May I have the privilege of the half-hour, Sir? The farmers of South Africa and this side of the House have long since gained the impression that instead of having a price fixation policy in agriculture which is sufficiently profitable to keep the farmers on the land, and a financial policy which will make it possible to keep the farmers going, this Government was turning more and more in the direction of “the line of least resistance” and saying we must get rid of the small farmers, those farmers who were on units on which they could not make a living. That may perhaps be the easiest way of solving the problem.

Nonsense.

The greater the pressure becomes in agriculture the more the Government is inclined in that direction. It is generally known that agriculture has recently come to a standstill. There has been a sharp increase in agricultural production but the income from agriculture has not shown a corresponding increase. We find, for instance, that during 1954 to 1964 the income from agriculture has only increased by R50,000,000, namely, from R470,000,000 in 1954 to R520,000,00 in 1964, whereas production has increased proportionately far more than these figures represent in rands. We find, however, that production has also declined during the past two years. I want to quote from the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing—

Then they say that droughts were mainly to blame for that, but what I want to emphasize are the figures—

We admit that the droughts we have experienced over the past two years have contributed greatly towards the decline in agricultural production but we also know that unprofitable prices constitute one of the factors which cause production to decline. I want to substantiate this statement of mine by giving the following figures in the short time at my disposal. According to the departmental report an amount of R4,800,000,000 was invested in agriculture in 1964 and the net income derived from agriculture was R105,000,000. In other words, the farmer received 2.1 per cent interest on his investment. On more than one occasion both the Minister and the Deputy Minister have tried to justify this low rate of interest by saying that the farmers were continuing to farm because land values had appreciated to such a large extent. That may be true but then I want to ask in all reasonableness whether an industrialist will invest his money in an undertaking where he will only get a 2.1 per cent return irrespective of whether there is capital appreciation in that sector. I maintain that the capital appreciation of the land and buildings of the industrialist has been as high, if not higher, than in the case of agriculture but in spite of that he would not risk investing his money in industry unless he is reasonably assured of a 7 per cent or 8 per cent return. Over a period of years—it is not only over a period of two years—the farmer gets a return of 2.1 per cent on his investment. What the Government refuses to admit is that farming is a way of life. It is an outlook on life, a culture; it is practically a religion with the farmer. The fact remains that although the return on his investment is so low he does not find it very easy to give up farming unless it becomes unprofitable. A nation is as strong as its agricultural population. All countries in the world try to encourage their agricultural section and to increase the numbers in that sector because agriculture is an essential prop to trade and industry. It seems to me as if the inability of the present Minister to find ways and means of keeping the farmers on the land has resulted in a deed of desperation because he says “Let us decrease the number of farmers; let us see whether some plan can be devised to get rid of the small farmers because if we do the problem will solve itself”. Does the Minister not realize what such an attitude is doing to the country? As I have already said a country is as strong as its agricultural sector but this policy of “let the small farmer disappear” is not only causing the entire platteland to become depopulated . . .

Nonsense!

The more they moan the more it hurts, Sir! Not only is it causing the platteland to become depopulated but what is happening to the towns on the platteland? These towns which are already by-passed by the national road and left in the cold find that, because the wholesale merchants have left, the farmers are going to the cities to do their purchasing. If in adddition to that, the number of farmers were to decrease, as it must indeed do, the position will become even worse; it is no good saying they are not decreasing in numbers. In recent times 30,000 farmers have left and because of the drought and poor income their numbers will decrease even further. It is no use arguing about it. We may say it is a good thing to have larger units, but the fact remains that the more the number of farmers decrease the more will the platteland suffer. We know what they do in other countries to solve the problem of the smaller farmers. I want to quote from the report of the Secretary of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. He talks about the American agriculture and says—

What I want to high-light is that in other countries, like America, the Government is concerned that not only the full-time farmer but even the part-time farmer, even the urban man who makes his living partly on the land, should receive financial assistance so that he can carry on with his farming operations. It is practically the opposite to what we are obviously doing in this country and that is why we are so concerned about the direction which is being followed in this country. I have referred to the price structure and the effect it has on production and even in this regard one detects a new tendency on the part of the Government, namely, to fix prices on the basis of supply and demand and not on the basis of cost of production plus a reasonable entrepreneur’s wage to the farmer as was done in the past and as envisaged in the Marketing Act. I want to substantiate this by pointing out that in a previous debate this year the Deputy Minister said it was the policy of the Government, in fixing prices, to take into account the Marketing Act with its control boards and then to see to it that the prices were adjusted to the purchasing power of the public. I have already pointed out that under our present economic system the consumer can acquire everything he wants under the hire-purchase system but that if he encounters a set-back he still has his obligations to fulfil under that hire-purchase agreement but that he did not buy his food on the hire-purchase system. When he has to fulfil his other obligations the tendency is to save and the tendency is to save on the price of food and in that way he pushes the farmer’s price down. If he cannot push that price down he uses less of that product. It is a generally accepted practice in this country, as it is in any country to acquire what you need under the hire-purchase system. If the producer is not protected, if he does not receive an entrepreneur’s wage, his price will be pushed down. That is why we are so worried about the direction the Minister is following. The hon. member for Vryheid spoke about the norm, i.e. what the consumer can pay for food and not the price at which the producer can produce it: not the costs of production plus an entrepreneur’s wage. The direction which is being followed gives us cause for concern.

I want to give another example of how unprofitable the prices are by quoting from the annual report of the S.A. Agricultural Union of 1964. It deals with the dairy industry. They say the following in connection with fresh milk prices—

I do not want to quote any further. I now come to industrial milk. The committee says—

I have quoted these extracts to indicate that only in one industry the unprofitability of the prices has caused the S.A. Agricultural Union to plead for higher prices in its annual report. I wonder whether hon. members know that from 1 April 1964 to 31 March 1965 as many as 165 sales of milk herds were advertised in the Farmer’s Weekly alone. I am only referring to those that were advertised in one agricultural journal. It is completely out of all proportion to the total number of stock-fairs advertised in the same agricultural journal. That is a further indication that it does not pay the farmer to produce milk otherwise he would continue doing so. I do not want to devote more time to the policy of exporting dairy product, importing it again and paying levies in both cases which is costing us a lot of money. It came as a shock to learn that there was no meat in cold storage at the moment and that we exported as much as 295 tons of meat during the first quarter of this year, while we have no stocks to see us through the coming winter months. I do not think one has to be very clever to predict that we shall in all probability have to import meat in September or October. The agricultural position indeed gives us reason for concern. Not only will we export between R 150,000,000 and R200,000,000 less agricultural products this year but over and above there we have to sacrifice foreign exchange on the importation of food. We are already importing dairy products. When we think of it that we will still have to import meat and other foodstuffs at a later stage and spend foreign exchange on that then we are getting worried about the tune the Government is singing, while Rome is burning, of “Away with the small farmers and all our problems will be solved”.

I want to devote the rest of my time to the question of wool. Before I come to the levies I just want to give some figures which indicate that the collective levies in the hands of the boards under the Marketing Act and in the hands of other organized industries amount to R51,000,000 while the collective levies to stabilize the market amount to R 110,000,000. That does not include the reserves of the wine industry and the sugar industry, because those figures are not readily available. We know the Government pays many levies from State funds in respect of food but I maintain that nowhere in the world will you find a farming community which is as prepared as our farming community to tax itself in an attempt to stabilize its market. The farmers of South Africa have the colossal amount of R 110,000,000 in reserve to stabilize their products most of which are sold on the local market and I think they deserve credit for that. As far as the wool prices are concerned I think the wool industry did well in the past year, but we are again reaching the stage where the industry is beginning to suffer. The wool clip will be approximately 60,000 bales less this year; that will bring the clip to considerably below 1,000,000 bales and the income from that product will be approximately R30,000,000 less. In this regard I wish to say a few words about the levies of the Wool Board and the Wool Commission.

According to the balance sheet of the Wool Board their accumulated funds amounted to R2,680,000 on 30 June 1964 whereas that figure was R 1,420,000 in 1963. We know that apart from that the Wool Board has a reserve fund for research of R2,100,000 and this amount, together with the other funds, give a total of R5,000,000. I maintain that it is unnecessary to strengthen the reserves with more than R 1,250,000 per annum. I am talking about the board’s administrative reserves while the board can recommend to the Minister to impose further levies if he requires the money. The most important aspect is the Republic’s contribution to the funds of the International Wool Secretariat which stood at R 1,094,000 in 1964 and at R2,440,000 in 1965, an increase of over 100 per cent in one year. This amount is not subject to audit; the Auditor-General has no control as to how this amount is spent. How this money is spent is not reflected anywhere in a balance sheet nor have the farmers insight to those balance sheets.

We had the announcement by the chairman of the Wool Board, an announcement which was unfortunately made at a meeting of directors of a wool-brokers’ association of which he is chairman, that the International Wool Secretariat intended spending R 130,000,000 during the next five years on wool promotion campaigns and further research. South Africa’s share of the amount they intend spending during the next five years is R 16,000,000. I want to suggest to the Minister to provide, by way of legislation or regulation or otherwise, that a report be submitted not only to the farmers but also to this House, as to how this colossal sum is to be spent. We are not against wool promotion, we are also in favour of wool research but I think it is only right, where such colossal sums are involved, that a report be submitted to both the wool farmers and this House. Furthermore, I want to recommend to the Minister that he seriously considers amending the Wool Act in such a way that the delegates to the meetings of the international body be elected from those members of the Wool Board who represent bodies making financial contributions to the Secretariat.

I now wish to deal with the Wool Commission and its reserves of R28,400,000 as at 30 June 1964. Here, too, I wish to draw to the notice of the Minister and this Committee the fact that that fund is more than adequate to pay for the entire South African wool clip at the fixed reserve prices. When you analyse the position you find that it will cost between R70,000,000 and R80,000,000 to purchase the entire South African wool clip at these reserve prices; if you have R20,000,000 at your disposal and you use your stock for credit purposes you will be able to purchase the entire clip for R20,000,000. I maintain that the world will never allow us to buy the entire South African wool clip. Nor were the reserve prices fixed for that purpose. The object of the reserve price is to stabilize the market but when we get to the stage where we have to buy the entire clip we shall be doing the industry incalculable harm and the international complex will never tolerate it. Furthermore we shall so adversely affect the use of the article if we have to buy in the total clip and withhold it from the world market that it will not be possible to estimate the damage. I trust the Minister will give very serious attention to the statement that this amount of nearly R30,000,000 which is at the disposal of the Wool Commission at the moment is far in excess of what they need to stabilize the market. In addition I want to point out that the expenditure of the Commission is such at the moment that there is a balance of nearly R750,000 of the interest on these investments. When you take that into account I think the time has arrived for the whole situation to be reviewed and to determine whether the wool farmer can afford a this stage to pay a H cent per lb. levy when there is R30,000,000 in the stabilization fund plus R5,000,000 in the hands of the board. I maintain that the balance of the interest earned by that fund which is not required for the stabilization fund is sufficient to cover our contribution to the International Wool Secretariat for some time. I want to conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration to the representations I have made on behalf of the wool farmer and the other farmers.

I listened very attentively to my hon. friend without making a single interjection because he asked me not to. But I am very disappointed in what he has said. I thought we would hear what the policy of the United Party was but what did we get? The hon. member mentioned a few instances where prices should have been better but he did not tell us how that should have been done. For the rest he talked about wool. Wool is something which is very dear to me. We are dealing with an organization, the National Woolgrowers’ Association, which enejoys the confidence of the entire country and I am very sorry that there have been insinuations regarding the spending of certain funds by that association. I am sure that had the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) raised these matters with the woolgrowers they would have replied to him but I refuse to believe that this mighty organization, to which both of us belong, will every do anything wrong. I, therefore, want to say to him that it is not for us to criticize them. I shall leave it to the farmers to reply to him. What I want to do is this: We support the Marketing Act as we have always done. That is our Magna Charta and this party will not depart from it, but there are nevertheless a few matters I want to raise. The one is the position of the dairy industry.

I want to make a plea on behalf of the dairy farmers. I think we can be more realistic than we are. We cannot fix the price of meat only. We must also think of the breeding of the animal when we fix the price. It is no use saying you cannot increase the price to the consumer because the farmer is a consumer in many respects as well. That is sometimes lost sight of. The farmer has to buy fertilizer and other commodities which makes him a consumer. I feel, therefore, that we cannot allow the dairy industry to go under by fixing prices injudiciously. In the first place we ought to have one dairy board and not two, namely, one for fresh milk and one for industrial milk. That board can be divided into two sections, one for industrial milk and the other for fresh milk but there will then be proper co-ordination between the prices. We do not want fresh milk and industrial milk to be treated differently. We must remember that the producer of fresh milk plays an important part in the life of the farmer because he is the person who buys the cow from the farmer and if fresh milk prices are too low it affects the farmer who has to breed that animal. When fixing the price we must, therefore, also bear in mind the breeding of that animal. Nobody is going to breed an animal if it does not pay him.

We are not only dealing with the ordinary supplier of milk, the farmer, but also with the stud industry and if we do not see to it that the prices are such that the stud farmer can also make a living we shall be faced with the danger of our entire milk industry collapsing. I feel, therefore, that there should be some link between fresh milk prices and industrial milk prices. But it must be remembered that nobody will breed an animal if it does not pay him. I think the price for dairy products is very low. In view of the fact that we have to import dairy products I think prices should be brought more on a level than they are today. I want to ask the Minister, if possible, to place the prices of fresh milk, of industrial milk and of butter fat on the same basis. If you increase the price of industrial milk by 9 per cent the price of fresh milk must also be increased by 9 per cent otherwise the balance is upset. The fresh milk producer is equally important to the farmer because it is the fresh milk producer who buys his cows and if we are not careful there will not be any cows. The consumers may perhaps think it is a good thing to push prices down but if that product is not available they will have to pay much higher prices. We, therefore, ask the people in the cities also to think of the farmer who produces that product.

Then I want to return to the price of beef. We know that the South African meat prices are the lowest in the world. We only have about 12,000,000 cattle and the cattle producing areas, like South West, Northern Transvaal and the North Western districts, are the driest areas in South Africa. Those people have suffered severely because of the drought. We must see to it that the breeding stock is not slaughtered otherwise there will not be any meat in the country for the people. It will cost us more to import meat and instead of stimulating the breeding of slaughter cattle that will have the opposite effect. It all depends on whether the prices are profitable or not. In this regard too there is a link between the stud farmer and the milk producer and the consumer. Although I am not asking for unreasonable prices to the consumer I think the farmer should receive a profitable price if he is to continue. There is no doubt about it that many stud breeders have left the industry because they did not find it profitable. Many dairy herds have been sold because the production of dairy products was not profitable. You have the same position in regard to slaughter cattle, although not to the same degree, because slaughter cattle can be complementary. We know that many dairy breeds are complementary to meat producing breeds but we think that in general this is something which should be carefully watched and that we should keep the people on the platteland. The people in the dry areas should receive decent prices so that they can make a living otherwise they will no longer breed cattle, in which event we shall find ourselves in a difficult position. I therefore want to ask the Government to bear that in mind and to see to it that the dairy farmer and the meat producing farmer get prices which will keep them on the land. [Time limit.]

During the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs the theme of the Minister of Economic Affairs was that we should export more. He said that we should export not only to demonstrate to our own people that our economy was sound, but also to demonstrate overseas that we have sufficient capital and that our economy is sound. He also said that a strong economy was our best defence in South Africa. When one applies those arguments to agriculture in South Africa, the picture to me is a sad one. I want to concentrate this afternoon particularly on one branch of agriculture, viz. the dairy industry. The picture one sees of the dairy industry is a sad one. Instead of exporting as we did some years ago, we are now importing dairy products. The position is that there is a shortage of milk in our large cities; that milk is being rationed in Durban and Pietermaritzburg; that in so far as Johannesburg is concerned we do not hear how great the shortage of milk is because we do not know how many people who go to buy milk return empty-handed. We hear only about the regular deliveries, but we never hear how many people come back empty-handed when they go to buy milk. The same position prevails in Cape Town. In Cape Town the consumers also run the risk of milk being rationed. Sir, let me put this question to hon. members opposite: How do they think one can rear children without milk? [Laughter.] Sir, it is certainly no laughing matter. If there is too little milk in South Africa, it is the children and the babies who will suffer. I quite believe that the Ministers might perhaps drink something stronger to keep themselves alive, but one cannot give that to children. [Interjections.] Those hon. members perhaps think that they can rear children on whisky and soda. Sir, I repeat that we are faced with a serious milk shortage, and we are not even in the midddle of winter yet. What is the picture? According to the latest report of the Dairy Board, we imported 1,000 tons of cheese from New Zealand in 1963-4, 250 tons of cheese from Holland and, just imagine, 120 tons from Zambia.

That is a scandal.

And. Sir, this is an apartheid Government which is importing cheese from Zambia. We imported 8,400 tons of butter from America, and 505 tons from Australia. We imported milk powder, whereas in the year 1960-1 we produced 160,000.000 lbs. of butter. In 1963-4 that decreased to 89,000,000 lbs. of butter. Sir. hon. members opposite should not now tell me that this is due to the drought. It is due to the fact that the dairy farmers have no confidence in the agricultural policy of this Government. I am going to prove what I say here. I have the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and this is what it says—

Here is the reply—

Those people who got rid of their dairy herds and switched over to meat production have only now discovered that they have jumped from the frying-pan into the fire. But what do we find in this year’s report? There is also reference to it in the latest report—

The increased producers’ prices have resulted in no improvement in the supply position—

This statement is supported by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), who referred to the number of sales of dairy herds held during the past year. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) should not come along with the old story of droughts again.

Was it a good year for sugar in Natal?

Sir, the hon. member should just listen for a moment. I have gained the impression that the droughts is a God-given excuse for this Government and for hon. members opposite. They exploit it as an excuse to cover their own helplessness and their own shortcomings.

We hear so much about economic and uneconomic farmers and I ask myself whether the dairy farmers in South Africa are not today uneconomic farmers, according to the Minister. Are they not among those people who, according to him, have to disappear from the platteland? It is true that the dairy farmer has to farm on an uneconomic basis; his prices have been pushed up and are higher to-day than they have been for quite a number of years, but they are still not high enough. [Interjection.] That hon. member should rather go and milk a few goats! What is the position in South Africa? Can we be quite satisfied with the importation of cheese and butter and milk powder? Surely we cannot import fresh milk; that is simply impossible. Again I ask the question: What will happen to the children of South Africa if they have to be reared on milk powder? Is it a healthy position that we should be dependent on imports? Will we always be able to rely on imports to supply our needs? The position may arise where other countries will no longer be able to supply us with dairy products, and what will then happen to us? The dairy farmer to-day finds himself in the position where he must admit that his farming is uneconomic. It is uneconomic because of the increasing labour problem. A dairy farmer, as hon. members know, must get up at 4 a.m. to milk, and one finds few labourers who are willing to get up at that hour to help with the milking. The dairy farmer is faced with the problem of rising and uncontrollable production costs. You see, Sir, when we had a surplus of dairy products prices were reduced. The prices have now been increased again, but not sufficiently for dairy farming to be profitable. I can tell you that during the past few years I have received at least a dozen telegrams from various parts of the country and one of them reads as follows: “Insist that the Minister increase the prices for dairy products.” Even Nationalist Party organizers are asking the Minister to increase the prices.

The hon. member for Cradock also asks for increased prices.

I want to ask the Minister what will happen to the capital the farmers have invested in the cheese factories and the butter factories and the condensed milk factories? Unless some change is made, what will happen to the capital the farmers invested in those factories? Under the present price policy of the Minister, the farmers will certainly lose their capital. But what about the consumers? What is going to happen to them? With this disastrous policy followed by the Minister, will the consumer not have to pay increasingly more?

The consumers will have to pay even more if producers’ prices are increased.

Sir, the price of butter was subsidized by 1 cent by the Minister during the past year, but imported butter must be subsidized by 9 cents, and that subsidy will be collected from the consumer. You see how the consumer is being loaded? He will have to pay more for all these things which are being imported.

Of course, you are asking for higher prices.

The hon. the Minister is obviously getting hurt, and I hope he really will get hurt very much. I hope the farmers will tackle him wherever he goes because of his agricultural policy. [Time limit.]

I thought that we had now reached the stage where, although on other occasions we have discussed the political aspects of the agricultural industry, we would here be able to discuss agriculture calmly, but you see what attitude is being adopted by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and also by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), who introduced this debate, Sir. It is simply impossible for them to keep any matter out of politics. Just listen to the words of the hon. member for Drakensberg; she says that this side of the House regards the drought as a God-given excuse. Is she not ashamed of using such words?

I do not want to deal at length with what the hon. member said in regard to the dairy industry. I just want to read this short passage from the report of the Department in regard to the dairy industry—

We fully realize that there are certain problems and therefore we would have liked to discuss this matter calmly to-day. But conditions in the dairy industry have changed tremendously during the last three years. The hon. member knows that there was a time when we exported butter to Britain, butter which they practically did not want even as a gift and which we had to take back. The position in the dairy industry all over the world has changed completely. Instead of surplus supplies of butter, there is to-day a shortage of butter in the world. I do not want to intimate that the price is quite high enough, but why should hon. members opposite misrepresent it and try to make political capital out of the matter?

They now come along with this story that the hon. the Minister said that the small farmer should disappear from the platteland. Who spoke about the small farmer? The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) last year spoke about the uneconomic small farmer. But who ever said that the small farmer should get off the land? It is not correct that the hon. the Minister intimated that the small farmer should be driven off ‘he land. There are many small farmers who farm very economically. Hon. members opposite time and again make this accusation against the hon. the Minister that he said that the small farmer should get off the land. I know of no single speech in which the Minister ever said that. The hon. member for Gardens himself said that he was not pleading for the uneconomic farmer. Why do hon. members now try to make politics out of it? This story that the Minister was alleged to have said that the small farmer should get off the land was the main theme of the introductory speaker in this debate. The hon. member went further and referred to the Marketing Act. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition recently mentioned the price of 350 cents for mealies. The hon. member for East London (City) now wants the prices of agricultural products to be fixed on the basis of production costs plus an entrepreneur’s wage. Where he finds that in the Marketing Act I do not know. That has never been the policy either of this Government or of the United Party Government. No, the great idea of the Marketing Act is stabilization.

But that we do not get either.

If we accept that that is the idea underlying the Marketing Act, then the whole argument of the Opposition falls down. There are in fact certain factors which have to be considered in order to assist the farmers particularly to cope with the drought, but if prices are to be fixed on the cost-plus basis, I should like to know where the Leader of the Opposition got hold of a price of 350 cents. Surely it is an arbitrary figure. It is not based on any cost calculation; it is merely an arbitrary figure.

How are maize prices fixed?

We realize that the farmers from time to time suffer setbacks as the result of periodic droughts and we realize that the position of the farmers should be reconsidered in order to put agriculture on a sound basis. We should like to see more emphasis being placed on the risk factor in agriculture when prices are fixed. We are prepared to argue on those lines, but we will get nowhere by dragging politics into agriculture and by trying to make debating points. The stories we have had from hon. members opposite amount to nothing else but political jabber; they do not achieve anything by it and what they are advocating is completely in conflict with the Marketing Act. I say, and I stand by it, that prices in the dairy industry should at this stage be reconsidered. If one takes into consideration, as was recently stated by the Department in Agricon, that the increase in production costs has absorbed the increase in producers’ prices, and has more than absorbed it, then there is a strong reason for reviewing the system of cost calculation at this stage. But the prices of agricultural products in the main branches of it are calculated to-day on the cost-plus basis; that is already being done in the maize and the wheat industries. [Interjections.] Take the levy funds. Is there a better security for the agricultural industry than to have strong stabilization funds? But. moreover, what do these stabilization funds consist of? We, as farmers, must not be dishonest with ourselves. It is not only the farmers who have contributed towards those stabilization funds. The State and the consumer also contributed, together with the producer. Is it wrong to have a strong stabilization fund? We are all anxious to put agriculture on a sound basis for the future, particularly in these times in which we live. Is it wrong then to build up a strong stabilization fund? Are we to destroy or deplete those funds? Must we, for example, reduce the Maize Stabilization Fund of R32,000,000, particularly where we expect a crop of 80,000,000 bags next year? Sir, the Opposition, who allege that they are the alternative Government, should at least lay down a firm policy; they should not just come here with wild statements. The United Party has now appointed a new member as the chairman of their agricultural group and we expected that we would now be able to discuss agriculture in a calm manner. [Time limit.]

For several years now we on this side of the House have pleaded that active steps should be taken to improve the position of the farmer. I am glad to be able to say that all the pleas we have made are now beginning to bear fruit. We have now just had two speakers opposite who also pleaded for an improvement in the position of the farmers. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) clearly said that many of the prices were uneconomic and that the farmers were being forced to leave the land. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) also had the same theme, that in certain agricultural activities the farmers could not make a living and that something should be done to improve their position.

No, you are putting it quite differently from the way I put it.

We are glad that that side of the House also realizes it now. I do not know whether hon. members opposite are adopting this standpoint as the result of the pleas we made, or whether they do so because of an approaching election. In any case, we welcome this new standpoint. I just want to correct one statement made by the hon. member for Christiana. The hon. member said that on a previous occasion I said here that I was not pleading for uneconomic farmers. That is not correct. I do not plead for inefficient farmers. I am not pleading for the man who cannot look after his farm. We realize, as hon. members opposite also admit now, that the position of the farmers is still bad and is deteriorating. I want to say frankly that the drought in fact plays its role, but we should not shelter behind the drought because this is not the first drought we have had in this country. We have a drought almost every year in some T>art of the country, and the prices of agricultural products should be fixed in the light of proper consideration of that fact. Sir, our farmers are going backwards. That fact is proved here to-day. The figure of the loans granted by the Land Bank and the arrear installments on capital and interest are steadily increasing. The position has deteriorated to such an extent that half the farms in this country are uneconomic to-day, according to the Deputy Minister. According to the Farmer’s Weekly of 3 March, 50 per cent of our farms are uneconomic. That is an almost unbelievable figure, but in any case a large percentage of our farmers are operating on an uneconomic basis to-day. Sir, 10 to 15 years ago there was no such thing as uneconomic farms in this country; a small number was uneconomic, but the greatest proportion was not uneconomic. We find, according to the report, that production costs are still rising faster than the increase in the prices of products, and as the result the margins of profit decrease until they are completely wiped out. Many of the prices which are fixed are too low. Even the president of the S.A. Agricultural Union said in his last report that the reins are being held too tightly.

I now want to say a few words about milk, because here we are dealing with one of the most serious problems facing us. Three years ago we had a surplus of dairy products. In order to get rid of that surplus the Minister considerably reduced the prices, to such an extent that many dairy farmers went out of production; many dairy farmers stopped producing milk. Dairy farming became uneconomic and they sold their herds. I know of cases where smaller farmers who had dairies sold their farms because they could not make a living; they sold their farms to neighbours who also had dairies and who also stopped producing milk because it did not pay them, but on the two farms jointly they could then make a living by concentrating on other products. Even in the big cities there is a shortage of fresh milk to-day. There is a shortage in Cape Town also. I want to quote what one of the milk distributors in the Peninsula said the other day, referring to milk rationing—

That is the position in the Peninsula where there is no drought. This state of affairs is therefore not due to the drought. It is due to the fact that prices are so low that the milk producers cannot make a living.

Are you in favour of recovering the higher price from the consumer?

I shall reply to that question in a moment.

Why cannot you reply now?

I shall reply to it. Sir, there is one thing we should not lose sight of, and that is the alleged high prices farmers pay for land. I mentioned this during the last debate and I do not wish to repeat what we said then. The percentage of farmers who pay the high prices is very small and it is not as the result of that that they land in difficulties.

The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services recently gave figures—

Then he continues—

In other words, we do not supply half the milk the population needs. I say frankly that this is as the result of bad planning on the part of the Government. The Government planned badly three years ago when they reduced those prices to such an extent that we are in this position today.

But the consumption did not decrease. When the milk was there the consumption was even less than it is now. That argument is nonsensical.

The consumption did not decrease?

No, it increased.

Of course it increased, but the consumption of milk is not enough. The milk we need is not there.

The hon. the Minister made an interjection when the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) also said that prices should be increased. The Minister then said: “How do you know this will not be done?” I am very glad to hear that because I suppose it is an indication that the Minister is eventually going to pay heed to the requests of this side of the House.

It was increased last year already.

The increase was not enough. The Minister to-day realizes that he did not raise the price high enough. He does not raise the prices in proportion with the production cost.

I shall now answer that question: Dairy products are some of the most essential products a nation needs. Firstly, there should be enough of them; secondly, the farmer should receive an economic price for his product, and thirdly, the consumer should be able to buy it at a reasonable price. Therefore the Government must increase the subsidy it is already paying. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) replied towards the end of his speech to the question out to him by the hon. the Minister. He was then faced with this difficult problem: The farmer must receive more; he must produce more milk, but the consumer must pay less and the subsidy must be increased. I want to ask whether that subsidy is something which grows on trees or whether it is something which one takes from the pocket of the taxpayer who is at the same time the consumer?

It must be paid out of the surplus.

It so happens that there is a surplus at present but we may not have a surplus in the future. Even this surplus comes from the pocket of the taxpayer.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) started by saying that this hon. Minister and this Government are following the line of least resistance; in other words, the small farmer must disappear from the land. He said that this was the policy which was being followed by this Government. We have had explanations this afternoon in regard to uneconomic farmers, inefficient farmers, small farmers and many others. I want to repeat this challenge to the Opposition; Tell us when anyone in the National Party has said that the small farmer must disappear from the platteland. I shall be pleased if somebody on that side will accept this challenge. It is the policy of this Government that uneconomic farming must cease to be uneconomic and must become economic. It is United Party policy that farming should be uneconomic. We know the United Party system of uneconomic farming units. I want to ask hon. members opposite who say that we ought to be grateful for the drought and that higher prices must be fixed in order to nullify the effects of the drought, whether they have ever had a bad crop? If you have a bad crop, what does an increased price mean to you. Mr. Chairman? When you have a bad crop an increased price means absolutely nothing to you. The man who has a crop is benefited but the man who has a bad crop derives no benefit at all. Do hon. members who talk of a drop in the milk production know that an appeal is being made to people in the Eastern Cape to stop construction works, to stop any works using water, because there is a shortage of drinking water there? If there is a shortage of drinking water in an area do hon. members think that by increasing prices one will be able to stimulate production in a drought-stricken area of this nature? If the United Party want to make political capital out of the drought they are welcome to derive as much as they can; we do not begrudge them this. But I know the farmers differently. The farmers do not like this method followed by the United Party of exploiting the difficulty in which the farmers find themselves because of the drought.

I want to come now to the hon. member for East London (City) and to what he said in regard to wool. The hon. member said that South Africa makes a large contribution towards the International Wool Secretariat and that for that reason we want to know how their funds are spent. But the hon. member makes me feel uneasy. You know, Mr. Chairman, he was the chairman of that International Wool Secretariat. He was a member for many years; he was one of the founders of that organization. [Interjections.] Yes, I was also proud of him. They framed their estimates which were submitted to the Wool Board. The Wool Board in its turn submitted them to the National Woolgrowers’ Association. We approved of them in this way and the matter was discussed in this House. We collected further amounts from the farmers by way of a levy in order to enable the International Wool Secretariat to advertise wool. It is a strange thing to my mind that the hon. member for East London (City), who has not been a member of the Wool Board for some time now, should say to-day that there is no financial control over the funds of the International Wool Secretariat. The International Wool Secretariat frames its estimates; they are approved of; they are submitted to the Wool Board and the Wool Board’s accounts are subject to audit by the Controller and Auditor-General and can also be discussed here. The hon. member tried to make out a case in this regard. I just want to say that it is a great pity that he did not raise this matter when he was still chairman of that International Wool Secretariat.

At that time its budget was £3,000,000, not £130,000,000.

Oh! One may steal a little but one may not steal a lot! [Interjections.] The principle is precisely the same. Apparently, no audit is necessary for an amount of £3,000,000 but an audit is necessary when the amount is £130,000,000! [Interjections.] Give me a chance! I do not have half an hour as did the hon. member for East London (City).

This brings me to the increased wool levy for which the hon. member also tried to make out a case. I am not going to cross swords with the hon. member in this regard. There is even a difference of opinion among the wool farmers themselves as to whether this amount of R29,000,000 in the stabilization fund is adequate or whether the fund should be strengthened further. A case can be made out for the fact that this fund may perhaps be sufficiently strong. As far as I am concerned I should like to see this stabilization fund far stronger than it is at the moment. At the price at which wool is still being sold to-day I believe that the farmers are still able to pay that portion of the levy which is paid into the stabilization fund. The (policy of Joseph of saving during the seven years of plenty for the seven lean years has always been a sound one. I want to say that we should continue with these contributions. If contributions to this fund are to cease, I hope that they will not cease at the request of the hon. member for East London (City) in this House but at the request of the organized wool farmers themselves, at the request of the National Wool-growers’ Association which can speak on behalf of the wool farmers. I shall speak along with them but I shall not agree with the hon. member for East London (City) here that any further levy on wool should summarily cease.

I am sorry to say that the hon. member for East London (City) cast veiled reflections upon certain people serving on the Wool Board and who have been deputed to carry out certain duties on behalf of the Wool Board.

I did not.

The hon. member denies having done so. Mr. Chairman, his premise was that the Wool Act should be amended in such a way that people who are deputed to act for the Wool Board on any overseas organization should be people representing the producers. Did the hon. member say that or did he not?

I said representatives of the bodies which pay.

The bodies which pay. If ever there was a reflection upon certain members of the Wool Board it was that remark of the hon. member for East London (City). We know that the control boards and the Wool Board are constituted in such a way that not only the producer but also the trade, the people who have an interest in it, as well as the consumers, if they are available—the position in connection with wool is quite different—are represented on those bodies. For that reason the public have confidence in the various boards. The public know that it is not only the interests of the producers which are protected there. [Time limit.]

The hon. Minister and the hon. member who has just spoken seemed to find something funny in the suggestion by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) that we on this side of the House wanted ample supplies of milk, a fair price to the producer and a fair price to be paid by the consumer. They seemed to think that funny. But that is the duty of the hon. the Minister and his Government. Had they had any kind of a policy over the past 18 years that would have been the position to-day. I sat in this House when a predecessor of the hon. the Minister talked about “skaapvleis en wit brood”. He passed round a white loaf and a piece of mutton and told us that was the result of the policy of the Nationalist Party. Let their policy now produce some milk in this country, dairy products and meat.

I want to point out that in regard to this my hon. Leader, in the no confidence debate, dealt with this question of dairy products. He was derided for doing so. He was told that that was not the sort of thing that was dealt with in a no confidence debate. I want to say this that the Press of South Africa is letting us down badly because they are not giving sufficient prominence to what is taking place in South Africa in regard to the shortage of dairy products and meat. Meat and milk stem basically from the same development in our economy and the Minister and the Government know it. They are faced with this difficulty that to get a fair price to the producer so as to ensure ample supplies they do not know how to give it to the consumer at a fair price. They do not know how to do it. They have not been able to reconcile ample supplies, a fair price to the producer with a fair price to the consumer.

Can you do it?

Yes, of course we can do it.

Tell us how.

No, Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to assume the responsibility of the Government. [Laughter.] All they can do is to jeer at the Opposition without making any attempt at grappling with the problem which faces the country. I want to come back to this question of the Press letting us down. If, instead of giving us all the gruesome details of the number of road accidents we are having every day in South Africa, they would pay a little more attention to this other problem, they would find that the number of deaths from kwashiorkor and malnutrition amongst children in one day beats the number of lives that are being lost in one month in road accidents. It will be 30 times the number of accidents per day because we have no milk to feed our children. They laughed at the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) when she dealt with that point. We are in short supply to-day of a fundamental food in South Africa and that supply is getting shorter and shorter.

The Bantu people of South Africa have been pasturalists and in the past they have produced, in their tens of thousands, enough milk green food, grain and root crops for their own use. The system of keeping their little herd of two or three cows has kept them in milk together with whatever green food, cereals and so forth, they had. But to-day they are leaving in their hundreds and thousands to go to town and they are not leaving stock behind them. The country they are leaving is becoming eroded, the stock is dying or sold in cattle sales—it is Government policy to encourage that—and the result is that hundreds of thousands of Bantu cattle which have produced milk in the past are no longer there. The Bantu themselves have gone into the towns and cities where there are no cattle and what do they do? They buy condensed milk and dried milk. As we are sitting here, Sir, you cannot buy your full quota of condensed milk or dried milk, as far as I know, anywhere in the whole of the northern provinces. You only get something like 25 per cent or less of your order of those articles.

I want to deal with Durban for a moment because it has not got big farming areas around it. It has the sea on one side. It has to get its supplies from the West and even on the West it is surrounded by vast Bantu areas where there is no kind of milk production whatsoever. The result is that Durban has to get its milk supplies from as far as 200 miles away in the Free State. That is the position to-day and I hope we won’t hear the word “drought” from the hon. the Minister in this connection. Ever since this Government has been the Government of the Republic of South Africa and of the Union of South Africa we have had droughts. If a Government has been in power for 18 years without knowing that it would have to face droughts the sooner it got out the better. We will always have droughts in this country. Durban’s fresh milk quota has been cut again, and with milk goes butter and cheese. We shall be forced to use all our fresh milk in South Africa as fluid milk for home consumption; there will be no milk for butter and cheese purposes. There won’t be such a thing as industrial milk for the simple reason that the fluid milk will be required for home consumption. The problem of the Minister to-day may be how to get that milk to the consumer at a price he can pay. What is the consumer going to do in the near future when there is inadequate milk in any case?

Are you prepared to say that he must pay more?

How incompetent is this Minister, Sir? Why does he not hand in his resignation to the Prime Minister and leave it to somebody else to get on with the job? What we want is a policy; this is not a policy. This is just drifting along in the hope that the Almighty will send some rain so that there will be a slight increase in the milk production. For how long? All this drought has done is to trigger off what was coming any way. If it did not come this year it would have come next year. The importation of butter and cheese and other dairy products is now a permanent feature of our South African economy and I challenge the Minister to deny it. I may add that with that we shall get the importation of meat as the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has said. That is going to be the next step. Basically your dairy products are the products by and large of the cow and what is happening to-day with the depletion of the platteland? Because of Government policy the farmers are going to the towns in their thousands. Many of them were small dairy farmers. They used to supply themselves with their own milk, their own butter and cheese. Their skimmed milk went to the production of pork which in turn led to the production of ham and bacon but that has gone. Many of these farmers have sold their farms to big combines which are planting trees, mealies, potatoes and so forth. How many have sold their farms to big combines which have gone in for the production of dairy products? Let us ask the Minister that one, Sir. I know how many big combines have bought up land so as to be able to plant trees, how many have bought land so as to be able to plant wheat or potatoes or mealies. Will the Minister tell us how many big combines have bought up land so as to be able to produce dairy products? Does he know of one? I guarantee he does not know of a single case in the whole of South Africa. It is unprofitable, as my hon. friend says; not only is it unprofitable but to try to run dairy cattle to-day is a most nerve-racking experience. You work seven days a week for 24 hours a day while your neighbours are working a five-day week and spending their week-ends in town going to a cinema and so forth. What labour is there to do the work on dairy farms? The best labour have gone off to where they can get two or three times the salary they get from you as a dairy farmer. I defy any hon. member on the other side to say that from choice, at to-day’s prices for dairy products, he will sooner be a dairy farmer than any other type of farmer. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) practically sang the same tune as did the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan).

It is a good tune.

No. Those two hon. members want the price of dairy products to be raised but they do not want the consumer to pay more. Now I wonder how they will square accounts. They now say the Government should increase the subsidy, but that subsidy must come from the pocket of the taxpayer, and both the consumer and the producer are the taxpayers.

The hon. member for Gardens also said production costs were rising and that prices do not rise as fast as costs do. Consequently, he says, the profit is swallowed up by the production costs. In all the cases where the Government fixes a price and where control is exercised, the costs of production are taken into consideration. The producer gets his profit over and above the costs of production. For the past 12 years the profit in the case of maize, e.g., was 9s. 2d. Production costs increased, but after calculating the production costs that 9s. 2d. is added to the costs, and that is then the price of maize. Therefore the farmer’s profit did not decrease. Whereas the yield per morgen in the case of maize 12 years ago was seven bags, the farmer at that time got seven times 9s. 2d. profit per morgen. To-day the average yield is over 14 bags per morgen. If one multiplies 9s. 2d. by 14, it is appreciably more than seven times 9s. 2d. [Interjections.] I know what I am talking about because I work with these things every day. The hon. member for Gardens says the farmers do not share in the prosperity of the country. When a farmer has not reaped a crop because of drought, when he does not have the product to sell, or when he does not have wool or sheep or cattle to sell because of drought conditions, it is obvious that he cannot share in the prosperity of the country. But those farmers who in fact had a crop, and those who had wool, sheep or cattle to sell, shared in the prosperity. The prices were high enough.

Should you not take the one together with the other?

How can you take the one together with the other? If one lives in a drought-stricken area, all one has is expenses in order to keep the stock alive. That farmer has no income, and he does not share in the prosperity. If the farmer has a good year and he has those products to sell, then he does share in the prosperity.

Disparaging remarks have also been made in regard to the marketing boards. If there had been no marketing boards since 1952, when there was a tremendous production of many commodities and there were surpluses until 1963, and the boards had not bought in those surpluses to store them and to sell them at the right time in order to ensure orderly marketing, the farmers would have been in a chaotic position. Thanks to the fact that there were marketing boards which could buy in those surpluses in an orderly way and store them and sell them at the right time the farmers did not suffer severe losses.

We are so often told that the yield was so much at one time and so much at another time. Sir, you know it depends on what periods one takes to make this comparison if one wants to prove something. One can take the period from 1945 to 1950 or the period from 1950 to 1960, and depending on whether one takes the earlier or the later period one can prove various things. I therefore do not take much notice of the story that in one period it was so much and in another period it was so much. The hon. member for East London (City) has told us how the Government in America financially assists part-time farmers, i.e. people who live in the city and farm part-time. Until a few years ago the position was just the opposite in America. Even now they are still trying to take 1,000,000 or more farmers off the land in America because they say there are too many farmers. I myself saw it in America. I was at Manhattan, in the Department of Agriculture, and they took a few of us out to a few farms to show us certain things. But before we left Manhattan some of the officials of the Department apologized to us because we would now see many houses along the road standing empty because those farms were too small, with the result that the farmers left, whereas other farmers, neighbours or other people, leased or bought that land, and in that way the man now farms on an economic unit, but the houses stand empty. That is the position in America.

Have we too many farmers in our country?

I do not say that, but in South Africa there are also farms which are uneconomic, and if the farmer finds that he has financial difficulties and feels that he can make a better living elsewhere, and the upsurge in trade and industry give him the opportunity to earn a good salary elsewhere, do you blame that farmer for leaving that uneconomic farm and seeking a better position in the town? I do not blame him.

Now I should like to ask the Minister something. I think the Minister is aware that there are large cartels which are buying up the wheat mills, and they are also buying up the bakeries which are dependent on those mills. I should like the Minister to make plans, perhaps through the Wheat Board, to prevent that development continuing because those cartels will eventually become a danger to our country and to any Government if they have a monopoly of the bread sold to the consumers. Those cartels have great capital, and much of that capital now comes from overseas. That means that the dividends of the mills, which in the past remained in this country, will now to a large extent leave the country, and the policy followed by the Wheat Board many years ago—1 do not want to say in the days of the United Party Government, but it is many years ago—has resulted in these cartels buying the mills to-day. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) and several other hon. members on that side of the House make excuses for the Government because it does not let the producer get more to make a living out of his products, and at the same time not make the consumer pay more, because it would mean a subsidy and that would also come out of the taxpayer’s pocket. Of course everybody knows that, but do not the subsidies in respect of education, in respect of dams, old-age pensions, etc., also come out of the taxpayer’s pocket? It is a very dubious argument. If the dairy farmers cannot exist on the present price they are getting, and if the consumer cannot pay more, than naturally the Government has to come to their rescue or otherwise the dairy farmers all go to the wall.

I want to deal, however, with the wheat farmer. Sir, I was under the impression that the Wheat Control Board existed to watch the interests of the producers, the farmers. It almost appears that they give the millers more sympathy than they do to the farmers. Let me give one instance: Practically all the wheat is reaped by self-propelled combines. The bag, which is filled on the combine’s platform, is sewn shut as soon as it is full. Now no farmer has the time or the labour to have the bags weighed properly and to fill or extract contents to see that they are 203 lbs. each and to get the exact weight before delivery to the elevators or to a wheat conrol board agent, who happens not to have an elevation on his station (many of them have not) and the wheat has to be delivered in the bags. When delivery in bags to agents takes place, the bags are weighed on the lorry and the gross weight is divided by 200 and three lbs. is deducted for the weight of each bag.

The fact is that the new grain bag, prescribed by the wheat Control Board, will not hold 200 lbs. of wheat of grade B-3 or lower. So usually it takes an excess of plus/minus 12 per cent of bags to hold any given unit of 200 lbs. of wheat of grade B-3 or lower. Therefore when the farmer delivers to the agent 100 units of 200 lbs. of wheat, it takes 112 bags plus/ minus to contain it.

Let me give a personal example. I am referring now to that portion of my wheat that I deliver (because it is the nearest station), to an agent, but there is no elevation there, and the Wheat Control Board agent has to take the wheat in the bags. I delivered 1,000,000 lbs. weight of wheat to an agent, that is to say 5,000 bags of 200 lbs. each if the bags were the full weight. But in such circumstances I must be paid for the value of the bags I deliver. But in a bad year when the wheat is of a low grade, like last year, it took me 5,600 bags to contain the 1,000,000 lbs. of wheat. In other words, I had to supply 600 bags more than what actually should have been contained in the 5,000 bags. But the Wheat Control Board prohibits the agent from paying me out for the extra 600 bags. As the bags go direct to the miller, he gets 600 new bags, costing plus/ minus 35 cents each, for nothing. In other words, I have to present the miller with just on R210 on that deal. I want to know why. On the other hand, if my neighbour has a good crop and he has A-l or B-l wheat and the full bags contain say 215 lbs. of wheat instead of 200, he therefore delivers his 1,000,000 lbs. of wheat in 4,600 bags instead of 5,000 bags. He must pay the miller the value of 400 bags which were not required to deliver the wheat in. If his 1,000,000 lbs. of wheat are in 4,600 bags, he has to pay the miller for an extra 400 bags. In other words, it is “heads I win. tails you lose”, every time when dealing with the miller.

In short, if due to the low grade of wheat, the farmer must use more bags to deliver a certain weight of wheat, the millers do not nay him for the extra bags used, but they take the extra profit of the excess bags which they then resell, and in my case it amounted to R210. On the other hand if the farmer can deliver that same weight in 400 bags less, he must pay the miller for the 400 bags he did not need.

So the Wheat Control Board gives the millers the value of thousands and thousands of bags for nothing. And it must run into tens of thousands of rand for the millers. It is high time that the Wheat Control Board was placed in the hands of directors who watch the interests of the farmers more closely.

I had no time to raise the following point during the Budget debate because I could not get in on it, and to avoid you pulling me up, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that my suggestion would mean loss of revenue, I must put my point as a suggestion to the Minister, for him, as the supposed guardian of farmers’ interests, to put to the Minister of Finance before the next Budget comes on, and my suggestion refers to a question of policy: Many self-propelled combines, as well as other reaping machines, such as self-propelled wind-rowers, run on petrol. They, however, never run on the roads. Yet the petrol they consume carries full tax, including the 6 cents that go to the National Road Fund. Speaking again personally, I have four combines of which three are self-propelled and three wind-rowers, of which one is self-propelled, that is four machines all using pure petrol, but never coming onto a road. Now a large self-propelled combine uses plus/minus 44 gallons of petrol roughly a day. So I pay full tax on plus/minus 152 gallons of petrol roughly a day at 134 cents, which amounts to R19 per day. And, Sir, this is used for the production of food, of which we all say the prices must be kept low. But, Sir, of that 6 cents again go to the National Road Fund, that is to say R8 a day goes to the National Road Fund, and these machines never go over a road. Now if the principle is accepted that diesel oil for farm machinery is tax free for the production of food, then surely the petrol should also be tax free in that case. In the two instances I have mentioned, the result is a rise in the cost of production, for which no allowance is made, and in one instance it is merely in the interests of the millers.

There is one other thing I want to touch on and that is this: To-day the price of barley, if it is white barley is about 40 cents or 50 cents higher per bag. If you get one little shower of rain on it, that barley turns yellow. The barley is of exactly the same quality, but it drops 50 cents or 60 cents in price, and the brewers use that same barley for exactly the same purpose. There is no doubt about that. Now, Sir, why this discrepancy between the colour, why this difference in price? If there is a little shower, the colour of the barley changes but the quality remains the same and the brewer then gets it so much cheaper. Surely that is a great loss to the farmer, and it is not justified.

You are now attacking the brewers.

I am attacking the Minister, because he is not watching the interests of the farmers. What do we have a Control Board for? Why does the Minister not see to it through the Control Board that the millers do not get this benefit in regard to bags, and the brewers do not get the benefit in regard to the barley? It is always the farmer who suffers.

There is another point I want to touch on, and if I do not finish before my ten minutes is up, I will continue later. Sir, the highest B-grade wheat is 62 lbs. per bushel, that is R5.74½ per bag. The next grade, B-2, is 60 lbs per bushel, it drops 8 cents to bring it to R5.66½. B-3 is 58 lbs. a bushel, it drops 27 cents on the B-l and 19 cents on the B-2 grade, to R5.47½. Now if the wheat is even 64 or 65 lbs. to the bushel, which is quite possible in a very good year, the farmer gets no benefit for anything above 62 lbs. per bushel. [Time limit.]

If the United Party cannot advance arguments better than that it is the Government’s policy that the small farmers must leave the land, as the hon. member for Drakensberg has said, and that our poor children will have to stay without milk, etc., then I am very sorry for them. What is the position in regard to this story about the small farmers who are going under, and that this is the Government’s policy? The fact is that statistics prove that in recent years, also in the time of the United Party régime, approximately 2,500 farmers left the land every year to go to the cities for various reasons. Many of those people found they could make a better living in industry or in other occupations. We cannot prevent those people from going there. On the contrary, this Government takes active steps to try to keep them on the land. The Government has tackled the Orange River scheme, one of the biggest in the world, and it will help to keep thousands of farmers on the land. Therefore to say that the Government says that the small farmers may go under is nonsense; there is no such thing and they alone know where they got that idea, but they cannot mention any person on this side of the House who said so. They are trying to bring the country under a wrong impression, but it will avail them nothing. They are afraid to argue on the facts and now they are trying to exploit the sentiments of the farmers. That will not help them.

It is true that while the country has enjoyed prosperity during recent years, there was unfortunately, due to the drought, a decrease in our agricultural production, and our export trade was particularly affected by it during the last year. The volume of agricultural production from 1947-8 to 1962-3 rose every year by 3.7 per cent. I think we can congratulate the farmers of South Africa on that, and praise them for the fact that in recent years they have succeeded in producing 3.7 per cent more every year, except for last year, when because of the drought production decreased by 4.6 per cent. When we consider that there was an average increase every year, there is much to be thankful for, and the farmers deserve praise for still being able to produce so much in drought conditions as the result of applying soil conservation methods. The index of producers’ prices has remained fairly constant from 1952-3, but in 1963-4 it rose by 5.5 per cent, and the result was that although the total production was smaller, the total gross value of agricultural products for 1962-3 and 1963-4 was still practically the same. The fact that total agricultural expenses increased of course had a very harmful effect on many of our farmers. Although agriculture as a whole was not much worse off, it is a fact that in certain of the drought-stricken areas some of our farmers were hard hit, and there the Government has taken active steps to assist those farmers, for which we are grateful. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) referred to the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, but he only read the first part, which suited him and I therefore want to read what he said in regard to agricultural conditions and the problems which exist. He says the following—

And further—

I feel that too much emphasis has been laid by the Opposition particularly for propaganda purposes on the share of the Government in fixing the prices of agricultural products. I think that is being over-emphasised. When a farmer ordinarily has a crop of 5,000 bags of grain and he then has a bad crop of 1,000 bags, how can the Government fix the price of that 1,000 bags in such a way that this man will have an income on which he can live? Surely that is impossible. Special measures must be effected.

Who asked for that?

The idea underlying the Marketing Act is price stabilization, to get stability for the farmer’s product, and not to try to eliminate the damage caused by the vagaries of Nature. In that connection different action is taken. I do not think there is any other Government which dealt with that more effectively than this one, and we are grateful for it. Sir, 69 per cent of our agricultural production falls under the Marketing Act, 22 per cent falls under special legislation, and the other 9 per cent is not covered by any legislation. When prices are fixed, various factors are taken into consideration. The Government and the Department must take into consideration the scope of the production, its cost, the local demand for that product and what the overseas demand is for it; in other words, it must also investigate the export possibilities. Now it is obvious that if a farmer produces a product for which there is a big local demand and does not produce a product which has to be exported, he can expect to receive a reasonable compensation and that a reasonable price will be fixed. But if a proportion of that product has to be exported, the surplus which cannot be consumed locally, and the overseas market is good, there is no problem either; then the price may be increased so as to encourage the farmers to produce more so that we can export more, and our trade balance will be even more favourable. But the problem arises when we produce a product and the local market is satisfied and one does not have a foreign market for that product. Much has been said to-day about the dairy industry, and we should particularly be careful in regard to those products. The Government should be careful. In 1960-1 the production of butter, e.g., rose appreciably. In 1959-60 the production of butter was 95,000,000 lbs. and the consumption was 89,000,000 lbs. There was a surplus of 6,000,000 lbs. in that year. The next year, 1960-1, the production was almost 112.000. 000 lbs. and the consumption was 89.000. 000 lbs., and therefore the country had a surplus of 22,000,000 lbs. of butter that year. [Time limit.]

There can be no question about it that this drought which hon. members on the opposite side are using as an excuse for the parlous position of the dairy industry of South Africa, has only just brought to a head the position of the dairy industry and the dairy producer. Let us examine the position of the dairy-farmer. Fifteen years ago we were exporting big quantities of dried milk, cheese, condensed milk and butter and we had huge surpluses in all the fresh milk markets in South Africa; in all the cities there were huge surpluses, so much so that we were not worried by shortages, but we were worried as to how to get rid of the surpluses, and surpluses were supplied at production cost, through various welfare societies to the Bantu children, and to schoolchildren at one stage, not selling at a profit at all. Firstly, this Government stopped the schoolchildren feeding scheme, and the milk feeding scheme, which the United Party had started during the 1930s, and they did away with the supply of cheaper butter through the welfare societies. Well, we now realize why that was done. Their price policy was one that led to shortages. For the last 15 years organized agriculture has every year— to my knowledge the Natal Fresh Milk Producers Union, the Natal East Griqualand Fresh Milk Producers’ Union, the Milk Commodity Committees of the Agricultural unions have approached the hon. Minister of Agriculture of the day, first Mr. Stephen le Roux, then the present Minister of Technical Services, who was then the only Minister of Agriculture, and subsequently the present Minister who became Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, with the result that if they did get anything at all, they got very much too little, and much too late. Various enquiries were instituted by the Ministers in turn and after three or four years of enquiry, and after sitting on the reports of these committees, some small concession was made in one or two cases, but by that time the increased cost of production had more than eaten up what was given them when they got a little rise in the price, so that the producer during the last few years has not been able to build up any reserves. He has not been able to go in for any great development in regard to his pastures, he has not been able to build up reserves to finance pastures or anything else, and the consequence has been that one dairy herd after another has been disposed of in different parts of this country. Last year, when we discussed this particular problem with the Minister, he interrupted me and said that there was a surplus of milk at Durban at the moment, there was a surplus because we had just had a few good rains and there was a temporary surplus for some three months. But three years ago Durban was short of 10,000 gallons a day, and the bulk-buyers were rationed, and to-day they are also on ration. I believe some of the bulk-buyers in Johannesburg are also being rationed for milk.

Did you not hear about the drought?

That kind of interruption will not put me off my speech. It is the policy of this Government and this Minister who want cheap food, not to worry about the farmer—he can go to the wall. There can be no question about it that dairying is the basic return for the bulk of the farmers in South Africa. The dairy industry is the financial basis of the small farmer in particular, and if you are going to push the dairy larmer to the wall, and that is happening, you are going to have to import your butter every year, as one hon. member on this side has already said. But worse than that, as we expand, as the population increases, the position will become more serious. As the farmers are leaving the land to the tune they are doing, you will be getting greater shortages than ever in dairy products, and these are protective foods. These are protective foods, and what will the country do? Once these farmers go out of production, they are out for good. Once you have been relieved from producing milk, which entails working every day of the year, you never want to go back to it. I was a producer of fresh milk for very many years, but thank heavens I no longer go in for it, and nothing will make me do it again. In reply to a question, the Minister told me that the farm labour at his agricultural colleges have now gone on to a five-day week, with double pay on Sundays, but when I asked him last year whether we were going to be allowed to get our production costs plus a reasonable return, he said they were not concerned with the cost of production. How can we come out if our cost of production goes up every year and even labour is costing us more and more? But here the Government themselves are instituting a five-day week in competition with the farmers. All the other farmers in the neighbourhood will have to follow suit or lose their labour. We do not mind if we can calculate our costs like any other manufacturer. All factories are allowed to take their costs into account when they have their prices fixed by the Government, but not the farmers. It is only fair that the Minister should give due attention to the dairy farmers. He should institute a realistic price structure so that the dairy farmer can sell his product at a reasonable price.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) mentioned a few small mattters to which I want to respond before proceeding to deal with other matters in connection with agricultural research and so forth. The hon. member said that the Natal Agricultural Union had for 15 consecutive years pressed the Government for an increase in the price of dairy products. I want to point out to him that the Government has since 1948 gradually increased the prices of dairy products from 22.4 cents per lb., with the exception of the one or two years in which we had a tremendous surplus of dairy products which we could not dispose of. I wonder what the United Party would have done if, as a result of favourable climatic conditions and the development of the dairy herds, they had had such a surplus that they were unable to export it profitably. Would they have encouraged dairy production still further by increasing prices at that stage, while knowing that all surpluses had to be exported at a loss? It is absolute nonsense to compare that position which arose under favourable circumstances at that time, with a position which has now arisen under very bad conditions. No, it is very clear that if those favourable conditions had continued up to the present, the dairy industry would have been in a very favourable position. If the hon. member has any experience of dairy production, and I think he has, he will know that if climatic conditions are unfavourable one cannot maintain a high level of production.

Another point I want to make is this. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) mentioned in another debate that the profit made by the farmer on his investment was from 2¼ to 2½ per cent. To-day the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) said that the farmer made a profit of 2.1 per cent. He called it the dividend on his investment. They also complained a great deal that insufficient research work was being carried out and that there was no policy for the future. They have not read the Report for 1963-4, and since that time more research has been carried out, because then the Department started with its farm planning studies, and here are the results of those studies. There have been various districts in which the farmers have collaborated in cooperative production schemes in order to determine what types of livestock can be farmed with profitably and what types of grain should be planted and what the cost of production per unit is. Five different regions are mentioned in Table 1. There are the dry-land cropping areas such as Bethal-Standerton. Farm-management surveys were carried out, and the results were that the net income per R100 capital investment in Bethal-Standerton in 1961-2 was R7.8, as compared with R6.9 in 1962-3. In Frankfort-Villiers the figures were R7.8 and R13.9 per R100. In terms of percentages the last-mentioned figure represents a profit of 13.9 per cent which was obtained in that year. Where do the hon. members get the figure of 2.1 per cent? Let us take the Eastern Care Province. There the net income per farm increased from R2,295 to R3,040, and the net income per R100 capital investment from R4.80 to R6.10. How can those figures be reduced to a profit of 2.1 per cent? If one does not want to use stronger language one can only say that that is childish. I also mention the Drakensberg grazing region, the four grazing regions of the Eastern Transvaal. There the income per R100 capital investment was R7.36 for 1963-4 and R5.23 for 1962-3. Those figures, too, cannot be taken as representing that low income of 2.1 per cent. But I think those hon. members will always calculate those figures in the same way in which they calculate the strength of their own party. There are other regions too, such as the south-eastern Free State. There it was shown that the income per R100 capital investment for the two years was R8.7 and R6.4, respectively.

Now I come to the hon. member for Drakensberg, who is so talkative when we discuss agricultural matters. I do not think she even knows that in her own region. Northern Natal, the net profit per R100 capital investment was R4.9. And these are not Departmental figures. These figures have been arrived at in collaboration with the farmers in the areas where experiments were carried out on a co-operative basis. These figures were not obtained at Departmental research stations, but by means of practical tests which were carried out. Even in a dairy-farming region such as the Natal Midlands the net income per R100 capital investment was R5.69. I am asking the hon. member whether she still believes the figure of 2.1 per cent furnished by the hon. member for East London (City) is the correct one. Tell me now . . .

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I have now furnished tangible proof of the fact that there is no justification for the Opposition to present this figure of 2.1 per cent as being the dividend on the investment in farming. They plead for an increase in agricultural prices, but is that not precisely what the hon. the Minister and the National Party have been doing over the years—gradually increasing prices where it was in the interests of the agricultural industry? One cannot increase prices if it is not in the interests of the industry to do so. We are all in favour of increasing wages, salaries, and the prices of all the commodities produced by the farmers, but where would that land one? None of the speakers on the other side has mentioned any figures to indicate to the Government precisely what they want the prices of dairy products to be. Everything is merely expressed in vague terms, and no concrete suggestions have been made by them.

Now I want to refer to the prices for slaughter-stock. In 1950-1 the price of beef was 188.4 as compared with 100 in 1947-8, and mutton was 223 and pork 152. In November of 1957-8 beef was 220.8, mutton 226.5 and pork 176.4. [Time limit.]

We have now been entertained by the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. J. J. Rail), who quoted virtually the whole of the Report from page 99 to page 101, but what he never did was to tell us how many of those farmers took part in the experiments. He said that in these and in those areas the interest on capital was so much and so much. In some cases, such as at Standerton, it was 7.8 per cent in 1961 and 6.9 per cent in 1962-3, but in respect of whom were those surveys carried out? In the dry-land cropping areas surveys were carried out in respect of 241 farmers. In the Eastern Cape, which he quoted as the wonderful example where these good results had been obtained, 37 farmers were subjected to these experimental surveys, and there are more than 100,000 farmers in South Africa. I want to refer the hon. member to page 5 of the Report. There he can see what the general position of the farmers is. Take Table 2. In 1951-2 the net income at 1961 prices was R360,000,000. In 1957-8 it increased to R385,000,000. In 1960-1 it decreased to R342,000,000. Subsequently it again increased to R379,000,000 and in 1962-3 it was R389,000,000, and in 1963-4 it again decreased by R6,000,000. Now the hon. member comes along and tells us that the figures quoted to us by the hon. member for East London (City) are quite wrong. But I remember that a report was prepared a few years ago by one of the officials, Dr. Neethling, and his finding was that the dividend the farmer received on his investment was approximately 2¾ per cent. I remember clearly that a man such as Mr. tick said a year or so ago that 60 per cent of the farmers from Cape Town to Mossel Bay had an annual net income of less than Rl,200, but then Harrismith comes along and boasts that the farmers are in such a wonderful financial position. If they are in such a wonderful financial position, why are they leaving the land? The non. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) made more or less the same statement. He said that the maize farmers were still getting exceptionally good prices and that they were making good profits. He said that we must take note of the way in which the production per morgen had increased in the past few years. But if that is so, why has the price of maize again been increased this year? The hon. member for Ladybrand knows that the Mealie Board recommended to the Marketing Council that the price of maize should not be 313 cents, but 317 cents, and he also knows that the maize farmers are dissatisfied because the Marketing Council refused to accept the price of 317 cents. If they are in such a wonderful position, why the increases? No, we all know that the main difficulty of most farmers is that they cannot make a decent profit, and that that is the reason why they are leaving the land. The hon. member for Cradock also told us that it was the function of the Marketing Council to stabilize matters. How does it stabilize matters? It stabilizes matters in such a way that 2,400 farmers are leaving the land every year. They say that they challenge any of us to say who on their side ever said that the small farmer had to disappear. Who must then disappear? Is it the large farmer who is uneconomic?

If his land is uneconomic he must also disappear.

I want to tell hon. members who, according to one of their own supporters, the people are who are able to maintain their position in the rural areas today, the people who are able to survive droughts and difficulties. It was none other than the former member of the Provincial Council for Beaufort West, Mr. van der Merwe, who said the following—

Must the small farmer get a higher price than the large farmer?

Everybody must receive the same treatment. It is not only the small farmer who has difficulties to-day, but also the large farmer, as a result of the fact that they have been faced with decreasing prices in recent years and production costs have not decreased. His margin of profit is also becoming smaller. [Time limit.]

I want to start where the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) left off, and that is with the question of the small farmer, a matter which is continually being dragged across the floor of the House. The accusation is made that the Government is following a deliberate policy of removing the small farmer from the platteland, and figures are quoted to prove that a certain number of farmers disappear from agriculture every year. The hon. member quoted census figures on a previous occasion and has now quoted different figures. The position is simply that the available census figures include not only those farmers who are occupiers of land but everyone who was economically active in farming, and also, to some extent, those who were concerned with fisheries and forestry. That tendency has been there over the years. Originally South Africa was 50 per cent an agricultural country and a very much larger percentage of the population were on the platteland. But more employment became available in the cities and, bearing this in mind, I should like to put this question to hon. members. If there is a farmer on the plattelant who thinks that he can earn more in the city, must the Government prevent his moving to the city in order to enable him to utilize his labour more economically? This is the principle upon which our entire economy is based —that agriculture is part of our economic structure. I should like to put this further question to hon. members. They talk about uneconomic units and make the accusation that the smaller farmer is being forced off the land by the Government. But if a small farmer finds himself in the position of being able to keep only 100 head of cattle on the small piece of land that he has and of having to sell 20 head of cattle every year in order to support his family, and he can obtain a better position in the city with an income of R3,000, has one then so to determine the price of those 20 head of cattle that that man can earn the same on the platteland as he can in the city?

That is no argument.

That is the point of view on which hon. members opposite base their argument. They say that the Government has to fix a price which will keep the farmers on the land. I am asking them a simple question and instead of answering it they are now simply making a fuss. The Government’s policy is very clear. We want to keep as many farmers as we can on the land. Our whole policy is based on this fact. We amended the Land Settlement Act simply in order to enable farmers to obtain more land if their farms are uneconomic. But one cannot under all circumstances determine prices in such a way that all the farmers will be kept on the land. That is impossible and hon. members opposite do not want that either. All they are doing is to exploit these normal removals for political purposes. They have never really understood what one of the Ministers said. The Minister defined an economic farming unit. An uneconomic farmer is not necessarily a man who simply has a small farm; the farmer himself may not be very capable. He may have a large farm but his managing ability may be so poor that he is not able to manage that farm properly. It is not a question of small or large units. The question is whether the farmer can make a reasonable living at reasonable prices.

The accusation has been made that it is the price policy of the Government which has caused the farmers to leave the land. The hon. member quoted figures to prove that the real income of the farmer has in actual fact not risen. He took the figures for 1962 and compared them with the figures for 1963 in order to prove that the real income of the farmers had fallen by R6,000,000. But the fact remains that prices were generally increased in that particular year in which the reduction is indicated. Meat prices rose considerably as did the price of wheat and fresh milk. This proves that it was not the price which resulted in that general decrease.

Did I not also discuss the question of production costs?

Production costs did not increase to that extent in that one year. It was not the low prices which were responsible for the reduced income of the farmers but the general conditions in the country. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) mentioned the figures. He mentioned the fall in maize production of almost 20,000,000 bags. This fact alone reduces the income by R30,000,000. Wool production decreased because of the drought. When one takes these figures into consideration one realizes that the reduced income was not due to the fact that prices were too low but to the fact that production was lowered because of the drought. Surely it must be clear to hon. members that there was a considerable increase in prices. There was a considerable increase in meat prices and therefore the figure had to be higher. The meat price is included in this figure of R383,000,000. If meat prices were higher it is obvious that meat prices made up a larger percentage of the R383,000,000 than in the previous year. This is only logical; the hon. member ought to understand it. And if wheat prices had been higher and if the wheat harvest had been larger . . .

They did not rise to that extent in one year.

Does the hon. member want to give us to understand that the cost of meat increased by 30 per cent in one year? It is silly to make such an allegation. But prices did rise. I do not want to teach the hon. member just like a child; I take it that there are certain things which he can understand of his own accord. The fact is that this real income includes a considerable rise in meat prices. Production costs did not rise to the same extent as did the income of the farmers. There was a considerable increase in wheat prices and production costs did not rise to the same extent either as did the increase in the price of wheat. In other words, the fact that there was a decrease in comparison with previous years was chiefly due to the reduced production of certain commodities, and that reduced production was chiefly due to the drought. These are the facts, whether hon. members agree with them or not.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Butter production has fallen consistently since 1960. Does the hon. the Minister contend that this fact has been due to drought conditions throughout this period?

The hon. member himself mentioned the fact that production had risen by 3.6 per cent up to the year before last, and that it then dropped by 4.6 per cent. In other words, the only year in which there was a decrease was the year which is now under discussion, namely, last year.

And dairy produce?

No, I am speaking about the total agricultural production. The figure which I have mentioned includes the total agricultural production. I say that the drought was even responsible for the fall in dairy production. Does the hon. member wish to deny this? I do not want for a moment to suggest that the reduction in prices which was announced two or three years ago, a step which was taken on the recommendation of the Dairy Control Board, did not also have an effect in this regard. Hon. members must remember that the Government made an additional subsidy available in order to encourage consumption. I am not going to say that the price reduction did not also have an effect, but the fact remains that if the hon. member draws a comparison between the 1933-4 period, when there was also a serious drought, and the 1956-7 period, which was also a dry year, he will see that in the succeeding years, which were good years, dairy production immediately increased by 40 per cent. Did the production increase because the price was higher? No, the production increased simply because it was a more favourable year. I do not want for one moment to contend that that same tendency will reveal itself again if the drought is broken soon. There are important reasons why that tendency will not reveal itself and one of the most important of these is that meat prices, in relation to dairy prices, rose considerably in comparison with prices in those years. In other words, there is a far better price for meat as compared with milk than there was in those years. The reduced contribution of agriculture to the real national income is no proof that the prices of certain agricultural commodities are too low because there are sectors of our agriculture which are not affected by drought and where this problem of falling production is not encountered. Take the Western Cape as an example. Take an item like fresh milk. Although there was a marked decrease in the production of milk throughout the rest of the country, there was no decrease in the production of milk in the Western Cape.

And the consumption also increased.

Yes, consumption also increased. In actual fact there was no decrease in the Western Cape at all. This proves that where conditions are favourable, production is not as detrimentally affected by drought as in the rest of the country where conditions are unfavourable.

Hon. members spoke about the dairy industry. We are all concerned about the dairy industry and under present circumstances one has reason to be concerned. Conditions in the dairy industry in relation to meat production have fallen considerably. When we had a surplus of dairy produce two or three years ago none of the hon. members on that side would have thought that that proportion would have changed to such an extent; one simply could not foresee it; and because there is a greater demand for beef it is obvious that one has to make an adjustment in one’s dairy prices in order to prevent the ration being disturbed to such an extent that one finds oneself at a later stage with no dairy produce to market; that is obvious.

The hon. member for East London (City) asked what had become of the Marketing Act and the principle of the determination of prices on the basis of costs plus. The hon. member said that this had never been a principle of the Marketing Act. That is true enough. There are certain commodities such as maize and wheat in regard to which the basis of determination was production costs plus an entrepreneur’s wage in order to arrive more or less at a price. But I want to tell the hon. member that if we bind ourselves to production costs plus-—and it depends upon how much the “plus” should be—and if we have to fix that “plus” in relation to the decrease in the value of money or the rise in the cost of living, it may well happen that at a later stage some or other product will no longer be produced. If, for example, one bases fresh milk prices on the basis of production costs plus, and the price of another product competing with fresh milk is far higher than the price of fresh milk, fresh milk will simply not be produced. One cannot confine oneself to production costs plus; one has to be prepared to consider the circumstances. The “plus” which is fixed for fresh milk will then have to be considerably higher than would have been the case under different circumstances. This is very clear. One cannot therefore only speak of a production costs plus figure. The hon. member said that we should take no notice at all of supply and demand. The same thing applies in reverse in this regard. If one continues to produce a product on the basis of production costs plus and one produces that product in such large quantities that there is no demand for the product, one cannot then continue to maintain the plus figure at the same level. It is obvious that one will have to reduce that plus figure. This whole argument in connection with production costs plus is simply a political manoeuvre to make the farmers dissatisfied by telling them that their prices are no longer determined on the basis of production costs plus. There are 19 different products which are controlled under the Marketing Act. It is only in the case of wheat that the price is estimated more or less on the basis of production costs plus, and only three of the 17 have a fixed price; the rest are simply administered under various schemes under the same Act without there being any estimate of production costs or without there being any mention of a plus factor. In other words, these products are controlled and marketed in an orderly fashion and producer prices are assured in this way. It is obvious that it is in the interests of South Africa that her dairy industry should be given every protection possible. It is obvious that it is in South Africa’s interests that we should be able to supply our local market. If one becomes concerned about one’s production, it is obvious that one will have to take steps in order to increase that production, and, of course, any Government will under those circumstances consider an increase in prices. Hon. members have quoted what the South African Agricultural Union has to say about milk prices and what the Dairy Board has to say and what the Fresh Milk Association has to say. It is obvious that these bodies must bring the circumstances prevailing in their particular industry to the attention of the Government because nobody else will do so. Nat even the United Party can do so; all they do is to quote what these bodies and associations have to say. I can read these things for myself and I know what they have to say. It is obvious .that any Government will take notice of these circumstances; it cannot refuse to take notice of them. It is obvious that these factors will be considered when prices are determined. But there is a method by means of which these things are done. There is a board of control over the dairy industry; there is a Fresh Milk Board. The method is for them to make recommendations after they have discussed the whole matter. Those recommendations are submitted to me and I then decide whether the recommendations will be accepted or not. Once the particular board has made its recommendations and we have considered the whole matter, the prices are announced in due course. The Minister is not the person who determines the price in terms of the Marketing Act; the Minister has to determine the price in terms of the Act on the recommendation of the board and after an investigation has been made by the Marketing Council. Only after this has been done can the Minister fix the price. He cannot announce any prices before these steps have been taken.

The hon. member for East London (City) and other hon. members said that the average income of the farmer was 2.1 per cent.

On his capital investment.

Yes, of course. If the farmer’s income is not 2.1 per cent on his investment, what sort of return does it represent? It cannot be 2.1 per cent on the farmer himself. If this is to be the case, some of them will be minus! I think the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) would be minus! Hon. members opposite tried to ridicule the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. J. J. Rail) because he mentioned certain figures here, but what is the position? The Department has proved to the farmers that if they make use of the information which they obtain from the Department, they can under the same conditions increase their earnings by from 4 per cent to more than 6 per cent, simply by co-operating with the Department to some extent as far as their farming pattern is concerned. Hon. members come along here and say that industry makes such high profits, but the dividend of an industry is based on its actual capital investment.

What percentage profit have the maize farms of the Government shown?

That is a stupid question. It was never the intention that these experimental farms should show a profit. Those maize farms are there for research purposes. They are maintained by the Department for the purpose of experiment. If one maintains a farm for research purposes, a farm on which one suffers losses as a result of the experiments one makes, it is obvious that one is not going to make profits. But, apart from this, just think of the salaries which are paid for the managing of these maize farms. These are expenses which the ordinary farmer does not have to incur.

Hon. members spoke of a profit of 2½ per cent, but if the farmer makes a global profit of 2½ per cent, that 2½ per cent is not, as in the case of industry, profit on his actual capital investment. It is 2½ per cent on the present value of the farm. Hon. members must remember that land values have risen over the years; it is 2½ per cent on what the farmer considers to be the present value of his farm. In industry, however, the profits are estimated on the actual capital investment. Any farmer who bought land 20 years ago will tell you that he is making considerably more than 2½ per cent profit on his original investment, and if he does not do so then he is a very poor farmer.

On what is the investment figure of R4,800,000,000 based?

That is an investment which has been adapted to land prices; it does not represent the actual prices paid by farmers for their land.

The hon. member for East London (City) also spoke about importing and exporting cheese and butter. He said that it was silly for a country to export on the one hand and to import on the other. The fact remains that if we have surpluses of dairy produce, there are countries to which we can export those products. It pays us better to import and to supply those countries rather than to lose those markets in the meanwhile because if we do no export and there is another surplus in two or three years’ time we will no longer have those markets. That is why we prefer to supply those markets in the meanwhile and also to import because in this way we retain our markets. The fact remains that our dairy prices—butter prices and cheese prices—have fallen considerably on the London market over the past few weeks. There are large surpluses of cheese and other dairy produce in contrast to what the position was six or seven months ago on the European market, with the result that one can import cheese particularly far more cheaply to-day than one can produce it locally, even at to-day’s price, without any increase. It would be stupid to lose our market for a certain product because if we did and we had a surplus at a later stage again, we would find ourselves without markets. That is why it is our policy to import products in order to retain our markets for the future so that we will be able to export to those markets when we again have a surplus. I think that this is a sound policy. The same thing holds good for meat. The hon. member spoke of the small amount of meat which is being exported. But the hon. member must remember that South Africa is a country in which we have foot-and-mouth disease from time to time. There are times when only areas like South West Africa can market on the quarantine market. In other words, those people on whom restrictions are imposed can only send their stock to two markets which are quarantine markets and those are Johannesburg and Cape Town. If there is a surplus here, one cannot dispose of that surplus on another market. One simply has to slaughter the stock on those two markets. If one can obtain a market for that product it is better to have that market rather than to keep that product here in the event of there being a shortage at some stage or other. This is one of the reasons why we cannot prohibit all exports; one has to have some measure of elasticity in one’s marketing so that one can decide what to do with that meat when one is faced with a situation of this nature.

The hon. member also spoke about the levy on wool. I think that the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) has replied adequately to the hon. member in regard to the wool levy. The position is, of course, simply this: When the International Wool Secretariat incurs expenditure, as I said on a previous occasion, it is only necessary for the Minister to approve of the total amount which the Wool Board is asking for in its estimates for that purpose, according to the plan and the pattern which they submit to him. The hon. member knows how this is done.

May I just inquire of the hon. the Minister whether he is personally satisfied with the information which is given to him from time to time in connection with these expenses?

The information in connection with the money which they want to spend for the purposes of the International Wool Secretariat is submitted to me by the Wool Board. The Wool Board, together with the other two participants, decides on certain projects. Those projects are adopted by them. I have no control over whether or not the implementation of those projects is in the interest of the wool farmers. I must at least have sufficient confidence in the representatives of the wool farmers at an International Wool Secretariat meeting of this nature to accept the fact that they will judge whether or not it is in the interests of the industry to spend that money. All that I have to do is to approve of that portion of their estimates of expenditure for which South Africa is responsible. If the wool farmer of South Africa has any doubt he has the right to demand an explanation from the representatives of the South African wool farmers on the International Wool Secretariat and to say: “We want to know what you want this money for.” No producer member of the Wool Board is appointed without the recommendation of the Woolgrowers’ Association.

I have also thought many times that the stabilization fund is sufficiently strong and that it is not necessary at this stage to strengthen that fund any further, but, after all, the wool farmers are organized on a democratic basis and if they decide that the stabilization fund is not yet strong enough and they ask the Minister to strengthen the fund, at the instance of all the wool farmers, as supported by congress resolutions, can the Minister then say that he refuses to approach Parliament with a request that the fund be increased? If the hon. member for East London (City) thinks that this levy is no longer necessary, or that it is too high, or that it is being used wrongly, I still say that the body with which to raise this matter is the Wool Board. The accounts of the Wool Board are subject to audit by the Auditor-General and there are many opportunities for the discussion of this matter here in Parliament if hon. members are dissatisfied.

The hon. member for Drakensberg referred to producer prices and I should like hon. members opposite to reply to the following question: It is impossible to pay a subsidy on fresh milk, the reason being that one would have no control over it except in the controlled areas. It is, therefore, impossible for the Government to pay a subsidy on fresh milk. I fully agree that under certain circumstances one will be compelled to encourage fresh milk production. I am still waiting for a reply to the question which I put to hon. members opposite. They say that a reasonable, or rather, a substantial increase should be granted in producer prices. I want to put this question to them: Are they also prepared to say under present-day circumstances where we have shortages of fresh milk, cheese and butter in the cities, that if the consumer does not want to run the risk of a shortage of milk in the future, he must be prepared to pay a higher price for it? Hon. members shy away from this question and I cannot understand why they do so. Is the hon. member prepared to say that the consumers should pay more?

We shall reply to that.

Why cannot the hon. member reply to it immediately? She need only say yes or no. I shall tell you why she is not prepared to reply to it: It is because the United Party want to sit on two stools. They want to tell the farmer on the platteland that the Government fixes his prices too low and they want to tell the consumer in the city: “This Government is forcing up the cost of living; it is making you pay too much for milk.”

And both are true!

There you have it, Mr. Chairman! The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) says that both are true. I do not blame him for having let the cat out of the bag because, from the nature of things, he is a party organizer with a seat in Parliament. In other words, the first man who has been prepared to come out with the truth in connection with this matter is the hon. member for Sea Point who says that both are true. If both are true I should like to put this question to the hon. member: From where must the difference between the producer price and the consumer price come? I am so pleased that hon. members opposite have exposed themselves in this way. All the fuss that has been made here by hon. members opposite in regard to fresh milk prices and in regard to the pitiful position in which the producer finds himself has simply been a political manoeuvre, and the proof of this is that they do not have the courage to say that in order to meet the producer the consumer must nay a higher price under these circumstances. They want to exploit the position of both the consumer and the producer for political purposes. I just want to tell them that they are not doing the producer in South Africa a service. The producer realizes—and the hon. member for Drakensburg can test this statement in Drakensberg at the next election —that the Opposition are trying to exploit the drought for political purposes. You have heard. Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Drakensberg has said here this afternoon. She has said that the Government actually welcomes the drought as a way out. If there is one party which is trying to exploit the drought for political profit, it is the United Party. They welcome the drought, but the producer realizes this fact. The producer realizes that those hon. members simply want to make a political football of the milk producer and I shall tell the House why I say this. On every occasion when the Agriculture Vote has been under discussion in this House hon. members opposite have not discussed agricultural and price policy in broad outline; no. on each occasion they have selected a product in regard to which they have felt that the farmers want a higher price. Last year the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) told us how the onion farmers were struggling but this year we have not heard a single word about the onion farmers. Why not? Because the price was raised. A few days ago they came along with the story that meat prices were too low, and a few years ago when there was a surplus of maize and when the producer price had to be reduced, they concentrated on maize. I do not think that those hon. members serve the interests of the farmers in any way by this action of theirs. Let us discuss our problems like adults but do not let us try to exploit every little item for political purposes. If we want to make political capital out of these matters we must go back to the time when the United Party was in power. What was the position then? There were times when they had to subsidize the wheat farmer.

I come now to the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). The hon. member discussed the question of wheat and wheat production. He said that the Minister should get the Board to intervene because, he said, when the producer delivered his wheat in quantities of more than 200 lbs. per bag, he had to supply the bag as well, and where he delivered wheat in bags of less than 200 lbs. weight, he forfeited the bag and was given no compensation for it. But, Mr. Chairman, this is quite logical. In the first instance, the provision is that wheat must be delivered in a bag of 203 lbs.; in other words, if there are 203 lbs. of wheat in a bag, the miller must compensate the farmer for the price of the bag because he has to supply the bag; the price of the bag is included in his profit margin. In other words, if there are too few bags for the weight, then the producer has to pay in on the bag. The hon. member mentioned the case in which there are too many bags. Such a case can only arise when the wheat in those bags is of a very poor quality.

The hon. member may be a better wheat farmer than I am but the year before last I delivered considerably more wheat than the hon. member said I had delivered. I delivered 5th and 6th grade. There was nothing of a higher quality and I did not deliver one single bag of wheat which was not of the required weight. Let us imagine that we need more bags than the weight of wheat; it means then that the standard of that wheat is such that one cannot deliver it in anything else. How else is one supposed to deliver it? In what is the co-operative supposed to send it to the mill if it does not send it in a bag?

Why cannot the bags be returned? The man pays for the bags.

The hon. member has to deliver 203 lbs. of wheat in a bag. If he delivers 200 lbs. or 199 lbs. in a bag, he is not delivering 203 lbs. That is the difference.

The hon. member also spoke about barley. The hon. member is of course aware of the fact that the breweries only use light coloured barley because they say that other barley is not suitable, that the germination is not good enough and so forth. This has, of course, been a bone of contention for many years. The fact remains that the control board can only sell barley to the breweries which has a certain percentage of those colour kernels. Anything else it sells it has to sell on the fodder market.

Is no yellow barley at all bought by the breweries?

Yellow barley is not bought by the breweries. The only time they buy yellow barley is when there is not sufficient of the other available. The board then permits them to export that barley for feed purposes and to import other barley. I just want to say that certain bodies which are interested in the breweries and which contend that the colour of the barley does not necessarily make the barley unsuitable for brewery purposes, are investigating this whole matter. The investigation has been completed and Stellenbosch/Elsenburg Agricultural College is trying to cultivate a barley which is suitable for their needs. There are indications that there is a certain type of barley which does have a yellow colour but which is suitable for brewery purposes. They will also determine which variety will comply with the requirements of the breweries and cultivate those varieties in order to make them available to the producers. This will be of assistance in those areas where the rainfall is such that one has moist weather from time to time because this affects the colour.

The hon. member for Green Point spoke about the petrol which he uses in his harvesters. This is of course not a matter which falls under my Department but I just want to point out to the hon. member how difficult it will be to supply duty-free petrol for all the harvesters in the country. Who is going to exercise control to see that the hon. member uses the petrol for his harvesters and not for his motor-car or lorry or for some other vehicle?

Not all of us are rogues, you know.

That is not my contention at all, Mr. Chairman. Anyone who has stood against the hon. member for Green Point at some time or other will know that he is not a rogue. There is also the other aspect of the matter. If the hon. member has for example a diesel lorry, he does not pay tax on that diesel fuel.

Or a combine.

Or a combine. I am speaking now about a lorry which runs on a road. The hon. member said that a harvester does not run on a road, but a lorry does run on a road. When the hon. member puts his lorry on the road, he pays duty, but when he uses his harvester, he does not pay duty. Such a scheme simply cannot be worked out and applied in practice. I want to give the hon. member some good advice. Wheat prices are so high now that he should dispose of his petrol-driven harvesters and buy diesel-powered harvesters.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Capt. Henwood). The hon. member also discussed the fresh milk position and said that there were large surpluses of dairy products 15 years ago. I also want to tell him that we have sometimes had shortages and have had to import large quantities of dairy products on account of climatic conditions. If there is a dry year we are always faced with the position of having to import. We imported dairy products a few years ago and a few years later we had a large surplus. This is simply due to the conditions prevailing in our country. I have made a note of what he has had to say about the milk industry. I know what the position in Durban is; it will be considered in due course. The hon. member also said how difficult it is for a dairy farmer to produce dairy products. He said: “Nothing will induce me to produce fresh milk again.” I thought that if I made the price high enough the hon. member would again start producing dairy products. If he now says that it does not help at all to increase the price because he will in any event not produce fresh milk again, I do not know whether his plea amounts to anything. I think that I have replied to all the points raised up to the present.

I am getting up to speak not about the farmers in particular, but about agricultural products. Before coming to that I just want to say a few words about the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister. I am not a farmer, but I am not quite hopeless at figures. When I look at some of the arguments put forward by the hon. the Minister then I do not even have to be a farmer to tell him that he is wrong. For example, he said, “Let us take the case of the farmer who markets 20 head of cattle a year. If that man can earn R2,500 or R3,000 in the city, must we give him the same remuneration for the 20 head of cattle as he could earn in the form of salary in the city?” One really does not expect school debating society arguments of that type from the hon. the Minister. Where does he get the figure of R2.500 or R3,000? Why does he not make it R10,000, because then he would have a better argument, not so? Who is going to offer the man who is farming with 20 head of cattle in the rural areas a position of R2,500 in the city?

Let us take the Minister’s next argument. I want to make it easy for the Minister; I am taking his arguments to their conclusion. He said that the Opposition’s story of 2¾ per cent on one’s investment was completely divorced from the context of the matter. He said that that percentage was calculated on the present value of money.

No.

Yes, Mr. Chairman; I listened very carefully. The Minister said that the interest had been adjusted to the present value of money. He said that land had been very cheap in former times. He said, for the sake of argument, that if a farmer had bought a farm for £10,000 at that time, he might perhaps get £40,000 for that farm to-day, and now his interest was only 2¾ per cent on the £40,000. Let us make matters very easy for the Minister: Let us assume that the farmer has inherited the land; then he has paid nothing for it; then he should get no interest on his money; then he should in fact pay over to the State some of the money which he makes on that farm, not so? That is the logic of that type of argument.

I am getting up to speak not about the farmer as such, but about the farmer’s products. During the last few hours the debate has been mainly about the interests of the farmer. The farmer’s lot has formed the subject of the debate, and that is certainly a subject which needs to be discussed. When one listens to hon. members, even to hon. members on the other side, one comes to the conclusion that the farmers are certainly finding it extremely difficult to make a living and that hon. members on both sides—I am surprised that hon. members on the other side do it so little—have the right to ask the hon. the Minister to give an account of his stewardship.

However, there is another side to the matter. I should like to remind the Committee of the fact that the hon. the Minister’s responsibility extends far beyond the farmer only; he is also the hon. the Minister of Marketing, and in marketing one has two poles—the farmer and the consumer. I am getting up to speak specifically about the consumers, particularly in the urban areas, where thousands of them are concentrated. I think that it is as much the hon. the Minister’s responsibility to see to it that under the agricultural marketing system the consumer pays a reasonable price for agricultural products in the cities. When one moves around in one’s constituency today, one does not find the housewives talking about the colour problem—there is only one question that they ask one, and it is this: “How can I keep the pot boiling on the salary my husband is earning, considering the price I have to pay for foodstuffs?” Last week we again read in the newspapers that there was to be an increase in the prices of milk, butter and cheese.

I want to give an example in connection with prices, Mr. Chairman. Over the weekend a person who knows what he is talking about, a friend of mine, bought three pockets of oranges in Sea Point. It so happens that he is an orange farmer. He paid 50 cents, 55 cents and 60 cents for those three pockets of oranges. Those are the average prices paid by all consumers. What does the farmer get for that product? His return is 1.7 cents per pocket of oranges. I am now asking the hon. the Minister: Where does the difference go? The consumer is blaming the farmer; the farmer may perhaps be blaming the consumer. I am blaming neither of them. They both have a good case. I think we must ask the hon. the Minister of Marketing what is happening. Why this tremendous gap between consumer price and producer price?

What do you think?

I am surprised that the hon. member is talking of “thinking”. I sat listening to him this afternoon. All he speaks about is the Magna Charta. He has been speaking about that ever since I have been in this hon. House. It is not my responsibility to reply to that question. It ought to be the responsibility of the Minister.

Let us come to a matter which is of great importance to the housewife, namely, meat prices. I want to refer hon. members to the prices obtained at the meat market in Cape Town today. I think the farmer is lucky if he gets an average price of 17 cents for prime A to C beef, and perhaps first grade too.

Are the farmers satisfied with that?

It seems to me that that has been a good average price over the last few weeks. I think the hon. the Minister understands me now. At what price is that meat sold to the consumer in Cape Town? The consumer pays anything between 38 and 48 cents for the same meat. I now ask the hon. the Minister: Who takes the difference between the two prices?

Bones and all?

It is the price for the same grade of meat. The Minister is trying to get out of the difficulty now. These prices of 38 to 48 cents per lb. only include first-grade to prime A meat. I shall come to the bones presently. What is the position as far as mutton is concerned? What does the sheep-farmer get? He gets 20 cents, 21 cents, for second-grade mutton perhaps 16 cents; let us take the average price as being 20 cents. As I know the sheep-farmer he is reasonably happy if he gets that. What do we pay for that mutton in Cape Town? If you want a roast leg of mutton for a Sunday . . .

You pay 28 cents for half a sheep.

Listen to what the people say who can afford to buy a half sheep. How many people can afford to buy half a sheep, Mr. Chairman? I am speaking of the family for whom it is a special treat to have a roast leg of mutton on the table once a month. They pay 42 cents a pound for that same mutton. The farmer gets 20 cents and the butchery sells that mutton at prices ranging from 28 cents to 42 cents a pound. It also offers another type of meat—knuckle-bones— at 26 cents a pound. One can make bean-soup with that! This is one of the typical problems of the farmers. There is no stability whatsoever. The prices obtained by the farmer fluctuate from week to week, from month to month. He never knows what his position is. A friend of mine sent some old ewes to the abbatoirs in Cape Town. He got 27 cents for them. A week later he sent along some lovely wethers and thought that he would get a good price for them, but they only fetched 22 cents! It was high-grade mutton, but he only got 22 cents. Somewhere between these two prices there is a gap which is causing extreme dissatisfaction among both producers and consumers. The hon. the Minister may smile if he likes, but the time will come when both the consumer and the producer will hold him responsible. He cannot come to this House every year and put forward school debating society arguments here. [Time limit.]

I do not want to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down.

You cannot.

He is my ally; he knocked the bottom out of the case of the United Party. He said the very opposite to what all the other members had said. He said nothing which they had said. One after another hon. members on that side had explained what a hard time the farmers were having, and the hon. member proved with figures what prosperous times they were having.

Where do you get that?

I listened to his speech, did I not? After listening very carefully to this debate I am more than ever convinced that what I said here the other day, and which was reported rather incorrectly, was right. I said that there were two big dangers in the country, and that the biggest of the two was the negative attitude adopted by the United Party. The newspapers said that I had said “the pest of the United Party”. I am just mentioning this to put the record straight. I never use an ugly word such as that. I have never yet called my fellow-man a pest; no educated person would do that. I have nothing against the report; it was a good one, but I did not use the word “pest”. I said that it was a danger.

This danger has again become apparent today. Here we have a group of representatives of the public. They have been sent here to use their brain-power to build up the country. I have been sitting here for nearly a fortnight already, and I have not yet heard one constructive word being expressed by hon. members of the Opposition. We are getting dead, destructive criticism from the one end to the other. And in addition it is criticism which cannot even be substantiated. When the Minister asks for proof they simply remain silent. When we ask for proofs they simply remain silent. They make a noise to put one off while one is talking, but that is all one gets from them. When Posts is being dealt with, then they want to protect the postal workers . . .

Say something in the interests of the farmers in your constituency.

Keep quiet. When Agricultural Technical Services is being dealt with, an issue is made of water affairs; when Agricultural Economics and Marketing is being dealt with, an issue is made of the meat prices obtained by the farmers. Every time they speak about that section of the population which under the circumstances is not getting what it would like to get. But they never reply to the right question, which is: how can the position be improved?

I listened to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) this afternoon. I always had very great respect for the knowledge of that hon. member, but I find myself unable to retain that respect, because he indulges in this wild talk along with the others. The hon. member said that the Government should see to it that breeding-cattle were not slaughtered, that it was the Government’s fault that our livestock were being slaughtered out. Is it the Government’s fault that there has been no rain for five years?

Hear, hear!

There someone says “Hear, hear!” He is even more stupid. It is the Government’s fault that we shall have to import meat soon! It is the Government’s fault that the supply of livestock is being depleted! It was the hon. member for South Coast who said that. [Interjections.] I am busy telling the hon. member that. If he will only open his ears he will hear. The hon. member for South Coast issued the warning. Does the hon. member for South Coast ignore the reason why those cows are being slaughtered? Has the hon. member for South Coast not heard that after five years there is no more fodder to be had in the cattle-farming areas? Has the hon. member for South Coast not heard that the Minister did everything in his power to save those cows? Did the Minister not allow rebates to be paid on fodder? [Interjections.] Let me just say to that hon. member that he must please get into a tree with a mealie-cob in his hand—that is where he belongs. The hon. the Minister did everything in an attempt to save the livestock. He left no stone unturned. He paid a subsidy. The world knows and hon. members on that side know that there is no foddder to be had to-day. There is no grazing. The Minister could not have done more. This is the only country in the world in which a natural disaster is exploited for political purposes by the Opposition. One would not find that being done in any country in the world. When listening to the news and reading the newspapers, Sir, one hears and reads about natural disasters throughout the world. A large number of people die as a result of a volcanic eruption; a large number of people are killed by an earthquake; a wind-storm leads to the death of a large number of people! But those disasters merely result in the people of those countries becoming more united, so that they may survive those disasters. In South Africa, however, the position is different. In South Africa we have an Opposition which attributes a disaster to the inability of the Government. [Interjections.] There is another one who should get in a tree. Everything humanly possible was done to save that livestock. If the hon. members could show me what more could have been done I would have had respect for their opinion; then I would have been able to understand them, but none of them has been able to do that. It remains the Government’s fault; it remains the Government’s fault that there are no crops; it remains the Government’s fault that the farmer has nothing to sell; everything is the Government’s fault wherever you go! No Government, whether it be a National Party or a United Party Government, can prevent or foresee a natural disaster such as this one.

The natural disaster which has struck South Africa is an act of God and one cannot plan for such an act: one cannot prevent such an act. Show me one instance of any matter which was capable of being solved by human beings and which was not tackled by this Government.

Shame!

Yes, I feel just as sorry for you. It is terrible that you have to sit on that side of the House.

The fact of the matter is that hon. members on the other side cannot say anything which is constructive. I find that rather pleasing, because it is a very clear proof to me that something must happen to them. I am not one of those who say that they must disappear. I want them here, but I just want their voters to send a type of member here who will adopt a productive attitude, who will use his mind constructively in the interests of South Africa and not just sit here to catch a few votes in order to take over the government. [Interjections.] The hon. member should have been in a tree many years ago.

I want their voters to send members here who can render a service to their nation. What do we find here? What service is being rendered to South Africa? The whole attitude of the Opposition reminds me of a broken crank-handle. A crank-handle is part of a machine which is started manually by means of that crank-handle. If it is power-operated it is called a driving-wheel; if it is cranked by hand it is called a crank-handle. It is that S-shaped instrument. If it is broken and one cannot crank the machine, one gets the type of story which was put forward here to-day. The statements and pronouncements and policies which we get from the Opposition may be likened to a broken crank-handle; they represent something which the Opposition does not intend doing. The mill is set to grind a certain thing, but it cannot grind it, because the handle cannot turn the machine. The United Party does not want to put forward any proposal which might relieve the position of the farmers; the attack is only intended to catch votes.

Mr. Chairman, I see you want to stop me. I just quickly want to say this: The more they talk against the Government the greater their losses at the elections become. No constituencies in South Africa are more sorely stricken than Rustenburg and Marico, yet every time they have lost those constituencies by 1,000 votes more than they did the previous time.

I am not going to attempt to answer what the hon. member who has just sat down has said, but I think we have had a comic interlude here, if I may call it so, of ten minutes. I do want to go further with what has been raised by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) when, towards the end of his speech he dealt with the question of the combinations that are taking place in the milling industry in this country, and I want to deal with a particular aspect of that, namely the issuing of licences to bakers. The present position is raising important points of principles. Before a man nowadays, can operate as a baker, he has to get a licence from the Wheat Control Board to do so, and it is leading in some instances to a most unsatisfactory and disturbing state of affairs. I want to illustrate it by what is happening in a particular town in my own constituency, not because I wish to be parochial, but because I think it is a good illustration of the dangers which arise and the disturbing position which can arise under the present system. That town is Grahamstown, a town where you have a permanent population of some 33,000 people, and over and above that, you have a very large student population indeed, firstly, at the university, secondly, at the Teachers’ Training College and, thirdly, at no less than eight major European schools, a population which comes and goes throughout the year, and there are also certain other important institutions. In this town one firm has bought up all the bakeries which were independent bakeries be fore, and they now have a complete monopoly and the Wheat Board will issue no more licences to independent bakers in that town on the ground that the baking capacity is sufficient for the needs of the town itself. The result is that not only the settled population of the town, but also all the students in the institutions that I have mentioned are entirely dependent on one firm for their bread, which is the staple diet. Now it is always reasonable to accept what the economist calls “rationalization” in any industry in order to avoid excess capacity, in order to avoid unreasonable and undue competition and wasteful competition in that industry, and thereby to get greater efficiency in the industry and probably lower costs. But in order to justify that and in order to justify a condition of monopoly which then obtains after you have rationalized an industry and done away with competition, there must indeed be efficiency in that industry, and in this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, I have received numerous complaints about the condition of the bread that is being sold now that this particular firm has got a complete baking monopoly in the town, viz. that the bread is ropy and that in other ways it is unsatisfactory. But the disturbing part is not that a monopoly has been granted to what is primarily a baking firm but that the monopoly has been granted virtually through this process of one firm buying out the other bakers, to a milling firm. Sir, the milling industry is an industry which traditionally lends itself, due to certain technical considerations, such as economies of scale, to monopolistic practices, and it is an industry which even before the war came under fire in other countries, such as the United Kingdom. My sources of information are limited, but I am told that this is not an isolated instance, that this is going on in other parts of the country too, and, what is more, that with the development of our road system and particularly with the tarring of roads, which were not tarred before, to-day it is obviously very much easier for a baking firm situated in one town to convey its products by road to neighbouring towns. This is leading to the elimination of the small baker, and the small country baker is disappearing completely. As I say, if these firms were primarily bakers one would not be concerned by this trend, but the fact that it is the big milling firms that are getting this monopoly over the basic food supply of the people is indeed a most disturbing tendency.

The second disturbing part is that it is being done under a system of licensing by a control board when monopolies are being granted to particular firms. But there is an even more disturbing feature in that respect. I cannot vouch for my information, but I am told that overseas capital has recently acquired a degree of control over this particular milling company. If that indeed is true, then the dangers of the situation are obvious, namely that the manufacture of what is a basic foodstuff is in parts of the Republic coming under the control of foreign companies. Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps a matter where the Minister should consult with his colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, but I do feel that it is a matter which really does deserve an investigation by his Department.

Secondly, I want to deal with certain aspects of the cost price squeeze. It has been touched briefly on here to-day by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) who mentioned the question of fertilizer prices and also the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) and several members on this side of the House instanced how production costs were rising. The hon. Minister in his reply also instanced the fact that there were in fact certain sectors of the farming economy where prices are rising more quickly than production costs. I am prepared to accept that, but nonetheless, there is a very great sphere of the farming economy of the country where production costs are continually rising and are eating constantly into the profit margin of the producer. You have only got to look in the agricultural Press, whether it be the Landbouweekblad or the Farmer’s Weekly to see virtually every week letters on the subject. I had a letter from one of my constituents which. I think, puts the position from the point of view of the ordinary man on the farm pretty clearly, and I am quoting from the letter—

The point is that this man is a chicory producer and the price of his product is fixed on a “voorskot” and an “agterskot” basis. It is not just a matter of us trying to make political capital out of matters when we constantly bring this question of the cost price squeeze to the notice of the Minister because this is what is driving the farming community down, so that when a drought or some other natural disaster comes along, they have not got the capital resources built up over the years because of this cost price squeeze, to enable them to see those times through. I realize that one cannot have price control over all sorts of articles, but when price control over these particular articles, namely, spares for agricultural machinery, was lifted a year or two ago, the view was expressed that competition between the firms handling those spare parts would ensure that prices would be kept down. [Time limit.]

I am getting up to refer to a few aspects in connection with the formula on the basis of which the annual determination of what prices is made. It is true that there are some misgivings about a few aspects of this formula at the moment. Every year when the wheat prices have to be announced there is a certain amount of tension amongst the wheat producers. Let me say at once that no one is opposed to the control system. The control system has definite advantages. It brings about stability and ensures a reasonable price to the wheat producer. On the other hand it also provides a certain guarantee to the consumer. But lately, as a result of misgivings about certain aspects of this price determination formula, some people have begun to wonder more and more whether the formula is not somewhat out of date in certain respects, and some people are beginning to say that we should adopt a realistic attitude in trying to find a much simpler and more realistic formula. I do not want to discuss that aspect, but the question does occur to me whether many of the arguments which are used do not have some substance. Here I w£nt to refer to the conference of wheat farmers which is held annually. Here in my hand I have an extract dealing with the Wheat Conference of the Swartland and the South-Western Districts which was again held this year, and I quote the following from this extract (translation)—

And further—

There is another aspect that I want to mention. On a previous occasion a memorandum on wheat price determination was drawn up by a committee appointed by representatives of the Co-operative of the Swartland and Ruens, and that memorandum also contains some interesting statements. Misgivings are also expressed in regard to certain aspects of the price determination formula. For example, I have here a paragraph on “The Adjustment of the Price of B-l Wheat”, in which the following is stated (translation)—

Then interest on machinery is also mentioned—

In the same way I can quote certain aspects in connection with the price determination formula, which is dealt with repeatedly, from all the documents of recent years. Let me say at once that I do not want to express an opinion on the substance of these assertions, but the fact remains that there is a certain amount of trouble, a certain amount of tension in connection with certain aspects of the price determination formula.

I do not want to plead for the abolition of this price determination formula, but I want to put this very pertinent question to the hon. the Minister: Is it not possible for the Minister to take into account additional arbitrary factors, apart from the present fixed price determination formula, when wheat prices are determined every year? In other words, that an inflexible formula will not simply be slavishly adhered to, but that more latitude will be allowed to take into account other factors as well. For example, one finds the position that one has a general period of growth in the economy of the country, that one has progress and prosperity, and that in such a price determination period, which extends over five years, one has one freak year, which may result in a periodic decrease in the price of wheat while general economic prosperity is being experienced. That leads to tension amongst the wheat producers. That is why I am asking the Minister this very pertinent question as to whether the time has not arrived that certain other arbitrary factors should carry more weight in the annual determination of wheat prices. I think that if the Minister followed this policy we would be able to eliminate much of the tension and bring about more satisfaction amongst the wheat producers.

The hon. members taking part in this agricultural debate are making a tremendous mistake and are doing an injustice to agriculture in trying to score little debating points in a debate on agriculture, instead of dealing with agriculture as a whole. I want to mention an example of that. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), who ought to know better, because he had the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing before him and he had read portions from it, came along and made the statement that the total income of the farmers was only R105,000,000 for the year. And then he read from the introduction and mentioned certain figures to show that there had been a decrease in the income. But why does he not read the report in its right perspective? Just a few lines on from the paragraph which he read, he should have read the following—

He conveniently omitted that, and in addition the hon. member also omitted to read these important words from the report—

In other words, when as a result of droughts and other circumstances there is a smaller volume of production, he makes use of the opportunity to show that agriculture is experiencing bad times, but he omits to quote from a report which he has before him that the smaller volume of production was virtually offset by higher producers’ prices. Let us take another example. Although he had the report in his hands, the hon. member still conveyed an incorrect impression. What is the true position as far as the income of agriculture is concerned? Why did he not point out that the gross value of agricultural produce increased to R904,000,000 in 1963-4, as compared with R902,000,000 in the preceding year? That is the true position, while the hon. member mentioned R105,000,000 as the income. Seeing that he had the report before him, why did he not tell the House that the contribution made to the national revenue by agriculture was R538,000,000, and that is the production value after all. Let us reduce that to the real value of money according to the 1962 prices. Then we find that it was R392,500,000 in 1963-4, but the hon. member comes along and gives the wrong figures. No, that is no way to conduct a debate. I think the hon. member is not rendering any service to agriculture by conducting a debate in that way. He does have the figures before him after all. Why does he not use the true figures to indicate what the position is?

I was speaking of profits.

Very well, let us take the profits then, although the hon. member was speaking of the income when he mentioned the amount.

No.

I am not taking the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing now, but just listen to what the United Tobacco Company says. They say that from 1948 to 1963 the volume of production increased by 72 per cent. In other words, from R396,000,000 to R882,000,000.

But what is said about production costs?

The hon. member creates the impression that agriculture has not merely stood still, but has retrogressed.

Look at the report.

No, one cannot get that from the report. I want to analyse a further statement that was made here by the hon. member. He stated, as did his colleagues, that it was the policy of this Government simply to drive the small farmer off the land, that the small farmer no longer had a place within the ambit of the policy of this Government, and then he mentioned the number of farmers who had left. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He is skating on thin ice. Let us just analyse the statistics. What has been the tendency, not only under this Government, but ever since 1946? We find that from 1946 to 1951 we lost 3,892 farmers every year, but that the position changed after that and that the annual loss has only been 2,728. In other words, there has been an improvement. We are no longer losing so many. If one takes the adjusted number of farmers and farm workers combined the annual loss from 1946 to 1951 was 4,070, and for the period from 1951 to date this figure has decreased to 2,777 per annum. But that is not the picture that we have to take into account. We have to take into account the decrease per annum. In 1946 the figure was 4,070, in 1960 1,768, and for the period 1963 to 1968 it will, according to calculations, be 1,000. A turning-point has therefore been reached, and now I want to ask whether it is not essential that one should reach a turning-point. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) himself said that he would not plead that we should keep the incompetent farmer on the land. He mentioned half a dozen incompetent farmers. These incompetent farmers were represented by, and this large decrease in the number of farmers was constituted by, the returned soldiers who had been placed on settlements and who, owing to their incompetence, would not remain there and make a living. Under the resettlement scheme this Government has already taken the necessary steps to consolidate uneconomic land units with other land if there should be any such units. I just want to mention an example. In the past year and a half only we have consolidated the land of 75 farmers, not settlers, and have given them larger units, in other words, have resettled them. We still have 177 cases under consideration. As regards any lessees under the Department of Lands who are also on uneconomic units, whether in terms of Section 20 or Section 23, we have during the recent period, a period of less than 18 months, consolidated 74 and placed them on decent economic units, and 86 are under consideration. In other words, this Government does not say, “Yes, but the small farmer must disappear”. On the contrary, it sees to it that the land of a small farmer who is farming on an uneconomic unit is consolidated so that he can farm as an independent person on a consolidated unit in South Africa. But that does not suit the purpose of the hon. members on the other side. For the purpose of making political propaganda it suits them better to accuse a Minister of Agriculture of adopting the attitude that the small farmer must disappear. I challenge them to say who ever said that the small farmer had to disappear. The hon. member now wants to accuse me of having said that 50 per cent of our farms are uneconomic. Let him prove to me where I said that.

The Farmers’ Weekly said that.

Because The Farmers’ Weekly possibly said something like that, the Deputy Minister is now supposed to have said it. That is the type of propaganda which the United Party makes in a debate here in an attempt to gain a little political advantage. [Time limit.]

I do not intend following the hon. Deputy Minister, but I want to say this that I too feel that even in regard to the wool farmer, the trend is there, the small farmer cannot withstand the position when you take into consideration the costs he has to face today. I leave it there, because others will deal with that matter.

I want to come back to the reply the hon. Minister gave to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) in regard to the Stabilization Fund. For a moment I thought that the hon. Minister has at last come round to recognizing the position and that to a certain extent he actually got support from the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) and that is that after all the fund as it exists today is fully capable of dealing with the position with regard to stabilizing wool prices. I think they both admitted it, they agreed, although they felt that they would reserve their judgment at the moment. I can understand the hon. member for Somerset East taking up the attitude that he has taken up. Because he seems to see this as a political “gogga” or something. He virtually said so. He said “I will not recognize it in this place, but outside somewhere, I will be quite agreeable to talk along with my farmers because what you put forward is in line with some of my own thinking”.

I said “for myself”.

But, Mr. Chairman, I feel unhappy about the hon. Minister’s attitude. I think somebody said already that the Minister took the line of least resistance. It is absolutely blatant: The Minister says that while he himself has thought that this fund is now fully subscribed and we could possibly stop collecting for it, he has got to leave it to the farmers to make up their mind.

Who are you to say that this should be done?

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was going to say something to the hon. member for Cradock, but I apologize and withdraw it in my thoughts. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: The Minister simply indicates that his responsibility finishes when a matter is discussed with him by the Wool Board. Sir, that is not. the correct position. He must accept responsibility and give the lead. Surely the Minister would not allow them to go on subscribing to this fund until it is equal to the value of a year’s clip? Nothing could be more ridiculous. You have got the position today where the fund is equal to 24 per cent of the value of Your clip. We know that. Let us bring it back to the argument with regard to the farmers. We know that the wool farmers have had no let-up in regard to the charges, as far as I can remember, for very many years. Everything goes up against them as it goes up against anybody else. In other words. they have got the same additional expenses to face as any other farmer. Their motor-cars and all their requirements are going up continually. There has been no reduction in their cost of living, the cost of maintaining their institutions. That just goes on. Yet the Minister says that he is going to leave it to the farmers to decide whether they should endeavour to save these poor fellows something by way of the extra levy. I think it is commonly known that it costs the farmer to-day plus/minus RIO per bale to market his wool if he is about 300 miles away from his market. That RIO is as much as a farmer realized for his wool in 1930-1.

To-day the average price the farmer gets for his wool is 40 cents, whereas in 1951 he was getting over 200 cents, but there has been no change in the charges he has to face. Transport charges have gone up and his levy charges are R4.50 per bale. That is all very well for the big farmer, but over 60 per cent of our wool farmers, who I think are about 104,000, are producing 25 bales and less. These are the farmers who will presently become uneconomic. The Minister says they are not being pushed off the land. I know that, but if he allows all these additional costs and charges to be pushed on to them they must leave the land. And, of course, if the Minister’s argument to-day is to be widely publicized, that a farmer can just go to an industrial city and earn R3,000, then I am afraid we will have a lot of them going off the land. To me it sounded that all those farmers the Minister had in mind, those who have 100 head of cattle, must have been engineers or something like that before they started farming. Where do they find these jobs? Let the Minister tell me. I can get a lot of men from the country to come in and fill these jobs if the Minister can find such jobs. It is a most ridiculous example to give.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Lady-brand (Mr. Keyter). If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that everything went well with the farmer as long as he could reap or shear; in other words, as long as he got some income. That is what the hon. member implied. In other words he said that if there was no drought he would reap and he would shear. But what a conception! Does it not matter to the farmer whether he gets a very small price for his wool and his grain? I am particularly interested in the wool farmer. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Cradock had butted in again. I want to ask him what he has done at any time since he has been here to try to assist the wool farmer in regard to his woolpack?

I have been fighting for him for the last 30 years, when you were still a middle man.

The hon. member for Lady-brand indicated that grainbags were subsidized. When I put the position to him in previous debates he said they were subsidized and the farmer did not have to pay. Then why did the Minister not subsidize the wool farmer, who has to pay this extra R375,000 a year? What has he done? Nothing. Because the farmer does not complain, the Minister thinks he is not responsible and he is not worried, and he has waited until it is too late. It is like the constant drought story we hear here. They say what they are going to do for the farmer, but as soon as the rains come they forget about the farmer and no fodder banks are built up, and as long as this goes on we will never be free of this problem with which we are faced every year. [Time limit.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) that he need not speak contemptuously of the role which the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has played in agriculture. Everyone is aware of the part he has played and it will not help the hon. member to try to detract in any way from the achievements of the hon. member for Cradock.

I listened with great satisfaction to the reply of the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and other hon. members opposite who have made such heartrendering appeals this afternoon for an increase in the price of milk. It is very easy to say that the price of this or that product should be raised, but somebody has to buy that product and that somebody is the consumer. Milk is one of the products which one cannot import. Somebody has to pay for the increased price to the milk farmer and that somebody is the consumer. I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister cut this appeal of hon. members opposite rather short because who has eventually to pay these prices? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) said very glibly that the hon. the Minister is only concerned about cheap food for the city-dweller. That is far from the truth. While the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) accused the hon. the Minister of only being concerned about cheap food for the city-dweller, the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) said just the opposite. He said that the hon. the Minister should look into this matter because they were dying of hunger—they could not pay these prices! This is nothing more than political opportunism, and I should like to direct the attention of the consumers in the Gardens constituency to the unsympathetic attitude adopted by their representative, who farms in Carnarvon, here in this House. Higher prices for dairy products are continually being urged. The Report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing already states—

But the Minister will raise the prices; do not worry about that.

It sticks out like a sore thumb that this protracted drought has hit the urban consumer heavily. It makes no difference which part of the country is experiencing a drought nor does it make any difference which sector of farming is suffering as a result of the drought; a drought always has a detrimental effect upon the city-dweller and certain basic foodstuffs become dearer. I do not want to make political capital out of this fact; I do not want to find myself in the same company as the hon. members for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and Maitland (Mr. Hickman) who have tried to make political capital out of this matter. But it is a fact which sticks out like a sore thumb that as a result of the drought and the depletion of our herds of livestock meat has become dearer and butter and cheese have become dearer. There is no question of cheap food. Butter is already 37 cents per lb. and I read in the newspaper the other day that there is talk of the price perhaps being increased again. We are compelled to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the effect this will have on the city-dweller.

We are very grateful for the praiseworthy steps which the Government is taking to assist the farmers because once the drought is over the position of the city-dweller will improve automatically. But on the other hand I also want to reaffirm what has been said by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). The consumers have also contributed their share towards the establishment of a stabilization fund. We cannot simply permit the prices of these commodities to continue to rise as a result of drought conditions. We know that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter in due course and I am grateful that he did not summarily say “yes” to the representations made by hon. members opposite who are so quick to stand up and ask for an increase in the price of milk, butter and cheese. The hon. the Minister must consider that there is a person who has to purchase and eat these commodities. (Interjection.] The hon. member for East London (City) knows too much about wool and too little about other things; it would be better for him to keep quiet.

No. What does he know about wool? He knows nothing about wool.

It would be better for the hon. member if he were to think back on the days when he drilled with a broomstick in the O.B.!

There is another matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the position in regard to fresh fruit and vegetables. Fruit and vegetables are important staple foods of the city-dweller and they are also becoming expensive as a result of the protracted drought. I know that the question of perishable products is a very thorny problem which has already occupied a great deal of the attention of this Government. The position is not as it was in the days of the United Party when we sent ten bags of potatoes to market and were then sent an account for £6 6s. for railage. The fact remains that there is a tremendous difference between the price which the farmer receives for his fruit and vegetables and the price which we as city-dwellers have to pay for these products in the shops. If we knew that the farmer received something like the price which we had to pay, we would be satisfied, but this is not the case. We are living in a country where there are plentiful supplies of fruit and vegetables, and the ordinary man in the street complains about the price which he has to pay for these products. I know that there is a problem in this connection. The hon. the Minister will quite rightly be able to ask me why the city-dwellers do not make more use of the municipal markets.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have an investigation made in order to find out whether this is not exactly where the fault lies. We simply cannot buy fruit and vegetables on the municipal markets because there is a monopoly on the part of the dealers when auctions are held. I am speaking now of Cape Town which I know. There are a number of hawkers who go to the farms, buy up the products and then come and sell those products to the consumer on the market at a price which is practically just as high as the price which one has to pay for .those products in the shops. When fruit and vegetables are auctioned the city-dweller simply has no chance to buy because the dealer has a monopoly; they decide what they are going to pay for the products and then they decide at what price they are going to sell those products to the consumer. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I think we should give some attention to this matter. There is a tremendous difference between the price which the farmer receives for his fruit and vegetables in the Western Province and the price which the man in the street has to pay for them. I want to issue the warning that we should not simply continue to plead for an increase in prices but that we should also consider the large number of people in the cities who have to buy those products. The more prices increase, the more they have to pay. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing stands between these two groups. It has a very difficult and an often unenviable task. We feel that these matters should be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister and we hope that he will give his attention to them in due course.

The basic point of view adopted in this debate, as in previous debates on agricultural matters, is that the total income from agriculture has fallen and the hon. the Minister is held responsible for this fact. But let us compare what is comparable; do not let us make wrong deductions from and create wrong impressions about the figures which are available to us. What determines the total revenue from agriculture? Surely it is the volume of production and the price. Let us be realistic and analyse the matter. Over and above other factors, the most important single factor in South Africa is certainly the climatic factor. This determines the volume. Do hon. members of the Opposition disagree with me when I say that climatic conditions play an important role in determining the volume of production? That is why I feel that it is wrong to hold the Government responsible in this regard. The second factor which determines the total revenue from agriculture is surely the price. Let us be realistic when we approach the question of price. How many of the prices of these agricultural commodities are fixed? This has been mentioned by the hon. the Minister to-day. Let us also be realistic in this regard: In respect of which percentage of our agricultural production are we dependent upon an overseas’ market, which this Government certainly cannot influence? When we read reports we must read them right through, not simply certain portions of them which it suits us to read. I should just like to quote something to the Committee in regard to the question of the price factor and the volume for which this Government cannot be held responsible (translation)—

Because hon. members have been arguing in this regard and have been trying to slant matters, I should just like to point out that our total agricultural revenue is dependent upon the price paid for our products. But we find in this debate that hon. members opposite are blowing hot and cold; they are making wild statements. Not one single hon. member of the Opposition has dealt with all the facets of a certain commodity and has told the hon. the Minister that the marketing ought to be improved in respect of a particular facet or that in respect of some other facet the price ought to be this or that. It is easy to stand up here and criticize and not to be responsible for that criticism. Hon. members have made no recommendations in respect of the commodity in connection with which they have wanted improved prices or improved marketing. That sort of thing makes no impression in this House nor will it have any effect upon the voters.

We also have this position—that the hon. the Minister is attacked on the one hand in regard to his price policy while on the other hand the price which the producer has to pay for the products is criticized by those same hon. members. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) told us a good story. He told us what the farmer receives and what the consumer has to pay. But he did not give us a true picture of the position; his perspective was wrong. He did not tell us that the better cuts of meat for which this high price is being asked to-day only make up about 20 per cent of the whole ox carcass. He did not tell this Committee what the distribution costs, the refrigeration expenses and so forth of every butcher or retailer are to-day. If hon. members of the Opposition want to attack the hon. the Minister, one expects them to come forward with factual figures and statistics, to prepare their case properly and not do what they have done to-day—to read a few reports without setting out the consequences. This sort of action cannot in any event have any effect. We have had no positive approach to this matter by hon. members opposite; their entire approach is negative.

Before replying to what was said by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) a few weeks ago I should just like to make this one request of the hon. the Minister to which I hope he will reply. Has consideration already been given to the important report of the Abattoir Commission which has already been presented and will the hon. the Minister make a statement in this connection?

Before I resume my seat I should just like to rectify something which was said by the hon. member for East London (City) on a previous occasion. I want to quote what was said by the hon. member because I should like to correct him in this regard. He said (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, this statement which was made by the hon. member is wrong. The amount in the levy fund is the total amount of the levy and this has been collected over the years. That is why I feel that when hon. members make quotations in this House they must make those quotations responsibly and confine themselves to the true facts. They must not make quotations which create wrong impressions in the minds of the public as this quotation has done. As it stands here, it can be assumed that this amount was collected in one year. This is a complete misrepresentation of the true facts. I should also just like to correct the hon. member in his statement that this board is costing a fantastic amount of money. I quote now in connection with the administrative expenses of the Meat Board—

As far as the board is concerned and as far as the boards in general are concerned which are appointed by the hon. the Minister, I want to point out that they act responsibly and that there is no wastage of the money in the stabilization fund or the levy fund. Every amount spent is properly accounted for. This stabilization fund has been built up in order to stabilize the industry as such. We cannot do away with these boards and we cannot adopt the attitude adopted by the hon. member that they no longer have a worthwhile function and that they are costing us an enormous amount of money. That is really not so.

I never thought that I would see the day when I would sit in this Parliament listening to hon. members opposite, nearly all of whom represent farming constituencies, saying that the prices of farming products should be kept as low as possible. I never thought that I would ever hear a protest being made against the subsidizing of the product of the farmer. But this is probably only part of the process of reformulation and adaptation which we are experiencing in so many other spheres.

I should like to express a few thoughts in connection with poultry farming. Nobody has up to the present had anything to say in this connection and there are certain tendencies in this branch of farming which I should like to discuss. We are all in agreement that meat prospects in South Africa look like being particularly bleak for some time, and one way in which to supplement this meat position is by means of poultry and eggs. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister—I am sure that he and his Department are aware of this fact—to the tendency in the poultry farming industry to-day towards the establishment of larger and larger units, and to the fact that farmers who farmed with smaller numbers of chickens in the past are either being forced out of this branch of farming or are being compelled to enlarge their units. Where in the past farmers were able to make a good living with 12,000 chickens, we find to-day that those same people have to keep 50,000 and 60,000 chickens. This is not only the case as far as egg production is concerned but it also holds good in respect of the production of table birds. We find that extremely large units are being built up to-day under the controlled conditions which are the latest idea and which are, of course, very effective. We find farmers keeping 50,000, 60,000 to 100,000 chickens on one unit. It requires a tremendous amount of capital to keep these large units operating and the individual farmer who has to enlarge his unit and who cannot afford to do so himself, approaches a feed company or a meat company to advance him the capital and then he is more or less bound to that company which has financed him.

There is the same tendency in the United States of America where, so we understand, 80 per cent of the chicken industry has fallen into the hands of about three feed companies. It seems to me that more or less the same tendency is developing here in our country and I do not think that this is a healthy tendency. Not only is the smaller farmer being forced out—and the hon. the Minister has said that it is not the intention of the Government to force the smaller farmer off the land—but, although the production of eggs and meat has been placed on a more effective basis, the price to the consumer has not decreased.

We find that although production is rising enormously, the price of that product, which under favourable circumstances can be produced more cheaply, is not falling and the product does not reach the consumer’s table at a lower price. I wish I was in a position to give the hon. the Minister a solution to this problem. I do not know what that solution is but I think that this problem is something which the Government will have to consider and make an effort to solve. If we have to develop in the direction of these large units with a very high egg and meat production, then the consumer should at least derive some benefit from this fact. I think that this is a very important matter. It appears as though it can develop in a monopolistic direction. If this is so, it is something which the Government should combat most strongly not only in the interests of the farmer but also in the interests of the consumer.