Mr. Chairman, I have come to the conclusion that the Opposition is completely out of touch with the rural areas. I do not want to discuss the question of credit facilities and the steps which the Government has already taken to reduce interest rates. I should like to bring a few matters which are of very great importance to the attention of the hon. the Minister. As the hon. the Minister knows, the Mealie Board has decided to introduce differentiation in maize prices. One of the main reasons advanced by the Mealie Board for this differentiation is that they can improve the single-channel system thereby. They base their argument on the consideration that the single-channel system is very rigid. But the proposals which have been made by the commission appointed by them do not reduce that rigidity of the system at all. In the second instance the system is rigid because one does not have free marketing. The Board has now submitted another proposal which in no way reduces that rigidity nor promotes freedom of marketing in any way. There are an enormous number of problems attendent upon a system of price differentiation as a result of the loading and deloading of prices. The deloading in the premium areas has the effect that the border areas, where maize should not be produced, are encouraged to produce maize. There are only two products which are subject to this system and they are maize and wheat. I do not want to say much more about it, except that I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that an impartial commission or committee should be appointed to go into this whole matter and to see whether another system cannot be devised which will not contain these weaknesses and according to which the single-channel system can be retained. We know it is an expensive system, but it has proved to be successful in the course of years, and one would like to retain this system.

In the second place I want to raise the question of an insurance system. If the Government finds it possible to introduce a system of comprehensive crop insurance, the Opposition will probably say that they asked for that too the day before. I just want to say to them that investigations have been conducted for quite some time now to see whether a system of comprehensive crop insurance cannot be introduced, a system whereby the risk run especially by agronomy in times of drought can be reduced.

We have been asking for that for years.

I should just like to bring these two matters to the attention of the Minister and to ask him whether he will not have further investigations made, especially as regards the insurance scheme.

Then I should like to point out how the two speakers on the Opposition side competed with each other. I am thinking of what the hon. member for Newton Park had to say about the Advisory Board. He said that the Advisory Board was useless. It strikes one that the hon. member for Gardens elaborated here on the capability of Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, the president of the Agricultural Union. But at the same time the hon. member for Newton Park said here that the Advisory Board, on which Mr. De Villiers serves, was useless.

Then I should like to deal with another matter: The hon. member for Newton Park made a plea here that the State should take over all private loans of farmers and that provision should be made for short-term, medium-term and long-term loans for farmers. Sir, provision is already being made for short-term, medium-term and long-term loans by the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit at rates of interest of 6 per cent and 5 per cent. The hon. member for Gardens also quoted the Land Bank Report here and pointed out the increase in Land Bank debts. But the hon. member knows full well that one of the reasons for this increase is the enormous amounts which the Government made available to the Land Bank last year for loans to farmers. The hon. member knows that the Government made available R20 million to the wool farmers last year. These are not new debts and the hon. member cannot quote that fact in order to prove that the position of the farmers has deteriorated so much. All of us know that the farmers are not doing very well, but those debts are no proof that the position of the farmers has deteriorated; those were existing debts and the Government made it possible for the Land Bank to take over those debts. In addition to that, the Government made available an extra R10 million for loans. In other words, the Government rendered assistance to the farmers by making R30 million available to them through the Land Bank. [Time expired.]

I think annually this Vote gives us an opportunity to have a fresh look at what we as a country are asking from the agricultural sector of our community. Where do we go from here? I think it was earlier this session or last year that I asked the Minister whether he viewed the farming community of South Africa as an expendable section, whether he wanted to see the depopulation of the platteland taking place and the continual drain which is taking place among our young folk, or what was the ultimate object he had in view? He said he wanted to see the farmers remain on the land. But I think it is time we had a fresh look at that, to see what is taking place as the result of the policy of the Government. Are we keeping the young people on the land, and are we getting young farmers?

Yes.

I wonder whether that young member who is so vociferous has carried out a survey to have a look at what is the average age of farmers in South Africa.

41 years.

He must see whether the sons of working farmers are staying on the land. It is one of the phenomena of our time that when young men and women leave the farms to go to the towns, where there is a tremendous demand for labour, for white hands and white brains, they are absorbed at once under conditions of employment, salary scales, etc. where they do not come back to the farms. On a pure basis of rands and cents we cannot compete. I am not talking about the sons of wealthy farmers or cheque book farmers. What we have to look at is not something which is going to be of value to us just for a few years, but what we are going to do for agriculture in the long term, for the future. With the tremendous population explosion we are facing in South Africa, we have to realize that we have to maintain on the land, not now or for the next decade or two but for the whole of the future, an adequate force of manpower with the know-how and the capacity to be able to provide food in times of emergency for the whole of the population of South Africa, which is expanding so rapidly. We cannot expect to be for ever able to import food whenever we wish. If times of difficulty come along, we have to produce food for ourselves. Are we doing that? Are we able to produce enough food in view of the growing population we will have? I put it to the Minister that one of the things that is lacking is the ability of the farmer to finance himself with the vicissitudes of nature, let alone the market, that he has to contend with; and with many of the vicissitudes of the market we cannot contend. The overseas exporter cannot contend with the vicissitudes that affect that market. He has to deal with the market overseas as he finds the conditions of that market, and if the Government is not prepared to come to his help from time to time, as for example when devaluation takes place as it did recently in Britain, then the farmer goes to the wall.

But the Government did help then.

Yes, I waited for somebody to say that the farmers were helped, but the help was too late and too little. [Interjections.] Who was financing those farmers in the meantime while they waited for their “lagterskot” or the subsidy, as the Government calls it, to help them out? This question of long-term finance, the proper planned future of agriculture, as my hon. Leader has repeatedly pleaded for, will come one day and it will come with a big blare of trumpets and big headlines in the Press about the wonderful deeds of the Government in providing help for the farmers, when once again they have accepted United Party policy which we have been pleading for year in and year out. What is wrong is not that the Minister’s mind cannot grasp it, but that he cannot implement it. He does not have the know-how at the top and therefore he cannot implement such a long-term policy of planning for agriculture. He is just prepared to go along in the old way.

Do you want that planning on United Party lines?

Then that is beyond the capacity of the hon. the Minister. That means that he is putting up a target which will never be reached. Let him come down to earth and deal with something which may be within his capacity, something which is not completely beyond him.

It is a simple question.

Yes, there is a simple answer to a simple question from a simple man to a more simple man who put the question.

Is that an answer?

Yes, here we are in the position that no long-term planning for finance is being done. We have perpetual droughts in this country. We from this side of the House have said that we have to accept droughts as part of the economy of the South African farmer. It is part of the atmosphere in which he lives and works.

Who must accept it?

The whole of the Government as well as the farmers. The Government must realize that the farmer is going to be working with these droughts which we have occurring repeatedly. How is the farmer to finance himself during the periods of drought? How does he cope with the bad years, the lean years and the good years? The only answer is by means of long-term financial planning. At this stage I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is a pity in many respects that we cannot deal in the broadest manner with this particular question, because the Land Bank does not fall under the Minister’s department. Also the matter of water, which is part of the productivity of our country, falls under another Minister. The best dam for the conservation of our water in South Africa for agricultural purposes is the soil. The soil is also the best place to keep the future crops of South Africa. Our best place to keep our future crops, not for five years or for 10 years, but for 100 years, is in our soil. The only way we can be certain of reaping the crops, is to protect the place where they are being kept, namely the soil. You will not get the farmers who are living from hand to mouth prepared to plough back their money in the fertility of the soil as long as they are not able to keep their heads financially above water. When finance drives men off the farms, it is the farmer who has not been able to keep the soil in proper condition, the farmer who has not been able to carry out soil conservation who is driven away from the farm. You are driving away a man who has probably been raping the soil in order to make a living and to keep his head financially above the water. Until that basic principle is accepted by the Government and the Minister, we shall be in financial trouble so far as our farming is concerned. The farmer must be able to plough back sufficient money to keep the fertility of his soil going. Water and the fertility of the soil are basic factors. But where does he go to if he wants to have new crops? He is in the position that in times of stress he is not able to carry out clear cut planning. The farmer in South Africa cannot say “These are the conditions which I know I must comply with if I want to get money to help me over these bad times”. He can be an honest, able, conscientious farmer who works hard and who does his utmost but he can be caught on the wrong foot. He is not told that he has to comply with certain conditions if he wants help. The Government does not say they must do this, that and the other, before Government help will be made available. The Government does not say that the farmer will be called upon to pay back that loan plus the interest, but he must be given the opportunity in an economy where he can make the necessary profit so that he can pay back the loan and the interest. We do not want gifts. We do not want subsidies which can be looked upon as a hand-out. We want to have the right and the opportunity under conditions which are laid down properly, so that we can know under which and under what conditions help will be given. Until long-term and short-term financing as the result of long-term planning is instituted by the Government, the agricultural economy of South Africa will be in the parlous position in which it is to-day. We shall be living from hand to mouth and if we are to have a series of serious droughts at a time when we may not be able to import foodstuffs, it would put us into the very deepest of difficult catastrophes.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for South Coast, Newton Park and Cape Town (Gardens) made more or less the same allegations. The hon. member for South Coast also alleged that young men do not want to farm. He said that young men had lost interest in agriculture. I can tell him now that it is as a result of this kind of talk. With this kind of talk they are continually disparaging agriculture. The hon. member for Newton Park said yesterday that 80 per cent of the farmers have an income of less than R3,000 a year. Morning, noon and night we hear about the farmers not having a right of existence in this country, because they are living on a “starvation wage”. That is what the hon. member said yesterday. We talk about the depopulation of the rural areas ad nauseam. We have discussed it here and the hon. members on that side of the House agreed that there should be larger agricultural units so that they would be economically viable. If these units are to become larger someone necessarily has to move out! We have talked enough about that: the depopulation of the rural areas cannot be stopped. It is an economic rule If we look at the figures, we shall see that in 1948, when the United Party handed over the reins to the Nationalist Party, we sold agricultural products with a gross value of R376 million. Last year we sold agricultural products to the value of R1,307 million. From that we deduct not only costs, interest, wages, fuel, and seed, but also the depreciated value of the rand, because it has in fact depreciated in value. Then we find, after everything has been deducted, that the income in 1948 was R139 million and last year R640 million. But now the rural areas have become depopulated. We had 125,000 farmers in 1948; now we have 90,000 odd. Now divide the net contribution of this greater volume by the decreased number of farmers. What does one find then? In 1948, when the United Party was in power, the income per farming unit was R1,160. What was the income per unit last year, after everything had been deducted? R3,200.

What about the cost of living?

But now the hon. member says time and again that the Government is doing nothing for the farmer. Here is proof for him, viz. the surpluses which have arisen. The hon. member for South Coast said that we have to feed an ever growing population. But what are we doing? What are these farmers doing who are supposedly so useless? We have a surplus of 27 million pounds of butter to-day. We cannot sell it anywhere. We are stuck with 6.5 million pounds of cheese and 7 million pounds of powdered milk. We are self-sufficient as far as wheat is concerned. We have a surplus of maize. All these things have been achieved by this “hopeless” Government, as hon. members call it. Then the hon. member still asks, how are we going to feed the people? [Interjections.] I could not catch that. The question is not clear. Here we are now having an agricultural debate. The leaders of the Opposition also spoke. Did one of them refer to the price of maize?

We are still coming to that.

The hon. member spoke for half an hour yesterday. He spoke for half an hour and said that this Government displayed a very casual attitude towards agriculture. Is he serious when he says that, while it is in fact not the case? This is a matter which causes concern among us, the methods which they use to stir up unrest. The hon. member referred to the Rhodesians, who have a sort of planning board. They received R3 per bag for their maize last year. This year they are quite probably going to get R2.80 for a bag of maize in Rhodesia. We are getting R3.55. While we are supposedly doing nothing for the farmer, the price of maize includes a subsidy of R23 million for the consumer. The subsidy in respect of wheat is R22 million. But we are adopting an extremely casual attitude towards agriculture!

The hon. member for South Coast spoke about prices. He said that we should adopt a long-term policy. What does he want? Can he not give us that policy? Should we fix higher prices? Should we peg the prices of land? Give us a solution. He says that we are doing terribly little. I take only one figure to which he referred yesterday, namely the debt farmers had with commercial banks in 1966. At 31st December, 1966, it amounted to R252.6 million. Do hon. members know what it was as at 31st December, 1968? It had decreased by R22 million to R230 million. But at the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure it increased at 5 per cent from R90 million as at 31st December, 1966, to R125 million in 1968. That is what the State is doing through this Department to alleviate the farmer’s interest burden. But no, we are doing nothing! Agriculture, is having such a rotten time. At the Land Bank the amount varied very little, but private persons, insurance companies and all other financial institutions lent R355.7 million to farmers in 1966. Last year it decreased to R270 million, despite terrible droughts which we suffered. Then the hon. member says that the farmers are no good, because they are not even earning R3,000 a year. I think it is an insult to our farmers that they should continually hear how useless they are and that 80 per cent of them do not even earn R3,000.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member said that yesterday. Then the Minister of Finance says that only 8 per cent of our entire population are paying income tax.

You took out the wrong notes.

Sir, I think that member’s name is Windmill, because the windmill must have hit him over the head at some stage when he was a boy. Every time I refer to something which he said, he differs with me. He says we must combine financing under one roof. But how does the hon. member want to do that? He knows that the first source from which the farmer obtains financing is the co-operatives. The second source is the commercial banks. What is the position as regards the co-operatives? The hon. member says we are doing nothing, but the Minister of Finance and the Manager of the Land Bank says that farmers who find difficulty in paying last year’s accounts, will be tided over by the co-operatives with the aid of money from the Land Bank to an amount of R25 million. We did this because we knew these people had experienced difficulties and because we want to keep them on the farms as long as possible. The second source of financing is the commercial banks; the third is the Land Bank. But everyone cannot be assisted from these sources. The man who is in a very bad position can go to the Department of Agricultural Credit for special assistance at 5 per cent. On last year’s Estimates, an amount of R18 million was voted for assistance to farmers alone. This year it is R21 million. For the purchase of land R15.7 million was voted last year. This year it is R17.9 million.

I can therefore refute hon. members’ arguments point by point, and I say with conviction that it will simply be impossible to find any government which looks after the farming community so well as does the present Government. Do not say the farmer has such a small income. Remember that when the farmer makes a net profit of R3,200, he has already had a living. That income is pure profit. In addition he has his house and his freedoms. Another privilege for which any farmer would be prepared to pay R2,000 a year is the privilege of being lord of his farm, master of his holding. That also has value in terms of money.

I once again appeal to hon. members, when we have agricultural debates here again in future, please to stop giving our people the impression that they should keep their children away from agriculture because their children would he flogging a dead horse, for this is definitely not the case. On the contrary. I have just proved to you with figures that this industry is a sound one.

I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister is getting so het up. It seems to me he is suffering under a guilty conscience. Let me assure him that none of us on this side of the House has ever spoken in a derogatory manner of the farmers of the country. On the contrary, we have spoken of them in terms of the greatest admiration for what they have managed to achieve, despite what this Government has done to them. The Deputy Minister quoted a lot of figures here, but these figures are completely inaccurate. And then he gets het up about it. According to the memorandum which the South African Agricultural Union laid before the Viljoen Commission, the average income in the economic sector increased by 1.55 per cent as against a decrease of .67 per cent in the income of the farmer. The Deputy Minister talked about income tax and about a net figure. This is not a net figure. The farmer has not yet paid for his subsistence out of the amount on which he pays income tax. To say otherwise, is completely wrong. In 1965 43 per cent of the farmers of South Africa had an income of less than R1,200 per annum—less than R100 per month. And in the rest of South Africa, in all other sectors, only 14 per cent of the people get less than this, 14 per cent including the farmers. Is it any wonder that under these conditions young men of South Africa do not go in for farming? Is it any wonder then that they rather go to the cities where they can get a bigger income?

But I should like to follow up the line of thought of the hon. member for South Coast. We had these beautiful rains which have ended a severe drought, perhaps the severest in living memory. Now is the time to take stock of the measures the Government took during this period. There are a lot of defects to be ironed out. Let us start with the standards that are being applied when an area is declared an emergency grazing area. The requirements laid down in the regulations are quite clear. Animals must be fed or transferred in order to keep them alive. When we come to the practical application of the feeding of livestock to keep them alive, we find that the interpretation varies terrifically. I can only hope that it is not the Minister’s intention that stock must actually be dying before an area is declared an emergency grazing area. But this is the standard which is in fact applied by some extension officers.

And I thought this was such a wonderful department!

“Feeding to keep alive” as against “feeding to maintain condition” is debatable. One cannot draw a clear line. One cannot say that one is feeding your stock to keep them alive only when one’s grazing has been exhausted. To say that, would be ridiculous. We know that any farmer who is worth his salt will start feeding his stock while they are still in a reasonable condition. Here the axiom “A little in time is very much better than a lot too late”, also applies. The Government can well learn from this axiom. I said in this House before that no farmer and no farmers’ association is keen to have their area declared an emergency grazing area. There are possibly a few who think in terms of saving a few rand by getting a rebate on the railage, but on the whole most farmers are against the dubbing of their district as a drought-stricken area. I consider the department is altogether too cautious in deciding whether a district should be proclaimed an emergency grazing area. We must remember that long before a farmer applies for his area to be declared an amergency grazing area he is already feeding his stock.

Once an area has been declared an emergency grazing area we have the position that conditions have deteriorated to such an extent that a farmer must in fact feed his animals in order to keep them alive, it is the progressive farmer, the one who is conservation conscious, he who plans and who shows foresight, who is penalized in every instance. He sees deterioration taking place and he moves his stock to areas where grazing can still be found, or he orders sufficient fodder against possible shortages. But if he orders this fodder or if he moves his stock one day before the area is proclaimed, he gets no benefit whatsoever—neither a loan nor a subsidy. It is all well and good for the Minister to say that he cannot relax the regulations because it may lead to malpractices and that one must draw the line somewhere. But these very regulations, as they stand, lead to dishonesty. Fodder must be ordered timeously. The Minister admitted as much only a little while ago in this very House, when we were discussing the question of a fodder bank. He was the one who asked, where must the fodder come from? Who had any fodder during the crisis period?

Try to sell some fodder now.

The normal procedure can apply with the ordering of fodder. If a person has ordered fodder before the time, he can still follow the same channels as though he ordered the fodder the day after it was declared. He can submit his application to the credit committee. The credit committee can approve it and pass it on. If they are strict enough, they will see that there are no malpractices. There is no reason why any farmer should take a chance and so get away with anything. This is particularly important where the area concerned is far away from the fodder supplies. The hon. the Minister knows that there are places in South Africa where it takes from three to six weeks for the hon. the Minister of Transport to convey the fodder from one end to the other.

Let us look at the procedure, presuming that everything has gone normally, and consider the question of the loans and/or the subsidies. One point that probably leads to more confusion than anything else, is the very fact that the loan is under the Department of Agricultural Credit while the subsidy is under the Department of Edonomics and Marketing. Of course, again the procedure in theory is very simple. A farmer applies for a loan. He then goes to the magistrate. The magistrate sends the application to the credit committee. They approve it and authorize him to buy the fodder. The farmer then gets the authority, goes to the supplier and the supplier gives him the fodder. The supplier then sends the account to Pretoria. Pretoria pays the account. That is the theory. However, what is the practice? In the first instance, Pretoria does not receive any papers. Therefore, the account is not paid. In the second place, if they do receive the papers, the papers may not all be completed or there may be one document missing and the account is not paid either. In the third instance, the credit committee may already have authorized the loan and the farmer may already have taken delivery of the fodder. However, when the account is sent to Pretoria, they refuse to pay it despite the approval of the credit committee. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town chose as the theme for his speech the contention that the State has too many regulations and that, as a result, too much time is allowed to pass before a district suffering from drought is declared drought-stricken. The hon. member is apparently not conversant with the procedure which is followed. Does the hon. member not know that a magistrate does not make any recommendation to the Department before consulting the agricultural organization in his district? Does the hon. member not know that the farmers of a district themselves hesitate to have their district declared drought-stricken, because they believe that there is a stigma attached to a district if it is declared drought-stricken? They hold out as long as possible. They try to carry on on their own for as long as they possibly can. The hon. member also mentioned examples here of how bad the organization supposedly is when it comes to the payment of loans or subsidies. I do not want to dispute the examples which the hon. member mentioned here. There may be exceptional cases. However, I do want to make the claim that 99 per cent of cases are dealt with efficiently. If there is one single case out of a hundred where there is a delay as a result of something that has gone wrong, one cannot blame the system for it.

I want to speak in general about the arguments advanced by the hon. the Opposition in respect of our agricultural industry. I want to proceed on the assumption that they, just like all of us, advance these arguments because they want to perform a service to the agricultural industry. They would also like to put agriculture in South Africa in a better position. They try to do so in so far as they do not try to make political capital out of the situation. Where the division between the two is we do not know. But, Mr. Chairman, how do they want to do it? What are their pleas to promote the agricultural industry? They want to place the entire onus on the State; they want the Minister alone to bear the responsibility for improving the agricultural industry; in other words, the entire agricultural industry must be promoted solely by way of financial support provided by the Government. Sir, the hon. members may mean it very well, but they are making a plea which rebounds in two ways on the people whose interests they are trying to promote. In the first place they are undermining the feeling of independence of the farmer in this way. In the second place they are creating a gulf between the producer and the consumer, whether they want to or not. If we continually advance the argument that the State has to give this to the farmer and that the State has to contribute that, then we shall eventually induce 90 per cent of the electorate of the country to revolt against the 10 per cent who are rendering a very important service to the whole of the country. We shall cause a stigma to be attached to them which they do not deserve, and we shall cause a split which ought not to be there. Are the farmers really in such straitened circumstances as hon. members of the Opposition want to suggest? If we look at the latest report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, we find that in one year only, in the latest year under review, 15,300 more tractors were bought. This is an important item; it is something which is especially important to the grain-farmer. If the farmers are so hopeless, if their financial position is as rotten as those hon. members want to suggest, they would not be able to make these large capital investments. During the latest year under review R53 million was spent by the farmers on a few items only. This large amount was spent by the farmer on the extension of buildings, dams, etc., in only one year, a year which followed on a series of years of drought. The farmers managed without these things over a period of years; perhaps it was difficult for them to do so, but they nevertheless managed to do so, and because the money then became available, they made these investments. I maintain that the farmers are not so badly off. Production in this country increased by an average of 4 per cent per year over the past 20 years. The hon. the Deputy Minister furnished some figures a while ago, which I do not want to repeat, to show what an enormous increase there has been in the net income of the farming population. While production has been rising by 4 per cent per year over the years, the population over that same period increased by only 2½ per cent per year. Our farmers are more than keeping pace with what is expected of them, viz. to feed the people, and to do their share in making possible the economic development which is taking place in the country.

Sir, in saying that, I by no means want to suggest that some farmers, and many farmers at that, are not experiencing terribly hard times. There are farmers who are experiencing very hard times as a result of natural circumstances. There are regions where farmers are experiencing very hard times, as is the case again now, but ample provision is made in that regard. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the amounts here which are made available specifically for these purposes by, for example, the Department of Agricultural Credit. These specific cases are being looked after. Hon. members of the Opposition forget that the Marais Commission recommended in its interim report, a recommendation with which I fully agree, that this kind of distress relief could only be given in deserving cases. One cannot simply, in the same way as you can pick raisins out of a slice of bread, keep on assisting people who are bunglers and who remain behind when other people go ahead, by pumping in the taxpayers’ money. If that is done, the taxpayers will object and then we shall not be performing a service to the agricultural industry. We simply have to accept that, just as there are attorneys and advocates who are drop-outs in their profession, just as there are drop-outs in any other industry, there will also be people in the farming industry who do not fit in there.

Politicians also?

Yes. The poor politicians are also eliminated from this House and they will be eliminated far more rapidly than that hon. member thinks will be the case. Sir, how does this Government help the agricultural industry? I maintain that the Government is benefiting and promoting agriculture in the best way. We have two State Departments which are rendering an extremely great service to our farmers in the information field as well as in the field of research and the investigation of problems which crop up in the agricultural industry from time to time. [Time expired.]

Sir, I would like to ask the hon. member who has just sat down and his colleagues on that side, whether, in their eagerness to defend what the Government is doing for the farmer, they are satisfied that it is going as well with the farmer as they maintain? The hon. member has been telling us how much the fanner has produced, but he must not forget that our population is increasing by the minute whereas our agricultural land is not getting any more. In fact, it is even getting less.

What about the surpluses?

Sir, the hon. member said that I was talking about exceptions when I discussed the question of loans and subsidies. Sir, these are not exceptions. This is the general state of affairs. I would not raise a matter like this in this House if it were an exception. This applies to a high percentage, and that is why I considered it sufficiently important to raise the matter here. As I said, where loans are approved by the Credit Committee, Pretoria still sends them back and there is delay, with the result that the farmer’s third, fourth, fifth and even sixth application goes in for a loan or a subsidy and the first one has still not been paid, and that at the most trying time for the farmer, when the drought has now really got a grip on him. The supplier is not paid. What happens? The supplier refuses to give more credit and the co-operatives do it too. And what is more, they even charge interest on that debt which should have been paid by the Government. The subsidy procedure is exactly the same, the initial procedure at any rate, except of course that now from the Credit Committee it goes to the Department of Economics and Marketing. But the same delays exist there as exist in regard to the loans. Whilst the delay in the payment of a subsidy to somebody who has taken a loan is not of much importance because it is merely an inter-departmental book entry, it is of the utmost importance when it comes to paying out a farmer’s subsidy, who has paid cash for his fodder. That farmer is trying to weather the storm under his own steam. Even the Secretary for Agriculture in his report for this year states on page 7—

Indeed, they are loath to take up the loans if they can possibly manage on their own little cash reserves plus the subsidy. But there are people in my constituency whose subsidy for August, 1968, is still outstanding. Is that correct? And what are the causes? In the first instance, there is the occasion when the farmer does not send in all the documents or does not comply with all the details, but why is that? It is due to a lack of information to the farmers. What is required is an extension in the number of liaison officers the Minister appoints. I see from the reports that of the 299 credit committees, 102 were visited. That is not good enough. It is not even a third which were visited. I want to go further and I want to state my own case where I wanted to assit my constituents, to be able to tell them the correct procedure, in regard to what must be done and what must not be done. In order to do that I requested the Department to give me a copy of the regulations, but I was told that the regulations are confidential. A member of Parliament may not see the regulations for a farmer to apply for a subsidy or a loan!

The second point is the very appointment of these credit committees. The best men are not put on these committees. This thing is being discussed throughout the country. It is the Minister’s right to appoint whom he wants to and he says he does not want it to be sectional, but the farmers’ associations and the soil conservation committees have no say in the matter. All I can say is that the presence of some members on the credit committees can only be justified by the fact that they are good members of the party.

Then we come to the third point. These applications have to be made to the magistrate. We know that even the magistrates today are completely understaffed and overburdened with their own departmental work, and at such a time they get extraneous work which by virtue of the circumstances prevailing involves a lot of extra paper work plus the digestion of these confidential instructions, to see that everything goes well. And these regulations allow no divergence whatsoever from the set pattern, irrespective of what the circumstances of the farmer are. Far from the hon. the Minister’s Christmas message, in which he said that the machinery established in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act is now functioning well and will enable the Agricultural Credit Board and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to render efficient service in that particular field, I believe the whole organization should be reviewed and streamlined because the delays which are involved cannot be countenanced under the circumstances where conditions have deteriorated to the point where he farmer is in fact keeping alive a nucleus herd or flock.

I want to raise a final point in regard to the types of fodder which qualify, and I refer specifically to lucerne. Now I know the Minister will say that lucerne plays no part in cattle feeding, but it should play an important part. I think it is generally accepted that lucerne to-day is the premier fodder for both sheep and cattle. The Minister has accepted it as fodder for sheep. Why now complicate the issue by not allowing it to be fed to cattle, especially in view of the other relaxation he granted, namely that a farmer can now claim in respect of fodder for both sheep and cattle. Sir, the price is named as a factor, but indeed it is no factor, because if you take any other roughage like erogrostis or teff, or even red grass, it costs as much, if not more, then lucerne, and then you have the additional nutritive value of lucerne.

But the final point I want to make is the follow-up to these conditions. There can be little doubt of the deleterious effects caused by severe droughts to our soil and our veld. I think where it has been necessary to go to such extremes to assit farmers it is only just and fair to the soil and to the veld, and particularly the veld, that the veld reclamation scheme must be applied as a natural consequence to a drought of this nature. Once it has rained, I know farmers are very loath to extend any conservation measures beyond those which are detailed in their farm plans, but one must not forget that the whole farm plan has during this whole operation gone completely for a loop. Normally the stock has at that stage been considerably reduced and the time would be opportune for the introduction of this veld reclamation scheme at that stage, even on a modified basis. [Time expired.]

I am rising to reply in the first place to a few points which have been raised by hon. members on both sides of the House. Perhaps it will help to prevent the debate from becoming too protracted. The hon. member for King William’s Town confined himself more specifically to the question of fodder subsidies and fodder loans in times of drought, and he expressed severe criticism in regard to the juncture at which the subsidy scheme for fodder was introduced and a district is included in the drought list. I just want to say this to the hon. member. By this time, of course, he is acquainted with the procedure which is followed. By the time the fodder subsidy scheme is introduced that district has already been subjected to drought conditions for a long time. In other words, all the other measures which are applicable, have already been applied there. The farmers are already able to receive fodder loans, and they are receiving rebates on the railway transportation of fodder or animals they wanted to transport, etc. The hon. member asked on what basis the measures are being introduced. In the first place it would be foolish to introduce an extraordinary scheme in an area which is not being subjected to a protracted drought, but in the second place it can also be ridiculous to introduce a scheme while very few applications for the loan scheme have as yet been submitted to the Department from that particular district. If the Government has to help people with taxpayers’ money to keep their own cattle alive during droughts, and it has to do so at times when those people are still quite capable, by way of loans, or under their own steam, of fulfilling that function, then surely it would be ridiculous of the Department to say: There have as yet been very few applications for loans under the first leg of the scheme, but we say now that you can obtain loans plus subsidies even before you avail yourselves of the loan facilities. In other words, when this scheme is introduced, it is introduced in a situation which is deemed to have deteriorated to such an extent that the farmers are no longer able, with the normal means at their disposal, to maintain this basic herd under their own steam.

Surely the norm cannot be the number of loan applications which have been made.

Of course, I am speaking about those areas where they have been requested. Surely it is very clear that if the Government introduces a scheme as soon as the farmers ask for it, I will also ask for a subsidy for my farm. I would be a stupid farmer if I did not do so. Surely certain conditions should first be prevailing before such a scheme is introduced; this is not a general scheme, it is an extraordinary scheme. If the Minister and his Department were to introduce a scheme as soon as the first request for it was made by the farmers, surely it is obvious that the scheme will be in continuous operation throughout the country. Surely that is obvious. The hon. member must remember that we are dealing here with the State taxpayers’ money. It is this money which is made available for those purposes. The taxpayer must pay this money and we must see to it that, if we ask the taxpayers to pay that money, that money is applied reasonably well. After all, we must see to it that we do not subsidize farmers who do not need to be subsidized. After all, we have a responsibility towards the taxpayers, and not only towards the farmers. In the second instance, the hon. member spoke about the delay in the payment of subsidies. In reality the hon. member answered his own question, because the function of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, or of Economics and Marketing is not in reality the payment of subsidies to farmers, this is an extraordinary function which is imposed on them in extraordinary times. Nor does the Department have a special staff, such as the magistrates whom the hon. member referred to, that can be used when this situation occurs. The Department must make use of the services of its normal staff when that extra work is brought to it. Hon. members must know that there are not only one or two applications from one or two districts; there is a tremendous number of applications. The delay sometimes occurs at the magistrate’s office because there is insufficient staff. For the same reason that delay will then occur throughout the Department. This same problem is often experienced in the Department. There is no special staff to cope with this sudden flood. This scheme is only introduced under special circumstances. The hon. member also said that this scheme should be introduced timeously, because by the time this scheme is introduced it no longer means anything. The hon. member also made the allegation in passing that by the time this subsidy had been introduced, when the drought was past, the stock on the farms had been thinned out to such a tremendous extent that there is less stock remaining on the farm than there usually is. That may perhaps be the case in theory among some farmers, but does the hon. member know that this scheme has fulfilled its purpose so effectively—perhaps not quite its purpose because its purpose, surely, was never that people should over-graze their farms in times of drought—that the sheep population throughout South Africa during this time of drought, did not decrease. On the contrary, the sheep population increased by 3 million. That shows how effectively this assistance which the State gave to the farmers was.

Did the sheep population in those drought-stricken areas increase?

In all the areas together, in other words, throughout the entire country. Does the hon. member now want to imply that the reduction in the number of livestock throughout the entire Karoo and the entire Eastern Cape was so great that the increase which occurred there occurred only in the Western Cape and in the South-Western Districts? Surely that is nonsensical.

Just look at the figures for the Karoo region!

The hon. member can quote those statistics, but the fact I want to bring home is that the hon. member is now trying to tell me that the increase of 3 million in the sheep staple occurred only in the Southern and Western Cape.

All the different kinds of sheep are included in this figure.

The entire country was drought stricken. It was dry in those regions where karakul farming is practiced, where they farm with goats, where they farm with angora goats, where they farm with merinos, and also in the regions where they farm with Dorper sheep. The entire countryside was in the grip of drought, from the west coast to the east coast, and from the north to the south. If the sheep staple increased by 3 million, does the hon. member want to intimate that it increased only in the Southern Cape, where there was no drought?

There are even sheep in the House of Assembly.

Surely it is obvious that they did not only increase there. I thought that there was no need to put forward this type of argument in the House of Assembly.

You say that it increased by 3 million; what was the original sheep population?

It increased from 36 million to 39 million.

But previously the number was 30 million?

But the hon. member is talking nonsense now. I am saying that the number of sheep in South Africa increased by 3 million during the past drought years, while in 90 per cent of our sheep farming regions it was so dry that for the most part they came into consideration for fodder subsidies. That is the statement I want to make. The hon. member knows that this is the case. I want to ask the hon. member to what extent the sheep in his area decreased. Can the hon. member tell me that?

Yes, the numbers decreased in the area where I farm.

What I actually want to say is that the scheme was so successful that the decrease in the number of sheep and the number of cattle was stemmed in most areas. The hon. member is now criticizing us because we did not place all the different kinds of fodder, which he mentioned, on the list which is taken into consideration for subsidies. The hon. member must remember that lucerne is one of the kinds of fodder which is used in South Africa throughout the year by most of our farmers. If we were now to reach the stage where we felt that lucerne could also be subsidized as drought fodder when we are simply trying to keep the stock alive, and do not, for example, want to produce milk or dairy products, surely it is obvious that the farmers who normally use lucerne will find it very difficult to get. Normal farming activities will then be placed in a very difficult situation. The farmers who deliver dairy products or eggs, and so on, around the cities will then be obliged to purchase lucerne at the fixed price. Usually these farmers also have contracts with the suppliers of the lucerne. These contracts ensure that virtually the entire lucerne crop is used by these farmers. However, as soon as the drought is past, those people who were affected by the drought immediately stop feeding their stock on lucerne. Then the situation arises again that the ordinary consumer can get lucerne. The reason why lucerne is not on this list is that lucerne is not only a maintenance fodder. Because lucerne is so widely used in South Africa, and it is not always readily obtainable, it has not been placed on the list because this will result in competition for the regular user of lucerne.

The hon. member also spoke about the constitution of the committees. In general these committees are appointed in consultation with the agricultural associations and the agricultural unions of the specific regions. Now does the hon. member want to tell us that most of these committee members are Nationalists? This is not so. In many constituencies persons other than Nationalists are serving there. The hon. member for Newton Park would be able to mention the names of such persons to us. I now want to ask the hon. member what the U.P. (Sappe) did when they had to appoint the committees? Did they appoint Nationalists to their committees?

Many.

At the time, during the war years, I served on bodies serving the State. However, the Government refused to give me petrol coupons so that I could attend those meetings.

Was that your contribution towards the war effort?

I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side a little about their U.P. past. On a subsequent occasion I received notification that I was no longer to serve on that body; just like that! However, I did not blame them for doing so because they wanted somebody who could support their politics. The hon. members on that side of the House are accusing us of appointing only Nationalists to those committees. Let me now inform the hon. members that when the Nationalist Party came into power in 1948 there was not one single Nationalist justice of the peace in my constituency, as large as it was. There was not one single justice of the peace who was not a U.P. man. Now they are objecting. I had to hire a special justice of the peace to deal with my postal votes. I admit frankly, and I make no secret of this, that if I have to appoint people who must help to implement my policy, then I prefer to appoint people who support my party. There is no question about that. The hon. Leader of the Opposition did the same thing. The hon. member will do the same thing if he reaches that position. The Lord save us from that ever happening!

I come now to a few remarks made by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member discussed the problems of the farmers and of those people who wanted to take up farming to-day. He asked what the Government was doing, and whether there was any longterm planning. But the hon. member knows that the policy of the Government is in fact aimed at keeping as many farmers as possible in the industry. That is why we passed the Agricultural Credit Act, and granted special auxiliary measures to the Land Bank and the Department. This was in fact done because we wanted to help those inexperienced and young farmers who wanted to make a start and did not have the capital, to do so at a low rate of interest. But with that I do not want to imply that the State must make it possible for every young man who wants to farm to do so. That is obvious. But if the State were to see to it that every young man—I am not talking about an older man like the hon. member for South Coast—got a farm and that he was financed so as to enable him to farm, it would be foolish. Why are we not doing this in any other industry? There are other people who would also like to do different work from the work they are doing at present. But why does the hon. member expect that the State has an obligation towards every young farmer, or every man who says, “I am a farmer”, to look after him and see to it that he gets hold of a piece of land somewhere and then helps him financially to farm there?

The hon. member alleges that there is no planning in the Department; but the planning of the Department is exclusively aimed at keeping farmers on their land within the capacity of those farmers who are on the farms and within the potential of the farms they possess. What is going to happen if there are no more young farmers, if the farmers decrease in numbers, and the nutritional requirements of the nation continue to increase? [Interjections.] But, Sir, the argument that there should be more farmers to produce more food has been put forward for many years. This is not the case at all. In the White Paper which hon. members themselves drew up at the time, they mentioned that it was a good thing that the number of farmers had decreased to such an extent over the years. That would mean that the average income of the farmer would then have increased to such an extent because fewer farmers would be producing so much more. The result was that they had a greater production per unit.

One farmer in South Africa will then have a few thousand million rand income a year.

No, that is not the argument. I want to point out to hon. members who discuss planning that they governed for a time.

Long-term planning?

I am talking about longterm planning now. They were in power a long time. In their time agriculture deteriorated to such an extent that they appointed a special planning committee to introduce long-term planning. They published a White Paper to lay down the principles on which they would undertake planning. That White Paper was not published by the Minister of Agriculture. It was regarded as being of such importance that it was published by the Prime Minister himself, General Smuts. I am quoting what they said (translation)—

The hon. member, of course, agrees with that—

In other words, if this does not mean that producers in agriculture, who owing to natural and other circumstances, cannot make a good and reasonable livelihood, did not fit in there, then I do not know my own language.

What year was that?

1946. This is the White Paper published by the hon. member’s Government. The Prime Minister published it. It was their agricultural policy for the future. Unfortunately it was so long ago that the United Party was in power that one does not have any other comparable statements. The only way in which I could deduce what their policy was, was from this White Paper, because they refused to state what their standpoint is. They criticize, yes.

That was the year of the Asiatic franchise, 1946. [Laughter.]

But I still want to procede to deal with hon. members. The hon. member for Gardens also spoke about longterm planning here yesterday. I am now going to test them against their own statements. He said that the first time he heard of uneconomic farming units was in 1948. He was in this Parliament in 1946 when the White Paper was published by his Prime Minister. What does the White Paper go on to say? I quote—

This is the United Party’s report, It reads further—

This is what they said. They said that they would deal with this. Now I am going to test them. We are now going to bring legislation before this House which is intended to prevent the subdivision of farms. Now I want to ask hon. members, with reference to this White Paper, whether they are going to support it or whether they are going to vote against it. Are they going to agree with the White Paper which their own Leader published at that time, or are they going to repudiate it?

You are so cockof-the-hoop about this legislation, but why do you not introduce it?

We will introduce it. The hon. member need have no fears on that score. We have never forgotten our obligations. The other point stated in the White Paper read as follows—

That was in their time. Do you know, Sir, that if a minor drought occurred in their time, they did not have food for their people. We have just seen the last of a protracted drought. By means of planning and scientific farming methods which the farmers applied and which were established for them by the Department by means of research, they did not have a shortage during the drought, but a surplus.

But a few years ago you had to import mealies and butter.

A few years ago, yes. But I am talking about after the drought. It rained for the first time the other day. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the figures to the hon. member. During this year, on an average, our mealie crop more than doubled. We now have adequate wheat provision for our country. It was produced during this year and last year. We have so much mutton that the Board is buying it up on the market. We have so much beef that the Board has to buy it up at floor prices. We have millions and millions of crates of eggs which we cannot sell anywhere. We have a surplus in all our agricultural products. The United Party had a baby drought and then stated the following. Just listen again to what they said—

In a drought year they could not even supply the people with their minimum nutritional requirements. These are not my words; this is their own White Paper. It goes on to state—

It sounds almost like the hon. member’s speech. It looks as if he took his speech from the White Paper. Twenty years ago if there was a drought it is said that they did not have enough food for their people. In spite of the prolonged drought which we have just seen the last of now, there is a great deal of food to supply the people with, and we cannot even export the surplus we have. That is the difference which long-term planning, scientific research and improved farming methods, which are made available to the farmers by this Government, makes. That is the difference improved seed maize, wheat, cattle, etc., cultivation and breading methods makes.

This would have been correct if it had not been necessary for the Government to import essentials a year or two ago.

The hon. member must remember what the then Prime Minister of his Party had to say in that White Paper. He stated that when there was a drought there was enough food to meet the requirements of the people. We have now had a prolonged drought, but with the present prices and the planning which is at present being undertaken in regard to agriculture, the production was such that we were able to meet the needs of the people without there being any shortage.

I should now like to take hon. members on another excursion into the past. The hon. member for Newton Park stated yesterday that the Government should take the risk factors in farming into consideration when it determines produce prices. I then asked him what should be done in cases where the price was not determined. And he said that the Government should lend assistance in the form of subsidies in that case as well. He said that the risk factor in farming should be taken into consideration by the Government. This factor is being taken into consideration in the Marketing Act. The hon. member stated that the farmers should receive prices for their products accordingly. I want to read further extracts from the White Paper, indicating what their Prime Minister said about produce prices. He said—

They fulfilled their function well and saw to it that agricultural prices did not become too high. Even in times of shortage they prevented prices from becoming too high. I am not objecting to that standpoint of that Government, because it is ridiculous to let a price shoot up one year and then bring it down again the next. It states further—

These are terribly familiar words to me. This is what the then Government stated as its policy for agriculture in a White Paper. I do not differ with this, but I would just like to point out to hon. members opposite that the entire manoeuvre and all the requests they have addressed to the Government are in absolute conflict with what their then Government itself stated in regard to agriculture. The White Paper goes on to say—

I agree with this. I have on various occasions in this House stated that this is my standpoint. However, hon. members on the opposite side criticize this standpoint. Have they now departed from this standpoint which is stated in the White Paper? Are they now repudiating the standpoint which they stated in 1946 to be their long-term policy for agriculture? Are hon. members on the opposite side now rejecting it? With every speech they make they reject the implications of this entire policy which was stated at that time by their Prime Minister.

Do you mean to say that you are simply continuing with the old United Party policy now?

No, I am not continuing with the old United Party policy. The United Party policy laid down that the prices were to come down after the war. I have always foreseen an increasing price tendency in future and prices are still increasing. Here I am already at variance with the old United Party policy. The then Prime Minister stated that prices should be adjusted and brought down progressively and gradually. We have adjusted and increased prices gradually and progressively over the years, as this was necessary. That does not mean to say therefore that I agree with everything which was said at the time.

However, what is basic to the economy of agriculture, and what was stated here, I agree with. Do hon. members on the opposite side reject it however?

It is necessary to adapt to the situation.

It is easy for hon. members on the opposite side to criticize. Anyone can make a popular speech for the farmers. I can also do so. It is one of the easiest things in the world. I can just say to the farmers that I am going to improve certain conditions, and hon. members on the opposite side can do it much better than I, because they do not have to find the necessary funds. Hon. members on the opposite side can criticize on two fronts. On the one hand they can say to the farmers that the Government is not giving them enough, and on the other hand they can say to the taxpayers that there is a sales tax on soap in order to pay for the subsidies to farmers. It is very easy to be a member of the Opposition. However, I am talking now about the basic principles of the agricultural policy. I want to repeat that it cannot be expected of any government, even a United Party Government, to finance every farmer, regardless of the price he paid for his farm, and regardless of whether farming conditions are unfavourable or not, by way of mortgages or by way of short term or long term credit, so that it will be possible for him, under any circumstances, to remain a farmer. That is what hon. members on the opposite side are requesting. The entire speech of the hon. member for Newton Park was aimed at this. Hon. members on the opposite side say that the Government is not ensuring that the farmers have sufficient credit facilities. What farmer in South Africa does not have sufficient credit facilities?

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? If a farmer borrows capital at 5½ per cent, and as a result of Government policy that rate of interest is increased to 8 per cent, is the farmer then responsible for that?

Yes, certainly. Any person who borrows money in any country in the world always runs the danger that rates of interest can increase. If it is in the general interest of the State to protect its monetary units by increasing the rates of interest, then the farmer must, to the same extent as any other person, help to afford that protection.

Must the farmers not get price adjustments?

Not all other people get price adjustments.

Order! The House is now in Committee. The hon. member can make his speech later.

The accusation of hon. members on the opposite side is that farmers cannot obtain sufficient credit to continue their agricultural activities. What farmers are unable to do so? I maintain that every farmer is able, by negotiating a loan, or with credit which is made available to him, whether by private bodies or by the Land Bank, or by his cooperative, or by the State, to pursue his activities, provided his liabilities are not greater than his possible income. But what about the others? Is it the duty of the State to accommodate a farmer who purchased land at a price he decided on himself, took out a mortgage on it and subsequently found that he could not make an adequate living on the land to pay the interest, by having the Land Bank take over his mortgage, or by way of assistance by the Department of Agricultural credit? After all, the farmer must himself realize that if he is going to invest money to-day, whether in land or in anything else, it must be possible for him to make a living from the land he has bought. Circumstances can of course arise which make it impossible for him to obtain the necessary income from it. If there are droughts, the State assists him. If it is owing to problems with short-term marketing, where the price on the domestic and overseas markets is such that he cannot meet his obligations out of it, the Government assists him. But it cannot be expected that every farmer in South Africa should at any time be able to go to a credit house and take out mortgages and then expect that, when that credit house calls in its mortgage, the State should take over that mortgage in any case. If they expect that, they are expecting too much, because it can never be done. The hon. member suggested that the Government should enable the Land Bank to take over all the mortgages. But if the Government lays that down as its policy, then any man can take out any mortgage at any rate of interest and, when he is in difficulty, expect the Government to step in and help him. Those are the logical consequences of the hon. member’s argument, because if the Land Bank does not accommodate such a farmer and he has to give up agriculture, then the Government is blamed for it. That is the core of the hon member’s argument—it is then the Government’s fault that the number of farmers is decreasing.

Every case must be considered on its own merits.

But that is precisely what is being done. That is precisely what the Department of Agricultural Credit, and the Land Bank, are already doing—every application is being considered on its own merits in order to determine whether the farmer will be able to recover if his liabilities are taken over.

The standard is either too rich or too poor.

And even if the capacity of the farmer is such that he can bear the burden, but the amount of money involved is such that the farmer can finance far more than an economic unit with it, is it then the duty of the Government to finance that farmer and enable him to do so? In this way you can get people who come to you and say that they are in difficulties to the tune of R400,000 and ask that the State should take over this amount. But if the Land Bank would do this, it could mean that one farmer would eventually be able to own the whole world. That, surely, is the implication of the argument by the hon. member for Newton Park, i.e. that the Government should take over the mortgages of the farmers under these circumstances. Without going into details, we can take a further look at what is being done for the farmers to keep them on their land in these times of drought. If it were not for these auxiliary measures which the Government has taken it is of course possible that far more farmers would have fallen by the wayside. In fact, in spite of these measures some of them will still go down. And because they exercised their free choice in the past and purchased land at a price which they themselves decided on and in this way landed themselves in difficulties, it is now the duty of the State, of the taxpayer, to keep such farmers on their land?

The hon. member for Gardens explained how badly, comparatively speaking, things were going with the farmers. He pointed out that only 7 per cent of the farmers were earning more than R10,000. But, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated here, only 8 per cent of the total population pay taxes. You must remember that the taxable income of a farmer is calculated on a different basis than that of a salaried man. The farmer can be exempted from paying taxes on quite a number of items.

What for example?

Surely the hon. member does not want us to think that he is a baboon. But I shall tell him. A farmer can be exempted in regard to every strand of wire he puts up on his farm; for every pole he puts in, for every windmill he erects; for every dam he builds, for every Coloured house he builds, for every store he builds, for every silo he builds—on all these things, and others as well, he can receive exemption.

What must the farmer eat?

What is more, not only is the farmer exempted, he can also receive a subsidy on that. The hon. member wants to know what the farmers must live on. The argument does not concern this at the moment; it concerns the fact that the farmer’s taxable income can be reduced in this way. Is the hon. member so stupid that he cannot see this? But I shall not argue with that hon. member. He is too stupid.

The hon. member for King William’s Town had a great deal to say about the veld reclamation scheme. I have announced on occasion that we are going to expand the scheme. But now I want to make a prediction, without acting the prophet unnecessarily: It is now going to rain and I predict that after these rains very few farmers will make use of that scheme. Does the hon. member want us to force them to avail themselves of it?

They must be encouraged.

They will not do it. Surely you know that yourself, or do you want a law?

Who will do it at R1.20 per sheep or R8 per head of cattle?

The hon. member for Newton Park also spoke about the burden of interest on the farmer, and stated that the Government ought to subsidize interest for agriculture.

To reduce.

Yes, to reduce; to subsidize. The Government would of course like to subsidize the mortgage interest of some people under certain circumstances, but the hon. member must remember that the mortgages on which interest is being paid were derived in various ways. Not all of them originated because the farmer was compelled by drought conditions to take out a mortgage on his farm. Many arose because farmers paid abnormally high prices for land. How should the one be subsidized now and not the other?

If rates of interest had been lower, they would have had a better chance.

I do not deny it. We find the same thing among our house owners. If a man had a house built and had to pay 7 per cent interest on the loan the chances are that he will now, with the present rate of 8½ per cent, try to pay it off sooner. Surely that is obvious. That is no argument. We will find the same thing among the farmers. The problem of subsidizing rates of interest and classifying people who really deserve this into categories is not so easy. I have stated this here on a previous occasion. For that reason the Government did not see its way clear to subsidizing interest as far as agriculture is concerned. If we were to do it for one sector many other sectors would put forward the same argument. The person who purchased a house by means of a building society loan, would be able to put forward the same kind of argument.

But we have the adjustment of salaries.

The adjustment for the farmers was also made. What are the meat prices to-day in comparison with what they were a few years ago? In the same way there are other products, such as wool for example, which decreased in price. There are a few other products as well, which decreased in price for the simple reason that it is being marketed on the world market. That is why the Government lent special support to these industries concerned in order to afford the farmers the opportunity of acquiring money at a reasonable rate of interest. The farmers who really have problems and who are really suffering hardships, have two methods of obtaining assistance. They can go to the Department of Agricultural Credit and obtain a loan at 5 per cent there. They can also go to the Land Bank and obtain a loan at 6 per cent interest. That is the position we have to-day. If we look at the mortgages which are being held by the Land Bank we will see that a large proportion of the mortgages on farmers have been taken out at the Land Bank. A large proportion of the rest have been taken out at the Department of Agricultural credit. In other words, it is only the richer farmers whose mortgages, as such, are taken out at other places. There are many farmers who have a mortgage on their farm. We can subsidize them on the interest they have to pay on the mortgage. That same farmer can have an investment with the State or on the Stock Exchange, on which he pays no tax. If the Government is prepared to subsidize me at an interest rate of 5 per cent on my land, I will immediately take out a mortgage on my farm and invest that money in shares.

Surely such cases can be controlled.

That is the position we have. I am just stating how difficult it is to subsidize. I can give the hon. member proof of cases where people obtained fodder loans at 5 per cent interest from the State, and for which they were subsidized on the half of it. Those same people have investments with the Boards of Executors, amounting to R50,000 and R60,000, on which they are earning 7½ per cent. So, they borrow from the State at 5 per cent interest, whereas they obtain 7½ per cent interest for their money at other places.

What kind of local committee could recommend that man for assistance?

There was no local committee that recommended him. The fodder scheme was introduced for every farmer who wanted to make use of it. In addition the subsidy was available to every farmer. It was even available to you, and you made use of it. That is the whole point. It is not the recommendation of the committee, it is a general policy. That scheme was intended to save the livestock, and was available to all.

The hon. member also spoke about the risk factor in agriculture which should also be taken into account. The risk factor is, in terms of the Marketing Act, being taken into account in the determination of all produce prices. The price determination is made on the average yield during a period of five years. The hon. member knows that this is the case. The risk factor must have been involved in one of those five years. Perhaps it was involved in each of those five years.

One year reduces the prices.

Of course. If the farmers have had a good year, surely the risk factor is less. Surely the hon. member realizes that. If the farmers have had ten good years, the risk factor is even less. The risk factor is definitely being taken into account, but I want to repeat that there will still be circumstances when it will not be possible to recover a loss as a result of the risk factor. It can even happen after the risk factor has been calculated, for example when a crop is so large that a large portion thereof has to be sold on the overseas market, where we have no control over the prices. The reason for this is that we will then have to deal with two risk factors. The one risk factor arises as a result of the drought, and the other risk factor is the possibility of a fall in prices on the overseas market, which we can do nothing about. This is simply the case, but the fact remains that the risk factor is being taken into account.

Before I come to the hon. member for Christiana, I would like to deal with an argument of the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member made the point that the price of land, which is often presented as a problem, has nothing to do with the profitability of a product. I cannot allow that statement to pass without comment, because if that were the case, then all land in South Africa should be equally expensive. Why does land in De Dooms cost R8,000 or R9,000 per morgen, and only R1,000 per morgen in Worcester, just this side of De Dooms, where vineyards are also planted?

Different types of products are planted there.

Yes, precisely. In other words, because the one product is more profitable, the land is also more expensive. Surely that is obvious. But now the hon. member is saying that it has nothing to do with it. I will admit that there are many people who are forcing land prices up. These are people who invest in land, as a long-term investment. They invest for the appreciation in value of that land. That I do not want to deny, but to say that land prices have nothing to do with the profitability of an industry is arrant nonsense. In the Western Transvaal the price of mealie land 25 years ago was not one tenth of the price of land in the Eastern Transvaal. Today the price of land in the Western Transvaal is 50 per cent higher than in the Eastern Transvaal. What is the reason for that? Because it did not pay them to plant mealies there? That is an example of the kind of argument a sensible M.P. raises across the floor of this house. The mistake the hon. member makes is that he reads in agricultural journals what people have to say at agricultural congresses. He quotes them here in the House as his standpoint. The hon. member must have his own standpoint. If he did have one, he would not find himself in difficulties so often. If the hon. member were to think for himself, he would not find himself in difficulties so often. One must not allow other people to do your thinking for you and to tell you what you must say.

It is a pity that you cannot think for yourself.

That hon. member cannot think at all. I come now to the hon. member for Christiana. The hon. member spoke about differential mealie prices. I just want to say to the hon. member that the Mealie Board, as he knows, appoints a commission of inquiry, which recommended on various occasions that a differential system of mealie prices be introduced. I have no fault to find with the principle of differentiation in prices. The principle that the situation of a market determines the price, i.e. what a producer is able to get for his produce, is one that is maintained in the case of other produce we have in South Africa. The Mealie Board has suggested this in the past, and I have stated that I was prepared to accept it in principle. How that principle is to be applied, and how the prices are to be calculated, is quite a different matter. The Mealie Board will of course have to deal with that in its submission. I want to state now that if there had to be a differential price for mealies, and a fixed price which the Government must determine, which will mean that we will have to have price encouragement in regions which are in reality border regions for mealie production, then I cannot see my way clear to approving such a price. I know that among the mealie farmers, whether they are in the east or in the west, there is a feeling that they would prefer to adhere to the old system, that this system is also going to create possible problems, and that it will be a particular problem to calculate scientifically what the price in the different areas will have to be. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Christiana that a committee be appointed consisting not only of representatives from the Mealie Board but also of representatives from other interested groups in the industry to review the entire situation before the price is implemented is a very good suggestion, and I am quite prepared to give it my sympathetic consideration in the future.

Mr. Chairman, there is one last point I want to make, and I want to level it at the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member stated that what we needed in agriculture was planning, and to have planning one must have an agricultural planning council. He said that the planning which is being undertaken at present is worthless. Sir, what further planning does the hon. member want to undertake? We have the Agricultural Advisory Board which advises the Minister. On that Agricultural Advisory Board are senior officials of the Department and members of the executive of the S.A. Agricultural Union. We have a Marketing Council on an economic basis, on which farmers and economists are represented. There we consequently have two bodies which undertake planning. We have committees in every section of our industry, whether it is animal husbandry or agronomy, committees consisting of producers of the product concerned. These committees plan on a scientific basis, together with the Department, what research should be undertaken. This applies to each one of the branches of agriculture. In other words, the Department links up on many levels with the people practicing agriculture. I do not know who the hon. member wants to serve on the planning council. About 23 years ago the United Party Government appointed a planning committee, and this committee furnished them with advice in the form of a White Paper. The intention at that time was that that planning committee would perform the function of a planning advisory council. Hon. members are to-day no longer prepared to accept the recommendations of that planning committee. What would one do with such a planning committee? In agriculture it is necessary that one should from day to day and from time to time have close contact with those people in the industry, and this we have on all levels, economically and scientifically, in agriculture as a whole. We have more than enough liaison and more than enough planning. The planning of the agricultural Department in the past few years has been so good that the provision of agricultural products to the public has improved beyond expectations. Not many years ago the Opposition was still predicting that South Africa would never be able to produce enough wheat for internal consumption. This we have accomplished during the past two years. Not very long ago it was being predicted that the maximum mealie crop we would be able to yield would be 30 million bags. We are now harvesting, in a dry year as we had this year, 60 million bags, and if we were to have a good year, we would be able to produce 100 million bags. All this has been achieved by means of planning and research. But the knowledge that the Department makes available to the farmers must at least be applied by our farmers. The farmers who have applied this scientific knowledge have made tremendous progress over the past few years, economically and otherwise. For those farmers who have the ability to apply the scientific knowledge which the Department conveys to them, science is a boon, but to the farmer who does not want to or who does not have the ability to apply that scientific knowledge, it has become a curse because he cannot compete with the other farmer who is applying better methods, and whatever steps the Government were to take, it would still find it simply impossible to keep that farmer who does not have that ability in agriculture. That should be vary clear to us. The necessary scientific knowledge is available for the farmer; but there are some of our farmers who must put these facilities to slightly better use. It costs the State a total of R220 million to assist the agricultural industry. We are saddled with the unfortunate problem that owing to the tremendous development in our country there is also a shortage of manpower in the Department, that even with the manpower we have available enough research results and scientific knowledge is still being made available to our farmers; they must simply avail themselves of it. I maintain that this Government since it came into power, and this Minister has seen to it that the production in South African Agriculture to-day is something which was never even predicted in the time of the United Party.

The hon. the Minister covered a very wide field and not much remains to be said, but there are nevertheless still a few things which one can mention. In the first place I want to come back to the hon. member for Newton Park who claimed, yesterday afternoon, that the State should help the farmers in virtually all spheres. Sir, I consider it an insult to the farmer to relieve him of all responsibility, to deprive him of all initiative. The farmer wants to try to fend for himself. There are, of course, differences between one farmer and another. One will try to make ends meet; he will work hard and try to make money in various ways; another simply adopts the standpoint that he will run to the State for assistance. This is the farmer whom the State cannot help. I do not want to create the impression to-day that the farmers have become a class of beggars. The farmers form an independent community, and the hon. member for King William’s Town rightly said that the farmers are doing their level best to manage on their own. This is what we would like. One does not simply run to the State for assistance; one does not simply ask for a subsidy; one first tries to fend for oneself because, after all, one began ones own farming venture. One tries to manage on ones own and only when one subsequently realizes that there is no other way out does one apply for State assistance. Sir, I find the attitude, which hon. members of the Opposition have adopted here, very strange. I do not want to cast reflections on them because I think that there are quite a few good farmers on that side.

Many.

If I am to judge by the number sitting there this afternoon, there are not so many. The point I want to make is that, except for the hon. members for King William’s Town and South Coast, not a single farmer on that side represents a farming constituency.

What about me?

Perhaps I made a mistake by not mentioning the hon. member.

What about me?

I do not know whether that hon. member is a farmer. The farmers on that side are, the hon. member who has now just raised his hand, the hon. member for Newton Park, the hon. member for Walmer, the hon. member for East London (City), the hon. member for East London (North) and the hon. member for Gardens. They all represent urban constituencies.

What about the hon. member for Albany?

Those are the good farmers. I know that the hon. member for Gardens is a good farmer.

What is Dr. Muller doing in Beaufort West?

I make the statement here that the good farmers on that side represent urban constituencies. The hon. member for Newton Park said here yesterday afternoon: “During the recess we shall comb the country and tell the voters how little sympathy this Government has for the farmers.”

It is true.

Will the hon. member say it out there?

Yes, I shall say it.

Sir, a few weeks ago, in the provincial by-election, they had a chance to nominate a candidate to stand against Mr. Petrus Enslin who was elected in Graaff-Reinet recently, and in this House Graaff-Reinet is represented by Mr. Sarei Hayward, a member of this party. Graaff-Reinet is a rural constituency.

That was two years ago.

Why did the United Party not nominate a candidate there? The hon. member said that during the recess he was going to spread the story over the whole country about the Government having no sympathy with the farmers. Why did they not test that statement in Graaff-Reinet.

What happened in Swellendam?

That is old news. We admit that there are two major factors which almost brought the farmers to their knees. The hon. member for King William’s Town asked whether we were satisfied in our minds that the farmers were not experiencing difficulties. No, I am not satisfied in my mind that they are not experiencing difficulties. I know that they are. I am a practical farmer; I farm myself; but I do not go to the State with all my problems. I still have the initiative to try and help myself along.

You mean that you go to the State with your problems and do not come to Parliament with them.

Sir, that rather sounds like a mean remark to me. I wonder what the hon. member meant by it.

Order! The hon. member may not use the expression “mean remark”.

Sir, I repeat that the farmers are experiencing difficulties. There have been good rains and we are grateful for that, but a transition period now lies ahead for the farmers, and the State is prepared to help them during that period by way of Land Bank credit and by other means. The hon. member for Newton Park also said that revenue from farming had nothing to do with the price of land. The hon. the Minister has already replied to that and I just want to elaborate on it a little. If that is the level of the hon. member’s knowledge of economics he should rather keep quiet about it. I want to give him an example: take the case of a man who buys a farm for R2 per morgen and a farm next to that for R20 per morgen … [Interjections.] I wrote down word for word what the hon. member said last night. The hon. member said that the price of land had nothing to do with farming revenue.

There are also other factors.

That interjection is characteristic of a man who makes a statement and then runs away from it. The hon. member will surely understand that the revenue from the two farms would be the same, but that the expenditure would be so much greater in the case of the farm which cost R20 per morgen. The hon. member must please not make such irresponsible statements here.

I should like to say a few words about Agricultural Credit. During 1966-’68 4,623 applications were received by Agricultural Credit. Hon. members of the Opposition have said that the Government has no sympathy with the farmers. The hon. member for Newton Park also said so. He said, to use almost bis exact words, that the farmers did not have a place in the heart of the Government. During this period 4,623 applications were received for long-term loans for the purchase of land, for improvements to land, for paying debts and for the purchase of livestock and implements. In 1966, from April to December, there were 864 applications. In 1967, the most difficult year we have had—almost more difficult than the year which has just passed—there were 4,706 applications from January to December. In other words, the farmers had a place to go to for assistance. They went to Agricultural Credit. I may perhaps be asked whether all these requests were approved. No, they were not all approved because, as the hon. the Minister has said, the prices paid for land were too high, and those people cannot be helped. Other people who acted irresponsibly in one way or another can also not be helped, but the main reason why farmers could not be helped was because they waited too long. I once more agree with the hon. member for King William’s Town that the farmer first tries to help himself; he struggles and struggles and waits until he is too deeply ensnared in his difficulties, and then he applies to Agricultural Credit, when it is perhaps just too late; he is then perhaps in such a bad position that he cannot be helped. I now come to the first three months of 1968. Then there were 753, a decrease. Requests came especially—and this is quite interesting—from districts in the Cape Province. I shall merely mention a few from which the majority of the requests came: Clanwilliam, Gordonia, Hartswater, Mafeking, Postmasburg and Van Rhynsdorp. The position in Natal was reasonable. There was only one place from which 34 applications came. In the Transvaal there were perhaps a little more, from the districts of Barberton, Breyten, Groblersdal, Letaba, Potgietersrus and Waterberg. The position in the Free State was very good. The few districts from which most requests came were Senekal, Petrus Steyn and Vrede.

Now we come to the production loans for seed, manure, fuel, oil, sprays and tractor parts. Here I want to prove that, when one does not have money to buy seed, manure or fuel, one may go to Agricultural Credit and those articles are supplied to one and one receives quite a large loan. Every farmer is entitled to a loan of R2,000 and that is quite a large amount. In that connection 3,513 applications were received and more than R500.000 was allocated. Now I come back to the hon. member for Newton Park, who said that the Government had no heart for the farmer. We now come to further assistance to farmers. There is a great deal more which I cannot even mention here. There is the purchasing of livestock and fodder, the maintenance of the livestock, the purchasing of fuel, the transportation of livestock, the transportation of fodder, which was bought by the Railways at a reduced tariff, the payment for transportation to private contractors other than the Railways and payment for the hiring of grazing. If one’s grazing had to be obtained at some other place the State paid for the hiring of it and transported one’s livestock at a very low tariff. It paid for the grazing at 50c per head of cattle and 20c per sheep or buck, or whatever, and any farmer could apply for those facilities. Then there was still additional assistance given. [Time expired.]

I want to compliment the hon. member who has just sat down on his courage. He is the only member on the Government side who has admitted here “dat die boer swaarkry”. Every other member told us “dit gaan goed met die boere”. He is the only member who has had the courage to say what he really feels and he said “dit gaan swaar met die boere”. I also want to compliment him for pleading along with us—he justified our pleas—that the rate of interest for the farmer should be reduced. We know that certain hon. members of the Nationalist Party are in difficulty and if this hon. member goes along in this way, I can see him coming across to this side of the House.

I never thought I would be able to thank the Minister for anything, but this afternoon he gave me the opportunity of thanking him for something. I want to thank him for his war effort. He said that during the war he was on the agricultural committee and the Government would not even give him petrol money to attend its meetings. Well, I want to thank him for making his contribution by paying for his own petrol to attend the meetings. He says that he does not appoint United Party members to committees because the United Party did not do so either, and in fact they asked him to get off that committee. I want to ask him how he got on that committee. Which Government appointed him to the committee in the first instance?

I was chosen by the public, by the farmers.

The United Party put you on that committee. Did the farmers then ask that you should be taken off?

No.

Then be consistent. If the Government put you on, they took you off, and if the public put you on, the public put you off. Be consistent. This Minister surprises me. He will soon be going the way of the other Minister of Agriculture we had. He is losing his touch. He has been in power too long and he has too much trouble. The Minister read out the United Party policy on agriculture. I am glad to see it is being studied so closely, because it has been quoted often now. I am glad to see other hon. members opposite are also studying it, because in fact it is the only agricultural policy they get to study. They do not have one of their own. They have to rely on what the United Party did. The Minister said that at any rate during this drought there was no shortage of food, but during the drought when the United Party was in power there was a shortage of food. Now, why was there a shortage of food then? I want to read a motion moved by Mr. Eric Louw in 1948—

And do you know what he recommended, Sir? Inter alia, he said that they should provide seed for wheat and other food crops under a subsidy of at least 50 per cent. That is what the Nationalist wanted in 1948. He wanted fertilizers at reduced prices, making available traction power and supplementing the stock of farmers who have suffered losses owing to drought.

We did that. We paid them a subsidy to keep the stock.

That is not what Mr. Eric Louw wanted. Read his speech. He spoke about modifying the existing system of taxation which has a restraining influence on agricultural production. When did they modify it? Just the other day, after we had been pressing for it for the last 20 years. But now at last they have done it.

Old Rip van Winkle has woken up.

Yes, at last now they have done it. The Minister said it was easy to criticize, but this makes good reading, the speeches made by the Ministers before 1948. Not only that, but I want to read what his predecessor, Mr. S. P. le Roux, said when he was in opposition. In 1945 he said this—

That was very decent of him—

And in 1948, three years later, just before they won the election, he said—

But it is all there.

Nobody can say that the United Party did nothing about fodder-banks because Mr. Strauss, the then Minister, appointed a commission to go into this question before he went out of power in 1948. [Interjection.] The commission was only appointed in March, 1948, to go into the question of fodder-banks, and in 1952 Mr. S. P. le Roux, the Minister, after he had considered this report and when he was asked what he was going to do about the fodder-banks, he had asked for when he was in opposition, said he had changed his mind; it was now no longer necessary and it would be better to have the fodder-banks on the farms. The commission also recommended that the farmers be given financial assistance to establish those fodder-banks, but this he refused to do, and he passed the buck over to the Agricultural Society and he asked them to do something. He said they were considering the matter and they believed they could work out an insurance scheme in connection with fodder-banks, and he hoped that they would be able to work it out. Now this Minister says we have fodder-banks. Yes, we have the maize, but what other fodder-banks have we?

There is lucerne.

I ask the Minister where are the fodder-banks? His predecessor was against the establishment of central fodder-banks. What assistance have this Minister and his Government given the farmer to establish fodder-banks on the farms?

There are silos.

The subsidy for silos was given long before the National Party came into power, and Mr. S. P. le Roux asked for other assistance besides silos. I read out what he said. He said we had already given subsidies for silos, but he wanted other financial assistance.

That is what we did.

The Minister is not doing it. The Minister asked the hon. member for King William’s Town where they can sell their fodder now after the rain; the lucerne farmer cannot sell his lucerne.

Why not?

Because nobody wants it now after it has rained. What the Government should do is to subsidize the farmer so that in years of plenty he can buy fodder or grow it himself and store it for the time when he needs it. He cannot afford to store it to-day. The Minister defeats his own argument. He asks where he can sell fodder mow. The lucerne farmer is mot going to grow lucerne unless he knows he will have a market for it. He does not grow it, and when a drought comes there is no lucerne. I do not understand how the Minister can fail to see this point. The farmers themselves are asking for it, that they should be given assistance to establish their own fodder-banks if the Government is not going to establish central fodder-banks. Admittedly they are given subsidies which are very welcome, but hay is subsidized and not lucerne. Now take the farmers in my constituency, especially in the Komga area. What do they have to pay for hay? [Time expired.]

I think that to draw comparisons between conditions in respect of agriculture and food in the days of the United Party régime and conditions prevailing in South Africa to-day is one of the stupidest things a speaker of the Opposition can do when speaking on this Vote. I do not think that the hon. member did his party any kindness by talking about this. It is very clear to me that he has very little to say, except that he and the hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about the establishment of fodder banks. He reproached the Minister for quoting from his party’s past and saying that the Minister himself had not put forward a policy, but had, in fact, merely spoken about that policy, and now he is guilty of exactly the same thing. He actually had nothing new to say. He merely quoted once more from what previous Ministers such as Mr. Eric Louw and Mr. Stephen le Roux had said. But I think that the Minister gave a decisive reply about the conditions in the days of the United Party and the state of agriculture to-day. The facts speak for themselves and the results are there for everyone to see.

But I stood up in order to come back to something which was quoted yesterday. I want to speak about the prices of agricultural land in South Africa. There is a school of thought in South Africa—and as far as I am concerned, it is an illusion—that high land prices are a reflection of the increasing agricultural prosperity. I want to say immediately that I do not share that idea. I do not think it is correct to say so. There are other factors affecting the prices of agricultural land. It may be a small factor and make a small contribution, but I do not think that that is the state of affairs, and therefore I want to say that we should not harbour any illusions and think that land prices are a reflection of agricultural prosperity. Because land cannot increase in extent, because it is stable, it has now acquired speculative value for people who want to speculate with land. This results in the fact that the absolutely bona fide farmer who wants to use land for the production of food and wants to make his living from it has to compete with people who purchase land with money that has not come from agriculture. It is true, and it is one of the factors contributing to the increasing of land prices. The farmer now has to compete if he wants to purchase land, whatever his object may be. He must compete even if his aim is not extension of enrichment. At times they are compelled to consolidate, to purchase adjoining land, and then they have to compete with the land speculator. Unfortunately, I cannot suggest any solution in this connection. I merely want to appeal to the people of South Africa to remember that land is an asset for this country and must continue to be one in the future and that they should therefore not purchase land for speculative purposes. They must not purchase land merely with a view to making a fixed investment and with a view to speculation. My appeal is, therefore, that we should not regard land as a means for speculation and as something which merely has a fixed investment value. What would be the result if this present tendency were to continue? If this tendency persists it will result in the fact that institutions which finance bona fide farmers, in other words institutions which grant mortgages to farmers, will no longer be able to continue to grant these mortgages. These institutions quite rightly calculate the value of land on the basis of the agricultural value and potential and not on the basis of speculative value. [Interjections.] What the hon. member has just said there will make no difference to my standpoint. I am the last man in this House who would try to make a little political capital out of agriculture. It is my task in this House to state the position as we see it and as we experience it. We on this side of the House must look after the interests of the farmer and we must protect those interests. We want to protect our agricultural land and I therefore trust that it is not necessary to make a political issue of this matter. I also do not care who tries to make a political issue of this matter, because I am stating it as I see ti The unfortunate position now is that land has two, perhaps even three different values. These values are the speculative value, investment value and the agricultural potential value of the land. I know what the agricultural potential of the land in my constituency is; I know what the agricultural potential of the land in the Western Transvaal is and I know what the potential value of the land in the maize producing areas is. I am not only aware of the value of the ground when there is a good year, but I am also aware of it when there is a year of drought. I know that a farmer cannot pay an exorbitant price for land and then expect to make a living or a profit from it. If a farmer, who has paid an exorbitant price for his land, is not successful, he must not blame the Government for that. If he can get 20 or 25 bags of mealies per morgen from the land each year, he can pay R200 to R230 per morgen, but then one creates the situation that the financing institutions, which must assist the farmer financially, would not be in a position to assist the farmer to such an extent that he can purchase land at the agricultural value. I should like to bring this fact to the attention of the hon. members. I am not concerned with what the hon. members of the Opposition say. That is the situation and I have no solution to offer. Land prices cannot be pegged down; people cannot be prohibited from buying land; I can only appeal to the people of South Africa to display such affection and such love for our agricultural land that this soil, from which we shall still have to produce food for generations to come, will not be used for speculative purposes. This speculation factor is one of the factors contributing to the rocketing of land prices; however, this is not merely done with money which comes from agriculture, but also with money from other spheres. Another factor which gives rise to the increasing of land prices is an insufficient profit margin. If production costs continue to increase, the farmer’s profit margin becomes continually smaller. This is not always the case, because the production costs are taken into account in the determination of prices. However, the entire economic trend is inclined to increase and therefore the farmer must not only take production costs into account, but also the entire financial pattern according to which he lives. He must take into account that it costs him as much as it costs anyone else, who is continually receiving increases in salary, to send his children to university. When the farmer’s profit margin becomes too small the farmer himself is stimulated to buy more land; not necessarily because it is so profitable to produce maize, or whatever, but if he has a limited profit on a morgen of ground and he has 300 morgen under cultivation, he is stimulated to buy another 200 morgen, if it is available. If this farmer now buys the land and can consequently cultivate 500 morgen for maize it will mean that he will not have a greater profit margin, but he has more land, i.e. that he will be able to make this profit on a larger area of land. In addition it frequently encourages the farmer to make the mistake of paying excessive prices for agricultural land. We must take note of this and be warned that at the root of many of these problems, whether they concern interest burdens or mortgage burdens, or whatever, lies the fact that he, a bona fide farmer, is compelled to compete and thereby to pay uneconomic prices for land.

The Opposition has frequently pointed to the decreasing number of farmers in the country. The Minister has already given a satisfactory reply to that. As far as I am concerned, it is a very good sign that fewer farmers are continually producing more. I recently referred to an article in the magazine Organized Agriculture —I think it was the March issue—and I want to refer to that again. This matter is discussed there. It is pointed out there that there is also this tendency in America. It is also predicted that the present 90,000 farmers will be a mere 40,000 by the end of the century. But these 40,000 farmers will produce three times as much as the 90,000 are doing at present. Economic laws are at work here and we must accept it. What I find decisive is that we have these surpluses and that in the past 10 years, in spite of all the droughts, agriculture has only once, I think, earned less than R300 million in foreign exchange. This shows us how dynamic, how vigorous agriculture is and how much agriculture can still produce. I find this a decisive factor in our discussions here of the farmer’s position. Let us accept that the number of farmers will continue to decrease—partly because we have a rapidly developed economy and because there is more to be earned by the farmer in sectors other than in agriculture. It is natural that a sifting out process will take place and that only our best farmers will remain on the land, those who are best equipped with knowledge, skill and everything else that is necessary. Here we must give attention to the necessity for technical knowledge. To-day it is not necessary for us merely to have capital. It is also important that in farming we have all possible technical and scientific knowledge and that we apply it to increase productivity.

With reference to the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services I see that not only did the available technical officers do research and everything that that entails, but they formed a link between ourselves and countries abroad. We see that they attended conferences, undertook overseas study trips, and there is a long list here of their publications which have appeared. In my opinion this is an indication of the vitality of this Department, to help our farming population towards a scientific approach to farming. I want to record my appreciation for that. But if we analyse the staff position of this Department there is something which bothers us. We notice that in 1963 the establishment for all sections was 5,288. In 1968 the establishment was 6,000—an increase from 1964 of 14.5 per cent. But if we read further we see that in 1968 10 per cent of the posts were vacant as against seven per cent in 1963. I find this disquieting. I am concerned about the fact that we cannot draw sufficient scientists to agriculture. It is not easy to solve this problem. We know that the private sector is relatively more prosperous and therefore draws these people. But I nevertheless think that the Minister can take steps to prevent the producers of agricultural requirements, such as the producers of fertilizers, from unnecessarily enticing away the Department’s people. I have already had no less than five representatives from different manufacturers of fertilizers, insecticides, etc., calling at my farm in the space of one day, all well-trained people. But now they are salesmen, and the money which they earn comes from the farmer’s pocket, because in the long run he must pay more for his requirements because there are so many salesmen in the field. I concede that these companies do in fact have to do research work, but I do not believe that it is necessary for highly qualified scientists to be used as travelling salesmen. The Department itself makes most of this information available through its publications and if a farmer wants to know something he knows where to look for it. It is therefore not necessary for these people, highly qualified people, to travel around as salesmen.

A question which occurs to me is whether we cannot do more in respect of training. If we look at this annual report once more we see that the number of students at agricultural faculties of universities has decreased in the past year. This can perhaps be attributed to the relatively poorer position of farming and the fact that the drought has deterred many of our prospective young farmers. But I nevertheless think that the Minister should consider making even more bursaries available, and more attractive bursaries than we have at present. I know that R500 is already made available for the first year. In my time we never even dreamt of R500 per year. But we must, of course, compete because various bodies are doing recruiting work among our matriculants and at our universities. In addition, perhaps the Department should actively begin to draw people to our agricultural faculties. As I have said, the numbers have decreased. The only place where the number has not decreased is in the Orange Free State. There there was a very small increase. I find it disquieting that there is a decrease in the number of people prepared to qualify themselves in the field of agriculture. The number of first year students is decreasing annually, and it is not only scientific training that is involved here, because I feel that we should get more people who can pull their weight as farmers too. Such trained farmers are of great benefit to the community in which they move and can also very profitably be used by the Department. My experience has been that a farmer learns most easily from a fellow-farmer.

Another point I want to emphasize is that the Department must use its people more practically. Recently I have attended quite a few farmers’ days, and I found it stimulating to see what aids were used. Tape recorders and projectors can be used to inform the farmer without the researcher himself having to be present. It can be recorded on tape recorders, be presented to farmers on farmers’ days and be clarified by means of slides which are shown by means of a projector. In my opinion we can do this in many ways. Our scientists, who are often loaded with unnecessary administrative work and who have to travel long distances to address farmers, ought to be able to make use of these aids so that they can be available for the tasks for which they have actually been trained. In my opinion we should think along these lines. I want to thank the Department for already having done so much to use its manpower to the best possible advantage. However, I think that in future even more can be done and that money should be made available so that these aids can be available to the farmers. We shall then definitely save many man hours in respect of highly skilled and trained staff. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have heard the question “Waar boer jy?”, being put to hon. members on this side. It is shocking that a lawyer has to get up and plead for the farmers because there is nobody on the Government side to do so. It is a shocking thing. Look at them. Not one of them has pleaded for the farmer. All they do is to “bedank die Minister” and to say “dat dit nie so sleg met die boere gaan nie”. Hon. members opposite are obviously very worried. They are very jittery and try and make jokes out of things. I noticed another split in the party this afternoon. It happened just a short while ago. I spoke earlier on about the hon. member for Colesberg and pointed out how he differed from the hon. the Minister and other members about “hoe dit met die boere gaan”.

Where is Mitchell?

What about the hon. member for Wolmaransstad who had such a lot to say. He is now getting worried. He contradicted his Minister this very afternoon. Other members did the same. All the other Government members, and I think also the hon. the Deputy Minister who is smiling now because he has a guilty conscience, said “dat dit goed met die boere gaan; en kyk hoe hoog is die pryse van grond”. Land prices are high; therefore it must be going well with the farmer. Now, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad contradicts that. He says that is not so and that the price of land does not reflect the prosperity of the farmer. And of course he is quite right. If only the Government would listen to us and look after the bona fide farmer as we have pleaded then you would not have the speculators coming in to buy this land, because the farmers would not be so keen on selling their land to the speculators. But there is another thing. It is not only the speculators. People have a desire to own land. It is natural. People want to live on farms. Although the return is low, it is a way of life that they enjoy. In Japan where land prices are very high the farming return on the value of the land, I understand, is only one quarter per cent. There is a desire for the person to live on the land, even if his return is low. It is therefore a shame that this Government does nothing to help the farmers to farm on a profitable basis.

The hon. member for Nelspruit also dealt with the question of the selling of farms. He asked the Government to do more about encouraging farmers to go to universities and the training of specialists. The hon. member is quite right. But the trouble is that if farming is not made more profitable, these young men will not want to go to universities to study farming. They would rather study for other professions which are more profitable. That is the difficulty. They will not go to universities, no matter what bursaries you give them, unless farming is made more profitable. The hon. member is quite correct where he talks about the lack of “deskundiges”. We on this side of the House have pleaded year after year for the Government to do something to see that there are more extension officers and other technical advisers to help the farmer on his way. I am glad that that hon. member now supports us in our plea too.

I now want to come back to the fodder question. The hon. the Minister defended the fact that no subsidy is payable on lucerne. It is a pity that he does not pay a subsidy on lucerne, because lucerne is not much more expensive than hay. I will give the House figures to prove that. We all know that lucerne has much more food value than hay. In the Komga area which falls within my constituency veld hay costs the farmer R14 per ton. Lucerne costs them R19 per ton. Railage on the hay which comes from Natal is R11.12 per ton, whereas the railage on lucerne is only R8 per ton. The price of veld hay plus railage therefore works out at R25.12 whereas lucerne works out at only R27. Considering the difference in price the Government should encourage the farmers rather to get lucerne which they would much more willingly pay for than hay. The hon. the Minister says he cannot do it because when there is no drought people do not buy lucerne. That is no excuse at all. That is not an excuse to advance why he cannot subsidize lucerne. And if he did subsidize lucerne you would find that the farmers would buy it, as I said earlier on, to build up their fodder banks to meet a time of drought.

There is another complaint I have concerning the subsidy scheme, and that is that a subsidy is not paid on fodder for dairy cattle.

Yes.

The hon. the Minister says yes. The hon. the Minister must realize that the last drought was the most severe we have ever had in my constituency and in the Komga area. During such a drought the cow in production has to carry all the cows not in production, including the calves. Those cows in production could not possibly carry the cows in non-production where the fodder had to be bought for the cows in production. Everything had to be bought for them. The farmer could not produce roughage on account of a period of three years of drought. He could not produce roughage himself. He had to buy everything. The position is simply that the dairy farmer cannot carry on. In fact I made a special appeal to the hon. the Minister to help the dairy farmer in the Transkei. These farmers get no rail rebate and they had to get their fodder from much further afield than other farmers. One of the two dairy farmers there notified the hospital at Butterworth at once that he is refusing to deliver after June. These dairy farmers go out of production, and there are no farmers.

There are surpluses.

But the surplus does not help the Transkei. You still have to get the fresh milk up to the hospital and into the towns. There are no farmers around the Transkei towns and villages who supply milk as other towns have. They have to be specialized farmers. They can do nothing else because there are no farms. In regard to the payment of the subsidy the hon. member for King William’s Town dealt with the question of delays and red tape. I want to confirm what he said, despite the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister said that those were only isolated cases. I sat at a meeting of the Farmers Association where these delays were mentioned. The gentleman who sat alongside me at that meeting told me that he put in his claim in September, 1968. By January he had not received his subsidy as yet. This is not a light matter. Those farmers are embarrassed when they have to go to suppliers for fodder and are told that they have not paid their accounts. The farmer would then say that he was still waiting for his subsidy. But in the meantime the supplier himself has to buy the fodder. He has to pay for it. He has to wait for his subsidy.

Which magisterial district is that?

At Komga.

Through a co-op or not?

They all belong to the co-operative but I do not know whether they bought it through the co-operative. I can find out for the hon. the Minister if he wants to know. I wrote to the hon. the Minister on 5th February, and asked him to attend to my problems in regard to subsidies. I have not as yet had a reply.

I told you in the lobby.

No. I addressed another letter to the hon. the Minister about dairymen. That he replied to. I am talking about the question of lucerne and hay and the difference in price. I also pointed out that these farmers went through three years of drought. It cost them R2.50 per month to keep a beast alive. That means R30 per year. And they have had three years of it. They were buying their own cattle. It cost them R30 and the Government gave a subsidy of another R30. It meant they were buying their own cattle.

Then we subsidized them in buying their own cattle.

At the moment the Government subsidizes to the extent of 50 per cent. I wrote and asked the Minister, in a case like this when we have a long drought, whether the subsidies cannot be increased to 75 per cent or 80 per cent. That is the request I made to the Minister. I have not received a reply to that yet.

Not only is the question of fodder a cause for concern; the water has given out. They are still conveying water in the Komga district. Although it has rained, they still have to convey water in vehicles made available by the Department of Defence.

We asked the Department of Defence.

Yes, I know you asked. I am sorry my time is up, but I should like to thank the Minister for what he did, but I am not thanking the Irrigation Board for what they did. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite have stood up one after the other and made broad and general statements. They have stated the matter in generalized terms. One would now like to compare them to something in agricultural terms. One asks what one can compare their actions to? With reference to What the Minister of Agriculture quoted in respect of their own policy, it seems to me that even were one to put them to work they would achieve no results. It nevertheless puts me in mind of a bell-wether; because what is a bell-wether? A bell-wether is, after all, not a he-goat or a she-goat; it is a wether. [Laughter.]

I want to refer to the hon. member for Transkei, who has just resumed his seat, in respect of the subsidy on lucerne to feed cows for production purposes. Surely the basic idea in respect of fodder subsidies is to keep animals alive in times of drought, not to subsidize specialized farming enterprises for production purposes. Milk production is specialized farming. That person could just as well use the fodder to fatten up animals for the market. Where would the State end up if it subsidized that type of fodder. This is surely not the basic idea of fodder subsidies. Now the hon. members for Newton Park, Gardens and South Coast make broad, general statements about how badly things are going with agriculture in South Africa. But this is surely not true. We can surely not make a broad, general statement to the effect that things are going badly with agriculture, and with all the farmers, in South Africa. If hon. members speak about specific parts where things are going badly as a result of certain conditions, I am inclined to agree. There are parts where farmers are experiencing difficulties. But they cannot make a general statement and say that things are going badly with all the farmers in South Africa. There are, after all, parts of South Africa where things are going well.

Things are only going well in Somerset East.

That is a specific part. But it seems to me as if these hon. members do not travel through South Africa. Each one is restricted to the region which he represents, and then it is not even a farming constituency. They must, after all, first test the statement that things are going badly with the farmers. How does one test it? The volume of agricultural production, or the total contribution of agriculture to inland revenue, must decrease. This is the test. The other test which one can apply is whether the burden of debt is higher than the capital assets in agriculture. One must, after all, apply a test if one makes; a broad, general statement. One cannot make such a statement and say that things are going badly with farmers in general. There is sufficient evidence for that. If one works through the Supplementary Data to the Abstract of Agricultural Statistics one sees that the total physical volume of agricultural products is still increasing. The debt ratio in respect of the capital assets in agriculture is not diminishing.

But I want to come back to what the hon. member for Newton Park, and the hon. member for Gardens, said yesterday, i.e. that the profitability of farming in South Africa was decreasing because the prices were not keeping pace with the production costs. I want to test that statement. We must determine whether prices are the most importart factor in respect of the profitability of agriculture or not. If we want to test whether price’s are the determining factor in respect of the profitability of agriculture or not, we must ask ourselves what the State’s contributions and duties are and what the contributions and the duties of the producer are. We must ask ourselves what factors determine the profitability in agriculture. Now hon. members will agree with me that prices do not constitute the only factor in the determination of the profitability of agriculture; the first important factor is consistency of production. By consistency of production we mean not only the quantity produced, but also the quality of the product. What influences this consistency of production? There are surely quite a few factors which have an influence on the consistency of production on the quality and quantity of that product. With the best will in the world I cannot see that the Government can have a direct influence in respect of the consistency of production. What are the influences? What are those factors which influence the consistency of production? The most important influence is climatic conditions. The second factor is the land. The third factor in management the application of technical knowledge and the co-ordination of these factors in order to determine what the extent of that product is going to be. Hon. members know what the climatic conditions in South Africa are. They go from one extreme to the other, from droughts to floods.

That is the only factor in respect of which the Government did not make a direct contribution.

No, but the hon. member said that the Government determines the profitability of farming. I want to tell the hon. member that the Government is not the sole determining factor. There are greater contributory factors which, in fact, determine the profitability of agriculture in this country. The hon. member must agree with me that as far as the quality of the product is concerned, there are also many factors which play a role, for example, the kind of seed which one uses, or, in the case of livestock, the quality of the animal one uses. Therefore the management and finally the producer to a great extent determine this one important aspect in respect of the consistency of production.

Now we come to the second aspect, i.e. the consistency of the price of a product. I will concede that the price level and production costs eventually determine the gross revenue, i.e. the profitability of production. In respect of production costs I can repeat all the arguments which I have just mentioned, as well as those in respect of management. The Government cannot restrict production costs to such an extent. It is a co-ordination of factors.

Now we come to the question of price. How are prices determined in South Africa to-day? They are not only determined by the Government. According to the Marketing Act we have control boards, which, in collaboration with the Minister, determine the prices of these various regulated products. These prices are not determined arbitrarily. Price determinations do not fluctuate from day to day. There is a pattern which is followed in the determination of these prices. This pattern is followed not only by the Minister, but also by the producer members on the control boards. The Marketing Act provides that the majority of the representatives on the control boards must be producer members. In other words, the producer is taken into consideration here too. Therefore I cannot see that charges can be laid against the Government by stating that, because the prices cannot keep pace with the production costs, the profitability of agriculture can no longer be maintained in this country by the farmer. When prices are determined there are two basic factors which are taken into account. The first is that the product which is produced must be consumed, i.e. there must be a demand for that product. Whether it is an internal demand, or partly an internal demand, with the rest being exported, or whether everything is exported, there must be a market for that product. If there is a market for the product, its price will be determined. The second basic factor of importance is that one cannot, however, determine a price which is higher than the prevailing economic conditions. These are factors which must be taken into account in price determination. We have products for local consumption over which the control boards and the Minister have full authority in respect of price determination. These products are meat, wheat, etc. The hon. the Minister said that the trend in those products displayed an outward tendency during recent years because those products were consumed in South Africa. We can adjust their prices to the economic trends in this country. Now we come to the products which are exported, i.e. wool and deciduous fruit. We cannot determine and guarantee a price for wool and deciduous fruit in South Africa if those products cannot be consumed here. We are dependent upon the foreign market. The demand for these products on the foreign market determines the price which can be paid for the products in South Africa or what the farmer can receive for them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me as if the hon. Opposition, in its attack on this Government’s agricultural policy, is playing the role of a cripple who smashes his crutches on the man he is attacking without harming that man in any way, and then expects that man whom he attacked to carry him further. I merely want to point out that one must discuss that question with the farming community itself and ask them what they think of their own position. It is said that our farmers are bankrupt. We know that they are experiencing difficulties. This has been said time and again to-day by my colleagues on this side of the House. I merely want to repeat it. According to Organized Agriculture of November, 1968, the farming community states (translation)—

This is what the Agricultural Union, that is, none other than the farmer himself, declared. I should also like to point out that the farmers recognize that they are not hangers-on, but associates of this Government. They themselves admit that nothing is being forced upon or forced from them. They are people who know that the decisions taken by this Government are intended, inter alia, to benefit agriculture, to carry, bolster and support it. They know that the farmers are working with the Government and that the Government is working with the farmers, as is apparent from this same article, if I quote further (translation)—

This is the co-operation we receive from the farmers. The farmers are apparently also satisfied with the co-operation which they are receiving. We all know that they have burdens. This is undoubtedly the case.

I want to come back for a moment to price index figures. One can easily juggle with price index figures and try to prove all manner of things, while in actual fact one does not prove much. One can only use price index figures after having made a very thorough scientific study of them. I have here a list of price index figures for the past 20 years. I am taking 100 as a basis in 1947. We find then that from 1948 to 1950, inter alia, producers’ prices increased by a third, while farming requisites did not increase at all. From 1951 to 1958 producers’ prices increased by 38¼ while farming requisites increased by 30⅜. From 1959 to 1964 producers’ prices increased by 46½. By comparison farming requisites increased by 54⅓. From 1965 to 1967 producers’ prices increased by 69⅓, while farming requisites increased by 65⅔. Now I should like to give you an analysis of the table: (a) During the period 1948 to 1950 there was no difference worth mentioning between producers’ prices and farming requisites. The relationship was one-third in favour of producers’ prices; (b) from 1951 to 1958 the picture for agriculture was even quite favourable, with the ratio 7⅞ in favour of producers’ prices; (c) the years 1959 to 1964, the tables were turned and agriculture experienced a serious setback with a ratio of 7 against producers’ prices; (d) relief came between 1965 and 1967 with a ratio of 3⅔ in favour of producers’ prices.

If one sums this up one sees that the producers’ prices increased by 51.8 from 1948 to 1967. i.e. during 20 years, as against an increase of 50.2 in farming requisites. The end result of that is 1.6 during a period of 20 years in favour of producers’ prices. However, there are nevertheless a few factors which one must take into account when one talks of index figures. It must also be borne in mind that price index figures in respect of farming requisites merely determine the trend of farming requisite prices and prove nothing further. In the second instance, higher production costs must not be ascribed to the higher prices of farming requisites either. Where, for example, one strives for a higher yield per unit, the increase in spending is to a large extent attributable to the intensive or increased use of production means per unit. The heavier application of fertilizer per morgen, surely means a steady increase in expenditure. However, it also guarantees a greater income. In agriculture, therefore, expenditure must not be compared with prices, but with income. As far as the prices of production means are concerned, this Government is doing everything in its power to keep them as low as possible. Hence there is no import duty on, inter alia, tractors or parts. Neither are there import duties on power paraffin. Moreover, the tax on power paraffin, purchased for farming purposes, is much lower than, for example, on power paraffin purchased for other purposes.

Diesel as well.

Hon. members have just heard what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, that there are no import duties on diesel either. I also want to go further and say that subsidies on fertilizers of about …

R15 million.

… R15 million were granted to our farmers in the past year. I wanted to say R17 million in order to paint a rosier picture. We must also remember that one cannot purely and simply try to force costs down. Thereby we shall restrict essential services and, inter alia, retard sound economic development.

Order! Could the hon. member tell me from what document he is reading?

The document which I have before me comes from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. However, I am not reading; I am speaking. I am merely turning my eyes to this document every now and then. [Laughter.] I want to speak further and am now putting the document down. In addition I merely want to say that we must take care that our actions always accord with the basic principle of the economic system, i.e. private initiative and free competition.

I am now putting down this little document that was getting in the way like that, and am taking another one. [Laughter.] I want to speak a little about planned depopulation and planned manning of agriculture. I am speaking of the manning of the country districts and not merely of the populating of the country districts. I fancy that I have created this word myself. You must please afford me the opportunity of speaking about this depopulation-planning and manning-planning. We must get rid of the uneconomic units. That is a hackneyed expression. However, this action cries for fulfilment. It in no way accords with the present uneconomic subdivision of land. However, there is an Act on the way; therefore I do not want to speak about that. I want to go further and say that we must dismiss the non-farmer. He can be cared for somewhere else. The farmers must not become angry when I say that such a person does damage to the country’s economy, to agriculture and to himself by remaining where he does not really fit in. There are those who say: I want to farm no matter what. We are very sorry and have a great deal of sympathy for them but I want to ask them to be realistic; they can also prove their love for the ground somewhere else. Outside of agriculture there is an insatiable demand for manpower in fields where a living can be made in preference to one working one’s whole life long for debt, and everyone who is transferred and settled in this way is not being uprooted and resettled because the person was never settled and had never taken root. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Waterberg, who has just resumed his seat, gave us a very interesting talk, although, like yourself, Sir. I also had my doubts, but he finished up by saying that there are certain farmers who say: “Ek wil boer, al bars dit.” I wonder how many “gebarste boere” there are in this House this afternoon and how many others there are outside of this House. [Interjections.] There is one member on the other side who is speaking up for his people, but I wonder how many others there are outside of this House who are “gebarste boere”, not on account of what the hon. member for Waterberg had to say, but on account of the policy followed by this Government. Sir, the hon. member for Karas, who spoke immediately before the hon. member for Waterberg, raised many interesting points with regard to the fixing of commodity prices. I will deal further with what he had to say in the course of what I want to say to the hon. the Minister when he gets back to the Chamber. The hon. member suggested that a test as to whether agriculture was sound or not, was whether gross production had decreased.

It has increased.

I want to suggest to him that this is a fallacy, that this is not a true test, and that perhaps a better test—and here I gathered that I was going to get the support of the hon. member for Waterberg—would be this: Has the price received by the producer increased by the same amount as the increase in production costs plus a percentage for the producer? But, as I say, I will deal further with that aspect in what I want to say later.

I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister the question of the dairy industry, and particularly a report which appeared in the Argus of the 28th April of this year, last Monday evening. It appears that from this coming Monday, the 5th May, there will be sold in the Western Province first-grade butter at the rate of 30 cents per pound. This is a decrease of 11 cents per pound on existing controlled prices which apply throughout the country. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can intimate whether or not this report is correct.

Yes, it is.

This special offer of butter, it appears, according to this report, will become available in all stores within 150 miles of Cape Town. This report raises many questions which I would like the hon. the Minister to answer because these questions are going to be asked by housewives and others throughout the country. The first one is this: Why has he discriminated against the housewives and the people outside of a 150-mile radius of Cape Town, in other words, outside of the Western Province? Why is this special offer made only here in the Western Province? Following on that, why has this butter not been made available (or has it been made available), in the Transkei, where there is famine at the moment? Has it been made available in other Bantu areas and in Indian and Coloured townships? I know from the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing that the “more-butterscheme” was dropped during November, 1967, because the discount that was given to nonwhite traders was not always passed on to the consumers. This newspaper report reads that the price of 30 cents per pound has been stamped on the packing in special marking ink which cannot be removed. Sir, why was this not done with the “more-butter-scheme” that was introduced for the Bantu areas?

The report of the Secretary for Agricultural, Economics and Marketing goes on to say, at page 66, that, as soon as possible, they will make butter available in five and ten-cent units instead. Can the hon. the Minister tell us where these five and ten-cent packs of butter have become available? To the best of my knowledge they are not available in Natal; they are not available in Zululand, nor in the Transkei. Sir. where has this been made available? This is a source of consumption for dairy products, for butter in particular, which has not yet been tapped. The non-White not only cannot afford to pay 41 cents for a pound of butter, but when he has bought a pound of butter he has no storage facilities, so these five and ten-cent packs are a wonderful idea. It was a good idea, but once again this Government has fallen down on the implementation of the scheme. This was 18 months ago and as far as I know this butter is provided nowhere where it can benefit the people whom it was supposed to benefit. To come back to this newspaper report, I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us how much butter is going to be sold? The report says that 1,500,000 pounds have been marked so far and the Secretary says, “How long this goes on, will depend upon sales returns and the demand of the public”. Does this mean that, if the demand is good, they will continue to sell at 30 cents a pound? What exactly does he mean by this?

It is a subsidy for Members of Parliament; it is within 150 miles of Cape Town.

I do not think we should tell people about that! Sir, let us get to the basic reason for this. Can the hon. the Minister tell us why it has been found necessary to release at least 1,500,000 pounds of butter in the Western Province at a price which is 11 cents below the price normally paid? Is this on account of over-production? Sir, there is a paragraph in this report which is particularly disturbing and I want to quote it—

Is this the forerunner of a repetition of what happened in 1961-’62. Does this mean that the price to the producer of dairy products is going to be reduced again? Does this suggest that we are going to have the same dire results that we had then when farmers went out of production, resulting in the greatest shortages of dairy products that South Africa had ever shown, resulting in huge losses which were suffered by the hon. the Minister’s Department on the importation of dairy produots? I want to know whether the hon. the Minister’s attitude is still the same as it was in 1966 when I asked him about this and he told me that it was cheaper to import than to subsidize or assist the local industry to get on to its feet.

We have been talking about price policy. The hon. member for Karas has unfortunately left the Chamber, but I am going to ask the hon, the Minister what his price policy is with regard to the dairy industry. Has he got a long-term price policy? If so, will he tell us? The hon. member for Karas says that price fixing follows a pattern. But this certainly is not apparent from the facts. If we refer to the tables at the back of the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing we find that from the 1962-’63 season to the 1966-’67 season the producers’ prices of all dairy commodities increased steadily and that consumers’ prices increased commensurately. But since 1966 the tendency has been reversed. We find that butter fat in 1966 was 43 cents a pound and that in 1968 it was down to 41 cents a pound. a reduction of two cents a pound. What has happened to the consumer price? It remained the same over that period. I wonder if this is the reason for the reduction of over R600,000 in the subsidy that was paid in 1968 as against 1967. Is this part of an economy campaign on the part of the Minister? If we take cheesemilk, based on 3.5 per cent butter fat. what is the position? In 1966 the price was 19 cents a gallon; in 1968 it was 18.2 cents, a reduction of .8 cents per gallon. What is the position with regard to condensed milk, once again based oh 3.5 per cent butter, fat test? In 1966 the price was 19.5 cents per gallon, in 1968 18.2 cents, a reduction of 1.3 cents per gallon or 13 cents per 100 lbs. of milk. Take fresh milk. We find that in all areas under the Control Board producers’ prices have remained constant since 1966. They have not been reduced, but, Sir, they have not gone up. We know that the consumer price has gone up. The consumer price in the Western Province was increased last year. What about the producer? Why has he not had an increase in the price of fresh milk or, for that matter, in the price of any of these commodities? In the case of some of these commodities there have been decreases, as I have shown. Does the hon. the Minister consider that there has been no increase in production costs in the past three years? [Time expired.]

I want to begin where the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) left off. I immediately want to make it very clear that I am no supporter of the principle put forward by the hon. member a moment ago, i.e. that the producers price of the farmer must increase as his production costs increase, with an additional percentage added for profit. Because if we apply this principle we get precisely what we have now, i.e. that we are saddled with enormous surpluses of butter and cheese. That is why one lands in the position of having to offer butter so cheaply as it is now being offered here in the Cape. A moment ago the hon. member referred to the last increase in the price of milk. The last increase in the price of milk was in June, 1966, when an increase of 2c per gallon was allowed. What was the effect of this? Despite the fact that the fixed price demanded of the distributor by the Milk Board was increased by 2c, the net price received by the farmer to-day is more or less the same as he received prior to that increase. Why? For the simple reason the the milk scheme functions as follows: The Milk Board receives from the distributor the full price for that part of the milk that goes into the fresh milk trade, but for the surplus a much lower price is paid, and then the farmer receives the average price of the quota milk plus the surplus milk. The result of this system was as follows: In June, 1966, when the price of milk was increased by 2c, the farmer received 31.156c per gallon. Just before the increase he had received 2c less. One year later, in June, 1967, he received 31.2824c per gallon, virtually no increase, because in the meantime, as a result of the increase in the price, more and more people had started producing; there was an ever-increasing surplus, and accordingly the average price received by the farmer was lower. But it goes even further: One year later, in June, 1968, the price received by the farmer, despite the increase of 2 cents, had dropped to 29.750c per gallon. There is no sense whatever in always keeping the producers’ prices for ther farmer in line with production costs plus a percentage for his profit, because then one creates surpluses, which must necessarily reduce, the farmer’s price. I want to state my view in regard to the matter. It is that the Government, instead of continually raising the prices for the farmer and so creating surpluses, should rather help the farmer to farm more efficiently. This is exactly what the Government did in the case of the dairy industry. Since the hon. member had so much to say about the dairy industry, I want to confine myself to it. By means of the Government’s scheme of subsidies on State-nominated bulls and its assistance to A.I. co-operatives, the farmers succeeded in producing much more efficiently. I can mention one example of a friend of mine whose average production per cow, after he had applied artificial insemination for five years here in the Koeberg district, increased from 32 lbs. to 47 lbs., thanks to the assistance rendered by the State. I do not want to express an opinion as to whether this is a fair system towards the cow, but it has brought enormous benefits to agriculture, because surely it goes without saying that if, with the help of these subsidies for insemination, a man raises the production per cow from 32 lbs. to 47 lbs., he can afford to sell at a lower price, because his unit costs must obviously decrease if he increases his production to such an extent. It is no use just continually increasing the producers’ prices. It merely creates surpluses. I therefore want to thank the Minister again to-day for this scheme of State-nominated bulls and for the assistance rendered to the A.I. co-operatives, by means of which we have greatly increased the efficiency of farming, so that we can afford to sell at a lower price.

In the very limited time I have left, I should just like to revert briefly to a remark made by the hon. member for South Coast. He complained that with the exchange trouble we had after Great Britain’s devaluation, the State did not help the farmers or the exporters. After interjections made by the Minister and by myself to the effect that the State had helped them, he admitted that that was so, but he said that as usual it had been “too little and too late”. I want to make it very clear that the hon. member can speak for the wattle farmers and I will have nothing to say about it, but he dare not speak for the fruit farmers of the Western Cape, because they are not so ungrateful. I want to make it very clear that the fruit farmers of the Western Cape are very grateful for this assistance which they received from the Government, this R2 million.

Are they satisfied?

Yes, I want to make it clear that the official mouth-piece of the fruit farmers of the Western Cape said that they were grateful for this assistance, and I also want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for it. We know that it is the Minister of Economic Affairs who dealt with this compensation, but we also know that it is due to the pleas of the Minister of Agriculture that the amount was so generous. Now, there will be the odd few farmers, those who came to the hon. member, who are not satisfied, but this one finds in the best of families. One always finds people who are not satisfied, but the mouth-piece of the farmers made it clear that they are very satisfied.

There is just one more little matter I want to mention. That is that there was an announcement that this assistance that was rendered this year would not be repeated, and I want to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to ask the Government that the matter be reconsidered, because there is a transitional period from the time when Britain devalued until her domestic prices are again adapted to the lower value of her currency. Usually this period is three or four years. We certainly do not expect to receive the same generous consideration in the present year as we had during the past year, but there should be a gradual adaptation until, after a period of three or four years, it falls away completely. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Paarl replied conclusively to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) in connection with milk, but I just want to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) whether he is against price reduction when there is over-production. Does he rather want us to destroy the butter?

I merely asked what the Minister’s policy was.

But surely you should be able to state an alternative. However, I want to make use of this opportunity to touch upon a completely different matter. It is a very serious matter, and I know the Government will give serious attention to it, and what I am going to say here, I do not want to be regarded as criticism, but as an encouragement to proceed with the matter.

Our water position in the Republic is worsening every year, not because the water is decreasing to such an extent, but because we are consuming so much more. This is giving rise to concern in our country, and we are devising all sorts of plans. We are thinking of the possibility of desalination, and so forth. Where does our water come from? It comes from the mountain catchment areas, and I want to say that we are paying too little attention to those areas. What is the condition of the mountain catchment areas? If we go back a number of years and see what the Commission of Inquiry into the Water Laws stated in 1952 …

Order! Does that subject not fall under the Water Affairs Vote?

No, not as I want to approach it. One may just as well say that it falls under Forestry, but I want to approach the matter from the point of view that the State must buy up those lands, and this falls under Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The Commission stated the following, and to prove the seriousness of the matter, I want to quote it—

Then the report goes on to say, and this is the point—

That is why I am raising the matter under this Vote, because this recommendation was made to the Department.

Which Department?

The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Let us now take a look at the findings of the interdepartmental committee that was appointed by the various departments under the leadership of Agricultural Technical Services. The committee made certain recommendations. It stated the following (translation)—

Attention is being given to this matter, but this problem is a difficult one, and we must look at the matter from various angles, because there are different kinds of mountain land. There is the State-owned land, and there the committee found that the land under the charge of the Department of Forestry, was being very well protected and conserved. That is why I suggest that more of these lands should be bought by the State. I am going to mention figures in a moment to show what the present position is.

Then we come to Trust lands, where the Bantu are being settled. There the committee found that everything was not in order. What can be done in this case? The existing soil conservation projects should be continued. Further studies should be made in connection with the use and conservation of land by the Bantu and more education work should be done amongst the Bantu themselves. The most important matter is that they should not live in those areas where it would constitute a real danger to the catchment areas.

Then we come to privately owned land. The committee found that these presented the most serious problems and that soil conservation plans should be urgently drawn up for these areas. I do not want to fall into disfavour with the Chairman again, because we are shortly going to discuss legislation relating to soil conservation in which certain amendments are proposed, but I just want to say that I welcome those amendments. I think they will do a great deal in helping to apply better conservation of our mountain areas on private land as well. I want to go as far as to say that where plans are drawn up, farmers should be obliged to do in our mountain areas what is prescribed by those plans.

But let us see what the position is. In the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services I came across a few disconcerting facts in connection with this matter, and that is why I am raising it here to-day. Less than 3 per cent of the area that still has to be bought in the winter rainfall region, has already been bought. In the Eastern Cape, where 70,000 morgen have to be bought, no purchases were made during the past year, although 8,000 morgen have been recommended for purchase. On white farms in mountain catchment areas the farmers are still burning the veld and the condition of the areas therefore remains disconcerting. In Natal no land was bought either, but negotiations are in progress in connection with properties in the Drakensberg catchment area. In the Highveld region, where the most vulnerable catchment areas in the Upper Orange catchment area are situated and which now falls under the newly established Division of Catchment Area Planning, 30,000 morgen north-west of Lichtenburg have been hydrologically surveyed, and the report goes on to say that it is very difficult to apply soil conservation there because the soil is still under cultivation. Mention is also made of certain things that have been done and certain plans that have been completed. This work should be continued, because otherwise wo shall find ourselves in an impossible position.

I want to sum up by saying that our mountain catchment areas are of very great importance. If we do not conserve them our dams, will silt up, and our water supply will be reduced. Our mountain catchment areas arc important as regards the conservation of our mountain vegetation: We see, for example, how valuable the protea has recently become, in that it has now become an export product. The mountain catchment areas are also important as regards the recreation facilities they can offer to the public, and therefore they should be made more accessible to the public. Above all, the mountain catchment areas, especially the vleis, pans and marshes, are important in the conservation of water. Only if we protect them will we be able to have their benefit in the future. I therefore want to appeal to the Department to Continue the policy that was started years ago i.e. to buy This land and to make sufficient staff available to give the mountain catchment areas the necessary attention.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Humansdorp has touched on a very important subject. I am not quite convinced that it should be put at the door of this hon. Minister, but the preservation, of the catchment areas of our streams is probably the most important task that faces us in South Africa to-day. I can assure the hon. member that he will hear more of this under another Vote. In fact I might say that he pinched my speech to the hon. the Minister of Wafer Affairs. I am quite sure that it is a question of great minds think alike. The point I want to make is that we on this side are naturally very interested in this matter and we will support the hon. member in the kind of representations he makes.

Or he will support us.

We will have the initiative with, the. hon. the Minister in this case and I am sure the hon. member will support us.

I would like to return to the matter of the economic position of farmers. During the course of the afternoon there has been an interesting divergence of opinion amongst hon. members on the other side. Some have said quite openly that the farming community is in serious difficulties. The hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and other hon. members have denied that the farming community is in a difficult position to-day.

When did I deny it?

Let me say that I gathered that impression from the hon. the Minister. Whether he expressed himself in that way or not my fault.

How can I deny if when I give aid-to farmers?

Of course the hon. the Minister gives aid to farmers, but the impression I get from the hon. the Minister is that matters in the farming community are not so bad, that there is a drought at the moment, but if there is not a drought, if there is enough rain, everything in the garden is going to be lovely again, the mealies are going to grow 18 feet high and everything is going to be wonderful. I believe this is a position which the hon. the Minister is over-simplifying. To-day we have a farming community which is bound hand and foot with a debt which exceeds R1,000 million on which they have to pay interest. They have to pay interest out of the current year's farming. They have to Pay interest on a debt which have taken them years to accumulate. The problem is how, under the condition’s which farmers have to farm under to-day, to have the sort of policy which will allow the farming community in the changing natural circumstances under which they have to farm, to catch up to and to liquidate the debt under which they are farming The interest alone which they have to pay is a crushing burden on the farming community. In many cases the experience has been that farmers can pay only the interest, but that they are not able to make the repayments which they would like to do and which I am sure the hon, the Minister would like them to do.

Industries do that too.

That is not true. The industrial sector of our country is not on the; same basis as our farming community at all. If an industry is unable to meet its debts it simply has to go bankrupt. We cannot allow the farming community to go the same way. This is why this Government has instituted the methods they have, namely in order to maintain the farming community in a sound and healthy condition. But to-day we seem to be suffering, as I see it. from a stop-go price policy. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the surplus in the milk industry. The same applies in respect of the maize crop. To-day. for example, the price of mealies is fixed after the crop has been estimated. As die hon. the Minister has said, the risk factor is taken into account and if the crop looks as if it; is going to be low, the price is increased. If it looks as if the crop is going to be high, the price is reduced. During the last three years there was a bad crop, a record crop and then a bad crop again. What we are doing at the moment is fixing the price of mealies each year in relation to that year’s crop without taking into consideration the changes that take place from year to year. A man therefore earns on his crop for that particular year only what the hon. the Minister sees fit to give him after the risk factor for that particular year has been determined.

You are Wrong.

The hon. the Minister has said so himself: The hon. the Minister said that the risk factor was taken into consideration if there was a good crop in that particular year …

No. I said the price was fixed over a five-year period.

The hon. the Minister said that if there had been a good crop that particular year, the price is reduced.

I said the price was fixed on the average of a five year yield.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister said, but I did not hear him say that.

The other point I want to make is that if the farming community is in the wonderful flowering condition which hon. members wish us to believe …

We never said that.

We have had statements from the hon the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Winburg and other hon. members on the Other side, saying that they do not believe that the farming community is in condition. What did the hon. the Minister of Finance say in this regard? We have been through years of the most stringent financial regulations in order to combat inflation in this country. There was also a specific requirement by the Minister of Finance to banks, whether they be the Land Bank or commercial banks to allow latitude to the farming community in the payment of interest and the reduction of overdrafts. This is simply a recognition of the extremely difficult position in which the Community finds itself to-day. I want to ask the hon. the Minister-how the farming community will be able to break out of the ring of debt in which it is caught up to-day. Unless it has some certainty of income, how is the farming community going to get out of the debt amounting to R1,000 million in which it finds itself to-day? This will only happen if there is a period of eight to ten years of record crops.

Yes, and then the Government reduces the price again.

Exactly. Where there, is efficiency, increase in production, the hybrid seed, A.I. 60 increases the production of cows, the price is always brought down against these farmers. Then we hear from the hon. the Minister that one Of the factors in this regard is the price of land.

Are you a farmer.

Yes, of course I am a farmer. For what purposes, is agricultural ground bought? It is bought by big farmers who, want to expand their holdings. They want security for their money. We are not allowed to buy gold in South Africa and where can one have a better security for one’s money than in ground. Ground is also bought by companies The result of the policy followed by hon. members on the other side, and the hon. the Minister, will be an increase in farming companies in South Africa at the cost of the individual farmer, The industrial or gold companies or other big money organizations are moving into the country side for reasons which are not related to the profitability of agriculture. This is one of the, tendencies which is driving up the price, of ground in our country to-day. The organizations with big money are moving into the platteland and buying up farms for their own internal economic reasons, which are not related to the price which they may receive for products they may produce.

The matter speculation was also raised here. obviously one cannot prevent speculation with ground which: has become a commodity in South Africa to-day. As I have; said, we are not allowed to buy gold in South Africa. Land has taken the place of what gold is in any outside country to-day Large organizations are seeking this security, for their money.

Do you imply that farmers do not get any credit?

What security does a small farmer South Africa have to-day? He has the value of his land, the changeability of weather conditions and a Minister who will change the price of his product in a good season against him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Mooi River is trying to pose as a champion for the. farming community, one can only Say We hope the farming community will be spared that kind of champion. The hon. member, for Mooi River referred to the difficult position in which the farming community finds itself. This is indeed the case. We live country which as subject to continual natural upheavals, such as droughts. No one will deny this. But let us understand clearly that if a the farmers have ever suffered in South Africa, then it was & when that hon. member’s party. was, in power. Let me tell the hon. member for Mooi River that this side of the house has its finger on the pulse of the farming community. He may quite safely leave the future and the interests of the farming community to this side of the House.

I actually want to refer to two matters. One is in connection with something which is a problem in my constituency, namely the foot-and-mouth disease regulations in the so-called strip areas. In the eastern parts of my constituency it simply is the position that large areas are subject to these foot-and-mouth disease regulations. It so happens that the farmers there are young farmers. Most of them are pioneers. Without exception they are new, young farmers who are still beginners. They are greatly affected by strict foot-and-mouth disease regulations, and they sometimes fint it difficult to continue farming. For example, when stock is moved in those parts, the animals are required to be treated for foot-and mouth disease. The farmers in my constituency do not object to this, but it so happens that there are not enough officials to undertake that work. This sometimes causes the greatest inconvenience. I want to ask the Minister to give attention to this matter, so that we in South-West Africa may at least claim the same privileges as the farmers on the other side of Botswana, in other words the farmers on the Republican side, enjoy.

I also want to refer to a very serious pest, not only in South-West Africa, but also in the Republic. Physically it is a small pest, but in actual fact it is one of the most serious pests we have in South Africa to-day. I am referring to the white ant pest, which is increasing in dimensions. It is not necessary to tell this House what a threat this pest is. I just want to quote from a report which appeared in Die Burger of 16th October, 1966. The report reads, inter alia, as follows (translation)—

Sir, in my area in the central parts of South-West Africa, where I myself farm, the white ant pest has assumed such proportions that it has really become an enormous threat. It is a fact that White ants destroy up to 90 per cent of the grass in certain parts, especially in what is called the “hard veld”. One wonders what one can do about it. I tried a few experiments myself. For example, I was advised to pour fuel into antheaps. With this method one pours a drum of water into an antheap. At the same time one pours a gallon of fuel into it. Then one lights this mixture. An explosion takes place and in this way the ant colony is destroyed. But this is just as ineffective as, for example, trying to stop the tide with a broom. The effect of this is minimal. It is remarkable how ingenious this gnawing pest, literally and figuratively speaking, in fact is. For example, I tried to kill the white ants by gassing them with carbon monoxide. It is interesting how this is done. You open the antheap, let in the carbon monoxide and close it again. Strangely enough, within a day those white ants have built millions of small chimneys in order to give them the necessary ventilation. These white ants are surprisingly resourceful. They cannot be destroyed. It is also interesting to note what is being done in Rhodesia. There they adopt the attitude that if they cannot destroy the white ant, they must use it profitably. In Rhodesia interesting tests are being conducted in this connection. I want to read to you from a periodical issued in Rhodesia. The article concerned reads, inter alia, as follows—

This report tells how this matter is being investigated in detail in order to determine whether white ants can be put to some use. This report aroused my interest and in an American newspaper, The New York Times, of Sunday, 7th April, 1968, I found particulars of experiments conducted by an American, Rudyard Boulton, who tried to breed white ants for production purposes. This is very interesting. These tests are being carried out on a large scale 15 miles from Salisbury. He found that the volume of protein per acre of white ants he bred was five times as large as the production obtained from cattle per acre. This is fantastic, and one can hardly believe it. In other words, if we should breed white ants on a specific piece of land, it would be five times as profitable as to breed cattle on it.

How do you drive them into a kraal?

This report is very interesting, and it also says—

He marketed these white ants. He found that they were such a sought-after food that it became a very profitable industry. I do not really want to refer to this report any further, but it also tells us of his problems. In his experiments he had to make use of electronic apparatus. The problem was, however, that this gnawing pest ate up his electronic apparatus. The apparatus had to be insulated, and the white ants ate up the insulation. This is one of his greatest problems. This article is very interesting, and hon. members should read it, but the fact remains that if we cannot get rid of the white ant pest, and if we cannot destroy the white ants, we must try to use them profitably. As regards the use of white ants for good, I do not think it is such a stupid idea as one might think. I think that if one can eat crayfish, oysters and so forth, one can easily close one’s eyes and eat white ants too. I think they would be a delicacy. [Interjections.] We know that these white ants are an enormous pest in South-West Africa and throughout South Africa as well. In the Kuruman area, for example, the white ants are an enormous pest. I therefore think we should consider how we can stop this pest. As a matter of fact, it is not an inactive pest either, since Solomon referred the sluggard to the ants. I think we must take this pest by the horns, and we must do so before it has literally gnawed away our roots. We must really try to combat this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I think it probably generally accepted that it is the privilege of an Opposition to criticize. It is probably as generally accepted that it may be expected of an Opposition at least to be positive in its approach. When the hon. member for Newton Park had finished his speech yesterday we already had just about the whole pattern for the rest of this debate. If one listens to the hon. members of the Opposition, one receives no other impression than that they are prepared to decry everything that is done by the Government and that only here and there, perhaps as a result of something said by an hon. member on this side of the House, they get an intimation of something more positive. Actually it is no wonder that the farming community can no longer bear the United Party. For 21 years now they have been attacking and trying to denounce the Government for what it is doing, or is allegedly not doing, for the farmer. But the farmers take no notice of this. Let the hon. the Opposition tell us what the problems of the farmer are. In fact, it does not seem all that relevant to me whether things are going well or not. Let them tell us what the problems are and how they intend solving those problems. I would not like to waste any more of my time on this.

What I do want to say, I should like to address to the hon. the Minister. It concerns a matter which is closely related to what was said by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and the hon. member for Nelspruit. It is very clear, it is really something commonplace, because we all know it, that one of the greatest problems the farmers have to contend with is a direct or indirect result of excessive prices being paid for land. It is not for me to say now why the prices are so high. We all know. It has been mentioned in this debate. In regard to this matter we find that what we consider to be one of the greatest virtues of many of our people eventually leads to disaster. That is their great love of the land and of farming, which too often becomes so dominant that one fears that one has to admit that realism is lost sight of. I believe that the only way of helping to combat this phenomenon is to fall back on technical guidance. In mentioning these facts I do not want anyone to think for one moment that I want to level accusations at the farmers. However, it is a fact that many of them, when they have only half an opportunity of obtaining land, take it with both hands. Very often prices do not deter them. Now it so happens that not all farmers who buy land do so with the assistance of the State. Some of them are independent and others even receive assistance from other bodies. That is Why the State, by means of the service it can render, the guidance it can give, very often does not get the opportunity to show these people the real implications. When I refer to guidance, we immediately think of the necessary officials to do that work. It is true that we cannot boast of having a surfeit of them to-day. If this is the case, it is our task—and I believe the United Party will co-operate—to recruit and train those people so that they will be able to do that work really efficiently. Neither must we wait for the farmer to come to those officials to seek guidance. I believe this is a matter we must propagate. We must propagate it, as is so often done by means of advertisements. If one wants to buy land one often finds advertisements telling one to go and see Mr. So and So. This is not what we are interested in. That advertisement should rather read: If you want to buy land, go and see your extension officer. This is the essence of the whole matter I want to drive home. We must inform the people. I believe in the old and almost proverbial expression that one should first make a little sum. It is absolutely essential for the farmer, when he decides to buy a cattle farm, to make a preliminary calculation of what it will cost him per small stock unit or per large stock unit or whatever direction of farming he wants to practise. This is of the utmost importance. Many matters are submitted to me, as is the case with many of us who represent farming constituencies. One finds that it is always a case of excessive prices having been paid for land, perhaps the injudicious purchase of implements, and so forth. Excessive land prices are very often the one and only reason. I do not want to say that there are not other reasons as well. I am prepared to say that unfortunately there is also something like inefficient farming methods. But experience has taught me that this is one of the main reasons why farmers experience difficulties and often go under. Therefore I plead that we should prepare ourselves to meet that problem of the farmer. Let us go and seek out the farmer rather than to wait for him to come to us. Let us seek him out and provide him with the necessary guidance in order to combat this evil.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised the most interesting point, namely that farmers should first of all consult an extension officer. We on this side of the House I think agree with that. But the point is whether the seller will sell the ground at the reduced price which the extension officer will most likely recommend. It is nevertheless something worth considering as far as his party is concerned. But the thing that interested me immensely was the speech by the hon. member for Middelland on South-West Africa—a country that I know very well. He spoke about proteins. I know that roasted ants are very excellent food. It is also a very excellent protein. I too should like to ask the hon. the Minister to help a different section of the community as far as proteins are concerned. Will he help the housewife to help her balance her budget when she buys proteins? One of the most important commodities on the food market to-day is the broiler chicken. It has made terrific inroads on the meat market, so much so that the beef producers have raised a voice of protest. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Natal Mercury on the 27th March, 1969. It reads:

It must therefore be elementary that the production of poultry in South Africa must now: be well over the 150-million-lb. mark per annum, it has also been proved conclusively that the chicken carcass can absorb up to 30 per cent of free water. If this is the case and a producer, allows chickens to absorb 10 per cent of water at 20 cents, it means that the housewife must pay an additional R3 million per annum for that water. If they allow 15 per cent, the amount goes up to. R4½ million per annum. The most common percentage of water contained by frozen chickens is most probably 20 per cent That at means that the housewives pay R6 million per annum for this free water; I think we should all be alarmed by this state of affairs. Surely we cannot allow it to pass by unchecked. On the 7th June last year I asked the hon. the Minister whether he was aware of this technique of allowing carcasses to absorb this extra water. His reply to me was that processors allow up to 20 per cent of water. He also said that he was investigating this matter. On the 7th February this year, I again asked the Minister whether he had made any progress in this regard. He replied that the matter was still under investigation. On the 12th February, I received a letter from the hon. the Minister. It was in reply to question No. 26 of Friday, the 7th February, regarding water in poultry carcasses. It reads:

Order! Does the hon. member still have a great deal to quote from the letter?

Only one more paragraph, Mr. Chairman.

The House should have adjourned already, and so I think the hon. member should rather continue with his quotation after dinner.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

When business was suspended I was reading a letter I received from the hon. the Minister in reply to a question of mine. The last paragraph reads—

Mr. Chairman, I referred this letter to a very important sector of the industry and their reply amounts to this, that the Minister’s division of commodity services is just not with it because it is altogether ridiculous to have even 8 per cent if one thinks of the export market in the East. I believe that America, Norway, Sweden and all these countries that export to the East, do not exceed 5 per cent. All that we are doing is to spoil our market overseas, and the sooner the regulations are brought out in South Africa to control the local market, the better. In any case, I want to read out one section from a letter from the manufacturers of the machine that is used for chilling the carcasses—

The manufacturers claim that the pick-up can be as high as 25. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have been listening for quite some time now to the attempts of the United Party to present us with an agricultural policy here. During September of last year they finally got so far to publish their agricultural policy. On this the Financial Mail of 4th October, 1968, published a good deal of comment, parts of which I should like to quote—

The article goes on to say—

Of course.

I quote future—

Why do you not say “of course” now?

The article reads further—

Such as?

The article reads further—

Sir, these quotations come from the Financial Mail. I should like to go further. The article mentions quite a number of aims the Opposition has set for itself in connection with agriculture, inter alia, the feeding of the nation towards the year 2000 and a decent living for all. The article says that these are things everybody knows and then it states further—

And then the editor states further—

Depopulation of the rural areas.

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition started making changes in the shadow cabinet the other day. I must say it still remains quite shadowy. He started off by removing the hon. the Chief Whip on the Opposition side from the position of leader of the sports group and appointing the hon. member for Pinelands as chairman of the group. I do not blame him for doing that. The hon. the Chief Whip on the other side does not seem to me to be as sporting as he probably was earlier on. The whole tenor of this debate is that hon. members opposite want to pretend as if all the problems of agriculture would be solved by way of increased subsidies and lower rates of interest. Sir, people who do not appreciate and see in its true perspective this problem of the financing of agriculture, will constantly hold up these things as the solution to the problems of agriculture. This afternoon a great fuss was made here again about the young farmer who was supposed to be unable to start farming because he could not obtain the necessary funds.

Yes, not all of them are doctors.

Yes, not all of them are doctors; that is quite right, but I think everybody who wants to think soberly for himself should start asking himself the question—particularly because one cannot start farming with a minimum of capital today—whether it is fair towards that young man that he should be saddled with an additional burden, probably for the rest of his life. That is the real question, and not how to make additional capital available to the young farmer. It is easy to make political propaganda. As has been said by the Financial Mail, you can promise the farmers the sun and the moon and the stars and everything else from the Opposition benches when you do not have to fulfil those promises.

We cannot make wild promises because next time we are going to be put into power. [Interjections.]

That goes to show how unrealistic these people are. They complained this afternoon because it was alleged that the Minister had not appointed members of the United Party to these committees. Where would I find a member of the United Party in my constituency to appoint? I had one friend there who was a member of the United Party, but he fled to Hillbrow. I do not think he will be able to appreciate the problems of our poor people in the rural areas any more.

I do not think we have had a Minister in the past who viewed the problem of the farmer in the light this Minister is doing. I think the policy of this Government is to help the farmer to help himself. Hon. members may say now that nothing is being done. We can have lengthy discussions about all the assistance in respect of droughts and about the attempts that are being made to eliminate uneconomic units, and I want to predict now that when the legislation seeking to prevent the establishment of uneconomic units is laid before this House, the Opposition will object most strongly to it.

The necessary commissions were appointed, such as the Marais Commission, which we hope will submit to us in the near future its recommendations regarding the planning of agriculture, although I want to say now that I anticipate that this commission is merely going to support the present policy of the Minister.

Would you understand it?

After all, he is a doctor. Surely he must understand it.

How can one understand something he has not seen yet? That hon. member comes and sits in this House now because he is having difficulty in his caucus these days. [Time expired.]

I see the hon. member for South Coast wants to interrupt me now. He does not feel at ease, because he said this afternoon that the National Party was responsible for young farmers leaving the rural areas, but he was passing a damning judgment on the Opposition. After all, was he not here in those days when the United Party was in power and doss he not know of the tumultuous moments in this House? Does he not know of the regulation which was made by the United Party Government of that time to the effect that the moment a young man on a settlement reached the age of 21 years, he had to leave his parents’ house immediately? They conducted raids on the young Afrikaner boys every year. I do not have a good memory, but those things are indelibly engraved in my mind. I cannot forget them. [Interjection.] I want to say immediately that they robbed the rural areas of those young people—not the rich young people whom the hon. member for South Coast spoke of but the poor young men, because in those days settlements were still being used for the rehabilitation of needy farmers. They say there is turmoil in the country, but there we have the people who are stirring up turmoil in the country. They chased those young men away from the rural areas. They were condemned to national destitution and poverty. One could find them everywhere in the large cities, because a devastating war was being fought. They did not go and fight; they were fighting the young farmers. Therefore they have no right to-night to speak of the depopulation as the hon. member for South Coast did. I see the hon. member for Gardens is talking to the hon. member for South Coast. That hon. member came to this Houe in 1943, the same time as I did. At that time he represented a rural constituency, but he finds himself in the Gardens to-night, a charming name which merely reminds one of the gardens in the rural areas.

When are you going to talk about agriculture?

I want to make this quite clear. We are discussing the Votes “Agriculture” and “Land Tenure” now.

Hear, hear!

Yes, the hon, members say “Hear, hear”, but they do not have the sense to understand. They hear, but they do not have the sense to understand what they hear. The Land Settlement Act of 1943 passes a damning judgment on the Opposition. At that time we were not the masters of our farms. One of them said that you should be the master on your farm. Master on your farm under a United Party Government! The whole of their land settlement policy amounted to the fact that they were the great land-owners in South Africa while the farmer was condemned to the position of permanent squatter. I shall never forget that pernicious legislation and the tumultuous incidents in this House When Senator Conroy was performing, politically speaking, like one possessed. To-night it is wonderfully quiet in this House while I am speaking. There is a genial atmosphere prevailing. But in those days it was different. There was turmoil not only on the settlements but in the whole of the country as well. Even at that time hon. members opposite were stirring up turmoil in the country. Raids were carried out not only on our young people, but even elderly people were not allowed to remain on the settlements; they were chased off as well. Family life was destroyed. Elderly people had nowhere to go. The only place they could go to was either an old-age home or the United Party Cabinet, because it was a home for old men. Those were the conditions which were prevailing at that time and then those hon. members come along and attack us in this House. Just imagine! We cannot allow a thing like this to happen. The hon. member who is looking at me in such a significant and unintelligent way, poses here as the wonderful debater who has to present the point of view of the farmers, but does he not know that an Opposition should also act in a responsible manner? But this Opposition is no longer a responsible one. [Interjections.]

Surely, the hon. Whip knows that if you want to honour the Parliamentary system you should at least have a responsible Opposition who is able to make positive and constructive contributions. But what is the hon. member doing? He performs like a wild buck that has been shot with buck shot; he runs round in circles year after year. He never comes to the point, and that is the trouble. They speak about climatic setbacks. I know there is an enormous risk factor in the farming industry. I am aware of the hail storms and the droughts. I am aware of the scorching heat and the cold. But they do not want to hear the truth. They have been acting in this way through all these years; they never want to learn. That is the difficulty with those people. I want to make it clear that there is some factor of risk involved in the farming industry, but we cannot be blamed for it. Unfortunately this is so. Instead of suggesting certain measures and expressing appreciation for what the Government is doing, those hon. members are busy creating a spirit of grievance and to incite the farmers against this good Government. We did not incite the farmers in our time. It was a natural, spontaneous reaction and that was why the farmers destroyed them. That is why there are few of them sitting over there. That is the trouble with those people.

Order! The hon. member must not address hon. members as “people”, but as “hon. members”.

But surely the hon. members are people. Do you think they are something else? [Laughter.]

This is not the correct way to address them. You must refer to them as “hon. members”.

Mr. Chairman, then I say the hon. members on that side who acted in that way towards the settlements in those days. All of us will probably recall how they amended the land settlement laws. Those laws were full of restrictions. Those people were never able to obtain a full title-deed. That was the trouble. We were the people who repealed that Act. The hon. member for Gardens knows that this is so. He knows how that matter was discussed here. That is one of the reasons why they were chased away by the people in the rural areas and why the hon. member is now being temporarily accommodated in the Gardens. That is the reason. There is no other reason.

I nevertheless won a seat from a Nationalist in 1943.

The seat of a Nationalist in 1943? [Interjections.] That hon. member says he won a seat from a Nationalist in 1943. That is far back in the political past. [Interjections.] That was in the time of “khaki elections”, as we called them. That is the trouble.

We were fighting the War then.

How were you fighting that War? I was never against the soldiers, but I was against the War. I was also against the fact that the hon. the Opposition used the Land Board during the war years as a statutory body on the basis of favouritism and preference. How did the hon. the Opposition not cancel people on the settlements when they were only one payment in arrear? Do hon. members know who were cancelled? Only Nationalists were cancelled. If hon. members on this side of the House could read the Hansard for the period from 1943 to 1948 this evening, we would chase the Opposition from Dan to Beersheba to-morrow. If we hold up all those misdeeds to the Opposition they will probably act in a positive manner. Then they will also plead in the interests of the farmers in this country.

Mr. Chairman, we are busy discussing one of the most important factors of our country that we can lay our hands on. That is agriculture, the backbone of the country. Despite the importance of this factor, we had to listen this evening to what ] call a real circus.

Order! The hon. member cannot use that term. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

On a point of order. Sir, why must the hon. member withdraw the word “circus”?

It is a reflection on the Chair to imply that it allows the proceedings to become a circus.

But, Sir, the word “circus” has been used often in this House.

I have given my ruling. The hon. member must please sit down. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) may continue.

Well, then I shall refer to it as this amusing evening that we have here. I cannot remember the hon. member for Fauresmith saying anything about agriculture. He did refer to young farmers. However, I think he would frighten young farmers away from farming altogether, if they heard his speech. To think that we on this side of the House, the few that we are, have so bowled out the other side of the House that they had to call their Chief Whip to amuse us for 10 minutes. He has certainly also not said anything about agriculture. [Interjections.] After 21 years in power, we must ask the hon. the Minister to introduce regulations of this description where people, as I call them, the housewives, are being defrauded right through South Africa by selling water at 20 cents per pound to them. I say to the hon. the Minister that it is time that these regulations governing the percentage of water in chicken carcasses should be published. It should not exceed 5 per cent. Above that, I say, it is fraud, They are then selling water to the housewife.

Who are those, farmers?

Why do you allow it? You do not know what is going on [Interjections.]

Only last night in the Argus an article appeared on this very subject. Under the heading “Now, about these chickens …” it says that:

Further on the article reads as follows:

Just do not treat the Argus as if it were the Bible. [Interjections.]

I did not take notice of all the interruptions from that side of the House, because they do not seem to see the seriousness to the housewife throughout the country. I say, when it Comes to foodstuffs, it is our duty to protect the housewife, whether she be White, Brown or Black. The Consumers Association in Australia has, won the battle of the water in chickens. I hope sincerely that we would do likewise in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for (City) raised a problem which is already receiving attention. It is a fact that We introduces legislation the other day in order to go into this whole question of broiler chickens. Arising from that are various other matters which receiving our attention as well.

I just want to refer to what the hon. member said about our attitude as far as the depopulation of the rural areas is concerned. Hon. members must please not get impression that this Government is not earnestly endeavouring to keep as many people as possible in the rural areas. we have stated repeatedly that we cannot act contrary to this economic law. Throughout the world the smaller producers are finding it difficult to cope as a result of the increased production costs. The German Tribune states that “one farmer in four will have left the land by 1980”. That is the position in Germany. The same position applies in America and in all the other countries. We should very much like to keep the people on the farms. We have furnished hon. members with the figures in respect of agricultural credit. The hon. member for Paarl explained to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) to-day why the price of milk did not increase. Hon. members opposite simply do not want to realize that there are surpluses of all these commodities.

After all, these products have to be consumed. We cannot export them. Our butter quota in the case of England has been cut by one million pounds. We cannot compete with other countries which reduce their prices to lower levels than ours. We have 27 million pounds of butter in cold storage at the moment. Must we say now that the price of butter and butter fat should remain constant and that more and more butter should be produced? Where must it be stored? We are now reducing the price by 11c per lb. in the Cape Peninsula. Somebody has to pay for it.

I draw the attention of hon. members to the sympathetic attitude of the Government in respect of the production of all these various crops by means of amounts which are paid in the form of subsidies in an attempt to assist. I just want to quote the following passage to hon. members:

It is going to go on happening. Now I ask, what is the task of the Department of Agriculture? Do hon. members want us to breed a nation without any backbone? Do hon. members want us to pamper a person or to say to him: “You paid too much for your land. You cannot recover the interest through your farming operations. The transaction has been concluded. You bought land which is worth R100 per morgen for R150 per morgen, and now you have to recover the interest on the land through farming it.” But his neighbour acted sensibly and did not pay too much for his land. After all, we are not forcing anybody to buy land.

You are replacing Whites with non-Whites in the rural areas. [Interjections.]

We should like the Opposition to help us in solving this problem. But now I ask hon. members can they show me one person in this country who is starving and who is not assisted by 90,000 farmers in our country, with the aid of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and other departments, to obtain food cheaply? We have a surplus in spite of the droughts. A moment ago the Minister told hon. members to what extent our sheep and goat herds increased in number during the time of the drought. Now hon. members point a finger at us now. An old man told me the other day that he had 1,200 sheep when he was farming in 1933. Then the drought of 1933 came. But in 1934 the rains came. He had only 300 sheep left at that time. He did not have any grazing either; but the grazing was rehabilitated because he had only 300 sheep left. He asked me what we were doing to-day. Before the drought we had 36 million sheep and goats. After four years of severe drought, during which we granted the farmers fodder subsidies of up to 50 per cent, we now have 38 million sheep and goats. Before the grazing can recover, the gates are thrown open and the stock are put put to graze and trample the pasture, and within 45 years the Verwoerd dam will be silted up to 50 per cent. Those are the problems we have. Then these Opposition members say we are doing too little as far as subsidies are concerned. We should subsidize lucerne for the dairy farmers. Can you imagine, Sir, that one can be so irresponsible with the money of the taxpayers! If one does that one will have to subsidize the dairy farmer on the grassveld of the Eastern Transvaal whenever the slightest drought occurs. The sheep farmer in the Beaufort West area who has not had any rain for years, do you want to treat him on the same basis as the person who produces fresh milk and receives his milk cheque every week? If you had the common sense of a child you would see that your argument is false.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must please address the Chair and not hon. members opposite directly.

Very well, Sir. I am scared of only one thing. These prople proceed on the assumption that we …

The “hon. members”.

Hon. members proceed on the assumption that we are not sympathetic, because the rural areas are becoming depopulated. They make these wild statements, while they know the reasons for the depopulation of the rural areas. In their time it was deliberately promoted.

What did we promote.

The depopulation of the rural areas. The hon. member heard what was quoted from the White Paper. That hon. member was not here when the Minister spoke and quoted from the White Paper of his Prime Minister at that time.

I was here!

I think the hon. member for Karas gave those hon. members a clear exposition of our price policy to-day. However, immediately he sat down an hon. member got up and said that the prices of the products were not keeping pace with development. I think it was the hon. member for Mooi River. We are exporting maize at a loss of 90 cents per bag. Then he still asked why the hon. the Minister said it depended on how big the crop was going to be. Does the hon. member want to say at this stage already that if our crop amounts to 200 bags of maize the price should be R3.50 per bag? Does the hon. member want to see the Government going to blazes (swernoot) through paying subsidies from money it gets from the taxpayers?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to use the word “swernoot”?

I have not seen the word ruled out of order yet. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw the word if the hon. member objects.

I now come to the hon. member for South Coast. The fruit farmers received R2 million by way of subsidies because Britain had devalued by 14.3 per cent. The pineapple farmers, the canners, received devaluation assistance to the amount of R6.86 per ton. After that the Government granted the pineapple producers another R2 per ton. These subsidies are paid by the Government in respect of a product the price of which is R20 per ton.

What percentage?

It varies from one product to another, but in the case of pineapples it was more than 14.3 per cent. The canner got R6.86 in respect of a product of R20. But what about the R2 million the fruit farmers of the Western Province received? [Interjections.] Very well, they asked for R3 million, but anybody would ask for more. He would take a chance with the idea that he might get more. They are grateful for that R2 million. We should simply see the matter as a whole and in the right perspective. I am only asking those hon. members to stop telling our younger farmers that agriculture is not a paying proposition and that the Government is not sympathetically disposed. I took a critical look at these departments with the idea of finding out in what way we were the cause of the rural areas being depopulated. My conscience is clear and I can tell the farmers of South Africa that if they can justify it, if they can manage their affairs the way pharmacists and butchers do and if they can stand on their own feet, this Government will see to it that their talents, managerial ability and capital will be supplemented by the Government in order to help them to remain on the land without their being a burden on the State like people who have no backbone and without their having to ask for subsidies all the time as the Opposition is doing.

Mr. Chairman, if one considers the Opposition’s contribution at this stage of the debate, it is not strange that one needs a magnifying glass to find those persons amongst them who represent farming constituencies. In the few minutes at my disposal, I want to raise a matter which we have not yet dealt with in this debate and in connection with which the Government has already done a very great deal. However, I think we can apply it a bit more effectively. I am referring to the question of soil conservation.

When we spoke about soil conservation in the past, we thought in terms of filling up ditches and dongas and erecting fences. We tried to prevent the valuable soil from being washed away. We heard calculations to the effect that so many tons of good soil were being washed down the rivers each year and were lost for ever. I think many of those calculations were exaggerated. We take a slightly different view of these matters to-day. We rather think in terms of conservation farming. It is no longer a matter of our having to prevent the soil from being washed away. We want to cultivate the soil we have in such a way that it will become better and more fertile each year. If we have a good crop in one year, we must handle the soil in such a way that it will yield a better crop each year. If we can build up the fertility of the soil in this way, I believe we shall be applying soil conservation in the true sense of the word.

Soil conservation is really something we are doing for posterity. However irresponsibly we may act and however careless we may be in our lifetime, we can never do so much damage that we shall really find ourselves in trouble. We are practising conservation for posterity so that they may receive farms from which they, in turn, may gain a good livelihood, and which they may leave to their children so that they too may farm successfully on them. However, it is a striking fact that while our actions are directed towards our children and posterity, they are by no means soil conservation conscious. I do not think that our young generation, who have to take over from us on the farms in 10 or 15 years’ time, are really aware of the problems in connection with soil conservation. We know that we have land service camps, where a great deal is being done in this regard. They arrange excursions, and they go camping with the children. They teach the children the most elementary principles of soil conservation, such as filling up ditches, eradicating weeds, etc. But, Sir, they only reach a very small percentage of our children. I think that as far as soil conservation is concerned, the time has come for us to involve all our children in this project in some way or other. Every child, whether he is living in the country and intends to go into farming eventually, or whatever his plans for the future may be, must be made aware of the obligation which rests upon every person to look after the soil properly and to hand it over to posterity unharmed. When one looks at areas where soil conservation has not been applied, and where this problem has got out of hand, such as in certain areas in the Transkei, it is a disconcerting experience, because if our children looked after the soil the way it was looked after there, we would have no future in this country. If we want to make our children aware of this problem so that they, when they have grown up, will also be able to make a proper contribution, we must probably turn to the schools in the first place. I know how crammed the syllabuses of our schools already are. I do not think the teachers would take kindly to another subject being added. I do think, however, that if we devoted half an hour to this every fortnight, from whatever subject we take ir away, we would be able to make good use of that half hour, because it would help to impress upon every child what his obligations are as regards looking after the good and fertile soil, which, after all, provides the necessaries of life to all of us, and as regards using it properly. Perhaps we shall find no better way of illustrating this than by means of film shows. We know that various films are available which portray this subject very clearly, but I wonder how many of our children ever have the opportunity of seeing those films. These films are usually shown at some or other function, and, in my experience, I am not sure that the audiences attending these shows really appreciated what had been shown to them. Furthermore, I think that if the Department of Agricultural Technical Services were to issue a small publication giving a clear exposition of the problems, the principles and the remedies in this regard, it would achieve a great deal of success. If such a publication is drawn up in such a way as to make good reading and so that it can also be used as a text-book in primary schools, I think we can achieve a great deal with it.

The Government has announced that next year is to be a water year, in which we shall pay special attention to the conservation of our water resources. It was also said that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who is present here to-night, will be approached to issue a series of postage stamps in order to draw the attention of the public to the necessity of water conservation. I think the time has arrived to have this very topical subject, i.e. “Save our soil”, printed on a series of postage stamps too, so that by so doing we can publicize the matter in a way that will get through to many people who would otherwise not become aware of it. In fact, I think we should endeavour to inculcate with his mother’s milk into every child this matter of soil conservation. I can think of no better investment than making our children fully aware of this problem. After all, what would happen if we had all the riches on earth, and all the treasures of art, and we did not have a plate of food to eat? Then we would realize that the conservation of the soil is of primary importance. There have been so many civilizations that have disappeared. We know of ruins in many places, in the middle of the desert, where there used to be fertile arable land. We learn from history the clear lesson that it does not take long before those who do not conserve the soil are destroyed and their civilizations are swallowed up by the desert. We must have noticed the signs of encroaching desert conditions in this country too, and I believe that if we want to combat this process properly, we must get our children to co-operate, because we are really performing this task for posterity.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay has made a most responsible speech. He has appealed for more conservation farming. He has spoken about the Land Service camps and he has made a plea to make our youth conscious of the heritage of the land. Sir, may I say that we support him in this. I should like to commend what he has said to the hon. the Minister, who has unfortunately not been here to hear what he had to say.

Sir, I want to come back to the hon. member for Brits, the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side, who unfortunately came into the debate by mistake a little earlier. It certainly was a mistake that he entered the debate at all. The hon. member gave us another verkrampte speech from the other side. I know now why the hon. member for Ermelo was in his seat, and why he left as soon as the hon. the Chief Whip had finished. Sir, this was the hon. the Chief Whip’s national unity speech. Was this his nomination speech for 1971? Sir, it is no wonder that the hon. member for Ermelo has not been thrown out …

Order! Will the hon. member please come back to the Vote.

I shall come back to the Vote, Sir. We heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister about the question raised by the hon. member for South Coast, namely the compensation paid to the deciduous fruit farmers. Sir, I want to put to him the question which was put categorically to the hon. member for Paarl while he was speaking. We accept that the deciduous fruit farmers are grateful for the R2 million which have been given to them. But are they satisfied?

Those who spoke to me are satisfied.

Are the deciduous fruit farmers satisfied? The hon. the Deputy Minister said that they are satisfied. Thank you, I appreciate that reply. This shall be passed on to the interested parties. The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to a question which I have raised earlier, namely the question of butter, which has been released at a special reduced price in the Western Province. He tried to twist this; I beg your pardon, he put it in the wrong light in that he asked us whether we did not accept it.

The hon. member said that I twisted his words.

I withdraw it, it was just a slip of the tongue. The hon. the Deputy Minister wants to put it in the wrong light in that he asked us whether we are not in favour of the reduction of the price. I put categoric and definite questions to the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister. Why is that butter only released at a reduced price in the Western Province? Why this differentiation? Why are they against the housewives, the non-Whites and the consumers in the rest of the country?

It is an experiment and the butter must be marked.

I accept that it is an experiment and that it must be marked. I hope that I shall get a better and more comprehensive answer from the hon. the Minister when he rises to reply to the debate. The hon. the Deputy Minister also passed off in a few words a very important matter which was raised in this House this evening by my hon. colleague from Pietermaritzburg (City), namely the percentage of water which is included in chickens. Before I go any further, I want to come to a memorandum which was issued by the department’s division of Commodity Services in connection with this subject. It appears that they have carried out an investigation into three different processes which are used for the processing of chickens. Their findings on these processes are that Process No. 1 gives a percentage of 2.21 of fresh water by weight, apart from the water which is naturally included in the carcass, but shows a hygienic condition of 3.6 million colonies of bacteria per pound of meat. Process No. 2 shows a percentage of 2.3 per cent of water and 1.977 million colonies of bacteria per pound of meat. Process No. 3 shows 6.8 per cent water by weight in the carcass and .08 million colonies of bacteria per pound of meat. Prima facie this makes the process which adds the greatest quantity of water the most hygienic. However, it is prima facie only, because I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the users of the first two processes were fully advised about the hygienic side? Were the first two processes as sophisticated as the last one? Does this conclusion that the third process is the most hygienic really imply anything? I should also like to ask the hon. Minister where these tests were conducted. Were they conducted on birds taken from the points of supply to the consumer or were they taken at the point of production? In process No. 3 I see that only 85 carcasses weighing average of 53.4 ounces were examined. Therefore, is this a true reflection of what is in fact taking place? It has been said, and I want to bear witness to this, that water makes the chicken tasteless; in fact, there have been cases of Bantu who walked into the supermarkets here in Cape Town and in Johannesburg and said that they do not want a certain brand of chicken because it has no flavour. We have raised this question of regulations, but the hon. the Deputy Minister passed it off with a matter of a few words. This matter was brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department 12 months ago and what have they done? What have they done to protect the consumer? What have they done to protect the legitimate, honest producer?

If it has no taste, add some curry!

Surely, there is no need for the hon. member to be funny about this, because it is a serious matter. What has the hon. the Minister done to protect the honest producer against the unscrupulous producer, the one who has the finance required to purchase this highly sophisticated and modern equipment which, as my hon. friend has pointed out, acknowledges that up to 25 per cent by weight of fresh water can be absorbed when chickens are prepared under this process? It is 12 months since his department has had that request! It is 12 months since they published their draft regulations. What have they done since? Nothing! What has been the position? The position is that many honest producers to-day find themselves faced with bankruptcy because they have been faced with a price war brought about by the unscrupulous producers who have the finance to introduce this modern technology and thereby to defraud the public. Therefore I want to know what this hon. Minister’s department intends to do about it.

I want to refer to another matter although I shall stay in the field of poultry. I want to speak to the hon. the Minister about egg production. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell me whether the committee which was to investigate the poultry industry in South Africa has reported as yet to the department. My information is that it should have reported during October. I should like to get an answer from the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon. member must continue his speech.

My information is that this report was to appear in October last year, but I want to go further and say that I believe this report has been thrown out by the department. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us. Then there is the question of the levy. This levy has to be paid, strictly speaking, by the egg producer. However, it is usually collected at the source where it is distributed to the consumer. I am prepared to say 54 per cent of the eggs which are produced in Southern Africa are not subjected to the levy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before replying to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), I want to congratulate my former benchmate, the hon. the Deputy Minister, on his promotion. I am convinced that with his wide knowledge in the field of agriculture and with his integrity and sincerity he will be of great value to the agricultural industry.

If I remember correctly, it was recorded in Hansard that I gave the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) the nickname of “botterbulletjie”. That was a fatal error on my part; I should have called him “fowl”, because he would have been an ideal chairman for the “cackling society”. We have come to know him better through the years …

The hon. member must refrain from being so personal. It is unnecessary.

I withdraw. You say I must not be personal towards the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I accept your ruling, but he summarily attacked the hon. the Chief Whip on this side of the House, attributing to him words he never uttered. This was an extremely unkind gesture by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), but this is how we know him. The hon. the Chief Whip rebuked hon. members on that side of the House and they did not like it.

Firstly I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the help given to the citrus farmers. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said the deciduous fruit farmers were not satisfied. I received a letter from the manager of the local packing-shed at Rustenburg. The citrus farmers of that area suffered a great deal and they expressed their sincere thanks and appreciation for what is being done for them now. This amount which is being made available to them is a large one and it is being given to them in difficult circumstances. I have every confidence that the hon. the Minister will find a solution as far as the conference lines, the shipping lines, are concerned, so that the citrus farmers will have no need to rely on grants or subsidies in future, but will be able to continue on a sound economic basis. That is what the citrus farmers want. They do not want to be subsidized, and I am convinced that the matter will be rectified under the able leadership of the Government, so that the citrus industry will be sound to the core.

Mr. Chairman, there is one matter on which we are all agreed in this House, and that is that all of us accept that there are times when the farmers are in difficulties. All of us in this House accept that there are sectors of the industry which are suffering hardship, but there is a great and fundamental difference between the approach of this side of the House and of that side. The approach of hon. members opposite is to see whether they cannot derive some political advantage from the predicament of the farmer. Sir, no political party will ever get into power or grow stronger by adopting that attitude. The only way for a party to become strong is by upholding its principles and carrying out its policy. The Opposition has not made one positive suggestion in this debate. Let us be realistic. Many causes of the depopulation of the rural areas were suggested here, but the matter was wrested out of context. The farms are becoming depopulated, but what is the reason for that? South Africa has experienced a period of growth during the past twenty years; conditions in South Africa have changed completely. South Africa has experienced an economic explosion. The standard of living in this country was much lower twenty years ago than it is to-day. In the days when the United Party Government was in power, people were struggling to exist on small farms. They had a miserable existence, because there was no norm for determining an economic farming unit. Twenty years ago, for the information of the hon. member for Yeoville, the children of parents living on uneconomic farms rode to school on donkeys. In my schooldays children rode to school on donkeys. That is what happened in the days of United Party rule. It is no longer happening under the National Party Government to-day—people are no longer riding on donkeys.

The donkeys are in Parliament.

There are so many more opportunities to-day than 20 years ago to do better in other sectors of economy. That is why the depopulation of the rural areas has been taking place automatically to a large extent. Sir, it is important that we build up economic units in the rural areas, because agriculture is still the backbone of the nation, and the backbone of a nation must be completely sound. I challenge the Official Opposition to tell me what economic means that may be applied to assist agriculture have not been applied by this Minister. Take the case of the citrus industry. A large amount was voted last year to help the citrus industry and it is again being done this year, and this has been made possible by the purposefulness of this side of the House. You will recall, Sir, that the hon. member for Yeoville prophesied at the time the Republic was established that we would die of misery, that we would go bankrupt, but what has happened? We have experienced a period of economic growth and prosperity since becoming a Republic, and this has enabled the State to finance this assistance to agriculture. What did the hon. member for Mooi River with his side whiskers say here this afternoon? [Interjection.] No, that hon. member also has side whiskers, but I am referring to the hon. member for Mooi River now. What did they say here this afternoon? They said that the interest owing by the farmers should be recovered every year. Sir, whenever a farmer has been able to give bona fide reasons for his inability to pay his interest on the due date, Agricultural Credit has never been unreasonable and the Land Bank has never been unreasonable, and they have been able to assist the farmers because our financial position is fundamentally sound. We have always been able, as a result of our sound financial position, to give the farmers the necessary assistance. It will be of no use to the Opposition to make the irresponsible political statement here that nothing is being done for the farmer. Enormous projects have been undertaken during the past 20 years.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we have a tobacco research institute in Rustenburg, where we have some of the best scientists in the country, permit me to plead here for a revaluation of scientific posts. These scientists succeeded in developing seed which has eliminated powdery mildew to a large extent, thereby saving the tobacco farmer thousands of rands. The farmers in my area can all bear witness to these scientists’ readiness to help when the farmers approach them for advice. We must take care not to lose the services of these scientists. The hon. member for Nelspruit referred to the artificial fertilizer organizations this afternoon. I admit that they lure away many of our people. I believe that there should be a revaluation of posts and that scientists must be afforded the opportunity of remaining in the scientific field and of receiving promotion in that field, instead of what usually happens, i.e. that they are eventually promoted to an administrative post. I believe that if this opportunity is afforded the scientists in the employ of the Government, we shall in future derive increasing benefits from the services of the fine team of scientists which we have in my own constituency, for example. Sir, a number of farmers are applying scientific farmine methods and are keeping in touch with the Research Institute. The cooperation existing among the Research Institute, the Agricultural Union and individual farmers means a very great deal to those farmers. Our scientists are making a positive, essential contribution here in the interests of the farming industry. I am convinced that if the Minister makes it possible for our scientists to receive promotion in the scientific field in future instead of being promoted to administrative posts, we shall retain many of our scientists in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, allow me, before I proceed to other matters, to reach first to what certain hon. members of the Opposition said here in their speeches. I want to begin by referring to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City). The hon. member made a remark here about a speech the hon. the Chief Whip had made here a short while before. He described it as a circus. In my opinion the hon. the Chief Whip exposed in a very witty way the mismanagement of the old United Party Government. Because he did so in a masterly fashion, it was not to the liking of the Opposition, and that is why they tried to belittle him by comparing his contribution to a circus. A circus is a place where ons has to pay to see the clowns, etc., and I am convinced that we in this House will not be inclined to pay money to listen to the kind of remarks made here by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City). We reject that attack in the strongest terms.

I want to come back to what was said here by the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member asked how the farmers were ever going to get out of debt. History can probably repeat itself. In the past our farmers have always been able to repay their debts and to carry on with their farming activities honourably, and I have the fullest confidence that under the efficient guidance of this Government, and with regard being had to the fact that our farmers are farming on a scientific basis, they will in fact meet their obligations. They have showed us in the oast that they are able to do so, and I have the fullest confidence that they will also do so in the future.

The hon. member continued his speech by expressing concern about companies displaying such a great interest in our land. I want to tell him that the companies are very interested in land in the hope that the United Party will one day be returned to power. If that is what they are hoping for, their hopes will be sadly disappointed.

I also want to refer to the hon. member for Newton Park who acted here as the speaker on Opposition side. The hon. member spoke here of the good rains which fell after the drought. He said that unfortunately the rains were too late and then posed the question, “What is the Government doing now? There have been good rains, and what is the Government doing for the farmers? It is not doing anything at all”. Those were his words. What does he want the Government to do?

He does not know.

What should the Government have done in this case? The hon. member attacked the hon. the Minister of Finance in very strong terms here. As a matter of fact, he actually rebuked him here because he allegedly had the temerity not to mention the farmers in his Budget Speech. I should like to refer him to what appears in the Report of the Land Bank. But the hon. member went on and said, “We shall go from platform to platform and we shall tell the farmers in what way the Minister of Finance is ignoring them”. Sir, we shall also go from platform to platform and we shall tell the farmers what nonsense hon. members of the Opposition speak when they discuss agriculture in this House. In order to prove this, I should like to read a few quotations from the report of the Land Bank. The hon. member said the Government was doing nothing for the farmers. What does this Report say? It reads as follows—

In its Reports for the year 1966 and 1967 the Board referred to the credit restrictions which the Government had imposed as part of the campaign against inflation. At the date of issue of the Report for 1967 the monetary banks had to ensure that their discounts, loans and advances to the private sector, excluding the Land Bank were at least 7½ per cent less than at the end of March, 1965, with the concession that this limit could be extended by per cent in the case of credit for agricultural purposes.

Sir, I do not know how the hon. member can get away from this. I can go on quoting from the Report of the Land Bank, but. Sir, I believe that the Opposition is not completely honest in their conduct in this House as regards agriculture. They want to give out that they are the champions of the farmer, which they really are not. With your permission, Sir, I should like to quote from a cutting from the Sunday Times. The Sunday Times is not known as a friend of the National Party Government; it is better known as a newspaper which is on the Opposition’s side of the fence. Just listen, Sir, to what the people say outside this House; in this House they are the mighty champions of the farmers. This report appeared under the heading, “Play the Game, Farmers!” I am going to read this very slowly so that hon. members may hear this very well. They say—

From where does the hon. member get the right to say here that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not in the least concerned about the farmers, while their own newspapers quote the instructions issued to the banks by the Minister of Finance in regard to the treatment farmers were to receive. I proceed. They say—

Here we have the true disposition of the Opposition to the agriculturists of South Africa. They appear in this House as the mighty champions of the farmers, but in reality, in their heart of hearts, they are everything but the friend of the farmer. I hope the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) will not say that I have told a circus tale in having said this. I just want to remind him of the fact that in the year 1936 the farmers had to sell their mealies at 45 cents, or 4/6, as we said in those days, per bag. and in addition they had to pay 2/6d. per bag for the lorry which conveyed their mealies to the Pietermaritzburg co-operative society. I had a farm there and I am speaking from experience, and what was left to me? Twenty cents. These are the prices those people can boast they paid to our farmers for their mealies, and then they give out here that the National Government is failing in its duty towards the agricultural industry. [Interjection.] I can continue in this vein and I can also quote from the Report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, but I do not think that will be necessary. It has been emphasized over and over again what the National Government and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture are doing for the agricultural industry, and I do not want to repeat it. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Rustenburg made reference to the hairy excrescences which appeared on the face of the hon. member for Mooi River, but I do not know whether this particular subject has any place in an agricultural debate. As I look at the hon. member for Rustenburg, and I look at him closely. I would say it is merely a question of choice of place.

Order! Hon. members must refrain from being personal.

I will honour your request, Sir.

Sir, may I suggest that the hon. member was merely discussing wool.

I do not think the hon. member for Lydenburg can really claim that his speech in this House this evening was a constructive contribution to the problems of the farmer. When he had to quote from a paper he chose the Sunday Times, and I do not know whether that newspaper is really an authority on the agricultural industry in South Africa. I would have expected the hon. member to use his time more gainfully by telling us what the position of the farmers in his own constituency really is. He knows that they are not doing well, and I think it would have behoved the hon. member better to have raised the plight of the farmer in his constituency.

I want to raise another problem which has not been raised in this agricultural debate yet to any extent. It is the question of surpluses that is confronting the agricultural sector. I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister. He raised it several times and spoke about the surpluses as one of the problems which confront agriculture to-day, and I am inclined to agree with him. If one looks through the report we have had this year from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, we find that there is a surplus in this country at present of milk, butter, eggs, citrus and many other products. Naturally one is impressed with the efforts that are being made by the respective marketing boards, the boards of control, to dispose of these surpluses, even if it does sometimes mean that we are involved in an export trade and we have to export our surplus produce at a loss. It is interesting to read a quotation here from the Sunday Tribune of January 19th, which says this—

Here we find that the farmers in another part of the world are, because we are exporting produce at a loss, able to start an industry which might very well be competitive with our own local industries. This question of exporting products at a loss is, I think, a very serious matter; it is a matter for grave concern. When we speak of the surpluses they are not surpluses in the real sense of the word. It is a surplus created very largely by a lack of ways and means of distribution. I am quite sure that if we had a proper survey conducted of the real demand that exists in South Africa at present, we would find there is a consumption point for every pint of milk we can produce and every egg and every tomato and every orange we can produce. There is a demand for all those things. I am prepared to say that this may be an artificial demand, in the sense that the people who would like to eat that produce may not be in a position to pay for it, but nevertheless that demand in fact exists in this country at present, if only they had the ability to pay for it. In this particular context I refer to the thousands and thousands of school-children in this country at the present time who are attending school in an undernourished condition. I do not believe there is one member opposite who can deny the accuracy of what I am alleging here. For instance in Port Elizabeth, the city which I represent in this House, there are at present 13,000 children being fed every day by a charitable organization. This represents only a third of those who in fact need help in so far as supplementary food is concerned. In many other centres, like Cape Town, exactly the same situation obtains. There are charitable organizations here feeding thousands of schoolchildren. I am bold enough to recommend here that the Government reconsider introducing school-feeding schemes. I know that in days gone by it was the policy of the South African Government to sponsor school-feeding schemes, but then these schemes were abolished. I do not want to make anything like a political issue of this subject. I think that would be entirely wrong, but we in this country are confronted at present with agricultural surpluses, and it has been completely evident from this debate that these surpluses are one of the main problems in our agriculture—the Minister has said so, the Deputy Minister has said so, and many other speakers opposite have made reference to this fact that if you raise the price to the farmer there will be surpluses in excess of the surpluses we already have. So this obviously is a very difficult problem. What I want to suggest to the Minister and the Deputy Minister is whether the time has not arrived when we should very seriously consider, in view of the fact that we are producing more food than our population can consume at present and can pay for, that we look seriously into the question of re-instituting the school-feeding schemes. This is not a problem which confronts only our country. In the U.S.A. school-feeding schemes are a permanent arrangement. It is also the case in Britain and in France, and I submit that in those countries the need of the children is probably far less than it is in our country. I do not want to labour this point. I believe a lot can be said about it. I have a tremendous amount of information here to prove conclusively that almost half the children —and probably that applies more specifically to the Coloured, Bantu and Indian children attending schools—are underfed. It is evident that where children are underfed and they go to school in a state of hunger, they simply cannot absorb the lessons taught them. The Government knows what considerable sums of money are being spent on the education of these children. Certainly, if these children are not properly fed, the money spent on their education, while they cannot absorb that education, is being poorly used. This is not an impracticable solution because we have the surplus produce. We have the surplus milk, eggs and citrus, the kind of stuff these children need. We have the urgent demand for this food by these children, but what is more, to-day we have organizations in every big centre of the Republic which can handle this situation immediately. I think all that is required is for the Government to look at the matter seriously and decide to back the principle and for them to step in as the co-ordinating agent. [Time expired.]

I am rising to reply to a few of the speeches made by hon. members opposite. I want to start with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, who discussed friers, roasting chickens. The hon. member made the statement—and he immediately contradicted that statement in two respects—that the water content of chickens was increased up to 25 per cent. He furnished comparative figures indicating that the price of those roasting chickens was approximately 40 per cent lower than the price of the newly slaughtered chickens, the prices of which he also furnished, and he then said that on the basis of the figures furnished by him, housewives were being cheated flagrantly and that the Government had to do something in this regard. But according to the figures furnished by the hon. member, even if the figures he gave as the water content of chickens were correct, the housewife would still not be buying less meat for the same money than she would be buying had she been buying newly slaughtered chickens. But I do not want to argue about this. As a result of complaints which had been lodged, we caused an investigation to be made into the water content of chickens, and we conducted various experiments. There are three methods of treating these chickens. The first is to spray the chicken with water, then dry and cool it and keep it in cold storage for 20 minutes. The second method is to spray the carcasses with water, pass them through a perforated drum which is cooled on the inside with ice, then to leave the carcasses in ice water for the last five minutes whereupon they are dried for approximately 10 minutes. The third method is to plunge the chicken immediately after it has been slaughtered into ice water for approximately 17 minutes. It is thereupon allowed to dry for 20 minutes before it is cooled and frozen. These are the methods which are employed for processing roasting chickens before they are sold to the public. The investigation of the Department revealed that in the first case the water content of the carcasses was only 2.21 per cent. In the second case the water content of the carcasses was 2.3 per cent. In the last case, in respect of which the hon. member alleged that the carcasses contained up to 23 per cent of water, the officers who conducted the investigation made a much more comprehensive random test and the largest quantity of water found in a carcass was 6.80 per cent. In other words, not nearly the percentage the hon. member mentioned. These are the results of experiments conducted by the commodity division of the Department.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can the hon. the Minister tell us at what point these tests were conducted? Were these tests conducted at the slaughter houses?

Yes, immediately after the chickens had been slaughtered. The hon. member said the health regulations should be enforced and referred to the bacterial count in the carcasses. Here the position was exactly the reverse. In the first case I mentioned, the bacterial count was 3.610 million colonies per pound of meat. In the second random test the count was 1.97 million colonies pere pound of meat and in the last case, where the water content was 6.8 per cent, the bacterial count was .081 million colonies per pound of meat.

That is what I said.

Yes. that is what you said. In other words, according to surveys made by the Department, the charge that the water content in roasting chickens was as high as 23 per cent is unfounded. The Department could find no proof of this and the highest water content it found was 6.80 per cent. The chickens with the highest water content had the lowest bacterial count. The Department has already drawn up the regulations, and the hon. member asked why the regulations had not been promulgated as yet. It is not such an easy matter to promulgate the regulations, because if that were to be done, arrangements would also have to be made for giving effect to the regulations. It would also be necessary to see to it that it would be possible to implement the regulations to be promulgated. These are all matters which the commodity division of the Department has to investigate before the regulations can he promulgated. The regulations have been drawn up, however, and I hope to be able to promulgate them before long. I should like to repeat that in my opinion and according to the tests conducted by the Department, the allegation that the water content in some roasting chickens was as high as 23 per cent is a vast exaggeration. It is also an exaggeration to say that the housewife is being cheated in this way, if I may call it so. If the water content of a chicken is such that it affects the price, it is something which should be seen to and for that reason the Department conducted an investigation into the matter.

The hon. member also discussed the question of butter and fresh milk prices. He asked why butter was being offered at the reduced price of 30c per lb. only in the Western Cape. The present position is that there is a surplus of 25 million lbs. of butter. The British market is the only one to which we can export butter. South Africa has an export quota to the British market of approximately two to three million lbs. of butter. A few months ago Britain informed us that this quota would he cut by 50 per cent. In other words, our possibilities of exporting butter are virtually nil. Consequently, when butter is exported at the moment, it is done at a considerable loss.

Is the quota 2 to 3 million lbs. of butter per month?

No, per year. This also applies in the case of cheese. A few days ago the British Government informed us that the quota of cheese we were allowed on the British market would also be cut by 50 per cent. At the moment we are raising an objection to this, and we hope to be successful. It is, however, very doubtful. I just want to explain to hon. members the problem as regards the marketing of this commodity. At the moment the Dairy Board is faced with the problem that it has butter which has been stored over a considerable period of time. That butter cannot be stored for ever, because the quality of that butter, if the butter is stored for a long time, does not remain the same as that of fresh butter. The Dairy Board then decided to try to dispose of the butter on the local market. The price will be subsidized from the Stabilization Fund. It was then decided to start the experiment in the Western Cape. This butter will be specially marked and the progress of sales will be noted. The hon. member will realize that when 1½ million lbs. of butter are placed on the market in an area such as the Western Cape, considerable storage space must be available in the homes of housewives, in the shops or on the premises of the distributors. It will also be seen whether the reduced price of butter will result in a larger market in the future. The older stocks will be disposed of so that smaller quantities of such stocks need be stored over a long period. The intention of this is to introduce, when the difficulties have been ironed out and we have passed through the initial stages, the sale of butter at a reduced price in other parts of the country as well. This price is not being introduced in the Western Cape because we want to benefit the Cape. It will also be extended to other parts. The Western Cape is merely serving as a proving ground and the extent to which this experiment succeeds will be noted.

The hon. member asked what our policy was in connection with the dairy industry. He mentioned that whereas the producers’ price has decreased, the consumers’ price has remained constant. The hon. member probably knows how the marketing system operates. The Government subsidizes the price of dairy products, and especially that of butter, to the tune of approximately R4½ to R4¾ million per year. Export losses, however, have to be covered from the contribution of the Government and the levy which can be collected on the domestic market. When there are such large supplies and the losses are so considerable, it can only mean that the Levy Fund will be completely exhausted in the foreseeable future. The drought and the shortages we experienced in the past afforded the Levy Fund an opportunity of becoming stronger as the demand was high and there was a shortage of these products. The hon. member referred to that and said the Government had spent too large an amount of money on the importation of butter. This is not so. The butter that was imported, did not result in a loss to the Dairy Board. There were cases of butter having been imported at higher prices than the domestic price, but over a period of years the profit made on that butter exceeded the loss in cases where there was any loss, in other words, there was no loss on the total imports. This, however, is not relevant now and I do not want to suggest that we should rather import butter.

Consequently we are in point of fact making a profit when we import butter?

I am not advocating that we should import butter for this reason. I am merely mentioning this in order to give the true state of affairs for the sake of the record. The fact remains that if dairy production remains constant—this applies to fresh milk, butter and cheese—our losses are such and the possibility of exporting these products is so small that we shall suffer considerable losses on any attempt on our part to dispose of those products. This holds true whether the attempt is made on the domestic market or on any possible export market. The Government subsidy will be enormously high if it wants to maintain the prices of dairy products. If will not only be the Government subsidies that will have to be high. In that case higher production would still be encouraged. I just want to mention one example to the hon. member. During the dry period which our summer rainfall areas, our northern provinces, and especially the Transvaal, experienced after January, the production of all dairy products increased considerably. Last year, after the winter, the time when production usually shows a downward trend, it continued to show an upward trend. The hon. member will agree with me that nobody would like to reduce the price of a product, but one cannot allow the price of a product to be so encouraging to the producer that he continues producing larger surpluses for which one cannot find a market in any way. In that case, one must at least make the producer understand that the only method, if the production of a product is so profitable, to some producers at least, that it leads to over-production, is a price reduction. One cannot get away from this. Now the hon. member may say that one should not reduce the price too drastically. I agree with him. One first has to ascertain what the production circumstances are. But the hon. member for Paarl also said to-day that the production per unit had increased tremendously as a result of better methods which had been introduced into the dairy industry.

We are faced with another problem as regards the provision of fresh milk in the cities. The surplus of such fresh milk is not absorbed by the fresh milk industry. It does in fact reduce the average price of the producer if he produces a surplus of fresh milk. But such fresh milk is also processed in the dairy industry in the form of butter, cheese or powdered milk. Consequently we must take a realistic view of the situation. If production is maintained at this level and we continue to experience difficulties as far as marketing is concerned, there will have to be an adjustment in the producers’ price. The board will have to take a realistic view of the situation.

An hon. member also asked what devaluation assistance would be given to the industry next year after the allegation had been made that sufficient assistance had not been given.

Mr. Chairman, may I put one more question? I want to ask the Minister whether the introduction of 5 cent and 10 cent packs of butter has taken place. If so, when?

Yes, there are in fact smaller packs of butter. But the hon. member will also realize, of course, that smaller packs cost more. In the past we made smaller packs available, especially to the Bantu market. But experience has shown that Bantu shopkeepers do not like to buy those smaller packs.

Oh, no.

I shall tell the hon. member why. He should not tell me “Oh, no”. After all, I have experience and I know what I am talking about. I am speaking more specifically of the Bantu trader in the Bantu areas. The reason simply is that they say if they buy a pound of butter in four one-quarter pound packs, they have to sell four one-quarter pounds to their clients. But if they buy a 1 lb. pack, they can slice it with a knife and sell 6 quarter pounds. I am merely mentioning this. This is the situation with which one is faced in the distribution trade, and particularly in respect of those people to whom one would like to make the product available.

The hon. member asked what would be done with regard to devaluation assistance to certain industries in the future. I refer to the deciduous fruit industry, to mention only one. The hon. member said it took a long time before adjusting itself to devaluation. It depends on a whole number of factors how long it does take before an industry can adapt itself fully. But the prices which deciduous fruit is fetching on overseas markets at present, have shown such an increase that it is not justified at all to come to their aid with further devaluation assistance. On the British market in particular prices have increased a great deal as a result of a number of factors. I admit this. One of these factors is, for instance, that there has been a poorer apple crop in Europe. For that reason apple prices have increased considerably on the British market. But there will be no justification for coming to their aid with further devaluation assistance. There may be industries that, apart from the fact that they have to sell to countries that have devalued, are experiencing other problems as well, or have experienced such problems, which places the industry as a whole in a difficult position. I have in mind, for example, the farmers who exported grapes this year. Their income will be considerably less, not because of the fact that the market is poorer, but as a result of the fact that they experienced many problems during the export season in connection with diseases which occurred in the vineyards. Continuous rains in many parts also caused problems. The result was that the quality was poor in certain cases and that the number of boxes exported was considerably fewer. This means an over-all loss of revenue to that particular branch of the deciduous fruit industry. Their income will be considerably lower than last year or the year before. These industries will be looked after in the normal way after their receipts and the prices fetched have become known. The Government has always proved itself to be prepared to look after any industry, and to provide temporary assistance to any industry, which finds itself in difficulties involving two or three additional factors. I just want to state that the Government is not promising to give devaluation assistance in the next year for the export of our agricultural products. If one promises such assistance and makes it generally applicable, it is applicable to everyone and one will have to start calculating what the devaluation losses are. I now ask the hon. member whether he is able to say, in all honesty, with his hand on his heart, after eighteen months or virtually two years of devaluation, to what extent devaluation or market conditions have been responsible for any decrease or increase in prices.

Now I want to say a few words in connection with what was said by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. The hon. member spoke of the high land prices and of the phenomenon that larger farmers and companies were buying more and more land and that it was becoming more and more difficult for smaller farmers to buy land and to go in for farming. This, of course, is a basic problem which one has in any capitalistic country. One does not find this in the agricultural industry only. One finds this in all economic activity in the country. What we are at present experiencing on the stock exchange, the amalgamation of large companies to make their companies even larger, is something of the same nature and the same trend. Therefore it is true that some farmers, because they own larger units, are able to pay more for the same land than another farmer who produces the same product is going to pay for such land as he is not in the position financially to do so. This is the situation and this is a fact. With our system of free enterprise, there is nothing one can do about it. Otherwise one must be prepared to get to grips with the system of free enterprise. One may possibly lay down a certain maximum beyond which people may not extend their land. But then hon. members must say whether they want to do so. But in the agricultural industry there is possibly another method of assisting the prospective farmer or the farmer who wants to farm, without his necessarily having to make this large capital investment in land. I recently read an article written by one of Canada’s professors of agricultural economics in which he posed the question: “Can a farmer still be a landowner?” He points out that the large capital investment in land required for cultivating a farm, exhausts the working capital to such an extent that the farmer cannot run his farm in any event. Now it is true that South Africa is one of the countries in the world in which the Government, proportionately, owns the smallest percentage of land. If we take agriculture in Europe, in countries such as Holland and France, we find that the State owns approximately 40 per cent, and more, of the land, whereas this percentage in our country is minimal. Here in South Africa the land is in private possession. Our entire approach in South Africa is that a person should be the owner of the land he occupies. If we wanted to have a system which would enable a young man to farm without his having to invest capital, it would simply mean that the State should no longer pass land, which it might have available in future, into private possession. The State would have to own that land and make it available to such a farmer on the basis of a long-term lease. If hon. members want to advocate something like this, however, I should like to hear what their standpoint is. I can see no other solution apart from the two mentioned. In terms of the one solution there will have to be a restriction on expansion in the agricultural industry. We shall have to impose a restriction on the quantity a farmer may produce, or otherwise we shall have to place a restriction on the land he may own, or the capital he may invest. This is one way of preventing large capital investments in the agricultural industry. The other method is that the State should own the land. We will then have a semi-socialistic system of farming. The land will then be leased to farmers over a long period. These are the only two methods we can employ. I do not know of any other method. If hon. members on the opposite side have another solution, I should like to hear it. But then hon. members should not merely state the problem. They should not merely state a problem and ask what the Government is doing in that regard. Let us now hear what the standpoint of those hon. members is and let us hear what solution they offer. If they want to get away from the position of every man in South Africa having a free decision whether or not he wants to buy and own land, they must say so. Do they want the State to retain in its possession the largest quantities of land it still owns, and that such land should not pass into the ownership of private, individual farmers? If they want this, they must say so. It is easy for hon. members to criticize, but I shall be pleased if they will also be prepared to offer a solution and say what their standpoint is in respect of the two methods I mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow the Opposition in their arguments. Every time the hon. the Minister rose, he succeeded in bringing this debate back to a higher level, after the Opposition had virtually reduced it to a circus level. Sir, I want to speak about a matter which is very near to my heart. I want to venture to sound a warning against a view which is steadily gaining ground, i.e. that smaller and middle-class farmers with their smaller farms should make way for the financially stronger big farmer, the land barons and their farming companies with their larger and more productive units. I want to sound a warning against that. I say that I want to venture to do so because I am aware of the fact that I must have regard to the growing conviction on the part of agricultural experts and my colleagues on this side of the House who expressed their views in this regard. Nevertheless I want to say this in a good spirit, as I feel about it. The formula which is being used, is that the so-called uneconomic units should disappear and that rural areas with larger thriving economic units are preferable to more densely populated rural areas with a larger percentage of smaller and middle-class farmers. Tested against sound economic principles and modern farming methods, this is probably correct and one can say little against it. Measured in terms of world trends and the principles of large-scale farming which are already being applied successfully in the larger countries such as America, one can hardly say anything against it either. If we see how in South Africa, just as is the case in America, there is a decrease in the number of farmers and how production is nevertheless increasing, it is clear that one would hardly be able to check this trend.

Mr. Chairman, I move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25—

I do so in order to give us the opportunity to discuss a matter of public importance to us all wherever we sit in this House. It is a matter concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of three Bantu persons in a police van in Johannesburg recently. We have delayed giving notice of this, because the matter was sub judice. We gave notice the moment the judgment in this matter was given. May I say at once that but for the trial in this matter, but for the court proceedings, we could not have had a debate as profitable as I hope it might be for the whole of our country. The fact that this event occurred on the 2nd April and the judgment was delivered on the 28th April, I think, is a tribute to the judicial system in this country. I think that as a result of this system, we are able to debate not matters which are opinions, but matters of fact as determined by a judge of our Supreme Court in respect, not only of the problems presented to the court, namely the culpability of the persons who were before the court, but also all the other matters which were dealt with in that judgment.

That judgment highlights the problems and the deficiencies of the system of justice of which we all have every right to be proud. The unfortunate fact is that but for this event, we would not have had the light thrown upon the difficulties that exist. I think it also highlights perhaps the most important problem that we have to deal with in this country, namely the urban Bantu, their presence here, their permanence and what they do. The matter gives rise to this debate, as I have said, is a matter that offends us all. It is quite clear from the judgment of the court that not only the whole system involved must be examined, but the system of government of the way of life under this Government in the urban areas and our system and how we contain it must also be examined. There is evidence of a system of indifference which might well recoil upon us if we do not give it our urgent and immediate attention.

The persons concerned were merely pawns, merely puppets, merely cogs, as the learned judge called them, in the whole affair. The real indictment lies perhaps with our system, therefore with the Government, the hon. Minister of Police, the Department of Police in the first place, with the Department of Justice, the Department of Prisons, and with the Department of Bantu Administration. The object of our using this occasion, and with your permission raising this matter, is to get from this Government, from the responsible Ministers, the answers to these questions which were so pertinently raised by Mr. Justice Ludorf in his judgment in this matter the other day. I want to say that the hon. the Minister of Police acted very promptly. His initial action in setting up immediately an enquiry into the whole unfortunate affair is to be commended. It is quite obvious that the hon. the Minister himself was unaware of the practices which the judgment of Mr. Justice Ludorf has now exposed. We appreciate that the hon. the Minister has set up a commission under the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg to investigate, inter-departmentally, the whole situation and to report to him in respect of the matters relating to this enquiry. However, the learned judge in this trial has made certain findings on the facts which made any further enquiry into those matters unnecessary, but which makes immediate action imperative. We want to know what this Government proposes to do about those matters raised by the learned judge in his judgment?

There are certain findings which are there, which are incontrovertible and which we must accept. One of them is the question of overloading of these vans. The judge found that this had become a practice. It has been going on for so long. He said that it was admitted that this was now a practice in the department. Apparently, it is officially condoned. I shall deal with that. Major Gerber, when he gave evidence, indicated that this was the first time that anyone had been prosecuted for overloading, whereas the learned judge said that this was the practice, that it has been going on for so long. The evidence discloses that the pocketbook of Magorosi, one of the accused, disclosed that on 5th February this year he carried, apparently in the same van involved in this incident, some 95 prisoners. These vans are supposed to carry 65 prisoners. On this occasion it carried 89 prisoners. Furthermore, he said in answer to the judge that if he had been asked to carry 100 prisoners, he would have done so. Quite clearly this indicates that immediately something must be done in this regard. Inquiry is not necessary into this. An instruction must now be issued that no one dare load more passengers into a van than the permitted number of passengers, which must be clearly imprinted somewhere on the vehicle.

Are you so innocent that you think it has not been done?

I read my papers. The hon. the Minister says that he has now issued these instructions. We want to know here, in this House, what they are going to do about it. Here is the finding. We do not need any further enquiries. The finding is that this has become a practice. I will come back to that remark of the hon. the Minister.

This is ridiculous.

The hon. the Minister says it is ridiculous. I will come back to that in a moment. But what I want to ask this hon. Minister now is this. The evidence also disclosed that three district surgeons, including the senior district surgeon, had in fact complained verbally to the authorities that this was going on. Nothing was done about it. What we want to know from this hon. Minister is why nothing was done about it when those complaints were lodged by persons such as district surgeons, including the senior district surgeon? Not only that; this has been the practice, as the judge found. What has the hon. the Minister’s department been doing about this? Why was nothing done about it? That is what we want to know. That is why we have raised this matter.

Then there is the other matter. The learned judge found that there was a shortage of vans and of personnel. What will be done about that?

Thirdly, the learned judge had some remarks to make about the design of these vans. It seems quite incredible that vans designed for the transporting of prisoners in an enclosed space, were not subject, apparently, to any prerequisites or specifications. Apparently, the type of van is standard throughout the Republic for this sort of purpose. We have in this country a bureau of standards who are called upon to provide minimum specifications for ventilation and for all sorts of other safety precautions in relation to people who are in ships, in trawlers, who are in all sorts of other confined spaces. In this regard, having seen the vans and having heard the evidence, the judge described the design of the van as showing “a reckless disregard of the proper circulation of air”. That is a very serious indictment. It is very serious to say something like that, but that is the indictment. How does this happen? That is what we want to know. How could this be allowed to happen? What is this Government going to do about it? The very fact that the scarcity of drivers and vans was one of the reasons for this was, as the learned judge said an explanation but not an excuse for what happened. We want to know what in fact the hon. the Minister of Police proposes to do in this regard. We want to know what he proposes to do now and not after an enquiry. The enquiry has been held. [Interjections.] I am sure that what we all require and what we all would want is that we should have the same standards for prisoners as for any other human beings. Perhaps, even more so because they are detained against their will, on suspicion.

The evidence before this court shows various other things. They do not involve the Minister of Police only. They also involve other departments. So far as the Prisons Department is concerned, the learned judge made certain observations which deserves the attention of the hon. the Minister of Prisons.

Just give me time.

It is up to the hon. the Ministers themselves. These prisoners were technical pass offenders. They were housed some 28 miles from the court. They had to be transported along one of the busiest highways, as the judge pointed out. This is not what I am saying; this is what the judge said. Why should they be housed so far away and be subject to such a long journey? Surely, if this is the policy of the Government and if this is the policy that is to be enforced, surely the Government departments must co-ordinate. They must provide a place for detention nearer to the court for people like this. As the learned judge said, these were not serious offenders, they were petty offenders. The type of offence with which these people were charged, were technical pass offences. The latest figures available from the Police report, i.e. the report of 1967, indicates that over the year 1966 there was an increase of 126,590 such offences for which these persons were arrested and detained.

I only have a few more minutes, but I should like to come to the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. One of the things that has come to light in this regard is that these 44 persons charged with these offences were detained since 12th February.

How long is that?

That is eight weeks up to that time, but presuming that the van had arrived there on time and that this unfortunate thing had not happened, it would have been six weeks. Six weeks in gaol for an offence which normally carries an admission of guilt fine. This is preposterous when one considers how many people are being charged in respect of this type of offence. What is going to be done about it?

In conclusion I should like to say that the events that we are concerned with are an affront to us all. We demand from this Government an explanation, not of what has happened because, we know what has happened, but what they are going to do about this, before the enquiry has ended. What are they going to do now to see that this does not happen again and to remedy the events which the judge has drawn to our attention?

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by expressing my regret at these events which have now been raised in this House. I am, of course, sincerely sorry about them and I think that all of us are sincerely sorry that something of this nature happened. I not only want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my regret at these events, but I also want to express my sincere sympathy to the dependants of the deceased.

And now you are going to try to justify the incident.

Shut up!

Order!

However, I want to ask myself why it has been necessary to introduce this debate in this House. The hon. member who spoke before me made an attack on the Government, but in actual fact he made an attack on the Police, because these matters are being handled by the Department of Police. If I were to analyze his reasons for raising this matter, I must admit that I can only arrive at the conclusion that he did so out of political considerations. The hon. member himself referred to my statement. I should like to quote from the statement I made on that same day. It reads as follows (translation)—

I have already done that. All the hon. member added, was that he wanted to know what we were going to do now.

I commended you for doing it.

I know. The only reason he has now advanced for his raising this matter, was that he wanted to know what I was going to do now. Is that hon. member so foolish and so ignorant, so naïve and so small? Did he expect such a lack of administrative ability on the part of the Government as to give him reason to think that nothing would be done about this? No, that is absurd! The true fact of the matter is that there is a competition between him and the hon. member for Houghton as to which of them should steal a march on the other. There is a competition between the two of them and they are trying to steal a march on each other in raising in this House, for political purposes, a matter such as this one.

Are the events not bad enough?

I do not care what the hon. member does, but he should not adopt an indifferent attitude towards the interests of his country. While raising such matters for political gain, he should bear in mind that in doing so he will probably, and I think in fact will, cause major damage to his own country. Interjections.

Order!

We regret that such a thing happened, but the more that hon. member tries to blow up this matter, the greater the damage he will cause to our country. That is what they are doing. Mr. Speaker, see what this Question Paper looks like! If I were to say anything in explanation of the questions the hon. member has now asked, I would be anticipating the questions on the Order Paper! The hon. member is not satisfied with making a fuss about this matter here; on Friday morning he wants to make another fuss in the House about this matter. The same applies to the hon. member for Houghton.

There is no such rule in this House whereby you cannot anticipate questions which are on the Order Paper.

Over and above the matter which has now been raised here, there is a whole lot of questions. My time is very limited and I should like to call attention briefly to one or two matters. I should like to avail myself briefly of this opportunity to point out to the House the task of the Police in such an enormous complex as Johannesburg. Johannesburg has the largest concentration of people in South Africa, and as a result of this tremendous concentration they also have the highest incidence of criminal offences there. I want to point out to hon. members that the number of prisoners who have to be conveyed for trial purposes every day, comes to 1,006 on the East Rand, 445 on the West Rand, and 1,533 on the Central Rand, i.e. a total of 3,084 a day. The Police have to do this. On the East Rand a distance of 755 miles is covered daily so as to convey these prisoners, on the West Rand the figure is 648 and on the Central Rand it is, 1,828, i.e. a total of 3,231 miles a day. All of this is caused by the circumstances in the Rand complex. The number of Police officers employed daily for the purpose of conveying these prisoners, comes to 16 Whites and 42 non-Whites on the East Rand, i.e. a total of 58; 22 Whites and 31 non-Whites on the West Rand, i.e. a total of 53; 27 Whites and 76 non-Whites on the Central Rand, i.e. a total of 103. In other words, the grand total of Police officers who have to convey prisoners in the Rand complex every day, is 214. Now I want to refer to the vehicles. It cannot be said that enough vehicles are not available, for on the East Rand there are 28 vehicles, on the West Rand there are 22, and on the Central Rand there are 39; a total of 89 vehicles are therefore being used for these services on the Rand.

Is that enough?

Of course! I shall point out to you later on that these events took place as a result of a combination of unfortunate circumstances. In fact, these events were brought about by a large number of unfortunate circumstances. That hon. member knows that they took place as a result of an unfortunate combination of circumstances. Has that hon. member ever come to this House because of the fact that 460 people die in road accidents every year? Has he ever come to this House because of the fact that scores of people die on our roads over one weekend? Did he request the half-hour so as to discuss this matter because negligence was involved?

Are you going to give us a chance to reply to you?

The hon. member uses this opportunity for that purposes; he should not object to it now.

When are you going to reply to the matter?

Hon. members should allow me to use my time to put my case as I want to put it. I shall not allow the hon. member for Yeoville to tell me what to say and how I should do it!

Hear, hear!

Why is the hon. the Minister losing his temper now?

Order!

Because the hon. member does not like the way I am putting my case, he now wants to tell me what to say. I do not know whether it is necessary to trace the events which took place there, but it was a very unfortunate combination of circumstances. On that particular day several of those vehicles which were kept at the Hillbrow Police Station were out of order. As a result of that they were obliged to undertake several trips in these vehicles and overloaded some of them. The instructions are that a 7 ton vehicle should not carry more than 65 passengers. That is true, and I shall presently show you, Sir, that an instruction was issued in February of this year and that it was not obeyed. It is true that the vehicle was overloaded in this case. Eighty-nine persons were loaded into a vehicle which should, according to the instruction, actually have carried 65 persons only. While the vehicle was under way, it developed engine trouble. At first the fan-belt broke and after a great deal of trouble they eventually arrived at the mechanical school. They could not obtain a fan-belt for the vehicle there and they had to send for one. Later on the gear-box of the vehicle broke as well. It was an unfortunate combination of circumstances. They telephoned for another vehicle, which was subsequently sent out, but owing to a misunderstanding that vehicle could not find them. [Interjections.]

Hon. members do not want to listen to this. They want to make a fuss about the fact that three people died as a result of unfortunate circumstances. They are trying to use this to make a big fuss to the detriment of South Africa, irrespective of what the circumstances may have been. That is why they are grumbling in their seats and do not want to give me a chance to speak, in spite of the limited time I have at my disposal. The hon. member asked me what the instructions were. I should like to read out to him what the instructions were which were contained in a letter dispatched on 25th February, 1969. I can show it to the hon. member.

But it happened nevertheless?

It happened and steps will be taken. The hon. member need not be concerned. The Police have never been reluctant to discipline their own people when they were guilty of misconduct. I want to ask the hon. member to point out to me one occasion on which the Police offended and did not take steps against their own people. The instruction read, inter alia, as follows—

Mention is made of the type of vehicle which may carry 35 passengers only, as well as the other type of vehicle which may carry 65 passengers, in addition to the driver and one escourt. This is the instruction that was issued in February of this year. I admit that in this particular case an offence was committed. Somebody was at fault and somebody had to be responsible for it. That is why I ordered this enquiry. The hon. member also wanted to know what steps I had already taken in this regard. It stands to reason that instructions were immediately given that vehicles may never under any circumstances be overleaded again even if the judge were waiting for the prisoners in court. Over and above this I want to emphasize that there was not a shortage of vehicles. However, on that particular day so many vehicles were out of commission owing to mechanical defects, that there was a shortage. In spite of this we have now made available six new vehicles: two at Hillbrow, one at Norwood, one at Vorster Plain, one at Newlands and one at Orlando. These are the questions the hon. member put to me, but when I furnish the replies, hon. members are apparently not interested in them. These are the measures which have already been taken. These new vehicles were designed in such a way that there are larger openings in order that the ventilation may be better than it was before. That does not mean to say that there used to be no ventilation at all. There was ventilation, but there is talk and misgivings have been expressed to the effect that it was inadequate.

I should like to conclude now, and, as I have said, I shall appoint an inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Owen Gush. He is a special grade chief magistrate in Johannesburg; in other words, he is the most senior magistrate in the country. He will be assisted by Maj.-Gen. T. J. Crous of the South African Police and Maj. Gen. C. J. B. Brink of the Department of Prisons. He will also be assisted by Mr. J. H. Venter, the regional prosecutor in Johannesburg, who will lead the evidence in regard to the investigation of this matter. Apart from what we have already done so as to prevent a similar incident from occurring, an incident in regard to which we are very sorry and are expressing our regret, we shall see to it that this committee makes recommendations for ensuring that an incident such as this will never again occur in future. This is my sincere wish and I shall do everything in my power to prevent a recurrence of this incident.

Discussion having continued for half an hour,

When my speech was interrupted last night to make way for a very unfortunate discussion, a debate which, in my opinion, will boomerang on the United Party and which will also be to the detriment of South Africa …

Order! That matter has nothing to do with this Vote.

… I was warning against a point of view that was gaining ground, i.e. that it was desirable to reduce the number of farmers in South Africa drastically as long as production continued to increase. What this amounts to basically, is the gradual elimination from our agricultural setup of small farmers and middle-class farmers, which, in my opinion, is an unhealthy state of affairs. In the first place it is alleged that the number of farmers who are integrated into our agricultural sector have already decreased from 100,000 a decade ago, to 90,000; it is also stated that 20 per cent of these 90,000 farmers are responsible for 80 per cent of the total agricultural product. It is estimated that this number of 90,000 will decrease to 40,000 by the year 2000, and according to some estimates this number may decrease to a mere 20,000, but according to these estimates these 20,000 farmers will produce three times as much, and more, than the 90,000 farmers are producing at the moment.

Another important argument which is advanced is that changing methods of farming, such as better seeds, better animals, more effective agricultural extension, better cultivation of land and the better utilizaron of fertilizers, etc., have the effect that large scale production methods are more effective. The use of ultra-modern and in some cases amphibious agricultural implements, such as ploughs with eight shares and the eight-row planter, etc., and the ability of the financially strong producer who is able to plough up the earth with between 25 and 75 tractors and turn an entire grazing area into a crop-farming area without any difficulty and in the twinkling of an eye, have, by comparison, caused the production potential of the small farmer and the middle-class farmer to fade into nothingness. It is said that the small and the middle-class farmer will not be able to compete with this.

Then there is another argument which we often hear, and that is that too much Government assistance by way of subsidies and otherwise is being provided to keep struggling farmers on their feet. It is also said that the production of the big farmer remains profitable—and this probably is so—even though the margin of profit may be lower. And last but not least, the economic world tendency which is developing in America, Germany and in other countries, is seen as an economic law which we shall not be able to resist in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that it is an economic law which we simply will have to accept. Because these facts are important and carry weight, and because the agricultural economist and the agricultural planner have to take these facts into account, I sometimes fear that also our departmental agricultural officers, our statutory boards, such as the Agricultural Credit Board, and even, with all respect, our Ministers, will allow themselves to be influenced by this tendency to such an extent that they may overlook small and middle-class farmers more and more in considering Government assistance to farmers.

No.

I am pleased to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister saying “No”. I hope and I trust that my fear is misplaced and unfounded. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my gratitude for what is being done by the Government at the moment to assist that class of farmer to build up and maintain stable farming units. We are very grateful for that. According to estimates there will be 41 million people in South Africa by the year 2000, of whom approximately seven million will be Whites. Sir, I shudder to think that according to present estimates possibly only 40,000 or even only 2,000 of those seven million Whites will be engaged in the agricultural industry in the rural areas. I believe that the carrying capacity of the agricultural land of South Africa is much higher than that and that it is possible, especially with new schemes such as the Orange River project and others, to increase that capacity, i.e. to carry more people instead of fewer as is generally estimated.

In my opinion it would be an outstanding achievement if the number of economically active farmers could be 80,000 or 90,000 or even 100,000 by the year 2000 in order to maintain and extend the inspiring rural atmosphere with all its formative values. I believe that in an agricultural country such as South Africa, with its traditional farming set-up, a decrease of the number of farmers from 90,000 to 40,000 by the year 2000 will render untold damage. It will most definitely have a detrimental effect on the socio-economic structure of our rural population, and will disrupt it completely. It will impede and retard the Government’s policy of decentralization of economic activity for promoting a more balanced population distribution. It will accelerate the rate of urbanization and it will promote the depopulation of the rural areas. All the arguments in favour of fewer farmers in the rural areas do not hold water. I am not a champion of uneconomic farming practices. I have sufficient knowledge of the adverse effects of fragmented farms and units which cannot be occupied and cultivated as they belong to so many people. This is an intolerable state of affairs, and I am grateful for the legislation to prevent the fragmentation of agricultural land which has been introduced. I am grateful for what the Government is doing and has done in order to promote the consolidation of uneconomic units. But on the other hand it is also true that the State does not, as it is sometimes accused of doing, give financial assistance only to bunglers on farms. Every application by a farmer is considered on merit. The small farmers and the middle-class farmers are not the only ones who are supported and who are responsible for the losses which the State very seldom suffers.

I read in the report of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure that during the past two years only seven persons were sold up because they could not meet their obligations—four in the Transvaal, one in the Cape Province, one in the Free State, and one in Natal. Some of them might have been big farmers. But even if the State did spend large amounts on this, it would be negligible in comparison to the enormous amounts spent by local and provincial authorities and the State in our large cities on the provision of the necessary services to those larger populations, to the concentrations of people we find, for example, on the Witwatersrand, where, according to estimates, there will be 5.5 million people by the year 2000; a concentration of 2.4 million people in Pretoria, and more than 2 million here in the Peninsula. Proportionately, we may safely spend more on keeping middle-class farmers in the rural areas to populate the rural areas and to do their share in bringing about a balanced population distribution over the country.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

But surely I have not been speaking for ten minutes!

Order! The hon. member should choose his words more carefully.

I withdraw what I have said, Sir.

I want to raise a matter here which falls under this Vote, but which concerns two Government Departments, and perhaps someone with my background will be best able to touch on this matter objectively as it concerns both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice. As a farmer I have high regard for the Department at present under discussion, and as a legal practitioner I have high regard for the Department of Justice.

I want to deal specifically with Vote 18, Deeds Offices, and I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived for deeds offices to fall under the Department of Justice henceforth. Historically it may perhaps be perfectly in order for deeds offices to have fallen under the old Department of Lands originally, and to fall under the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure after the take-over of that Department. In the old days our country used to be one in which agriculture predominated. Subdivisions and registrations were easy matters as they involved very few legal complications. In the course of time, however, our country underwent industrial development and in the field of mining there was enormous growth, and the work of deeds offices not only increased considerably in volume, but also became more complicated technically. I do not want to anticipate legislation, but I want to venture the prediction that within the next few years we shall have to introduce a system in terms of which flat-owners will have to be given transfer of their flats. This will be a complete departure from our common law and in its initial years the system will experience many growing pains. Taking all this into account, I want to ask very politely for deeds offices to fall under the Department of Justice. I am of the opinion that the deeds offices will be much more at home under the Department of Justice. If this were to be done, it would bring about a better system of liaison with the legal advisers of the Department of Justice. In addition officials of the deeds offices will have to obtain legal qualifications to an increasing extent as well as the status commensurate with such qualifications. Also for this reason it will be necessary to transfer the deeds offices to the Department of Justice. It will offer the officials of the deeds offices a more attractive career. It will enable the officials to cope more effectively with the pressure of work as well as the involved nature of the work. I, as a legal practitioner, want to place it on record, however, that our deeds offices and the system followed in the deeds offices, are of the best in the entire Western world. What I have just said here should not be regarded in any way as a reflection on our present officials and the officials of the past who introduced this excellent system of the registration of deeds, or on the Department under which the deeds offices fall at present. I just want to ask the Minister whether he will not be prepared to appoint a committee, either a committee from his own department or an interdepartmental committee, to go into this entire question and to report on the desirability of transferring deeds offices to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Marico delivered a plea for the small farmer and for the average farmer. If the hon. member is looking for support in this respect, he can undoubtedly find it on this side of the House. On the basis of the speeches made during this debate from that side of the House, it is doubtful, however, whether that hon. member will find sufficient support from that side of the House. I am of this opinion because the tenure of the speeches of hon. members on that side of the House was, if there were farmers who were falling by the wayside, that simply had to happen. According to that side of the House such farmers simply had to fall by the wayside as the principle reason for that was that they had oaid too much for their land. But the accusations we made in respect of high rates of interest and in respect of increased production costs and that prices had failed to keep up with those changes, were evidently overlooked by the opposite side of this House. A number of accusations were made against us. In the first place the accusation was made that I had allegedly said that the profitability of farming had no bearing on the price of land. Of course, I said that, but not as an isolated statement. If this statement were to be made as an isolated statement, it would undoubtedly be incorrect. Let me give the hon. members the exact wording of my reply to a question by the hon. member for Colesberg. The hon. member had asked me why land prices were increasing every day, and I replied—

Sir, if land prices increase in the rural areas, does that not happen for the very same reason land prices increase in the urban and peri-urban areas? It is the very same thing. The reason is that land is not becoming more. Land is becoming increasingly scarce and is becoming less and less. That is the reason for the increase in land prices. But the increase in land prices has absolutely nothing to do with the profitability of the agricultural industry.

Now, Sir, I am going to give a further explanation for this statement. What we on this side are objecting to is that hon. members opposite present the increasing land prices as proof of the prosperity of the industry. That is what we are objecting to. If farmers have to pay too much for land—I have indicated the reasons for this state of affairs—what is the position as far as the State itself is concerned? Is the State itself not a culprit in this respect? I want to refer to the report of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Let us examine only a few examples. The State purchased land for the Pongolapoort Dam. What did it pay for that land? For 13,000 morgen of land it paid more than R3 million, approximately R230 per morgen. During the period covered by the latest report, it purchased an additional 136 morgen at R44,700. During the period covered by the latest report, the State paid approximately R320 per morgen. Let me refer the hon. the Minister to page 16 of his report. According to the report 71,000 morgen were purchased for R10 million odd, nearly R11 million, in recent times.

What do you expect?

Exactly, Sir. Now it is said that the farmers are the ones. During the year covered by the previous report the Department of Bantu Administration and Development again spent R9 million through the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure on the purchase of land. Then hon. members maintain that the farmers are the only ones who are involved in these dealings. If there are any culprits in this respect, surely the Government is one of them. In that case the Government is setting the very same example. But now it is the United Party that is saying these things. Now I am the one who has made that statement. But listen to paragraph 67, page 14, of the report itself—

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members opposite object to the statements of the United Party, but they do not object to this paragraph in the annual report of the Minister’s own Department. The hon. member for Ladybrand in particular spoke in this vein. He asked why land prices were rising continually if things were going so badly with the agricultural industry. I hope that I have given a very clear reply to that argument. The speech of the hon. the Minister, too, was larded with similar statements. They are looking for excuses for their laxity to take steps to make the industry a profitable one. They regard this rise in land prices as a means of escaping from the difficulty in which they find themselves. But this side of the House will not allow them to use that as a means of escape.

Let me mention another example of the way in which hon. members misquote us. I want to refer to the hon. member for Ladybrand. While I am dealing with him, let me point out that he is the hon. member who said we had such a wonderful Minister of Agriculture. But that hon. member is the chairman of the Mealie Board. Can we say the same thing of him? Can we say of him that he is a wonderful chairman? I am asking this because I read in the Farmer’s Weekly of 30th April that a large number of farmers held a meeting in Klerksdorp. The report on that meeting reads as follows—

How many?

More than 5,000. The hon. member is boasting of the Minister of Agriculture, but what about himself? At that meeting a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Minister, but it was withdrawn at the last minute …

Whence the sudden confidence?

Because they wanted to have an interview with the Minister within the next few days about the “arbitrary way’’ in which mealie prices had been determined by the Mealie Board. And then the hon. member for Ladybrand and his fellow members give themselves out as being the mouthpiece of the farmers in South Africa! But what was the request of the S.A.A.U. to the hon. member for Ladybrand with regard to the price of mealies? The mealie committee suggested that the price was to be R3.80. What reasons did they advance for that? The reason they advanced was that production costs for the present crop had shown a considerable increase per bag. But the Minister and the hon. member for Ladybrand decided that the price would not be R3.80 but R3.60. And now they claim to be the people who are acting in the interests of the farmer of South Africa! But when the farmer asks for a higher price, because of his increasing production costs, he does not get it.

May I ask a question?

No, and yet the hon. member for Ladybrand boasts of his Minister of Agriculture. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Newton Park made a few statements here which probably shocked all of us. For example, he pleaded with the Minister that farmers should be paid less when land was expropriated for Government purposes. [Interjections.] The hon. member is shrewd. From time to time he makes shocking statements which he rejects on a later occasion. He must come and defend this statement of his, i.e. that the State is paying too much for land, in the interior. Also with regard to the wool industry the hon. member is sometimes inclined to make certain statements. His interest is appreciated, of course, but I do not know whether he is always so honest in his intentions. My name was mentioned several times here in debates on the wool industry. For that reason I want to avail myself of this opportunity to give a full reply to the hon. member. After he has had that reply I hope he will never again arrogate to himself the right to discuss the wool industry. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that the hon. member can be compared to a windmill. But he is operating on a dry hole and all that comes out is air. I do not hold that against him, however, because he farms with merinos at Richmond, lives somewhere in the Western Cape and represents an urban constituency situated at Port Elizabeth. Perhaps to-day I should tell the hon. member certain things of which he has no knowledge about his own industry. His industry is represented by what probably is the strongest farmers’ organization in the country to-day. Together with Australia and New Zealand it probably is the strongest farmers’ organization in the world to-day. Over the years this organization has built up a relationship with the Minister about which they are jealous. Never before has the door of any Minister of Agriculture been so open to the wool farmer as it is to-day. Never before has any Minister of Agriculture had such a receptive ear for the wool industry as is the case at present. Therefore, if I may address a warning on behalf of the wool industry to hon. members, I will warn them that the wool farmers are not prepared to stand by and see that the difficulties in which they find themselves are used for the purpose of making political capital. I want to invite the hon. member for Newton Park to attend the congresses of the N.W.G.A. from time to time so that he may get his ear on the ground for a change.

But the real reason why I am on my feet is to express my gratitude on this occasion on behalf of the wool industry for certain measures taken in the difficult times which were experienced. In my constituency numerous farmers, particularly young farmers, were kept on their farms because of the effective measures taken by the State during the past period of drought. As was said here yesterday, stock figures increased in spite of the drought. To me this is testimony of a very efficient fodder scheme.

I also feel obliged to express my gratitude for the introduction of the veld-reclamation scheme in this large area. This probably is one of the most positive steps ever taken in the interests of soil conservation. Therefore I want to express the hope that this scheme will achieve what otherwise could not have been achieved over a period of years.

The wool industry has received R1½ million for research and advertising. For this too I want to express my sincere gratitude. I do not want to anticipate the findings, but I believe that this amount will also be ploughed back in the interests of the wool farmer. Although the amount may seem small, I may assure you, Sir, that it means a great deal to many of our farmers who suffered during the recent drought.

Order! The hon. member for Mariental may not read a newspaper in the House.

I am merely consulting a report, Mr. Chairman, from which I want to quote later on.

A further amount of R38,000 appears on the Estimates for the Wool Textile Research Institute. For this gesture I want to say thank you very much. This proves to the wool farmer of South Africa that this Government is in earnest as regards research in connection with wool. To-day I want to pay tribute to the wool researchers of this country and the world. With their aid and with the development of the product, the wool industry has found its feet to-day after a serious recession. All signs indicate that we are heading for better times. The South African Wool Textile Research Institute is recognized by the world as an authority on wool. It has already made several breakthroughs. Unfortunately my time is too limited to elaborate on this in detail. Breakthroughs have been made which are enjoying world-wide recognition. This institute is also meeting a special need in Port Elizabeth where it is assisting in the training of textile technologists at the University of Port Elizabeth. These people are doing a Herculean task. We are aware of the fact that textile technologists are extremely scarce in this country. When large textile business concerns require textile technologists, they have to bring these people from overseas. Therefore I want to pay tribute to these people who in point of fact have to work overtime to help meet that need of the University of Port Elizabeth. We believe and we know that this special service they are rendering at that university is still going to serve a very useful purpose for our country over a period of years.

Mr. Chairman, when one listens to hon. members of the Opposition, it strikes one that a series of insignificant charges is levelled at the Minister and the Department of Agriculture from time to time in connection with agricultural matters. If one retains one’s perspective, it strikes one that the Government and the hon. the Minister are in very close contact with the agricultural industry and that the Government is co-operating actively with the farming community in keening the agricultural industry on a sound basis. One need only have regard to the series of measures in respect of combating the effects of droughts; the Minister’s handling of surpluses and the encouragement given in respect of production. One has in mind, for example, production loans; one has in mind subsidies on fertilizers, water conservation and agricultural technical services. Just consider the enormous amounts which are made available for stabilizing prices. When one takes all these things into account, one cannot come to any other conclusion except that the Government not only has sympathy with the farming community but is also co-operating actively in stabilizing and developing the agricultural industry in South Africa.

If the hon. member for Newton Park should address this Committee another time, I should like him to adjust his sight to some extent and to give an account of what this Government is doing for the farmers. Our entire marketing system is based on interaction between the farming community, organized agriculture, and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. For that reason it is good to know that the farming community of South Africa can always rely, at times when it is experiencing difficult circumstances either because of droughts or surpluses which have to be coped with, on the active co-operation of the Government and on assistance to the agriculturalist in South Africa. Assistance to the agricultural industry is not only assistance to a particular sector of our community, but in point of fact also a step which is taken with a view to the future and with a view to making provision for the food requirements of our nation, also with a view to the future.

On this occasion I should like to request the attention of the hon. the Minister for an industry which is limited specifically to the district of Clanwilliam, and that is the rooibos tea industry. This is an industry which has been experiencing difficult times during the past few years. In respect of this industry, which is a limited industry and which affects not thousands but only a few hundred farmers, the Government as well as the hon. the Minister have shown that they want to look after the interests of those farmers and want to help them to the best of their ability. For that reason I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having gone to great lengths during the past year to persuade the Government to give guarantees to the Land Bank so as to assist the control board concerned to pay advances to the farmers in order to assist them in that way to keep their industry going. On behalf of the farmers I should like to thank the Government and the hon. the Minister for having done so. Sympathetic encouragement also came from the Department of Commerce, encouragement to the packers and the importers of Eastern tea to give the rooibos tea industry a chance and to assist in making it possible for the industry to compete. Here we have a young industry which is competition with a very strong and large industry which is. based on the importation of Eastern tea which is firmly established on the market. Mr. Chairman, in thanking the hon. the Minister and in expressing our appreciation for what the Government is doing and the attitude it is adopting towards these people, I should like to express the hope that the Government will keep on looking after and assisting this industry in the future as well. It has become clear in recent times that South African rooibos tea is a product of quality which deserves our encouragement, and particularly in view of the fact that this is an industry which will save us foreign exchange and in view of the fact that its competitor is an imported product, I want to express the hope that this will be regarded as an additional reason why this industry should receive encouragement. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister, at the request of the community concerned, to give serious consideration to accommodating this industry too as far as assistance is concerned, even if only to a moderate extent as this is a limited industry, in the same way as the wool industry has been accommodated as we have just learned from the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, with a view to research and advertising this particular product. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will consider this in the coming year. When we look back we see that there is a whole series of various types of farming which received assistance during the past year when they found themselves in difficult circumstances, either as a result of devaluation, or as a result of natural disasters, or as a result of marketing problems, etc. Consequently I feel confident that this request I am addressing to the hon. the Minister will be regarded as a reasonable request. We want to ask the hon. the Minister in all modesty, but very firmly, to give consideration to assisting this industry so as to promote to some extent its research and advertising programme for its product.

Sir, the rooibos tea industry is faced with another specific problem. and that is that its product is not dealt with and transported on the South African Railways as an agricultural product but as an item of grocery. The rooibos tea farmers feel that it is very unfair that Eastern tea landed at Durban is transported more cheaply to the large Witwatersrand market complex than a South African product which is produced in the district of Clanwilliam.

Rooibos tea is nice.

There is no doubt about that and in addition it is healthy. Consequently I want to ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence with the Department of Railways so as to assist us to have rooibos tea, which is a South African product, transported at a reasonable agricultural tariff. I know that the hon. the Minister has strong influence with the Minister of Transport, and I want to express the hope that he will assist us in the future. Up to now we have not been making much progress with negotiations. The Railways also have their problems. But I want to ask in all seriousness that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, as the protector of the South African agricultural industry and the South African agricultural product, will use his influence to have this matter rectified for us.

As a voter in the constituency of Graaff-Reinet it really was a big disappointment to me to-day to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, for the simple reason that he as the representative of that farmers’ constituency said here to-day that his people were satisfied —“We are satisfied”; in other words, the hon. member for Walmer is satisfied and I am satisfied. He said all of us were perfectly satisfied with the assistance which had been given by this Government to the farmers in recent times. I say I am disappointed in that hon. member for the simple reason that before he was a member of this House he used to be prepared, as a wool farmer, to take up the cudgels for the interests of the agricultural industry in that part of the country. I challenge that hon. member now to deny that he said two or three years ago that the rates of interest were so high that one farmer after another was going under in that part of the country. I challenge that hon. member now to deny that he said two or three years ago, before he became a member of this House, that the assistance given by this Government always was too little or too late.

Quote me.

Those reports appeared in Die Burger as well as the Landbou-weekblad and I shall let the hon. member have those reports. But do you see the difference, Sir? Before he was a member of this House, when he still had to represent the interests of the farmers on the Wool Board, when he knew what their interests were, he made that statement, but since he has become a member of this House he is a new member who only has one speech to make and that is, “Thank the Minister”. For that reason I am saying that I, as a voter in the constituency of that hon. member, am extremely disappointed with the way in which he is looking after the interests of the farmers. [Interjections.] That hon. member has just said here that the young farmers are satisfied. I issue a further challenge to him and that is to deny that he said on that same occasion that young farmers stood no chance of achieving success at the present time—or words to that effect. But now the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet comes along here and in his second or third speech he does nothing more but to thank the Minister for everything which is being done and he says how satisfied the people are. I ask the hon. member whether he was satisfied with the action taken by this Minister when the hon. member together with the hon. member for Cradock and the Deputy Minister visited Graaff-Reinet a few weeks ago, when the farmers put questions, and when he went to see the Minister on behalf of deputations of the S.A. Wool Growers’ Association and of the Wool Board when they pleaded for a subsidy in respect of rates of interest? Is he satisfied with the reaction of this Government?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member may make his own speech. But that member says that all his people are satisfied. Sir, they are so satisfied with him that when he wanted to become the member for Graaff-Reinet, he had to fight a nomination. That is how satisfied they are with him. [Interjections.] But the difficulty with those hon. members is this. They cannot hear very well. The hon. member did exactly the same thing which any of the hon. members had been doing up to now; they quoted our words out of context. The hon. member said that I had said the Government had paid too much to those people whose land it had purchased. I did not say that. What I said was that if the farmers were guilty of paying high land prices, what about the Government that was also paying high prices? Surely there is a world of difference. But the difficulty with hon. members opposite is that they clutch at all these straws, and the reason for that is that they cannot hear very well. However, they have an hon. member on that side of the House, namely the hon. member for Pretoria (District), who is a particularly good farmer. Hon. members on the opposite side should ask him how one should hear properly. He has a small machine which he switches on from time to time so as to know exactly what is being said. They ought to call in that hon. member, because it is a strange thing that quotations made by those hon. members from speeches made by hon. members on this side of the House, differ completely from the Hansard reports. I shall now quote my exact words—

Hon. members on the opposite side, however, said that we had said that the Advisory Council meant absolutely nothing.

When did you add that last portion.

I think it is a tremendous reflection the hon. member is casting now. Here is my speech.

I, too, made notes of your speech.

The hon. member for Yeoville may check my speech now to see whether I have made any changes to my speech.

That hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself.

This is what I had actually said. We say the Advisory Council has absolutely no power to-day and consequently, although its advice may mean a great deal, its real position in the South African agricultural industry is insignificant. We say that it should be replaced by an agricultural planning council. I want to conclude by expressing a few last ideas. We believe that, as in all economic activity, free enterprise to the welfare of all should be the mainstay of our agricultural industry. The individual producer should be free to plan his own activities, but general planning is required for rationalizing the industry. A general guiding line should be laid down to encourage a production changeover from those sectors in which chronic overproduction is creating a problem to those sectors in which there is a greater need for production. Such planning will be one of the functions of the agricultural planning council the United Party will establish. Furthermore, we say that this council will be representative of all sectors of the industry and will not be merely another branch of a Government Department, but will act as a semi-independent body. The Minister of Agriculture will also form the link between this body and Parliament. It will not only be an advisory body, but it will also have executive powers and the necessary funds will have to be voted by Parliament regularly. This is what we envisage; not this agricultural advisory council of the hon. the Minister which may not even express an opinion on the price policy. This body of ours will have to co-ordinate many of the activities, namely those of the marketing council, the control board, and, for instance, the soil conservation board. It will be responsible for the establishment of a subsidiary body which will promote exports and, in consultation with the control boards and producers’ organizations, will co-ordinate marketing. In a previous speech I pointed out that even the agricultural financing division of the Department will be a sub-division of this agricultural planning council. I think hon. members opposite are also thinking in terms of this. The hon. member for Fauresmith quoted here from the Financial Mail. They know what our agricultural policy is, but the hon. member tried to make fun of certain articles which had appeared in the Financial Mail in respect of this policy. The Financial Mail agrees that an agricultural planning council is the best body to establish in South Africa. Indeed, they suggest that it may be something which the Marais Commission will recommend. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I found it interesting to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Newton Park. He made the accusation that the present advisory council meant nothing because it had no powers. The hon. member said the planning council they would establish would be one with powers. I just want to ask the hon. member whether this planning council he proposes, will not fall under a Minister. Is the utilization of funds not going to be subject to the approval of a Minister? Will they establish this council, make funds available to it and then leave it to the council to decide on the determination of prices, the consolidation of land, the financing of farmers, etc., without its being responsible to Parliament for its actions? Is that what the hon. members are going to do?

Have you not been listening properly again?

I am asking a simple question. The hon. member said that this body should have powers, and I am asking what powers it will have. I want to re-state them to hon. members.

It will be a second broadcasting corporation.

That hon. member must hold his peace because he only knows about baboons. I want to place it on record that everything the hon. member requested, is to be found in the various bodies which have been established to serve the agricultural industry in South Africa. In the first place these boards do have powers to determine prices in terms of the Marketing Act. They can only do so, however, in consultation with the Minister. Does the hon. member want to tell me that this Parliament will establish a planning council which will have powers to determine prices without its accounting to Parliament through some person or other?

But I have stated what the link will be with the agricultural planning council.

There is no point in saying that there will be a link, that the Minister will exercise control and that that council will have powers. We have a large number of boards in South Africa. All our marketing boards have powers. They have price determination powers, registration powers and many others. Such powers may also be given to the so-called planning council. However, such powers will still be subject to the approval of somebody and that person will be the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. Or are hon. members going to establish a planning council that will not be responsible to Parliament? Of course not. In that case, surely there are no grounds for saying that the planning council to be established by hon. members opposite will be a wonderful body which will operate in a different way than that in which the present advisory council, with the present associated boards established in terms of the Marketing Act, is operating.

It cannot carry on as it is carrying on at the moment. It is impossible.

What cannot carry on as it is carrying on at the moment?

The agricultural industry will go downhill more and more.

The planning council which hon. members opposite are going to establish will only be able to undertake the same type of planning as that which is at present being undertaken by the various boards and the Agricultural Advisory Council in consultation with the Department. Surely it cannot undertake any other planning. The fact remains that if the council had undertaken any planning and such planning was accepted, it would still have to be accepted by the Minister and the Government as well. Surely this is obvious. This is the very thing that is happening at the moment, but only on a different basis. The hon. member for Newton Park wants to make the farmers believe something which he himself knows cannot happen. He wants to make the farmers believe that a council will be established, the planning of which will not be subject to the approval of a Minister. As I know this Parliament, it will not establish such a council.

What about the broadcasting corporation?

Now I want to put a question to that hon. member. He is, after all, the behind-the-scenes leader of the United Party. Is he prepared to say that Parliament should grant powers to a certain body and that that body should not be responsible to any Minister or to anybody in this House?

May I ask the hon. Minister a question?

No, I am asking the hon. member a question. Simply reply yes or no.

Why should I?

The hon. member will not do so, because he dare not. The hon. member wants to play a double game and that is why he does not want to reply. There is no other reason. Here the hon. member wants to say that he wants to protect the rights of Parliament and outside the hon. member wants to say that he has pleaded for the farmers. The present advisory council, as it is existing to-day, and all the other associated boards and councils, such as, for example, the Marketing Council and the control boards which exercise control over products, and the various committees which act in an advisory capacity to every industry, are fulfilling the same function hon. members apposite want one central advisory council to fulfil. Each one of these committees fulfils the same function as that which the hon. member would like to see being fulfilled by one central agricultural advisory council. The only difference is that these various committees are able to fulfil a wider function than one central agricultural advisory council will be able to fulfil. That is what I said. Then the hon. member accuses hon. members on this side of having twisted his words. He said the present Agricultural Advisory Council meant nothing because it did not have any powers.

Well!

If this is so, I want to place it on record that the council which the hon. member proposes will not mean anything either, because such a council will have the same shortcomings, in his opinion, on account of the fact the powers of this body will also have to be controlled by somebody else. This “somebody else” will be the Minister, whether he be a United Party Minister or a Minister of whatever party. Therefore the position remains the same. The hon. member accuses us of giving distorted versions of his standpoints. This, however, is what he is constantly doing in this House; he did so this afternoon. In the same policy statement to which he referred, he said that the United Party’s policy was one of free enterprise for every person who wanted to go in for farming. Their policy is that every person should decide for himself whether he wants to farm, whether he wants to buy land and what he wants to pay for such land. That is also our standpoint.

If one has a system of free enterprise like this, the problems which the hon. member outlined here, flow from that system. I have never said that farmers should not pay large sums for their land. I have never said that the Government pays as much for its land when it acquires land, but if the Government purchases land as it did in this case, it does not expect to make a profit from agriculture on such purchases. When the Government does something like that, it does not expect to receive a good interest from that and still be able to afford someone a living on that holding. I have said so repeatedly. If a person wants to buy land at the current prices, he is free to do so. He may buy the world; there is nothing which prevents him from doing so, but then he should not expect the price of his product to increase to the same extent as that to which the value of his land has increased, so as to enable him to recover interest from that and in addition make a living from that. This then is the very essence of the matter. Hon. members opposite maintain that if a farmer has paid too much for his land, the Government has to see to it that the price of his product is such that he can make a living from his land and in addition recover interest from his land. This is what the entire argument of that hon. member amounts to.

Will this not have the effect of decreasing prices?

This is the argument of the hon. member, and it is in this respect that we differ. My standpoint is that if a farmer wants to buy land and can pay for such land, he may buy that land, no matter how large the amount he pays for that land, but then he must not expect a control board or the Government or the taxpayer to maintain the price of the product for him at such a level that he can cover the interest on that high price as well as make a living. The standpoint of the hon. member, however, is exactly the opposite. His standpoint is that the farmer should be able to pay those high land prices, but then the Government and the taxpayers have to see to it that the price of the product is fixed at such a level that he will be able to earn a good interest from it and in addition make a good living from it. Now I want to put it to the hon. member that if a United Party Government were to come into power, something which may possibly never happen, surely it is a logical fact that land prices would always have to rise in sympathy. The hon. member admitted here this afternoon that speculators were not the only ones who invested in land and that there also was a factor taking production and income into account. If the income of the farmer always had to be increased along with land prices, surely land prices would always have to be increased more and more. That is what the hon. member is propagating.

That is not so.

But this is what the hon. member said. This is the whole argument advanced by the hon. member. He accused the Government of not seeing to it that, with the high cost structure of land and the large capital investment in land, the prices of products were such that those people could remain on the land and could make a living from that land. Surely that is the whole argument. Otherwise I do not know why we are arguing.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member may make a speech a little later.

The hon. member may as well ask his question.

Can the Minister give any indication of how much land is being purchased proportionately?

A reasonable percentage. But I want to come to the argument that in these circumstances the Government is not doing its duty to keep farmers on their farms. The Government can take certain steps to enable people to remain on the land, or to enable them to overcome their difficulties, in times of drought or when marketing problems may arise. But the Government cannot give the farmer a guarantee that he will be able to remain on the land. No Government will be able to do that. The United Party will be even less able to do so than we are, because their own voters will not allow them to do so. We cannot give them a guarantee that they will be able to remain on the land under all circumstances. But the accusation of the hon. member is that we are not trying to keep the farmers on the farms by means of assistance measures. The argument of the hon. member is that some of the farmers are allowed to leave the platteland, and that the Government should see to it that nobody left. That is his whole argument.

We do not refer to the inefficient farmers.

Very well, the hon. member says the inefficient farmers should go. He says the inefficient farmers should leave. What yardstick is the hon. member going to apply to decide whether a farmer is inefficient? Is it because of financial problems, too high investments, capital expenditure, a too extravagant way of life, or whatever? What yardstick are they going to employ to ascertain this? Often it is the farmer who is not such a good farmer, because of the fact that he …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Order! We are in Committee now. The hon. member can have another turn to speak. The Minister’s time is not limited by the time laid down for the debate, but the time of hon. members is.

The hon. member may put his question a little later.

The hon. member may put his question.

I just want to make my point first. This is what I want hon. members to reply to. Yesterday I discussed the matter of the younger farmers on the farms. The hon. member is the main speaker of the United Party as far as agricultural matters are concerned, and I thought he would reply to that. I referred to the question whether the State should see to it that young farmers would be given the opportunity to farm. Under present circumstances the tendency in the economy is for businesses to grow, for well-moneyed people to expand, and there is the fact that land is not becoming more plentiful, but scarcer. Therefore, if one wants to enable younger farmers, who do not have capital, to farm, one must get away from the idea expressed here by the hon. member, i.e. the idea of free enterprise and every man being able to decide where he wants to buy land. This is only logical; because if one does not deprive a man of his right of free enterprise, the young farmer will obviously never find himself in a position to be able to compete against the man who has the capital to buy the land, for whatever purpose he may buy such land. For that reason I put this question prominently to hon. members yesterday. If it is their sincere wish that more farmers should remain on the platteland, it means that, apart from the capital investment in respect of the land, at the higher prices, or the portion of that which he himself has to contribute, and the production possibilities of the farm, he would also have to take up a 100 per cent loan for his working capital. We ourselves know that in that case he will never be able to become independent. If one wants the younger farmers to remain on the farms, one has to do one of two things. One has to force down land prices to a level which is within the production possibilities, the income, of that land; otherwise he will not be able to make a living on that land. Or one has to devise a system by which one can enable the younger farmer to farm on land which he does not own. Yesterday I put the question very prominently to hon. members. If they are able to suggest another method to me of enabling a man to farm without capital, I shall be prepared to listen to that. Yesterday I asked whether they were in favour of, in the first place, a restriction being placed on the extent of the land a farmer may own. Are they in favour of imposing a production restriction so as to prevent a farmer from producing more than a certain quantity of a product? The hon. member is shaking his head. I assumed that he would say no.

It is a ridiculous question in any case.

No, but I gave the two alternatives. I repeat my challenge to the hon. member. If he can find any other method on a basis of free enterprise apart from the two I mentioned, he should suggest them. He has every right to do so and he has all the time he needs at his disposal, 13 hours, in which to mention them. [Interjections.] Very well, the hon. member rejects that alternative. The second method of assisting a young farmer to farm, is if the State owns the land and is prepared to lease that land to the young farmer on a long-term basis at the possible income value of that land. This is the only other way. The State has to fulfil this function, not the young farmer’s father or his grandfather. Now I once again put the question very prominently to the hon. member: Is the United Party prepared to say that State-owned land, which may still be available in the future, should be leased on a long-term basis so that the State may enable the young farmers to farm on that land without their having to take a large capital burden on themselves while it is not justified economically to buy the land on the free market? This is the only other way I can see. I am prepared to be taught by the hon. member. If he can see another possibility, I am prepared to listen to him. The hon. member should not make us talk politics only and should not turn every point into politics. The hon. member said that he had the interests of the agricultural industry in South Africa at heart. He was concerned about the young farmers. He was concerned about the depopulation of the rural areas. So am I! But if one is concerned, one must find a method by which those farmer's can be enabled to remain on their farms. I have just put two possibilities to the hon. member. If he has any other possibility in mind, he may say what that is. I shall listen to him. But the hon. member should at least also be prepared to say what his opinion is of the two possibilities I put to him He must be prepared to say what his standpoint is in that regard. If he is not prepared to do so and if he cannot suggest any other possibility, there is no point in this whole argument and in this two-day-old debate.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased if in this debate on agriculture we …

You argue well, but quite unrealistically.

But of course! That is how the hon. member argues all the time. That is my very argument. I argue in response to the requests and accusations of hon. members opposite. Because their accusations and requests are unrealistic, my arguments, too, must be unrealistic.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must stop interrupting now. He can have another turn after the Minister.

The hon. member will have an opportunity to state their standpoint in regard to this matter in full, everything they suggest in the place of what I am suggesting. He may advance arguments to what I have said. Let us leave aside politicking and stealing a march on someone as far as the agricultural industry is concerned. We have a debate of 13 hours. To tell the honest truth, Sir, judging from the major part of the debate to which I have listened, one actually ought to feel ashamed to have to listen to a debate like this on agriculture in Parliament. I really want to repeat this. Let us have constructive arguments for a change with regard to the problems which the hon. member sees, if he is in earnest about our finding solutions to those problems. Let us view the matter objectively. I have stated my case and my solution. Let us see what the opposite side of this House can suggest. Then we will be achieving something for the agricultural industry. We shall not be able to do that with this type of witch-hunting and march-stealing.

The hon. member for Newton Park mentioned in his speech that he was disappointed with the speech of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. I want to tell him that not only were I myself and the members of the agricultural group on this side of the House disappointed with his efforts in this agricultural debate, but I believe that the entire agricultural community in South Africa to-day was disappointed with the efforts which the United Party make in this agricultural debate of 1969. The hon. member referred to my colleague, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, and I want to ask him: If he is then so ready to criticize what the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said, where was he at the N.W.G.A. congress? Where was he on the Wool Board? This hon. member is vice-president of the Cape Province N.W.G.A. and he is a member of the Wool Board. The hon. member for Newton Park is not seen there and nothing is heard from him. I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park to tell us clearly when and where the N.W.G.A. or the Wool Board asked the Minister for a wool subsidy. Let the hon. member reply to this: When and where was the Minister asked for this? I also want to tell the hon. member that when the wool industry makes representations to the hon. the Minister it is done with a full sense of responsibility by a group of people who are supporting the wool industry in South Africa and extending it in the interests of the country. But I want to go further. I do not think that any industry in South Africa has ever been so disgraced as this agricultural industry has been in this debate in the last few days. I merely want to quote a few statements which hon. members of the Opposition made in this debate.

Just state them clearly.

I shall state them clearly.

Did you listen attentively?

Yes. The hon. member for Newton Park said, inter alia, “The people of South Africa are not interested in investing money in agriculture”. Those were his words. The hon. member for Gardens claimed that uneconomic units, and the problems of the farmer, date back to 1948. The hon. member for King William’s Town said that the young people no longer wanted to go farming, and he went further and made a statement which hurt me very much, i.e. that the Minister must wait until the animals in South Africa were dying before he intervened in order to give assistance.

No, he did not say “must” wait.

The hon. member for Mooi River said that only large companies were prepared to purchase agricultural land in South Africa. Sir, we are discussing an industry which has problems, and if people are prepared to make the kind of statements which we have heard in the past few days in this House, it is no encouragement for the people in that industry. I concede that there are problems in the agricultural industry, but then we must orientate ourselves to stand together in order to help and to build up this industry to a standard where the farmer can once more take up a place of honour and have a firm foothold in the industry in which he finds himself. Sir, I do not want to claim that the United Party cannot make a contribution. I believe that they are not all stupid, and therefore I want to appeal to the United Party to use their agricultural knowledge in the service of agriculture and in the service of the fanner so that the farmers may benefit not only from their agricultural knowledge but also from what the hon. the Minister and his Department are doing and want to do for agriculture. To-day I should also like to make an appeal from this House to the farmers of South Africa, and especially the maize farmers. I want to ask that the farmers of South Africa bury the hatchet. The farmers to-day cannot afford to blow hot and cold. Therefore I want to ask from this House to-day that the farmers should stand together. There is so much knowledge and money which can be used collectively for the advancement of the farmer’s welfare, and therefore I want to ask farmers not to quarrel with one another, but let us look to the industry and to the welfare of the farmers in South Africa. Therefore I ask the farmers to stand together. The agricultural industry needs it; South Africa needs it.

Then I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to page 101 of the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, where a table appears in connection with the results recorded by the Bethlehem-Reitz study groups during the 1966-’67 production year. There we find that 26.6 per cent of the farmer’s expenditure went on vehicles and engines, tractor costs and implement costs. But I also see that an announcement appeared in the magazine Tegniek about a South African company which is prepared to hire out implements to farmers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to support and to encourage these companies who are prepared to hire out implements to the farmers? This is one of the factors which forces up the farmer’s expenditure tremendously, and therefore I want to ask whether it is not possible for farmers to make more and more use in future of companies who are prepared to hire out implements to them. This system will also be a great asset to the farmer as far as income tax is concerned. In addition I want to ask whether it would not be possible for the Minister in future to assist, encourage and subsidize companies who are prepared to cultivate land in the agronomy regions on a contract basis. It would save the farmers a tremendous amount in capital expenditure on implements, tractors and parts. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to assist these companies, if possible, because he can thereby also assist the farmers. Sir, in conclusion just this: The hon. the Minister is sympathetic to agriculture and to the young farmer. I merely want to ask him not to withdraw his sympathy for agriculture and for the young farmer. We appreciate it, we make use of it and we shall have need of it in the future.

I in no way envy the United Party members the task which has been placed on their shoulders, i.e. the task of criticizing the agricultural policy of this Government; I do not envy them because once, altogether innocently, I landed up in the position of having to try to defend the agricultural policy of the United Party. This is how it happened, Mr. Chairman: I landed up at a debating evening where the agricultural policies of the National Party and of the United Party had to be discussed, and, against my wishes, I was assigned the task of defending the policy of the United Party. After I had paged through their policy leaflet and could find no policy point about which I could speak, my glance fell upon the front page and I saw their emblem, i.e. the orange tree. I subsequently decided to apeak about the orange tree, and told the people that the orange tree, their emblem, could yield a delicious fruit. Sir, this was during the years when that party was in power. It was when I was at boarding school and it was a debate amongst our boarding school boys. My opponent them jumped up, held up a slice of rye bread and said to me: “Rooie, have you forgotten this morning when we had to eat this bread? What is more, have you forgotten that we did not even have any butter to spread on it? Also, have you forgotten that when we wanted to wash it down with the coffee, we did not even have sugar to put in the coffee?” Mr. Chairman, that is what the position was in the days of the United Party. That is why I say that I do not envy them the task of criticizing the agricultural policy of this Government.

I should like to leave them with that statement and look ahead to better things. Hon. members of the Opposition tried to suggest here that the Government did not come to the assistance of the farmers when they were in difficulties. With your permission, Sir, I want to quote a few figures. In the past year, 1968-’69, which was a difficult year in the agricultural industry, one department alone, i.e. the Agricultural Credit Board, did the following: The Agricultural Credit Board helped 423 farmers with the consolidation of their debts to the full amount of R6,783,992. If one were to calculate the average, it would give one R16,000 per farmer. I think it is a desirable amount for any farmer, who is in difficulties, to receive in order to get out of his difficulties. Secondly, there is the purchase of land. 430 farmers applied for assistance in the purchase of land and the amount of R10,073,825, or an average of R23,427 per farmer, was granted to them. Take water works. When our country was experiencing a drought the Government assisted 320 farmers in respect of their water works, at an amount of R788.833, or an average of R2,150 per farmer. So I could go on, and as far as this is concerned, I want to mention in conclusion that in connection with the maintenance of livestock the Agricultural Credit Board granted 4,366 applications to the tune of R1,891,564. This is what is being done by a Government in sympathy with the farmer and the worker of South Africa.

I should like to mention a problem to the hon. the Minister which the farmers in my own area are experiencing. These are the fresh milk farmers engaged in the milk industry within the controlled milk area. This is in the Witwatersrand, Pretoria and Vereeniging vicinity. Those fresh milk farmers are faced with a great milk surplus every summer. For the purpose of my argument here, I want to divide the milk farmers into two groups. The one is the farmer farming within the controlled milk area. These are the farmers near the great cities. These are also the farmers who keep up the milk industry in the difficult winter months. These are the intensive milk farmers, who make a livelihood exclusively from the production of milk. This is also the farmer whose milk production is held constant throughout the year, winter and summer. Then we have the other type of milk farmer. This is the farmer who is further away from the cities, outside the controlled areas. These are people who mostly apply mixed farming. They are not exclusively dependent upon the milk industry. In the winter they produce very little milk, but in the summer, when conditions are favourable, they produce a lot of milk and great quantities of surplus milk. During the winter months these outside farmers send perhaps 5 per cent or 10 per cent of their milk production to the controlled area in order to keep a door open for themselves into the controlled area when they have great surpluses during the summer. In summer when they can produce milk with little effort and expense, they send the surplus milk to the controlled area, thereby causing a great Surplus problem which forces down the price of milk. The intensive milk farmer, who makes his living exclusively from milk production, suffers because the prices decrease.

What is the solution to that problem?

The solution to that problem lies in the hands of our competent Minister of Agriculture. He can perhaps give thought to production control, or perhaps to other methods as well. A second reason which I see as being responsible for the over-production of milk in the summer is the marketing of milk in the locations. There are large locations situated near our cities and the milk consumption in the locations can be very high. But it is not what it should be because not only is it a tradition among the Bantu to drink sour milk, it is also their staple foodstuff, like kaffir beer and mealie porridge. Unfortunately the pasteurized milk which is marketed in our locations cannot become sour, and the Bantu prefer to have 60 per cent of their milk in the form of sour milk. I do not now want to become involved in an argument with medical men. I know that the risk of the spreading of disease with unpasteurized milk is great, but I want to say that under the supervision of the Milk Board and the local authorities where milk is marketed in the location, attention can be given to limiting the risk to a minimum, so that the hundreds and thousands of Bantu in the locations will once more receive their sour milk, so that a service may be rendered to them and so that they may once more be given ‘their staple foodstuff and so that coupled with that the surplus problems of the farmer will also decrease.

It is a privilege for me to place this problem of my local milk farmers in the hands of the competent hon. Minister of Agriculture. It is even more agreeable for me to realize that it will not be my task to find a solution to this difficult problem.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister had to say when he spoke last, and I wish to ask him certain questions. Let me now deal with what the Minister said, as I understood it. He says if a farmer buys land and he pays such a price that the price he gets for his product thereafter is uneconomic, he cannot ask the Government to protect him and to protect that price which he must have to make his farming economic; the farmer is quite wrong in having paid that price for the land. That is the Minister’s argument. That was the whole basis of it. He says: I am not going to defend the farmer who pays a high price for land and then comes along to ask me to defend the price he is getting for his product. In other words, the Minister works it backwards and says: This is the price fox the product and if the farmer cannot get land on which to farm so as to produce products at the economic price I am giving him, then he must not pay that price fox the land.

I thought you were a grown-up man.

Yes, I am more grown-up than the Minister, because more cockeyed economics I have never heard from a Minister in this House. The Minister has taken the farming economics and he has stood them on their head and he says: I am going to look at the feet because that is the head of this economic proposition. The Minister has stood the whole of the economic basis of farming right on its head.

But I never said what you are sying now.

Then words have no meaning. I have condensed it because the Minister had endless time at his disposal to go on wandering on and on and my time is limited.

Carry on.

I will carry on. I do not require your consent to carry on. The position then is that we have pleaded to get the young farmer on the land and to keep him there, and whether he is a young farmer, a new farmer or an old farmer, he requires land on which to farm. Now, what are the economics of farming to-day? The price of land has gone up and the question I am going to ask the Minister is this. Where in South Africa can a farmer, young, old or new, buy land at a price which will give him an economic return on his investment without his having to go and borrow it; in other words, without having to live on borrowed money?

That is exactly what I said.

The difference between us is this: There sits the Minister. I am not the Minister. What is he doing about it? The answer is that he is doing nothing. He is merely defending a bad policy which he has adopted and which is not producing food for South Africa.

I made two proposals to you. If you can make another one, I am prepared to listen to it.

This is exactly the attitude of a bankrupt Nationalist Government and a bankrupt Nationalist Minister. They sit there as a Government and they turn round to the Opposition and say: Will you now find us the answers and the solutions to the problems we have created, because we could not run the economy of this country properly. And having failed to find the answers to those problems, they tell us to find them. Yes, put us in those benches and we will find the answers. Make no mistake about that.

I made two proposals and I want you to criticize them.

I just made this point in regard to your main proposal. If the Minister denies it, he must tell me where I am wrong when I say that he said that the farmer should not buy land at a price which is so high that he cannot economically farm with the prices of products as they are to-day. Did he not say that?

Not what the price is to-day, but what he can get for his product.

What is the difference Mr. Chairman? The Minister is now splitting hairs. What is the difference between the price he can get and the price he now gets or the price he can get next week?

There is quite a big difference. A good price may be 100 cents to-day and 50 cents tomorrow.

And does the farmer know that when he buys the land? How is he going to buy land and make of it an economic proposition to sell wool in two years time? How does he find out? The answer is that the whole thing is in the hands of the Minister, and the Minister is not coping with it. He is turning agricultural economics right upside down. The whole thing is upside down, and it is upside down because he is dealing with the price of land. That is not where the problem lies. What is the Minister going to do about his own proposal to find a solution for this? What is he doing? He has no solution. Let us look at the price of land. I shall tell you, Mr. Chairman, what the position is. There is nowhere in South Africa where a farmer can buy land at a price which is going to make farming economical at the present time without Government help—nowhere in South Africa, and the Minister knows it.

That is not the point.

Oh no. It is the very point the Minister was making—that the farmers were paying too much for their land. Mr. Chairman, if a farmer buys land at all at the present time he has to pay too high a price on the basis the Minister has set for it. And if a farmer does not buy land, what then is the economics? What is the economics of the man who has got a farm, whose grandfather bought it? Do you think a farmer to-day has to show in his balance sheet land at the price his grandfather paid for it? Is that his economics? Or does he have to show it at the current price of land? And what is the current price of land? That is high because basically to-day it is an investment …

It is exactly what I said.

It is an investment because the investor thinks his money will be safe if he puts it in land. But then the Government through another branch of its administration buys land for the Bantu at enormously expanded values—all over the country vast prices are being paid.

I know.

The Minister says he knows. Well, he is a party to it; so he ought to know. As a matter of fact, it is one of the few things he does know. The price has expanded all over the country. Then there are new growth points, as they are called; new irrigation schemes. Everyone of these is sending up the price of land. The price of land is rising right throughout South Africa but the farmer has got to continue to farm. That is the point. You cannot simply say that the price of land is rising and the farmers have to get out because the price of land is too high to permit of economic production.

He did not say that.

I am not concerned with the precise words the Minister used. His Hansard is there and we shall deal with it in due course. But the meaning of what the Minister said is perfectly clear. What is more, the Minister does not deny it. He does not deny the fact that to-day you have to buy land at a price which will allow you to farm and sell your products economically, without coming to the Government for protection. That is what the Minister said, and that is what he meant. It is that which I am contesting, because there is no such land. It applies neither to land available nor to the land he has to-day and which he owns because he inherited it from his grandfather. The value of that land to-day does not permit of farming under those conditions in order for him to get an economic living out of that land on the basis of the prices he gets at the present time. I am not concerned with what may happen in two years’ time when the price of wool may go up. We may have to face another big drought by then and the price of wool may be down. And what then? Where does the farmer stand? This is precisely what we have been saying all along. We have said all along that the Government does not want to realize that droughts are part of the farming economy in South Africa; it is part of the system; it is part of what you have to take into consideration when you want to become a farmer, i.e. that continually, year after year, you are going to have droughts, in the same way as from time to time you may have floods. But what we want from the Government is a long-term plan, as my leader has referred to here repeatedly. And we want planned finance, long-term as well as short-term. We want to have that clear-cut so that the farmer can be in a position when he comes to the authorities for money to know under which conditions he will be granted a loan. If, then, he cannot comply with those conditions, he cannot get the loan. But this is not clear in respect of any department at the present time. The hon. the Minister was the gentleman who about three years ago said that all farmers should have their bonds with the Land Bank. I see the Minister admits it. But what happened as soon as we went along to try to get a bond with the Land Bank? We were told there was no money. Thereafter another little bit was voted and then, once again, there was no money. So, what is the use of the Minister coming along here telling us not to borrow from all over the place, from commercial banks, from private bondholders, and others, but that we should borrow our money all from one source, from the Government, from the Land Bank and then in the next breath …

Did the Minister say so?

Yes, he said so and he has just admitted it. [Interjections.] Yes, he said so. The Deputy Minister now seems surprised.

Were you referring to me?

Of course, I am referring to you.

You said “Yes” just now.

Yes, he said “Yes” just now. What is wrong with the hon. Minister? Does he not know his own mind? When I put the question to him just now he said “yes”. He did not only nod his head. Nodding his head may mean he is asleep. He said “yes” by word of mouth as well. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, this is a lot of arrant nonsense. The Minister knows and the Government knows that the price of land in South Africa has gone up to a level where, if you are going to carry on farming economically, the produce of the farmer has got to be protected. The farmer has to be financially protected as well, and long-term and short-term financing and a long-term agricultural plan are the only way by which we are going to keep our sons on the farms as new farmers or allow our sons to replace their fathers when they go. Because the old men die eventually even in the farming community, and younger farmers have to take over. But they have to do that on an economic basis. I want to say here categorically that with this policy of the Government the Minister is making a mockery of his words in saying that he is trying to keep farmers on the land. He is obsessed with the idea, the idea which several members have referred to, that if there are fewer farmers they will make bigger profits and produce just as much food. He is obsessed with that idea. That is basic to the thinking of the Government. but the day we are going to get more droughts, we shall be short of food. The Government thinks it is due to its efforts that we have a lot of milk and butter, of cheese, and so forth. But that has nothing to do with the Government—it is due entirely to the heavens, nothing more nor less. And the day the heavens do not give us any more rain and we find ourselves in the midst of a big drought produce will be short once more. And the Minister and his policy are completely to be blamed for that.

The hon. member for South Coast claimed that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development had paid, on behalf of the Trust, unprecedented and unheard of prices for land, prices bearing no relation to the value of land. I do not want to go into that now; the hon. member will have ample opportunity to motivate his statement when the Vote in question comes up for discussion, and then I should very much like to exchange ideas with the hon. member on that matter. He accused the Minister of Agriculture of having had a share in the purchase of this land and in the unheard of prices allegedly paid for it. In fact, the hon. member suggested that that was the only thing about which the Minister knew anything. Sir, you will probably rule me out of order if I were now to elaborate any further on this question of high land prices for the Bantu Trust. But, as I have already said, I should like to discuss this question with the hon. member for South Coast later on.

Let us take a look at some of the other things the hon. member said here. He said that the farmer of to-day who inherited his land from his ancestors, should not, in calculating the return on his farming enterprise, take into account the price paid by his ancestors for that land. The hon. member pursued that point by saying that the purchase of land was an investment to-day. Now I want to ask him this: He says that the price of land is an investment. If I wish to invest my money today, am I going to invest it at a place where I am assured of a fixed interest rate, at some bank or company for instance, or do I invest in my farm because I think that I shall earn a high interest rate by doing so?

Now, tell us.

Sir, I invest in the agricultural industry because I think I shall get a high rate of interest out of it.

Do you get it?

I do. But I do not know whether the hon. member will get it. But let us leave my personal affairs out of this. Up to the present it has not been necessary for me to go to the Land Bank or to a farmers’ assistance board, although I have already paid high prices for land. But that is not relevant. I do not wish to create the impression that I am making a parade of my personal affairs. I have never questioned the hon. member about his personal affairs.

I did not ask a personal question. I was not being personal.

Who is making this speech, you or I? [Interjections.] Nor do I intend to apologize to that hon. member. I do not intend to allow him to put me off my stroke either. But any farmer who buys land and buys it as an investment, as the hon. member for South Coast said, must have calculated that he would get more interest on his capital than he would have if he had invested money at some bank or institution.

I did not say that the farmer bought the land for that purpose. I said that it was an investment.

There we have it once again. It is still an investment. What is an investment? It is an investment when one invests one’s capital in order that one may live on the interest derived from such an investment. Surely, that is what one makes investments for. Surely, one does not buy land because one is too incompetent to do anything else. If one is too incompetent to do anything else, one should not even go in for farming either; in that case one does not even belong on a farm. After all, one invests one’s money in land because one thinks that by doing so one will obtain a bigger return on one’s capital than one would have if one had invested one’s capital somewhere else. What is the hon. member’s point of departure? The hon. member takes the view that, if I had made an investment and my calculations were at fault, I would not be to blame. No, good gracious, then one can wash one’s hands of the whole affair. Then it has to be passed on to the State and to the hon. the Minister. Then he would be responsible for ensuring that one obtains a loan from the Land Bank. If one cannot raise sufficient credit at the Land Bank, if one is no longer 80 per cent credit-worthy, then the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has to help one with the full 100 per cent of one’s application. No, if we are going to found our agricultural industry on that basis, I do not foresee any future for the agricultural industry in South Africa. In that case the only way I can see open to the farmer in South Africa is, as the hon. member for Newton Park once again propagated, the peasant system which obtains in other countries; in other words, where the farmer no longer displays any initiative, where the farmer is no longer an investor, but where the farmer is a person who finds himself on the farm to render service there because he does not want to work anywhere else, because he does not want to work on the Railways, for instance, or because he does not want to take up any other employment in industry. They are in actual fact nothing but tenant farmers. I can appreciate the fact that we have to do with a risk factor; that we have precarious climatic conditions. There are, in addition, people who are struggling financially and who have had to borrow money at 5 or 6 per cent. We know that in a developing country such as South Africa, where investments can draw more interest to-day, the person who used to be prepared to grant people loans at 5 per cent interest, possibly wants 8 or 9 per cent interest on such loans at present. We are aware of that. We are also aware that circumstances may arise where market prices may collapse and that people will then need help. That is what the Land Bank is for. That is why there is a Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. However, those organizations have not been established to settle a person in the rural areas merely to be able to say that they have now settled him there.

My time is very limited, but I want to say a few more things in passing, because it is not every day that I have the opportunity of saying a few things about agriculture. The hon. member referred here to people who were paying too much for land and subsequently had to be helped by the State. Those hon. members over there include no less a person than the hon. member for East London (City). I remember very well that in the year 1953, when I also made a lot of money and got 120 pennies and even more for my wool, Mr. Stephen le Roux, a predecessor of the present Minister of Agriculture, sounded a warning and told farmers that they should not buy land on the basis of these high wool prices. He said that it was dangerous. I am sure that the present Minister of Agriculture would sound that very same warning. I would do so, too. But what did the hon. member for East London (City) do when he was chairman of the Wool Board? Does the hon. member for South Coast still remember? Can he remember that the hon. member for East London (City) said at the time that the then hon. Minister had talked through his hat and that there was no reason why wool prices would fall? He said that in future wool prices would remain the same since there was every indication that the world consumption of wool would increase. At that time he was not merely the U.P. member for East London (City). No, he was the chairman of the Wool Board. He was the person who said at the time that farmers should go on buying land and that this basis of high prices would be maintained. These are the people who are in difficulties now; that is why the hon. member is getting hot under the collar this afternoon. He became angry and said that the hon. the Minister was distorting matters. No, if there has ever been a back-to-front policy, then it is this idea of believing that one can base the agriculture industry on the price a person is satisfied to pay with as much credit as he can obtain, and that the Government then has to accept responsibility for it. [Interjections.] Please, I do not want the hon. member for Newton Park to make interjections now. If I were to have as a distorted idea of agriculture as he has, I would definitely not speak about it. The hon. member can rather speak again later on, and if the Chair affords me an opportunity, I shall reply to his question, To rely on the price wool fetches on the market, which may be 120 pennies for instance, or to rely on an exceptionally good year in which people harvest between 40 and 60 bags of maize per morgen as against the normal crop of 15 to 20 bags, or to rely on a very good wheat year in which people have exceptional crops, and then to purchase land on that basis, is not logical. If under those circumstances one does not make a success of one’s farming enterprise and then expects State aid to be adjusted accordingly, i.e. if one expects the maize or the wheat price to be adjusted to those circumstances, even if it is entirely beyond the reach of the consumer, or if one expects to be subsidized so that the consumer may not have to pay such high prices, then it is not logical either. It is only with U.P. logic that one can argue that way. We cannot return the Opposition to the Government benches, because with such logic they will never be able to govern the country.

Mr. Chairman, it has been very interesting to have sat here from 1966, and each year to have listened to the agricultural debates which fall under the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. It has been even more interesting to have listened to the Opposition’s arguments from year to year. If one has listened to their arguments one does not find it strange that they have landed themselves in their present position. After the hon. the Minister, and also the Deputy Minister, quoted from the Opposition’s then agricultural policy, one would swear that the agricultural seotor of South Africa had stood still in this rapidly developing South Africa, and that the other complexes were extended while agriculture declined. One would swear that agriculture had not kept pace with the rapid development; that the people had not built up their farms and extended them and that their standard of living had not increased as systematically as those of other sectors. We are glad of that rapid development of the other sectors. It is, of course, every person’s right to be ridiculous. It is equally the hon. Opposition’s right to conduct ridiculous arguments. We also have a few United Party members in South-West Africa. They also had their own agricultural policy during the years when they ruled there. If one compares that policy with the policy of these United Party members one sees that the agricultural policies are the same. The United Party members there had a very short agricultural policy. Their policy was: Here people, there is a world for you. Here world, there is a person for you. Having listened through the years, it would appear to me as if these United Party members are still conducting that same policy. This is about all one can say about their policy.

I should like to speak about the first settlement scheme in South-West Africa. The South-West Africa Administration began an extensive scheme in 1960. On completion it will have cost more than R12 million. It is the first scheme of its kind in South-West Africa. That scheme has also brought along its problems. There are various reasons for those problems. The fact that it is a new scheme has contributed to the problems. There was also a lack of knowledge about irrigation schemes. It was also something new for the Department. The name of this scheme is the Hardap scheme. A Hardap committee was appointed and the Minister decided that that committee would be retained to assist in the combating of the problems which the settlers are experiencing there. I am also glad that the present Farmers’ Assistance Board will also remain in operation and that the present director has also been instructed by the hon. the Minister to act on his behalf. The scheme which will be known as the Hardap scheme consists of 98 small-holdings of plus/minus 25 hectares each. Only 70 of these small-holdings will provisionally be cultivated while the remainder will be kept back. Then there is also an experimental farm of about 100 hectares. This experimental farm does a great deal of good work with experiments, etc. At present 28 of these small-holdings are already in production but they also have their problems. Their greatest problem is that the ground becomes brackish because there are not sufficient drainage facilities. Before the takeover by the Government, the South-West Africa Administration had also put a considerable scheme into operation at very high cost. This scheme will bring about the drainage of the land. We trust and we know that the hon. the Minister will be very sympathetically disposed towards the Hardap scheme, of which we are very proud because it is the first of its kind. We trust that the Government will devote as much attention to this scheme as was given to it under the South-West Africa Administration, because these people are faced with many problems. The problem is that some of these small-holdings are of a better quality than others; this is proved by analysis. These people who have the poorer small-holdings with the smaller production potential will need guidance and assistance from time to time. We believe that the Republic’s Department, which is very much better equipped than the South-West Africa Administration, will be able to help these people to solve their problems. As I have said, 28 small-holdings are already in use. Between the 10th and the 12th of June a further 15 of the remaining small-holdings will be allotted. The remainder will be allotted as soon as they are ready. We hope that the Department will make this scheme, which is at the same time a very great tourist attraction, the great success which the South-West Africa Administration meant it to become when establishing it.

Mr. Chairman, I think I shall rather leave the interesting subject discussed by the hon. member who has just sat down to other hon. members. I want to come back to a subject which I discussed in the House last night. However, before doing so, I want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Heidelberg who said that there was a time, as he put it, “onder ’n Sapregering” when he and his family and many others had no butter to put on their bread and had no sugar to put in their coffee. I want to ask him whether he thinks that there are not people who still live in that condition in South Africa to-day after 21 years of a Nationalist Party regime? I should like to go even further and say that there are possibly, and I am certain that there are, people in this country who have not got bread on which to spread butter. There are people who have not got coffee in which to put sugar. All this after 21 years of Nationalist Government!

I want to come back to the question which I raised yesterday in this House and that is the question of egg production and the levy which is paid on eggs which are produced. As I have said, I believe that no levy is paid on 54 per cent of the eggs produced in South Africa. This levy is not paid because of the system of levy collection. At the moment the levy amounts to 3 cents per dozen, and is collected at the point of supply to the consumer, in other words, from the retailer or from the egg depot. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe in Durban alone between 1,500 and 2,000 cases of 30 dozen eggs each, for which no levy is paid, are being sold each week. We have the problem of the shortage of statistics in the poultry industry. Returns are being submitted by producers but unfortunately the reports which come out quarterly are not adequate. Therefore, most of the figures I want to give are estimates. However, these estimates are worked out in conjuction with the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers Association. It is estimated that there are 10,000 outlets and 24,000 egg producers in South Africa, but only 128 hatcheries. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider a suggestion which was made to him by the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers Association that the levy should be raised at the hatchery on the pullets, which will make it easier for him to collect the levy and also make it cheaper for him to collect the levy. By doing this, it is believed that the expenses which are involved in collecting the levy could be halved.

I feel that some measure of control should be established to relate the production of eggs to demand. I want to suggest that this is absolutely necessary. It is necessary because the principle of supply and demand cannot be allowed free rein any longer. Between April and August there are seasonal shortages, and it is important that during the summer a surplus of between 10 and 15 per cent should be produced. At the moment it is estimated that the surplus which is being produced during the summer season is in the region of 35 per cent and not 10 to 15 per cent. The egg industry has become very profitable and that is why we find the surpluses which were mentioned yesterday. The hon. the Minister mentioned that there are millions of cases of surplus eggs which cannot be disposed of, because egg production throughout the world has increased. In Natal the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers Association has voluntarily curtailed the expansion of the industry and kept it down within the limits of the normal demand in Natal. This industry is to-day being faced with a threat from a company, the Tongaat Sugar Company, which is part of an industry which last year came to the Government and asked for a loan of R10 million to put this Industry on its feet. But we have the position that at present a company which is directly involved in this industry is to spend R2 million on crashing into this profitable egg industry; an industry which has been controlled by its own association in Natal and which has done a wonderful job. The estimated egg production from the Tongaat Sugar Estates is in the region of 20 per cent of the present supply in Natal where there is already an over-production of eggs, although not markedly. Here we are facing the position where one company is coming in with a potential 20 per cent overproduction. It has been suggested that this company will supply eggs at a lower price to the consumers. But we want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is not going to be the outcome. There are other producers in Natal, about five or six of them, who are big enough to withstand the challenge and competition from such an organization. The effect of allowing this company into the egg industry in Natal will be the following. The small man, the backbone of the industry in Natal to-day, the one who has between 6,000 and 8,000 producing birds, is going to be squeezed out because he will not be able to compete with the large organizations. The industry will be left in the hands of five or six bodies. I maintain that this can only lead to monopolistic conditions.

What do you propose that I do to prevent them from coming in?

I have suggested, and the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers Association agrees with me, that a case can be made out to control production in this particular sphere. The hon. member for Heidelberg suggested this in respect of dairy products. I agree with him. My personal view is that this should be done in certain spheres. It cannot be applied to agriculture in general. I agree with the hon. the Minister on this point. I think a case can be made out that control of production of eggs can be applied. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to this particular problem of this gate-crashing by the Tongaat Sugar Company into the egg industry in Natal. We cannot keep them out, I agree with the hon. the Minister. We cannot tell a farmer what he can produce on his farm, but I would suggest that if they were phased in at the rate of 5 per cent per annum they could perhaps be absorbed. The hon. the Minister knows that in a matter of six months or nine months at the outside, they can be in full production. This will mean an additional amount of 2,000 cases of eggs per week for the Natal market alone. This can upset the whole poultry industry, not only in Natal, but throughout the whole country. I commend this suggestion to the hon. the Minister that, through the powers at his disposal, he should persuade them to phase in and not to come in with their whole production at one time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) spoke about a matter to which I do not feel myself qualified to reply. However, at the beginning of his speech he remarked about the poor people, which we still have to-day, some of whom do not have bread to eat. This is so. Poverty and poor people there will unfortunately be. There are two things, which we still have in this country, which I regret, i.e. poverty and the United Party members. However, I may give the hon. member the assurance that in the course of time we shall get rid of both problems. This is what the Government intends to do. This is how it executes its policy. But since the hon. member has now devoted two of his speeches to fowls and fowl produce, I could not help laughing when I remembered yesterday’s interjection: “The hon. member is certainly making a fowl speech”! I do not want to imply by that that the hon. member raised something unimportant. I am merely mentioning this point and perhaps it will amuse the hon. member as well. However, I now want to request that we stop these speeches about chickens.

I shall be parochial to-day. I therefore want to make a request to the hon. the Minister for a subsidy on soil conservation works. I want to speak about soil conservation works which are executed in the Kalahari by means of internally-lined and covered pit-dams (kuildamme). In respect of this I feel that the hon. the Minister can grant subsidies. In the Kalahari, which is about three million morgen in extent and virtually big enough for an individual state, the people call these dams “gatdamme”, but I do not like such a name and therefore call them “kuildamme”. My point of departure is not so much water conservation for then I should have had to speak under the Water Affairs Vote. My point of departure is actually soil conservation. In the Kalahari there are about 38 farms of about 422,000 morgen in extent. These farms lie in a salt belt where, according to geologists, there is no underground fresh water to be found. These farms were approved by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and allocated as economic units. Quite a number of farmers are making a living in this area. On most of these farms there are dams which are actually large pans and in rainy seasons these “gatdamme” are filled. There is but little rainfall in this area, but there are heavy downpours at times. At very great cost the tenants and owners of farms increased the depth of the dams on their farms. However, the problem is that the bottoms of these dams have a salt formation. In the summer, when it is hot, the water evaporates tremendously rapidly. The remaining water than becomes more saline. Some of the water also drains away. The majority of these farms have already been planned. To-day about 80,000 head of small stock are kept in this area of 422,000 morgen. According to the criteria laid down by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, about 105,000 or more head of small stock ought to be able to be kept, if there were a good system of camps on every farm and if there were well distributed points for watering the livestock on the farms. When we speak of soil conservation, the first requirement is not to increase the numbers of livestock. The actual requirement is to counter the precariousness of farming in that area. The requirement is for better utilization of the veld so that one can preserve the grass covering of the soil. The problem is that when these “gatdamme” are empty, and they empty very quickly because the evaporation is up to 120 inches per year, those farmers move to the next farm or to the farm of another farmer who can supply them with grazing. The remaining farmers transport water to the farms at tremendous cost. The water is transported to one point on the farm and consequently there is once again the unavoidable trampling of the ground, since the livestock moves only to that point. One feels that tremendous destruction to the veld takes place there as a result of the fact that the people cannot conserve all the water which they catch up in these dams. If one could get a well-equipped, deep and sealed earth dam which was lined internally, and to-day dams are lined with plastic material, water could be pumped from these dams by means of a system of pipes and could then be distributed to various points nn the farm where it was needed. This would then lead to improved soil conservation. Taking these facts into consideration, I want to ask that there should also be subsidies payable for these works just as there are for other soil conservation works. This work is already being done by companies to-day, but the costs involved are relatively high for the kind of farmer we find there. Since we should like to keep young farmers in the country districts, I want to make this emphatic plea to-day. I want to make a strong plea for these people to be helped since they are not yet financially in a position to carry the costs. Since we already know that such works are being done and since we can get the specifications from the companies, the Department can draw up its own specifications and ascertain for itself whether it would, in fact, be efficient. I personally am sure that we are dealing here with soil conservation works which are efficient and which can preserve the soil of the Kalahari for us in future so that it is not trampled and only the red sand left which would subsequently move away to the east.

Mr. Chairman, I have been wondering for a long time how it would be if one were to rise in this House one day and find that there was not a single U.P. member to listen to what one had to say. This afternoon we have only four U.P. members in this House. This is the interest the U.P. shows in the debate on agriculture, and this is the case after last Friday when, like baboons on a hot tin roof, they jumped up here to object to the adjournment of the House because there was no work to proceed with, whereas in actual fact there was sufficient work but special circumstances obtained. This is the interest in agriculture on the other side of the House. Sir, I could drive from here to my constituency, a distance of 900 miles, without driving through one single U.P. constituency. In nine months’ time, when the next elections are due, it will be great to say to our voters, “Take a look at this; here we have four U.P. members in this House when agriculture is being discussed, a debate for which 13½ hours have been set aside”. Amongst the four U.P. members sitting over there, there is not one who represents an agricultural constituency. I must admit, though, that three of them are farmers and the other one is an attorney, but he does not know anything about farming. This is the degree of interest shown by the United Party in agriculture! If one looks at the chaotic position on that side of the House, one feels that the U.P. should not try to point a finger at us again. An attorney has to act as Whip here this afternoon to lead the few farmers in this debate. This is the U.P. which wants to govern the country! And then the senior member on the United Party side still had the audacity this afternoon to say that if they came into power, they would establish such and such a board and implement such and such a policy. They will not come into power for the next two centuries.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to earth. The hon. the Minister asked us in fact to help him with the problems he posed here this afternoon. Unfortunately I cannot help the Minister as far as that part of his problems are concerned. I should like to discuss something local; I should like to mention something in my constituency in as far as it affects the agricultural college in Potchefstroom, and in that regard I want to say that I was in fact disappointed when I looked at the building programme and saw that no provision had been made for the construction of a lecture hall at the agricultural college, a lecture hall which we require so urgently. I know that it is very difficult to keep pace as far as the building programme is concerned. I know that there simply is not sufficient money for making provision for all the necessary extensions, but one is concerned about the available facilities. In one of the laboratory-cum-lecture halls it is a veritable infliction for a lecturer to try to keep his students awake on hot days, and if it is at all possible to attend to that one particular aspect only, and especially to the laboratory for veterinary services at the agricultural college for the Highveld Region as well, it will be appreciated very highly. As far as buildings are concerned, these are probably the two greatest bottlenecks at that agricultural college at this stage.

Then there is another matter I just want to touch upon: At the agricultural college we have a herd of Africander cattle which is very well known and held in high repute, and which has probably been kept there for more than 60 years. The Tswana territory borders directly on this area. In addition, the agricultural college for the Highveld Region at Potchefstroom is actually the source of knowledge for the Tswana territory. The Tswana territory is also a region where people farm pre-eminently with Africander cattle. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister whether they would give consideration to donating that herd of Africander cattle to the Tswana Territorial Authority for the purpose of establishing a proper herd of Africander cattle in the Tswana territory. This is an area which lends itself to that; it is a cattle area and it will definitely be a very fine gesture. This will not only benefit the Bantu in that territory, but it will, in addition, definitely be of great benefit to the Whites whose farms border directly on that territory.

Then there is a third matter which I should like to mention. On page 194 of the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services I notice that on 30th June. 1967, there was provision for 1,720 professional posts, but on that day 185 of them were vacant, i.e. 10.8 per cent. On 30th June, last year, there were 1,742 posts and 293 of them were vacant, i.e. 16.8 per cent. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that this position is a major source of concern to all of us, because as far as I am concerned, these researchers, these scientists, are one of the mainstays of the agricultural industry. To my mind they are one of the mainstays of the entire farming industry of South Africa. These people do not resign because they are dissatisfied with their working conditions. They resign because the Public Service does not afford them sufficient security from a pension and medical fund, etc., point of view, but what is in fact extremely important is the salary position of these people. A person studies at very great expense until he obtains his, for example, doctor’s degree, and then he comes back and what does he find? He finds that the commencing salary of a traffic inspector is R1,628 after six months. The commencing salary of a professional officer with a B.Sc. degree is R1,680 and he is appointed on R1,920. After three and a half years the traffic inspector can earn a salary of R2,280, and after five years he comes on to the scale of R2,520 which rises to R3,000 after seven years—i.e. seven years after Std. VIII that traffic inspector can earn R3,000.

Take, however, the case of a student who obtains his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees. If he is very brilliant and passes year after year, i.e. within the absolute minimum periods, he obtains that degree seven or eight years after matriculation, i.e. nine or ten years after Std. VIII. Then he is appointed in an agricultural post at a salary of R3,000 per year. Under these circumstances we must very seriously ask ourselves whether we are in all respects—not only as regards working conditions, but also as regards the question of salaries—paying the necessary attention to these scientists of our Departments. If these professional officers are doing very well and if they gain promotion very quickly, they can advance to R4,200 after a period of 16 years, and after 20 years, as I work out the scale, they can advance to R4,800 per year, i.e. R400 per month. Compare the position of this professional officer with that of the professional man, the accountant, the attorney or the medical practitioner. After five or six years these professional people can earn between R400 and R1,000 per month.

I appreciate that the State cannot pay the salaries that are being paid outside. The State cannot compete with a profession. But we must accommodate these researchers and professional officers who are one of the mainstays of the agricultural industry in such a way that it would no longer be necessary for us to look at figures of this nature and to hear that these people have accepted positions at fertilizer or other companies. I think that it is also necessary to pay attention to the promotion possibilities for these officers in the Department itself. I understand that one of my colleagues suggested last night that these people need not necessarily be promoted to senior posts in the administrative section. I cannot see any reason why a senior researcher in the Department cannot gain promotion to a post where his salary would be comparable to or even higher than that of the Secretary.

We must pay those people salaries which are commensurate with the value of the services they have to render. The experience I have gained from working together with officials of the agricultural college at Potchefstroom and with other officials, not only of this Department but also of other Departments, is that they are not so much complaining about their working conditions and about security: they feel, however, that their salaries simply do not bear any relation to the time and money their studies cost them. These people attend a university for seven or eight or nine years; it costs them between R6,000 and R7,000, and I think that through his Department the hon. the Minister may possibly review this aspect of the staff structure once again.

The hon. member who has just sat down had a very bright idea, which must have given a certain amount of amusement to hon. members on that side of the House. They have been sitting here throughout the debate watching to see when the proportion of United Party members listening to the debate would fall below the proportion of Nationalist members listening to the debate. There were very few members on the other side, proportionately, listening to this agricultural debate yesterday, and to-day they have been watching to see how many members on this side are present in the House, and the hon. member who has just sat down has caught us at a moment when, proportionately, there are fewer United Party members than Nationalists listening to the debate. I have no doubt that the Whips got busy yesterday and said to them: “Kêrels, dit is ’n landboudebat; julle moet bier wees.” That is why they have all come into the House. [Interjections.] We have the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development sitting here. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture is also here; I do not know where the Minister is.

He will be here in a moment.

Sir, it is a reflection on that side of the House that the hon. member who has just sat down, who is an attorney and who knows nothing about farming, has had to come into the debate to put forward a plea in the interests of the farming community.

He made a good speech.

Yes, he made a better speech than hon. members on the other side who represent the farming community. Like a true lawyer he has had to face this question honestly …

He is a good farmer too.

Sir, to show how bad things have become in the country, I want to quote a telegram which has just been received.

Where did you send it from? [Interjections.]

I admit that I know nothing about this at all and the Deputy Minister can tell me whether what is stated here is correct.

Why do you not sit down then? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that it is about cotton. Apparently he has also been receiving telegrams. The telegram reads—

That falls under commerce and industry; not agriculture.

The telegram ends with the word “help”. I am glad to hear that the Deputy Minister has been getting telegrams too, and perhaps he will take this opportunity of telling the country and this House why the price of cotton has been reduced to its lowest level for 11 years. Perhaps he will make a statement so that we can tell the cotton farmers what the trouble is. They know, of course, that the real trouble is that the wrong Government is in power but they cannot do anything about that overnight. Perhaps the Government will tell us what they are going to do to help the cotton farmers.

Sir, I want to get on to something else. I notice that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is in the House. Perhaps he can give us this information. I notice that provision is made in the South-West Africa Account for the buying out of farms and properties on the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission, R450,000; then provision is made for R100 for buying outlying non-white reserves. Provision is also made for R200,000 for the purchase of land and improvements for public purposes. I want to know in the first place where this land is situated that we are buying in South-West Africa.

It is not necessarily for my purposes.

The Minister of Agriculture can tell us what the position is then.

It may be for other purposes.

The Minister of Agriculture can tell us where this land is being bought, for what purpose it is being bought and what happens to it once it has been bought and before it is used for the purpose for which it has been bought. I ask this because so often we find, I suppose in South-West Africa as well as in the Republic, that land is bought for Bantu occupation and that it then lies fallow for years in some cases before it is put to any proper use. We would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what is happening in this case. As I have said, provision is also being made for R100 for the buying of outlying non-white reserves. I take it that this R100 is a token figure. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us where these outlying non-whites reserves, which they intend buying, are situated.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal now with another matter, which will be a relief to hon. members opposite because it is not a contentious matter. I refer to Vote No. 18, Deeds Offices. Sir, this Department is the Cinderella of the Public Service. Not so many years ago the Deeds Office was in a bad way. They were far behind in registering deed but they have now reached the stage where they are just about able to register deeds in the time laid down. In Cape Town they were working to the time schedule until just recently. They have now fallen behind again and they are a day and a half or two days behind. I understand that the reason for this is because some of the staff have had to be sent up to Pietermaritzburg, where of course we all know the conditions were very bad and they had fallen far behind the schedule for registering deeds. Of course this shortage of staff will continue in the Deeds Office and in any other Government office where the staff are called upon to perform specialized duties. We have long contended through the law societies that the Deeds Office personnel, the registrars and the senior examiners, should be put on a professional basis. While they are on the present salary scales, where they are doing professional work, they should be treated on a professional basis, and I think this Department should be put under the Department of Justice, when these officials will be treated in the same way in which the Department of Justice treats its officials who do professional work.

The matter becomes serious because the delay in registering deeds can cause great financial loss. There are several hundreds of deeds registered every day in Cape Town alone, and when one considers the price for land to-day and one remembers that when a sale is concluded and a guarantee is furnished for the payment of the purchase price, that money lies idle until the deed has been registered or the bond has been registered, when the money is paid over, one realizes that somebody must lose money daily. And interest has to be paid on that money. Therefore I say the Minister will have to give more attention to this matter. It is becoming a serious matter, especially, as I say, with the high price of land to-day. We cannot afford to have interest paid on money which is not being put to use but which lies idle in a trust fund waiting to be paid out until such time as the Deeds Office can cope with the work. We raise this matter of the Deeds Office yearly, but we get no further with the Minister. I ask him now to give more consideration to the suggestions we made in the oast, that he put his examiners in the Deeds Office on a different basis and that he treat them as professional people: and I think the Minister will agree that it is now time that the Deeds Office be taken away from the Department of Lands and handed over to the Department of Justice.

The hon. member for Transkei will pardon me if I do not follow up what he said in regard to the South-West matter or in regard to the Deeds Office. I want to use the time at my disposal to suggest something here which, I consider, will be conducive to bringing about stability in the agricultural industry. Before I make those representations to the Minister, allow me by way of introduction to present to the House my standpoint in regard to my views on the steps taken by the Government and the National Party in respect of the agricultural industry in South Africa. These views have very definitely been mentioned in the course of this debate and for that reason I shall not go into much detail, but I want to refer briefly to the fact that year after year this Government has made increasingly more capital available to the farmers of South Africa for various purposes. In the first place, to provide them with capital for the purchase of land, to settle farmers on the land and to keep them there, capital for production purposes, capital for the purpose of propping up the prices of agricultural produce, capital for research and extension purposes. etc. The Deputy Minister has already mentioned that in these Estimates the large amount of R215 million was made available for these purposes which I have just mentioned. This has resulted in the capital assets of the agricultural industry showing an increase. I mention this because I am convinced that, if this National Government had not made available millions of rands for the agricultural industry every year, it would not have been possible for the value of the capital assets of the agricultural industry to show an increase as reflected in these supplementary particulars to the abstract of agricultural statistics in the Republic of South Africa. I just want to mention a few figures in brief.

In 1961 the capital value was R4,897 million, and in 1967 it was estimated that the capital value of the agricultural industry had increased to R6,265 million. I repeat that if it had not been for the generosity of the National Government, it would not have been possible for those capital assets of the agricultural industry to increase to that extent. If one looks at the figures from 1961 right through to 1967, this amounts to more or less R200 million a year, i.e. the increase in the capital value. But I cannot omit to call attention to the other side as well. Having put forward this case very strongly and emphasized it, I want to say that the total outstanding debts of farmers at the various bodies which I am going to mention, were as follows: On 31st December, 1966, these debts amounted to R142 million at the Land Bank; in 1967 they amounted to R183 million and in 1968 to R200 million. Agricultural Credit: There they amounted to R90 million, R112 million and R125 million over the same periods. As far as co-operative societies are concerned: here the liabilities of farmers amounted to R50 million in 1966, R62 million in 1967 and R66 million in 1968. It is conspicuous that at commercial banks the figures are different. At the latter the liabilities showed a decrease, but in total, in respect of those three years, the figure increased from R1,026.6 million on 31st December, 1966, to R1,071 million in 1968.

But this is not the only facet of the picture I want to present. Also as far as the Land Bank itself is concerned, the position is that since 1964 the long-term debts of farmers increased from R141,484,000 to R195,257,000. I want to repeat what I said at the outset. If it had not been for the generosity of this Government, these statistics, which I have just mentioned, would have given much more cause for concern than they do now.

Now I come to the thought I mentioned at the outset. On the one hand we have this increase in capital, but, on the other hand, we have this increase in the burden of debt. I am not concerned about the percentage of people who are in arrears, because this is reasonably stable and is not alarming. What I am concerned about, is the increasing burden of debt resting on the agricultural industry, in spite of this fantastic contribution which the Government makes every year, that contribution which is being scorned by the Opposition. I repeat that if it had not been for this assistance, the position would have been very different. But it is not for us to fix our minds on this position only. I want to tell you a few things about a co-operative society in my own constituency so as to show that the position there is not much better. I have the figures with me. The position there is that merely in respect of fertilizer the amount owed by farmers to the co-operative societies increased from R1,300,000 in 1964 to R2.5 million in 1968. My time is running short and I want to make haste, and now I want to express this thought. Is it not possible for us to introduce a production costs insurance scheme for the agricultural industry, because those farmers who get into difficulties and in arrears, do not find themselves in that position because of the price structure, since the Government has seen to it that the maximum price could be announced. That position is attributable to climatic conditions. But I also want to mention another figure. In 1966 the same cooperative society had a production of 5.7 million bags of maize, and this year, which was a year of drought, 550,000 bags are expected. If we had had a production costs insurance scheme, we would have been able to relieve those farmers of those tremendous burdens which are resting on their shoulders. I know that this is a major undertaking and that it also requires a tremendous amount of investigation, but I am pleading here with the Government that such a scheme be introduced as soon as it is practicable to do so. I am also doing this by way of supporting the hon. member for Christiana.

My time is short, but there is another matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. It is in regard to these regulations published in Gazette R.519 of 29th March, 1968, the regulations in terms of the Livestock Brands Act. In Regulation No. 10 there is an explanation of how brands should be effected. They are to consist of four characters, namely three letters from the second annexure placed next to and half an inch from each other. Those branding-iron symbols or characters are to be 1¼ in. or 1⅝ in. high at the highest point and 1¼ in to 1⅝ in. wide at the widest part. In addition one may only brand the animal on the lower part of its hind leg, or on its neck. Now I ask you, Sir, if one looks at these symbols in this annexure, one sees that there are various characters. For instance, one has an upside-down M and B, and one has the upside-down W, and in terms of the Act such letters can qualify for being registered as a branding-iron. One has the A with two small bars, and this A points in four different directions, upside-down and sideways. How can any farmer effect these symbols with those sizes by means of a hot branding-iron or a chemical substance without causing a stain or causing the fluid to run and without these characters becoming illegible? The trouble is that, if livestock are found in the possession of a farmer and these brands are not legible, that farmer can be prosecuted if he cannot convince the authorities that that is the brand which was effected by means of this branding-iron. And I say, without beating about the bush, that these symbols, these characters, as printed here, cannot be effected by any veterinary surgeon or farmer in a legible way, and I ask for this regulation to be repealed. [Time expired.]

I have been listening attentively to this debate during the past few days, and I should like to discuss a few of the Opposition’s arguments, but I note that the hon. member for Newton Park is not in the House at present. I shall therefore leave it at that. A good deal was said here about agricultural problems, and about what the real problems of our farmers are. I think it is also our duty to make suggestions as to what assistance the farmers should be given to solve their problems. To-day I want to confine myself to uneconomic farming units, collective farming and the purchasing of land, and here I want to refer in particular to land which has been allocated to persons in terms of irrigation schemes. We know that such land is allocated at prices far below the realistic value of that land. The lucky person who obtains such a smallholding is in effect winning a lottery ticket because he can subsequently sell that smallholding and make a considerable profit. This is one of those things we cannot allow. I do not think we should allow a person who has received land from the state to sell it afterwards for his own gain. We know that in the past some of the most densely populated settlements were regarded as welfare undertakings. Consequently the persons who were placed on those settlements were not always the best farmers. But to-day this is no longer the case. In conjunction with this I want to refer to land which is purchased by means of State aid, particularly to the young farmer and to the man who has saved up and now wants to begin farming. Over the years these people were always able to acquire land to rent On those farms they were then able to prove whether they would be competent farmers. I personally have helped many people to become owners of such land because they proved that they would be competent farmers, if they were only afforded an opportunity of acquiring their own piece of land. But rented land is a luxury to-day. Rentable land simply does not come on to the market any more, and when such a piece of land does in fact come on to the market, it is snatched up by the big farmers. I think the Government must make such land available again so that prospective farmers can prove whether they are going to be successful farmers. But we know that the State unfortunately does not have such land. In European countries, and also in Australia, most of the land is rentable land. Farmers are granted usufruct on that land and can then leave it to their offspring as an inheritance. I think the Minister laid his finger on the sore point here yesterday. If a man wants to begin to farm and he must get together the capital for that purpose, he is already out of the running because he does not have the working capital to go further. This is also the pattern in other branches of our economy. In the business world, for example, we find that the man who gets together the capital to buy business premises is not the man who runs the business. The vast majority of shopkeepers are lessees. They lease the premises, although the premises were purchased by some other person. That is why I think the idea expressed by the Minister is worth looking into. What I want to say is that if a farmer knows that he only has to nay the rental very few farmers will find themselves in difficulties. That is why I feel that making rentable land available deserves to be thoroughly investigated. The State must again purchase land for prospective farmers, who can then rent it from the State at, say, 5 per cent of the purchase price. The other requisites, such as livestock, implements, fuel, seed and fertilizer can then be made available to him in the normal way by Agricultural Credit. If this man now meets his obligations and proves that he is a good farmer his lease can be made over to him as a testatory contract which he can bequeath to his children. Or he must be given the choice, after ten years, of buying, subject to the condition that he will not try to sell that land within ten years merely to make a profit. This is to prevent speculation. I am putting forward this suggestion because I think it can be investigated to good effect.

In addition I want to talk about uneconomic units. Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to convey my sincere thanks to the Minister for this assistance in making economic units out of uneconomic units, either by the purchase of adjoining land, or the purchase of uneconomic units. This scheme is working very well. We are very grateful, since it is assisting these smaller farmers.

But I want to raise a third matter. Many of these units, which are regarded as being uneconomic, are in reality not uneconomic. It is mostly a case of that man not having sufficient working capital, of his applying the wrong farming methods, or something of that nature. That is why I want to ask whether it is not possible, with technical and financial assistance from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, or perhaps a committee consisting of farmers, for us to make the necessary funds available to these uneconomic farmers so that they can farm economically. If such a farmer agrees to co-operate, the extension officer, with his committee, can obtain control over the land and utilize it. I am convinced that if we render assistance in this way to these people it will be possible to convert many of these smaller units, particularly arable land, into economic units. We will be able to develop these to great advantage. I also want to suggest that in such cases that expensive machinery should be acquired on a collective basis, or on a rented basis, so that the farmer has no need, if he wants to set about things in a scientific way and cultivate that uneconomic unit, in an intensive way, to incur such heavy capital expenditure. Implements remain a major problem to our farmers. Annually R400 million is being invested in farm equipment and machinery. The maintenance costs are tremendous. That is why I feel we should make greater use of the leasing system to help our small farmers in this way. We can do this by means of a leasing system, on a collective basis, so that those machines can be purchased by a group of farmers and in this way a few farmers can do the same work which one farmer is doing today. I want to lay heavy stress on this matter. We can convert a great percentage of these uneconomic units into economic units, to the benefit of our country. [Time expired.]

I do not want to react to any great extent to the two speeches that have just been made. I just want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Harrismith, who quoted a large number of figures. He quoted figures ad nauseam, figures that have been quoted here during the two days’ debate, for instance the advances of R195 million made by the Land Bank. We admit and know that they are correct. We have quoted them from this side. I quoted them. But the fact is that a large section of the farming community is in economic difficulties. That is a fact. That is the point we on this side of the House are making. Something must be done to help them and save them for the agricultural industry. That is our point and it has been admitted by several members on the other side. Those members who do not admit it, know nevertheless that it is true.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) made a very interesting statement, one in which I am sure the hon. member for Brits ought to be particularly interested. The hon. member for Brits made a terrific attack yesterday on the late Senator Conroy’s settlement policy.

It was a disastrous policy.

One of the points he made was that the settlers could not sell their land. He said, “Hulle was nie baas van hulle grond nie”. Now the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) says that a settler who receives ground should not be allowed to sell that ground within a certain period.

Not immediately. [Interjections.]

That was his policy. That was what he said. They could not sell it within 10 years’ time. The hon. member makes exactly the same statement. Yes, Sir, these people are coming round to the United Party every day. They take over parts of our policy. We welcome it.

I want to speak on Vote 19, Surveys. I want to refer hon. members to the staff position in connection with the officers of the Surveyors-General and the Trigsurvey office. From a recent report I quote the following in connection with the Surveyor-General’s office:

Sir, these shortages are extremely acute and are getting worse. In the Trigonometry Survey office there are four vacancies on the professional staff. On the technical staff in one section alone, where there should be 60 technicians, there are only 30. The Trigonometry office does work for us in mapping our country, which in the present state of the world in which we live, is absolutely essential. They do most essential work, and they are extremely handicapped by this shortage of staff. In the Surveyor-General’s office in the Cape there is also an acute shortage of professional staff, as well as of technical staff. The delay in examining records and diagrams is between three and four months. The hon. member for Transkei has already mentioned what these delays can mean in paying double interest. I will not go over that again; it has already been mentioned.

In the Transvaal office of the Surveyor-General there are six professional posts. They have one professional man on the permanent I staff who is over 60 years of age. They have two temporary men, who are over the age. They retired some time ago and are doing temporary work. That is what the professional staff in the Transvaal consists of, out of the actual six.

In view of the acute shortages in the administration offices in this country, right throughout all the departments, do hon. members not think it would have been better if there had been less shortages in the administration offices of the country and more on the benches on the other side of the House? Would we not have done better? With regard to these shortages, I would like to draw the attention to the position with regard to the survey profession in this country. There are 550 registered land surveyors in the Republic. However, they are not all practising. There are some of them who are registered but are not practising. So, the numbers that are actually practising, are less than that. It has been calculated that the annual wastage amounts to about 40 a year, i.e. surveyors who die or retire. They very seldom retire. Many of them have to work to a very old age, but there comes a day when they can do it no more.

Or they enter into politics.

One wonders. Only one of them has done it. But there are about 40 who leave the profession every year for various reasons. Now, how many qualified? In 1963, nine qualified; in 1964 ten; in 1965, two; in 1966, two; and in 1967, seven. In 1968, however, not a single land surveyor qualified in this country. What is going to happen to the development of this country if this is to continue? Thirty qualified over a period of six years, during which time I think the wastage would have been round about 240. This is an impossible situation. We cannot allow it to continue. I just want to give you an idea as to what the position is in this country. As far as I know and I may be wrong here and there, there is a land surveyor at Upington, Calvinia, Carnarvon, Kimberley, Somerset East, Beaufort West, Umtata, Oudtshoorn, Springbok, Vredendal and Ceres. This excludes the cities and the Western Province. Those land surveyors have to cover the whole of the platteland in the Cape Province. I did not count them but I think there are about ten. It is an impossible situation which is rapidly developing and may lead to the ruination of this country. What are the reasons? The reasons are first of all that the engineering profession is a far more attractive one. It is a four-year course at the University of Cape Town. At other universities it may take a little longer. Land surveying on the other hand is a four-year university course, and after that a surveyor has to undergo practical training. It takes a person altogether five years to become a surveyor. Secondly, their income is comparatively low. A land surveyor’s income is a low income compared with that of other professional men to-day. The time has come that the hon. the Minister must very seriously consider increasing the tariffs for land surveyors, if he wants to rectify the position which is threatening this country. The course is a very difficult one, because it is a highly academic course. Very many who take this course never qualify. The life of a land surveyor is an unsettled one. He is very often away from home for long periods. The position to-day with motor cars and good roads is of course different to what it used to be. I can remember being away for periods of a month up to three months. There are still many land surveyors to-day who do trigonometrical surveys who have to be away for a month at least. It is an unsettled life. It is not one people would like to choose.

There is another matter which worries the land surveyors who are officials of the department. This concerns the question of pensions. Land surveyors, until a few years ago, were not appointed as officials unless they had ten years practical experience in the field. This period has since been shortened to five years. That meant that he could only be appointed at the age of 31 to 33 years. Only then did he start contributing to a pension fund. The result is that when a surveyor retires on pension such pension is in fact very small. This makes it unattractive. A system has since been introduced whereby they are allowed to pay in an amount in order to give them their full pension. But these amounts they have to pay in are exorbitant. I know of a person in the trigonometry department in the city who has to pay in R12,000. It is impossible for him to do this.

Then it must be a good pension.

How can it be such a good pension if these people are getting the ordinary civil service salary? The pension is based on that. But he now has to pay in R12,000 in respect of arrear pension contributions over a period of 10 years in order to get a full pension. Others of course have to pay less. I am quoting this as an extreme case. These people say that unless they do that, they cannot get a pension on which they can live. Something will have to be done in regard to this matter. I therefore, want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into this matter very carefully to see what he can do about it. That and the increase in tariffs are two of the most important aspects in connection with land surveying. There are no young people taking this course at the university. Many of our present land surveyors are old people and many are leaving the profession. I know of two such cases in the country. I do not wish to mention their names. One of them is coming down to Cape Town and is going into business. The other one, on the other hand, feels that the work is becoming too much for him and that he cannot do it any longer. Something has to be done to make this profession more attractive. This can be done firstly, by giving them a better tariff, and secondly by seeing that civil servants get a better pension.

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply later to what the hon. member for Gardens said. However, I should like to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for South Coast, i.e. that nowhere in South Africa can a farmer buy land at to-day’s prices on which he can go and farm without plunging himself more deeply into debt.

I asked whether that was possible.

You said that nowhere in our country could you buy land without finding yourself in financial difficulties.

I asked whether it can be bought.

I say it can. Definitely. I can show you many farms which young farmers are buying to-day and on which they are making a success, paying their accounts and making the grade. I can show you many.

Are they paying off on the capital, or not?

They meet their interest charges and capital redemption. But they also use their heads.

You have not answered my question.

No, I am replying to the statement made by the hon. member for South Coast. That statement creates the impression that the Government does not care much about this situation. Then the hon. member went further and said that it was an obsession with this Minister to produce more at lower prices with fewer farmers. You said that a moment ago. Yesterday the hon. the Minister told you twice that he will be only too grateful if he could keep the men on the land as they are to-day. Members on this side and on that side of the House have asked for units to be increased in size. What must we do? We simply have to do it, and you agree with that. Now you want to keen the number the same. The hon. the Minister then asked you how you were going to keep them there. I do not want to spend any more time on this matter. The hon. the Minister put it to you in a masterly fashion so as to make you understand that this is not something which rests in our hands. I quoted to you yesterday what was happening in other countries. However, you have only one object in mind with this two-day argument on this matter. You want to go back and tell the people you pleaded that the farmer should remain on the land. But they are not stupid any more, far from it. The farmer himself sees that his production costs are rising. Then there is the argument of the efficient farmer. They are annoyed by this argument. That is so.

Now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) comes along and asks what the standpoint of the Government is in connection with Tongaat. Personally I am very much perturbed at what is happening in the case of Tongaat. We are all perturbed, because there are people who are making their living from egg farming. Eventually they are going to be pushed out. We are not mincing matters. Now I ask you whether we should introduce a quota system. Should we say that a person is to produce only a certain quantity and no more?

I asked you to investigate that system.

Very well. You should not simply generalize and then adopt the attitude that we are trying to explain away these things in connection with Tongaat. That is definitely not the case. We cannot say to a person: “You may not produce more than 10,000 bags of maize or 20,000 dozens of eggs.” There are two products in our country which are subject to quotas, and in neither case do matters function properly. The one product is wine and the other is sugar. This system works only to a certain extent, and there is no long-term solution. I have said before what would happen if we were to say to a farmer who produced, for example, 5,000 bags of maize during the past five years, that that was his quota and that he was not allowed to produce more than 5,000 bags of maize. A drought such as the one we have just had may come along and the farmer may produce only 1.000 bags of maize. What is his solution then? He must produce 9,000 bags of maize in the next year to make good this loss. How can we apply a quota system in such a case, especially when we cannot control the price of the product because it has to be sold on die world market, and when we sometimes produce a surplus? When the hon. member said that I felt very unhappy. That is why I am replying to it now.

The other matter which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) mentioned was to place a lew on the hen. This is a very practical idea. The Egg Control Board is going into this matter at present. They have sent a mission overseas to ascertain how overseas countries apply the levy on the hen instead of on the egg, and whether it would be practical to apply it here. Those hon. members do not always make statements with which I cannot agree.

I now want to come back to what the hon. member for Potchefstroom said. He suggested that we should give Africander cattle from the herd which the Department has at Potchefstroom, to the Tswana. This is a very fine and praiseworthy idea, but I want to suggest that this should be done in the same way as in the case of the other donations which are made. The Frisian Breeders’ Association may perhaps decide to join the department in donating some Frisian heifers. The whole objet of this is goodwill and business. The Tswana and the man in Malawi see the quality of the cattle which they get from us, and they place their orders for heifers and bulls with us. In this way we help each other. I think we should give attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Transkei read from a telegram and pointed out that the cotton price was the lowest in 11 years. That is not so. If the price which we have in mind is accepted it will be the same as the 1967 price, but negotiations are still in progress. I want to tell you that I have been present when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture pleaded for a certain orice for the product of the farmer. Without being negative now, I must say that at that stage it is no longer the responsibility of our Department, but the responsibility of the Department of Commerce and Industries. But in the meantime we are receiving telegrams, because everyone thinks that our Department is to blame.

I also want to reply to the hon. member for Transkei in regard to the land to the value of R450,000 which has been bought. The reply is briefly as follows: The Commission of Investigation into South-West Africa Affairs, 1962, recommended that various farms and urban properties be bought up to be added to the proposed Bantu homelands in South-West Africa. Up to 31st December, 1968, R25.2 million had already been spent for this purpose. To complete the scheme, only five more farms and properties have to be bought during 1969-’70, at an estimated amount of R450,000. I need not read the whole of the reply here, but this is for farms in South-West Africa so that the Odendaal Plan may be carried out.

I now come to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. He spoke about the staff position. A nation which is functioning correctly and which is able to make its machinery of State run smoothly is a nation with between 3 and 5 per cent unemployed people. It is a nation which can use its people as it wants to and which can make them pull their full weight. But with our economic development, and because we have tackled the development of this country in a positive way, there is too much work for everyone to do in this country, if he wants to. Now we have a white manpower shortage in the country. We must be very careful to retain our people. I agree with the hon. member as far as this Department is concerned, and we are perturbed about it. But the work is still going on. We have been hearing for 15 years now that there are two few workers, but nevertheless we are doing the work nearly as efficiently as ever, but with fewer workers.

I want to refer to what the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Kroonstad said in connection with the integration of deeds offices with the Department of Justice. I think that the hon. the Minister will reply to this further. An inter-departmental committee has been asked for to investigate the whole matter. Perhaps there is something to be said for it, but I rather want to leave it in the hands of the hon. the Minister.

We have been discussing agriculture for two days already, and I find it disappointing that none of the Opposition members has yet referred to the departmental reports which they receive. A department such as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has about 6,000 officials for 90,000 farmers. Have hon. members ever considered that? We have only 6,000 officials to attend to the needs of 90,000 farmers. These surpluses which we have to-day are not only as a result of the actions of the farmers. Sixty per cent of the surpluses may be attributable to the farmers themselves, but 40 per cent of them, in the case of many farmers, are attributable to the fact that they received technical guidance from this Department. As an example I take the case of hybrid maize seed. Eighteen years ago we obtained PPK. 64 and SA. 9 maize seed. After 18 years we are still planting it. This is seed which the Department made available to us. In the meantime private organizations have tried to produce better seed, but we are still using the seed which the Department supplied to us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on Vote 20—Agricultural Technical Services. May I have the privilege of the half-hour? Before I actually come to this Vote, I should like to put a question to the Minister in connection with chief professional officers which are mentioned on page 89. I notice that the number of these officers has been reduced from 24 in 1968-’69 to 14 in 1969-’70. I shall be pleased if the Minister can explain this decrease to us at a later stage.

I should like to start by congratulating the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on once more producing an excellent annual report.

Thank the Minister.

No, I am thanking the Department this time. The Minister had nothing to do with this report. He has, however, an excellent department, and I should like to express my thanks to them for producing this report. They have produced it in good time. It came out fairly early. It is a report which is full of detail and Very valuable information. Our thanks go out to the department for it. This report, especially with regard to soil conservation, makes really sad reading. It exposes a shocking state of affairs in this country in connection with soil conservation. We are not making the progress we should be making. In fact, I believe that the overall position is worsening. I believe that the position to-day is worse than it was five, 10 or 15 years ago. By that I am not suggesting that progress is not taking place amongst some people. There are farmers who have done excellent work. They have carried out very good conservation work, and a good number of them are doing very well. But far too much soil erosion is taking place in comparison with the good work which is being done by some people. On the whole I think that we are losing the battle in regard to soil conservation. The officials, such as the extension officers, the scientists and the departmental officials are dedicated to this type of work, because they fully realize the destruction which is taking place. I think that some of them must surely become frustrated because of the insufficient progress which is being made. That may be one of the reasons why so many of them resign from time to time. Year after year we read about the staff shortage. I want to come back to the staff shortage, because it is acute. Although these people have to do more work and in fact do more work than they would normally be required to do, the fact still remains that there are important posts which are not filled. Important research and extension work is therefore not being done. In reading this report, one cannot help gaining the impression that the Government is really not very serious about soil conservation. This problem has not been tackled with the same vigour as, for instance, the matter of defence. Surely, it is just as important to save our country from destruction by this process of soil erosion which is still going on and which is gaining momentum, than it is to save it from an attack from any enemy country. We annually spend R260 million on our Defence Vote, whereas I doubt whether the total amount spent on soil conservation exceeds R10 million.

Much has been said about staff shortages. The paragraph in the report dealing with this matter, reads as follows:

This staff shortage puts a tremendous strain on the staff of the department. They try as far as possible to meet this situation, but I cannot believe that they will ever fully meet it. An effort must be made in order to recruit more staff. Elsewhere in the report it is stated that there is a growing demand for extension officers. How on earth will we be able to meet that growing demand when we cannot even meet the present position? I have said before that this report really makes sad reading. In the chapter of the report where soil conservation is being dealt with, we can see that 577,475 farmers works have been approved of. Of that number only 269,817 works have been completed. In other words, less than half has been completed in over 22 years. The cost of the work which has been completed amounts to about R44 million. That means that over a period of 22 years we have only done work to the value of R44 million. That means that only R2 million is spent per year on one of the biggest national questions which we have in this country. How will we ever be able to cope with this problem if this is the rate at which we are tackling it? Lately there has also been a decrease in the tempo of works that are being completed. In 1965-’66 the number of works approved of were just over 52,000. Of that 26,607, about 50 per cent, were completed. In 1966-’67 45,000 works were approved of; 20,000 of these works were completed. In 1967-’68 nearly 49,000 were approved of while only 22,000 were completed. That shows clearly that the proportion of completed farmers’ works is becoming less. The report goes on to say:

The loan schemes also show a decrease. The works which were approved and were completed are now much less. The report states that the loan scheme for the construction of soil conservation works is tending to fall into disuse. The State itself does not do very much either. During the year 1967-’68 it only planned two schemes at a value of R43 million. That is all that was done during that year. The number of farms physically planned is also decreasing. It has decreased to 3,264, which is 122 less than the previous year. Additional stipulations to soil conservation plans are pitifully low according to the report. In the report it is stated that:

The paragraph under the heading “Resting of veld” reads as follows:

The report also deals with grazing management. It says that:

In the Eastern Cape region, for example, approximately only 3 per cent of the farmers are practising sound veld management, while in the dry Malopo area, which covers more than 4 million morgen of land, this is reduced to less than 1 per cent. Reports from this latter region indicate that, as a result of over-grazing, incorrect grazing methods and the disastrous drought two years ago, this veld is in a critical condition.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question.

Wait a minute, you can make your speech in a moment.

Further, the report reads as follows:

I think the hon. member wanted to ask me whether I would be in favour of compelling these people? I certainly want to say that something must be done. The Government must find means of doing something to save this position. The veld reclamation scheme is something which we thought would do something to rehabilitate the veld. The participation in the reclamation scheme cannot be considered satisfactory, however. Only 12 per cent of the total area has been registered under this scheme. I think the hon. the Minister informed us last year that there were several cases where farmers applied to be registered and after they were registered they withdrew from this scheme again. Surely there must be reasons for that? If a man registers under this scheme and then later withdraws his registration, there must be reasons why he does that. According to the Report there are some improvements and I am very pleased to read of it. The Report also says—

Here there is evidence that there is some improvement with regard to this position. One can only hope that this will continue.

I now want to mention the question of joined cactus and I think it is something that will interest the hon. member for Christiana. In regard to jointed cactus the report states the following:

To some extent there have to be inspectors to see that the plans are carried out. It has to be done. What is the reason for this sad state of affairs? The first one is the economic position of the farmer. Farmers cannot afford to build soil erosion works under the present financial and economic difficulties in which they find themselves. Under the withdrawal scheme, farmers cannot afford to withdraw veld at the rate of R8 per six sheep. I notice that it has been recommended that the Government should increase that to R12. I think the hon. the Minister must very seriously consider this. This scheme, which is an excellent scheme, is breaking down, because as a result of the financial position of the farmers they cannot afford to withdraw veld at the existing rate. If the scheme is going to fall down, then the remedy lies with the Government to increase the subsidy to encourage them and to make it possible for them to withdraw that veld. The Government must consider that very seriously. Many of them do not realize the value of sound farming practice. They do not realize that fewer animals of a better quality can give you the same income on veld of the same size.

That is correct.

Of course that is correct but many of the farmers do not realize it, and therefore we must have the necessary extension officers or other people to convey the knowledge to them and to help them. Sir, there is insufficient training of young farmers at our agricultural colleges. Let me quote what the position is. Let me give the Committee the number of students in 1968, in 1967 and in 1966 at Elsenburg, Cedara, Potchefstroom, Grootfontein and Glen. In 1966 the total number was 476; in 1967 there were 438 and in 1968, 440. Actually there were fewer last year than there were in 1966.

But the facilities are there.

I am not saying that the facilities are not there, but there is something wrong. Why do they not go there? My hon. friends can say that we are trying to drive the young people away from us, but that is not so. We want to help them. The reason why they do not attend these agricultural colleges is that they do not see a future for themselves in agriculture in the present circumstances in South Africa; there is no future for them. The position to-day is that young, unqualified people can come to the cities and get jobs at salaries which far exceed the income of young farmers. That is why they come to the towns.

Is that not a world tendency?

What has that got to do with it?

Sir, what have I got to do with what happens in Russia? I am not interested in what happens in Russia. I am interested in my people in this country.

The reason is quite different from the one you give.

There must be more people made available to go out to enlighten the farmers as to what farming methods to use and to keep them on the right road. I believe that if we have not got sufficient extension officers we should employ good farmers to do this work, but one of my colleagues on this side will have more to say on this aspect. This is something that is very essential and it will be worth a great deal to our farmers.

Sir, the farmer has too many labour problems. Labour for farming purposes is becoming scarcer every day. In the Farmer’s Weekly of the 16th I notice that there is the following headline: “Eastern Transvaal: Farm labour a headache”. That is the position throughout the country. There is a tremendous scarcity of labour for the farmers because they cannot afford to pay the high wages which are paid elsewhere. The policy of the Government is also to remove the Bantu, especially in the Western Province, to their homelands as far as possible. The result is that Coloured people have to replace the Bantu and they are being drawn away from the farmers. We find in the areas where we live that lorry loads of them are fetched every year. The hon. member for Prieska knows that that is true. People come along with lorries and bring them down here to the urban areas, with the result that our labour is becoming scarcer and scarcer. Sir, I believe that every person has the right to sell his labour for as much as he can get for it, and if these Coloured labourers can get better wages in the Boland or in the cities, no one can blame them for going there. But the labour shortage on the farms is growing more acute and the farmers are finding it more difficult to carry on. It is necessary therefore that the available labour should be better trained so that we can get better service out of them and so that they can become more productive. More training centres must be established in the country. We have Kromme Rhee down here which serves the surrounding area, but it does not serve the rest of the country; it serves a very small community, and I believe that it is doing good work. We want many more of these right throughout the country.

Mr. Chairman, our sons, the farmers of the future, the people who have learned to love the land, who are likely to conserve it, now trek to the cities where, as I have said, young people with no qualifications can get larger incomes than the farmers do. Some farmers lose interest in the land if they have no sons to whom they can leave it. With the deterioration in the farmer’s economic position, the loss of his sons to agriculture, the deterioration in grazing conditions and the loss of our top soil at an alarming rate, we are heading for a national disaster. Sir, if the members of the Cabinet—all of them—instead of galavanting all over the country, as they are doing now, would each only spend half an hour reading this report, then we may get some results.

Sir, we have had a Soil Conservation Act for over 20 years, an Act that was hailed as a masterpiece. This is now to be scrapped and we are going to get another one. But unless we can get some drive on the part of somebody on that side of the House we shall go down and down until this side takes over and does the job properly.

Mr. Chairman, you will pardon me for not following up on what the hon. member, who has just spoken, said in his speech. But I informed the hon. member yesterday evening that I should very much like to reply to the statement he made in a previous speech of his here. I hope that the hon. member, when he mentioned my name here the other evening, was not as serious as he appeared to be. I want to ask the hon. member when I said that things were going so well with the farmers, as he quoted here? I want to read what I said and then I want the hon. member to point out to me where I stated in my speech that things were going so well with the farmers. I want to quote from a speech what I said about the farmers. The point under discussion was the question of assistance to farmers, and I said—

I went on to say the following—

That is what it was all about. In addition I said—

That is what I said about the farmers. I went on to say—

I did not say that things were going well with them—

I went on to say—

Did I say that things were going well with the farmers?

Quote further.

I shall do so. I shall not run away from my statements. I went on to say—

I did not say that things were going well with them. I shall quote to the hon. member what I said and I want him to listen very carefully—

They are still doing so now.

I shall return in a moment to that statement. I went on to say—

Read further.

That is what I said about the farmers. I shall not run away from my statements. [Interjection.] I shall come to that hon. member as well, if I only have the time. Sir, I have been sitting here since 1966 now, and I think it is time we obtained clarity in regard to the standpoint of hon. members on that side on agricultural problems. I think that we have been sitting still doing nothing long enough. We spoke about assistance which has, up to the present, been granted to our farmers. Hon. members on the opposite side maintain that the farmers are not being granted sufficient assistance, and that things are going so badly with them. We do not say that things are going well with them, but we make the statement that things are not going so badly with them. In the first instance this district was declared to be a drought-stricken area. Here I have a list of every section in the district which has been entrusted to me, and a few of them have only been declared drought-stricken areas for 11 days. After that they qualified as an emergency loan area for a subsidy. That hon. member was perhaps one of the 362 farmers who applied …

For a loan?

Yes, for a loan and for a subsidy. You qualify for it. My argument is that the hon. member qualifies for it, but then he must not state here that 362 farmers have applied, whereas I had supposedly stated that things were going well with the farmers. It is the policy of the State to help every farmer. That does not mean to say that he must first go bankrupt.

I did not use the word “bankrupt”.

I admit that the hon. member did not use the word but he asked whether things were going well with the farmers when 362 applications had been made for assistance. He implied that since so many farmers were applying for assistance, things could not have been going well with them.

Out of a total of 422.

Yes, out of a total of 422 farms. That does not mean to say that there are 422 farmers.

Of course. The farms do not apply; the farmers apply.

The position of scores and hundreds of these farmers is not such an unfavourable one that they can no longer receive a fodder loan; they are being assisted. I served on the committee for eight years, and there are many of those farmers who still have R3,000, R4,000 or R5,000 in cash.

Those farmers with R4,000 or R5.000 are not entitled to loans.

They are entitled to subsidies.

You spoke about fodder loans.

There are scores of farmers who are being assisted to-day, who still have R2,000 to R3,000 in the bank.

Is that right?

If the farmer can prove that he has to pay his rent the next month, or in two to three months’ time, or if he says that he has children at university and that he has certain obligations to meet, then the committee says: “We cannot allow that man to spend his money on fodder; we want to help him to meet his obligations”. That is the policy of the Department of Agricultural Credit. I know what the policy of Agricultural Credit is. I want to allege that the financial position of these people is not such an unfavourable one as the hon. member wants to imply. Sir, in 1948 our agricultural debt was R336 million, and to-day it is R1,000 million, and our agricultural values at present amount to almost R1,300 million. Must we now tell the world that things are going too badly with the farmers of South Africa?

I was talking about the income of the farmer.

I am coming to that. The United Party puts forward the argument every day that the farmers are no longer solvent.

Some are not.

Yes, some. Throughout our history there have always been some farmers who were not solvent.

Our argument is that the income is too low.

I maintain that there is nobody who is doing the farmer in South Africa more damage than the United Party. There is nobody who discourages the young farmer moire than they do.

Rubbish!

They have no sympathy with the farmers. That is why the counsel given by the hon. member for Parktown to the young farmers is: You may as well close your eyes to the fact, purchase and pay for the land exactly what the other man asks for, because you will in fact get it out of them. Is that the question of a responsible man, to whom others must look up to give to our young farmers? No. I give my farmers counsel as the Minister puts it to them: When you start you must make a calculation of what your income from the farm is and what your liabilities are, and this you can take as a criterion for the future.

I want to conclude by saving that the farmers of South Africa should pay no heed to the United Party. The United Party is trying to do everything specifically to bring the farmers into difficulties, and there are many farmers to-day who are proud of their name and who have a sense of honour when they have to go to the Department of Agricultural Credit. I maintain that those farmers have reached a financial position for reasons which nobody could control. The drought caused it. [Time expired.]

When the present Minister of Agriculture came to Parliament for the first time, he had succeeded in throwing out a very prominent ex-Minister of the United Party Government. That remarkable occasion had such an effect on one very dignified old man in my constituency that, When he went to the stable to milk his few cows after he had heard the report, he tried to milk the bull. If you think that this image I am using in reference to the United Party is too strong, I just want to say that if the present shadow Minister of Agriculture on the other side is not making this mistake, he is milking every dry cow.

Or he milks an ox.

But you will understand that I cannot devote much time to this matter, as the member who spoke before me has already done his share and the United Party has been exposed throughout the debate. That is why I want to leave this subject and briefly to bring something else to the notice of the House.

The show season has just come to an end. During a period of six months, in the spring and also in the summer, hundreds of shows were held all over the country. After that the central shows were held, and finally these were concluded with the Easter Show in Johannesburg. These agricultural societies receive large amounts from the State. They are supported by the State to the tune of hundreds of thousands of rands. As regards the Cape Province, no less than R146,800 was paid in the form of subsidies and other assistance to the registered agricultural societies in 1967-’68. These agricultural societies hold shows, and their purpose is obvious. They must serve as a display-window to show the public what our farmers can produce. It is also a fact that the farmers can learn from one another and can see what quality can be achieved in both livestock and produce. This kind of competition has many good and educational characteristics, and therefore we welcome the assistance given by the State to the societies. However, I do feel that there are some misgivings about the present form of these agricultural shows, and the question arises very clearly whether the holding of these shows still fulfils the original purposes: Are we not subsidizing people who could perhaps advertise their goods in a different way, by means of advertisements, in that we are giving them free advertising facilities and State-aided advertisements at these shows? The time when our farmers did not know what Frisian cattle really looked like is past. To-day people know, thanks to the instruction that is given to them by the Department of Agriculture, what the quality of a good animal should be. There are exceptions when new breeds and new plants are developed, and then such a show still has an educational purpose, but I nevertheless feel that since we generally have farmers to-day who are striving to farm with the best possible stock, if not pedigree stock, it is well known what standards stock should comply with. Therefore I feel it is to be welcomed that our present Deputy Minister of Agriculture made a few telling remarks at the central show at Bloemfontein in regard to this matter. I quote—

I see that my time is running out, and therefore I shall content myself with this one quotation, and I just want to say that I am convinced that the agricultural societies can render a much greater service to agriculture if factors other than the purely external factors, the so-called standards of animals, are also exhibited, or that this should be the norm according to which animals should be judged. I honestly feel that we shall be doing a great deal for the production side if these societies are encouraged by the State to take into account the production side as well. In the case of Frisian cattle, for example, which I want to mention as a good example, there was a time when at the old Rosebank Show a cow from Elsenburg was exhibited which for many years was selected as the best animal at the show. But during the war, when shows could no longer be held, that cow was sent to the abattoirs by the officials at Elsenburg. The reason for that was that this animal had never reproduced, and had never produced any milk, but nevertheless she had been selected as the prize animal at the show year after year. I really feel that since the Deputy Minister has planted this seed, we can develop the matter along these lines and that the show societies, in collaboration with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, can definitely play a much larger part in helping to make farming in South Africa more efficient.

The hon. member for Swellendam made a few unflattering remarks about me in regard to what will happen in the future, and the hon. member even went as far as to think that if I had to do some milking I would milk the bulls. But let me tell the hon. member this. If I consider what happened at the by-election in Swellendam last year, it will not just be a question of milking the wrong cows. I think that constituency will wean itself of that hon. member; because on that occasion, when the hon. member acted as the representative of a rural, agricultural constituency, one would have expected that he would have stated his case in regard to what they were doing for the farmers, on the platform. But every time a meeting was held one saw reports such as “Mr. Oubaas Malan thanked the speaker” or “Mr. Oubaas Malan, M.P., was also on the platform”. So the hon. member’s future is not too rosy in his own constituency.

The hon. member for Prieska strenuously objected to the hon. member for Gardens’s allegedly having said that he had said that the farmers were doing well, and he said that what he had said was that the farmers were not doing too badly. He then made a quotation, but stopped at a certain point, and the point at which he stopped is the very place where the part begins which the hon. member for Gardens wanted him to quote. This is what the hon. member said in column 3751—

This is what the hon. member said. If the hon. member did not say this, surely he must have said the farmers were not prosperous, and this is our entire argument, that the Government members always want to pretend to us that the farmers are so prosperous as a result of their policy. The hon. member said that the United Party were the people who warned all the banks that the farmers were no longer creditworthy; we put this in their mouth and we tell the young boys who want to take up farming: “You cannot take up farming, because you are not going to make a success of it owing to the circumstances.” Let me tell the hon. member this. Not one single United Party member has got up here and spoken about agriculture without being able to substantiate his case with facts. When we quote here, we quote from the report of the Department of Agriculture and from speeches and statements made by leading figures in agriculture outside. When a man like Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers or Mr. De Villiers Loubser of Mr. André du Toit issues a warning about a certain matter, puts forward certain facts and states what the position in agriculture is, are they also doing the same thing? How wrong the hon. member is! The hon. members for Gardens, Transkei, and Walmer, and all of us who have an interest in agriculture, hold meetings. It really is strange that when you hold meetings among the farmers in the rural areas, those people do not get up and tell you that you are talking nonsense, or that you are harming the industry. No, it is for the simple reason that a United Party speaker will not appear on the platform unless he knows his facts. This is what we are doing and this is what the hon. member does not like. He wants us to keep quiet about the circumstances prevailing in agriculture. We may not expose the mistakes made by the Government. We may not state our policy. We may not point out any facts, such as the movement of Whites from the rural areas to the towns. We may not point out to the people that non-Whites are taking the place of the Whites in the rural areas. We may not point out the increase in the burden of debt of the farmers. We may not point out the decrease in the profit margin of the farmers.

According to that hon. member it would just be grist to the mill of organizations such as the Standard Bank and others to say that they may not help the farmers, as the United Party are saying so. But then it is strange that it was in fact this side of the House, and I myself, who pointed out two years ago, when the credit squeeze had just been started, that, if it had not been for the commercial banks and the local dealers, the people who were still helping the farmers, the position would have been much worse. We expressed our gratitude for that. We on this side of the House are the people who are saying to-day, together with many other leaders of agriculture, that the interest burden is heavy and that the people should be assisted. How then can we be causing the agricultural industry damage? Does the hon. member think that, if we are causing damage, the farming community of Prieska would ask any of us to hold a meeting there? No, Sir. Do hon. members know what is happening? If we go to hold a meeting there, one Nationalist farmer after another says: “You know, what you of the United Party are saying is correct.” The hon. member for Prieska knows that when he holds a report-back meeting, they do not quote to him what the Minister said. They quote to him what the United Party said. Then his people tell him that the United Party is right. [Interjections.] He knows that is true. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that in Standerton it is the same.

For whom do they vote?

For whom they vote has nothing to do with the matter. It does not matter to us either. We say we are right in respect of the agricultural industry. I hope we have now disposed of that matter.

I want to submit another plea to the hon. the Minister to-day in regard to certain weaknesses which we regard as serious in Agricultural Technical Services. When I say serious, I do not mean that we are dissatisfied with the service the Department is rendering to-day, despite the fact that it is lacking in numbers. As far as extension services are concerned, we feel that the situation has been brought to the notice of the Government for 10, 15 years now and that the position has not improved in any way. It is an unbearable state of affairs that one has to come to Parliament every year and point out to the Government that this is an obvious shortcoming. The hon. the Minister may only look at his own report, which contains a beautiful map showing where the extension offices, the regional offices, etc., are situated. The situation is such that in the larger part of the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape Province areas are lying fallow to-day on account of the fact that they are not properly covered by extension officers.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister of a personal experience of mine. In October of the year before last I wrote to my extension officer to ask him please to come and survey three works for me. The planning of the farm had been completed. I subsequently received a letter from him in which he stated that my name had been placed on the waiting list. This is 18 months ago now, and that young man has not yet had an opportunity of coming to me. I do not blame him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park makes it his practice from time to time to substantiate his arguments with quotations from the annual reports and so forth of the South African Agricultural Union. Only those parts that suit the hon. member and his Party are quoted. On that the United Party then bases its standpoint. Why does that hon. member not also quote from what Mr. De la Harpe De Villiers said at the opening of the congress of the South African Agricultural Union last year? There he said the following (translation)—

In that spirit organized agriculture is cooperating with the Government, and so all the arguments of that kind fall away.

The hon. member for Gardens, who has just made a long speech on soil conservation, which is a very good subject for discussion, took the strange step of comparing the expenditure of the Department of Defence of more than R200 million with the expenditure on soil conservation of a paltry R2½ million, as he put it.

How much?

R2½ million. This is what you said. I happen to have received the same little pamphlet as that hon. member had. He read a part of it to us without mentioning the source. It is from the South African Journal of Science of May, 1967, in which the following is said in regard to this comparison between Defence and Soil Conservation—

It really is a very strange coincidence that the theme of that hon. members speech and that of this article are the same. While that hon. member says that not enough is being done, I should like to point out to him that proportionately we have made much more progress in soil conservation than the great United States of America. There they have had soil conservation legislation on the Statute Book for 30 years. Proportionately we are nevertheless much further then they are.

The hon. member for South Coast said yesterday that “too little is done too late”. This has been the Opposition’s attitude throughout the past two days. I want to refer the hon. member for South Coast to Vote 16, subhead E, where the enormous amount of R21 million is being asked in connection with the stabilization of the price of maize. Then there is the further amount of R4,600,000 for subsidies in respect of Railway tariffs on maize and maize products. Under subhead D —Fertilizer, the subsidy on fertilizer, in order to keep the price to the farmer as low as possible, is given as R14,350,000. These amounts are not small change. We cannot get away from the fact that the farmers are grateful for that. The larger subsidy in respect of agricultural lime, for example, and the more effective use of agricultural lime in lighter crop soil, such as in parts of the Pretoria District, Bronkhorstspruit, Witbank and so on, have in fact turned uneconomic units into economic ones. The hon. member may have read in the newspaper yesterday that a piece of land in that area changed hands yesterday when a farmer and his two sons bought a farm for Rii million. This is an independent farmer and he did this without any assistance. Can one blame the Government for this?

Did he pay too much for the land?

Yes, but he is not asking the State for assistance, and even less the hon. member for his advice. Under these three subheads alone more than R41 million is being provided for subsidies to the grain farmers. This is for subsidies alone. This is nearly as much as for the entire Department of Transport, and not much less than for the entire Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Sir, do these figures not place the whole matter in respect of the grain industry and the maize industry in perspective? They show to what extent the Government is supporting the maize industry in particular, not only in respect of the declared maize price, but what is of particular importance, in respect of stability and especially price stability. There are economic factors which the Opposition must take into account, and which we in this House, and organized agriculture itself, and also the maize farmers, must face objectively. We can say to the credit of the maize farmers that many of them have already noticed these things themselves, and are now beginning to apply them in practice in their farming operations. The fact of the matter is that too many maize farmers began to put all their eggs in the same basket in the course of the years. Now these are not the eggs to which that hon. member referred. Specialization has perhaps been taken too far in this case, even in the marginal regions, where no plough should ever have been used, but where, as a result of a few favourable seasons, good crops have given rise to a false belief in the maize potential of the marginal regions. Here I am referring specifically to the extensive stock regions bordering on the maize triangle, more particularly in the Transvaal. It is not for the Minister, the Maize Board or the extension officers to convince the maize farmer who farms with nothing else, of the necessity of diversification in his industry. The maize farmer should act objectively and economically, and decide himself where he can diversify his maize farming successfully. One finds maize surpluses all over the world. A handful of American farmers could supply the world with maize if they are not restricted. Europe is also becoming more independent as regards maize. Domestically our demand for maize and maize products is only developing gradually, but it so happens that there is an ever increasing demand for red meat and that the price of beef will probably not easily decrease again. By means of co-operative study groups of maize farmers in conjunction with their farmers’ associations and the departmental extension officers a great deal of practical research work can be done on farms in these areas, to the benefit of the industry. Some of the most stable farming enterprises I know of in the Western Transvaal maize regions, are those in which the stock factor was specifically integrated with the maize industry at an early stage. This greatly reduces the risk factor in the production of maize. But such an integration must be done in a rational way. It must be planned scientifically and not take place in a haphazard way. To me the Western Transvaal maize regions still remain the ideal finishing areas for the adjacent cattle grazing regions of the Bushveld and semi-Bushveld areas. These areas also have ideal potential as fodder production areas. I am now thinking of the tough sorghum varieties such as Babala and Sorghumalmum and even the highly suitable soya beans, which can be used for various purposes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite tragic to take a look around just after sunset and to see what is going on here, especially if one realizes that the debate is to be continued tomorrow. In a discussion such as this, hon. members on this side of the House would like to receive some advice. I have now made a summary of the pleas made by members on that side yesterday and the day before. They want the prices of agricultural products to increase, but at the same time they do not want the consumer to pay more. This is what they asked for. Neither do they want this Government to increase taxation. In short, this is a summary of the pleas made by the Opposition. If we reduce everything to truth and reality, we see that the Opposition has asked for an increase in the farmer’s prices on the one hand, but that the consumer should be protected on the other hand. In other words, the Opposition wants subsidized agriculture prices. But in all the discussions on the Agriculture Votes and when the Budget was presented the Opposition said that taxes were too high. Well, how will we ever make the grade in this way? It will be a sad day when this Government has to go, as the hon.’ Opposition suggested to-day. The hon. member for Newton Park also referred here to the hon. member for Prieska. I want to tell him that I also heard the speech made by the hon. member for Prieska at the time. He made a positive contribution by telling the Opposition that they should stop disparaging the men in the rural areas. We were having rains at the time, and he said we should rather get up and express our gratitude for the rain, because we could live again. He also said that as a result of this negative talk the commercial banks had become disinclined to finance the farmers. Now that hon. member says that he said agriculture was doing so well. Is it such a crime to speak the truth? The hon. member for Newton Park said that there were not enough extension officers. I will not argue, because that is true. I said some moments ago that in this Department we have approximately 6,000 officials who have to serve 90,000 farmers. This ratio is among the highest in the world. Not one Opposition member has in this Budget debate referred to the R32 million voted for agricultural technical assistance to agriculture in our country. I say that the Opposition should also sometimes try to make a positive contribution and to look at what these 6,000 men are doing for our agriculture.

Do you mean that I should thank you?

No, I do not want that. Good wine needs no bush. One never gives it a build-up. I just want to say that if you periodically tell us how bad things are. do you not think it would be to the benefit of agriculture to let the young man, the official of the Department, understand now and then that what we have achieved during the past 21 years or more, has been achieved with their help? The first year I was in this Parliament, that same Secretary of Agricultural Technical Services was sitting in that elders’ pew. I asked him then whether research could not be carried out in regard to the cultivation of pineapples at East London. Those people listen to everything that is said here. They sift the grain from the chaff, and what can be practically implemented, they do. He then sent five men to a United Party area to do pineapple research there. To-day there is only one left. Where have they gone? They have gone to the private sector. Hon. members referred to that matter. They went to fertilizer companies or fuel companies. They are no longer in our Department, but they are not lost to agriculture either. Now it is being said that we do not have extension officers. This Department also serves as a training centre for other sectors in our country. Engineers, extension officers, technical people, research people are trained there. They are then eagerly taken up by the private sector again.

We now come to the salary problem. I agree that this is a problem. But these matters are being reviewed. I think that one of the things the United Party might acknowledge now and then, is that these officials have to do their work under very difficult circumstances. I should like to mention one example. We decided to lay out an irrigation area near the J. G. Strydom Dam on the Makatini Flats. This plain is remote, desolate and far from human beings, houses and schools. There is nothing. There were only two extension officers making tests in the bundu with a view to the irrigation that was to be practised later on. I took my hat off to those people. Nobody knows of them. They are doing the work that the Chris Barnards of our country are doing.

I now want to answer the United Party with the ammunition provided by their own people, i.e. the Ixopo Soil Conservation District Committee. It is said that there are not enough extension officers, but if the farmer on his part displays a love for the land, and wants to keep it unspoilt for posterity, he will not say that he will simply let his land erode because there are no extension officers. He will do something of his own accord. Now I want to read to you what United Party people are doing. I say that one does find one out of 100 United Party people who has something in him. This group of farmers organized their area well, and are now distributing this booklet among their members every month. I shall quote from this booklet, so that we can see what the ideas of those people are, and the hon. members on the opposite side would do well to remember this—

They go on to say that the land of a farmer who does not apply conservation practices, should be taken away from him. These people are inspired with this idea, and are not continually looking for excuses; they do not wait three years for someone to come and advise them in connection with soil conservation, as the hon. member said a moment ago. The hon. members opposite are always coming forward with the negative statements that have allegedly been made by agricultural leaders. They have to listen to these people, because they do not have the practical farmers who will admit that sometimes they do make a little profit too. Why should one lie? After all, the practical farmer says—I think that hon. member is himself a farmer who has bought more land recently—that he has made his money out of farming. A practical farmer admits that. I just want to read on about what the United Party farmers of Ixopo tell their children—

The land belongs to the nation, till the dawn of Judgment Day.

Now the nation holds you worthy and you will see, if you are straight and just,

That to rob the soil you hold, son, is forsaking a nation’s trust.

Don’t ask your farm a fortune; true pride ranks higher than gold.

To farm is a way of living, learn it before you grow old.

Now this is the law of the land, son; to take out, you have got to put back.

And you’ll find that your life was full, son, when it is time to shoulder your pack.

This is what the English-speaking farmers of Ixopo tell their children. They do not tell their children that this Government and this Department of Agricultural Technical Services are doing nothing; they say that if one is prepared to do something of one’s own accord, everything will be all right.

Mr. Chairman, I think we must first make a few points clear in this debate on agricultural matters. The members on that side of the House are consistently accusing the United Party speakers of taking a wrong attitude in putting their case. The point we tried to get across to the hon. members on that side of the House is that the agriculture sector of this country was subjected to extraordinary circumstances during the past 15 years. Because there were these extraordinary circumstances, we are now merely asking the Government to take extraordinary measures to counteract the farmers’ problems. I submit that if the farmers were not called upon to face the rise in interest rates and if the seasons had been favourable, there would not have been any trouble in the field of agriculture to-day. The farmers had the unfortunate circumstance of a rise in interest rates coupled with unprecedented droughts over a period of ten years. These factors have contributed to exceptional circumstances in the agricultural sector. That is why we have said so often that the only sensible way of trying to overcome these problems is to assist with the rate of interest. As I stand here, I believe that it is fundamental that this matter must be tackled in this way. I am not one of those who want to make the farmers of South Africa dependent on State-aid. I believe, like those farmers from Natal, referred to by the Deputy Minister, that the farming community should be independent of State-aid and should be able to carry on under their own steam. But where they have been subjected to these extraordinary circumstances, I believe the State can do more than they have done during the past two or three years. I was surprised when! listened to the hon. members on that side of the House. I was particularly surprised when I listened to the member for the constituency where I live, Graaff-Reinet. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet made a speech in this House which in no way reflected the position of the farmers in his constituency. I am not reflecting on the hon. member; I know him well, and I was also a personal friend of the late member for Graaff-Reinet, Mr. A. N. Steyn. I know the late Mr. Steyn walked about with a very thick file with requests from farmers who applied for assistance so that they could be put back on their feet. When we say that the position of the farmer of South Africa is difficult, we do not say that it is difficult because the Government has failed in its duty; we realize that the drought and the economic situation has contributed to this situation, but we say—and I say it emphatically—that the Government has not taken the measures which we believe it should have taken to put these people back on their feet after they have been subjected to factors which no farmer can be expected to have anticipated. That is our quarrel with the Government.

I want to raise one particular point under this Vote. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me when I say that we have outstanding research stations in South Africa. By that I mean our agricultural colleges where agricultural research is done, the various research stations, etc. They are making a great success of their work. We have information which is as good as that of any other country in the world in respect of animal feeding, animal breeding, veld management and, in fact, every aspect of proper farm management. However, one of the problems I see in the agricultural sector of South Africa is that this knowledge is not being imparted to or being absorbed by our farming community.

Whence the successes achieved in the field of agriculture?

Is the hon. member suggesting that on every farm in the Republic to-day the farming practice is as good as it could be? Does he not believe that there is plenty of room for improvement? As he drives through the country and he looks at the stock, is he satisfied that those are the kind of stock which should be grazing on that land? Is he satisfied that every flock of sheep is as good as it could be? Is he satisfied that the milk production of every cow is what it could be? I submit to that hon. member that there is plenty of room for improvement. I submit further to the hon. member that extension services can play a great part in improving the situation.

Does the hon. member deny that the situation has improved considerably under the present Government?

I say that the farmers of South Africa have done a wonderful job.

And the Government?

There is plenty of room for improvement in the Government’s contribution to the agricultural sector. The point that I want to make is that although we have the extension services, although we have the knowledge, there seems to be a certain stubbornness on the part of the farmers to accept this information and apply the better practices on their farms. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that more use should be made of having farms in the various areas of the country where the different forms of knowledge which have been ascertained, the different forms of farm-management, the different farming practices which the different research stations have evolved, can be applied in practice. It is my experience that where a farmer sees something taking place on a farm under normal practical conditions, not under the conditions which prevail at a research station or at an agricultural college, in other words, a farm where the very same circumstances prevail as on the farm on which he farms, he is far more orepared to accept these principles. I should like to see the Government introduce a scheme whereby they acquire farms in the various farming regions of this country where they apply the farming practice in a practical way, either by taking on a farmer or acquiring a farm with a manager to carry these principles into effect. I am quite convinced that farms which are being farmed on that basis, are going to be a great incentive to the farmers to try to apply the same principles on their own properties. I believe that in this way we shall see much of the information which we get from our research stations and colleges employed far more readily on the farms. I just want to quote from the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I agree with the hon. member for Gardens that we must congratulate the Department on this report. I think it is a valuable document and it has been very well prepared. I want to quote from page 7 where they talk about study groups. These study groups are groups of people who get together and employ an economist to advise them and then they do research on their own. I quote—

In other words, where the farmers were involved in an experiment of their own under practical farming conditions they were far more ready to accept the recommendations of the departmental officials. I do not think that it is a good thing that the farmers do not accept readily the advice from the officials, but I think we must accept that there is a certain stubbornness on their part in doing so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer expressed a thought here which I want to support wholeheartedly. I do not want to support it merely because it is a new idea, but because it is something which is being practiced already. This is the idea that agricultural education should be given in the various regions of our country on specific farms where such education is being intensively applied under the guidance of officials of the Department. This system is probably the best method of educating the farmers in the various regions.

I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. This matter is more a local one concerning my constituency, namely the position prevailing at the Sandvet Irrigation Scheme. There, as is the case at various other Government schemes, we find that various Departments are involved in the scheme. The departments involved are the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and of Water Affairs. That means there are three departments involved in this scheme. I want to advance a plea with the hon. the Minister now that there should be greater co-ordination among the various departments. I want to suggest that an inter-departmental committee be appointed, particularly in respect of that scheme. I suggest this because we are experiencing difficulties in that regard. I think it will be a good thing if the agricultural credit committees, under which those parts of the scheme fall, should take the lead. I want to suggest that the magistrate should be appointed chairman of this committee nd that the extension officer and the superintendent should also have representation on such inter-departmental committee. In this way we shall be better able to solve the problems which crop up at this scheme from time to time.