laid upon the Table:

Order! I announce that at a ceremony held in the Gallery Hall this afternoon I, on behalf of Parliament, accepted from the State President a mace which will be used for display purposes, and that the Chairmen of the three Houses, on behalf of their respective Houses, each accepted from me a mace for use in each of the Houses.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Standing Select Committee on the Accounts of Posts and Telecommunications, dated 25 August 1987.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with those hon members who expressed their gratitude and appreciation to our Superintendent-General, Dr Agenbach, who is retiring. Dr Agenbach served this department for quite a number of years with singular commitment and dedication. We want to wish this friend of ours in agriculture—a good friend of mine too—everything of the best. We know that he has had a very severe illness. We trust that he will stage a full recovery and in this regard we also wish him and his family everything of the best.

Yesterday the hon the Deputy Minister referred to certain adjustments that were to have been made with regard to the R400 million being made available to save farmers from sequestration. He very clearly advanced the reasons why the aid measures should be included in this amount. I just want to mention one other facet. The broadening of the scope of the aid measures, for which this amount is intended, also embodies the fact, amongst other things, that discussions be held with co-operatives with a view to seeing whether, in the process of broadening the scope of this assistance, a percentage of the debt accounts of members held by these grain co-operatives at the moment, cannot be transferred to Agricultural Credit under the six-year and ten-year schemes. The figure I have at my disposal—it is an approximate figure and every case still has to be considered on its own merits—is approximately R200 million. So under the ten-year and six-year schemes we could have a shift from the co-operatives to Agricultural Credit. The scheme makes provision for this.

We have, in considering and deciding about all the aid measures for the reconstruction of agriculture, chiefly concentrated on the drought-aid measures in the form of loans, then subsidies, then loans and then subsidies again. The hon members will also remember that the Economic Advisory Council stated that the reconstruction of agriculture would have to take place at two levels. Firstly it would have to be done on a short-term basis, which means that we have to assist farmers now so that they are not immediately forced off the land by creditors. We have therefore introduced a series of aid measures to meet the requirements, the R400 million being the last of these.

The other aspect of the reconstruction of agriculture is that of the restructuring of the industry. In this connection an interdepartmental committee has been constituted to examine, from time to time, the ways in which one should implement the various methods for the restructuring of agriculture. There is a variety of facets. Priorities must also be determined in regard to where that rationalisation should take place.

We decided that the first facet that we should tackle in this connection was that of adapting the production systems to market conditions in South Africa. We are therefore launching three campaigns in this regard. The first one we launched last year, ie the establishment of the system of price scenarios and price budgets. This does not only apply to maize, but also to other products such as oil-seed, etc. What this embodies is that we give the producer of cash crops a timely indication of market possibilities so that he can take the correct decisions in connection with production. This would facilitate a shift from one product to another. We know, after all, that certain products which are produced yield a good profit. At present, for example, wool, meat and even cotton production can yield a good profit in South Africa. We must therefore attempt to bring about a shift in our production structure. That is why we commenced with the price scenario system.

That, however, is not enough. The producers, particularly in the summer-grain areas, cannot do so because they have geared their capital investment, in the form of machinery, labour, etc, to producing cash grain crops. Therefore the producer cannot do this. Over the years he has built up his debt, and he proceeds on the hopeful assumption that prices will improve and that he will have a good crop which will enable him to repay his debt. He is therefore caught in a kind of strait-jacket situation that he cannot get out of.

We are now beginning with the second campaign, ie that of a land conversion programme. We have been arguing for the past six months with one another about how we would launch this programme. The initial idea was to adopt the American system, ie a land withdrawal method. Neither the Government nor I found this idea acceptable. In South Africa we find ourselves in a situation in which people are still physically going hungry. To withdraw land from production in any way, and then still pay the farmers, would create a very poor image of South Africa. That is why we are moving towards a land conversion programme.

This means, in the first instance, the elimination of marginal land from cash production. Secondly, the establishment of cultivated grazing and, thirdly, the inclusion of a livestock factor. That in itself would not in any way improve the cash-flow position of the producer; on the contrary, it would further weaken it.

It has been found that in order to solve this problem we should pay a farmer a certain amount to establish cultivated grazing. When the cultivated grazing has been established in accordance with certain pre-determined rules—these must still be worked out properly by the department—we can then determine the rental value of the land, for a specific term, for the purposes of calculating an annual amount to be paid to the farmer so that he can service his debt by at least that amount. In this way we could therefore succeed in facilitating a conversion from cash crops to more permanent crops.

There is also a third, but very difficult campaign that we must introduce because we are faced with a market situation which is very difficult to determine, and I am now referring to the overseas market. I think that all the agriculturists sitting here know of the large-scale collapse of the international grain markets. At one stage last year the price of maize was a little more than $50 per ton. The country cannot even afford to export maize at that price; much less the farmers. So as far as the market situation is concerned, we shall have to incorporate a cushioning effect in order to overcome that problem.

Our idea is to attempt to bolster the marketing costs of a specific quantity of export grain products over a certain period, in some or other way, depending on circumstances. Please note, I am speaking of grain products, not only of maize, because what applies to maize, also applies to certain types of oil seed and other export grain products, for example wheat, in regard to which one could easily find oneself with a surplus.

It is a pleasure for me now to make the following statement in that regard. The Cabinet has just decided on further campaigns to implement the recommendations of the Economic Advisory Council of the State President on the reconstruction of agriculture. The Economic Advisory Council’s recommendations embody, amongst other things, financial assistance with a view to dealing, firstly, with the exigencies resulting from the farmers’ cash-flow problem and debt burden and, secondly, facilitating structural adjustments in agriculture.

As far as the debt-burden and cash-flow problems of farmers are concerned, the Government fairly recently adapted the existing carry-over schemes further, and also voted an amount of R400 million so as to limit, as far as possible, the sequestration of farmers, particularly in the summer-grain areas.

Specifically as far as the maize industry is concerned, apart from the amount of R175 million for the customary State assistance to the Maize Board, this year an additional amount of R134 million was also voted to support the price to the producer, which would otherwise have decreased sharply owing to export losses. There are indications that the relatively low international prices for summer grain will not improve within the foreseeable future. Since this implies losses on the exportable surplus, the Cabinet has now decided in principle to finance a portion of the certified export costs for summer-grain and oilseed products within the financial capabilities of the State to do so, but only to the predetermined maximum amount and to do so on an annual basis, for a four-year period from the 1989-90 budgetary year.

Depending upon the availability of funds, this maximum amount will uniformly decrease each year until the financing stops in the 1993-94 financial year. It has been made clear that the amount may only be employed to bolster orderly marketing and local market development and not to offer producers optimistic price scenarios.

As far as structural adjustments are concerned, the Cabinet has decided, in principle, to make an annual amount available, up to 1995-96, to subsidise the establishment of perennial grazing crops on land employed at present for the production of cash crops. Depending upon the availability of funds, and subject to specific conditions which will be discussed with organised agriculture, the total amount of this subsidy will increase from R13 million in 1987-88 to R62,5 million in 1991-92, after which it will gradually decrease to R2,5 million in 1995-96. This scheme will be under the supervision and control of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. In the course of time, and depending upon circumstances, it will be developed and adapted in co-operation with organised agriculture.

This is the first step we are taking to bring about the structural change which is so essential in agriculture. I believe that with this plan we shall succeed, to a certain extent, in allowing agriculture to regain the profitability which it lost over the past few years as a result of factors beyond its control.

The hon member for Lichtenburg asked me a specific question to which I immediately want to reply. The hon member asked—I repeat his question—whether production credit loans in terms of the State guarantee to farmers by co-operatives would be accepted, in relation to any of the following three methods of eviction, as sufficient for payment by the State to co-operatives in terms of the conditions of the State guarantee:

Firstly he wants to know whether this takes place in terms of section 22 et al of the Agriculture Credit Act. The answer to that is yes.

Secondly he wants to know whether sequestration or liquidation and the processes in terms of the Insolvency Act are used. The answer is yes.

The third question is whether the sale of someone’s assets takes place in terms of a writ of execution or a writ of excussion. The answer to that is that it would solely depend upon the background and the nature of the particular writ.

Since this aspect has been addressed, it would perhaps be a good thing for us simply to pause for a moment to examine this State guarantee and determine how it arose and what its origins were.

According to the Land Bank, the State guarantee was introduced as far back as 1982 and has been adapted on various occasions. It was introduced on 10 September 1982 and is adapted from time to time. It was adapted in 1984, amongst other things to make provision for the financing of additional production credit.

The reason for this guarantee lies in the fact that the position of co-operatives in regard to the financing of certain members became so precarious that the co-operatives could no longer run the risk of repaying the Land Bank by way of its cash-credit account at the end of the season. As a result the State guarantee was issued by the State to the Land Bank. The hon member is mistaken. It is not the co-operative, but the Land Bank, which collects the money from the State. That provision made it possible for the Land Bank to obtain the necessary funds on the open capital market with a State guarantee. With a State guarantee the cost of these funds is also at issue because there is less risk involved.

This State guarantee has already been extended very significantly. According to the latest Land Bank figures the position is as follows: Claims already investigated, 254 amounting to R39 million; claims to be investigated at the moment, R10 million; qualifying for payment under the State guarantee and already paid by the State, R3,6 million; qualifying for payment under the State guarantee, but awaiting final liquidation and distribution accounts, 179 cases involving R34 million. The latest information available to me is that at this stage there is a further R50 million in the pipeline under the State guarantee. The State guarantee has therefore played a tremendously significant role in the whole financing package for farmers, particularly in the summer-grain regions.

It is nevertheless interesting to examine the debt ratio situation at some of the agricultural co-operatives. I have here an analysis of their position. I took the four largest grain cooperatives in the summer-grain regions merely to give the Committee an indication of how perilous the position is, particularly with prevailing drought conditions and more diversified farming systems. In the case of the Noordwes Co-operative—that is the co-operative with the heaviest debt burden at the moment—29,2%of its members have a debt ratio exceeding 70%. I think the hon member spoke of approximately 600 members who are at the moment on the point of being sequestrated. We hope we will now be able to accommodate them, particularly with this adjustment in the R400 million scheme.

In the case of the Suidwes Co-operative, 11,3%of the members have this debt ratio; in the case of the Sentraal-Wes Co-operative—that is the largest co-operative and also the one covering the largest area—it is 10,5%; and in the case of ODK it is 3,7%. That is proof of the precarious position of a co-operative when financing is done on a more precarious basis than would normally be the case when a co-operative does not do so.

I shall now proceed to reply to the questions of some hon members. I shall begin with the question put by the hon member for Wellington, who also spoke about agricultural financing and said that agriculture would have to find its financing within its own ranks, within its own organisations. The hon member then asked whether the authorities should not again consider making capital available to organisations such as the Land Bank with a view to generating further funds, and probably cheaper funds too, so as to finance farmers in this way.

The hon member also referred to the various financing needs in agriculture. It is fortunately or unfortunately true—it depends on how one views this—that there is a distorted distribution of agricultural income in South Africa. There is a percentage of farmers with very high incomes, a middle-class and a smaller class of farmer, and for each of these various categories there is a specific financing need. I would say that the category-1 farmers—they constitute a small percentage, although they are responsible for more than 70%of the country’s production—would still continue to use the normal financing channels, ie the commercial banks.

The Land Bank is the most suitable institution to which the category-2 or middle-class farmer can have recourse. The Land Bank’s policy is also to finance farmers who have economic units of a specific size.

The Department of Agricultural Credit is the source of finance for the category-3 farmer.

Although the hon member did not say it in so many words, it was clear from his argument that he thought that the role thus far played by Agricultural Credit in agricultural financing was an altogether too limited one. I want to agree with the hon member. I think it is approximately 7%. It will become increasingly necessary for us to expand the financing capabilities of Agricultural Credit and, at a pinch, also amend the Act to make provision for certain shortcomings. I want to tell the hon member that the revolving fund, which was launched a few years ago, is gaining momentum. We can now begin to expect a return-flow with which to finance our new cases.

Nor must we forget, in the process, that another very important financing body in agriculture has appeared on the scene during the past few years. I am speaking of the larger co-operative. With the development of its members’ funds it is in a position to finance some of its members with investments made by members themselves. This serves as security to provide producers with the means of production for the next season. All the financing of agricultural co-operatives therefore does not take place by way of the State guarantee. Financing also takes place by way of their own funds and the funds of the members themselves. There are only 34 co-operatives that make use of the State guarantee scheme; the other agricultural co-operatives have their own financing schemes implemented by way of the Land Bank. The agricultural co-operative therefore becomes a very important financing body in our overall financing set-up.

†The hon member for Bryanston asked how research could fall under an own affairs department. He also asked whether it was envisaged that each race group would undertake its own research, and if this was going to happen how duplication could be prevented.

*He asked, too, whether the Department also employed people of colour. The answer is yes, but it takes place, of course, with due regard to the ability of the person concerned. The standpoint in agriculture as a whole, not only here in South Africa, but throughout the world, has always been that one should link up extension services and research. One should also, however, take South African conditions into consideration. South African agriculture has a history that no one can explain away, ie that the development and management of agriculture in South Africa is done by the Whites. Ninety-five percent of agricultural production is in the hands of Whites.

This agriculture of ours has made tremendous strides over the years, and as it has developed—from needs at grass-roots level—the need for research has developed. That is why we have 11 research institutes to look after the needs that exist. One therefore does not institute agricultural research merely for the sake of research. It must be applied and goal-directed research. Where does the need for research come from? It originates at grass-roots level, where agriculture is practised.

Another fact that we should take into account—and I am not saying this disparagingly, but merely stating a fact—is that Black agriculture, in which I have been involved for three years, is not nearly as advanced as White agriculture. This also applies—not to a great extent, but to some extent—to the agriculture of the population groups of the other two Houses. This does not mean, however, that having this highly developed system of research in South Africa, as we do, we cannot also be of service to the other population groups. In fact, one could do so on an agency basis.

In reply to a question the other day—I think it was from the hon member for Durban North—I said that there was a constant flow of agricultural technical information to all sectors of agriculture in South Africa, no matter where or by whom that agriculture was practised. The fact of the matter is that Black agriculture in South Africa has developed. The most highly developed Black agriculture in the whole of Africa is that which makes use of the services of the research institutes of South African agriculture.

The hon member for Sasolburg …

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to answer a question?

Mr Chairman, I am really having a bit of trouble with my voice. The hon member can have another turn to speak. Let me just continue for a moment.

The hon member for Sasolburg is an expert in the field of extension work. He has again pointed out the extreme complexity of economic extension services in agriculture. He pointed, amongst other things, to the non-elasticity of supply and demand in agriculture. It is a unique characteristic in agricultural economics and agricultural marketing which one must continually examine. He also referred to the vital role of economic extension services.

He expressed the fear, too, that agricultural extension services in South Africa might be bureaucratised. I am sure that as long as there is a free-market capitalistic system in South Africa, the private sector will participate in agricultural extension services, even if this is for different reasons.

I also want to refer to the extension services provided by agricultural co-operatives, which are part of the private sector and which are perhaps in a better position than any other body to provide economic extension services because they are dealing with the conditions of specific members and specific farmers. They deal with the products which the farmers market and with their financing needs. Their records on particular farmers cover a period of many years. They are therefore in a position in which they deal with producers on a more individual basis. The producers and their extension officers come to discuss matters with members of the co-operatives at least once or twice a year, or they come to discuss matters with their credit manager there with a view to determining the position of their credit. It is specifically on such occasions that matters of this nature are discussed. We thus find a link between the co-operative movement and the members as far as their economic needs and the management problems on their farms are concerned. I therefore think that in some way or other the strength of the co-operative movement must be maintained with a view to perpetuating its agricultural extension task.

The hon member also spoke about the co-ordinated extension activities launched in the Highveld region. I know that the role played by co-operatives in this was a very valuable one. The hon member said that the problem with that was that they had no “muscle”. That may well be true. My information nevertheless indicates that such extension services, provided on a voluntary basis by the department and co-operatives and also by other bodies, have made a tremendous contribution, particularly when we faced a crisis in regard to the quantity of inputs—not the prices but the inputs—that had to be furnished in order to at least guarantee a crop under difficult circumstances. It is therefore a question of the quantity of fertiliser that has to be applied during drought conditions and so on—economy measures which have been worked out and tested in order to increase the profitability of a farming enterprise and therefore reduce inputs. I think that has made a very great contribution. I nevertheless agree with the hon member that it will still be necessary for us, in some or other way, to establish proper co-ordination between the respective extension activities in agriculture.

†The hon member for Mooi River thanked the members of the agricultural credit committees and the Agricultural Credit Board for the excellent work they are doing. I, in turn, want to thank the hon member for his kind words. I believe those were a few very well-deserved words of gratitude addressed to those gentlemen.

Furthermore the hon member said he would like to see agriculture accommodated under the roof of general affairs.

*I think I have already dealt with this matter. I also think the answers I gave to the hon member also apply here.

I sincerely want to thank the hon member Mr Redinger for his congratulatory words. Yesterday it was 21 years since I made my maiden speech in this House. On that occasion I spoke about soil conservation. It is interesting to note certain aspects here, Sir. One starts one’s public life in certain places. My public life began in soil conservation committees. When we amended the Soil Conservation Act and abolished the traditional soil conservation committees, I felt quite bad about it. I do not want to say now whether that was a good thing or a bad thing. At the time, however, I was merely sorry that it had in fact happened. What is interesting, Mr Chairman, is that people sometimes speak of whims or fancies. The English speak of a “craze”. It is interesting to note what kind of “craze” we had in agriculture at the time. Every chap, when one visited him on his farm, wanted to do contouring, build a dam or put up a wire fence. [Interjections.] That was, of course, still in the good old days. Apparently the then Government had a great deal of money. Before afarmer had even done his contouring or put up his fences, he had already been paid out for it in cash. That eventually created administrative problems. I do not want to say that that erstwhile craze was such a very big mistake. I must say that in the process we probably did more than ever before, in the soil conservation campaign in South Africa, for the physical protection of our topsoil by means of what I want to call the “craze” of that time. We could not, of course, continue in that fashion.

And that was the gist of my maiden speech in 1966 in this House. One cannot only focus on the physical protection of the soil, on water-erosion and on controlled grazing in camps. One must also take note of the economic facet. The economic facet is inextricably linked to that. That was the fundamental element in my speech at the time. I thank the hon member most sincerely. I feel truly honoured that the hon member thanked me for that speech.

I think the hon the Deputy Minister gave a fairly good and comprehensive reply to what the hon member for Albany said about the Boesmans River. The hon member, however, has a problem with a shortage of loans. He claims that loans are not granted on a proper basis in the Eastern Cape. We shall examine the situation and try to furnish the hon member with a reply in this regard.

I shall let this reply suffice for the moment.

Mr Chairman, because the hon the Minister is in charge, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate. It is often said in a negative sense that with certain friends, one does not need enemies. I want to say in a positive spirit that with such an enemy, I do not really need other friends on the opposite side of the Committee. [Interjections.]

I shall deal in a moment with certain aspects which the hon the Minister mentioned. I hope I shall be excused if I do not discuss the aspects relating to water affairs which the hon the Deputy Minister referred to yesterday. I think some of my hon colleagues will deal with them. However, I want to say that I sympathise with the hon the Deputy Minister regarding the problem he might experience with glands in future!

I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Wellington said yesterday. Indeed, I identify with all the positive thoughts expressed by all hon members on both sides of the Committee. However, the hon member for Wellington mentioned yesterday that we might already have to consider rendering assistance now to people who might well be staring sequestration in the face in four years’ time if they are not helped in good time. That led me to think of those who did not get assistance four years ago and are being sequestrated today.

We all plan for the future, and I am glad about that, because any farmer must look to the future. However, it fills me with sadness that we do not look after the farmers who have fallen by the wayside. We let them lie, they are trodden underfoot and now they have been sequestrated and, to a large extent, humiliated. I should like to ask whether we really cannot do something to alleviate the problem of these farmers, these old campaigners who have battled on this far. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon the Minister indicated that 140 applications had been made; 99 had been processed and only 30 could be favourably considered. The assistance scheme has been extended, for which we are grateful, but those remaining 69 are not all going to be helped; perhaps a third or a quarter will be given assistance while the rest stare insolvency in the face.

Section 28 of the Agricultural Credit Act provides that a farmer may transfer all his assets to the trustee and that he will then not bear the consequences of insolvency. In fact it is stated that, when he has transferred all his assets

I want to plead for the extension of this section so that it may apply to many more cases. We have the problem, as far as this section is concerned, that many farmers cannot qualify to make use of it, firstly as a result of the fact that their debt might be too high. I understand that in practice there is a limit to the assistance which may be granted in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act. Secondly, a person may only qualify to appear before the board and enjoy consideration if a reasonable prospect exists of his farming successfully.

I wish to plead for those people who have no reasonable prospect of farming successfully, but who are prepared to place all their assets in the hands of the trustee or intermediary so that they may be turned to the benefit of their creditors.

In answer to the questions of the hon member for Lichtenburg, the hon the Minister said that before the State guarantee in favour of the Land Bank could take effect, the submission of a liquidation and distribution account and excussion in terms of the Insolvency Act or this section 28 were required. It is indeed the case that this is the normal manner of excussion and that sequestration is a form of excussion, but is it really necessary? Can it not be ensured that a complete excussion takes place, that the person gives everything he has and, figuratively speaking, emerges naked at the other end, but has at least kept his good name? That is what I wish to plead for. There are farmers who are prepared to give everything they have in order to repay their debt and do not want to cheat anyone, but simply do not want to be declared bankrupt. We are making this plea on their behalf, and we ask that the section 28 procedure be made applicable to these farmers, even if only by agreement of all the creditors. The strange situation exists that section 28 is applied even when the creditors do not agree. However, when all the creditors agree that the farmer has given everything he has, we cannot make it applicable because the Treasury experiences a problem in making sure that complete excussion has taken place.

We appreciate that situation, and we are not asking for a loophole through which a person can avoid full excussion. If, however, I were to sign an agreement with my creditors in which I said that I had surrendered all my possessions to them, but I concealed things, I would be committing fraud against them and I could be charged and found guilty. Secondly, I would be guilty of breach of contract if I did not do what I had said I would do, and then the contract could be cancelled and I could be sequestrated in any event. There is therefore an inherent security that complete excussion will take place. I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister not to allow those people who have served this country for so long and with such integrity in the field of agriculture to be cast aside and trampled underfoot. The least we can do is to help them give all they have to their creditors but preserve the one thing which they have left, namely their good name, so that they can immediately take up another profession without rehabilitation, with all its associated problems.

We do not request this in cases where creditors are opposed to it. We request it only in cases in which all the creditors consent. There are cases in which all the creditors agree, but the cooperative cannot consent because it might lose its Land Bank guarantee for the carry-over debt. The State’s idea was surely not that the farmers should be declared bankrupt, but rather to save them. Let us then save those farmers, because we can do so. If there are technical problems, a solution can most certainly be built into such an agreement. I want to appeal for a serious examination of whether we can accommodate these farmers in this respect at least.

The hon the Minister referred to the cases which had already been registered, the people who had already been excussed and the amounts of money which had already been spent on this. I do not want to repeat what the hon member for Lichtenburg said, but I think anyone who has had anything to do with sequestrations will know that the costs involved, such as trustee fees, examination fees etc, are rising astronomically. Yet here we have a cheaper method whereby creditors would receive more than they would otherwise have received, and whereby the State would not suffer a loss but would in fact gain, because a greater percentage of the money recovered would be used to reduce the obligations which the State might have towards the Land Bank.

I should now like to turn to something else. I want to request that attention be given to the question of termite control. Termites are just as great a problem in the drought-stricken areas as locusts and all other pests of that nature. The hon the Minister’s maiden speech dealt with soil erosion. May I ask him whether, in this time of unemployment and in view of the job-creation which we desire, we cannot employ the unemployed productively and use the money made available for this purpose for the control of soil erosion? Washaways are not the only cause of soil erosion, but I think wind erosion, the encroaching desert, is a growing problem and, in my opinion, a great deal of research must be conducted into this.

The hon the Minister referred to the restructuring of agriculture, and I simply want to ask that this be treated with great circumspection.

The hon the Minister referred to meat prices, which are good today, and said that it was a profitable form of farming. That is indeed the case. The prices have almost doubled within a year. Is the reason for today’s good prices not in fact that the crop farmers have switched over to the livestock business? Is it not for this reason that a great demand began to arise? Is it not in fact for this reason that this industry now looks so promising? However, I want to warn … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think the statement the hon member for Bethal made at the beginning of his speech was a rather sweeping one if he meant to imply that the Government had not done everything in its power to save the farmers from sequestration.

I think the Government has in fact gone out of its way to prevent the sequestration of farmers and to keep those farmers who qualify at all, on the farms. I therefore want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my gratitude to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister for the particularly competent way in which they are looking after the interests of the farming community. This is apparent from the announcement made yesterday, and which was followed by today’s announcement. Of course the interests of the taxpayer in this process may not be ignored, since at the end of the day the Government has to account to the taxpayer for what it did with the money when it used it in the interests of the farming community.

I also thank the Agricultural Credit Board and the officials of the department for the tireless zeal they display in dealing with and finalising applications as quickly as possible. In particular, I am grateful that the board and the officials of the Directorate of Financial Assistance are always accessible when representations are made to them on behalf of voters, and that they deal with them with a great deal of understanding.

Voters often approach their representatives to ask why their applications are not been dealt with promptly. Upon enquiry, it appears that applications are delayed because institutions do not for example send deeds of transfer, which are requisitioned by the department, back to the department as soon as possible after they have been requisitioned. I think this dissatisfaction amongst the farmers could be resolved if the department would notify the farmer as soon as a problem of this nature arises. He would be reassured, since he would know what is happening to his application, and this also makes it possible for him to help solve the problem himself.

Many farmers would like to be informed about how their applications to the department are progressing, and I think it would be a good thing if the hon the Minister were to give attention to the possibility of the department launching an information campaign in which the department notifies the farming community about the nature of the assistance it is giving, the procedure to be followed and what amounts the department has already made available to agriculture. By doing this, the uncertainty could, to a large extent, be dispelled.

Because people like to know what is happening in a specific matter—in a case like this as well—when they apply to the department for assistance, it is important that applicants be notified of reasons for their applications being turned down. It often happens that they come to the representatives and say that they do not know why the application has been turned down, and then the process is set in motion to get them to the department, where they can try to a certain extent to ascertain the reason for the refusal.

Experience has shown that as far as the cases dealt with by the Land Bank are concerned, and where the reasons for refusal are set out in full, the farmer is satisfied in that respect. He then knows precisely why his application was unsuccessful. I really do want to ask the hon the Minister to consider this matter, even if it is just a brief indication to the applicant concerned of the reason for the refusal of his application.

Another aspect which creates frustration, is the functioning of section 35 (1) of the Agricultural Credit Act, which deals with the registration of special conditions or restrictions via the deeds of transfer. This subsection gives rise to inconvenience, delay and unnecessary red tape, and sometimes leads to severe financial losses to farmers. The reason is that the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) (b) and (c), do not lapse automatically when the loan is repaid and the bond cancelled. What consequently happens in practice, for example, is that a farmer repays his loan and the bond is cancelled, but the provisions of section 35 (1) (b), which deals with the prohibition of separate alienation, are not suspended. If such a farmer now finds a purchaser for his land, application first has to made to have this restriction lifted, whilst he has already redeemed his bond. This takes a considerable amount of time, and causes the potential purchaser to go to another property, while the potential seller suffers a financial loss.

The same problem arises when section 35 (1) (c) imposes a restriction in that regard, viz that a bond may not be registered except with the permission of the Minister. If this restriction is not lifted, and it is still registered against the deed of transfer, the bond cannot be registered even if the loan has been repaid, and even if there is no obligation to the State as such. I want to address a friendly request to the hon the Minister to consider repealing or amending this section, or to assist in having these restrictions lifted when loans are repaid.

I want to make a few remarks concerning the reconstruction of agriculture, and it is fitting in this regard to thank the hon the State President, who played a leading role in setting this process in motion to get agriculture on its feet again. A number of farmers in my constituency, which falls in the extensive grazing areas, were saved from going under when the hon the State President declared that a designated area. I also want to thank the hon the Minister today for the role he played in making such a declaration by the hon the State President possible.

The special privileges being given to these farmers now, make it possible for them to survive, since initially they would not even have been able to meet their obligations as regards interest with an interest rate of 10%. With the interest rate of 5%they are now able to remain on the land and the depopulation of that area has been halted.

It is important to look at a few of the causes which gave rise to farmers experiencing an unfavourable debt ratio in their industry. I just want to refer to a few causes. It is true that a loss of income due to droughts and other natural disasters was a cause, but the granting of credit to agriculture based on the security value of land instead of the agriculturist’s ability to repay, also created a problem for the farmer.

A lack of knowledge displayed by certain credit grantors concerning the unique nature of agriculture, as well as the uncoordinated and excessive granting of credit to agriculturists, created a further problem and caused the situation in which the farmers find themselves at present.

A lack of suitable norms concerning financial relations with a view to sound credit granting, is a direct cause. As a result of the important role and share the private sector has in the financing of agriculturists, any solution to this problem depends on the co-operation of the private financial institutions. Discussion by the department with all concerned is important and essential with a view to the joint formulation of a strategy to place this granting of credit on a sound basis and to achieve better co-ordination. The indiscriminate taking and granting of credit and placing too high a market value on land in comparison with its productive value, does not serve agriculture. In my constituency a number of farmers have encountered problems as a result of this erroneous action. The gap between the valuation of land by the department and the private sector ought to be narrowed. The aim should always be to prevent short-term credit being used to acquire long-term assets.

Assistance in the process of getting agriculture back on its feet in a constituency like the one I represent, must also be aimed at enabling the farmer to restructure his farming activities where cash crops are planted on so-called marginal land. I am therefore grateful for the hon the Minister’s announcement in this Committee today.

Another aspect that is important to me, is that agriculturists, in particular those who receive assistance from the State, must be given intensive guidance in management in a co-ordinated way, under the leadership of the department. Income from stock farming is relatively low, and the farmers will therefore be unable to effect structural changes without financial aid. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, about 10 days ago I asked the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology to assist the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply with something, namely to provide power to the people in the rural areas with electricity so that they did not have to fell trees for wood and, in so doing, cause topsoil to be washed away. I have asked the hon the Minister to examine the matter seriously and today I should like to ask this hon the Minister to assist the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology in a certain matter.

It is interesting that I raised this matter approximately three years ago. Apparently the present hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology considered it in a very serious light at that stage because exactly 10 days after my appeal this announcement was made:

I am therefore very pleased about this and I hope this hon Minister will consider the matter I want to raise with him just as quickly.

The situation is as follows: In 1985 there were plus-minus 70 000 farmers connected to Eskom. One can assume that the power points on farms which could be served more economically. That was mainly done by means of a scheme whereby capital could paid off over a period of 23 years and I should assume that of those 70 000 people, the majority will have paid off most of their debt by December 1987.

In November 1984 things started going badly for the farmers. The Government told them that for a period of 14 months, until the end of 1985 they would have to pay for the costs of the power-line extensions themselves. Then, on 1 January 1986 a new system was put into operation according to which the costs of expansion would be divided among all the consumers. The remaining costs arising from the debt incurred for expansion purposes, as well as the money which was budgeted for the 1985-86 financial year—namely R457 million—as well as that for the 1987-88 financial year—R304 million—would be divided up in this way. We are therefore speaking of expansion costs of R761 million over a period of three years which would have to be recovered from the farmers. This included the new farmers as well as the old established farmers who had already paid for their expansion costs long ago.

The first two kilometres of this line are provided free of charge. Here the pool system is used. The farmer only pays when he wants a power-line longer than the initial two kilometres. Farmers can also be clever, because if they were approximately six kilometres away they would ask for a connection at a borehole and another one every two kilometres so that there would be a few farmers who eventually would have more than two kilometres of line in the pool. If one takes only four kilometres you are talking about R70 000 which has to be put into the pool and recovered from other existing farmers.

Now one could say that the farmers had almost been kept in the dark about their light. [Interjections.] The farmers did complain though because in the August edition of Die Landbouweekbladit was stated that after an interview in March 1985 with the then Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, they came to the conclusion that the expansion costs would be pooled among all the consumers, municipal and industrial etc, and that it would therefore be an improvement in terms of the expansion costs of agriculture. The Agricultural Union accepted on condition that they would proceed with the particular scheme. Eskom’s interpretation was that expansions could only be pooled within a specific sector. That is where the problem lies because the old farmers who had paid for their power-lines long ago now had to pay these expansion costs as well.

If we consider what it amounts to it is quite frightening. In 1987 for example R304 million was budgeted to provide for a mere 9 000 people. In other words is R34 000 per farm, to provide power points. In my opinion it is a rather drastic way of dealing with money.

If for example we examine another statement which was also issued yesterday in regard to the extension of farm lines, we find that there is R304 million for 9 000 consumers. It is said Eskom is going to provide 3 million people with electricity in that it is going to spend R300 million on the provision of electricity to the cities. I refer to that merely to try to draw a comparison as to where the money is being employed. What I am in fact trying to tell the hon the Minister is that the Agricultural Union was caught napping by Eskom because Eskom at first created the impression that expansion costs would be included in those of the larger consumers and now this is no longer the case. [Interjections.]

At present the position is that there are 9 000 consumers, perhaps more, who are going to be provided with electricity in one year. When one talks about alternative energy one realises that it is an absolute ideal opportunity for this Government to rather spend the money they have made available on alternative sources of energy. We are referring after all to farm houses, and moreover approximately 70%to 80%of farmers are small consumers who only require energy for household use. The amounts of money add up to R304 million over a period of one year and R760 million over a period of three years. Yet the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology has budgeted only R1 million for this financial year for research into alternative sources of energy—a paltry R1 million!

Here we have an opportunity to correct the matter. Instead of effecting those vast extensions to remote places where it really is not economical we could rather use that money to establish a large laboratory so that we could improve our local alternative sources of energy as well as expand our knowledge and increase our production.

Order! Will the hon member for Greytown please make it clear to me whether he is speaking about agriculture or mineral and energy affairs.

Yes, Sir, of course; it most definitely relates to agriculture. You see, Sir, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply can arrange matters with the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology so that when it comes to agriculture, we …

You can do it yourself! [Interjections.]

Order! I am afraid the hon member for Greytown is now addressing the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology.

I am glad the hon the Minister could at least listen to what I was saying. [Interjections.]

I want to make a final point. In Natal we have inherited this saga of so-called “labour farms”. One cannot call them anything but “slave farms”. [Interjections.] My neighbouring MP in KwaZulu wrote me a letter asking what we could do about the matter. We have the farms there which have been operating along those lines for 60 to 70 years. There are families who have been living there for 60 to 70 years. Other people have now acquired these farms and the department is now trying to “rehabilitate” these farms. In the rehabilitation process hundreds of families were, however, asked to leave these farms and to go to areas such as Masinga. I think the time has come for us to consider very seriously whether the State should not rather purchase those farms and transform them into “rural villages” so that those people who have been living there for 60 to 70 years could preferably continue to stay there. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Greytown went for a trip through darkest Africa and now he is trying to be the light of the farmers in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is the first time I have known an hon member to discuss three Votes in the same speech.

And in the same breath.

Yes, and in the same breath.

That is because you take such a narrow view of things. [Interjections.]

The hon member probably glanced at the figures in the reports. They deal with technical aspects and he addressed his standpoint directly to the hon the Minister. I think the hon the Minister will reply to him as well. I must merely tell him that it was a skilful distortion of a whole series of figures which he simply took from the report. [Interjections.] Today I want to discuss a water-related matter.

You are now dealing with the wrong department.

Own or general affairs?

The hon member for Greytown should rather keep quiet now because he has made his speech.

I want to discuss a water-related matter and say that the difficult situation in which farmers have found themselves during the past few years of drought in our country, makes it only logical that a dry-land farmer’s agricultural position is far more difficult than the situation of a farmer who has a source of water which he can draw from to irrigate his lands. Where irrigation water was available this farmer could succeed in surviving very difficult circumstances. He could also succeed relatively well in maintaining his socioeconomic position not only for his own sake as a farmer, but also so that those influences could continue to be felt in the society in which he lives and works.

Having said that, I must immediately add that irrigation farming is the greatest consumer of water. In a country of limited water resources such as South Africa, this is a factor which we simply must take into account. That is why I want to say that the further development of irrigation schemes in South Africa will only be justifiable if the funds for it are available, which under the present economic circumstances appears to be difficult. Another justification for it will be if there is a great additional demand or need for agricultural products in general or for specific agricultural products. In view of the present economic situation, as I said, it does not, in any event, seem to us that the establishment of any further irrigation schemes in South Africa is possible in the foreseeable future. It is therefore imperative that the water which we are now using, and is available for irrigation purposes, must be used on the most economical and justifiable basis.

In many places in our country the situation arose that the river levels dropped dramatically because of an equally dramatic decrease in rainfall. For this reason less water was collected in the storage dams and that in turn caused the dam water quotas of irrigation farmers to be restricted to such an extent that good harvests, with the water that they had available to them, were simply not possible. At some schemes the restrictions were so severe that no water whatsoever could be made available to the farmers.

Another situation, however, is arising in regard to riparian farmers above the dams. They have also been authorised to withdraw water. That means that a certain surface area and also a quota per hectare is allocated for irrigation purposes to such a riparian farmer above a dam. The major difference between the irrigation farmers below and those above the dams is that the water withdrawn by a farmer below the dam is constantly monitored by a water bailiff. Strict surveillance is maintained to ensure that the farmer restricts himself to the volume of water which has been allocated to him in his quota. These same strict measures are not, however, made applicable to the riparian farmer above the dam. Riparian farmers withdraw water without any restrictions from these rivers, the levels of which as I have indicated, have dropped considerably. On the basis of the uncontrolled withdrawal of water above the dams less water arrives at the dam and the farmers below the dam are therefore placed at a disadvantage. This state of affairs not only indicates a form of unequal treatment as far as these two groups of farmers are concerned, but my experience has also been that it also leads to tension and to strained relations among the farmers themselves. After all, it is true that each farmer wants to obtain the maximum amount of water for his own purposes. At some schemes it has even led to the application of section 9A of the Water Act, which specifies that farmers may only draw water from the river above the dam on certain days.

Water has always been one of the farmers’ most emotional issues. It is for this very reason that this situation must be examined very carefully. I do not want to play these two groups of farmers off against each other. Nor do I want to say that any group has an unfair advantage or disadvantage over the other. All I want to ask is that all irrigation farmers in South Africa receive the same treatment and that there be a fair and equitable distribution of water among our farmers. Each one must at least receive his fair share so that he can survive meaningfully in agriculture.

That is why I want to ask the hon the Minister in the foreseeable future and in co-operation with the department concerned—it is no use only discussing the ideal situation; I shall return to that matter in a moment—to establish a system for monitoring all irrigation water in the country, below or above State dams.

It must also be under the orderly control of the State or irrigation boards which the farmers have established for this purpose. Such a system will not be equally popular everywhere. I myself have experienced it. For many farmers it would not even be acceptable. In my opinion it is, however, the only method by means of which a fairer and more equitable distribution of irrigation water can be effected. I maintain that serious consideration will have to be given to the possibility of each riparian farmer installing meters on their abstraction apparatus so that the volume of water withdrawn can be controlled and the withdrawal monitored. This system is already working well in the Vaal River Scheme, as we know, and I am convinced that it can also be applied successfully in the rest of the country.

What I have suggested now could also be the department’s ideal for the future. I have just referred to it. I want to ask that the hon the Minister to consider whether we cannot effect this planning within a specific period of time and that we do so urgently. Once we have done it, we shall have established order in agriculture, especially among our irrigation farmers, where fair treatment already exists, and this could only be to the advantage of agriculture. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, since the constituency I represent, namely the Ventersdorp constituency, consists largely of a farming community, I am delighted to take part in this debate.

The Ventersdorp constituency consists mainly of farmers who earn their bread and butter from the production of maize. As hon members know, it is the maize farmers in particular who are in a crisis situation at this stage. It is a crisis situation which has been caused chiefly by the high inflation rate, the tremendously high interest rates of the recent past and the excessively high input costs. Many of the maize farmers in the Ventersdorp constituency have been suffering crop failures for the past six years. For the past six years many of the farmers have been stricken by the most severe drought in living memory. Apart from that, it is the farmer who still clings to his farm and his land—in many cases his inheritance—and retains his love for it, in the hope that farming circumstances will improve so that he can make a decent living on that land to which he is inextricably attached.

In the past six years, many farmers, especially maize producers who could not make the grade, have already left agriculture and had to seek another livelihood. Today we find, however, that it is the enterprising farmers, those with initiative who have put everything into the struggle to confront the factors which threaten farming, who are staring sequestration in the face, and will have to bid farming a final farewell in the coming months. All these farmers, who have the ability to make a success of farming, must now disappear from the scene.

We know that the statements by the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply are not a surprise. We know that he is thoroughly aware of the circumstances which I have outlined, because the hon the Minister has personally, in his visits to these farming communities, seen what circumstances are like. I therefore wish to agree with what the hon the Minister said during February 1987 on the occasion of one of his visits to these drought-stricken areas:

In Lichtenburg during the election campaign, the hon the State President also promised that the Government would keep the farmers on the land and would make sure that agriculture was once again made attractive for the young farmer, so that there would be a future for young farmers in agriculture.

In the interests of the farmers in my constituency, I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to give substance to those promises by coupling them to the well-intentioned and well-considered recommendations which the hon member for Lichtenburg made to the hon the Minister, since we are of the opinion that those recommendations could undoubtedly contribute towards making agriculture attractive again, not only so that there may once more be a future for the young farmer in agriculture, but also so that our present older farmers, who have already proved themselves and made their contribution to the country’s economy and are not trained for any other occupation besides farming and practising agriculture, need not beat a retreat as bankrupt farmers. Those recommendations could undoubtedly help these farmers to continue with pride to make an important contribution to the South African economy, remain on their farms and make a decent living.

There is yet another matter which I want to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister. It constitutes a further threat to the survival of the farmer which, on account of its nature, may have a detrimental effect on the country’s economy as a whole. It is the justified concern which exists among farmers regarding the possible recognition of trade unions among Black farm workers. According to rumours, minimum conditions of service for agricultural workers are going to be announced, and this will contribute to greater economic distress for the farming community of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has already indicated that legislation in some form or other on Black farm workers is going to be published. I want to say, Sir, that agriculture does not need labour legislation. The relationship between the farmers and their Black farm workers is completely healthy, and therefore there is no need for such legislation. The farmer in South Africa is not merely an employer, but also helps with, among other things, the education of the children of Black farm workers by means of Black farm schools. The farmer provides medical help. He provides food. The farmer is, among other things, a welfare worker and much more. Yes, he is even an undertaker when that is necessary.

Most important of all, Mr Chairman, is that the Black workers accept the situation. They are also happy and satisfied. Now, however, Black trade unions want to enter the sphere of agriculture. That will result in great distress in South African agriculture. The might of Black trade unions cannot be underestimated, of course. The strike by Black mineworkers is already in its seventeenth working day. Anglo American is literally being toyed with, and the losses already amount to far more than R190 million. [Interjections.] The strikers in the SA Transport Services literally toyed with the hon the Minister of Transport, and in the course of that strike damage amounting to R21 million was inflicted on property.

And the AWB is toying with you!

The Black workers of the Post Office are already on strike for the second time this year. Therefore when these Black trade unions gain a foothold in South African agriculture, the individual farmer will not possibly be able to hold out against them. Even the mighty Anglo American cannot hold out against the Black trade unions, which are its own creation. [Interjections.]

Black trade unions will deal farming in South Africa the final death blow, with detrimental results to the whole South African economy. To support this statement, I ask that the following be noted. It is expected that the population will have increased by 16 million between 1980 and 2000. This amounts to virtually 1 million each year. The economy will have to accommodate these 1 million people, and we will therefore have to create work opportunities at the rate of about 350 000 per year. Consequently it may justifiably be asked how our economy is going to deal with this problem. According to basic economic principles, it means that as many work opportunities as possible will have to be created every year. It also means that the cost of labour relative to machinery must not be increased.

The results for our economy thus far speak for themselves. Legislation prescribes minimum wages, especially in our factories, irrespective of production value. Legislation gives trade unions the right to strike. In the end we have an inflation rate which cannot be controlled, because wages are obviously costs which cause prices to rise. Unemployment increases. Factories mechanise.

The Government should not try to emulate Europe by trying to create a workers’ paradise in South Africa, where survival, and therefore not luxury, must enjoy preference. Therefore it is better for everyone rather to work than for trade unions to be allowed, by their actions, to promote the interests of their own members alone. [Interjections.] In Rhodesia, manual labour was used on farms on a large scale until minimum wages were introduced. After that, unemployment followed. Black workers approached the farmers for work, but they could not be taken on because the farmers could not pay those minimum wages.

I therefore want to make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister to ask the hon the Minister of Manpower not to allow trade unions on farms. The farmers do not want Black trade unions, and the Black farm workers do not need them. Labour legislation is unnecessary for agriculture and we refuse to allow Nic Wiehahn to dedicate the last chapter of his ruinous labour legislation to agriculture, because it can only be detrimental to agriculture and the South African economy as a whole.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Ventersdorp. I should like to know from the hon member, with reference to the statement he made towards the end of his speech inferring that we were ostensibly considering Black trade unions and the organisation of agricultural workers, whether he thinks for a single moment that farm workers in South Africa are not at some stage or other, going to become organised. I would like the hon member and his party to spell this out for us.

Are you in favour of that?

I will organise farm workers because if I do not organise them the left-wing radicals will. [Interjections.] I also want to ask the hon members of the Official Opposition whether the hon member for Carletonville agrees with their views on organised trade unions.

Are you in favour of Black farm workers serving on the regional services councils?

Mr Chairman, I will not waste my time on the hon member for Loskop—I mean Losberg—I shall continue with my speech. I have another bone to pick with him because in a debate here he said something which was not quite true, but I think we must leave this for some other time. [Interjections.]

In this debate I listened to very interesting arguments. This afternoon, however, I want to concentrate briefly on one element in agriculture which is our most valuable asset, namely the soil. I see that our farmers’ efforts at soil conservation over the years have not been as successful as we would have liked them to be. There are a few matters we must discuss in this regard.

In the first place I would like to take a brief look at the alienation of State land. As regards the land made available to agriculture in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1966, I welcome the announcement the hon the Minister made yesterday that as regards land which will be made available to young farmers under the new scheme, there will be a four-year period during which these people will be able to prove that they can manage the land, and that they are good farmers who are qualified to remain on that land. This opportunity will be afforded to young farmers under this scheme which the State is envisaging and which is being made flexible so that agriculture will derive the greatest possible benefit from it.

All I am asking of the hon Minister is to make the conditions of the scheme, which apply to young farmers who will acquire land in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1966, as simple and easy as possible so that we can get some of our young farmers who would very much like to farm back on our land in that way. In the same breath I am asking that we do not make this land available by way of auctions, because this implies that the purchase price is usually too high. An excessive purchase price implies wasteful exploitation.

I also want to say that as regards the leasing of State land, as well as the compensation paid to supervisors of State land, we must consider whether the provision that supervisors are allowed to keep livestock is in the best interests of the land.

When I think of livestock on State land I also think immediately of methods of control, and when I think of control, I should like to ask the hon the Minister to explain to us what the situation is going to be as regards security in respect of feed loans which have to be paid back after descheduling. It has been suggested that such livestock be earmarked for security purposes. I am rather concerned about this. A sheep and a cow only have two ears. The Land Bank already marks animals and the Agricultural Credit Board is possibly also going to do so. The co-operatives mark animals and the owners mark animals. The question I am asking myself is who is going to check whose livestock is whose and how are they going to do so. I am afraid that the animal is eventually going to run out of ears. I think we must ask the hon the Minister to explain to us how he views this matter and whether we should not seek other methods which can serve as proof of security for people who must pay back feed loans.

I want to get back to State land. The remarks I made I consider to be relevant because we cannot get people to adopt a positive attitude towards soil conservation if we cannot use the State lands as examples of how soil conservation must be applied in South Africa.

The next matter I want to refer to briefly is extension services, which has already been dealt with here. I am going to concentrate briefly on district extension services which from an economic point of view must be aimed practically and effectively at the farmer on the farm. I accept the explanation of the hon the Minister. I am satisfied that cooperatives are remaining in the extension field, but we must guard against extension services becoming so privatised that personal gain becomes too prominent a part of the picture.

If we look at the financial position of the farmer today, after the long drought we have experienced, it gives me great cause for concern and I ask myself whether farmers today can afford conservation farming in the short term. What is going to happen when it rains. The people are under financial pressure and the desire to survive is strong. We will not be able to instil, promote and succeed with the idea of conservation farming if it is not financially beneficial to the farmers in the short term.

In this connection we can consider the National Livestock Grazing Strategy. This is a wonderful scheme which deserves support but owing to circumstances it is not easy to get it going at this stage. But what are the consequences going to be for South Africa if we do not succeed in getting a strategy like the National Livestock Grazing Strategy going and in this way place our soil on the road to recovery?

Elements of conservation farming include the reduction in livestock numbers with the effect this will have on net farming income, infrastructure as regards camps, long-term soil conservation works and the planting of drought resistant feed crops. If we consider the cost-effect of this today and bear in mind that these improvements are not cash generating but are fairly long-term investments, I am afraid we are not going to get our conservation farming plan off the ground. We need empiric data based on research on the financial advantages of conservation farming in the long term. This is a matter we will have to look into thoroughly and if such research has not yet been undertaken—as far as I know it has not—we must see to it that such data is obtained. The policy must then be formulated accordingly.

The point is that every incorrect decision taken with regard to agriculture at any level devolves on the soil and the soil must bear the consequences. This is a pity, but unfortunately true. We will have to give serious attention to this at all levels.

In conclusion I want to talk about the role of the livestock farmer in this entire set-up. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have now listened to the hon member for De Aar and heard what he had to say about Black trade unions in agriculture. I want to tell him that this monster which has destroyed so much of our economic vitality will eventually destroy agriculture too. I also want to tell him that it is the left-wing NP Government which started these trade unions. They created them. I also want to tell him that all the efforts they made to keep these trade unions in the hands of moderates failed totally. The trade unions established up to now are all controlled by left-wingers. This afternoon I can assure him that the agricultural trade unions will also fall into the hands of the left-wingers.

What about Paulus' trade union?

You trod on their toes.

I am talking about the Black trade unions which the NP created! They created them. [Interjections.] Yes, it hurts when one treads on certain people’s toes.

You cannot see properly.

One must not be colour blind!

The trouble is that once one becomes colour blind one loses one’s bearings. [Interjections.]

You must just see Black!

The hon member only sees Black and he only negotiates for Blacks. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply whether he is in favour of Black farm workers serving on the regional services councils. I also want to ask him, if he is in favour of Black farm workers serving on the regional services councils, whether he consulted the farmers in the rural areas.

Ask him!

I also want to ask respectfully that he do everything in his power to try to prevent the sequestrations in our farming communities. I think if there is anyone who understands the tears and heart-break resulting from sequestration, it is surely the hon the Minister.

This afternoon I want to ask him with compassion to help our farmers so that they can hold their heads up high again, and even if they lose everything they will at least not lose their name, because the name “Afrikaner” is associated with love and integrity. [Interjections.]

What about the English-speaking farmers?

This afternoon I should like to talk about problems existing between the agricultural and the mining industries. They are legion. If two farmers farm on the same farm for example, one above the ground and the other below the ground, there are frequently problems which affect them both. They must keep calm. If not, both of them lose out.

People can also complement one another well. The one hand washes the other. Consider for example how many farmers are helped by the mines through the re-establishment of grazing on open-cast mines which have been rehabilitated. There are also farmers who obtain a large part of their income from the mines for work they do there. Another example is the assistance which the mines sometimes give to the farmer when he is in need. This one can only praise.

However, there is one problem which has cropped up in recent years in particular, and which arose as a result of the drought. This tested the neighbourliness of the farmer and the mine manager to the utmost. In cases where underground tunnels had been dug to remove the coal the water also disappeared. The borehole water slowly but surely disappeared until the farmer found himself on a farm, sometimes a very good farm, an economic farm, without any lifeblood, namely water. I myself have seen cases where on Friday afternoon water was still running and the windmill was still turning, and on Monday morning when the pipes were pulled up one could see a flashlight shining up from the mine and one was told: “No, the pipe is off. There is no more water”.

Fortunately the goodwill between the farmer and the mine worker is frequently the solution to the problem. In this way water is sometimes laid on to the farmyard to meet everyone’s requirements. Water is also transported in water tankers which carry thousands of litres. The farmer now has two problems. The strike is affecting the farmer who is dependent on the daily delivery of water. The coal and gold mines can come to a halt, but animals and people need water every day. Therefore the farmer quickly has to devise a plan to transport water from other farms. I should like to ask that the department recommend that every mine that cuts off a farmer’s water supply should supplement the water supply from the mine’s supply. On the Highveld one can use this only for domestic use and water for livestock. It is not necessary to use it for irrigation there.

A second problem arising from this is that the mine owners gain a hold on the farmer in this way. Some of them say that if the farmer does not do certain things they will cut off his water supply. The farmer lives in dread because he wonders when they are going to cut off his water supply. There are enough problems in farming. Farmers should not have to bear this additional burden. I want to ask the hon the Minister to see whether he cannot do something for the farmers with these problems.

There is another factor which affects farming, and particularly the farmer’s water, namely the water from the mines. Our farmers refer to it as “acid water”. It comes from old mines or even the refuse which is stored in large mine dumps. It is estimated that in the vicinity of Witbank and Middelburg alone 45 000 tons of refuse land up in rivers and streams every year, of which approximately 20 000 tons are sulphates. Sulphuric acid is of course another waste product which ends up in the streams and comes from these opencast mines.

The acid content of the water rises so much that even animals do not drink it in dry years like last year or the year before that. It is very dangerous to man and beast. I personally know of cases where pregnant cows and ewes drank some of the water and there were several abortions. In addition all the plant and animal life in such streams die. Act 54 of 1956 helped a great deal to solve the problem and we are grateful that the Act also helped to give more power to the State. We are also grateful that there is a White Paper on the pollution caused by coal mines, particularly in Northern Natal. In the White Paper it is mentioned inter aliathat there is an increase in water pollution in the important agricultural regions and that this must be combated.

I want to ask that although the department is giving a great deal of attention to the coal fields of Witbank, Middelburg and Bethal, thorough attention must again be given to this, and the farmers in particular must be consulted. It is of no avail if the mines have removed everything from under the ground and the farmer must say that he must also move because nothing has remained above the ground; the lifeblood of his farm, his water supply, has also disappeared. I am asking the hon the Minister to look into this problem.

Mr Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to address the hon the Deputy Minister on rural abattoirs, which he controls in terms of the Abattoir Industry Act and the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act.

If one surveys the guidelines laid down by the hon the Minister for the implementation of these Acts, one cannot find much fault with them. They are basically aimed at channelling the meat in an orderly way from the producer to the consumer, with the maintenance and improvement of the standards of hygiene under which this takes place. This is a sound point of departure and it is a good thing that we have to comply with these basic requirements. We also know that certain guidelines have been laid down in this regard, because so many of our abattoirs in peri-urban areas do not meet the minimum standards. A great deal of progress has already been made in upgrading these abattoirs, and it is a very good thing that we have adopted this policy. The department has informed me that approximately 79%of the meat is at present slaughtered in facilities which meet all the requirements. Three fairly large abattoirs at Maitland, Rustenburg and Springs, which do not yet meet the requirements, handle 13%of the turnover. There is therefore a further 8%which constitutes the smaller abattoirs which are probably mainly in the rural areas. This shows us precisely how much progress has been made with this programme.

However, this upgrading has definitely had a few negative effects which we must definitely consider at this stage. It resulted in large areas of our more sparsely populated rural areas having no abattoir facilities. It is true that this is a small percentage of the total turnover of meat, but it is an enormous area.

Without going into detail—I do not have all the particulars for the entire country—I can just mention a few examples in this connection. The abattoirs at Hanover, Noupoort, Loxton, Vosburg and Philipstown have been closed down. There may be many more, but I do not have all the particulars. They tell me the abattoirs at Murraysburg and Richmond must also either be changed or close down. I have been informed that Richmond has applied for the building of a new E3 abattoir, but the application has been turned down by the hon the Minister. We do not know what the reason for this is, but perhaps it is because the low turnover does not justify the costs of a new abattoir.

What is the result of this? As soon as the abattoirs disappear, the local butcher must also disappear because he cannot afford to have his slaughter stock slaughtered elsewhere. Transport costs simply do not allow this. It also results in the municipality no longer caring, and we find that everyone starts slaughtering in his back-yard or in the bush. This is a state of affairs which is certainly less desirable than an abattoir which does not quite meet the standards of hygiene. We must definitely guard against this state of affairs. At this stage we must therefore ask ourselves whether we have not gone far enough as regards the closing down of abattoirs in the rural areas.

The tremendous escalation in building costs has resulted in abattoirs to which an extension of time has been given to put their house in order now not being able to afford to build the new facilities at all. I should like to mention my home town Humansdorp as an example.

In 1970 an abattoir was built which complied with the standards at that stage. Then the new standard came into force, and to meet this they had either to make certain changes or build a new abattoir. This is a regional abattoir which supplies meat to Humansdorp, Jeffrey Bay, Aston Bay, St Francis Bay, Oyster Bay, Hankey, Patensie, Plettenberg Bay and places as far away as Knysna. It is a fairly large area. They now tell me that Humansdorp needs an E30 abattoir which will cost approximately R1 million to build. This will push up slaughtering fees per slaughter unit to R80.

Of course one’s immediate reaction is to upgrade the old abattoir. Unfortunately this cannot be done, because according to the minimum standards of hygiene the existing slaughtering area is one metre to narrow, and the slaughtering track is 150 millimetres, or six inches, too low. In addition the sheep slaughtering area is 600 millimetres from the wall instead of 1,067 metres. These few shortcomings have resulted in an entirely new abattoir having to be built, because the hygiene officers do not want to agree to upgrading if these so-called faults cannot be rectified. To do this, the walls must be broken out and the roof lifted; in other words, an entirely new abattoir must be built.

We are opposed to this rigid application of the Act and we must guard against this. I should very much like to draw the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister to these facts.

We concede that the basic principles of hygiene in the meat industry are extremely important and must be maintained. The municipality of Humansdorp has been negotiating with the department on this matter since 1981. In 1984 they decided that this would not help; they would have to sell this abattoir, because it would not be profitable for them to build a new one. Consequently they also decided to involve the private sector in this.

Now the private person who took over the abattoir from the municipality for a nominal amount has been battling to reach an agreement with the authorities since 1984, so far without any success. For that reason I am making a very serious appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to give very sympathetic consideration to matters of this kind, particularly in our rural areas.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon the Minister’s words of introduction today regarding the question of assistance to farmers. It is perhaps the first time in a long time that we have heard the Government move towards long-term solutions to the problem facing the farming industry, and we certainly find this most encouraging indeed. The Government has always in the past attempted to handle these matters on an ad hocbasis, and this has obviously proved unsuccessful. We look forward to far greater success now.

We accept the fact that many farmers have been financially ruined as a result of the adverse natural conditions they have experienced during the past few years, but I think we must accept too that there are other reasons why some farmers have failed. One such reason the Government appears to have identified already, namely that there are many farmers who are simply not able to manage their farms correctly. They lack the basic management skills to be successful farmers. In good conditions these farmers would probably pull through, but when the conditions turn slightly against them, they are unable to farm productively.

It is clear, taking into account what the hon the Minister said today, that this is one of the reasons why the Government has indicated that it is not prepared to offer assistance to all farmers across the board when it comes to dishing out the R400 million that it has set aside for relief to farmers. Rather, it has indicated that it will do so on a selective basis and that those farmers who are already in a state of bankruptcy cannot expect further aid. As I indicated in my speech on Friday last week during the general affairs debate on agriculture, the PFP believes the Government is acting correctly in this regard because one cannot continue to throw good money after bad.

It is obvious that farming today is a highly technical and highly specialised field. The farmer is expected to keep up to date with the ever-changing and ever-expanding knowledge necessary to farm productively. Productivity obviously is the name of the game, and every farmer should be constantly striving to increase his productivity. Increased productivity obviously not only has the advantage of increasing profits to the farmers, but it also has the advantage of ultimately creating more job opportunities, something which is absolutely essential to this country.

Increased productivity requires management skills and consequently management skills in farmers are absolutely essential today. I make reference to the 1985-86 annual report of the Superintendent-General of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply which underlines the degree of sophistication which has been reached in the farming methods and techniques with which the farmer must be fully acquainted today.

At the same time, however, we must accept that the farmer must be a businessman as well, as concerned about his cash flow and financial performance as he is about his farming skills.

Dr André Louw of Volkskas Bank, in an article which appeared in the June edition of Effective Farmingthis year, lists the short-comings in the area of management at farm level. I quote from this article as follows:

If all these points have been correctly identified, the situation is obviously a serious one to which the Government must address itself. In view of the tremendous amount of assistance required by farmers from the Government over many years and on an almost continual basis, the Government needs to ensure that the farmers themselves are doing all they can to improve their skills in all areas related to farming and to management. Consequently they must work hard to overcome the problems that have been underlined by Dr Louw.

I know that the Government is concerned about this—I have indicated this already. The report of the department indicates that a series of lectures and practical at five colleges of agriculture took place during 1985-86, as well as lectures at meetings of agricultural societies. I believe that these may have been more related to farming methods. However, it is clear that in the area of basic management much has to be done to educate the farmer into proper management skills. I want to ask the hon the Minister, or perhaps the hon the Deputy Minister, whether his department is looking into this particular problem. Is there a scheme whereby practising farmers can undergo management courses, and are basic management practices and skills built into the courses for prospective farmers at agricultural colleges?

Dr I J Venter, the manager of NPI Productivity Unit for Agricultural Co-operatives, in an article in this month's edition of Die Boer,talks about the importance of increased productivity. He says that the NPI has as its objective the elevation of productivity to a level that will guarantee a better standard of living for all. Obviously this is important. Apart from more money, greater productivity means that people retain their jobs, and that more jobs can be created, which is essential in this country, as I have indicated. Dr Venter lists eight steps which he believes must be identified in order for productivity improvement to take place. Two of these, namely management planning and training, and personnel involvement and training rate high on this list.

I want to ask the hon the Minister, or in his absence the hon the Deputy Minister, whether his department has given, or is giving, consideration to improving these particular areas of skills within the farmer. In any industry these skills rate highly in productivity and achievement, and the farming industry is clearly no different. Is the Government involved in any scheme to assist the farmer to develop greater management and, in particular, people skills? Is anything being done to encourage farmers to embark on a process of personnel involvement and training?

Obviously this implies that the farmer would recognize that he has a definite task to train the labourers on his farm in specific skills—a type of non-formal education process which would enable the labourer to become more fully involved in the farming process, instead of remaining nothing more than a labourer all his life. This would be a definite upliftment programme. This would have an additional advantage in this country, for it would help to establish better intergroup relations which are so essential for peace and prosperity, as well as preparing people to play a greater role in society.

A short TV programme yesterday morning in connection with a training school for farmers made the point that farmers generally can become very autocratic and that there are, in fact, 1,2 million farm labourers in this country. It is essential, therefore, for farmers to develop a more realistic or, as the programme called it, “participatory management” style of farming in order to help upgrade and train those people. This is a new area of responsibility for the farmer, but it does make a great deal of sense.

The farming industry must accept that it now contributes only 5%to the gross domestic product of this country and that its importance in the export market has decreased rapidly over recent years. Despite this, farming obviously continues to play an essential role in this country. If, however, farmers continue to expect the Government to rescue them every time they experience adverse conditions—that unhealthy dependence upon Government assistance in the event of a crisis that I mentioned earlier—agriculture and farming will never play the vital role it should be playing. Farmers have a duty to this country to improve their farming techniques and their management skills. There are many organisations connected with the farming industry which have recognised the importance of this and which have seen the shortcomings within the farming industry because these skills are often scarce. They have recognised the need for the education of the farmer in a wide range of areas, and the Government must do all it can to encourage this education to take place and to insist that farmers continually improve themselves. Certainly, assistance should only be given to those farmers who have proved beyond doubt that they have made every effort to come to terms with the demands that their occupation makes of them.

Mr Chairman, I do not have a particular sword to cross with the hon member for Durban North; he made a number of valid points. I think he is inclined to oversimplify the problem of an absence of managerial expertise. This problem is not only a problem in the field of agriculture, but one we experience in all fields in the country where management is needed. [Interjections.]

Since I am a product of the finest valley in South Africa, the Sundays River Valley … [Interjections.] … I should like to exchange a few thoughts on irrigation. [Interjections.] As is fitting in a debate on agriculture, I have a “thank you” to say; but I also have a somewhat longer “please”.

My “thank you” concerns the fact that we along the Sundays River take note with special gratitude of the fine progress that is being made with the complete development of the Lower Sundays River State Water Scheme as part of the Orange River Project. The existing 9 000 hectares of the Sundays River Valley under irrigation at present, is going to be more than doubled by this scheme. More than 7, 5 km of a canal has already been completed, a kilometre-long section of the necessary tunnel has been completed, and I want to pay tribute to the department, the resident engineer and the approximately 800 people who are employed on this enormous undertaking.

It is true that the cost in that regard amounts to more than R1,5 million per month. That is a great deal of money that is being spent. Nevertheless, it is money well spent, particularly since we are in a phase of reconstructing agriculture.

Allow me to mention a single figure. Approximately 60%of the irrigation land in the Sundays River Valley is under citrus. The yield of that irrigation land, in terms of foreign earnings, amounted to more than R30 million during the last harvest. The farmers there have reached such a degree of self-sufficiency, that one of the most modern citrus packing sheds in the world was recently put in operation. I am so pleased that the hon the Minister said earlier today that the reconstruction of agriculture does not lie only in the granting of more and more loans. I want to emphasise very strongly that irrigation schemes like that in the Sundays River Valley are placing the farmers on the road to economic independence. It is a big investment that is being made, but it is an investment which is enabling the farmer to make a self-sufficient and independent living so that he is no longer dependent on continual maintenance by way of loans.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for Albany, who made a plea yesterday in respect of the Bushmans Raver Scheme. The hon the Minister has to listen to the second instalment of this plea today. I want to tell the hon the Minister that he is fortunate that the hon member for Cradock is at the Agricultural Union’s congress; otherwise he would have had to listen to this plea in three instalments.

We were very grateful to hear that a feasibility study was going to be undertaken by the department. It is true that the main question is whether such a scheme is economically viable.

What is economic viability? Today I want to advocate that when we assess the question of whether a scheme is economically viable, we look at that scheme from a wider viewpoint. We must ask whether such a scheme is not going to have a particularly stabilising effect on an existing community, and whether such a scheme could not be linked to, and be the logical conclusion of, the proper utilisation of irrigation water. Here I want to associate myself with the thoughts of the hon member Dr Golden.

The Bushmans River Scheme would be the final completion in the south of the gigantic Orange River Scheme. It would serve to establish and stabilise an existing community and structure. We must also look at the economic viability of a scheme from the point of view of providing employment. Irrigation areas are labour intensive.

Secondly, intensive irrigation farming bring about high-grade economic activity in respect of implements, seed and fertilizer. Irrigation farming brings about high production and a high income per unit, which means that an economically active population is established. This, in turn, means that secondary economic activities can be launched. An irrigation scheme also stabilises related branches of farming, such as stock farming, which can be fed, carried and extended on the basis of the availability of lucerne and other feed crops.

The question is whether we can afford the further extension of schemes. I am not talking about new schemes, but about the logical extension of schemes. Taking the Bushmans River Scheme as an example, I want to put the question in a different way: If we take into account the reconstruction of agriculture and the assistance to farmers so that they can make a living independent of the State, can we afford not to tackle those schemes? I think that is the question.

Mr Chairman, a session or two ago, in a debate on this Vote, at the conclusion of my speech on a certain matter, I asked the hon the Minister’s predecessor a question. I am now asking it at the beginning of my speech, while I still have the time to do so. The Louis Trichardt district, or the Soutpansberg district, has been without an agricultural extension officer since March 1983, in these extremely difficult times. I really want to ask that that post be filled now, and I also want to ask whether an additional post for an agricultural extension officer at Messina could not be created. This is an extensive area, and a great variety of agricultural activities is taking place there, as the hon the Minister has said. I would be pleased if he would look into the matter.

I should also like to know from the hon the Minister whether it was a terminological error or whether I misunderstood him, for when he made the announcement a moment ago he said that the Cabinet had decided certain things. I want to ask whether the Ministers’ Council should not have made the decision. Surely we are dealing here with own affairs. I shall leave it at that, however; the hon the Minister need not reply.

I think the hon the Minister is praying for the day that he will wake up and find that his problems in regard to agriculture no longer revolve around drought. As far as that is concerned, many of us are praying with him. However, I want to tell him something which may console him a little. An archeological excavation was made in Northern Turkey, and the palace of a king was discovered. In this palace, the king’s library was found. There was a clay tablet that was written to that king approximately 4 000 years ago. One of his governors had written to him: “Your highness, I want to ask you not to increase your taxes this year. It has not rained this year in this area where I am governor; it is extremely dry and the farmers have no money to pay additional tax. ” These few words are just to console the hon the Minister a little.

I should like to raise a matter which is probably going to be a problem again, but to which I think timeous attention should be given. There are a few of our fresh products that are now beginning to get competition from Zimbabwe. I know that this is probably a matter which belongs with another department, but I think the hon the Minister should look into the matter and speak to his colleagues about it. For the past two years there have been problems with spanspek, sweet melons, that have come from Zimbabwe and are—allow me to use the term—“dumped” on the Johannesburg market, at a cost lower than it is possible for the local farmers to get the products to the market.

This problem is now being intensified in that some of our own Black states to whom we granted independence, are also beginning to enter the fresh produce market. This problem is probably going to manifest itself in regard to tomatoes, potatoes, watermelons and spanspek. After all, we also have to provide a market for those states that are still finding their feet. However, I think it would be a good thing to look into the matter timeously and speak to them so that we can have a kind of programme or agreement concerning the distribution of products.

This year some of the farmers in my constituency have also been affected by this. The people in those areas can plant certain fresh products in the winter which cannot be planted elsewhere. One of the problems is that they farm with the aid of development corporations which are financed by us in South Africa. It is not always necessary for them to look at the economics of the situation, whilst the private farmer in our country is compelled to do so. This year they put beautiful melons on the market at R2,50 a box. The private farmer cannot even get them to the market at that price. I think we should look at the problem promptly and timeously, so that it does not cause problems, tension and ill-feelings in future.

There is another matter to which I want to refer. Last Friday my colleague the hon member for Potgietersrus spoke to the hon the Minister about the possibility of the stock farmers also getting production financing by way of their co-operatives. The hon the Minister said that there were co-operatives that made this possible. However, my colleague asked whether that facility could not be made available to the farmers interest free. The hon the Minister is himself aware how the breeding cattle in our herds have become depleted. I think there was an article in Die Landbouweekblada while ago which said that only 30%of the original number remained. We must rectify this matter. Let us suppose we have good rains this year. Those farmers will have to start getting their breeding stock ready for the future. The red meat industry already has to contend with price problems. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister, if he is unable to do it interest free, in any event to make it possible for them at a very low interest rate.

I want to tell the hon the Minister—I think we as farmers should mention this more often—that if one looks at the importance of farming in the whole economic set-up of South Africa, and one sees how other sectors of the economy are being assisted, one need not be sensitive about the assistance we are giving to agriculture. In this year’s Budget the TBVC countries are being provided with aid to the amount of R1 375 million. Without mentioning other figures, one need only think of the transport subsidies and rebates granted to industrialists. There are the decentralisation benefits to industry, which amount to millions of rands. There is the assistance given by the SBDC at fantastic interest rates—particularly to Black entrepreneurs. There is the R600 million the Government made available for the creation of employment this year. There are the export promotion benefits for industry. If we look at all these things and we then compare them with the importance of agriculture in the whole economic structure of South Africa, I say we do not have to be sensitive about the assistance we are giving to agriculture.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg has had so many complaints it is no wonder that an extension officer does not last there. Things must be very difficult there.

I am still living on the farm on which I was born. Things are not going too badly, but not too well either. From an early age I went to meetings of farmers’ associations. In those days they were great events. The farmyard was swept, chickens were put in the coop so that people would not tread on them and where one got the most cake and tea, one also got the biggest attendance.

There has only ever been one way of life for me, namely farm life and farming. In those days the clever children usually studied to become clergymen, doctors or teachers. Here and there someone went into politics, and the rest became farmers.

The stupid ones!

These learned people were scornfully referred to as the “pen boys”. They were a bit too soft for hard work.

I remember one evening at a farmers’ association meeting we were given a lecture on the financial planning of farming by a very clever and learned man. What he said was a little beyond us. We listened to him in absolute silence, and at the end of his speech one of his older farmers thanked him with these words: “Mr Chairman, I want to thank the speaker most sincerely for this fine speech, but I want to tell the farmers who sat and listened to him that if they want to go bankrupt very quickly they must keep their books as carefully as this man taught them to do this evening”.

Times and people have hopefully changed since then, but I am afraid that the financial management of many of our farmers still leaves much to be desired. It is also quite clear that some of the factors which gave rise to the financial dilemma in which our farmers now find themselves were beyond the control of the farmer. However, poor financial management is also an important factor which must be addressed both by the individual farmer and by the organisation which has an interest in extension and advisory programmes.

Poor financial management by the individual farmer is obviously difficult to define. It cannot be measured. However, if we take note that relatively few farmers have a fully integrated, physically economical financial record system on which they can base their decisions, one cannot do otherwise but conclude that the financial management of many of our farmers leaves much to be desired. I say this reluctantly, but it is estimated that probably not more than 5%of the farmers have a good, effective record system.

A second example is the so-called tax-saving measures adopted by farmers, which eventually lead to inefficiency in terms of over-capitalisation in mechanical aids and breeding stock. The manipulation of the tax system with a view to paying the minimum amount of tax also contributes to long-term liquidity problems and the misapplication of natural resources.

As regards the solution to this problem, it can in general be stated that the agricultural industry has no other choice but to adapt to the environment. The farmers should follow the example of their forefathers. They showed us where to farm with what. We must stick to that. As regards the latter, great emphasis will have to be placed on the achievement analysis of resources, land, capital and management. This implies that the economic and financial information needs of farmers are expected to increase drastically. In order to meet these needs the authorities, co-operatives and the private sector will have to act in a co-ordinated way in order to increase the extent and quality of the products and extension services.

Nowadays too many extension officers are hawkers. From the producers point of view the emphasis will have to fall on efficiency. Farmers will have to adjust to being less dependent on credit by building up capital reserves. Amendments to the Income Tax Act could stimulate such a programme. If farmers do not farm as profitably as expected, expenditure production costs and land prices may have something to do with this.

After a good agricultural year producers are very inclined to be optimistic about yields and expected profits. They think the following year is going to be precisely the same, and that is where they are bluffing themselves. Instead of striving for maximum physical yields, they should rather strive for maximum long-term economic yields. Such an approach will reduce risks and resultant losses. However, the emphasis must always fall on efficiency.

South African farmers are tough. An elderly farmer once said that a farmer should never show that he is struggling. When he is struggling most, he must still put up a brave front; not irresponsibly, but once one shows that one is struggling, all is lost. If a farmer is in trouble he must get financial advice. This is not a disgrace. There are various special assistance measures, some of which have been announced here today.

Farmers who are not used to having debts, and there are some of them, must not try to meet their financial obligations in one year. They must make use of the available facilities. In the present farming conditions, which are not all that good, the farmer must not try to avoid paying income tax by purchasing capital goods which are not essential. There are far too many shiny new tractors on many farms, but farmers must remember that an old tractor can be overhauled and “fixed up”. In this way an implement can last for years. Farmers must not try to keep up with the fashions; leave that to the women!

Many farmers neglect to inform their credit suppliers in good time and openly about their financial position, and this causes them big problems. I was also shy. They may possibly think you have been cleaned out when you come and complain. The farmers must rather do this in good time.

The hon the Minister told us that agriculture was recovering and that the sun was going to shine again. I also believe this, as long as the farmers do not do their business transactions on the back of a cigarette box.

Something which is bothering me—a very great deal—is the report appearing in the Press nowadays about Groot Constantia. It really sounds a little strange to me. They are mostly in the English newspapers. I know the English newspapers. They sometimes write the truth in a very strange way. [Interjections.] I should like to hear the true facts from the hon the Minister. It was one of these selfsame English newspapers which once had the ship arriving at the Cape upside down. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I find a speaker such as the hon member for Worcester very hard to follow. His advice to farmers, I think, was good advice. His stories though I am not going to try to match. I, too, believe that South African farmers are tough. I suggest it is a good idea not always to buy a new tractor, as the hon member says. I believe in record systems. A lot of what the hon member has said makes perfect sense.

I should like, however, to come to the speech made by the hon member for Soutpansberg. He spoke about the competition of farm products from some of the Black states and also about the dumping of spanspeks on the market. I should just like to ask that hon member who the consumers are in the so-called White areas. There are many more Black consumers in those areas than there are White consumers. I believe it is only fair that the production of the Black states should be sold on all markets in South Africa where they are selling specifically to Black people. Sir, I think what he is pleading for is protection for the White farmer. I do not believe the White farmer needs that protection. [Interjections.]

I did not say so!

Well, Sir, now the hon member for Soutpansberg says that he did not say so. That is, however, exactly what he meant. [Interjections.]

“Boerehater!”

Now, Sir, I want to address myself to the hon the Minister and put some direct questions to him following the speech I made yesterday. I may say, Sir, that I find it very frustrating—I know the hon the Minister is having trouble with his voice today—when one asks questions and the hon the Minister does not have the time to reply. I would therefore ask him, in relation to questions which he is unable to answer during the debate, whether or not he would be prepared to get his department to direct some sort of reply to us so that we can get those answers. I am glad to see the hon the Minister is nodding his head.

There are two specific questions I want to put to the hon the Minister. Firstly, I want an absolutely categorical assurance that Black, Coloured and Indian people, provided they have the knowledge and ability, can be employed in the research sections of the department. Can they work for the department? If a Black scientist comes along to the department and says he wants to be employed because his expertise is in relation to a specific type of research, can he be employed by the department? [Interjections.] I see the hon the Minister is again nodding his head. I take that to mean that the department can employ in its research sections people who are not White.

I come now to the second question that I want to put to the hon the Minister. I talked about the use of certain chemicals, specifically a chemical like 245Tand the “agent-orange” type chemicals, the usage of many of which is banned in South Africa. Those chemicals may not be used in South Africa, Sir, but I believe there are still chemical companies in South Africa manufacturing those products for export. I should like to know whether there is any possibility of banning the manufacture too, because I believe it is morally reprehensible for us to produce things which are going to cause damage, even if it is outside the borders of South Africa.

On the subject of research I must say that I have immense respect for much of the research that is done by the department. I think we have a first class department. I think, for example, that their extension services are absolutely first class and a tremendous help to farmers. I should like, however, to refer to one particular aspect of research, which, I think, is outstanding. I believe that credit must be given to the department on the success obtained in the elimination of certain undesirable plants through the use of biological control methods.

One understands that the battle against the spread of lantana seems to be progressing well with the propagation of the leaf-mining beetles, while snout beetles, for example, are doing well in combating water hyacinth and water lettuce. I was also most fascinated to learn that the release of mealie bugs on Harrisia cactus in some areas has made the need for chemical control become obsolete. Acacia longifolio, which is of course an exotic plant, is being controlled by the bud-galling wasp, and the ubiquitous Port Jackson wattle may in future be controlled by a fungal pathogen—a rust fungus. Sesbania is controlled by the bud-feeding weevil and the seed weevil—I have not heard of any of these particular beasts before!

Pop goes the weevil!

I think that in principle, any conservationist must believe that biological control is far more preferable to using dangerous, poisonous sprays, although there are obvious inherent dangers in using insects whose other appetites may be unknown and which might well upset the ecology of a particular area. [Interjections.]

I would like to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that as much as possible is done to use biological methods rather than chemical control where possible. I spoke briefly yesterday about the dangers of many chemicals that have been used in the past, but altogether I want to say that this is a very praiseworthy programme of research which should receive every encouragement.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate again, after the very interesting and meaningful contributions that were made here. I listened attentively to the hon member for Worcester, who in his characteristic way conjured up something of the atmosphere of farming and almost made one hanker for the peacefulness on the farm, with all the turbulence that goes with it; that turbulence always takes place in a peaceful way.

When I say this, I think of all the problems in agriculture and the large number of statements that are being made about agriculture. When we consider this country, with its various agricultural problems, we see that they are of a divergent nature; that the country is blessed with an incredible diversity of climate, soil and plants. Indeed, the country is divided into separate regions; there is a winter rainfall region with its problems, a Kalahari area with its problems, and a Bushveld area with its problems.

For this reason South Africa has consequently been classified, agriculturally, into a diversity of regions in which we have identified reasonably homogeneous areas. The department has established itself within those regions, with research stations and experimental farms where the problems of these specific regions are dealt with, so that the research station can, in a practical way, convey the knowledge it acquires there to the various branches of farming established there. Moreover, these are supported by 11 institutes that undertake important basic research in this connection to provide guidance.

I find it gratifying that that aspect was raised here today; in other words that the information provided by these institutes in the regions was mentioned in the speeches of hon members in this Committee. In other words, the department is functioning. I should like to pay tribute to all these people who make such a major contribution behind the scenes to keep agriculture going and to cause it to forge ahead under difficult circumstances.

The hon member for Worcester mentioned a few aspects in connection with Groot Constantia. I wondered whether anyone would discuss it, because Groot Constantia is in the news quite frequently. In my opinion the problem in connection with Groot Constantia is being solved. There are still serious problems to be solved, yet I think that the speculation on Groot Constantia will diminish in years to come.

I just want to remind hon members that legislation to remove Groot Constantia from private control and place it, in a really meaningful way, under good management, was passed in July 1975. The department took over the management with the directive to manage the farm, plant vineyards and produce wines of outstanding quality. Since the farm was taken over and place under a control board, not controlled by the department but held personally accountable under law, a variety of developments have taken place. The farm has been converted into a viable unit by purchasing additional land. The farms Colyn, Nova Constantia, Hoop op Constantia, the Kommandeurskelder, as well as State land from the Department of Forestry, was purchased to turn this farm Constantia into an economic unit of 185 ha. In the process, ie from 1975 until the present, 240 000 vines were planted, which really means that virtually all the vineyards had to be replanted. This is the price that had to be paid to reinstate Groot Constantia, because originally, when it was in private hands or was being leased, the vineyards were not properly looked after. Consequently they were unproductive and neglected and one could do nothing with them. It cost approximately R3,5 million to get the farm productive again. This was financed with loan capital from the open market, and from the limited proceeds of the estate.

Besides the farming problems there was also the problem that a tremendously large number of tourists visit Groot Constantia. Consequently there is also a cultural historical aspect involved. For that purpose too, capital expenses were incurred amounting to approximately R2,5 million.

At present Groot Constantia is an independent profitable undertaking. As a result of the burden of debt, which actually created an asset for the State, as well as a burden of interest that has to be financed from farming, it is experiencing financial problems to which we shall have to give attention in future. If everything takes its normal course, the position will only have been stabilised by 1992. If Groot Constantia is to succeed in its purpose however, we shall again have to give financial consideration to the matter once or twice.

It is a fact that the farming aspect is being operated profitably, but the cultural, historical and tourist aspects in connection with Groot Constantia are causing certain problems to which we shall have to give attention in future. We are looking at the alternatives and various proposals are being considered in this connection. We are also looking into the possibility of privatising Groot Constantia, with whatever implications that may have. I can also say that the rumours to which the hon member referred about irregularities in the bookkeeping system are in my opinion internal and were dealt with satisfactorily on the standing committee. No losses were suffered that justify any criminal prosecution; in fact, we thrashed out the whole matter in the end, and we are satisfied that no further irregularities are occurring. The problems in connection with Groot Constantia therefore involve the activities that have to be carried out on the estate.

I hope that we shall consider Groot Constantia to be an important asset in South Africa, which was established to a great extent by the management committee. The period of office of the management committee has been extended to the end of the year, when it will be reconstituted.

In the debate so far guidance and research have been discussed at some length. The hon members for Bryanston, Sasolburg and De Aar referred to these matters. I should like to dwell on these aspects for a while. The question of guidance and research and how these fit into own and general affairs require a little attention.

As regards the guidance aspect there are various kinds of agriculture in South Africa—the hon the Minister also referred to this. There is subsistence agriculture on the one hand en advanced modern agriculture on the other.

Order! There are hon members who are conversing too loudly.

The various kinds of agriculture require a unique approach, because one cannot provide farming enterprises that are being run on a communal basis with modern agricultural extension. In addition we find that modern agriculture comprises 90%of the agriculture in South Africa. We must also realise that 80%of the gross income is being generated by 25%of the farmers. In other words, when we consider these particulars, we see that they mean that a quarter of the 60 000 White farmers are producing 80%of the gross product in White agriculture industry.

Furthermore we are dealing with a problem that among these farmers the crisis is not of such a serious extent. The crisis is primarily among three quarters of the farmers, who receive only 20%to 25%of the total agricultural income, and who therefore do not have an adequate cash-flow to be able to deal with a heavy burden of debt. That is where the dilemma exists. That is why, with the rendering of assistance, we come up against this problem every time: There is always a certain group of farmers who can continue, but there is also another group of farmers whom we find difficult to deal with because we cannot entirely justify this on the basis of economic norms.

That is where our problem arises. If we have to add this aspect to guidance and research, we find tremendous challenges in respect of keeping agricultural research abreast of developments. However, it is primarily being applied by a small group of the total number of farmers in the industry. On the other hand there is a great need, within the context of extension, to disseminate these modern and new production methods and establish them with agriculture. A great challenge exists in this connection, and there are various deficiencies which immediately emerge, and which we shall also have to address in the process.

Consequently research is at this juncture an own affair. This is because we are concentrating it on a specific aspect. As circumstances change and as the agriculture of the other communities in this country progresses to the same level as that of the Whites, this matter will have to be examined again.

Very paternalistic!

Another aspect in this connection is that there is no colour bar in agricultural research. It is all done according to merit. Agriculturists are already being trained at our universities who can do excellent and deserving work in their own communities. It is a question of economising and expenses that compels us to do this. These people repeatedly experience certain problems and if they want to do research into a problem within their own areas we create the opportunities for them to do so.

In fact, this aspect of co-operation across various community boundaries and within the limited means of the country is something which no government or political party will ever be able to escape. As a result of the limited resources at our disposal a point will have to be reached at which one will have to talk to these people and devise plans in conjunction with them.

I therefore see co-operation taking place in regard to research and the acquisition of basic information. This information which is generated within White agriculture is not kept exclusively within White agriculture. It flows across the dividing lines, and has resulted in great development in Black agriculture. A further consequence has been that in Black, Coloured and Indian agriculture, people have come forward who are able to provide extension in that they have been trained in the institutes and training centres of White agriculture.

Furthermore I want to say in this connection that we paid a visit to the Indian community, in which an urgent need for certain types of extension exists. We looked into certain problems and bottlenecks. I do not want to elaborate unnecessarily on this, except to repeat what I said in this connection in the House of Delegates about the position of Indian farmers. We examined the problem and the question was asked to what extent agricultural extension can be of assistance there. I said there:

We therefore do not keep this information to ourselves. We have already commenced this project to uplift Indian agriculture. We have done so by means of proposals, and we are doing so carefully, so that we do not act in a prescriptive or paternalistic way. I went on to say:

As long as they can participate in the research too.

Yes, they can participate in the research. It is not possible to put a colour bar on research.

*As regards extension, the problems in agriculture to which hon members referred here create one great need, which is for better and more thorough extension. The dilemma of the extension officers in the respective regions and areas is considerable. If we consider modern agriculture and the demands which are being made, it is not easy to equip one person with all the skills on irrigation, soil conservation, pomology, fertilisation and all these facets. Consequently the problem of the ordinary regional extension officer has become all the more difficult. We are trying to collect people with skills pertaining to these various facets within those regions or areas in a so-called expertise centre, in which various people can make a contribution and all the skills can be combined. On the basis of the knowledge or information which the department has at its disposal, meaningful advice can then be offered to the farmer. He can be told: This is what your farm looks like; this is your potential; this is the type of fertiliser you should use; this is the kind of livestock you should keep; this is the kind of crop you should plant; this is the way you should farm. This can be further enriched through the furnishing of economic advice given by agricultural economists who are also involved in the expertise centre. In this way these efforts can be concentrated into a meaningful practical plan that can be economically justified and can allow the farmer to show a profit.

This is an important way of supporting the ordinary regional extension officer that we have had up to now. He must still do the field work and make the contacts. I know that in certain circles there are reservations about the position of ordinary regional extension officers in the field, and today I want to state unequivocally that the position of the regional extension officer is not being endangered by future planning and restructuring. That view that the regional extension officer is going to disappear is not shared by my department or by me. I think that in a community context the regional extension officer is an indispensable link in the extension chain. He will have to play an important role in the restructuring and rebuilding of agriculture. In the past this regional extension officer served a very important purpose, and he will have to continue to do so to an increasing extent in future. It is difficult to find a sufficient number of regional extension officers, and we are looking into the problem. We shall examine it.

The co-ordination of extension and research is another aspect, one to which the hon member for Sasolburg referred. He asked how we could, to a certain extent, co-ordinate agricultural research and extension. If we consider the need it is a considerable one. We have a number of universities, 11 institutes and nine various regions doing certain research. In all these places activities are in progress and surely we must, certainly within the financial means of this country, administer this matter as well as possible so that duplication does not occur. This matter has been investigated, and reference is usually made to the Kolb Committee, which investigated the co-ordination and structuring of this matter. However, the report on this investigation was brought out before the constitutional changes in this country occurred, and on that basis there are certain findings in this report which could be in conflict with the present constitutional circumstances if one were to apply them. We are investigating this matter again and identifying the problems so that, in the end, we can create the best system enabling us to establish a co-ordinated and effective extension and research service.

Consequently the Kolb Report is not as defunct as people say it is. We have dusted it off and we are investigating its feasibility in order to devise a meaningful plan. We must just be patient in this connection, because there might be something on the way. I think we can look forward to a very interesting discussion of this problem in future.

The hon member for Vryburg touched on a few interesting points, and I shall subsequently divulge more information on certain of these aspects. He mentioned the question of personnel at the Directorate of Financial Assistance and problems in this connection. I want to state unequivocally here that if it had not been for that directorate, that had to administer all these assistance schemes in this country, and for an Agricultural Credit Board that had to implement all the principles in connection with workable schemes which we furnished them with, and which worked overtime almost day and night, even though that was not always enough, far less would have resulted from the auxiliary schemes and from the money granted by the State to agriculture.

I want to pay tribute to people who worked overtime to such an extent that my predecessor had to prohibit the members of the Agricultural Credit Board and its staff from working on Sundays, because they persistently worked seven days a week, and had to be given a rest. There are few people who would do that.

There were problems in respect of the personnel requirements of the Directorate: Financial Assistance, but let me add that we have augmented the personnel. Earlier this year 72 additional posts were created and nine senior officials were seconded from other departments to this directorate to deal with the large number of related settlement plans of farmers who were staring sequestration in the face. The personnel of this directorate are already working overtime, and the newly-created posts that are at present being advertised and will soon be filled should within the foreseeable future solve the problem in a suitable way.

I also want to say that drought conditions and the financial position of farmers have aggravated the work load of this directorate to a vast extent. The number of applications from livestock farmers for emergency aid has increased from 2 200 to 3 200 since May 1987. In addition applications for water quota subsidies have risen to more than 200 per month. It is gratifying that the backlog, particularly in respect of dealing with applications for assistance from livestock farmers, has been shortened from two months to one month. The directorate has also been able to succeed in submitting settlement applications from farmers facing sequestration to the Agricultural Credit Board within one week after receipt. Considerable progress has been made with computerisation, which will reduce the time taken to deal with applications considerably.

I can give hon members the assurance that we are doing everything in our power to improve the position, and that senior officials of the directorate are considering the position of the farmers with great compassion. On the other hand, however, I also want to make an appeal to the farming community to appreciate the difficult task these officials have to perform and to show appreciation for certain problems which may arise in the directorate, which is dealing with 15 000 farmers and 25 000 accounts, and which has to issue approximately 3 400 cheques every month. We are eliminating that backlog and within a short time we ought to be processing applications within a normal period of one and half to two months. There are several other aspects I want to touch upon.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to questions put by hon members during Question Time and during their speeches. I want to begin with the hon member for Bethal, who pointed out in particular that we should be sympathetic to farmers who were on the point of losing everything, and that we should deal with as many as possible of these cases under the procedure in terms of section 28 of the Agricultural Credit Act. It is true that this legislation was established to introduce another form of sequestration, so that the farmer who had converted all his assets into money was in the end sequestrated without this affecting his legal personality in any way. He therefore comes out of the affair as a rehabilitated person. One of our problems in applying the Act is that sections 21 to 28 of the Act were included so that there was no escape route of easy sequestration without accepting the consequences. The Ministry and the officials administering the Agricultural Credit Act therefore have the responsibility of doing so in a responsible way. A person who is careless in regard to his financial planning, and who is now facing sequestration, cannot simply get off scot-free in terms of these sections.

We must maintain an equilibrium within the Agricultural Credit Act, and therefore we have tried to give a more generous interpretation to these sections so that we can accommodate as many cases facing sequestration as possible under these sections. We are maintaining a constant vigilance to ensure that it does not become an escape route. It is not possible to arrive at section 28 without first applying the procedure of section 22. Careful action is therefore required, and we are doing so in a responsible way.

The hon member for Vryburg made certain proposals in regard to improving the activities of Agricultural Credit. I think they were positive proposals. I accept them and we are examining them. The aspect of the limitations in regard to section 135 are at present under consideration, and when the Agricultural Amendment Bill is dealt with at a later stage of this session, we shall be able to debate that matter as well. I think it is necessary.

As regards the unfavourable financial position of the farming sector, the hon member emphasised once again that there was a difference between agricultural value and market value, and that the financial problems in agriculture actually arose when market values served as a basis of security for short-term expansions. I think that is the essence of the problems being experienced in agriculture today.

The hon member for Greytown is not present at the moment, and I do not want to be nasty about his contribution to this debate. [Interjections.] No, I am referring now to that part dealing with electricity. It should actually have been raised as part of another discussion. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must not converse so loudly.

He said something else that was very important, namely that when we wish to provide the farming communities with electricity over vast distances, vast capital expenditure is incurred for this purpose. Technological developments now make it possible to generate electricity in other ways besides the coal-burning method, and I think we are on the eve of such developments. I therefore associate myself with the hon member who said that we should explore those possibilities. We are looking into methods of setting such activities in motion in order to find an alternative to conventional power generation. There is no way in which it can be economically justifiable to take a powerline hundreds of kilometres across Karoo farms while only a few people make use of it. In that respect I think the hon member made a meaningful contribution. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Ventersdorp spoke about inflation, interest and drought. He asked for the plan put forward by the hon member for Lichtenburg for the restructuring of agriculture to be implemented. But if we look at that plan, after what we said here and at what is on the table, surely the two are not very different. They are concerned with the implementation of an action to save as many farmers as possible—on the basis of the economic feasibility of that rescue attempt—so that one does not rescue the person for a period of three months or a year, but gets him out of difficulty permanently so that he does not become one’s client again next year on account of problems that are even worse. When we talk about assistance it must be such that we can put that man back on his feet. He must, in the proverbial sense, be able to keep on catching fish. One must not simply give him a fish; one must enable him to keep on fishing. These are the activities we are engaged in. We shall certainly bear those aspects he mentioned in mind. We did act in a responsible way, and within the means of the State I think we have to a large extent succeeded in achieving the maximum possible.

What he went on to say about trade unions and labour relations in agriculture was important. The labour relations between employer and employee in agriculture are in most cases excellent; I am not saying that this applies in all cases. In most cases these relations work well, and there is understanding, appreciation, reciprocal knowledge of one another, precisely because people have contact with one another, understand one another’s abilities and act accordingly.

Within agriculture there are also those people—let us admit this to one another—who are indifferent to these things. In many cases these sound relations are undone by this fact. I do not know how hon members feel about it, but I cannot condone it. That is why we shall have to examine this problem of sound relations and sound labour relations on the farms internally. We shall perhaps have to act prescriptively then against these people who are harming these relations. They are not only harming themselves, but are in the end undoing all the good work done by others. I could mention wonderful examples of sound upliftment work done in rural communities by farmers who incurred great expense to make schools and housing available and to provide labourers with retraining to make them productive and to get them involved. In that respect I think we must proceed with caution so that we settle this matter internally. If we have to settle it by means of legislation we shall have to act in a responsible way in that case as well. We cannot be indifferent to this matter, though, and simply rely on a discussion of the matter, if other people do not want to co-operate.

The hon member for De Aar spoke about alienation of land, and about young farmers being involved in agriculture. He asked how farms were being allocated by the department. The question of the allocation of land to young men wishing to become farmers does not take place on an ad hocbasis. In fact, the Agricultural Credit Board, which has the function of undertaking the screening process and making the allocations, has a very orderly way of doing things. What is involved is not simply a farm and a person that have to be brought together, but whether that person can really make a living on that farm; whether he is suited to it and will be able to farm in a viable way. The capital requirements of the property in question are determined by these factors. Then the ability of the applicant is assessed, whether he can comply meaningfully with the requirements or whether the State will have to help him to farm economically on that farm. Consequently it can take place either on a free-market basis in that a property is sold to the highest tender or has to comply with certain requirements in connection with the tender, or funds can be obtained by means of a State loan.

The choice of such a person is not something that merely happens. A variety of qualities are examined. The age of the person, his marital status, his farming experience, his training, his leadership qualities, his health and that of his wife, the means and current assets he has at his disposal, his knowledge of the planning of the present farming operation as well as of the new farming operation, the committee’s recommendation, his testimonials and the personal impression he makes, are all aspects that are considered.

If we consider last year’s figures, we see that the total number of applications to acquire units on State-owned land between 1980 and 1984 amounted to more than 1 873. From a random sample of 330 of these applications a few interesting statistics emerge. For example the average age of the people applying was 33 years. When we look at the allocation of the 13 Vivo-Dendron farms, we find that the average age of the people to whom those farms were allocated was 37 years, in spite of the fact that one meritorious applicant was 50 years old.

As regards the nature of the farming operation, approximately one third of the applicants were owners of uneconomic units who either leased additional land or were share-croppers on such land, while just over a quarter were exclusively tenants or share-croppers. These two groups comprised 60%of the applicants. Of the successful candidates more than 57%fell into these two groups, with 46%respectively being lessees and 30%owners of uneconomic units.

In regard to academic qualifications, the question arose whether we should give more weight to an applicant in possession of a university degree or whether more points should be allocated to practical experience. A meaningful solution was found in this respect, too, because many of these practical farmers are far better able to get a farming unit going than a man with theoretical knowledge only. Experience is also assessed on a scale of points.

I can therefore say that this allocation of economic units to farmers by the State is basically taking place in an orderly manner, and that it is not merely a question of a person without merit being able to come in from outside. Regardless of what people say, a very orderly merit assessment is taking place here.

I also want to say something about abattoirs. The hon member for Humansdorp pointed out this problem. It is a fact that the basic requirements in respect of hygiene had been made rather stricter since 1973. However, we see to it that requirements are not set which have nothing to do in practice with the proper handling of meat and which are more concerned with whims and trivialities and which are mainly imposed by officials of the various departments who may perhaps have a difference of opinion on how these things should be applied. We are eliminating those aspects.

As far as smaller adjustments are concerned, we cannot now tolerate an obligation such as the one which the hon member suggested to us in regard to the Humansdorp abattoirs. We cannot because the wall is out by six inches and the space is therefore six inches too narrow, spend a million rands to accommodate this problem. If we really wanted to apply these rules without discretion, and strictly according to the Statute Book, we would be able to govern very easily with the aid of a computer. Surely there must be a measure of discretion, because no rule can really apply in its totality to all circumstances. There are reasonable aspects here which one must take into consideration, and I assure the hon member that we shall do so in future.

†The hon member for Durban North spoke about the education of farmers. That is a complicated problem and I should like to say that the farm is a place on which the theory and the practice have to merge if a successful farming operation is to be achieved, and that is no easy thing to do!

*Training is something which takes place at different levels—at universities, in training colleges, and there are also a number of courses aimed at retraining farmers within the various regions in which they are farming.

That brings me to the hon member for Soutpansberg. His spoke about the co-ordination of marketing activities within agriculture in South Africa, in the independent states and also in the self-governing homelands. I think it is important for us to look into this matter, but also want to say that it illustrates the way in which agriculture in South Africa is integrated. We really cannot talk about White agriculture, Black agriculture and Coloured agriculture.

And own agriculture!

Yes, we cannot talk about own agriculture either. The hon member is correct, because there is overlapping on all levels. To deal with this situation in a meaningful way, discussions will have to be held and decisions will have to be taken, and the rights of the one group will have to be interwoven with the rights of the other. The advantages the one group has will have to be moderated according to the requirements of the other. This is also a form of power-sharing which is not political power-sharing, but a matter of introducing certain concepts into agriculture. No one can escape this fact, regardless of whether it is in the political sphere or in the agricultural sphere. In that respect the hon member is correct. We shall have to achieve that co-ordination. We shall therefore have to appoint people who will have to sit down around a conference table and find out these problems, and then reach agreement with one another. But they must not only reach agreement, but implement this agreement in practice.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Brits to speak I want to ask hon members to co-operate with me. The drone of voices in the Committee is really too loud. Hon members who feel that they must converse should do so more softly. I cannot allow everyone to converse aloud while a speaker is trying to make his speech.

Mr Chairman, the financial distress of the farming community has already been referred to many times during this debate. This situation is not confined to certain facets of agriculture, but really to all facets of it, including the tobacco industry.

First of all, I want to ask hon members to turn their attention to this branch of agriculture. I should like to point out that the tobacco industry is an integral part of our country’s economy. The constituency I represent played a significant part in the founding and development of the tobacco industry in our country. During the past few years, however, the tobacco industry there has also suffered a decline, especially because of the condition of the Hartebeespoort Dam and the chlorine problems which that gave rise to. Nevertheless, there are still a substantial number of farmers making a living out of this kind of farming on relatively small farming units.

The tobacco plant came to South Africa in 1652 with Jan van Riebeeck. In 1886 the first cigarettes were manufactured locally. Since then the tobacco industry has grown and today tobacco is cultivated mainly in seven areas in South Africa: The Northern Transvaal, North-Western Transvaal, the Transvaal Lowveld, the Northern Free State, the Eastern Cape, the Western Province and the Little Karoo. The tobacco industry has made no small contribution to the South African economy. Although leaf tobacco accounted for only 1,58%of the gross value of agricultural production for 1984-85, according to the 1986 Official Yearbook of the RSA, the following particulars bear testimony to the significant and valuable contribution this small industry made to our country’s economic prosperity. In 1986 a total of 1 553 farmers made a living out of tobacco. A total surface area of 32 800 ha was planted to tobacco. In the same year 32,2 million kg of marketable tobacco, with a local value of R193 million, was baled. Because the tobacco industry is one of the most labour-intensive branches of the South African agricultural industry, this relatively small industry was responsible for the full-time and part-time employment of more than 65 000 farm labourers. There are also 3 159 people in the employ of tobacco co-operatives, and a further 5 000 people at factories. For such a small industry that is no mean contribution, because it means that work is being provided for nearly 76 000 people during this time in which unemployment problems are being experienced.

Their earnings amount to nearly R167 million per year. What is especially important—I want to emphasise this strongly—is the State revenue from this industry. The tobacco industry makes a substantial contribution to the revenue of the State. In 1986, for example, R647.4 million accrued to the State in the form of excise duty and general sales tax alone.

To sum up I want to say that this industry forms an integral part of our country’s economy. For many years the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of tobacco has ensured a steady flow of economic benefits for our country. It is an industry of which we can be proud, and we must not impair it in any way by rash actions or statements.

I should like hon members to turn their attention to a second matter, viz the position of the medium-scale and large-scale farmers who are in financial difficulty. At present the total farming debts in our country are estimated at approximately R15 000 million. According to the Report of the State President’s Economic Advisory Council on the Restructuring of Agriculture, two factors, viz interest rates and inflation, contributed no less than 81,4%to the astronomic escalation of these debts during the period 1980 to 1985. These two factors, which were far worse than the drought we have been experiencing over the past few years, were completely beyond the control of the farmer.

What is so tragic is that the enterprising farmer—the farmer who has flourished for many years and who has expanded his farming interests—is most often hit the hardest by high interest rates and inflation. He did not get into financial difficulty because of poor management—in fact, he proved himself to be a good manager in the past; that is why he had a large farming operation—but because of factors over which he personally had no control. I am referring specifically to the medium-scale and large-scale farmers who have accumulated debts of R1 million and more. In the past these people made a substantial contribution to agriculture and, therefore, to the economy of our country. They were go-getters; they had initiative and farmed enterprisingly. They took the lead in the farming community, and agriculture simply cannot afford to have them left to their own devices and thrown to the wolves at this stage.

A large percentage of these farmers are in financial difficulties, like the smaller farmers, and although we are aware that the hon the Minister has a great deal of sympathy for them, it is unfortunately a harsh fact that they do not receive aid from the Government to the same extent as the smaller farmer does. In the recent R400 million scheme, for example, provision is made only for farmers who require a maximum of R500 000 to restore their farming liabilities to within the boundaries of agricultural value by means of an arrangement with creditors. [Interjections.]

Order! The appeal I made a moment ago also applied to the hon members for Johannesburg North and Green Point!

*The hon member for Brits may continue.

Now I should like to associate myself with nearly all the hon members on this side of the Committee who spoke during this debate, and appeal to the hon the Minister—I heard what the hon the Deputy Minister said about it just now—to make section 28 applicable, as a matter of the highest priority, to those medium-scale and larger-scale farmers who voluntarily turn their assets over to creditors for liquidation. We are not pleading for all the farmers, but mainly for those farmers in whose case the creditors have reached agreement. We are confronted with extraordinary circumstances in agriculture at present.

The hon the Minister said here this afternoon that the Government has already paid out amounts under the State guarantee scheme. We should now like to know from the hon the Minister whether the Government insisted in all those cases that those farmers had to be sequestrated. I am aware that the hon the Minister is under a lot of pressure from people from other sectors of society who do not have much sympathy for the farmers. They are the ones who are going around telling everyone that agriculture is being carried by the contributions of the other taxpayers. That is not the case, of course. The farming community is not just a burden for the Government. The Government is receiving large sums of money from all branches of agriculture—in the form of general sales tax, for example. Apart from tobacco, in respect of which I have already supplied particulars. I need only mention processed products such as peanuts, deciduous fruits, and so on.

Moreover, the allocation in respect of agriculture from the State Appropriation has decreased over the past few decades. Whereas 9,36%of the total State Appropriation in the 1951-60 decade was spent on agriculture, this portion decreased to 4,35%for the 1971-80 decade, and to only 3,25%from 1981 to 1986. This decrease in the eighties is especially significant when we take into account that those were the years in which the country was experiencing the drought.

I conclude by referring briefly to a matter in my own constituency. The hon the Minister of Water Affairs said in reply to a question that an additional amount of water from the Hartebeespoort Dam was going to be made available to Bophuthatswana. The possibility was not excluded, he said, that this water would be used for irrigation purposes on a small scale. I want to assure the hon the Minister that this announcement really upset the farmers in Brits. They are completely dependent upon the water from that dam for their existence. Often during the past year they could not receive their full water quotas. That is why I am appealing to the hon the Minister to reconsider this matter. It is unthinkable that a water scheme that was originally built for those farmers is now being placed at the disposal of independent states while it cannot even satisfy the needs of our own people.

Mr Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to take part in this debate. I do not want to differ with the previous speaker, the hon member for Brits. He too outlined the needs of the farmers and the struggle that was being waged for their survival. I agree with him about that. Unfortunately, I cannot help him with his plea for the tobacco industry, because I am not a smoker. The smokers will have to get together and support him in that regard. [Interjections.]

So far all the hon speakers have clearly emphasised the serious financial problems with which we agriculturists are wrestling. I am encouraged by the pleasant disposition which speakers from all the parties have displayed so far. That is not always the case, but it featured strongly in this debate. I do not want to deviate from that pattern, because it is nice to join in a discussion on something about which we feel the same.

We are dealing with a problem that is being experienced countrywide by most of our agriculturists. I want to associate myself with the approach adopted by previous speakers, such as the hon members for Wellington and Lichtenburg, viz that this crisis situation is so serious that we should not try to make petty politics out of it.

Take the politics out of Parliament!

The distress of the farmers, especially the dry-land grain farmers is that great problem of financial need. Everyone is experiencing it. It is a struggle. Their concern with how to survive is not only their own, but is the concern of the Government as a whole, and everyone in this country. We are all aware of that big problem. I am sure we would all be very pleased if we could tackle and try to solve this problem outside the political arena.

This unfortunate situation did not come about overnight, of course; nor did it take place in just a day or two. This is something that has been building up over a period of several years. For the past six or seven years things have been worse for the farmers with each passing year. I do not know when this hon Minister took over this portfolio, but he has not had one good rainy season in all the time he has been in charge of the Department of Agriculture. One feels sorry for him. As someone said earlier this evening, we must really pray that he also has a good season, or a few in succession, before he thinks of resigning or retiring. However, we also wish him a happier time as Minister of Agriculture in the near future.

1981 was the last year of good rains we had in this country. There were very good harvests then, and the farmers did very well out of them. About three or four or five years before that, every year was a good year. Farmers reaped good harvests; and I hesitate to say this, but did they not perhaps begin to live a little above their means? Did they not perhaps believe that those good conditions would continue forever? They did not prepare themselves for the difficult times which began in 1981 and which have not yet ended. In those good years production costs relative to product prices were much better than they are today. Today it is very difficult for a farmer to make large profits, even if it is a good year. The input costs have increased tremendously. This has not only happened here with us; it is also a worldwide tendency. We do not want to lay the blame on anyone. It is something we could not help. It is just one of those things that one’s input costs today are out of step with the yield one can expect in a normal year. It is no longer as good as it was in earlier years.

Unfortunately the price of grain did not increase as much as other things did during the past year. The price of summer grain—I could mention maize as an example—has more or less doubled in price in the last 12 years. It used to be R110 per metric ton, as opposed to R220 per metric ton last year. This year it is even a little less than R220 per metric ton. We look forward, however, to the recovery of the world market so that we can reap a good harvest and obtain decent prices for our export maize.

In contrast with this the producer price of products such as meat, milk, eggs, fruit and vegetables have increased four-and-a-half times over the same period. There are other things which increased even more than four-and-a-half times—things like prepacked products that we buy in supermarkets. The cost of education is seven times higher than it was 12 years ago.

The story behind this story is that it is no longer all that easy to farm profitably. In my opinion, a farmer who is not prepared to take everything in his environment into account, to weigh farming conditions up against each other, to decide how he must farm, and then to farm scientifically, is not going to survive. Today farming is not a game. If one were to look at the different areas, for example, one would see that not all farmers are struggling. There are farmers in certain areas who are excelling. There are not many of them, but there are a few. There are more in some areas than in others. There are farmers who are progressing well and who have even expanded their farming operations over the last few years. They have purchased additional land and although they did not approach the Government for aid, they are still making good progress. We must pay tribute to those farmers, for they are setting a good example. They are people who are really serving this country, and if we were to see how they farm and follow their example, we could learn from them. It is worthwhile learning from such people, and there are such people. We can go and look for them anywhere, and we shall find them. They are people who do not concentrate only on sowing, to the exclusion of other aspects; they apply a mixed system of farming and ensure that they make a profit out of whichever aspect of their farming they are engaged in.

Nevertheless, our grain farmers are experiencing a tremendous problem. The Government would like very much to help them. That is why, as in the past year, we are going to bend over backwards and try to do something for the farmers. We are not simply going to cast them aside, as someone remarked. We need them. The country needs them. We are going to help them, therefore, to continue to farm on a good, sound footing.

Various aids, which farmers who were experiencing difficulties could use, were brought into operation during the past year. After their first bad harvest—I think it was in 1982—their debts were transferred to the banks, the co-operatives and so on—the institutions which had financed them. After their second bad harvest the Government came to their aid. The transferred debts were then guaranteed by the Government at a rate of 8%. In the third year there was another bad harvest in many regions, and the aid was then extended. The Government then subsidised 3%of the 8%, with the farmers paying only 5%interest. Apart from that transferred debt they were also given the opportunity of making a harvest loan. Fortunately that was limited to a maximum of R75 000. I believe it was fortunate that that was the case. I do not want to say that it was unfortunate that that was the case. In any case, an amount of R75 000 is an enormous amount of money. When one has no money and someone lends one that amount of money, one can definitely do a lot with it.

With scheme after scheme, having to be changed each year, I did not find it surprising when the hon member for Wellington said it seemed as though we were trying to assist the farmers on an ad hocbasis. That was definitely not the case, however. We do not assist farmers on an ad hocbasis. It was just that the circumstances led to one aid scheme after the other having to be amended. That is what it made it seem like ad hocassistance. Still, it was not all that bad. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Meyerton will forgive me if I do not follow up on his speech, but I find very little correlation between his arguments and the views I want to express this evening.

Previous speakers in this debate have pointed to the stupidity of labelling agriculture an own affair. I want to say, however, that the classification of agriculture as a White affair is more than just stupid. I believe it holds substantial dangers for the future stability of agricultural structures in this country.

It is idiotic! [Interjections.]

By definition this department seeks to further and protect the interests of the White farmers, while the vast Black labour force, who are very much part of agriculture in this country, are treated merely as an instrument of production. This racially prescribed vision and function preclude the department from planning rationally for future demographic trends and for the inevitable demand by the labour force for a larger slice of the cake. Quite clearly, if White interests are all that this own affairs department seeks to serve, it cannot rationally cater for what must happen in the agricultural industry, and that is an upward mobility of the labour force with increasing demands.

If we accept that we are entering a new South Africa, a post-apartheid society, in which opportunities, wealth and power will be shared more equitably among all South Africans regardless of race—I understand this to be the case; I understand that this is what the Government means by reform; I understand that this is what the Government means by moving away from apartheid—we can then surely not have a department such as this which has a blinkered view of agriculture. While agriculture has lagged behind industry and commerce in providing upward mobility for Blacks, it must nevertheless be clear that the new South Africa will have to have a substantial redistribution of agricultural opportunities and of agricultural land, and that more and more Black farmers will occupy the farm land presently owned exclusively by Whites.

The validity of this statement does not derive from equity, but from the fact that it is inevitable. It is therefore dangerous in this situation to have a department which plans agriculture… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bethlehem must not converse so loudly.

… for the exclusive benefit of Whites; a department which does not have the ability or the intention to cater for the inevitable involvement and upward mobility of Black labour in the field of agriculture. I say that despite the constraints of the Government under which we live, despite the own affairs concept, it is nevertheless possible—and I appeal to the hon the Minister and the Government in this regard—to be realistic about the future. Our primary industry, agriculture, should not repeat the mistakes of secondary industry where, through lack of forward planning, we have a vast and ever-increasing oversupply of untrained labour, while at the same time there is an estimated quarter of a million skilled jobs which cannot be filled because we do not have men and women trained to fill these posts.

The potential of agriculture in the new South Africa should not be underestimated. There are vast tracts of agricultural land in this country which are presently underutilised, and I believe that we could turn these vast areas of South Africa into productive units by engaging the latent skills of the many thousands of agricultural labourers who are presently employed merely as units of production on White farms. These men are already steeped in the tradition of farming, and could benefit by appropriate training. They would certainly need to have state-aided finance, which is currently reserved for Whites, but they could play a meaningful part in the full utilisation of our agricultural land. Training programmes for agricultural labourers should therefore be a priority within this own affairs department. White farmers should be encouraged to engage in in-house training for the dual purpose—and I stress this; there is an advantage in this for the White farmer—of improving their own labour force and equipping these people for the role of the independent farmer which they will soon occupy.

With our help.

Yes, with our help, and I am asking for our help. [Interjections.]

White domination of the agricultural industry is often justified by the claim that the Black man has limited ability. Soil erosion and poor production in certain Black projects in Black areas are offered as proof. The negative factors of communal ownership—overcrowding, lack of capital, lack of the incentive which is inherent in land ownership—are conveniently overlooked. The protagonists of this fundamentally racist theory also conveniently overlook the fact that before Black farmers were removed from the land by a series of legislative enactments in the latter part of the last century, Black farmers compared very favourably with their White counterparts, and in many instances outperformed them. This is not my theory; it has been proven by research. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis must contain himself!

Professor Colin Bundy, in a very well-researched book, spelt out very clearly that in the latter part of the last century, before the Land Acts, the Black peasant farmer was in many instances and in many areas in fact overproducing in comparison with the White farmer. It was, moreover, specifically because of the competition which he was offering the White farmer, because of the preference of the mining industry etc to have him as a labourer, that the Land Acts were passed. I believe that the removal of the Blacks from agricultural competition during the latter part of the last century was a disservice to this country, and I believe that we are today in a position where we can be realistic and look at future demographic trends, at what are going to be legitimate demands of people in a new South Africa, and we should start planning now to accommodate all South Africans in the agricultural economy of this country in a truly free-enterprise fashion and get away from this concept of running the vast bulk of the agriculture of this country in an own affairs department. It is ridiculous to do so.

Mr Chairman, while I was listening to the hon member for Groote Schuur, I asked myself the question: What does he actually farm with? [Interjections.] The hon member for Wynberg said he probably farmed with stones considering the stone-throwing which goes on in his constituency. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Groote Schuur that by dragging politics into this debate …

No politics in this House!

The hon member must just give me a chance. By doing that the hon member for Groote Schuur behaved as despicably as the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Do not drag us into this.

I want to tell the hon member that as regards agriculture there are wonderful opportunities for Black and Coloured people in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to mention a few things. The Department of Agriculture has been streamlined to give expert assistance to Black people in South Africa who are prepared to farm.

Where are they going to farm?

In my constituency there are Coloured farmers and there is nothing to prevent a Black farmer…

Order! The hon member for Durban Central must give the hon member a chance to make his speech.

In my constituency there is nothing to prevent a Black or a Coloured farmer from farming there.

The hon member for Groote Schuur said we must farm in an expert manner in partnership with the Black people. I want to ask him whether he is aware that there are large cattle stations on large cattle farms in South Africa under the control of Black workers who are nothing but Black foremen. There are great opportunities for Black people in South Africa to participate in agriculture.

Great opportunities to become foremen! [Interjections.]

Go and farm in Dakar!

This evening I want to talk about something more pleasant. [Interjections.]

Order! I have already appealed to the hon member for Durban Central. He must now heed my appeal. The hon member for Swellendam may proceed.

He left his ears in Dakar!

Order!

I want to say this to the hon member for Groote Schuur: He came to this House unopposed and he will leave this House unopposed as well! [Interjections]

*I now want to talk about something more pleasant. The debate so far has been dominated by the very difficult times being experienced in agriculture. I want to talk about agricultural tourism. This is a new idea in agriculture and in my opinion it is something which should receive attention. The wine industry has become a formidable industry in South Africa. With its wine routes it has become the leader in the field of agricultural tourism in South Africa. Unfortunately I am in the unenviable position that in my constituency there are wine farmers and beer farmers and what is more, on this side of the House we have the hon member for Wellington who represents the wine farmers and the hon member for Caledon who represents the beer farmers. They are not always very good friends when there is an argument. My task is to reconcile these two industries.

The beer industry in South Africa is also a formidable industry. The beer industry is an integral part of South Africa and has become a social tradition. Malt beer was brewed for the first time in South Africa in 1657 and the first commercial brewery was established in 1696.

Long before wine.

Long before wine. The total purchase of agricultural products amounts to R180 million. Like wine beer is a natural product. The most important ingredient in the beer brewing process is barley. I do not want to waste my time telling hon members what happens in the brewing process, except to say that most of the barley crop, valued at R43 million, is cultivated on 97 000 hectares in the Overberg.

The wine industry has given rise to a wine culture. Prof Piet Cillie once said that we Capetonians are different for three reasons: In the first place we read Die Burger, in the second place we watch rugby at Newlands and in the third place we drink KWV. [Interjections.]

In the beer industry there is no beer culture. We do not have a wine culture in this industry. The reason for this is the great degree of nostalgia surrounding the preparation of wine. For that reason the wine industry is the leader in the field of agricultural tourism today. The increase in the number of tourists brings more revenue into the region, with the resultant creation of employment and expansion of services.

For that reason I want to say that this evening I want to appeal to the SA Breweries, in the interest of agricultural tourism and the regional development of the Overberg, to give serious consideration to the establishment of a beer brewery in that area. Allow me to add, however, it must specifically be in Swellendam, because Caledon already has a malt-house. The Overberg has its own culture and its own charm. It lies on the road to the beautiful Garden Route, and all that is lacking is an opportunity to drink a glass of beer where barley is grown. There you have it! Then we will also establish a beer culture in the good tradition of the wine culture. One of the factors why the wine culture is maintained is the so-called KWV wine quota. Nowadays when one visits a wine farmer, one undoubtedly drinks KWV wine.

I want to ask the hon the Minister—and if he has the courage to discuss this matter further with the hon the Minister of Finance—to give attention to this. We do not want to react hastily to this. I want to ask him to see whether it is not possible to allow an excise-free beer quota to accrue to the barley farmers in South Africa too.

There is an arrangement that Overberg Lager is allocated to barley farmers. However, a good beer drinker will never allow his beer to mature for more than three to four months. For that reason the concession does not serve the barley farmer’s purpose to establish a beer culture on his farm and in that way be able to enjoy beer throughout the year where it is brewed. This gesture will irrevocably make the Overberg beer country.

I also want to say something about agricultural tourism. The explosive power of agricultural tourism from a regional development point of view must not be underestimated. Recently Mr Danie Hough said at the agricultural tourism congress that there is probably no other person in South Africa who can attract the foreign tourist to this country to the same extent that the farmer can.

Tourism from abroad is a resource which must be exploited. Tourism is the best ambassador and can build bridges of understanding. Every region in South Africa has sightseeing attractions which can be combined with viewing agriculture. Agricultural tourism is not only beneficial to the individual farmer, but is also the anchor for regional development. For that reason this industry should be approached on a regional basis rather than on an individual basis. The Land Bank cannot be expected to advance credit for this purpose. I do not think it is feasible nor fair to ask this.

Agricultural tourism is a specialised field which, like the agricultural industry, also requires specialised knowledge. For that reason it is of cardinal importance that the local authorities should make a greater contribution.

I also want to request the hon the Minister to ask the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology whether it would not be possible, in co-operation with the SA Tourism Board, to constitute an agricultural tourism committee to look after the important concept of agricultural tourism, and take care of the development which will be to the advantage of agriculture and of regional development in South Africa.

In conclusion I want to say that the one concept of agricultural tourism which must be sold is the hospitality of the farmer. But how on earth does one sell hospitality? It is not possible. I feel this creates a dilemma for the farmer to sell his hospitality when a tourist is visiting him, and this then has to be said to him. For this reason I am requesting a more organised programme, so that the farmer can be compensated indirectly for his hospitality. I really hope that agricultural tourism can be developed to such an extent in South Africa that it will not be necessary to discuss it in this debate next year, but that we will be able to talk about the flourishing of agricultural tourism in South Africa in the debate on Commerce and Industry instead.

Mr Chairman, I regret to say that a very strange thing happened in this Chamber this evening when the hon member for Meyerton complimented us on the high standard of our debates on this side of the House, but the hon member for Swellendam took all those fine achievements and simply threw them away, consigning them as he did to the KWV vats. [Interjections.]

We hear about bank and building society robberies, and we have heard in general today about people being robbed in the streets. This evening I want to speak about water thieves. In my maiden speech I referred to certain aspects that are giving people in my constituency cause for concern, ie the situation in regard to water. Since a great deal has been said about the maize farmers and their problems—I agree with that—I should like to turn my attention to another aspect which is in the interests of the farming community in my constituency and, I believe, also in the interests of all the irrigation farmers in the Republic of South Africa.

Water in the Middelburg and Witbank areas is provided mainly from the Little Olifants River and the Big Olifants River. According to information I have gleaned, the dams of both these towns will, at some or other stage, have to be supplemented with water from the Usutu-Vaal scheme. These rivers also feed the Loskop Dam irrigation scheme which was constructed in 1932 with the use of White manual labour, as were all the canals around the Loskop scheme. All the farmers in that area farm on small units. They have been established on some of the most fertile land in that area.

Perhaps I could mention, for the sake of interest, that in my constituency there is a farmer who is 84 years old, and he tells me that in 1932 he helped with the construction of the Loskop Dam. He said that the remuneration was 3/6d per day.

For several years, as a result of the drought over which no one had any control, these farmers could not obtain their full water quotas to which they were entitled. The result is that all of them are struggling to survive today. It is not only a question of the drought, because now the self-governing states of Lebowa and KwaNdebele are also being supplied with water from this dam. There are also numerous small rivers and dams in this area which are of fundamental importance to the survival of these farmers. We understand that there are several dams being constructed in KwaNdebele, dams which are going to have a substantial effect on these rivers and dams. Certain rivers have already been turned into dry ditches. My question is whether those farmers and those communities were ever consulted on this issue. I can assure hon members that these people are very concerned.

The same questions are also being asked about the water being provided to the government of Lebowa. The farmers’ association wants to be consulted about this, and I briefly want to refer to what several leading figures in agriculture had to say at a meeting the hon the Minister’s department held at Groblersdal. Amongst others there was a certain Mr van Zyl, the chairman of a water affairs pilot committee. I just want to quote to hon members what some farmers said. Mr Kotzé, who is the chairman of an agricultural union, said that:

Another leading figure in agriculture who was present there, Mr Don Bouwer, said:

I am still quoting what the farmers in that area said. Mr Schoonbee, who until recently was chairman of the board of directors of the South Eastern Transvaal Co-operative, said:

That was many years ago:

I should like to quote to hon members what another ex-Minister of the NP, ex-Minster Hendrik Schoeman, said:

I myself can attest to that fact:

Mr Schoeman went on to say:

The ex-Minister then became fairly aggressive and said:

It is actually fantastic to be a spectator on the other side noticing all these things.

At one stage proposals were submitted by organised agriculture to have the Steelpoort River’s run-off water channelled through to Lebowa which is a natural catchment area for that river. We are requesting the hon the Deputy Minister to give urgent attention to this idea. It could possibly result in a second Loskop irrigation scheme being established in Lebowa and for job opportunities for Blacks to be created in their own interests. We are asking to have the terms of reference of the pilot committee, which has been established, extended to include this investigation as well.

I thank the hon the Deputy Minister on behalf of that farming community for having taken such prompt action. I think I made my maiden speech approximately seven weeks ago. I thank the Department of Water Affairs, on behalf of that community, for having given the matter such prompt attention.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to hon members who spoke about water. I can assure the committee that although I farm on the banks of a river, I do understand very well the problems we have in regard to water and the water shortages we have in this country. The nearest town to me is Upington, and its postal code is 8800. They say 88 is the average temperature and 00 is the average rainfall! [Interjections.] I therefore do have some understanding of the problems we have had in regard to water during the prevalent drought conditions.

Let me begin with the hon member Dr Golden. He pointed to the stability that water brings to agriculture. That is true indeed, and yesterday afternoon I also referred to the fact that less than 10%of the country’s surface area is under irrigation, but that a third of the agricultural production is dependent on it. What the hon member said is therefore true. He also said that agriculture was the major consumer of water. That is also true. But we must accept that although agriculture will remain the major consumer, relatively speaking, its importance as a consumer in the future will decrease as our industries develop, and as horizontal development stabilises. Is it horizontal or vertical? No, wait a minute, it is the flat one which extends to the sides. [Interjections.] There will no longer be any large-scale horizontal development.

The hon member referred to the fact that owing to a shortage of funds, and from a production point of view, there was no justification for large-scale irrigation development in the country. The hon member is correct; it is true that we have a problem with funds at the moment, and also a problem in regard to what we are going to produce on the tremendously large areas that can still be placed under irrigation. The hon member also made another important point, and that was that we should stabilise the existing irrigation schemes in the country properly. We also want to give him credit for that and say that we agree with him.

There is another important point that must also be made. Although we shall not, because of this problem, immediately have large-scale irrigation development in the country, we should nevertheless reserve this water for agriculture. We still have a considerable amount of agricultural land that must be developed and we are faced with a growing population. We therefore have no other choice but to reserve the water for agriculture.

The hon member had a problem with the control of water in the uncontrolled areas. Sections 9 and 10 of the Water Act make provision for the abstraction of water outside control areas if it can be profitably utilised. Section 9B provides that one can erect structures after having obtained a permit for that purpose, while Section 9A comes into effect during emergency situations and when specific provisions apply.

These are the sections to which the hon member referred. Let me tell the Committee that the mechanisms have been created, as provided for in the sections I have indicated, and within the confines of its personnel structure the department tries to exercise control in these specific areas. I want to agree with the hon member, however, that there is great room for improvement here. As a result of the water shortages periodically experienced in our country, it is essential for further control to be implemented. I agree with the hon member that we shall ultimately have to introduce proper facilities for taking measurements at all abstraction points. We shall have to install meters.

We also have a problem with meters, and we shall also have to take a look at that. Firstly a meter is a rather expensive item. Secondly it must be properly maintained, because if its measurements are not accurate, one also has problems. The problem is that the quantity it measures is normally too low!

Then it is a good meter!

We agree with the hon member that better control must be implemented and that we shall have to improve the system of measurement, whether by way of meters or whatever. We accept the request for better control systems and we shall tighten up the control.

We appreciate the fact that the hon member for Sundays River expressed his appreciation for what has been done. We went to have a look at the development that has already taken place there. It is indeed a magnificent project which is being constructed on the Sundays River.

The hon member also said that we should not view the economy in isolation, and that is true enough. We are examining the cost-advantage ratio, but that is not all that needs to be taken into consideration. We are also, to a large extent, giving attention to socio-economic considerations. These socio-economic considerations do, however, also have their limits. One cannot merely rely on socio-economic considerations. Ultimately we have to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The scheme must, in fact, be constructed in such a way that it is also profitable. In any event, with new schemes which are constructed—even if it is determined in advance that the scheme is a viable one—it takes a further ten years before one breaks even and starts making a profit.

We so often tend to be blinkered by the 33⅓%subsidy applicable to such a scheme. It may sound like a large amount, but experts have already pointed out that over a period of eight years that 33⅓%subsidy merely reduces by two years the period that must elapse before one begins to make a profit. In other words, at best it can reduce by two years the waiting period before one starts to make a profit.

There are other factors that also play an important role. Yesterday I specifically spoke about the Bushmans River, but I merely want to say that irrigation schemes in this country are constructed in order of precedence. After having fully implemented the Orange River Project, we still have irrigation water for approximately 75 000 hectares of land. We have already identified 120 000 hectares of potentially high-grade land. I can therefore now state that this land will also selectively have to be placed under irrigation. We eagerly await the report from the advisers we have appointed, and on the basis of that report we shall decide where to place the Bushmans River on the priority list.

The hon member for Britz objected to water being transferred to our neighbouring states. I just want to tell the hon member that we have no objection to the fact that he has lodged that objection. We must, however, take a slightly broader view of this matter. Specifically as a result of the periodic water shortages, we cannot allow the water resources of our neighbouring states to be viewed in isolation. What have we done with Lesotho? We are specifically going to salvage our water position on the basis of water that we are permitted to bring here from a neighbouring state.

I also want to set the hon member’s mind at rest by stating that in dealing with international rivers, with the international distribution of water, we have permanent water commissions regulating the supply of this water. The hon member is free to be concerned, but we can tell him that we have this arrangement to ensure that water is judiciously distributed. For the hon member’s information I also want to state that in the case of these international rivers, the largest amount of abstraction from these rivers takes place on the RSA-side. If he examined all our rivers, he would find that at present the largest amount of water was being abstracted by the RSA.

The hon member for Middelburg spoke about supplying water to the Loskop Dam from the Little Olifants River and the Big Olifants River. I share his concern, but he should just remember that as a result of the severe droughts, which have been the worst in approximately 200 years, we have begun to experience water supply problems which did not exist previously. The hon member touched upon a few specific problems, and I merely want to tell him once more that in connection with the construction of dams on international rivers, there is a permanent water commission looking after the question of the fair distribution of the water.

I promise the hon member that I shall inform him in writing of the departmental actions being undertaken in that area at the moment. I am also taking note of the request the hon member made about Steelpoort. I shall also be giving him information about that.

Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon the Deputy Minister, who has just spoken, that I shall presently be reacting to his reference to systems of measurement and control measures to which the hon the hon the Deputy Minister referred in response to what the nominated hon member Dr Golden said this afternoon.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to another matter, however, and that is the possibility of trade unions for Black farm workers. The matter came up for discussion in this debate, but we have not obtained any replies, and we have now learned—perhaps this is also news to hon members on the opposite side—that the hon the Minister of Law and Order, of all people, this evening announced to the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union that Black trade unions in agriculture had come to stay. [Interjections.] It is the CP’s view that this should be rejected with contempt. [Interjections.]

I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister what progress has been made with the agreement between the RSA and Botswana about the use and control of water from the Limpopo in the north-western border area. We should like to ask whether relevant particulars could be furnished. Is it foreseen that there will be a redistribution of water allocations?

Apart from the effects of water consumption by Botswana, it has become clear that a proper investigation should be instituted into water consumption, the construction of water works and the question of water quotas being exceeded. Concessionary rights which are allocated, over and above the original quotas, and which are subject to cancellation, will have to be investigated.

The fact is that there is no longer sufficient water reaching the Lower Limpopo area to do justice to the farmers in that area. Unfortunately the illegal use of water in the upper reaches of the river is a contributory factor. We therefore want to call upon the department to make the introduction of systems for water measurement compulsory, whether by way of water meters or whatever. This has already been suggested by the Director General of Water Affairs as a solution and we would, in fact, like to see this implemented.

In fact, the hon member for Bethal broached this aspect in the Water Affairs Vote, and I was glad to learn from the nominated hon member Dr Golden that the hon member for Bethal’s clarification of this issue has got through to him too.

However, Mr Chairman, there are statements which the hon member Dr Golden made, that sound a discordant note as far as I am concerned, and here I am referring to claim that the farmers in that specific area to which he referred were abstracting water in a completely uncontrolled fashion. I think the hon the Deputy Minister gave him a suitable reply by referring to the fact that specific control measures, applicable in that area, had recently been introduced, and I do not think it is correct to say that water is being abstracted in an uncontrolled fashion. [Interjections.]

Man, you are talking nonsense; I never said “in an absolutely uncontrolled way”.

As in the past, let the hon member Dr Golden refer to his own Hansard record and ascertain whether I have quoted him incorrectly or not, and let me extend an invitation to him right now to discuss this matter, and quite a few other matters, with me on the same platform in the Potgietersrus constituency … [Interjections.]

Order!

I should also like to refer to problems in the catchment area of the Doringdraai Dam. The dam has virtually no water left. The full quota per hectare is approximately 7 200 cubic metres, but as a result of the poor rainfall it has not been possible to allocate a full quota since the 1981-82 water year. For the 1986-87 water year we obtained only 12,5%of the quota, and the prospects of any addition to this are virtually non-existent. Although the dam was completed as far back as 1952, Sir, it was only on 9 November 1984,10 years after the height of the dam wall had been raised in 1974, that the catchment area was proclaimed a State water control area. And yet at that stage few restrictions were imposed on the farmers situated in the area above the dam, and little water reached the dam. Granted, Sir, as is now the case, there was little water available, in any event, but the fact of the matter is that in very few cases did the water that was available reach the farmers who were situated closest to the dam, let alone the dam itself.

The advisory committee on the scheme used the normal channels and made representations with the competent assistance of Mr Marinus de Wilde, the administrative engineer and on 13 March of this year a notice was promulgated in terms of section 9A of the Water Act in terms of which no one in the catchment area was permitted to abstract water from any public stream or storage dam between 10 o’clock on Thursday and 10 o’clock on Monday.

Sir, the farmers living within the area of the scheme, those in the lower reaches, as well as the mine, were satisfied with this; but, Mr Chairman, certain farmers affected by these restrictions were, to put it mildly, unhappy about this state of affairs. Their activities were disrupted. Suddenly their pumping equipment was only allowed to operate for half a week and not for the full week, and they claim that they were not consulted about this.

I am now, on the one hand, faced with the representations to have the section 9A notice withdrawn and, on the other, with ensuring that it remains in force; and Sir, last but not least, there have also been representations to the effect that the Small Sterk River catchment area should likewise be proclaimed a State water control area.

Mr Chairman, let me tell the hon the Deputy Minister that to accommodate these conflicting representations is a challenge, as far as I am concerned. I do not find it a problem. I do not think that it is in the interests of all the parties involved that the member of the House of Assembly, the departments and the Ministers be burdened with that. Sir, the fact of the matter is that what is ultimately going to happen is that the matter will again be decided one way or another and there will again be people who will be dissatisfied and probably claim that all the interested parties had not been consulted. In any event, the series of conflicting representations takes up an unnecessary amount of time, not only of those parties I have mentioned. Sir, but also of those who are themselves making the representations.

And I humbly suggest to the hon the Deputy Minister, with the necessary humility, as the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has advised me to do, that an advisory committee such as the one already involved in the scheme, and solely in that scheme, be established for the catchment area as a whole. On such an advisory committee all the interested parties could have a say on a regular basis, they could be properly represented and ultimately one would have a properly balanced, fully resolved submission made to the department. Sir, this would also facilitate the task of the administrative engineer and his staff. I know that such an advisory committee already exists in the catchment area of the Hans Strijdom Dam and that it works well.

Mr Chairman, I would also suggest that this type of advisory committee be established on a wider front throughout the country in several catchment areas where one has a similar type of problem. I think, Sir, that the department should encourage and initiate this and market the idea to interested parties. I get the impression that it is not receiving quite as much attention as it possibly deserves. The fact is that an advisory committee for a scheme is instituted the moment the scheme is announced, but in the case of the proclamation of a State water control area, this is not done as a matter of course.

Sir, I do also want to take this opportunity of congratulating Mr De Wilde and his staff involved in this specific scheme on their efforts to promote communication in the area between the department and the various interested parties, amongst other things by way of regular news-letters. I have seen one of them, and as far as I am concerned it is an excellent idea.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to refer to the fact that in considering the construction of dams and other similar infrastructure in the Northern Transvaal, it should be borne in mind that this is mainly a designated area. This is a sensitive area from a security, agricultural and socio-economic point of view. It should be regarded as a priority area. Development should be encouraged and stimulated. It should not be delayed, and I should like to express my gratitude to the department for this aspect which has been taken into account with regard to the envisaged Moerdyk Dam.

But, Mr Chairman, since I am now talking about water supply and discussing the Agriculture and Water Supply Vote, I have quite logically and understandably come round to discussing various aspects such as water in the Limpopo and the Moerdyk Dam which could actually fall under the general affairs Department of Water Affairs. Nothing is less conducive to the sound administration of the country than this completely artificial, illogical distinction between so-called general affairs and own affairs is, apart from being the product of an unrealistic obsession on the part of the NP with extending the Black franchise to former White political structures.

Order! I regret to have to say this, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to afford the hon member for Potgietersrus an opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

I thank the hon Whip. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the CP says that the water affairs of Whites are their affairs and that one department should deal with them within the ambit of a White political structure in the White fatherland. Water affairs in which other population groups have an interest could be dealt with by way of inter-state agreements in accordance with mutual needs. The Department of Water Affairs and the Water Supply component of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply are interwoven, and the split is an artificial one.

For example, Sir, look at the spiderweb diagram one has to draw on paper to explain the positions occupied by the two Ministers and two Deputy Ministers. The hon the Minister of Agriculture is Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, a general affair; but at the same time he is Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, an own affair. Sir, he is the Minister of integration in agriculture and he is also the Minister of self-determination in agriculture. Mr Chairman, it is as the hon member for Lichtenburg said the other day, the NP’s logic, or lack of it, works like this: One must develop own affairs in order to facilitate successful integration. Or to put it another way: One obtains White self-determination by committing power-sharing integration. That is how confused liberalism has made the NP. [Interjections.]

The hon integrating, self-determining Minister of Agriculture also has two Deputy Ministers who are an integral—I almost said integrating—part of the ministerial set-up. One has the general integrating Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, but at the same time he is also the self-determining own Deputy Minister of Agriculture. [Interjections.] Then one has the own self-determining Deputy Minister of Water Supply, who at the same time is also the generally integrating Deputy Minister of Water Affairs—a general affair—forming an integral part of the general Ministry of Environment Affairs and Water Affairs, of which an hon Indian Deputy Minister is also an integral integrating part.

Whew, but you do love yourself!

The hon the Deputy Minister of Water Supply, referring yesterday to the untold number of irrigation schemes under his control, as it were again tried to develop this own affairs leg. But, Mr Chairman, what the hon the Deputy Minister wants to develop is so unimportant—that is the reality of the situation—that in the annual report of the department covering the period up to March 1986 the huge number of less than half a page out of a total of 68 pages is devoted to this component. [Interjections.] That is the reality of the situation, and the hon the Deputy Minister has conveniently neglected to refer to all the other irrigation schemes that fall under the Department of Water Affairs.

Go take a dive in the Moerdyk Dam! [Interjections.]

Order! No, too many comments are being made here!

Sir, by way of illustration, could I again refer to the Doringdraai catchment area? In the heart of the Bushveld we find the Doringdraai Dam—the area of the White fatherland. But that is not an own affair! It is a general dam under integrationistic management. When one opens the sluices, one is carrying out a general power-sharing function, but the moment the general water passes through the sluice, White self-determination again comes into operation. Lo and behold, the canal system falls under the own department! [Interjections.] But for the farmer who is also a riparian owner and who abstracts water from the river—that is general water. But the water from the canals is own water.

Such a state of affairs does not redound to the country’s credit, Sir, and I call upon the NP to do something about this problem. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Potgietersrus has bumped his head in this House so often that there is a definite thickening of the skull taking place. [Interjections.] It has a negative effect on brain function, as was very clearly discernible at the end of his speech.

I want to come back to the debate on agriculture and would very much like to exchange a few ideas, in this debate, on the role of the wool industry in the South African economy. [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot carry on in this fashion. Other hon members are engaged in altercations whilst the hon member who has the floor is speaking. The hon member for Graaff-Reinet may continue.

I should also like to exchange a few ideas about the role of the wool industry in the restructuring of agriculture. As far back as the 1910-11 season South Africa was producing 56 million kg of wool at an average price of 13,5 cents per kg, earning the country R7,6 million in foreign exchange. During 1965-66 wool production reached a peak of 148 million kg. Unfortunately in the past season, that of 1986-87, wool production decreased to 86,1 million kg with a sale price of R4,85 per kg, earning the country R418 million in foreign exchange.

So over the past three years wool exports have comprised about 20%of the total agricultural exports. In addition, the wool industry directly provides approximately 130 000 people with employment. It is therefore a pity that production in the wool industry is now at a low ebb. This decrease can chiefly be ascribed to three factors, ie the drought, the high price of meat and the high mohair prices.

If we could succeed in increasing our wool production to 120 million kg and selling it at the prices prevailing during the previous season, this would mean an extra R180 million in foreign exchange for South Africa. That is perhaps not all that remarkable, but an extra R180 million in the agricultural industry is a shot in the arm which we could make very good use of.

At present there are 16,4 million merino sheep, which are the foremost wool producers. We also have other wool-bearing sheep, and they total 4,2 million in number—therefore giving us a total of 20,6 million wool-bearing sheep. Then we have a further 6,3 million non-wool-bearing or mutton breeds in South Africa.

I should like to have it on record that I am calling upon these mutton breed farmers, in their own interests and in those of South Africa, to again consider including wool-bearing sheep, which are adapted to the extensive conditions, where these mutton breeds are to be found, in their industry. I am referring to Gladdely wool-bearing sheep which are bigger, have sturdier legs and produce less wool, but wool of a finer texture. Every one micron decrease in fibre texture means 50 cents per kg more in income. In other words, a wool-bearing sheep in the extensive areas must produce between four and five kg of wool per year with a fibre thickness of 20 to 22 microns and must maintain a good standard when it comes to producing lambs.

Why is it so important for us to increase wool production? In the first place South Africa needs this foreign exchange. The agricultural industry also needs this shot in the arm. Secondly, statistics prove that the gross profit on wool-bearing sheep in the extensive areas during 1984-85 was R8,72 per sheep more than that for the mutton breeds. If we apply this to 1 000 sheep, it means R8 720 per 1 000 sheep more which is obtained from the wool-bearing sheep than from the mutton breeds. Thirdly, as was mentioned above, a merino sheep can produce a great deal of meat. Fourthly, the prospects for the wool industry are excellent. I make this statement with all responsibility at my command.

In his opening address at the recent National Wool Congress, the outgoing chairman of the Wool Board, Mr Pieter van Rooyen, who has spent a lifetime in the industry, said that he had never before been as optimistic about the industry as he was at that specific moment. Apart from that, one of the major stumbling-blocks in the way of drastic price increases has been eliminated. Here I am referring to the Australian supply which, in March 1986, still amounted to 1,6 million bales. This has been sold out, and at this stage there are a mere 260 000 bales left. This will be sold out this year or by early next year, and then we expect the extensive demand, which exists even now, to exceed the supply, with a consequent increase in prices.

The hon the Minister also announced that the SA Wool Board had increased its guaranteed advance payment price from 600 cents per kg for clean wool a year ago to the present 800 cents per kg. If we take into account the increase in the levy from 2,5%to 7,5%, this means an effective increase to 760 cents per kg for clean wool. In Australia wool prices have increased in the past two months by between 15%and 20%. It gives me great pleasure to say that the wool market opened in South Africa today with an average price 30%higher than the closing price of the previous season.

The prices of some types of wool, particularly the finer grades, have increased by as much as 65%. It would interest hon members to know that fine wool of 18 and 19 microns sells at present for R20 per kg for greasy wool. What is more, the International Wool Secretariat’s consistent efforts to promote the product by way of research and advertising are proving increasingly successful.

Nor is there any problem with the overproduction of wool. In fact, even if South Africa doubled its production, this would have no effect on the world market, because we produce a mere 3,3%of the world production.

Lastly, with a few good years of rain meat prices could, on the other hand, compete less keenly with wool prices, and of course we do not have an export market for meat.

For these reasons I want to turn my attention to the farmers in the summer-grain areas who are at present experiencing so many financial problems. It is the considered opinion of the Wool Board, the NWGA and the Department of Agriculture that wool-bearing sheep could very profitably be included in this industry on marginal lands and on cultivated grazing areas. These organisations, together with the University of the Orange Free State and certain grain co-operatives and marketing boards, have launched an in-depth study of this campaign.

Farmers are not being told what to farm with, but the introduction of wool-bearing sheep would not simply solve these farmers’ problems. Nevertheless this could undoubtedly have a stabilising effect on the financial position of these farmers and—this is important—play a major role in the reconstruction process in agriculture. If these farmers could convert the superhuman persistence and stamina they have displayed during the past few years into a drive towards obtaining the necessary information and background knowledge to enable them to include wool-farming in their industry, they could perhaps begin to make a new breakthrough.

The Land Bank is already providing funds to grain co-operatives for the purchasing of wool-bearing sheep. The co-operatives are responsible for the allocation of these funds to farmers who qualify for them, and this is also applicable to training and expertise. With the judicious purchase of wool-bearing sheep, with the aid of expert assistance and the use of modern farming methods and the application of hormone treatments, one could make a very quick start in the industry.

†Mr Chairman, the South African wool farmers contributed R27,3 million towards the budget of the International Wool Secretariat during the previous season. This is a large amount of money in comparison with the R418 million which wool earned in the previous season.

Finally, I want to thank the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply and the Government, on behalf of the wool farmers of South Africa, for their contribution of R15,5 million towards the budget of the Wool Board. This money will be used mainly to finance the promotion of wool. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is very clear that the hon member for Graaff-Reinet, in his reference to the hon member for Potgietersrus, was faced with the problem that what the hon member for Potgietersrus was saying was a little beyond him. [Interjections.]

Good show, neighbour! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in discussing the matter I raised in regard to the developing neighbouring states, which we ourselves established, the hon the Deputy Minister agreed that I was right. He agreed with me that we should examine both their agricultural problems as well as ours. I am grateful for such a response on his part. I simply cannot understand why he then had to use my argument in an attempt to justify his Government’s propensity for integration. [Interjections.]

Oh, please! It has nothing to do with integration!

Well, I specifically raised this matter with a view to indicating to the hon the Deputy Minister that we should deal with it through the proper channels. We already have the necessary contact with them. By way of the assistance we grant them, by way of our embassies and by way of the expert assistance we grant them, we can deal with that matter as neighbouring states do, in fact, deal with matters of that nature. I really do think I have made that clear. I do not think the hon the Minister need give me a lesson on this. What the object of his attempt was, I do not know. We accept our interdependence in that sphere. That is specifically what I was advocating to him.

Last week the Government piloted the Water Amendment Bill through Parliament, and now the State may take subterranean water from the farmers without paying them anything at all. The State does not have to pay for that water. I think the hon the Minister would agree with me that that kind of thing has a socialistic ring to it. I do not, however, wish to speak about that. On the basis of this aspect in regard to water, I want to speak on the subject of water.

It appears to me as if the Government has come to the conclusion that by exploiting subterranean water it can at times, as far as the cost aspect is concerned, circumvent certain problems; that it can exploit subterranean water more cheaply than it would cost the Government, at times, to obtain surface water at a specific place. Last year, or at the beginning of this year, I know that there was an American visitor to South Africa who told us that we had not even begun to exploit all our subterranean water sources. I think that one should regard one’s subterranean water sources as being virtually sacrosanct, because once that subterranean water is exploited and fully utilised, one has nowhere else to go, unless one begins …

If it could be monitored …

Order! The hon member does not have the floor.

The hon member says that the water can be monitored, but I am speaking about large-scale water supplies, about South Africa’s water problem. I am not speaking about one borehole that can be monitored. If we want to start drawing on and utilising our subterranean water for furnishing services elsewhere, and that water-supply were to be exhausted, we would have to start towing in icebergs. Perhaps that is not something one should fail to consider. Perhaps we should examine that possibility, but I do not think that this is the right occasion to do so.

I do not think that we have fully utilised our surface water potential. We must examine our surface water without thinking solely of large schemes and large dams. One should rather start by thinking of damming up surface water on a cheaper and easier basis than the huge river-schemes in operation. We have examples—some of them even in international rivers, to which I do not want to refer at greater length now; the hon the Minister probably knows to what I am referring—of farmers, even at their own cost, very successfully constructing weirs—there are places where it would be difficult to construct dams, but where weirs have successfully been constructed—in which they have dammed up large quantities of water.

Is that surface water not sacrosanct water?

Oh, Sir, when farmers are speaking about something, the hon member for Bryanston must always chip in. Today, when I spoke about the question of water being supplied from one of the neighbouring states, and the fact that this would lead to a clash with White farmers, he asked me who the biggest consumer was. As far as I am concerned, it is not a question of consumers; for me it is a question of farmers who are private individuals, make a living on their farms and also make a contribution to a major portion of the country’s economy and to the infrastructure and defence of a particular area. Those farmers’ interests must be looked after to the same extent that the State looks after the interests of those states. That is the point I was making today. If one says anything about farmers, however, that hon member has something to say because in his heart of hearts he is a “boerehater” … [Interjections.]

You lie.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member permitted to say that the hon member for Soutpansberg is lying?

Order! The hon member for Bryanston must withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw it, Sir. May I ask whether he is permitted to call me a “boerehater”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I said that subterranean water was almost sacrosanct; I did not say that it was sacrosanct. The surface water is just as sacrosanct; water is, to all intents and purposes, sacrosanct in South Africa. So there is no difference.

In my area there are farmers who do excavations to establish pans or hollows on their farms to supplement their boreholes. [Interjections.] By means of weirs and additional medium-scale and large schemes one can make the greatest contribution towards the protection and preservation of surface water which we should regard as the major, the most important, source of water. In that way we could also supplement or strengthen the supply of our subterranean water. [Interjections.]

I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that in the Northern Transvaal, in my constituency, we shall have to give very immediate and serious attention to certain problems concerning water. The town of Louis Trichardt which draws its water from the Albasini Scheme will, by 1992, have problems as far as water is concerned. The airforce base has been established there, and Venda must look to the Sandrivier for water. In my view we must not delay in doing something about the Sandrivier Scheme. The same applies to Tzaneen. The main water board at the Fanie Botha Dam has been asking, for a long time now, for the dam’s capacity to be increased. Pietersburg obtains its water from the Ebenezer Dam and the Ebenezer Dam also helps to feed the Fanie Botha Dam. There, too, they are going to experience problems in 10 years’ time.

That is why we should take a serious, responsible and expeditious look at the problems we can expect to experience in the far Northern Transvaal within the next few years, including problems involving the supply of water to the towns.

Mr Chairman, I found it interesting to listen to the hon member for Soutpansberg, and also to hear him arguing again about a matter which I think we finalised the other day, viz control over underground water. It seems to me that the hon member still does not understand the Bill. The amendment to the Water Act in fact makes provision for existing rights to be protected. I wish the hon member for Lichtenburg would be so kind as to enlighten the hon member for Soutpansberg a little.

Oh, go back to sleep Flippie, you are tired.

Inter aliathe hon member also referred to problems regarding water which remote towns—I think he mentioned Louis Trichardt—may experience in the future. The hon member does not understand that the actual purpose of this statutory amendment was to ensure a source of water for the remote small communities in future. If our approach is that we regard the farming community surrounding those small remote towns as being completely separate from those towns, we are making the same kind of error of reasoning the hon member made a moment ago. I would advise the hon member to realise the full consequences of what he is pleading for when he speaks about these matters. He must not just stand up and play the opposition to be funny.

In what respect did I play the opposition?

The hon member definitely did so. [Interjections.] He reminds me of the hon member for Potgietersrus. [Interjections.]

You do not know any better. [Interjections.]

Whilst a debate on agriculture was being conducted here—a debate which, in my opinion, was in the interests of agriculture in general—the hon member for Potgietersrus tried to drag politics into it. [Interjections.]

Order! I only called upon the hon member for Fauresmith to speak.

It is to be hoped that in time the hon member will learn that in this House things are done in a certain way. For example, when one speaks about the problems in agriculture—the agricultural industry has tremendous problems at this stage …

Are you in favour of Black trade unions?

… one does not try to turn them into political issues. [Interjections.]

No, we are opposed to agricultural trade unions.

If the hon member for Potgietersrus wants to adopt the approach that we must completely compartmentalise agriculture with regard to each individual population group, it means that all affairs are own affairs and own affairs are all affairs. That is the way the hon member for Lichtenburg speaks.

That is right!

If the hon member thinks that that is feasible in practice, he is living in a dream world. The hon member says that all affairs are own affairs and that own affairs are all affairs, and in doing so the hon member comes very close to the standpoint of the PFP, in my opinion. When he was speaking, the hon member should have taken note of the large degree of support he was getting from the PFP.

Tonight I want to speak briefly about two aspects. One is the small farmer, and the other is the drought. The hon the Minister referred to this earlier, viz that in the past we made use of subsidisation to combat soil erosion. At one stage the hon the Minister referred to it as being a craze that had taken hold of our people. In that regard I agree wholeheartedly with the hon the Minister. That is in fact the case. However, we must be careful not to be carried away by another craze today, viz that of “economic units”. I am mentioning this because this afternoon I happened to receive a letter from a lady, the mother of one of the young farmers in my constituency. [Interjections.]

There is one particular sentence in this letter which I should like to read out here. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal will make no further interjections for the remainder of the evening.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Langlaagte is continually making interjections. All I am doing, however, is reacting to him. I would suggest that he is also giving offence.

Order! There is no rule which gives the hon member the right to react to interjections. The hon member for Overvaal will make no further interjections.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In that case I want to request that you make the same ruling in respect of the hon member for Langlaagte because he is continually making interjections in the same way.

Order! I shall listen to the hon member for Langlaagte. The hon member for Fauresmith may proceed.

I am referring to a letter which I received from one of my voters this afternoon. She is the mother of one of the young farmers there, and inter aliashe wrote the following—with reference to herself and her husband:

Now, how does one reconcile these facts? She then goes on to refer to the following facts, viz that her son farms on a so-called economic unit, and has applied for aid through the Land Bank and through Agricultural Credit. On the basis of the fact that his farming unit is regarded as an uneconomic unit, he has been unsuccessful in his representations. I think we should reflect on this. We must bear in mind that this unit was capable of supporting a family with six children during the depression in the drought of 1933. I then think of many cases I have encountered in a drought-stricken area. The hon the Minister is aware that the Southern Free State in particular was hard hit by drought, and there were innumerable times when I came across small farmers there who were farming on so-called uneconomic units. Despite all this, these farmers have been able to survive financially and otherwise until now. However, even they have limited abilities. I personally feel that we should take care not to turn down summarily applications from people on the smaller units based on the fact that their farming units are regarded as being uneconomic.

This question is perhaps more extensive than one realises. One of the main findings of the Burger Committee’s report on the North-Western Cape was that 60%of the farms in the North-Western Cape are regarded as being uneconomically small, and that they now want to take certain steps towards consolidation. The fact is that 60%of the farmers in that area—this would most probably apply to other parts of our country as well—will not qualify because their units are too small. [Interjections.] If this is the case, I want to plead with the hon the Minister and the department that we be cautious in assessing the size of a farming unit and using it as a yardstick to determine whether or not assistance is to be given.

I understand the reasoning and necessity behind it, viz that too small farming units must be consolidated if possible. I understand that problem and I agree, but I want us to be careful not to let this approach become a “craze”, to use the hon the Minister’s expression.

Finally, I want to tell the hon the Minister that it should be possible to regard drought as something abnormal, similar to a flood. Then I immediately want to say that I think it is essential that in planning their finances and their farming, farmers should make provision for so-called normal droughts. Climatologists assure us that these climatic conditions have a repetitive cycle of between 300 and 500 years. This means that a drought like that only occurs once every 300 or 500 years. If farmers find themselves in circumstances like that, I make a plea to the hon the Minister that we have really reached a point where we must put a proper evaluation system into operation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I must now react to the speeches made by the hon members for Potgietersrus and Soutpansberg. The hon member for Potgietersrus touched upon so many matters that one would not be able to reply to him in one evening’s debate. He should put his questions in writing so that one can furnish him with comprehensive replies.

It is on record in Hansard.

I merely want to touch upon a few points. The hon member made a very good start when he expressed his concern about the Limpopo. The hon member is correct when he says that uncontrolled development is taking place in the Limpopo area. It will therefore be necessary, in the near future, for us to exercise greater control over the abstraction of water from the Limpopo, but ultimately we shall also have to ensure better storage in the Limpopo.

As far as the control of the Doringdraai Dam catchment area is concerned, the hon member has problems with the implementation or non-implementation of section 9A of the Water Act. It is like Koos van der Merwe’s flicker-light: It works, it does not work.

It is like the NP’s policy.

Some people are now attacking the hon member, because some want this abolished and others do not.

That is not what I said.

The hon member agrees that the control in terms of section 9A works without a single hitch. Those who want control in terms of section 9A abolished in the prevailing drought conditions are those who are not in favour of water being distributed fairly. Surely the hon member does not have many problems, because he does not have to decide about whether it should be abolished or not. If I abolished it, and it was an unpopular decision, the hon member would simply say that he had advocated its retention, or vice versa. So surely the hon member does not have any problems with that.

But that is not what I did.

In connection with the advisory committees let me say that unfortunately the Act merely makes provision for the establishment of such advisory committees in the case of the establishment of State water schemes. There is, however, nothing to prevent a group of farmers from establishing an irrigation board scheme and then establishing an irrigation board to exercise similar control. [Interjections.] Up to that point the hon member did fairly well, but then he ran out of facts and started talking politics. This evening there is just one thing I want to know from the hon member, and that is whether he objects to having White affairs controlled by Whites. That is all I want to know from him. The hon member started talking, amongst other things, of integrating ministers of agriculture. The hon member reminds me very strongly of the chap who killed his mother and father. When he appeared in court, he pleaded not guilty on the grounds of being an orphan. Those are the kinds of arguments the hon member uses. [Interjections.]

As the hon member for Fauresmith said, it seems as if the hon member for Soutpansberg does not understand very clearly what we mean by the control of these subterranean water sources.

Not controlling, but taking.

Very well, let us talk about taking the water. We have told hon members that the control we are implementing in terms of existing legislation involves preventing people from installing centre-pivot irrigation systems and pumping out water, thus prejudicing their neighbours. The hon member has no problems with that.

What do we have in mind with the next control system? We are saying precisely the same thing in regard to the new control system, ie that we shall be giving a person all the water he needs and that if there is a large subterranean water surplus, the State wants to regard that water in the same light that it regards public water and employ it elsewhere.

I say no! I understand it, but I say no to that! [Interjections.]

There is something else I want to tell the hon member. I said in the previous debate, did I not, that we did not want to employ subterranean water as a primary source in this country. We said that we would continue to utilise surface water sources as much as possible and that we wanted to keep these sources merely as supplementary reserves for those periods in which we experienced droughts.

We know you people; we were once there with you. We know what you do … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the other evening I told this hon member that we were extending an invitation to them to come to Atlantis to see how we monitored the subterranean abstraction of water there.

I shall do so.

The hon member is free to come and see for himself, and then he can judge whether we cannot be trusted to monitor this water. [Interjections.] There is merely one further point I want to make in conclusion, and that relates to the question of urban water supplies. I can quite understand the hon member being concerned about urban water supplies. I also said, earlier this evening, that as a result of this drought there were problems in our country which had not previously existed. This evening I want to tell hon members, without sticking my neck out too far, that it would be no use for the Government to promote decentralisation, create growth points, grant SBDC assistance and all that kind of thing and then allow a rural town to become depopulated owing to the fact that although there was water, it had not been supplied to that town, or as a result of the fact that the rates were such that people could not pay.

That is all I want to tell the hon member. This Government is not so irresponsible that, in wanting to help stop the depopulation of the rural areas, it does not ensure that this vital element, water, is supplied to those towns at reasonable rates that can be paid. In that regard the State has surely shown its true colours. [Interjections.] After all, the announcement by the hon the Minister last year about the provision of a subsidy for water-starved towns was the starting point for the assistance granted to these people. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

So why is that hon member so concerned? He does not trust the Government, but this Government, which he does not trust, will give him water right there in the Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall attempt to reply to the speeches of hon members in this relatively long debate. I do, however, just want to make a remark about the hon member for Soutpansberg. When one travels through that area and sees the conditions there, with all the centre-pivot sprayers being installed in that area, one becomes concerned.

I think the hon member used the word that I used this morning, ie “craze”. It seems to me as if some or other craze has taken hold in that area, that of simply drilling and setting up centre-pivot systems, even though we do not always know how that subterranean source is fed. And centre-pivot systems are extremely expensive these days.

I must say that in the Department of Water Affairs there is a well-developed geo-hydro-logical division which is at present conducting a study and doing a proper survey of our subterranean water. I think that in this respect they have already come a long way in the sense that with the dolomitic water we can even supply a large part of the PWV area. I want to tell the hon member, however, that it concerns me, and that we shall have to look into that “craze” at some time.

Tom, you are just crazy. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte will also stop making interjections now.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to tell another hon member that he is crazy? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Am I to understand that you are not prepared to accept that word as unparliamentary?

Order! I shall check up on it. In the meantime the hon the Minister may continue. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks about the speech of the hon member for Fauresmith. The hon member is concerned about economic units. The term “economic unit”, which we use as a criterion in financing, is actually a relative concept.

Order! Would the hon the Minister just give me an opportunity to deal with this ruling. The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw the word “crazy”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

There are several factors, however, which can have an influence on whether a unit is an economic unit or not, and I merely want to mention two of them. The first is one over which one cannot exercise any control; it is not agricultural in nature, but rather social. In South Africa today we have a variety of farming units which, under a specific dispensation approximately 50 years ago, were regarded as economic units. I have in mind, for example, the old land board system by means of which thousands of farmers were established in our rural areas. In my part of the world the figure was approximately 300 morgen, to use the old terminology. Today those are no longer economic units.

Since then our country has developed economically, however, with concomitant development in the standard of living of our people. Today it is no longer practical, on small farms, to have a large family, with approximately six of the children being in a position to continue their studies. That can no longer happen.

There is another important factor which is of an agricultural nature. My predecessor in this post introduced a grazing strategy. It was a conservation measure, because it was necessary for us to look at this extremely important resource of ours. In the process we had to expand the carrying capacity of our livestock units. In the good years, 10 years ago, when we had good rains in South Africa, we could farm economically with much smaller units than we can today. It has therefore been necessary to get more out of our units, and these factors all have an influence on whether a unit is an economic one or not. In this regard I want to agree with the hon member. We do give too much attention to the size of the land and too little at the managerial ability of the man holding the reigns. We pay too little attention to what he does. [Interjections.]

I have noticed an interesting trend as far as the commercial banks are concerned. When the commercial banks ask farmers to make their needs known to them so that arrangements can be made for the following year, they now ask for cash-flow statements too, whereas in the past farmers were only asked what their assets and liabilities were and what they expected their incomes to be. Today a more refined system is applied so that one can determine precisely what the operating potential of a specific farming unit is. Now more attention is paid to the solvency potential of a farming unit, as the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture called it, rather than the physical size of the land. I think that is an aspect we shall increasingly have to take into consideration. I think the hon member made a very important statement in this regard.

I should like to come back to the debate conducted here about the question of sequestration. It has been argued that development takes place at such a pace that no adequate provision is made for those farming on a larger scale. In his speech the hon member for Brits, in particular, referred to the fact that we do not make adequate provision for that.

The hon member for Bethal made representations for the implementation of the principle of section 28 in terms of the conditions applying to the State guarantee. I want to tell hon members that it was never the intention, when the R400 million was made available, to have large-scale farmers included in that dispensation. It was never the intention. We laid down a certain guideline, however, ie that even a large-scale farmer could convert some of his units—his movable and immovable assets—into cash. What remained could then qualify, as an economic or even more than an economic unit, to have him declared, in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, and ultimately in terms of section 28—if he has followed through from section 22—someone who was not insolvent. He is then someone whose assets have all been converted to cash. So those facilities do exist, and it was never the intention to discriminate against large-scale farmers. Why would we want to do so? Large-scale farmers, after all, are as much of an asset to the country and have made as great a contribution to the development of agriculture in South Africa. What is more, we have a White Paper that states that we should keep good farmers on the land to the maximum extent possible and that under specific conditions, and according to specific guidelines, facilities can also be made available to those people from this R400 million which has been made available. I just want to tell hon members that one examines these cases with great compassion. I understand the circumstances underlying the plea that was lodged, amongst others by the hon member for Lichtenburg. Although this is viewed with great compassion, I just do not want to create the impression that we do not want to accommodate the large-scale farmers in the problems they are faced with.

The hon member spoke about combating termites, and let me say that at the moment a great deal of research is being done on that question. We do not yet have the final solution. The hon member proposed that we adopt a more labour-intensive approach. Any farmer is free to employ people in combating termites. We know that the labour-intensive approach is a way of doing so.

The hon member for Greytown made a very strange speech. He spoke about the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology and wanted to tell me to give him certain instructions. Fortunately the hon the Minister entered the Chamber at that moment and I could tell him to listen to the hon member. I assume the hon the Minister will reply to the hon member for Greytown’s questions at some time or other. It seems to me, however, as if the hon member did not have much material for a debate on agriculture. I shall give the hon member a few subjects to speak about.

Dakar!

Yes, it would very definitely be far removed from Dakar.

What about the other aspects I spoke about, such as the labour farms?

I made enquiries about the position relating to labour farms. At present attention is being given to the labour farms which have, in point of fact, become squatter areas. They are in the process of clearing them up. The hon member should pursue the matter further in the proper quarters. I understand his problem, however, and I shall have a look at it. I merely want to tell the hon member, however, that the development of squatter localities in our rural areas is a matter of great concern to our farmers.

Yes, to me too!

That is not my field of activity, but let me tell the hon member that that creates tremendous problems for us when it comes to exercising control over certain campaigns being carried out on our agricultural farms. We shall have to take a serious look at that.

The hon member for Ventersdorp apologised for the fact that he could not be here today. In his speech he spoke about the maize industry, and he also touched upon the subject of Black trade unions. I am really asking hon members for a sympathetic approach. If they were to put themselves in my position, they would realise that I have to sell farmers’ products throughout the world, and not only in South Africa. On the international front certain provisions, requirements and rules are laid down in regard to organised labour, and these include agricultural workers too. I have to sell the farmers’ products. I am now asking hon members whether I should tell the international business community, to whom I have to sell the products of South African farmers, that this sort of thing is not at all necessary in South Africa. Must I tell them that we do not protect our labourers? They would not interpret it in that light. They specifically interpret it in a different light. The fact that we do not have labour legislation in regard to agriculture specifically prompts them to say—they argue just the way hon members of the PFP do—that we have a system of slave labour. [Interjections.]

Hon members must therefore understand my position. I do not regard the labour organisation or labour arrangements in agriculture in a negative light. If we could entrench, in legislation, the general standard of the treatment meted out to labourers in agriculture, I think that our problem would largely be solved. There are always exceptions, but then we could at least tell the world that the labourers in our country were also protected by legislation. In the sphere of labour there is no sector for which some or other provision is not made in some or other piece of legislation. We therefore have no negative intent. It is not our intention that there should be Black trade unions on the farms. I do not, in any event, think that Black trade unions would work on our farms, because they are not geared to that. Other methods, however, could be adopted to facilitate proper labour arrangements there.

The hon member for Witbank also apologised for the fact that he could not be here this evening. He broached a very important matter here which I want to deal with fairly comprehensively. The Eastern Highveld of the Transvaal has always been regarded as one of our most important summer-grain areas.

In the majority of those areas we have our most important coal deposits. The truth of the matter is that all our power is generated in those areas. The Sasols are also situated there. The majority of the coal belongs to those developers. The situation that has developed is that the old method of mining is no longer applicable. The old method of mining also had its problems. The mine-dumps caught fire and, when it rained, they polluted the water etc. Those problems have been eliminated. The more modern method, however, is that of high-extraction mining in which the coal is cut away in various layers and then the topsoil layer starts to collapse. This creates agricultural problems which the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing’s Directorate: Soil Protection, in conjunction with the mining industry, is studying in depth.

Discussions have already been held between my hon colleague and I, and we envisage introducing legislation which will provide that if mining development is such that it affects the economic position and production potential of a specific farm in such a way that it is no longer possible for the relevant farmer to make a living, the mining authorities will have to purchase the farm in question under specific conditions. The same principle has been established in the case of open-cast mining. We are now merely attempting to incorporate the same principle in connection with high-extraction mining. We are therefore giving serious attention to that problem.

This brings me back to the hon member for Soutpansberg. I enjoy getting round to him, because we are sixty-sixers. It is a pity that we have drifted apart somewhat. The hon member made a very interesting statement here to which I do want to react. The hon member said that we should assist that Northern Transvaal area so that we could again introduce livestock in that area, because we believe it will rain again. Those are some of our most important cattle-grazing areas in South Africa. If one managed those farms well, one could market super-grade cattle straight off the veld. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Now the hon member asks us to make loans available. I think he asked for interest-free loans.

Low-interest loans.

Very well, low-interest loans. The problem with this type of loan is one that we have encountered through harsh experience. Particularly in that part of the world, where we instituted a very low interest rate in the designated area in order to decrease the price of the land for the producer, instead of that happening, the low interest rate was merely discounted in the price of the land. The same would happen here. Particularly now, when breeding stock is scarce, one must be very careful. I sympathise with the good intentions inherent in this, but I am merely mentioning the problem that could arise in such a situation. I shall be replying to the hon member for Bryanston in writing.

The hon member for Groote Schuur made a speech which, to be honest, really irritated me. I think that there is such a world of difference between us that any speech that he or I made would irritate the other. I do not think I am going to make any further effort on that score. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brits spoke about the tobacco problem in his constituency. I am aware of that. It is also a problem that developed as a result of the poorer rainfall. The quality of the water in the Hartbeespoortdam has decreased to such an extent that the chlorine problem in that area has escalated to such proportions that we can no longer produce marketable tobacco there. I held discussions with those farmers three years ago about structural changes in that area. We advised them on an agricultural basis. I think we have all the knowledge relating to the farming practices and systems of production they can develop there. According to my information—and the hon member must correct me—those farmers are converting from tobacco-farming to farming with other crops, and I understand that they are doing exceptionally well—not really exceptionally well; a farmer does not easily do exceptionally well. [Interjections.] They are, however, doing reasonably well.

The hon member for Meyerton made a very interesting speech. He spoke about the necessity for and strategic value of agriculture. I think it certainly has a very important strategic value. I have always said—and we have always adopted the view—that our most efficient and most exploitable market lies to the north of our borders—in Africa. I think it is an area we should exploit. I think it has great potential. I do not think that the political hostility against South Africa will continue indefinitely.

I thank all hon members for their speeches. I thank them for a very pleasant debate. I see the Whip looking my way. At times the frog in my throat has been a bit troublesome. It still is at the moment. I thank hon members on this side of the House and on that side for a very interesting debate and for their singular contributions towards making it a positive one.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.