Mr. Chairman, I understand that the parents of the hon. the Minister are present in the Gallery today and therefore I want to welcome them very cordially. It must certainly be a source of great pride to them, and to the hon. the Minister as well, to be here today.

I want to touch on a matter here today which might seem unimportant but which in point of fact represents the essence of the whole conservation effort in respect of our marine resources. This problem centres around the conflict between short-term commercial interests and the long-term financial consideration which must be given to the protection of South Africa’s marine resources. It is an indisputable fact that all South African marine resources are under severe pressure at present. This is confirmed by every scientific investigation in this regard which has been carried out in the last 15 years. Some of these resources have already collapsed and others are on the verge of collapse. All the reports which have appeared over the years, and the well-documented official figures of catches, support this statement.

I believe that the time for soft talk, coaxing and re-assurance by official circles, while short-term commercial interest groups are allowed to carry on with this process of destroying the resources, is past. Only imaginative, firm and fearless action will now be able to sort out this matter and save the resources from extinction. The unambiguous finding of the Treumicht Commission was that all our resources are being threatened. According to the White Paper some of these recommendations have been accepted and implemented while others, subject to further investigation, have been accepted in principle. There are encouraging signs in the White Paper that serious attention is being given to some of the biggest of these problems.

There is one aspect, however, which does not tally with this new approach in the White Paper. For almost three years the National Parks Board has been struggling to have the seaward border of the Tsitsikamma coastal reserve extended from the present 800 metres mark to 5 kilometres. This request was unanimously supported by the Prime Minister’s Auxiliary Committee on Sea Areas. This request has apparently now been turned down for so-called “reasons of economic necessity”. I have already fully expounded the reasons for this request in another debate last year. The reasons were determined by a ministerial committee under the chairmanship of Dr. De Jager, assisted by many other able and experienced people. Entitled “Algemene Seereservaatbeleid” the report reads as follows—

The reasons for the enlargement of the Tsitsikamma Reserve fully comply with the requirements that have been set. This park is representative of the Cape South Coast and is an existing conservation area which can be extended and consolidated.

It is also alleged that if the sea borders were to be extended, the National Parks Board would not be able to control them. This is an incorrect statement. The topography of the whole coastline is of such a nature that conservationists, of whom there are many, can observe what is going on far out to sea, and with the aid of existing radio communications with the station at the Storms River mouth, it will be possible to deal quickly and effectively with any infringement. As a further motivation for the rejection of the request, it has been alleged that bottom trawlers from Mossel Bay and line and ski boats from Piettenberg Bay as well as Jeffreys Bay would be detrimentally affected and furthermore, that trawlers do not trawl on the reefs. This is also an incorrect statement. I know this area very well and I can attest to the fact that trawlers operate right up to the coast.

What is in fact happening now, is that the most uneconomical and innocuous utilization of the fish resource, viz. that by the amateur angler, is prohibited in an area extending 80 kilometres along the coast. These members of the public are effectively prevented from angling, but the economic exploiters are freely allowed virtually right up to the coast of this park. Here the interests of the public have been totally subordinated to commercial interests, and this to me is unacceptable and wrong.

I want to make the statement that if this extension of the Tsitsikamma Coastal Reserve is not granted—and it has already been rejected—it will not be possible to protect any other part of the coast. I say that precisely because the economic exploitation in the Tsitsikamma area is minimal. The area is sparsely populated with very few moorings for ski and line boats. Compare this with the vast fishing industry in False Bay and Walker Bay and along the West Coast. If the long-term benefits of the proper conservation of marine resources in the Tsitsikamma area must give way to an insignificantly commercial interest, I cannot see how this and other regions and areas will be protected. The Jeffreys Bay and Piettenberg Bay areas are already showing signs of serious over-exploitation; hence the present migration of ski and line boats to the Tsitsikamma Coastal Reserve.

The Department and the whole industry have here the opportunity to obtain very good publicity should this park be enlarged. This will bear testimony to a realization that ideas will have to change, it will show sensitivity and will entail enormous long-term commercial benefits for the whole industry, this area and the country.

If the argument of economic necessity is persisted with, it will only mean that the destruction of this heritage will continue unabated. Only the short-term exploiter is being assisted in this regard at the expense of the public’s interest. I should like to call upon the hon. the Minister very seriously and very urgently to reconsider this particular decision not to extend the seaward border.

I should also like to lend my support to the pleas by the hon. members for Simonstown and Caledon in respect of the conservation of False Bay and Walker Bay. Again, this will require bold action by the hon. the Minister, but I am sure that he will enjoy considerable and widespread support.

As far as Dr. Lochner is concerned I have also tried to consult expert opinion. I have examined all the opinions which experts have expressed on the Treurnicht Commission. It seems to me that his theory, on the basis of scientific considerations is controversial in respect of methodology or the degree of reliability. The danger is now that the controversy surrounding the fishing industry will be equated with the controversy in respect of the acceptability of Dr. Lochner’s theory. If that happens, we are in danger of overlooking the real factors which have led to the collapse of the industry. The fishing industry has deteriorated seriously and that is a fact which is quite independent of Dr. Lochner’s theory. If the fishing industry were still flourishing now, the controversy surrounding the model would have been confined to scientific circles and it would have been worked out in due course and acquired some acceptability depending on the degree of correlation between his predictions and factual observations. The fact that Dr. Lochner did make certain general predictions which were proved correct, for example, that catches would decline to a point where the industry would collapse, did gain him the attention of the general public, but similar opinions and fears were also expressed by others who did not make use of his theory. For a mathematical model to be accepted it is necessary that far more detailed quantitative predictions should be confirmed.

This crisis will not go away if we discredit possible theories about the fish populations. On the contrary, by paying too much attention to a population model of dubious validity, an impression is created that a scapegoat has been looked for and found. The situation can only be redeemed by subordinating the short-term benefit to the long-term objectives.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I should like to apologize to the hon. the Minister for not being here yesterday as unfortunately I was taking part in the debate in the Other Place.

From what I have read in the Press and from what I have heard from colleagues who were here yesterday and now from the hon. member for Uitenhage, it is very clear that most, if not all, hon. members are very concerned about our marine resources and have made many appeals to the hon. the Minister to ensure that these are not exploited to the extent as has happened elsewhere in the world and very close to home in South West Africa, where some of these resources have been totally destroyed.

As the hon. member for Uitenhage has said, there is a great need for control and for the protection of our resources against what the hon. member for Simonstown called greed and avarice. I was a member of the Commission of Inquiry into certain aspects of the fishing industry, and during our hearings heard much evidence of this greed which has destroyed marine resources throughout the world. There were also hints of corruption. For this reason I believe that this particular Commission’s report and the White Paper should receive the close attention of the hon. the Minister and of all hon. members.

The Commission itself had a very extensive programme. It held 26 meetings, received 111 memoranda and heard oral evidence from 58 organizations and 8 individuals, which resulted in 137 witnesses appearing before it. Make no mistake, this Commission investigated this subject very thoroughly indeed. However, having said that, I must say that I am disappointed with the White Paper. First of all I am disappointed at the delay in tabling this report. It is now more than two years since the Commission submitted its report. I believe the general approach and the tone of the White Paper gives cause for concern and disappointment. I believe that not enough emphasis has been placed on the recommendations which the Commission made. I rather get the feeling, which may be a personal feeling, that the Department is soft on the massive vested interests of the commercial sector of the fishing industry and not hard enough in respect of the control mechanisms which are needed to protect our resources. If we as a Parliament and the Government do not try and protect this resource, we shall in the future be faced by our children who will say that we allowed it to be destroyed. I believe that the White Paper reveals in many respects a sort of a defeatist approach to the problem. On page 7 of the White Paper, for instance, it appears as if the Department looks upon the monitoring of foreign vessels as something that is too difficult to control. I detect a sense of defeatism regarding the question of deep-sea trawlers trawling within prohibited areas. Concerning the question of unprocessed, fresh fish, which the public should be able to buy instead of just being forced to buy frozen fish all the time, something which the Commission went into in great detail, the White Paper gives me the feeling that the Department is not exercising its mind on this problem and that it is buckling under to the pressure exercised by the big vested interests of the industrial side of the fishing industry.

As far as the organization of the industry is concerned, I was particularly disappointed with the reaction set out on page 10 of the White Paper to the Commission’s recommendation that perlemoen divers should be registered so that they could be controlled correctly—I quote from page 10 of the White Paper—

I submit that this is a lot of nonsense. As a sugar-cane farmer, I am forced by the Sugar Act to belong to an agricultural association and if I do not belong to it, I cannot plant my sugar cane. I therefore totally reject this sort of argument. I believe that the Department and the hon. the Minister are not facing the problem as they should do in the light of the seriousness of the problem and the Commission’s recommendations.

Having got that off my chest, I want to say that I have had reports just in the last week or two that things are still in a bad state. I hear that people are still netting at the mouth of the Kleinrivier lagoon at Hermanus. They are netting Steenbras during the breeding season, which is something about which the Commission showed great concern. I also heard that one five star hotel in Cape Town has nearly R5 000 worth of lobsters delivered to it each week. It was said that these were all illegally caught. I would like to know whether this is correct because if it is, then it is cause for concern.

Have you reported this allegation to the Department in a responsible manner?

I have not, but I take the hon. the Minister’s point and will see to it that he is informed of it. I only heard about this yesterday.

You neglected your duty by not doing that. Instead you raised it here in the debate.

All right, the hon. the Minister has made his point and can press it further when he replies to the debate. My time is very limited.

Hon. members talked about the Lochner Theory. The Commission discussed this at great length and yet the hon. the Minister’s White Paper has rejected the recommendation that this should be investigated further.

In the few minutes that are left to me I want to raise the question of the exploitation of seaweed. I have with me here some of the evidence and representations submitted to the Commission concerning this resource which I have extracted from my files on the Commission Readings. One came from a company called South African Sea Resources (Pty) Ltd., another one came from the Divisional Council of Caledon. In brief, the Commission was told in this evidence that because of the lack of policy decisions on the part of the Department this company, which had spent nearly 10 years developing methods of processing seaweed and which had reached a stage at which investors were prepared to pour R1,5 million into the construction of a factory, was placed in a serious financial position as it could not obtain a guarantee that it would be granted concessions for a sufficiently long period to justify the investment. I have here—and I will be quite happy to put it at the hon. Minister’s disposal—a complete file of records and letters from his Department which show that the Department’s dealings in this whole matter left an awful lot to be desired. I believe that this company got the run-around in this regard. This company, which had invested hundreds of thousands of rands and spent 10 years pioneering the exploitation of seaweed; which had informed the Department of its every move and which was given assurances regarding the security of its concessions and which had made suggestions and recommendations to the Commission regarding the terms on which concessions should be granted; terms which, if accepted, would have got the company out of its trouble, terms, some of which were agreed to by the Commission and accepted in the White Paper, was sunk at the moment when it most needed the assistance of the Department. Now one finds from the reply to a question regarding seaweed concessions which I put on the Question Paper earlier this session, viz. on 15 April 1982, that because this company defaulted on its payment of tender fees, another company has now been granted its concessions for the exploitation of seaweed. I ask the hon. the Minister to institute an in-depth investigation into this whole matter, because I believe it does not engender confidence on the part of the public, certainly not on the part of a public representative such as myself. This is especially so when one hears of the operations of the Department, and one sees letters which over the years have reassured this company that the fact that they have pioneered this development over some 10 years would be taken into consideration when it comes to the granting of concessions.

Yet, this company suddenly found that it had to go to public tender, something which they had been assured in the past would not happen. In this whole process this company found itself burdened with an extremely high concession payment commitment, only to find, when the White Paper came out, that the hon. the Minister and his Department had accepted the Commission’s recommendation which held that this tender system was all wrong. The point I am trying to make, is that the tender system which the Commission has found to be wrong, and which had been applied by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor despite earlier assurances by the Department, has actually bankrupted this company at the moment when it needed help the most. After the event someone else has now taken over the concessions. I believe that this does not, as I have said, engender a feeling of confidence on the part of the public. Of course there are a lot of questions now being asked as to why this has happened. If the hon. the Minister wants the information I have, I will be happy to give it to him. However, the fact that I have copies of letters from his Department and to the hon. the Minister makes it obvious that he is very much aware of it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti will excuse me if I do not take his argument any further. I learnt from the hon. Whip that I am the last speaker on this side of the Committee on the subject of fish. There are a few things that I will have to say very quickly in the very short time at my disposal.

The fishing industry is a very important industry in my constituency. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that there is another constituency in which the fishing industry plays as important a part as in mine. It is a traditional industry. It is part of the cultural heritage of the West Coast. Not only is it an important industry, but it is a way of life for many people.

Very briefly, I want to make a plea today for the retention and protection of the small man in the industry, the kind of man who over the course of centuries has developed the industry. In this industry, as in some agricultural sectors, vertical integration has taken place and private boat owners are systematically being forced out of the industry. Most of them only use wooden boats, the newest of which has already been in service for 12 years. Since the life of such a boat is approximately 20 years, most of the owners have to start replacing their boats within the foreseeable future. The cost of such a boat today is approximately R500 000. I have been told that these men have to catch approximately 4 000 tons of fish per annum if they are to produce and operate profitably and build up reserves for the replacement of their boats. This is more than their average catch per boat at present. I call upon the hon. the Minister please not to leave these men in the lurch, for they populate the West Coast platteland and lend character to the West Coast. They are the salt of the earth. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the position of these private boat owners first when there is a possibility of the quotas being increased. They feel that they are at the mercy of the hon. the Minister. I thank the Government for the positive attitude reflected in the White Paper.

The second matter I want to touch on concerns crayfish. The Commission’s recommendation that more crayfish, viz. 25% rather than the present 10%, should be marketed locally, is supported by the White Paper in the sense that the White Paper states that more crayfish should be freely available locally. The Commission did say, however, that the practical implications of such an increase are still to be further investigated. One of the attractions of the West Coast is that at various places, the tourist will be able to buy a crayfish, not a cellophane packed tail, but a crayfish or two. The idea of a so-called crayfish route similar to the wine route has been brought very pertinently to the attention of the South African Tourist Corporation and local authorities. It could be a wonderful tourist attraction and would contribute a great deal towards the development of the region and tourism in general. I call upon the Department to cooperate in this regard with the crayfish industry, the National Trust Bureau, the Hotel Association and local authorities in the area.

Let us preserve our cultural heritage. Does the hon. Minister know how delicious a good “soutbokkem” tastes with a glass of red wine and a snoek head and roe fried on the coals?

Mr. Chairman, I think that yesterday was and that today is a particularly happy time for the hon. the Minister, in the first place because of the very high level maintained in the discussion of his Vote and the particularly peaceful atmosphere, and, in the second place, because his parents are sitting here in the public gallery today. I think the hon. the Minister is deeply grateful in his heart. Solomon in his wisdom once said: “Hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: For they shall be an ornament of grace onto thy head, and chains about thy neck”. To be able to experience this, is, I think, a very special and gratifying privilege to a son. I think it may be one son out of a million who may experience the privilege of his parents seeing him serve as a Minister of the State in which they are living. All of us present here were grateful children at some stage, and today all of us, with the exception of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, are proud parents and for that reason we have knowledge of that feeling of mutual gratitude experienced by the hon. the Minister and his parents yesterday and today.

It is my pleasant task to return from the fishing waters to the good earth of agriculture. I want to commence by dwelling for a few moments on the two bodies responsible for rendering financial assistance to our farmers. The first body to which I want to refer, is the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Because the agricultural district which I represent has such good soil, such a good rainfall and, I think, such good farmers, the position is that my farmers and I very seldom, if ever, trouble the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. I beg your pardon, we did trouble the Department approximately three years ago and received all the assistance we asked for. That was the last time, and we say thank you very much for that assistance.

We have more dealings with the Land Bank. This afternoon I want to pay grateful tribute to this institution on my own behalf and on behalf of the farmers in my constituency. I want to tell hon. members, and I am not exaggerating when I say this, that probably 80 or 90% of the applications made by farmers in my constituency to this body meet with success. What I appreciate most about the officials of the Land Bank, is the fact that these people are open to conviction. It often happens that a first application is rejected, but when we ask for the application to be considered, one finds that these people are willing to negotiate, to have discussions and to advise. For example, they ask whether the buyer would not be prepared to lower his price a little—which in most cases is not possible—or whether the applicant could make a larger contribution or offer additional security—which often is. To cut a long story short, I just want to say that we have been very successful and that we are very grateful to this institution.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Parys and other hon. members who appealed to the hon. the Minister yesterday to use his influence in the Cabinet so as to ensure the allocation of more funds to this fine institution so that it may continue the excellent and commendable work it is doing. We trust that it will be possible for this to happen.

Now I want to refer to the accessibility of this institution to farmers who find themselves in problematical situations. I quote from page 37 of the Annual Report of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa—

My experience has been that these people are patient and sympathetic towards farmers who are experiencing problems in meeting their obligations. We appreciate this.

Yesterday a great deal was said here about the importance of the production of food by the agricultural industry and the population growth in our own country, in Africa and all over the world. This is so. Our farmers, particularly our young farmers can play a very important role in the endeavour to enable South Africa to occupy a more prominent position than it already has in Africa and in the world. It is alleged that 100 babies are born each minute in the developing world and in addition, it is alleged that 15 of those 100 babies never reach the age of one year, chiefly because of starvation. It is in this regard that our young farmers can make an ever-increasing contribution in future with a view to ensuring the Republic of South Africa of a more prominent position in Africa. How are we to do this? I think we have to ensure that we enable a large number of our young men to establish themselves as farmers. In addition we should ensure that our young farmers receive more training than is the case at present. I want to quote from the explanatory memorandum tabled by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on Vote 20 for the 1982-’83 draft estimates, and in paragraph 3.4.2.1 I was pleased to take cognizance of the following—

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for this. I want to proceed to deal with the age distribution in the agricultural industry. Reference was made to this aspect yesterday, and I have obtained figures which indicate the following—

One realizes that we must do something to bring about a rejuvenation in the ranks of those engaged in the agricultural industry. How are we going to do this? We have to increase the profitability of the agricultural industry. I want to quote from another report, too, a report of the S. A. Agricultural Union. In this report the following was said—

Therefore we have to make it more attractive for the young man to take up farming. How can this be done? It can be done by farming more effectively, and in this regard I have already referred to training. It can be done by making loan capital available at a reasonable rate of interest to render production possible, and not at 18 or 20%, which is the current commercial rate, but rather at the rate offered by the Land Bank. Production costs are another very important factor. It is not always the price obtained by the farmer for his product which is the most important factor, but the production costs. I am going to refer to one item only, viz. spares. The example I want to quote refers to an incident which I personally experienced in November of last year. My son who attends to our farming enterprise was on leave and I took over his duties. [Interjections.] Hon. members will realize how well things went. On a certain day I had to go into town to buy a spare part. There are three business concerns in the town dealing in that kind of item. I went to business A, but the spare part was not obtainable there. Then I went to business B, which had the spare part in stock. The shop assistant placed it in front of me and said it cost R520. I asked him whether those few pieces of iron cost R520. He asked me whether I was buying on account or for cash. I replied that I did not have an account with that undertaking and that I wanted to pay cash. He said if I paid cash—and now hon. members must hang onto their seats—I would get a discount of 60%. For that spare part which would have cost R520 on account, I paid R208 in a cash transaction. The discount was 60%. I was grateful for that discount of R312, but do hon. members know what worries me? When I entered that undertaking, a young farmer was making his purchases. They were concluding the transaction and I heard the clerk asking him whether he was buying on account. He replied that he would pay after the harvest. What worries me, however, is that the young farmers who cannot affort to pay cash have to pay 60% more for those articles. A person in that position harvests after nine months and if interest is calculated over a period of 12 months he pays 80% interest. I discussed the matter with an official in the Department of Industries, Trade and Tourism, whom I know well. He told me that if the business had not been acting irregularly, I had been buying on a wholesale basis and that the middleman had therefore been eliminated. The fact of the matter is, however, that he had also eliminated the middleman as far as the young farmer was concerned, and we shall have to give attention to this problem in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Meyerton. I want to agree with everything he said. I agree in particular with what he said in paying tribute to the hon. the Minister and his parents. By way of supplementing his tribute I just want to say—and I am saying this for the benefit of the parents of the hon. the Minister—that he has already gained the affection of our farmers. He is not only a Minister but also the father of our agriculturists, and we appreciate what he has done for us.

This year the debate on agriculture has been conducted much more calmly, especially when one has regard to what happened in the past. I do not know to what this is attributable. Perhaps one should attribute the prevailing calm to the fact that things in the agricultural industry are going well, but, on the other hand, it may be attributable to the fact that the Official Opposition has become more responsible or to the fact that they now have more people with knowledge of the agricultural industry than they had in the past. In saying this, I am in fact referring to the Official Opposition. I am pleased about the high quality of the speeches which have been made, and I think that these can only benefit our agricultural industry. In the course of the debate much reference has been made to the particulars contained in the report of the Department, but I do not believe one of the hon. members has as yet congratulated the Department on the out standing report it submitted to us this year. It is clear to one, on paging through this report, that it contains wonderful material. It contains something for everyone of us engaged in farming, something which can benefit him and which he can use. This report gives a résumé of excellent work which has been done. It is true that the hon. member for King William’s Town levelled a little criticism at the report, but I do not believe that it was negative criticism and I think he meant it positively.

A great deal has been said about the financing of the agricultural industry, and the hon. member for Meyerton singled out certain bottle-necks in connection with agricultural financing. I feel, however, that I must sound a word of warning today, not only to our young farmers, but to all farmers in the country. One sees, on consulting the report, that there was an increase of 19% in the debt of our farmers over the period covered by the report. I, who grew up in difficult circumstances as a child of the depression, always fear debt and I feel quite ill at ease when I see such a rapid increase in debt in one year. However, what worries me, too, is that expenditure on machinery and implements amounted to the enormous total of R441 million over the past year under review. This is a matter which worries me. In saying that it worries me, it is not because farmers buy those implements and machinery because they really need them. The word of warning I want to sound today is that credit is too readily available to some farmers. I have in mind our young farmers in particular. They are living in difficult times in which they come up against smooth-talking and trained salesmen, men who have learnt their techniques and know how to apply them. In addition they come up against managers of businesses who strive to show record turnover figures every year. We must make no mistake, because our co-operatives do the same thing. It is very tempting to a young man when he is offered those implements or machinery without his having to pay any immediate deposit but may pay it at a later stage. In addition such transactions are discounted with certain financial institutions in terms of the Hire Purchase Act. What happens next, and this is what worries me, is that as soon as that man finds in a year or two’s time that he is unable to pay his instalments, that financial institution adopts an unrelenting attitude and shows that man no mercy. Our people—and particularly our younger farmers—must be very careful not to purchase their machinery and implements injudiciously.

I, too, want to refer with pride to the achievements in the field of agriculture in South Africa. We are proud to say that our country is the only exporter of food on the continent of Africa. We are also proud to say that South Africa is one of the six largest food exporters in the world. This is a tremendous achievement, but we must ask ourselves: What about the future? In the annual report a small paragraph is devoted to that subject and to the future. The report points out that our population is growing at a tremendous rate. In 1940 the population figure in South Africa was 12,5 million. Forty years later it was 25 million, and it is calculated that 18 years from now, at the end of the century, there will be between 48 million and 50 million people in South Africa. I ask myself whether we shall be able to feed those people. Yesterday it was spelt out here that the number of people engaged in the agricultural industry was not increasing and that there were only 70 000 or 71 000 farmers. There is not much chance of this number increasing because the costs of taking up farming are too high. In addition our agricultural land is decreasing. In other words, we shall be able to feed the population only by means of sustained research. In his New Year’s message for 1979 our previous Minister of Agriculture said that research was the basis on which the demands of tomorrow would have to be satisfied. I want to point out how far and how well we have progressed as far as research is concerned. Forty years ago we imported 38 000 tons of wheat annually. At that time our average unit production was 0,59 ton per ha. Today our average unit production is approximately 1,15 tons per ha but we still have to import wheat. If we want to be able to feed our entire population by the end of this century, such production per unit will have to be pushed up to 2 tons per ha, and this we shall be able to achieve only by means of thorough research. Yesterday the hon. the Minister referred to the fields in which our researchers had achieved major success. I do not want to dwell on that, but I want to come back to the results we obtained from this research. These results must be released, but this should happen in a way which will enable the largest possible percentage of farmers to apply them in the shortest possible time. This is the work of our agricultural extension officers. This afternoon I want to make the statement here that the extremely important work of our extension officers is not sufficiently appreciated by our farmers and by the Department. I want to give only one example. The promotion of an extension officer usually goes hand-in-hand with a transfer, which he usually does not find very pleasant. Recently I spoke to a senior extension officer and he said that since his marriage he had been transferred as many as four times. The extension officer is the person who deals directly with the farmers and who comes face to face with the day-to-day frustrations of the farmers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer some of the points raised by the hon. member for Nigel and the hon. member for Winburg at the end of my speech.

I would like to deal with the deciduous fruit industry in particular this afternoon and the consumption of its products both in fresh and dried form. I agree with the hon. member for Winburg that the annual report of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is an outstanding document which does credit to the department and they should be congratulated thereon. On page 3 the following is stated in regard to policy—

As far as the deciduous fruit industry is concerned that industry has a production of about 2 million tons per year. It is divided into three particular schemes. Under the single channel pool scheme it has the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Dried Fruit Board. Under the supervisory and price regulatory scheme it has the canning of apricots, peaches and pears. Deciduous fruit provides 4½% of the total gross value of agricultural products in 1980 and this is no mean figure. In addition, the department is providing the following subsidies on deciduous fruit—

One must have the greatest sympathy with the deciduous fruit industry in the light of developments in the European Common Market and the loss of markets in the United Kingdom and Europe. However, it would be remiss if the hon. member of this House did not bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister the fact that there are three control boards for this industry, the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Dried Fruit Board and the Canning Fruit Board, all in the winter rainfall area with their headquarters no more than 50 km from one another. My investigations have shown that for all practical purposes there is little or no co-operation between these three bodies. They appear to act in watertight compartments and have no concern for each other. The Dried Fruit Board cries out for more dried apricots while the Canning Fruit Board subsidizes farmers to pull up their apricot orchards. For instance, it is high time that the dried fruit industry be given its rightful place and not be considered as the pig of the deciduous fruit industry which is only entitled to the offal of the industry. I must appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the rationalization of the fruit industry as a whole and see whether it is not advisable to have one control board for deciduous fruit, citrus, dried fruit and canned fruit and include under its auspices the development of tropical fruit as well as the canning and processing of fruit and development of the industry. We have that in the dairy industry and the question is why cannot we have it in the deciduous fruit industry? Because of the conflict of interest in the Boland I do not think it would be advisable if such an investigation was done by any Boland member of Parliament on such a commission. I believe that there are defects in the industry because of this lack of co-operation and co-ordination which is causing great hardships to the farmers themselves.

Now I would like to deal with the two points raised by the hon. member for Winburg and the hon. member for Nigel. I am reminded of the story—which is absolutely true—of Cohen who came to a lawyer in a certain country town. He looked at his balance sheet and he saw that Cohen had a tremendous amoung of cash. He said “Mr. Cohen I cannot understand you. Why do you not have all your money tied up in investments?” Cohen replied “I want to warn you about one thing, young man”—it was a very young lawyer—“cash is catch”. That is the advice that I think can be given to the young farmer. He should endeavour to hold a certain amount of his assets at all times in cash because he would then be able to take the same advantage which the hon. member for Meyerton took when he walked into the shop to buy spare parts. He was able to take advantage of discounts. One of the most important things in business is to take advantage of discounts because if one gets a 5% discount per month it does not mean that one gets 5%. One is then getting interest at a rate of 60% per annum. That is the way people make money in business and that is the way farmers can also make money.

Mr. Chairman, I am always very willing to listen to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. His ideas in connection with the fruit industry sound very interesting, but I do not think they are very practical. Accordingly I recommend to the hon. member rather to confine himself to the cheese.

Over the past day we have listened to a great many maize stories and wine stories, to discussion of fish and—calling to mind the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—cheese. However, I feel that something must be said about the staple food of South Africa, which is bread.

Maize.

No, maize has been discussed already. I want to refer specifically to the R113 million set aside for the bread subsidy in this year’s budget, and the effect that this amount—which is a reduced amount in comparison with the previous budget—is in fact going to have. It is true that bread is the staple food, whatever some hon. members may say. Bread has been subsidized since before the Second World War to enable as broad a spectrum of the population as possible to buy bread cheaply. It is also true that the subsidy has varied over the years. Nowadays the subsidy is 34% on a brown loaf and 12% on a white loaf. I want to refer to a few statistics to bring to the attention of the Committee the effect of the reduced subsidy. At present it costs 45 cents to produce a loaf of white bread, and it is subsidized by five cents. It costs 41 cents to produce a loaf of brown bread, which is subsidized by 13 cents. The purchase price before GST is 28 cents for a brown loaf and 40 cents for a white loaf. The effect on the bread price of the amount in the budget and the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Finance, viz. that the subsidy is being reduced to 20% on brown bread and 5% on white bread, will be considerable. I think it is as well that we take cognizance of this. In terms of present prices this will mean an increase of three cents on the price of a white loaf and five cents on the price of a brown loaf. However, that is before account has been taken of the increase in the wheat price—which will necessarily occur on 1 October this year—and the necessary increase in the margins of the processor. If one takes it—and this is pure speculation—that an increase of 15%, which is equal to the rate of inflation, is implemented—and it is a fact that wheat is being underproduced in this country and that we shall simply have to encourage its production, even if the price is higher than the world price—this will mean that the price of bread after the subsidy will rise by 9 to 10 cents per loaf after 1 October this year. This will be a great pity, but I think one has to be objective about this matter. On the one hand, the country will have to learn to pay realistic prices for its staple food, and on the other hand, the population will have to learn to waste less. I know of no other product in this country that is wasted as much as bread. On the other hand, if there is another increase in the gold price, the easiest way of distributing the benefit of a higher gold price to as broad a spectrum of the population as possible would be to increase the subsidy on bread again and keep the price constant for as long as possible. During the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill it was asked whether the subsidy on white bread could not be abolished and added to brown bread, so that that bread could be made cheaper. In practice, however, it has been proved time and again that if the difference between white and brown bread becomes too great, irregularities occur. It has happened in the past that chicken farmers have fed brown bread to their fowls instead of mealie meal, because it is cheaper.

And the pig farmers too.

Yes, the pig farmers too. An important factor which is often insufficiently appreciated is the fact that the cost margins of the middle man, viz. the agent, the co-operative, the farmer, the miller and the baker, are subject to very stringent control. In spite of a sustained rate of inflation over the years, real success has been achieved in keeping the increase in the wheat price and the increase in margins below the rate of inflation. In one year, for example, the wheat farmers received no increase at all, as their contribution to combating inflation. On the other hand, the middle man succeeds every year in achieving a cost increase lower than the rate of inflation, as far as those costs that are subject to control are concerned. This high efficiency rate enables the wheat industry to give the consumer an end product in the form of bread which in South Africa costs a quarter or a third of the world price. It is often said that one cannot draw a comparison on that basis, and accordingly I have drawn a different comparison. When the position in South Africa and the USA, for example, is compared, absolute figures are not appropriate; consideration has to be given to the proportions of the constituent ingredients. The interesting aspect is—and the hon. the Minister is aware of this—that the value of wheat in a loaf in America is approximately 8% whereas in South Africa it is 36,4%. The cost of manufacturing a loaf in the USA expressed as a proportion of its total price is 75% whereas in South Africa it is a mere 50%. The important point is this: While cost efficiency enjoys a high priority in the industry, the industry has no control over certain increases, for example fuel, fertilizer, etc. These factors, in conjunction with the sustained high rate of inflation have resulted in constant cost increases for the industry and since State funds for bread subsidies are not unlimited, an increase in the consumer price of bread cannot be avoided. On the other hand it is of the utmost importance that the production of wheat, which is a strategic product in South Africa, should not be discouraged and that producers should at all costs be encouraged to produce sufficient supplies at all times. South Africa is part of Africa and we are the granary of Africa. As far as wheat used for bread is concerned, we shall simply have to supply our neighbouring countries as well. Even if our wheat costs a little more than it costs abroad, we are strategically situated near to these countries and are therefore in a strong competitive position. Therefore we simply must build up and maintain these markets. If, then, it is sometimes necessary that we have to import wheat to maintain our exports in order to provide our neighbouring countries with food, then we shall have to do that too. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, it is a tremendous privilege to be able to speak after the hon. member for Paarl. I want to congratulate him on a very neat, well-considered and well-prepared speech. It reminds me of the old man who is supposed to have said: “That fellow from Paarl cannot tell one anything about bread and wheat.” Having listened to him, I agree with that old man.

That is my MP.

I should like to associate myself with ideas put forward by the hon. member for Humansdorp. He identified four categories of part-time farmer and asked that consideration be given to assisting them, too, financially. Among them there is one category of these part-time farmers in respect of which I wholeheartedly support his request. I refer to those people who work and farm on a part-time basis, those people who work and long for their farm every day. These are the people who long with all their hearts to live on the farms, and who have only one desire, and that is to farm. I refer to the part-time farmer who for economic reasons has to work to maintain his family and to meet obligations with regard to the farm he has bought or inherited. The person to whom I refer is the person who works in town or in the city and farms on a part-time basis, but as soon as circumstances are favourable, he will pack up and go back to the farm. This is the man who works hard in the factory from Monday to Friday but is all the time longing to visit his own piece of land over the weekend and go and live among his own animals and his crops; simply to be himself.

In my part of the world there are many such part-time farmers who are fortunate enough to be making a living in the mining industry. These are people who work in the mines of Iscor and S.A. Manganese and other mines in the Northern Cape. They work hard, and in the daytime they go below the surface to mine asbestos or iron ore. They work hard, but they long to go and live and work on their own pieces of land over the weekend. I want to refer to an example of such a young farmer, because if we want to establish young farmers in agriculture, it is as well to refer to this example. He bought the family farm from the estate of his parents. It is a small piece of land and an uneconomic unit by any standards. He tried to make a living on this little farm, but was unable to succeed. He then went to work on the mine. He has the benefit of being able to work at Iscor and was therefore able to obtain poles and wire cheaply, and due to this did a fine job of improving this farm. Over weekends he farmed, put up fences and built crush-pens and kraals. Then the adjoining farm, comprising a thousand hectares, came on the market. This young man was determined to purchase this piece of land in order to make his farm an economic unit. Accordingly he applied to the Land Bank and to Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, but the applications were turned down, for good reasons. His problem was that due to the high land prices the thousand hectares he wanted to buy would have pushed up his average price per hectare so much that in terms of the norms of the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure he would not have made ends meet on his farm if he had wanted to purchase this land. Moreover, this man was not a bona fide farmer in the true sense of the word because the salary he earned at Iscor was greater than his income from his farm. Another problem he faced was that the animals he had were too few for the larger farm he would have if he had bought this thousand hectares. Apart from anything else, therefore, he required capital to enlarge his herd. The finding was accordingly that he would not be able to make the grade. Moreover, if he stayed on the farm on a full-time basis he would not be able to meet the financial obligations which the enterprise entailed and at the same time maintain his family. I now wish to make an appeal. If our financial institutions can put this person in a position to continue with his work until such time as he can make the grade on his farm, then in this case we shall be helping a man who would like to farm, to do what he wants to do. If he is permitted to work, then with this extra income he can meet his obligations and also maintain his family. This man is very determined and I want to show the Committee how determined he was to live on his farm and obtain an economic unit. What did he do? The man longed to go to his farm, and when the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure could not help him, he did not throw in the towel. Perhaps many of us would say that what he did was wrong, but he sold all the animals he had on his uneconomic unit, negotiated a loan from the bank and bought the farm. His problem was then that although he had a full economic unit, he had no animals to farm with. Nowadays it is almost as expensive to obtain what one needs to start a farming enterprise as it is to obtain a farm. This man continued with his work at Iscor until Agricultural and Land Tenure were eventually good enough to assist him, and today he is living on his farm on a permanent basis. I want to ask that we and the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit should not tell these people who would like to farm that they must go and farm immediately, but should give them up to four years of grace so that with the income they earn at the mine or factory they can get themselves established, because we know that such men will definitely want to go and farm of their own free will as soon as circumstances permit.

I want to make an appeal today for the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to accommodate another category of farmers with regard to work. I know of farmers who were granted a Land Bank loan or an Agricultural Credit Loan last year. Their interest and redemption per annum and the money on which they and their families have to live were carefully calculated, but due to the increases in the interest rates over the past year, they are now no longer able to make ends meet. That increase in the interest rates is eroding the income of these men. I now wish to ask that if any of the farmers in my part of the world who fall into this category approach the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and ask whether they cannot go and work for two to three years just to overcome this problem, they be given a very sympathetic hearing. We have an extensive agricultural area. My part of the world is a good area. If a farm has been divided into camps and fences have been built, things go well. They say that when it rains in our part of the world, only the bull and the windmill work. I therefore repeat my appeal to the hon. the Minister that if farmers from my part of the world approach him with such a request, they should be permitted to go and work on a temporary basis and earn money to be able to absorb this extra expense they have due to the rising interest rates.

There is another request I should like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister in particular, since he is the one who deals with this matter. We have discussed this in the past and asked whether it is not possible for the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to have the same application form. In the majority of districts the valuator of the Land Bank and the valuator of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are the same person. We know that when a person wants to buy a farm he usually has three months’ option to buy that farm. Now we have cases of people applying to the Land Bank, and if they refuse him, he is a case for Agricultural Credit. Then the person has to apply all over again to Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Sometimes it also happens that the Land Bank tells him: We are prepared to give you RX if Agricultural Credit is prepared to give you RY. I want to say to the hon. the Minister and his department that we are very grateful that when the Land Bank takes a man’s hand. Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are in some cases prepared to take the other hand and help as well. Sometimes, when a person has applied to the Land Bank and has in addition had to fill in a form for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, it sometimes takes longer than the three months’ grace he had to exercise his option to purchase. Because time is such an important factor in such a transaction of purchase and sale, I want to ask today whether the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister would not give renewed consideration to having a single application form for both the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. After all, it is a rule that one first has to approach the Land Bank and if the Land Bank says that he has to approach Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for assistance, we must arrange it in such a way that his particulars are passed on without delay. I should very much like to make such a plea. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman expressed ideas which I think we can all agree with. Over the years he has always been a good Cape man, and it is a pity that he has now become a “Capie”. I should like to follow up on what the hon. member for Paarl, probably the greatest authority on bread in South Africa, had to say. For many years he was general manager of SASKO and probably knows more about bread and bread problems than the rest of us put together.

Mr. Chairman, one cannot make bread without wheat.

Nor without wine.

That is a Free State recipe.

The purchases of the Wheat Board for the 1980-’81 season amounted to 1 381 000 tons, which is 65 200 tons less than the amount in the 1979-’80 season. The board’s total purchases, plus a transfer from the previous season of 601 000 tons, fell short of what the country required and was insufficient to build up an adequate bridging supply with which to enter the next season. Accordingly the board was obliged to import wheat for the first time in 12 years. Approximately 286 000 tons was imported from America. The yield from the present season, despite an expected record harvest, will still be approximately 98 400 tons less than the country’s minimum requirements if provision is to be made for a transfer of 3½ months supply at the end of the season. Bearing in mind that the present consumption of wheat is approximately 2,04 million tons of wheat and that the growth over the past number of years has been approximately 5% per annum, it seems extremely unlikely that there will be surplus supplies of wheat during the 1981-’82 season, or even within the foreseeable future. The present pattern of production and consumer trends indicate that we shall again become a regular importer of wheat, as was the case up to 1966. Independence, and in the case of staple foodstuffs, self-sufficiency is a very important requirement in the struggle for survival in an unstable international community, that often lends itself to boycotts and threats of boycotts and other threats in order to remain on the right side of Third World nationalism. Not only, then, is the challenge in the field of wheat production a major one; it is also essential that the wheat producer should keep pace with the supply of bread to the rapidly growing population of South Africa, and I believe that that will be no easy task. The difference between the size of the harvest in the 1981-’82 season and the previous season simply shows once again what a risky business wheat production is in the Republic, due to climatic conditions. In addition, the South African farmer has to contend with a low yield due to the relatively low fertility of South Africa’s soil. In the USA the wheat farmer achieves an average wheat yield of approximately 2,29 tons per hectare. On the basis of the prevailing world market price of approximately R160 per ton, the wheat farmer in the USA obtains approximately R149 per ton or a gross income of R321 per hectare. In contrast the South African wheat farmer, with an average yield of approximately 1,2 tons per hectare, obtains a gross income of approximately R290 per hectare at the present producer price of R241,40 per ton. It is remarkable that even with a wheat price R100 per ton higher than the American wheat price, the South African wheat farmer realizes a lower gross income per hectare than the American wheat farmer. This is ascribable to poorer land and unstable weather conditions.

The question is: What is to be done to enable our wheat production to keep abreast of the growing demand under the given South African conditions? From a survey of the demand for food in South Africa up to the year 2000 it is clear that expenditure on food will increase but that the biggest growth in the demand for food will be in the non-White market. According to this survey, the primary production of food, the production of food by agriculture, will have to grow more rapidly over the past two decades than has been the case from 1960 to 1980. If the agricultural sector wishes to meet this future demand, more attention will have to be given to research than is at present the case and in addition, the State will have to be prepared to spend more on primary agriculture than the present 1,18% of the total Government budget. A cursory glance at what research is doing for the wheat industry reveals to us a very wide spectrum of research projects in progress. One must be grateful for what has been achieved, but one asks whether we should not re-orient our entire research pattern in order to make better use of the researchers at our disposal. I should have liked to say more about this but my time is limited. I therefore conclude with a word of sincere thanks for the research already carried out and an earnest plea that we utilize our research potential more effectively for the advancement of wheat production in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Swellendam has raised a matter which I believe should have the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Wheat consumption will go up in this country not only because the population will increase, but also because there is a noticeable trend partly as a result of pressure of marketing from wheat producing countries like the United States and ourselves that, as a population becomes more sophisticated, it switches to the use of wheaten products as a staple diet rather than for example the rye, barley or maize products which we use as staple foods at the moment. I think the answer is perhaps threefold. The answer does not only lie in research which I agree is important, but also in a better price for wheat and also the more extensive use of irrigated winter wheat. I grew winter irrigated wheat when we used to get R60 per ton and it was profitable. That was some ten years ago. Today the amount of wheat produced under irrigated winter conditions has dropped dramatically. It is really a function of the price offered. The hon. the Minister should take notice of what the chairman of the Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union said two weeks ago. He said that they have never had a government which has had a better insight into the problems of farming than the present government in Zimbabwe. Why does he say that? He says that because he believes that the Zimbabwean Government appreciates the importance of profitability and price and the farmers in Zimbabwe are getting the best prices ever from their marketing authorities. That is why they are very pleased. If you pay well for wheat your farmers will grow wheat. That is a very simple lesson.

Good fences make good neighbours. We have in this country a Fencing Act. The South African Government has chosen to give independence to certain States which were formerly part of South Africa. In East Griqualand, for example, fencing was never a problem where it was a border with what was the Trust Territory of Transkei because the Fencing Act applied in Transkei. However, now that Transkei is independent, the Fencing Act does not apply. The local farmer, if he had a problem, could go and see the magistrate in the adjoining Trust area and in terms of the Fencing Act the magistrate had to act. At the moment that is not the case, because as Transkei is now independent, our Fencing Act does not apply there. I believe the hon. the Minister should investigate this situation because we all know that fences are not immortal. They break, they get old and get stolen. Previously such problems could easily be attended to by a visit to the magistrate in the neighbouring area, but that is no longer possible.

Are you talking about the border fences?

Well, they are just normal five or six strand fences which, I suppose, are border fences. That is correct. Previously in terms of the Fencing Act a farmer could simply contact the local magistrate on the other side of the fence and tell him to have it repaired and he could in terms of the Act enforce it in law. Now that Transkei is independent he has no remedy.

I also wish to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of noxious weeds. Certainly in Natal, and it would appear from literature which we get from the department also in other parts of the country, there is a fairly sustained effort at attacking jointed cactus and there is now concern about the spread of nasella in the Eastern Cape. However, there are other weeds which are also a problem and which I do not think are adequately controlled. I refer to weeds like cockle bur or what we call ukudla tukela in Natal and kankerroos which I do not think is a noxious weed and then also bugweed which is endemic in Natal most often in the areas of local authorities who ought to be able to afford to get rid of it. What I particularly want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider is declaring silver wattle and golden wattle noxious weeds. There are large areas of Natal and also other parts of the country which are infested with silver wattle. The cost of the chemicals to poison and eradicate this is prohibitive. I believe that if farmers could get assistance in terms of the Weeds Act to get rid of silver wattle they would do a good deal in this regard.

I also wish to raise the question of the training of farm labour. I think all of us who are in the farming sector are conscious of the very considerable change in the proportion of White to non-White or Black in terms of population on our farms. Today Black people are doing jobs on farms which if our grandfathers saw them doing it they would faint with shock. They are doing recording, they are driving very expensive machinery, they are in many cases running and managing farms while absentee landlords earn their living in other places. I believe it is important that more should be done to train them. We do a lot to train young farmers and we have good agricultural colleges. We have established places like Kromme Rhee and also at Baynesfield in Natal as well as at Boschkop. I believe the administration boards should make a larger contribution to the costs of these institutions and that more such institutions should be established. I believe there should be more training on things like stock disease control and that Black stockmen should be trained in that aspect of farming. There are many other areas which I do not have time to go into.

In regard to training something should be done to stabilize the farm school position. I am aware that some of these things could fall outside the scope of the hon. the Minister but I believe farm labour is in a real sense part of the Minister of Agriculture’s responsibility. Many of us have farm schools and most farmers are concerned with and responsible for establishing these schools. However, it seems to me unreasonable that the farmer should in fact carry the major financial responsibility and have to go through all the effort of running the schools. As I see it, running schools is a function of the State. Schooling is the right of the people who live on the farms and not a privilege. It creates difficulties if a farm is sold and the farmer who purchases it then closes the school. This is an area which should be investigated. I believe that farm schools could become important community centres. I also believe that much should be done to assist farm labour with better facilities, soccer clubs, etc. In this regard the administration boards can do a lot. The hon. the Minister should ask them what they are doing in the rural areas. Certainly, all of us who are farmers pay a lot of money to these boards and we get precious little benefit from that money we pay.

There is another matter which concerns me in Natal. I believe the department should have a more effective system for subsidizing clean domestic water supplies to farm labourers. The cholera outbreak in Natal has emphasized the importance of having clean water. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare would be very well disposed. We have well-ordered systems for stock-watering subsidies and there is of course also a subsidy when one builds housing for farm labourers. However, in many areas, particularly ranches, where labourers live a distance from the main homestead, clean domestic water is an expensive addition.

Finally I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of litter and particularly plastic containers and plastic shopping bags. I do not believe there is a farmer in South Africa who is a cattle or small stock farmer who does not lose at least one beast per year through the ingestation of plastic in some form or other. For those farmers who live near the main highway from the Free State to the Natal coast it is a most serious problem as it is anywhere where people shop in these supermarkets and make use of plastic containers to carry their goods home. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I trust the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North will understand if I do not follow his train of thought. I should like to say something about agricultural exports and the promotion thereof.

It is true that over the past few years agriculture has consistently exported approximately one-third of its gross production value which, in the year 1981, amounted to almost R2 000. It is also true—this was mentioned repeatedly—that South Africa is one of only six countries that are net earners of foreign exchange. Thirdly it is also true that our food prices in South Africa are still among the most reasonable in the world. However, there are people who sometimes contend that we could import cheaper food. As a general statement, this can be disputed because it is only partly true and not always true either. I do not want to go into this matter in detail, but one cannot, as far as agriculture is concerned, reason in terms of the short-term only. If one looks at what happens in other countries, one sees that there are countries in the EEC, for example, that subsidize their dairy products by as much as 50%. An interesting aspect of agricultural exports is what can be done nowadays by means of aircraft. In the year 1980/’81, 5 000 tons of agricultural products were exported by plane to Europe alone and, even more interesting, 1 200 tons were exported to Africa. If we look at what is exported, it is interesting to note, for example, that 3 000 tons of avocados, 350 tons of melons, 120 tons of pineapples and 75 tons of green mealies—I doubt if that would ease the surplus—were exported. What I find most interesting of all is that 770 tons of flowers were exported by air in that year. In this regard I should like to pay tribute to the South African Airways for the fact that their tariff of 95 cents per kilogram up to 1 000 kilograms has been reduced to 76 cents per kilogram. Apart from the rain, this is probably the only thing which has come down. In other words the tariff for air transport is at present the same as it was in 1979.

As far as our 1980 exports are concerned, I should just like to refer to the export of deciduous fruit, citrus and canned products, which amounted to a total of R326 million. This indicates to us that although it comprises only 18% of our total exports, it is still a very important component of our total exports. We must set our minds to the question of exports because by exporting one ensures that enough is produced domestically. In that way, logically enough, one earns foreign exchange. At the same time a very important aspect of this is that the domestic market is subsidized in this way. In this regard one could refer to the citrus industry, and other kinds of fruit as well, such as table grapes and plums, which are being marketed at uneconomic prices domestically. What it amounts to, therefore, is that the farmer is in fact able to produce that product because he exports it and gets such a good price abroad that he can subsidize the domestic market. What I find important is that when the farmer produces export products which can compete on the foreign market, he is able to pay better wages to the lower paid workers whom he employs. In short, therefore, the farmer who exports these kinds of fruit contributes to the socio-economic development of the lower income groups.

I want to ask whether we in South Africa are in earnest about the export of agricultural products, if one calls to mind the incentives which other countries offer. The Greek Government buys tobacco from its farmers for R2 and sells it on the foreign market for R1. What does it achieve? It earns foreign exchange and prevents socio-economic problems as a result of a large number of bankrupt farmers flocking the cities. What is being done in respect of wine, for example? The French Government subsidizes the French wine farmer, with the result that the price of the French wine farmer’s product abroad, in the United Kingdom, for example, has risen by a mere 2,4% per annum in the last four years. The Germans go even further. They subsidize their wine farmers to such an extent that the prices of their products on foreign markets have not risen at all in the last four years. And so we could go on. I have already referred to the subsidization of dairy products. It is a fact that the wines of those European countries compete with our wines, which are not subsidized, in Canada, and consequently they are cheaper than our own product.

What more do we do? We have a few incentives—I do not want to go into them in detail—but unfortunately they cannot all be utilized by agricultural exporters. Furthermore, these incentives do not make provision for the fact that exchange rate fluctuations can sometimes assume critical proportions. Since the export incentive system does not take the profitability of that particular exporter into account, I consider it necessary to have this matter thoroughly investigated. An incentive such as a tax rebate cannot be utilized by the control boards and co-operatives.

A second incentive is a rebate on transport costs. This is something which can be granted annually and withdrawn on an ad hoc basis. So there is only one real incentive left which co-operative exporters could utilize. Without looking a gift horse in the mouth I ask myself: Are we in earnest in our endeavour to keep the co-operative sector strong and to develop it? If we really are in earnest as regards earning foreign exchange, if we are in earnest as regards subsidizing some of our commodities on the domestic market, and if we are in earnest about agriculture having to contribute its share to solving South Africa’s socio-economic problems, particularly in the Western Cape, then I believe we must make a study of what the outside world is doing in respect of agriculture. I want us to give serious consideration to long-term measures and to react less on an ad hoc basis. I want us to take steps to assist agriculture by way of the promotion of exports, and not allow situations to develop such as that in respect of the fruit farmer, whose net income over the past two years has dropped by 21%. I also want us to take an in-depth look at the GATT which in my opinion is only having a detrimental effect on this industry at present.

Agriculture has no problem with other sectors of the economy being subsidized and incentives being offered. All that agriculture asks is to have its fair share as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to devote one minute of my time to a small problem in the fishing industry. I believe the hon. the Minister will understand why I do so.

Yesterday afternoon I said that if one read between the lines, it was alleged in the newspapers—I was referring in particular to a report in Rapport—that there could indeed be talk of corruption in the fishing industry. I also said that I did not believe that one must only go for the small fry, but that one must also go for the big names in the fishing industry and have them investigated. In that regard I said in Afrikaans “dat ’n mens die aap uit die boom moet kyk” (i.e. that one should wait and see what transpires). Many of my friendly colleagues on the opposite side of the House pointed out that I was confusing two expressions: “om die kat uit die boom te kyk” and “om die aap uit die mou te laat”. However, I said that the “aap” (monkey) I was referring to was a very specific monkey. My friendly colleagues then tried to correct me; however I was not trying to use an idiomatic expression. I was referring to a certain monkey in the industry. I want to leave the matter at that now.

I want to refer today to two aspects in agriculture which in my opinion require further discussion. My hon. colleague today referred to the necessity of training in the agricultural industry. It is true that we have 1,2 million workers in the agricultural industry and the effort that is being made to train these people, is really minimal. To a large extent I believe the farmer has only himself to blame for that. There are facilities for the training of farm workers, and until recently they were not utilized as they should have been. As far as Kromme Rhee is concerned, three or four years ago the management of this training institution had to struggle to persuade farmers to send their farm workers there for training. Training in fencing, the repair of tractors, general mechanical work and vine pruning is offered there. If one looks at the inputs and price of these products, it is difficult to believe that we are still so far behind today as far as training is concerned.

There is another point that we have to bear in mind, however. Nowadays the farmer is able to show some profit on the training of his workers. The hon. the Minister of Manpower has taken certain steps which enable us to recover from the State 100% of the costs of training farm workers, and under some circumstances even more, as much as 150%. In the latter case it is not only tax deductible but under certain circumstances a cash payment can be made. Perhaps—it might have been my duty to spell this out but I do not have all the details available—we should make the farming community far more aware of this matter because I believe that we are making far too little use of the facilities and financial benefits at our disposal.

A great deal has been said about basic research. Once again one asks: What use is basic research, with all the limitations it can involve? The farmer is provided with the necessary extension services by the Department. The Department welcomed my proposal in spite of what some hon. colleagues on the other side of the House said. What is the use of all these things being done if we are not prepared to train our workers sufficiently so that they can make use of the facilities available to us? As I have said, the inputs in agriculture will continue to rise and we shall not be able to do much about it. However, we have to make better use of our own resources, for example the farmer’s knowledge and our workers, to be able to meet the increasing costs.

Finally, I want to make a plea for the area where I live. My colleague, the hon. member for Paarl, can also listen because I believe it concerns him as well. This does not quite fall within this hon. Minister’s jurisdiction, but to some extent it does. We in the Paarl and Stellenbosch districts want to know what has happened to the Simonsberg canal of the Theewaterskloof scheme. I know the hon. the Minister cannot answer the question, but he should be made aware of the fact that with the availability of that water the area will certainly be able to increase its production threefold if not fourfold. In addition, the area will be able to create new job opportunities, which are vital for the Boland. Those farmers who will be able to obtain irrigation water in this way— they have never before had irrigation water—will be able to create jobs which will help to stop the flow of farm workers to the cities. This will help to solve a rapidly growing socio-economic problem. I know that the hon. the Minister is not directly involved in this, but his supporters on the other side of the House allege that he does have influence in the Cabinet. It is up to the hon. the Minister to say whether this is in fact the case. I want to request the hon. the Minister, however, to use the influence he does have to have this water scheme completed, or at least to encourage his hon. colleagues to tell us what the time schedule is in respect of the completion of this scheme. When one starts planning for intensive irrigation, one does not do so overnight, particularly when one is in the grape, wine or fruit industry. One has to plan years ahead, and that planning can be done now, provided we know when the water will be available. I should like the hon. the Minister to give the matter his attention.

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of a very long debate. I believe that it was a debate which was conducted on an exceptionally high level and which testified to the earnest approach to agriculture of the participants. I believe that, generally speaking, we should keep agriculture out of the direct political arena, and I appreciate the fact that hon. members conducted the debate in this way, because what we are dealing with here is after all the interests of the farmers in South Africa. What is more, the interests of the farmer cut across political, linguistic and cultural boundaries, and are of course very important to our country.

I am going to do my best to reply to the speeches of all the hon. members within the limited time at my disposal, but if I do not succeed, hon. members must please accept that my department and I will get into contact with them. Consequently I am apologizing in advance if I am not able to react to the speeches of all the hon. members.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey a special word of gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for his assistance and support during the past year and also for the exceptionally dedicated way in which he has dealt with that part of agriculture which is his responsibility.

Firstly I wish to refer to the fishing industry. At the outset, while the matter is still very topical, I should like to announce the new rock lobster prices this afternoon. In view of the uncertainty it is being proposed that packers be instructed—

1. 1. To augment, within two weeks, the amount of R2,85 that has already been paid to 92,5% of the realization on sales up to the present, that is to say, 92,5% of R3,57, which gives an amount of R3,30. Consequently an additional 45 cents must therefore be paid; and
2. 2. that particulars of sales, costs and realization to date be submitted to the department in June and September 1982 for the determination of further deferred payments. As usual the final adjustment will be made early in 1983 when the final figures are available.

Consequently this means that an interim payment of 45 cents per kilogram is in fact going to be paid.

The responsibility in respect of Sea Fisheries was only recently entrusted to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Sea Fisheries is probably one of the most difficult and most contentious matters in our country. It is also one of the industries which is most certainly the target of the most gossip-mongering and discussion in South Africa. I wish to place my reputation at stake and say that my department and I, as far as it is humanly possible, will eradicate fraud, irregularities and injustice in the industry in a cold-blooded way. Big money or vested interests will not stop me and I shall not allow myself to be pressured by anyone or anything into taking decisions which are not scientific and which cannot be justified according to the norms of what is fair and right. If I take such a decision, it is for this House to criticize me and to call me to account.

But then I want to make an appeal. Do hon. members know what is happening to the fishing industry? We are gossiping the fishing industry to death, and destroying the integrity of officials in that Department. I declare myself prepared here today to take disciplinary steps, with all the powers at my disposal, against officials of my Department if they are guilty of irregularities. However, I am not prepared to allow officials of my Department to be tried by the Press on the basis of gossip and found guilty without their having an opportunity to defend themselves. I accept and believe in the integrity of every official in that Department until such time as he has been found guilty of an offence in a proper manner. As I have already done in the newspapers, I want to make an appeal to the public in this House as well to bring any information they have at their disposal and which is indicative of misdemeanours to us so that we can examine it. However, I am not prepared to react to vague allegations and unsubstantiated stories. Substantial evidence should be submitted to me; then I am prepared to have these matters investigated.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to big names in the fishing industry. The hon. member for Wynberg used an idiom to bring the word “aap” (monkey) into issue. Let me today, as one Afrikaner to another, give the hon. member some good advice. I think the hon. member made a mistake, because I think there is a personal connotation by means of which he brought the name of a person in the industry into issue, a person who does not enjoy the privilege of Parliament and who cannot therefore defend himself here. I am not defending anyone in the fishing industry, but I think the hon. member should rather have left it unsaid. I am saying this purely by way of friendly advice.

†The hon. member for Wynberg also accused me of dragging my feet in implementing the recommendations of the Treurnicht Commission of Inquiry, whose report was presented to the Department in June 1980. I became Minister in October 1980. I acknowledge that there has been a lapse of time, for very good reasons which I will outline in a moment, but I do not accept the allegations that I have dragged my feet.

In the first instance, hon. members will no doubt know that fisheries has only recently merged with my Department. My Department consequently had the difficult task of familiarizing itself very rapidly with the complex subject of fisheries, while at the same time I was expected to implement major and far-reaching recommendations of the Treurnicht Commission. I refuse to treat the very important subject of fisheries in an ad hoc manner, and I absolutely refuse to take overhasty decisions in order to comply with artificial deadlines set by people who have issues other than the interest of our valuable national marine resources at heart.

The report of the Treurnicht Commission has advised on a large number of issues, some of which concern basic fisheries policy, while others are of vital, yet local interest. Members will no doubt agree that it is my responsibility to consider those recommendations in depth and on the basis of expert advice. It has consequently been necessary for me to consult in depth with the former Department of Industries, the Fisheries Advisory Council, the Sea Fisheries Institute, and numerous other bodies and persons. In addition, some aspects of the Treurnicht Report required detailed further elaboration, to ensure practical implementation. For this purpose a former senior official of my Department has been appointed, and he is giving his full-time attention to these followup actions.

In addition, the White Paper which was tabled last week, is a major task in itself and this again took time. All these activities are time-consuming and that is why I am only now in a position to give sensible practical effect to some of the Commission’s recommendations. I must also remind members that in spite of the complexity of the major problems involved and the time required for responsible action, many recommendations of the Treurnicht Commission have in fact already been implemented. By way of example I quote but a few. Firstly, individual quotas have already been implemented in the in-shore trawl fisheries. Secondly, the structure of the Sea Fisheries Institute has been upgraded with the appointment of a chief director, resident in Cape Town, and a split in function between research and administration. The Sea Fisheries Institute will in future concern itself purely with research. Thirdly, the Fisheries Advisory Council has been reconstituted. Fourthly, an in-depth report on False Bay and Walker Bay has been presented to me. On this point I should like to say that the closure or not of these bays to commercial netting operations is not a simple matter because it affects the livelihood of many people. Recently Press reports have brought certain alleged irregularities to light and a number of court cases are pending. Under these circumstances I am not prepared to make any hasty decision but I will, taking all factors into consideration, including the outcome of the pending court cases, take a final decision at the appropriate time. While all these in-depth actions flowing from the Treurnicht Commission are in fact still in progress, I find it rather curious, but in any case unacceptable, that yet another commission of inquiry should now be appointed as requested by the hon. member for Wynberg. I am satisfied that full justice is being done to the recommendations of the Treurnicht Commission, and I must again emphasize that I will not for the sake of expediency be pressurized into taking hasty decisions on a subject which deserves to be taken very seriously indeed. A valuable national resource and all that it involves is at stake.

*I come now to the next important point. The hon. member for Simon’s Town and the hon. member for Wynberg raised the case of Dr. Lochner, and this was also a matter which was raised by the Commission. In addition, there was a prolonged debate in the Press on the case of Dr. Lochner and on the question of whether he has a formula to determine precisely what is going to happen and what should be done in the fishing industry. Dr. Lochner, an engineer by profession, has been claiming since 1968 that he has, on the basis of an electrical analogic model, solved the problem of the control and utilization of pelagic fish resources. However, his theories are not acceptable to marine scientists, and others. It was only published 12 years later in the South African Journal of Science, and elicited damning criticism from a wide spectrum of local scientists. Prior to that time his theory had also been submitted without success to a variety of persons and bodies. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, in the person of Dr. J. Gulland, a world-wide expert in the sphere of fishing population dynamics, rejected his theory. In 1972, Dr. Lochner submitted his theory to an international panel of experts in Peru. The panel found as follows—

As a member of many years standing of the SWA Fisheries Advisory Council, Dr. Lochner had every opportunity to offer his theory on an equal footing with scientists of the Sea Fisheries Institute. His theory was never accepted by the council. The Sea Fisheries Institute has, since it first became acquainted with his theory, found it to be scientifically unacceptable.

With the incorporation of the Sea Fisheries Institute into my Department, Dr. Lochner has once again—and I want to repeat this—been afforded an opportunity of co-operating with my scientists. Not only did he reject the offer, but he deliberately continued to disparage the scientists of my Department in the Press and elsewhere and to cast suspicion on their scientific integrity. Because of this situation, which Dr. Lochner himself created, it is now almost impossible to involve him in departmental research. The Scientific Adviser of the Prime Minister recently indicated that he considered the scientific criticism of Dr. Lochner’s theory to be damning, while Dr. Lochner’s replies to that were evasive and unsatisfactory.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister, on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission, whether Dr. Lochner’s theories were submitted to Dr. A. P. Burger, or whether it was not simply the criticism of his theories which was submitted to him.

It was my intention to deal with this point. It is clear that Dr. Lochner is still seeking personal recognition at all costs, but that his theory remains scientifically—this is the only norm by which we can assess it—unacceptable. I want to state finally now that Dr. Lochner’s theory cannot be considered as a basis for resource control, and I consider this matter to have been finally disposed of.

In one of last weekend’s Sunday newspapers, Dr. Lochner said, inter alia—

I, myself, am an agricultural scientist, and I consider such an accurate estimate to be totally inconceivable in the biological world. It is not even possible for a stock farmer, who keeps a watchful eye over his herd every day, to determine the growth of his stock in a specific year within anywhere near the margin of one per cent. No such possibility exists.

The hon. member went on to ask me what we had submitted to the Scientific Adviser of the Prime Minister. We wrote the following letter to Dr. Burger—

The letter also states—

The following were submitted to him—

1. 1. Evidence given before the Commission of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry on the control of our marine resources: 6 August 1979.
2. 2. The Control of a Pelagic Fish Resource (an article published in the South African Journal of Science, Vol. 76, January 1980).
3. 3. The Control of a Marine Resource (a summary of an article published in the South African Journal of Science).
4. 4. The Control of a Marine Resource: August, 1979.
5. 5. The Control of a Pelagic Fish Resource: August 1979; and
6. 6. “ ’n Ontleding na en voorstelle vir die Beheer van die Suid-en Suidwes-Afrikaanse Pelagiese Visbronne”: December, 1976.

We received the following reply from Dr. Burger, the scientific adviser of the Prime Minister—

Apparently he submitted it to him. I quote further—

I am still quoting from Dr. Burger’s letter—

The entire comment made by Dr. Burger on Dr. Lochner is absolutely damning. I am no longer prepared to take up the time of the Institute and of my officials by constantly having to react to the theories of a person whose published material was unable to survive the test of scientific comment. With that I really consider this matter to have been disposed of.

The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to the inspection service. I wish to comment on that briefly. In this connection there are problems which one should not overlook.

†The hon. member for Wynberg unfortunately created the impression that nothing positive has been done to promote this service. Although I am the first to admit that the present state of affairs is far from satisfactory, I feel myself compelled to refer to the arduous task performed by the members of the small and much criticized inspection group and to some notable achievements on their part. I must also point to the steps that the Department has already taken to improve the inspectors’ service conditions. Firstly it must be remembered that the Republic has a coastline in excess of 2 800 kilometers and an extensive 200 sea mile fishery zone. To achieve the aims of the relevant Acts and regulations, a 24 hour per day coastal patrol service must be maintained along the entire coastline in addition to the patrolboat service in the vast fishery zone. Furthermore inspections must be carried out at factories, fish processing and storage facilities, hotels, restaurants, shops, etc. In addition there must be thorough investigation of alleged contraventions by the fishing industry and members of the general public, contraventions which might include large scale illegal exploitation, marketing, exports, etc. This is indeed a formidable task by any standards. If it is also taken into consideration that the exploitation value of the fishery resources is in excess of R250 million per annum, and that more and more people flock to the sea and exploit its resources, the exacting nature of the inspection duties should be clear. Against the background members must understand that my Department, with its limited manpower, will never be in a position to render a fully comprehensive protection service. It is the duty of every law abiding citizen to support this service by being on the lookout for poachers and reporting contraventions immediately. Let us all join together in protecting this wonderful natural asset in the interests of our descendants.

There is, however, a positive side that I must give attention to, especially in the light of continuing negative and demoralizing reporting in the local Press. Let me give, from the records, some figures for the year 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1982. In that year 917 complaints were received, with 614 persons prosecuted. Fines amounting to R57 831 were imposed. If it is taken into account that this was achieved by a group consisting of only 40 inspectors, one can see why I am convinced of their dedication and proud of their dedicated service, often under trying circumstances. I therefore want to express a word of thanks to these officers and to appeal to them to carry on with the good work they are doing, notwithstanding the unsympathetic attitude that they encounter. Lastly I want to emphasize that the former Department of Industries and my Department have already substantially improved the lot of this group. An improved staff structure was, for example, recently implemented. There were also various other improvements in the service conditions, something to which the hon. member for Simon’s Town referred. The shortage of manpower in this category, however, remains a headache, and I have asked the Department to accord the matter further urgent attention with a view to upgrading the service to attract candidates of the desired quality.

*In this connection I want to content myself by saying that the task is a very difficult one. To maintain this inspection service requires a great deal of effort, but I can assure the hon. members that if we are granted the time and the opportunity, we are going to take positive steps to bring about an improvement in this connection in the foreseeable future.

I should now like to react further to a point made by the hon. member for Simon’s Town in connection with the position in False Bay and accusations of irregularities in connection with the catching of white steenbras. In mid-February, according to the Argus, approximately 100 tons of white steenbras—which in the same newspaper of 31 March was blithely increased to 160 tons—were landed at Kalk Bay and elsewhere by four bait boats over a period of three days. According to the reports the fish was stored in the cold storage facilities at the harbour before being removed. All the fish were offloaded during the night and some of the fish was removed during the day. Newspaper reports are now claiming that officials of the department closed their eyes to and tacitly allowed these events to take place, and dragged their feet when it came to the investigation. The Press fulfilled a useful function by providing information and photographs, which our officials were not able to obtain, in order to institute legal proceedings, and for this I am grateful to the Press. On the other hand a hysterical reaction based on vague allegations was unleashed and led to unpleasantness which could possibly have been fomented by the reports. The English-language Press omitted to publish reports indicative of positive action taken by inspectors during the Easter weekend. This was information which was made available by my Department. We indicated in a Press statement that over the Easter weekend no fewer than 53 persons were caught along the West and South Coast. For rock lobster the excess catch figure was 153 and the undersize figure was 1 054. For periwinkles the respective figures were 70 and 203. For abalone they were 32 and 16. All these catches were seized. No mention was made of this. At this stage not much can be said about this entire matter because the Police are investigating the white steenbras case, and a court case in this connection may possibly ensue. I decided personally that this case should be handed over to the Police. We have also held talks with the Police and asked for special steps to be taken in an effort to secure successful prosecutions in these cases. The dossiers were handed to the Attorney-General last Friday. The Police investigations into the other alleged irregularities on the part of officials has not yet been completed. If irregularities are proved, I shall not hesitate to take strict action against those persons. However, my inspectors are not guilty of an offence before it has been satisfactorily proved against them.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay, who now finds himself in the Chair—if I may refer to this—spoke about concession holders. I can understand how the Commission feels about this matter, i.e. that concessions and so on should no longer be transferable.

However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that the matter of the transfer of concessions is being looked into with great circumspection. As far as rock lobster and abalone are concerned, I want to give this House the assurance that this matter will be clarified further with the industry before it is implemented, as set out in the White Paper, because it is in fact the position of the small fisherman which is at stake in this connection, or which may be jeopardized.

The hon. member for Caledon raised the question of marine reserves for abalone between Hangklip and Agulhas. I can understand the hon. member’s proposal, but it is not easy to implement in practice because it places even more pressure on our inspectors if they have to carry out special patrols in certain reserves because those are in fact the areas on which exploiters concentrate. In addition, reserves which are opened and closed simply confuse the public. However, I am willing to give serious attention to the proposals that the 185 metre zone be extended to 250 metres and that the length of the divers’ air pipes be limited to 45 metres, as well as for the restriction on a number of divers per boat. The hon. member made various other proposals to which we will also be able to give attention.

Mention was also made of honorary fishery officers. At present we have 542 honorary fishery officers, who are doing useful work for us. It was also asked whether they could not be given more powers. It is not such an easy matter, though. The actual request was that they should have the same powers as Police force reservists. I am prepared to look into the matter, but I foresee certain problems in this connection. Nevertheless I am prepared to look into the whole matter again. Police reservists at least have direct contact with their stations and colleagues and are controlled by those stations. But untrained persons who are not working under the direct control of the department, cannot be given powers of arrest. This is in fact a dangerous thing. Such powers could easily be used incorrectly or even abused, and could give rise to serious embarrassment and even claims for damages. Nor is it in the spirit of the legal procedure in the Republic.

Then there is the question of the attachment of private property, something which also has far-reaching implications. Since there are complaints about the abuse of powers against existing inspectors, hon. members can imagine for themselves how many complaints there would have been if we had conferred drastic powers upon these honorary inspectors.

†I must say that I share the concern of the hon. member for Albany about the future of the small man. We are facing a situation in which costs are soaring, and catches have to be restricted in order to protect those resources. I fear that the future of the small man is uncertain, especially if one thinks in terms of the replacement of boats and equipment. State intervention, albeit undesirable, may become unavoidable. The hon. member also mentioned the question of zoning and so on.

*I want to come now to the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who also referred to the question of the stockfish quota allocated to the coastal trawling industry. The stockfish quota allocated to the coastal trawling industry for 1982, viz. 9 000 tons, is far above the average performance of this industry during the past decade. This tonnage, which amounts to an increase, was allocated despite a reduction in the overall stockfish quota. The sole quota was based on an updated staple estimate, and in determining this quota, I allowed myself to be guided by the scientists. I also listened with interest to the proposal made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay in connection with improved protection for the coastal trawling industry. On the face of it I can find no problem with his suggestion and I shall give serious consideration to it. I am also pleased to be able to confirm that the new patrol boat will soon be commissioned in Mossel Bay and this will undoubtedly enhance the law enforcement ability of the Department considerably.

The hon. member for Albany also referred to fresh water fish. Fishcor is in fact able, with the consent of the Minister, to undertake work in this connection, but up to this stage I have not yet adopted a final standpoint on the role which Fishcor should play in connection with fresh water fish. I must now make haste.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to an over-emphasis on production research and an apparent neglect of economic and marketing research. In the light of the increasingly painful cost squeeze, and particularly the disadvantages we experience in the marketing of certain agricultural products overseas, I can only agree that greater emphasis on economics and marketing will be necessary in future, and not only in regard to research by my Department, but also by all other participants in the production and selling of agricultural products.

*The hon. member for Smithfield is of course an expert in the field of the Stud Book Association and stud book matters. He made an exceptional contribution here with his carefully considered speech. Of course the hon. member was also a chairman of the Stud Book Association, a task which he performed with great distinction. I wish to thank the hon. member for his contribution. As I said yesterday, I feel that the various industries which benefit, inter alia, from the work and results of the Stud Book Association will have to make a greater contribution in this connection.

The hon. member for Prieska used a very felicitous expression. He said that the stud book is now registering superior animals and not superior owners. This is in fact a very great truth, and I cannot but express my heartfelt agreement with him. The hon. member also spoke about the tamers of the North West, of the toughness of those people of the North West, and their ability to survive. I agree with the hon. member that, with reference to the title of the well known book, one could call them the tamers of the North West.

The hon. member also made the point that a rift had occurred between the department and the universities. For the sake of the record I just wish to mention that the withdrawal of universities did not take place at the request of the Department of Agriculture, but at the request of the universities themselves. Consequently if there was a separation—something which I shall elaborate on later—the Department cannot be reproached for it.

The hon. member also pointed out that drought assistance and subsidies given to the karakul farmers in South West Africa were not quite the same as that given to farmers in the Republic. However, I consulted the Administrator-General and the body in South West Africa representing the farmers in an attempt to help to bring what is granted in South West Africa into line with what is granted in the Republic. Unfortunately the circumstances in South West Africa are completely different to the circumstances here. They do not have the same access to the meat market as we do. The South African karakul fanner therefore has a better chance of marketing his meat than the farmer in South West Africa. That is why the assistance is not granted on the same basis. It is a pity, but as a result of the difference in the circumstances prevailing in those two areas, we are unfortunately unable to render precisely the same assistance in this case.

The hon. member also referred to the question of meat grading. I just want to mention that this system has been changed, with the co-operation of the Department. Naturally, since it is a new system, one can expect there to be problems at the outset. I trust that these problems will be ironed out in due course, to the benefit of the meat industry in general.

Hon. members must please pardon me if I speak intermittently about agricultural matters and fishing matters, but we did not divide up the debate this year, and it is unfortunately the case that one has to move from fishing matters to agricultural matters and back again.

Fish, poultry and meat.

Yes, fish, poultry and meat, as the hon. member for Malmesbury says.

†I should now like to refer to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who made the point that there is a great shortage of extension and research officers.

I appreciate the hon. member’s concern about the loss, and therefore the resultant shortage, of personnel. He, of course, also contributed to this by resigning from my Department some years ago. I must tell hon. members that I am of the opinion that the hon. member made a mistake in switching from my Department to the politics of the PFP. In the light of the manpower shortage in the Department—of course also in the PFP—I think he could have made a better contribution in the Department of Agriculture. The hon. member also referred to farm labour. I advise him to discuss that matter with my colleagues the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the Minister of Manpower.

*The hon. member for Humansdorp made a moving appeal here—if I may call it that— for part-time farmers, as did the hon. member for Kuruman. We are in fact giving attention to all the points that were mentioned. A memorandum was drawn up by the agricultural group of the NP. This will be discussed with the hon. the Deputy Minister, the department and the Land Bank. I want to congratulate the caucus group on its initiative in this connection and also on the fact that they brought the matter to the attention of the Ministry. In due course I, too, shall give attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Schweizer Reneke, a young and zealous member, made a fine speech here on the importance of agriculture, and the grain shortage in Africa. He pointed out that Africa will import 18 million tons of grain this year. The hon. member also referred to the drought, etc. The Jacobs Committee will look into this matter with the necessary sympathy. The hon. member also thanked me in advance for the good maize price which I am going to announce tomorrow, and I thank the hon. member for doing so.

Do you not feel like announcing it today?

In order to build up the tension a little, I decided that I would only do so tomorrow. [Interjections.]

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen referred to the problems in connection with international borders. As hon. members know we have a great deal of sympathy and understanding for the problems of our border farmers. These are problems which arose through no fault of their own. In this connection I should also like to refer the hon. member to my colleagues, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I please point out that those two hon. gentlemen are dealing with legislation in the House of Assembly, and therefore tender their apologies.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He made a most amazing speech here yesterday. He devoted his whole speech to the procedure adopted in regard to the introduction of a pool system for dried beans. Not only was his presentation factually incorrect, but it was also evident that the whole aim of his speech was to attack the co-operative movement and the South African Agricultural Union. [Interjections.]

Let me say at the outset that I as Minister will do everything in my power to promote the co-operative movement in South Africa, a movement that has meant so much, not only to the farming community, but indirectly also to the consumers.

Mugabe will agree.

Oh yes, that hon. member was in Zimbabwe! [Interjections.] In my opinion the hon. member did a sensible thing when he participated in the agricultural tour to Stellenbosch, and I hope he does so again next year. However, he should not have taken his trip to Zimbabwe, because that trip made him completely haywire. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member should stick to familiar things.

†Mr. Chairman, the factual position is that organized agriculture asked for a pool system for dry beans. The National Marketing Council investigated the matter as provided by the Marketing Act. After the Council explained the pool system to the farmers they decided against it. The hon. member asked why the National Marketing Board tried to persuade the farmers to accept the scheme. That is absolutely untrue. They only explained the pool system to the farmers without trying to persuade them one way or the other and on account of that explanation the farmers decided against the pool system. They advised me accordingly and I decided that it was not the wish of the farmers to change to a pool system. It is as simple as that.

*Mr. Chairman, I should now like to come to the hon. member for Middelburg who also made an exceptional contribution. I am very pleased that that hon. member as well as many other hon. members, referred in glowing and complimentary terms to the annual report of the department. I want to convey my appreciation to all the hon. members for these compliments in respect of the annual report. I can assure the Committee that it takes up a great deal of the time and attention of the Department to be able to table its report every year.

The hon. member asked us to look into the financing of the SAPO scheme. The Nurserymen’s Association, the Deciduous Fruit Board and the KWV are contributing to the scheme. I am prepared to look into the financing of the scheme and I shall discuss this with the hon. member in due course. Then, the hon. member, just like the hon. member for Prieska, referred to the question of co-operation with universities and asked whether that co-operation was satisfactory. We have a liaison committee on which, inter alia, the following persons have representation: Representatives of the Directorate of my Department, the deans of the agricultural faculties, one representative of other universities on a rotating basis, representatives of the CSIR and a representative of the Office of the Scientific Adviser of the Prime Minister. This liaison committee really functions effectively, and in this process decisions are taken in regard to contract research which we give to the universities to do for the department, and also in connection with ad hoc research in other fields. I can mention for the information of this Committee that the costs involved in contract research done by the universities for the Department already amount to half a million rands per annum, and that we are also prepared, if necessary, to make more money available for this purpose. In view of the manpower shortage it is of course meaningful to make use of the existing manpower at our universities.

I also have great appreciation for the fact that the hon. member for Middelburg pointed out the importance of improved plant material. I have great appreciation for the standpoint which the hon. member adopted in this regard.

The hon. member for Brits made a pleahere in respect of the tobacco industry. In general I wish to say that I personally, my Department as well as the Department of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Environmental Affairs, are extremely sympathetic towards and have an exceptional grasp of the problems which arose in that area as a result of the pollution of water, which entails serious problems for the tobacco industry, particularly in the Brits irrigation area. I have great appreciation for what farmers and the industry itself have already done to organize the tobacco industry on a sound basis. I agree that chlorine pollution is at present the crux of this problem. The hon. member is aware of the recommendations of the Jacobs Committee and that these are at present receiving attention. I agree that the chlorine pollution problem, possible amendments to the Water Act, further research into water purification and penalties for pollution contraventions deserve consideration. In view of the fact that there is close liaison in this connection between my Department and the Department of my hon. colleague, I undertake to refer the hon. member’s proposals in this connection to the organizations concerned.

I should like to react further to various other speakers within the space of the time available. I just wish to return to the hon. member for Wynberg, who referred to “big names” in the fishing industry. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member. Let us all make a concerted effort now to clean up this industry.

I agree with that.

If the hon. member has big names in mind or knows of any irregularities or injustices, he must come and tell us about them. My door, and the door of my Department is open, and we shall look into these matters.

But we must not gossip.

But we must not gossip, as the hon. member for Malmesbury says. We must not make allegations such as those which were again made in the Press recently, and in a very subtle way place people under suspicion and then leave everything hanging in the air. We can operate to the advantage of the industry in that way.

I should also like to refer to the hon. member for Uitenhage. The hon. member put forward a plea in respect of the Tsitsikamma. It was a moving plea, and I undertake, with reference to that plea, to furnish a personal reply which will be far more comprehensive than the reply which I shall be able to give him here today. Since the hon. member made the point that the public’s interests and the interests of the resource should not be subordinated to commercial interests. I wish to tell him that we are in complete agreement with him. I wish to emphasize that it is my premise, and the premise of my Department, that we look at this industry from a conservational point of view. I wish to repeat and emphasize that this resource is a naturally renewable resource which should be managed in such a way that it can be preserved for posterity.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg complained about a reduction in the amount appropriated for Agriculture and Fisheries. I could advance reasons for this reduction. I am not saying that the amount is adequate because I do not think one can ever spend enough money on research and extension, but there are definite reasons for this amount having been reduced this year. In respect of Sea Fisheries, R7,5 million less was appropriated since the new research ship the Africana had already been delivered and consequently no amount had to be appropriated this year for expenditure in respect of the building of the ship. The appropriation in respect of agricultural financing decreased from R17,5 to R2 million, but it decreased precisely as a result of the fact that the rotating fund had been established and the income, in other words, the repayments made by the farmers to the State, were not included in the estimates of expenditure, but returned to the rotating fund and could be utilized again for the financing of farmers. Consequently an entirely new situation has arisen. The same applies in respect of the operating account established for Onderstepoort. The income from the sales of vaccine is not paid into the general revenue fund either, but is deposited in an operating account and no provision is made in these estimates for the total expenditure of that operating account. Subsidies for the maize industry and the wheat industry, in point of fact, consumer subsidies over which the Minister of Agriculture does not decide, decline by R84 million. This is in fact not a reduction of the appropriation for research and extension, but affects these two industries only. In his Budget Speech the hon. the Minister of Finance announced that an additional amount of R45 million would be made available for bread subsidies. If I could now let the cat out of the bag, I want to inform this Committee this evening that I shall announce tomorrow that an additional amount has been obtained from the hon. the Minister of Finance for the maize industry, an amount which was not indicated in this budget. We had to cut back on subsidies this year. Is there anyone in this Committee who is not aware that at present we find ourselves in a tight financial situation? Is there anyone in this Committee who is not aware that the gold price has fallen dramatically? Is there anyone in this Committee who is not aware that the gold price has fallen dramatically? Is there anyone in this Committee who is not aware that our defence obligations have increased dramatically? Surely a Government has to rearrange its priorities in the light of the prevailing circumstances, or are there hon. members who criticize this budget and who want the money appropriated for Defence to be reduced? If there is any hon. member who feels that way, he must get up and say so.

We should rather have put the money which was sent to the Seychelles to use in this regard.

The hon. member should not discuss a matter here which is sub judice and in regard to which the hon. member knows that statements had already been made by the Government before it became sub judice.

What we must also remember when we discuss research and extension is that the contribution of the State is not reflected only in what the Department is doing. The CSIR also renders research services to agriculture. Our universities, which also receive their funds from the State, are also undertaking research into agriculture. Throughout the spectrum there are co-operatives and the private sector that are also doing research and extension. I do not wish to use this as an excuse; I am merely mentioning it as a fact. The Committee of Inquiry into Services to Agriculture was in fact appointed by me to look into these important points and to evaluate critically the entire question of services to agriculture and then make proposals, including proposals in respect of the financing of this research.

The hon. member referred to the maize price, and it is not clear now whether he meant that the selling price of the Board should be R145 per ton. The figure which I have in mind is in any case far better than the figure mentioned by the hon. member.

The hon. member also referred to the fertilizer exchange transaction. As the hon. member knows, the entry of other people to the manufacture of fertilizer is outside my jurisdiction. The hon. member must raise that matter under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism.

I also wish to react to a point made by the hon. member for Simon’s Town. He said that my Department and I had strengthened monopolies in that we had allowed a abalone quota to be transferred. I could just mention that a quota of a person whose market share was only 5% came onto the market. Another company, whose market share was only 6%, made an offer for the undertaking of this other small man in the industry, and I approved the transaction. Compared with the 5% plus 6% of the market share in the industry of the two companies respectively, the market share of the other companies is 34%, 31% and 23% of the industry respectively. In view of this, surely it is now clear that I enabled a small organization in the industry to acquire a stronger position by taking over the quota of another small organization.

Moreover, I also wish to refer to the reduction of a quota in the abalone industry. I should like to mention to the Committee that there is a certain firm—I am not going to mention any names—which committed serious contraventions in respect of the abalone industry. As a punitive measure I summarily reduced the firm’s abalone quota by 20%, that is by 11 000 kilograms. These 11 000 kilograms means a loss of gross income of R247 000 for that factory. The loss in profit before taxation is R120 000 per annum. This is harsh punishment, but I wish to repeat that if people commit contraventions in these industries, I am going to hit them very, very hard. The effective way of hitting them is to take their quotas, because they are not a right, but a privilege. I wish to address this serious warning to all and sundry, and if people commit contraventions, they must not come and complain to me afterwards that they were hurt, because I have given the undertaking that we are going to clean up this industry.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Is the hon. the Minister going to give the quota which he took away from this firm to someone else, or is it being frozen until such time as he decides to do something else with it?

Mr. Chairman, I am keeping that quota in my hand, and I shall decide in due course what I want to do with it.

I am afraid that I shall not be able to reply to all the hon. members since there are only a few minutes left. However, I should like to refer to the point by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in connection with the question of seaweed. I am well acquainted with this case. This company had concessions which were granted to it by way of the tender system. Then the company fell into arrears with its payments, and subsequently it owed an amount of R56 000. We afforded that company several opportunities to settle these arrear payments. The accounting officer of my Department, viz. the Director General, was at that stage in danger of being held responsible for fruitless expenditure if he did not take action in this connection. Consequently he cancelled that concession, in consultation with me. Various efforts were made to have that company’s concession restored. There were even threats of legal proceedings. Unfortunately it was not possible to take any other action, for then the Director-General of this Department would have exposed himself to serious criticism.

I want to touch on a few other points. The hon. member for Malmesbury referred to the cultural heritage of our fishing community. He also referred to the quality of those people. Our fishermen are people whom I have only come to know during the past two years, but I see among them, too, that quality which one finds among the farmers, and among people who grew up on farms—they are people who grew up close to nature, close to the sea. I have great respect for those people. The hon. member made a plea for the small man. As I said last year, the preservation of the small man in the fishing industry is one of my priorities. When the sources have recovered, when there is growth, I shall give very sympathetic consideration to whether I can do something for the small man.

The hon. member also referred to the local availability of rock lobster. I shall look into that matter as well.

I come next to the hon. member for Meyerton. I want to thank the hon. member for his reference to my parents. His parents and mine are old friends, and I appreciate his fine words in that connection.

I was also pleased to hear the fine words which the hon. member had to say about the Land and Agricultural Bank. I agree with him that it is an excellent institution. It is the farmer’s friend. I am sorry that the Land and Agricultural Bank does not have any more funds, because if it had had more funds, we would have had fewer problems in agriculture.

The hon. member went on to refer to the question of young farmers, and said that their training was a priority. In this connection, too, I agree with the hon. member for Meyerton. He also referred to the change in age. I agree with the hon. member that the position of the young farmer is a matter which we shall have to look into very sympathetically.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Winburg for his fine words and for congratulating us on our report. I appreciate it very much. The hon. member made a very important point. We all speak about escalating costs in agriculture. The hon. member asked in a very careful and responsible way: Are we not perhaps spending too much on capital goods, on machinery and implements? Have we not begun to adopt an approach of simply incurring expenditure and then hoping for good crops and a better price? Should we not see, next year, whether we cannot get along with only the optimum inputs and whether we are not able to purchase more carefully, and whether we should not tighten our belts a little? I think we should pay heed to those sensible words of the hon. member for Winburg, who said that he knew all about a depression and the consequences of a depression.

The hon. member also spoke about future food production, and I agree with the points which the hon. member mentioned in this connection.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout jumped from the Dried Beans Board to the Deciduous Fruit Board, from the Canning Board to the Dried Fruit Board. I can only tell the hon. member that the Jacobs Committee is looking into the position in the Western Cape. The committee is, inter alia, considering the problems of the Western Cape, and if there is a problem in this connection, it will come out in the inquiry.

The hon. member for Paarl discussed bread. The hon. member, as another hon. member correctly observed, is an expert on this industry. He referred to subsidies and also to the fact that we in South Africa have an efficient wheat industry, which includes the baking and milling industry. This industry is being effectively administered and has succeeded in keeping costs within reasonable limits. In this connection I agree with the hon. member.

The hon. member for Kuruman made more or less the same plea as the hon. member for Humansdorp. In this connection I just want to say that the Land and Agricultural Bank, as well as Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, give sympathetic consideration to a person who is engaged in the agricultural industry and who then requests permission to find other employment for a while. The position of these people is understandable. As far as part-time farmers are concerned, one thing we must remember is that there are two kinds of part-time farmers, viz. the man who lives on the farm and goes out to work part-time, and the man who lives in town and farms on a part-time basis. One must determine, in the light of one’s priorities, which person is going to assist, the man who is completely dependent or the man who is partially dependent on agriculture. However, I realize that difficult cases occur in the grey area in between, and I have a great deal of sympathy for those cases. I have already referred to the fact that the Agricultural Study Group of the National Party is also giving urgent attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Swellendam made the point that we would have to push up our wheat production in future, and that research in this connection is going to play a very important role. If one considers our priorities, it is a pity that many of the research results that have already been obtained cannot be brought to the attention of farmers. It is also a pity that many of the results that are already known are not being applied in practice. If we are able to transfer and apply the existing knowledge we shall be able to bring about a considerable increase in production.

The hon. member for Wellington made an important point about the contribution made by agriculture towards earning foreign exchange, and pointed out how important agricultural exports and the promotion of agricultural exports are for us in South Africa. If we take into consideration that South Africa exports about 30% of its production, it was a very important point which the hon. member made. There are certain industries which export 90% of their production. I want to tell the hon. member that I consider the question of export promotion measures for agriculture to be a priority. My department is discussing this matter with the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism and we are bringing this need very strongly to the attention of that department and are pointing out certain deficiencies which exist. I agree with the hon. member that one should try to make export promotion assistance available on a more permanent basis and that it could be integrated in our marketing strategy on a permanent basis.

The hon. member also referred to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, and asked whether we should not look into this arrangement. The more one considers this matter and how it affects agriculture, the more dissatisfied one actually becomes with it, but on the other hand one also realizes to an increasing extent that GATT entails great benefits for South Africa. When this agreement was negotiated South Africa was still an exporter of primary agricultural produce and it was not yet an industrial country, and thorough consideration was not given to the long-term position. I do not want to hide behind the fact that these negotiations were carried out by a previous Government, but it is indeed true that the negotiations were conducted by a previous Government and that this Government was faced with a fait accompli and then had to sign the agreement. However, I want to make the point that GATT nevertheless constitutes great advantages for South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, if I have not replied in detail to all the points raised by the various speakers, I am sorry. The hon. member for Caledon, besides the matter which I have already dealt with, raised other matters as well, but I shall unfortunately not be able to react to them.

In conclusion I should like to thank everyone who participated in this debate for their contributions and for the positive spirit in which they participated in this debate. I wish to emphasize again that when one is dealing with agriculture, I believe that one is dealing with one of the most important matters in South Africa, because a person’s basic requirements still remain those of food and clothing.

Vote agreed to.

The Committee rose at 17h30.