated computer system. This system not only accommodates the registration of stud stock but integrates all national performance and progeny test schemes, and therefore does not only makes provision for the improvement of stud animals but also gives rise to improvements in the national herd. The computerization and integration of registrations of all stock breeds, as well as the national performance and progeny test schemes, demanded ingenuity and perseverance of the highest order from the staff of the Department and also the Association. I want to pay them the highest tribute this evening. It is a system of vast proportions, highly sophisticated and complex. It will facilitate identification and expedite and facilitate the use of superior breeding material by means of the most modern breeding techniques, to the maximum benefit of the industry.

In view of these improvements and the integrated performance and progeny test schemes and a computerized registration system, it can be contended without fear of contradiction that the South African Stud Book Association is one of the best-organized livestock industries in the world, and our stud breeders are in the forefront.

Sir, when the total computer system is in operation, it will be the only system in the whole world that provides for all the various aspects of all breeds or farm stock. It will also be unique in the sense that it makes simultaneous provision for the needs of the stud breeder and the commercial breeder who participates in the national performance and progeny testing. The hon. the Minister referred to that here and said that the private sector should play its part as well. Just to give you an idea, Sir, of the extent of the livestock breeding industry in South Africa I could mention that the total amount utilized during 1981 by the various stock breeding societies in the stud livestock industry towards promotion of the industry was an amount of R2,7 million. This does not include the cost of the computer. Up to the end of 1981 the State had already contributed an amount of more than R500 000 to the project, directly from its own funds and indirectly from the funds of the control boards, and that does not even include the value of the free use of the computer.

Sir, in the past I have often made appeals for financial aid, both within and outside this House, to the former hon. Minister and the present hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and also the hon. the Minister of Finance. This evening, however, I wish to place on record the thanks and appreciation of the South African Stud Book Association and the entire stock farming industry for the ample financial support to date and the fact that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, together with the Stud Book Association, will finance this vast project from beginning to end.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the praise expressed by the hon. member for Smithfield who has just been discussing the Stud Book Association. It was a great day for me when the Stud Book began to register superior animals instead of merely placing on record superior owners. This is something which took place in the past. I am also grateful for the assistance granted by the department in this regard and the contribution they have made towards bringing it about. In the merino industry in particular this entails benefits which will to a large extent be reflected in future in the economy of merino farmers.

At the start of my speech I just wish to thank the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister’s replies and to how he views and deals with the problems of agriculture. This again left me with the impression that the men who are in control of agriculture, the hon. the Minister and his department, are aware of what is going on. They know what is happening and they have a clear vision as to what is to be done.

Therefore, when I discuss certain problems today the Minister must not regard it as criticism. It is just to get the discussion going, because difficulties do crop up in the industry, and one sometimes has to discuss them. I have just returned from my constituency. In my constituency I encountered certain aspects which are causing the farmers some concern. There are a few problems that require attention. We have a degree of drought which has only been alleviated by rain in certain regions. We are very grateful, Mr. Chairman, for the tremendous assistance granted to farmers in these drought-stricken areas. It is not only the farmers that have been assisted. Because farmers have been assisted to survive, the small towns, too, are surviving, and together with the small towns, the schools and the infrastructure on the platteland. This is not a welfare service that has been rendered to the farmer. It was a survival effort. We know that such debt has to be repaid and I can give hon. members the assurance that the people of the North West are aware that it must be repaid and that they will repay it. When we look at the history of those who tamed the North West and we see where they began and what they achieved, it is clear that they did not achieve it under a welfare economy. They achieved it on their own, and they became citizens of the country who also made their contribution to the Treasury. However, there are circumstances which the hon. the Minister mentioned, such as rainfall, over which there is no control. The average rainfall of that region is four or five inches, or 150 to 200 mm per annum. During the years 1975 and 1976, six inches of rain did not fall. Between 60 and 100 inches of rain fell whereas in fact we should only have had 10 inches. This caused the grass to grow. Now people are saying that in a sense the North West is being over-exploited and that the desert is approaching. There are farmers who are today still living on the grass of 1975 and 1976. These are not men who are over-exploiting their land. They are looking after it. Therefore this new drought relief plan which the hon. the Minister is going to set in operation and which has been drawn up by the department with great insight—I am grateful to them for that—is something that the people will understand and accept. We are not really sheep farmers. We are shrub and grass farmers. It is simply that we market the shrubs and grass in the form of wool, meat and skins. If we have no grass, we cannot keep sheep. Therefore it is wrong to refer to us as wool, sheep or cattle farmers. We are shrub farmers, and we shall look after our shrubs. I thank the hon. the Minister for the aid he is providing in this regard and its implementation in the future.

Survival in the North West is beset by problems, and we need plans to solve these problems. These plans we obtain from the results of research. If we lack those plans, it is more difficult for us to survive. We in the platteland have an acute shortage of information wherewith to confront these problems. I again appeal to the hon. the Minister to look into the matter of research. I thank him for the commission that has been appointed to investigate this, but in the meantime we are feeling the pinch. We are seeking information. Our experience is that a breach has occurred between the department and our universities, the sources that usually provide us with the information. We must reconsider this situation with a view to bringing them together again so that there is not so much duplication and so that we can be provided with extension and advice from the sources from which they have been available in the past. Let us forget the disputes that have arisen in the past in this regard and build on what we shall need in the future. This is what we need.

Another problem I have encountered in my constituency is that there are karakul farmers who are facing difficult circumstances. One necessarily cuts one’s coat according to one’s cloth. In this instance the karakul veld, or to put it another way, the karakul farmer’s cloth from which he has to cut his coat, has dwindled. There is no longer as great a demand for it abroad as in the past. Apart from that, he is suffering from a drought and is producing a product which, according to the old grading standards, was not acceptable to the meat market. Accordingly the reserves of these farmers are exhausted. Mr. Chairman, I am not pleading for charity here. I am requesting aid as a possible alternative for the solution of the problem. The farmers will survive. Even if they do not receive aid, they will survive. These people know about starting afresh. They have started afresh before. However, it is more difficult now than before because there are young farmers who have to come back to the farm. The young farmer in particular is having a hard time of it. The older farmer has ploughed all his reserves into survival and now, at the age of 60 to 65 years, he has virtually no assets in the bank. How, then, is he to transfer his farm to his successor, the young man who has to take over? There is no money available with which to buy what is necessary. There are several problems in this regard. I thank the hon. the Minister for the assistance by way of money for advertising which the karakul farmer can invest in for his product. Now, however, the farmer comes to me and says that the karakul farmer of South West Africa receives a subsidy on his product, whereas he does not. What, then, is the distinction between the farmer in South Africa and the farmer in South West? I should like the hon. the Minister to explain this aspect in terms of the difference between the karakul farmer of South West and the possibilities in this country for the karakul farmer to switch to other industries, and to outline to us the assistance given to the karakul farmer specifically to enable him to make the change and become viable again.

Finally there is another problem in terms of meat grading. A new system has been introduced which is more consumer-orientated; in other words, the system now delivers top grade, the product the consumer wants. There are teething problems in any new system, but now it is being found that the new system is being inconsistently implemented. That is what the farmer is finding, and he is losing money as a result. Moreover, the grading differs from centre to centre. The farmer is not asking that the system be thrown out in its entirety. He is asking that control be exercised so that we may eliminate the teething problems with as little delay as possible. This control should be exercized by the department whose task it is to supervise the grading. Here, too, the karakul farmer is in difficulties, because his product, which could in fact be promoted by this new system, is now being discriminated against. In terms of the proportion of fat, meat and bone, karakul meat is the best meat and gives the best proportion of virtually all the breeds in existence.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Prieska. I think it is well known to all hon. members in this House that he speaks with feeling about an extremely hardy and independent breed of farmers who put up with all sorts of extremes in weather conditions and who are very much an integral part of the livestock industry in South Africa which requires specific attention to meet its problems.

I should just like in passing to indicate to the hon. the Minister, whilst it is not his portfolio, that there is a problem in relation to the availability of drilling machines. I have already spoken to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs. There is a shortage of funds, but it is a very short-sighted policy to limit the availability of machines in situations such as we are going through now, especially in the more arid areas and to leave the position until the last moment when there is going to be an absolute outcry for assistance. People hang on until the last possible moment, hoping for rain and some form of assistance. However, there comes a time when one starts making provision for the likelihood of extreme shortages. I think that right now the question of the provision of drilling services is something that we must look at very seriously and perhaps we should start to get it back into gear.

I should like to compliment the hon. the Minister and his Department on the report. The subject is so wide that naturally it is only possible to touch on every specific department. However, it gives an indication of the tremendous spectrum of subjects and detail with which they have to deal. Somehow, throughout this report there is a tone of optimism, of “deursettingsvermoë” and of application to the task ahead of them. It reads well and deals with people who are concerned with a tremendous task in an industry which is beset by enormous variable factors. Despite that, there is not the slightest feeling of anybody being daunted by the task. However, I should like to say that a lack in the report is the presence of a chapter on the people who the Department serves and the demographic projections in the agricultural sphere. There is nothing in this report about the number of farmers, the number of farm units and matters of that nature which I think would go very well with the report. It is an area which has been very much to the fore this evening in relation to the establishment of young farmers and the question of meeting the challenges of the future.

Also in passing I should just like to mention a point which has not been mentioned so far this evening about the Explanatory Memorandum which we have before us. I think it seems to have slipped by somehow, and it it is deserving of mention. Paragraph 322 on page 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum reads as follows and I quote—

This action cost R90 000, but it saved the country millions of rands. I think that is a paragraph worthy of special mention. I should like to congratulate the personnel concerned. That is real immediate action. They took immediate action in a situation which could bring about very unpleasant circumstances which could cost the country a great deal of money. I think that the department concerned and its officials and this type of action taken are worthy of a congratulatory note from this House. I mention it because I think this is something that this department requires to emphasize. I refer to more immediate action and more reaction to circumstances in which it finds people.

There is another report relating to planning. The planning portion is a very optimistic one and it relates to the type of information in which potential farming enterprises, yield norms and production can be identified. It states that approximately two-thirds of the total area of the country has been completed and that the above programme will be financially strongly supported as trained personnel become available. Mr. Chairman, I think that this touches in very well with something that I should like to mention here, namely the forward planning of exactly where we are going in agriculture, targets within given areas such as the areas that have been defined in this sort of research, and the type of action that we are likely to be required to take in the future.

There is one small point that I should like to make. We all know the gentleman by the name of Simon Fisk who writes for the Farmer’s Weekly. There is an article in the Farmer’s Weekly of 2 April 1982: “Objectives—who needs them”? The answer is: “South African agriculture does and each control board should publish its own set of policy objectives”. I think this is a very important aspect of agriculture. No less a person than Dr. Simon Brand was there and he let the audience know what sort of muddle South Africa had got itself into. He made it clear that we would not get out of it easily and suggested that we should make up our minds which of our cherished aspirations we really want to salvage. He said that our central problem was that we lacked clear objectives. I think that what we are going for, is terribly important in relation to the small farmer and the farming population. It is very well summed up in this article, where it is stated that Dr. Brand’s rhetoric suddenly brought them face to face with the fact that they did not have an objective. Most of them have been floundering in the dark: Do we want more small farmers, fewer bigger farmers or a mixture of both? There are all sorts of question marks in the farming community about the sort of direction that we are going in today. We have had people mentioning the fall-off in the number of farmers from 116 000 in 1950 tot 71 000 at the present date. We have had some excellent input in relation to the young farmer being re-established. In previous debates, I myself have mentioned matters concerning the young farmer and I should like to say that this is an area where the reaction by the Department has really been painfully slow.

In last year’s debate on the question of the young farmers, I think I quoted from a commission as far back as 1966, and those words read as well today as they did then. The words were—

There are many other recommendations by the commission in this regard. One of them is very pertinent, and I quote—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support the idea advanced by the hon. member for King William’s Town with regard to the establishment of objectives in agriculture, and specifically, objectives to be set by the farmer on his farm to be able to plan and budget for his expenditure and by so doing to ensure that he conducts his business on a profitable basis.

However, what I particularly wish to discuss today is the lack of availability of funds for research. Before coming to that, however, I just wish to say that after two reasonably good agricultural years one would have expected that in a debate such as this, this afternoon and this evening, great satisfaction would have been expressed by all the hon. members who took part. To some extent satisfaction was indeed expressed, but recently one has gained the impression that there is a restlessness in the minds of all those who have taken part in this debate. I, too, have experienced that feeling, and I think that we cannot take it amiss of the speakers, as well as the farmers, because for some of us the road ahead perhaps seems dark. This is so against the background of rising production costs. For example, we have seen that the production costs or operating costs in farming have increased by approximately 16% per annum over the past two years. Then, too, agricultural debt in 1980 increased by 19% in comparison with 1979. Against the background of the assets in agriculture, this in itself is not a major problem. However, in view of the high interest rates that have to be paid nowadays— other speakers have also referred to this this evening—this is indeed a source of concern, because interest has to be paid on that money. It has also been calculated that the increased amount of interest will be between R300 million and R400 million per annum. That represents the increase in interest alone. Then, when one considers the sources of financing—and reference was made to that, too, earlier in the debate—one can expect that even the Land Bank and the co-operatives will necessarily have to demand market-related interest rates, which will remain just below the rates asked by the ordinary commercial banks. We must recognize that this could be so, and it is cause for concern.

Mr. Chairman, it is against this background that the following statement is made: If, as in the past, expenses continue to rise, what are we in the agricultural sector going to do to ensure that we shall be able to produce food at prices profitable to the farmer and also within the reach of the consumer? My conclusion is that this can only be done by way of more and better research. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that unless the Government devotes a far greater portion of its budget to agricultural research and extension, we shall indeed encounter problems on the road ahead.

In 1980-’81 this Vote comprised a mere 3,27% of the total budget, and this year it has dropped to 2,19%. The hon. the Minister is already aware of this and he has said he will react to it tomorrow. However, when one considers this figure it does seem as if the agricultural sector is to some extent being neglected by the Government. If one takes into account the funds set aside for food subsidies, we find that the actual amount that can be spent on agriculture is extremely low. It is not, therefore, surprising to note that relatively little money is being spent on research in agriculture. I say this without criticizing the officials involved. There is a limited amount of money available. I think that they utilize the available money effectively, but when we consider our expenditure in comparison with that of other developed countries we see that the figure is extremely low. As a percentage of our gross domestic product it is somewhere between 0,5% and 0,6%, while in other developed countries it can be up to four times this percentage. When one considers the report one sees that there is a real shortage of researchers and a shortage of extension officers in the agricultural sector. Accordingly I ask: Are we not trying to spread our extension officers too thinly? There is competition among control boards, commerce, co-operatives and the department to obtain and retain the services of those men. Everyone is competing for the manpower, and as a result it is distributed too widely and too sparsely. I ask the hon. the Minister whether we should not decide who is to be responsible for extension in South Africa. I know that as far as commerce is concerned there is not much one can do about it. One cannot compel those people not to make use of extension officers. However, I believe that one could indeed reach agreement among the control boards, the co-operatives and the department. As I see the matter, it is not the function of a control board to carry out extension work.

How can you say such a thing?

One must decide where the extension can be done in the most economic way. If there were a surplus of men who could do that work, there would not be a problem, but there is a shortage of manpower, and how best are we to utilize the available manpower? That is the question I wish to answer.

Who do you say must do it?

I am dealing with that. I propose that the department should do it.

Why then do you not say so? Why do you want the State to say it?

I am dealing with it. The question was put to me and I am now answering it. I say that I do not think that it is the function of a control board to do this. Secondly, I also think that in the circumstances it is not the function of a co-operative to do it. My proposal is that it should rather be done by the department. I shall tell you why I say this. [Interjections.] I would say that traditionally extension has been done by the department, and because there is a shortage of manpower I propose that this arrangement be continued.

Are you opposed to co-operatives doing it?

I am giving you very good reasons for it. In the first place the Government is deeply involved in basic research, and the department has access to and control of research stations. In other words, it is meaningful that extension will be based there. In the second place, the department already has a nucleus of good staff it can use and therefore that, too, is meaningful. Thirdly, funds are voted by the State for extension because this is to the benefit of the State as a whole. It is to the benefit of the farmer and the producer, but in the long run it is, of course, to the benefit of the consumer as well—or call him the taxpayer if you will. I therefore believe that the funds made available to the department could be meaningfully used in this way. That, then, is my proposal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ignore the speech by the hon. member for Wynberg totally. This speech of his should have been made this afternoon. The only reason he made it this evening was that he believed that fishing affairs have more publicity value. That is why he spoke early this afternoon.

The Nie Treurnicht Commission, of which I was a member, recommended that the post of Deputy Director General be established and that the occupant of this post should be based in Cape Town. The White Paper states that further consideration should be given to this proposal, this recommendation by the commission. In the meantime Dr. Serfontein, who is well-known in agricultural circles, has been appointed as Director of Fisheries, and he is based in Cape Town. He is Chief Director. I wish to express the hope this evening that he will make a success of his new office. I am convinced that he will. I congratulate him and offer him my co-operation. I also wish to express the hope that one central head office for Fisheries will be established in Cape Town, not in various buildings, but in one building.

As far as the F.D.C. is concerned, the White Paper stated that the future role of the F.D.C. would be further investigated. I want to say this about the F.D.C. this evening: Over the years the F.D.C. has played an exceptionally important role in the development of the fishing industry. Its activities have always been limited, however, due to a lack of funds, and I wish to express the hope this evening that greater responsibilities will be entrusted to the F.D.C., particularly with regard to fresh water research, the farming of fish and research into fishing gear. I also wish to express the hope that this recommendation of the Treurnicht Commission be carried out.

As far as the inspectorate is concerned, according to the White Paper the inspection services of the Fisheries Department are totally inadequate. I wish to tell you that ten years ago the Du Plessis Commission also referred to the ineffectiveness of the inspection services. New staff are now to be sought and better conditions of service, such as overtime remuneration, housing and subsidized transport are to be offered. I welcome this and I hope that this will lead to better management of fisheries here in the Cape.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg discussed the recent events in False Bay this afternoon. Has he not read that sworn statements and other documents have already been handed over to the Police? Does he only read the headlines in the newspapers? There have been serious malpractices over a long period, but seldom has there been proof of them. Since a full-scale investigation, ordered by the Minister himself, has now been instituted I think that there is a strong possibility that all malpractices are going to be exposed.

We are all aware of the achievements of the South African fishing industry, particularly in the postwar years. South Africa is one of the twelve most important countries in the world as far as the exploitation of marine resources is concerned. We meet the needs of Southern Africa as far as food is concerned. We earn more than R100 million per annum by way of foreign exchange. South Africa’s share in world catches is approximately 500 000 metric tons.

†Only the catches of Russia and Japan, which amount to 10 million metric tons each, are far in excess of South Africa’s catch. However, the fact remains that all our marine resources are in danger of being over-exploited, and some are in real danger of total collapse because of over-exploitation.

One of the greatest problems is the inadequacy of research in respect of resources. That is why the Africana, a new research vessel, is so welcome. Another reason is the fact that marine biologists all over the world have proved to be unable to determine in advance when a marine resource is in danger of collapsing. That is why I maintained in the Fishing Commission that Dr. Lochner should be accorded the recognition that I believe he deserves. That is still my view.

The report of the Nic Treurnicht Commission states that our marine resources are a national asset and the White Paper agrees that they are the common property of all the people of South Africa. These marine resources have been exploited by concession holders. Concessions were granted to these concession holders by the Government of the day. They did not acquire the concessions by tender, they did not buy them from the State. The concessions were awarded to them by the State. Many present concession holders bought their concessions from former concession holders, and their transfer was very seldom, if ever, refused by the Department. I want to say tonight that it is high time that some of these concession holders, many of whom have been given “a licence to print money”, were told in no uncertain manner that a concession is a privilege, granted by the State, to exploit a resource belonging to the peoples of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the concession holders are entitled to a reasonable reward for their skill, their initiative and their investment. However, they are not entitled to screw the small man out of business, they are not entitled to exploit those who are forced by regulation to supply their product to them, like the perlemoen divers and private boat owners in the crayfish and pelagic fishing industries, and they are not entitled to monopolize a resource and do with that resource what they like. Too many of these concession holders have taken what they can while they can, regardless of the consequences to the resources of South Africa and South West Africa. Some resources have practically been destroyed by their avarice, by their greed and by the pressures that they were able to exert on advisory committees, on boat limitation committees and on the officials of former departments of State as a result of their economic muscle and as a result of their monopolistic power. I say that, in the interests of the public, it is high time that the role in society of the small man, the ratepayer, the resident, the small businessman, the holidaymaker and the tourist was seen in a fairer perspective than has been the case to date.

The recommendations of the Nic Treurnicht Commission admirably emphasized the point that I am making tonight. For example, the Nic Treurnicht Commission says that 25% of the crayfish quota should be sold locally at all landing points in packings as small as 2 kg. I am disappointed that it is said in the White Paper that, regarding this matter, further discussion with the industry is needed. Why? For many years the industry has been supposed, through Safroc, to have supplied the local market with 10% of the crayfish quota. It made no serious effort whatsoever to do so, because the prices it received overseas were higher than the prices it would have received locally. Secondly, what it did make available to the public, was made available in such large packings that very few members of the public could afford them.

In my opinion tourism, hotels, restaurants and the South African public are more important to South Africa than lining the pockets of monopolistic concession holders. I want to urge the hon. the Minister tonight to implement this recommendation with the opening of the coming season on the 1st of November.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the friendly hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for Wynberg.

†Let this proportion be sold at all landing points on the West Coast and in the Peninsula. With regard to perlemoen, I am deeply concerned at the state of this resource. In my opinion, there may be no legal-sized perlemoen left in 5 years’ time. The Nic Treurnicht Commission recommended that 50% of the perlemoen quota should be marketed locally. There is no need to speak to the concession holders; they have had it too good for too long and they have treated the divers, for example, in that industry shamefully. Even after the Commission had expressed alarm at monopolistic tendencies in the perlemoen industry, the KDB perlemoen quota was sold to another quota holder very recently, thereby creating a still greater monopoly. And it was done with the permission and the authority of the Department.

The handline fishermen, the skiboat fishermen and the anglers operate mainly on the South Coast and the East Coast. Snoek is by far the most important line-fish; it is a traditional fish here in the Cape. In 1976 the handliner caught 4 670 000 snoek and the trawlers 702 000, but in 1980 the line fishermen caught 679 000 and the trawlers 3 050 000. However, it is stated in the White Paper that the snoek catch is incidental to the trawler catch and that discussions will have to be held with the industry. Why should discussions be held with the industry? I want to say that I hope that the hon. the Minister will say to these trawling companies: “Cut it out! Stop it, or be penalized.”

The yellow-tail is another traditional line-fish in South Africa. It is being caught off Struisbaai and off the Agulhas Bank, where there is very ineffective patrolling, and I want to say tonight how pleased I am that there is shortly to be another patrol boat at Mossel Bay.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to refer to the question of purse-seine netting in bays and trek netting off our beaches. The Nic Treurnicht Commission recommends that both False Bay and Walker Bay be closed to purse-seine netting and that trek netting in both those areas by drastically reduced. For years this has been urged. Since 1956 False Bay has been open. The system of patrol boats and demarcation buoys has not worked. A shorter season of 3½ months for False Bay is not the answer. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that every single local authority, every tourist and publicity association and every angling and line-fishing association has pleaded for the closing of the bay. Do they not count for anything? What recently happened in False Bay with trek netting and bait-boat netting in the case of steenbras, is only the tip of the iceberg. For a long time yellow-tail, geelbek, kabeljou and elf, all line-fish, have been caught illegally by boats with bait-net licences. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he has made an excellent start with his new portfolio. He has impressed me enormously with the grip that he has on the problems, and there are very real problems in this industry. The new Chief Director of Fisheries is enthusiastically trying to come to grips with the problems. As a result of this Commission and the activities of the Department, we have a new Fisheries dispensation in the offing. I want to make an appeal tonight: Let us make a fresh start and let us remember that, as the Treurnicht Commission said, our marine resources are a natural asset of the public of South Africa. Let the public of South Africa also have the privilege of participating in some of South Africa’s marine resources, at least in the bays, in the inshore waters and off the beaches, along the 3 thousand mile stretch of coast bordering on the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, it pleases me to follow the hon. member for Simon’s Town and I want to associate myself with the congratulations he conveyed to Dr. Serfontein on the assumption of his new office. We in the agricultural industry have come to know Dr. Serfontein well and from the experience we have gained of him, I have no difficulty in saying that it is with great confidence that we look forward to his handling of his obligations in this regard. I join the hon. member for Simon’s Town in telling Dr. Serfontein that we shall afford him our most cordial co-operation, and I want to wish him well in his new office.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the White Paper which was published, I want to say that we are grateful for the steps which have already been taken by the department after the publication of the Report of the Commission. I want to add that to us as interested parties in the industry and as concerned citizens of the country it was alarming to learn of the excessive and uncontrolled exploitation of the marine resources, which have already been harmed by this exploitation, as indicated in paragraph 8 on page 2 of the Report of the Commission. I want to express the positive confidence that the hon. the Minister, as a relatively new Minister of the Fisheries Division, as well as the department will not make the same mistake as those made in the past and that they will act, with an exclamation mark behind the word “act”.

Mr. Chairman, I am expressing this confidence for another reason as well. I am expressing it on the basis of the way in which the Deputy Director in charge of with Fisheries, Dr. Aggenbach, has dedicated himself to this new office and has made an in-depth study of this new industry. This has impressed the majority of us involved in this industry. It creates confidence to see how well informed he is, how well he is handling the matter and what a serious view he is taking of the present situation as it applies to our marine resources.

I am expressing this confidence in view of the fact that the present hon. the Minister and his officials, charged with Fisheries, are probably the last people who find themselves in a position to do more about the South African marine resources than merely to write the history of those resources. The people who will come after them will, in my opinion, no longer find themselves in a position to save the resources as it will by then be too late. A heavy responsibility rests on the hon. the Minister and his department and in this regard I want to tell them on behalf of my constituency, Caledon, that we want to offer them our wholehearted co-operation and support in their endeavours to protect the industry and the resources.

In this spirit and with this attitude I want to refer to a few aspects from the White Paper, and I want to confine myself to two local matters. In the first place I want to refer to abalone. As regards the Commission’s recommendation that reserves be established, I want to thank the department for the measures already taken in this regard, but I want to add that it is my impression that this measure—I am referring to the establishment of the closed coastal strip of 185 metres—has not really been of any help since it was not accompanied by a restriction being placed on the length of the air pipes of the divers. What is happening now is that the diver anchors his small boat far beyond the closed zone and then simply enters the closed zone of 185 metres under water and removes all the abalone.

I also want to refer to the recommendation of the Commission that abalone sanctuaries be established. It is stated in the White Paper that the matter will be referred for further scientific investigation to determine whether the establishment of abalone sanctuaries can be justified. In this regard one asks oneself what further scientific investigation should be undertaken. By means of physical observation one can see that this resource has been wiped out and that there are no abalone left. So for what reason do we still want to undertake scientific investigations before proclaiming a sanctuary? In this regard my request to the hon. the Minister is that the coastal area between Hangklip and Agulhas should be divided into zones which will be closed to exploitation in rotation for a period of five years. In view of the over-exploitation which has already occurred, I address the polite request to the hon. the Minister that the proclamation and zoning of these areas be dealt with as a matter of absolute urgency. In order to afford further protection to this resource I want to ask the Minister to give consideration to extending the closed zone of 185 metres to 250 metres and that at the same time a restriction be imposed on the air pipe of the diver restricting its length to a maximum of 45 metres. In addition only one diver and one boatman should be allowed per fishing boat. In the third place I want to ask that more honorary inspectors be appointed to assist the inspector, and that these honorary inspectors be vested with powers more or less in keeping with those given to police reservists when they register as reservists.

A diver is even more crafty than a farmer.

As regards the local availability of the products concerned, it seems to me, as far as abalone is concerned, that the hon. the Minister will have to take an unpopular decision in this regard, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to allocate part of the abalone quota to the Gansbaai Fish Corporation for the purpose of making that quota of abalone available on the local market. If we were to leave this to the industry, they would tell us that there is no demand on the domestic market, and that would not be strange as the price would simply be fixed in such a way that there would be no demand. I think the only remedy for this state of affairs is for part of the quota to be allocated to the co-operative in this area.

I also want to refer in brief to beach-seine net permits at Walker Bay. The Commission recommends that the beach-seine net permits be withdrawn, and unfortunately I have to put it courteously to the hon. the Minister that the standpoint in the White Paper is inadequate. As far as I know no beach-seine net permits have been withdrawn during the past two years. I have information at my disposal, signed by witnesses, which I have here with me, indicating that the present permit holders are abusing their permits recklessly by carrying out raids into prohibited areas and that permit holders are trawling fish of any size on a tremendous scale, even in their breeding places. I have evidence at my disposal of a particular group of beach-seine fishermen, who were engaged in illegal fishing activities, threatening people who came to investigate. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Caledon made an interesting speech and there is very little that we, in these benches, can find to disagree on, and I would like to associate myself with his remarks. We also associate ourselves to a large degree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Simon’s Town on conservation matters. I am sure that all of us in this House are concerned about the preservation and conservation of our natural resources, particularly of our marine resources.

Before I raise the topic of my speech I want to put one or two pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Simon’s Town mentioned his concern about the position of the small man in the marine fishing industry. We do know that there are a large number of the smaller boat-holders and fishermen in the industry who find themselves in a very awkward position today, particularly with regard to the competition that they face in relation to the large concession holders. I am sure that we would like to hear what the hon. the Minister’s thoughts are on this important matter.

The second question I want to ask the hon. the Minister concerns the rejection of the recommendations concerning zoning in the White Paper. The hon. the Minister’s comments on this will also be appreciated. A representative of one of the “smaller people” that we spoke of earlier, has asked us specifically to ask the Minister when the private boat owners’ association can expect the second payments for the last season’s rock-lobster catch. The first payment was evidently made well before Christmas and they are still waiting to get their “agterskot”.

That is a “middelskot”.

I am sure that they would appreciate both a “middelskot” and an “agterskot”.

I want to refer in broad and general terms to the historical background to the vexed problems which we have discussed here this evening. What is of concern to me, is that mankind’s technology in general with regard to the fishing industry, has been directed towards exploiting the sea’s resources rather than husbanding them. In terms of our general attitude towards the sea and its riches, we are really but little better than Stone Age-man, who hunted and gathered but who paid scant heed to the husbandry of resources. It was only when population pressures on earth began to build up, that the hunters and gatherers became aware of the fact that the earth was not an inexhaustible cornucopia of venison, game and wild fruits. It was only then that he began to turn his mind towards mastering the technology of animal and crop husbandry. The nomad hunter then became the settled farmer. Today we find that, to a large extent, our fishermen and whalers are still no more than nomadic hunters who go out each day to hunt down the fish wherever they might be. The big difference today, of course, is that the weapons which they use are no longer simple spears or basket nets, but rather modern boats fitted out with all the marvels of space age technology which give the fish hardly any chance at all. Sonar beams track down the shoals, and miles of mesh net trailed behind high-powered boats make sure that very little escapes. In the whaling industry one finds harpoons fitted with explosive heads, these together with the ruthless eye of the sonar screen appear to be making certain that certain species will survive only in picture books for our children’s generation.

It is true that governments around the world, our own Government included, do attempt to control this exploitation. But how effective are these controls? How is it, that in the latter half of the 20th century, within the spaces of perhaps 15 years, we have allowed our own priceless fishing resources to be raped and plundered to the point where it is questionable they will ever return to a state of productivity again. Each day the hunters go out, but now they return home empty-handed in the evening. Is it not time that the hunter turned farmer? Is it not time that we took the task of husbanding the sea more seriously then we have done up till now. The White Paper on the Exploitation of Marine Resources makes provision for example for levies for research purposes as well as other measures of control, but is this enough? What are we doing towards building up our fresh water resources for example? In this regard the hon. member for Simon’s Town mentioned the possibilities of fresh water exploitation. Countries like Israel are leading the world in fish farming, particularly with fresh water production. I believe that approximately 60% of their fish needs are produced in fresh water ponds and dams. They have shown the world that it is possible to produce more protein per hectare of water than it is per hectare of land. Is it not time that we took a leaf from the Israelis’ book? The Japanese have also done a great deal in the field of fish farming and have been concentrating more on the field of salt water farming.

I believe that we have only begun scratching the surface of knowledge in this field. My appeal to the hon. the Minister and his department is that it expand the research facilities at our universities and institutes dramatically. The J. L. B. Smith Institute for Ichthyology in my own constituency is doing pioneering work in this field but it needs more funds and more facilities. I am convinced that we in this country can lead the world in changing the whole fishing scene from being primitive hunters to sophisticated husbandmen if we have the will to do so. My plea is that we do this before our fertile seas become a sterile wasteland.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany put some questions to the hon. the Minister and he will no doubt receive adequate replies in due course.

*The first recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into certain aspects of the Conservation and Utilization of the Living Marine Resources of the Republic of South Africa, which has already been implemented, was to entrust the responsibility for sea fisheries to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. This Department has been handling this component of its activities with great distinction since that time. It is with appreciation that I mention the seriousness and the responsibility with which this Department is handling this matter.

Proof of this we find in the White Paper which was tabled last week.

In the few minutes I have at my disposal I want to elucidate a few of the aspects of this White Paper in brief and comment on them. The introductory remarks of the White Paper indicate very clearly that wherever mention is made in the report or the White Paper of a right or rights, it should be clearly understood that these are nothing more than concessions. I welcome the fact that this is being stressed, because it is important that a concession from the State should never be regarded as a right. It is necessary to stress this as there are those in the industry who in fact regard their quotas or concessions as legal rights. Indeed, there are those in the industry who hold the view that the sea and the marine resources belong to them and that they may do with them as they like. I think it is a timeous and a necessary indication to those people that the marine resources of South Africa in fact belong to South Africa and all its people and that those who enjoy the concessions have the concession to exploit those marine resources in the interests of the Republic of South Africa and all its people and that they are entitled to a reasonable compensation for themselves for their trouble but that it is not for them to decide on the way in which those marine resources are to be utilized. I concede that the concessions cannot be withdrawn or restricted arbitrarily as that would endanger the stability of the industry and could lead to chaos in the industry. It is important, however, for the principle to be stated very clearly, as it is stated in the White Paper.

I also welcome the acceptance of the guidelines of the report by the Government as indicated in the White Paper. I believe that in the past too many ad hoc decisions were taken in the industry. For the sake of having stability in the industry, concessions should be dealt with in terms of fixed guidelines. I concede that problems will be experienced in the application of these guidelines in practice, because it is undoubtedly difficult to quantify the relative importance of various considerations. Nevertheless, it is far more satisfactory to take decisions with these guidelines as criteria than to leave decisions to arbitrary and discretionary opinions of officials.

According to the White Paper the transferability of concessions is acceptable, and I must say that personally I am disappointed about the acceptance of the transferability of concessions since I believe that this is wrong in principle. As far as I am concerned, a concession is not a negotiable asset. I also believe that this does not benefit the industry as such, because it gives rise to all kinds of malpractices, for example trading in concessions. A boat or other apparatus to the value of, for example, R20 000 is sold for R100 000 simply on account of the concession attached to the boat or the equipment. I believe that this is wrong in principle and that this is taking place. Whereas the White Paper indicates that the transferability of concessions, is, in fact, acceptable, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to keep a close watch on the transfer of concessions so that ministerial approval will not become a mere formality but that close attention will indeed be paid to the merits of and the motivation and justification for transferring the concession concerned.

According to the White Paper the recommendations of the Commission in respect of increasing the quotas of the coastal trawling industry with regard to sole and hake were not acceptable. I am grateful, however, for a considerable increase in those quotas which has nevertheless been effected administratively in the meantime. Personally I am convinced that the maximum sustainable yield of sole considerably exceeds the one thousand tons per annum that was fixed for 1981. I am also very strongly in favour of the recommendation of the Commission that the determination of quotas be based solely on the best scientific grounds, and for that reason I appeal to the hon. the Minister to have a scientific investigation instituted as soon as possible into the real maximum sustainable yield of the sole resources. In fact, an earlier investigation of this kind was undertaken by Dr. Botha which indicated that the maximum sustainable yield of this resource was 1 100 tons. Nevertheless, this has not yet been accepted as a basis for allocating a quota. The fixed quota is still considerably lower and I believe that a further scientific investigation will show that this resource can in fact sustain a higher quota. As far as the hake quota is concerned. I want to point out that the share of the coastal trawling industry of the overall hake quota represents approximately 5%. I believe that an increase in the share in the overall quota of the coastal trawling industry will not have any appreciable effect on the resource.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member.

Even a considerable increase in the share of the coastal trawling industry in the overall quota can at most represent a very small percentage of the total quota. Consequently I believe that this quota could be increased without endangering the resource itself.

I also appeal to the hon. the Minister for protection of the catching area of the coastal trawling industry against invasion by deep-sea trawlers. The position is that the limits set, viz. a depth of 60 fathoms or a distance of 12 nautical miles from the coast, do not always correspond. In other words, one finds water deeper than 60 fathoms within the 12 mile zone and vice versa. The restrictions on local and foreign deep-sea trawlers and in respect of the type of fish which may be trawled, are different with regard to these limits. I advocate that a general restriction in respect of all deep-sea trawlers should apply in respect of a limit of 12 miles from the coast or 60 fathoms of water, whichever is the most restrictive. Then everyone will know exactly where they may trawl, irrespective of the kind of fish being trawled, because what is at stake is not only the fish actually trawled but also the disturbance involved.

I welcome the commissioning of a new patrol boat with its base at Mossel Bay. I trust that this patrol boat will be able to provide effective protection to the fishing area of the coastal trawling industry against encroachment by the large deep-sea trawlers. In the past, because of a lack of the necessary patrolling, numerous contraventions occurred of the existing restrictions in respect of the parameters in which the coastal trawling industry operated. I believe that an improvement may be expected in this respect. For that I also express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his Department on this occasion.