as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions.

Report to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Pensions.

Report to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Thursdays:

Fridays:

Mr. Speaker, the hours of sitting were changed in 1975 when it was agreed by the House to shorten the debating hours. It was made clear then that it was done on a trial basis and that, if the hours were not sufficient, normal sessions of Parliament would have to be extended rather than to sit additional hours, necessitating sitting morning, noon and night. The hours were shortened then. I would like to remind the House that the hours as they existed then were certainly much easier then than they were when the hon. the Leader of the House, the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I first came to Parliament. In those days we used to sit on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings, as well as on Friday mornings. However, I think it is fair to say that this trial period has proved that the hours we have now are not sufficient for Parliament to get through its legislative programme. As it is, we have already had to introduce additional sitting hours on Monday evenings. Last year we extended the hours of sitting to additional morning and evening sittings.

This raises the question as to whether our Parliamentary sessions are suited to the volume of legislative work we have to contend with. The Committee of Standing Rules and Orders has appointed a sub-committee to go into this question, and to study the feasibility of perhaps having two sessions of Parliament a year. It is not only because of the difficulty of debating hours. There are other reasons too, but I do not wish to go into those now. The sub-committee has considered the matter and is still considering certain suggestions made to it as to how the session can be prolonged or altered. I hope that early in the next session, if not before, we will come to some agreement on that question.

However, let me get back to the motion now before us. The hon. the Leader of the House proposes that we now sit on Thursday mornings and also an extra half hour on Friday mornings. The hours proposed by him now, are not as drastic as the hours proposed to us in the past. I must state that I prefer morning sittings, as proposed now, to evening sittings. I am sure all hon. members will agree with me on that. However, last year the hon. the Leader of the House made more drastic proposals and those were accepted by the House without debate.

I want to make it clear to the hon. the Leader of the House that we will accept this proposal now, but on the clear understanding that we will not be prepared to accept any further additional sitting hours, if any were to be proposed later. I do not know whether it is going to become necessary. [Interjections.] It may not become necessary, but I am stating it on the position as it is now. If the House cannot get through the legislation on the Order Paper, the hon. the Leader of the House will have to drop legislation or will have to be prepared to prolong the session.

Legislation drops every year.

Yes, that is all right. That is what I am saying. I believe it is only fair that the hon. the Leader of the House should tell us now what legislation is still to be introduced—we ought to know it at this stage—and also what legislation he proposes to drop.

I understand that there is to be no General Law Amendment Bill this year. That is a very good thing, and I want to congratulate the hon. the Leader of the House, if he is the one responsible for introducing this innovation. It will certainly work towards better legislating. On the understanding that we are not going to have legislation of that kind, and that there will not be any further extension of the sitting hours, we are prepared to accept the present proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Griqualand East is wise to adopt this attitude concerning the motion before the House. I do not think we have any other choice. However, if the hon. member grants his support to this motion on condition that no further extension of the hours of sitting is requested, and on the understanding that we will have to have legislation standing over, I am unfortunately unable to share the hon. member’s point of view. The fact is that all hon. members in the House must show greater discipline and self-control during the session. [Interjections.] After all, we cannot talk and carry on here as we wish at the beginning of the session, and show no self-control or discipline and then at the end, when the pressure is on to deal with all the legislation, ask that legislation be postponed, or be unwilling to accept an increase in the sitting hours.

I should not like to get involved in an argument with hon. members on the other side. Indeed, I am very grateful for the co-operation which we have from the hon. Opposition Whips. It is their co-operation in the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves, which contribute towards making the business of the House run as smoothly as it is still doing.

However, I must state a few facts here. If any hon. member makes an accusation of any kind in connection with the fact that extra hours of sitting are now being requested, that accusation cannot be levelled at hon. members on the Government side. It is not the Government side or the hon. the Leader of the House that is responsible for us having to sit longer hours. Indeed, this did not have to be the case at all. The fact is that over the past two or three years, hon. members on the Government side, and the hon. the Leader of the House have done everything possible to have the business of the House running as smoothly as possible. I should like to point out a few of these things. In the past there were often several days at the beginning of a session where we adjourned just after 2 o’clock because there was no work on the Order Paper. This year we did not adjourn early even once due to the fact that there was no work on the Order Paper. In fact, after the first sitting day there were already as many as 20 pieces of legislation on the Order Paper and on 1 February there were already 27 pieces of legislation which we could discuss. It was therefore unnecessary for us to waste time because there was no legislation or because the programme had not arranged properly. We were therefore able to deal with a much greater quantity of work because we spent our time at the beginning of the session correctly.

The second point which I should like to make, is that the Government has been referring more and more complicated, contentious and highly contentious legislation to Select Committees last year and this year, for the very purpose of saving time in the House. However, what has been the result? We had the situation that when the reports of those Select Committees were discussed here in the House, reports in which the Opposition agreed with the Government, the Opposition nevertheless held an endless debate on the fact that they agreed with the Government. And where they disagreed with the Government, they once again endlessly mulled over in the House those same amendments which they moved in the Select Committee. Hon. members will not disagree with me on this matter. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. That is why I say that we are wasting our own time, and there is no one else to blame. On the contrary, the Government did its best to get the proceedings running as smoothly as possible, but there were no results.

Next I want to endorse the fact mentioned by the hon. member for Griqualand East, and that is that we have not had so much highly contentious legislation over the past few years as we had in earlier years. In those days we debated contentious legislation for days on end. In recent years we have had relatively little highly contentious legislation. As the hon. member correctly said, we were able to pilot a General Law Amendment Bill through the House without debate last year. This is something I cannot remember ever happening before. We did not have a general law amendment bill at all this year. Therefore there were no additional factors which could have contributed towards longer sitting hours. Nevertheless we have to sit longer. The fact is that in the five years before 1976 we sat for an average of 472 hours per annum. Hon. members know that in former years we only began the session towards the end of January, that we did not sit on quite a few days because there was no work on the Order Paper, and that the session ended early in June, a week or two before the Cape School holidays began. What is happening now? The session already begins a week earlier in January, and we sit and we talk. Last year we spoke for 70 hours longer on very much less work than in the past. The average hours of sitting were 472 per annum, but last year we spoke for 541 hours. What caused this? It was not because there was more legislation, or because the Order Paper was not arranged well enough, or because the Government did nothing to improve the matter. I think that we must set the record straight … [Interjections.]

Let us have this matter out, because we shall only come back to it. I am not the last speaker in the debate and I do not want the wrong impression to be created outside. The fact is that we sat for 70 hours longer in the 1976 session than we did in previous sessions, and if we sit until 24 June once again this year, we will sit just as long as we did last year; not more, but precisely the same. The hon. the Leader of the House is only submitting a better work programme, so that we do not have to sit any more evenings and in order to make things easier for all of us. However, the fact is that since last year more and more time is being used up fruitlessly. Why? Because as the division in the ranks of the Opposition became more acute, hon. members on the other side vied with each other to show the public which was the most effective Opposition party. The time of the House is being taken up by their private affairs. I do not want to start an argument, but I want to use this occasion to tell the Opposition parties that they are not showing how effective they are as Opposition parties by speaking here. I want to request that the members of the Opposition should show more self-discipline and self-control at the beginning of the session so that at this stage of the session we are not faced with a situation like the one with which we are faced now.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Chief Whip on the other side says that we in this House are taking longer to do less work, but with respect I want to point out that there has been more legislation on the Order Paper for this session and, in fact, also for the previous session than for sessions before that. I think the hon. Chief Whip on the other side tends to believe that opposition to any Government measure is in fact time wasted. He apparently adopts a point of view that one should never quarrel with what the Government proposes. [Interjections.] I just want to bring one matter to the attention of the House. For better or for worse we sit with a situation where there are three Opposition parties. Each of those parties is entitled to give an opinion on any measure that comes before the House. Of necessity it thus takes longer to deal with measures. We are sitting for a greater number of hours these days than before. I think last year we sat for a record number of hours.

We have to oppose the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House. We are faced with a situation which has become an annual phenomenon: A wild rush to get finished before the mid-year school vacations. In order to complete the legislation before the school vacations, it becomes necessary to rush through legislation at a pace which makes it impossible for adequate debate to take place. I know that time is wasted on occasions, not only by this side of the House, but many times by the hon. Ministers on the other side. They take far longer than necessary to say things. Nobody wants to waste time. But there are certain basics which have to be complied with. If Parliament has work to do, that work should be done with due attention being paid to the needs of the democratic process. In-depth consideration must be given to each piece of legislation which comes before the House. Arguments must take place in a climate which enables hon. members to deliberate and apply their minds to the issue without having to do so in a state of fatigue. In the past this rush has been called “legislation by exhaustion” by my colleague, the hon. member for Griqualand East. The Government rushes legislation through while hon. members are under such pressure and are so weary that it is quite impossible for them to digest the substance of debate, to consider the implications and to make adequate judgment. We believe that all in all legislation procedures suffer adversely when sitting hours become unreasonable. The hours which are now proposed take us over the edge and are indeed unreasonable.

We are well aware of the fact that a committee is presently sitting to suggest ways and means of readjusting the parliamentary programme to avoid this sort of scramble in the future. However, that is no reason at all why we should now take the step proposed by the hon. the Leader of the House with regard to this session. We still have 35 orders on the Order Paper and more legislation is still to appear. Many of these measures are indeed very important. I do not believe that the best interests of democracy or of South Africa are being served by sitting these extended hours. In the circumstances we shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, now that the House has been impressed by the importance of time, I do not intend to waste time any further. I should therefore just like to say that we in these benches will support the motion before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for almost 30 years now, and for almost 30 years I have had to listen to these same lamentations from the Opposition every year. The only difference is that they increased in tempo every year because the Opposition is lapsing into an ever-increasing incapability of handling the business of the House in a proper way.

I want to refer for a moment to the argument of the hon. member for Orange Grove. He says that Ministers waste time. I came to an agreement with my colleagues, an agreement to which they have adhered, namely that they will not use more than one third of the time devoted to the discussion of their Votes by hon. members for their reply. Thus far they have all adhered to this. I requested the Ministers to curtail their Second Reading speeches and they all did so. How are they wasting time now, compared to what happened in the past? The hon. member knows full well that the Civil Defence Bill had been referred to a Select Committee and that we had agreed on it there, except for one or two minor matters. Nevertheless the Bill was discussed for a full day here in the House.

How many speakers were there on your side of the House?

The Opposition reveals a strange mentality. They want to speak, but we may not speak. That is typical of the intolerance in their midst. After all, the hon. member is not the only member in the House who was elected. He and Buthelezi may think so, but we do not think so. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that he wanted to make an appeal today in the interests of democracy. What democracy? The type of democracy which they held up to us in Johannesburg this weekend? I can understand if the hon. member received new instructions from his chiefs, Harry Oppenheimer, Buthelezi, and Young. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was also there like a little mongrel. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to refer to another hon. member as a “little mongrel”? [Interjections.]

I said that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was also there like a little mongrel, and I say it again. The hon. member there should not use the word democracy, because he keeps company with people who want to destroy democracy in this country. [Interjections.] I went out of my way to accommodate the Opposition, but our Opposition parties are at such odds with one another that they cannot give priority to the proceedings of Parliament. That is the problem. There are 56 hours left for legislation until 24 June and they have just wasted another half an hour on absolute nonsense. [Interjections.] The Opposition thinks that they are the only people in South Africa who may speak. They are, however, becoming more and more of a contemptible little minority in the country. I think it is time someone told them that, for they will have to learn to do justice to Parliament if they want to get anywhere.

Is that the Acting prime Minister speaking?

Yes. We are dissatisfied with the behaviour of the Opposition, and the time has come for the patriots in their midst to come forward and for those who want to sell South Africa out, to stand aside. [Interjections.] They are screaming because I am treading on their toes. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Griqualand East would not have said a word if he had not been afraid of the PRP. He was afraid the PRP would object, so he had to object as well.

I did not object. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation: I said that we were going to support the motion, but we are certainly not going to do so now. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the report on the proceedings of Parliament, one finds that since 1961 Parliament has always adjourned during the last week of June …

Sunlight soap-box! [Interjections.]

The hon. member must first tell me on the side of which leader he is before I will take any notice of him. I do not undermine my leader the way he does.

Who is wasting time now?

Since 1961 the Parliament has always been prorogued in the last or second last week of June. Officials have let their houses and they have to move into their houses when the tenants move out. The staff of Parliament have to be taken into consideration as well.

I have kept the Whips informed. Since the beginning of the year I have been pointing out to them that they were wasting time. Today I shall tell the story because I am tired of the Opposition.

Who is wasting time now?

Every Friday I pointed out to them that time was being wasted because the Opposition was retarding the business of the House unnecessarily and was unnecessarily taking up a great deal of the time of the House for unnecessary things. The Opposition Whips sitting there have to admit that they cannot exercise control over their own parties.

But you cannot control yourself.

It is time the country knew what the situation was. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is time the country knew how the Opposition parties were behaving. It is time the country knew that the Opposition is wasting time. It is time the country knew that the Opposition is wasting money. [Interjections.] It is time the hon. member stopped accepting instructions from other people.

It is time the hon. the Prime Minister returned.

Finally I just want to say this : I met the Opposition half way by means of morning sittings because we think that it is less tiring to have morning sittings than to have evening sittings. However, if they do not co-operate now, we shall introduce morning as well as evening sittings.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—106: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, D. W.; Streicher, D. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—29: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper under the name of the hon. member for Durban Point—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour. I am very glad to see that the hon. the Minister has arrived timeously for this debate because I believe that this debate is one of the most important that will occupy the time of this House. I can promise you, Sir, that I shall not sink to the depths to which the hon. the Leader of the House sank this afternoon.

You could not sink to those depths!

The importance of agriculture to South Africa, and particularly to the South African economy, is mirrored by the fact that production of agricultural products represents 7,2% of the gross domestic product, and that the earnings in the way of foreign exchange from the export of agricultural products are second only to the earnings from gold. In fact, during 1975 those earnings brought in R1 184 million. The importance of agriculture is shown further by the fact that agriculture provided the industrial sector with R1 000 million’s worth of primary products, and that agriculture directly, apart from indirectly through the medium of the industrial sector, provides employment for 29% of the economically active population of the country. We find today, in this year of 1977, that agriculture has developed into a modern industry, thanks to the achievements of various people in various sectors. Here I think particularly of those devoted scientists, the researchers, the technologists and the administrators. I pay tribute to the administrators of agriculture, whether in the producer organizations such as the agricultural societies and the S.A. Agricultural Union, or in the department itself. Not least, Sir, there are the farmers. Thanks to the farmers themselves, this industry has not only fed our country, but has produced surpluses. Generally, the industry has produced products at an economic price. The question of prices will be dealt with in more detail later, but these prices compare most favourably with the prices of similar products anywhere in the world.

Having looked at the agricultural sphere in South Africa I find that the problems do not lie at the level of the farmer today. I believe that we have a magnificent bunch of farmers in this country, people who will, can and do produce all that is required of them as long as we guarantee that their return will be adequate. This is mirrored by the fact that the total value of production for 1975-’76 is again a record amount. It shows an increase of 7% over the previous year and has reached the fantastic figure of R2 751 million.

This has not all been due to the activities of the farmers themselves. It is also due to the scientists, technicians and researchers whom I mentioned before. It is due to improved seeds, to improved breeding methods, to improved farming methods and to a more scientific approach. This is shown by the fact that over the last 15 years the average increase in production has been 3,8% per annum. When that figure is compared with the population growth of an average of 2,9%, it will be seen that agriculture is not only keeping pace with the demands of the people of South Africa, but is actually ahead of them and is, in fact, producing surpluses. I keep referring to surpluses because it is one of the subjects with which I intend to deal at greater length a little later. I am satisfied, notwithstanding the doubts which the hon. the Minister expressed at the agricultural conference earlier this year, that if we give our agriculturalists in South Africa a chance, they will meet the challenge to feed 40 million or 50 million people by the turn of the century. But it is going to be incumbent upon the Government to see that they are given the opportunity to do so.

The problems lie outside the direct control of the producers themselves; they lie outside the control of the farmers. Production costs are increasing tremendously. Last year the increase amounted to 16%. When one thinks of the increases in railage rates, fuel costs, fertilizer costs, the cost of seed, labour and equipment—to quote the example which the hon. the Minister is so quick to quote; it is one of his favourite quotations, namely that the price of a tractor has doubled in three years—these are matters beyond the control of the farmer. What does one find in the first three or four months of this year? In 1977 railage rates have been increased by 20% as a result of the Railways budget. To transport a 17½ kg pocket of potatoes from the Orange Free State to the market in Port Elizabeth costs 42 cents today. In the case of miala, which is a waste product of the sugar mills in Natal and is returned to the fields in the form of fertilizer, where in 1974 it cost R1 per ton to transport it to certain farms, today it is costing the farmers R4,50 per ton, simply for transport. The increase in the railage rate for livestock amounts to 354% in four years. It has almost quadrupled in four years. One farmer from Rouxville in the Orange Free State was telling me the other day that it used to cost him R38 in 1971 to send a consignment of 60 lambs to the Pietermaritzburg market and now in 1977, six years later, is costs him R160.

This is not a Railway debate.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Fauresmith to say that this is not a Railway debate. What is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture doing about the Minister of Transport? Does he approve of these increases? Is he going to do something about it, or is he simply going to sit back and accept the fact that the farmers must absorb these increased costs?

Then we come to the question of fuel. Look at the increases that there have been in the price of petrol, dieseline, coal, electricity and fertilizer. The prices of these articles are continually rising.

What would you have done about that?

Wait a minute! The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs must not get excited. I will deal with him in a moment. [Interjections.] Just look at the tremendous increase there is going to be in the production costs of livestock farmers now that the hon. the Minister has allowed an increase of nearly 20% in the price of maize. At the same time—and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is involved here—inflation is already running at 4,5% during the first four months of this year. The farmer has to pay for this. That is why I say the hon. the Minister of Agriculture faces increased production costs which are outside of his control, but which are within the control of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Nevertheless, it is all controlled by the Government. That is the whole point with all the things I have mentioned. They are all controlled by the Government. The Government could have done something to try to assist the farmers in their situation.

Notwithstanding a 16% increase in the production costs, the consumer price only went up by 6%. The balance was absorbed by the farmers. It was absorbed by way of a drop in their net income. The net income realizations of farmers in 1976 dropped by R121 million to R1 074 million. It was a decrease of 10% in the net income of farmers. This was occasioned by the increase in production costs, an increase which was not compensated for in the prices fetched by their products.

However, notwithstanding that fact, we still have the situation which is the greatest bugbear of agriculture in South Africa today. That is that we still have surpluses. At the same time many products are now meeting consumer resistance. They are meeting consumer resistance because of high prices. The hon. the Minister should realize that this is the dilemma which is facing him today. How does he control production costs so that the products of the farmer are not priced out of the market; so that they are not placed beyond the reach of the consumer in South Africa? Some products, as I have said, have already been increased in price. Maize I have mentioned earlier. This increase in the price of maize is only going to lead to more claims from the livestock industry. The hon. the Minister knows that many tinned and processed foods have already been increased. The hon. the Minister has already conceded that, in the next three to four months, he will probably have to increase the price of bread by 2c. If I have the opportunity and the time, I want to talk to him about this a little later. I wonder whether he has not perhaps misassessed the position, particularly with the new system he has introduced for the paying of the subsidy— where he is going to pay the subsidy now on the bread instead of on the wheat, as he has done in the past.

Because of increased production costs demands are still being received by the hon. the Minister from producers for increases. There are demands at the moment for an increase in the price of fresh milk. I believe they have asked the hon. the Minister to approve an increase in the region of 18%. The hon. the Minister knows that if he grants that increase of 18% in the price of fresh milk today, we will have the most expensive fresh milk in the world. That cannot happen in a country like South Africa. He knows that there is a demand from the beef producers for an increase in the floor price of beef. He also knows that he is sitting with a tremendous surplus of beef at the moment. He does not know what to do with it all. He knows that the wheat farmers are going to ask for an increase as soon as they start to reap.

The same is going to happen in the case of the oil-seed producers. The hon. member for Bethal, who is the chairman of the agricultural group on the Government side—the chairman of the commission—is going to ask for an increase in the price of his product too. Then we come to eggs and broilers. We had the S.A. Poultry Association congress here in Cape Town two weeks ago. The hon. the Minister has been asked for an increase in the price of eggs. Meanwhile, we are sitting with a surplus of eggs. This is the dilemma which the hon. the Minister has to face. Then there are butter and cheese, products with unmanageable surpluses. I do not have to remind the House of the debacle we have had in the dairy industry during last year. We are sitting with a surplus. Yet the Dairy Board met two weeks ago and decided to ask the hon. the Minister for a further increase in the prices of butter and cheese.

Sugar does not fall under the department of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, but under the department of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The sugar producers and sugar planters have got to have an increase in the price of sugar. They are all asking for these increases despite warnings that increases would result in reduced consumption. The anomaly is that we are faced with overproduction of almost every one of these products, in some cases with unmanageable surpluses. However, the producers still ask for increases in prices, and I must say that every one of these demands are substantiated by figures showing increased production costs. The hon. the Minister cannot deny that the producers in every instance make a very strong case and the hon. the Minister is going to find it very hard to say to them “Nay”. The increases will result in reduced consumption, and the hon. the Minister knows it. The people can no longer afford those products. The people outside like milk, meat, eggs, butter, cheese, bread and all those products, but they can no longer afford to eat them in the quantities in which they have consumed them in the past. That is the plain and simple fact of the matter as we see it today.

There is no doubt that the agricultural industry is meeting consumer resistance, particularly in relation to products which are supplied direct from the producer to the consumer with little, if any, processing. I am not talking about the products which go to factories and are milled, manufactured, canned and that sort of thing, but about products which virtually go direct from the farmer through a distributor to the consumer.

Let us look at the position with fresh milk. Last year consumption of fresh milk came down by 7%—not the per capita consumption, but the overall consumption. With the increase in the population that we have one would imagine that there would be a steady increase in consumption. However, the consumption has gone down. We find that on the Witwatersand in 1975 663 000 litres of milk were consumed per day. In 1976 only 656 000 litres of milk were consumed per day. It is a drop of nearly 7 000 litres of milk a day. The hon. the Minister knows the increase in population there has been in that area. Why then this reduction in the consumption of milk?

Why?

Because it is priced out of their reach. That is the reason. Many people in that area can no longer afford to buy two litres of milk; they are only buying one litre. Others cannot afford to buy one litre of milk and are now buying half a litre, because the price has put it beyond their reach. In Pretoria, the city which is made up primarily of the civil servants in the country, 166 800 litres of milk were consumed per day in 1975. In 1976 it came down to 161 500 litres of milk per day. This is a drop of 5 300 litres per day, despite the population growth.

Butter consumption was down by 17% last year. Since 1970 butter consumption went down by 65%. Butter is a special product. So let us not get too excited about it. I must admit, however, that cheese consumption has gone up by 1%. That is a tremendous achievement. That is only because of the special deals which were offered by the board and by the hon. the Minister. While we have this surplus of dairy products and the reduced consumption of dairy products we still have the board asking for increases in the prices. Are there hon. members who wonder why people call this an Alice in Wonderland-situation?

What about marketing? What has been done about marketing? A top official of the Dairy Board says that the Dairy Board has lots of cheese and that they cannot export it because the people overseas do not like our kind of cheese. Why are we not producing the right kind of cheese? Surely we can produce another kind of cheese. Must we produce a yellow cheddar cheese when they want a white cheddar cheese? We can make it white, the same as other countries do. This is the sort of thing that we are worried about. While we are talking about the Dairy Board and cheese, I want to say that part of our problem today is because the Dairy Board, at the time that they should have cancelled an order for the import of gouda cheese, doubled it The hon. the Minister knows that.

Another problem with regard to the dairy industry and the milk industry is, of course, the fact that the hon. the Minister and the Government have allowed substitutes to be introduced instead of insisting that we use the natural product. I am not going to talk about margarine. I shall not mention that word again this afternoon. When I was travelling on an aircraft of the S. A. Airways the other day and I wanted a cup of coffee I was horrified not to be given milk in that coffee, but to be handed a packet of powder. It was not even milk powder. The label read “Instant non-dairy creamer”—“in diervetlose verromer”. With tears in my eyes I ask what is the matter with the hon. the Minister that he allows his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport, to not use a product which is in over-supply, namely milk, on an aircraft of the S.A. Airways?

Oil seeds are also in surplus.

How much oil seed is there in it? The hon. the Minister knows that it is made from sugar cane waste. The bulk of this product consists of sugar cane waste chopped up. The hon. the Minister knows it. However, that does not matter. At the moment we experience a shortage of oil seed. The hon. the Minister knows that South Africa has a shortage of oil seed at the moment, but has a surplus of milk and milk products. However, he still allows the hon. the Minister of Transport to use this artificial product. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon to use what influence he has in the Cabinet—and I know that he has influence—to persuade his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport, to desist from this practice. I do not believe that any Government agency should be allowed in any way to use any substitute for an agricultural product which is in surplus production in the country. I believe it is absolutely stupid. It is the wrong financial attitude. I was horrified to find this on the aircraft.

I want to refer to other examples of consumer resistance. The hon. the Minister knows that egg consumption is down by 4% compared with last year—not the consumption per capita; the total consumption of eggs has gone down by 4%. He knows that the consumption per capita per annum in South Africa is only 122 eggs, a figure far below the average in other developed countries. He must get on with it and market our eggs.

What about meat? The hon. the Minister will know—I do not know whether hon. members know—that the consumption of red meat dropped by 8% last year. When one compares the consumption per capita of red meat today with that of 1970, one finds a very sad situation. The consumption of beef and veal has dropped from 24,4 kg to 20,9 kg,—in other words, by 18%. The consumption of mutton—I hope that the sheep farmers and particularly the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet will listen to this—has dropped from 10 kg to 5,8 kg—in other words, by 42%.

I know.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet says he knows it. What is he doing about it?

What are you going to do about it?

We are not the Government. Give us the Government seats and we shall show you what to do about it.

What about pork? The consumption of pork has dropped from 3,8 kg to 3,2 kg—in other words, also by 16%. The only meat of which the consumption has risen, is chicken. The consumption has increased from 4,4 kg to 9,8 kg, an increase of 120%. However, when one looks at the meat industry as a whole—and this is the point—the net effect of this is that the total consumption of meat per capita has dropped from 43,6 kg in 1970 to 39,7 kg in 1976, a decrease of 10%. This is consumer resistance. The price of beef and mutton has risen so high that consumers can no longer afford it. Because the price of chicken has stayed down, they are able to afford it. This is the dilemma the hon. the Minister is facing. The increase in the consumption of chicken has shown that if the price is right and if it is available, people will buy it. There is consumer resistance because prices are too high for many potential consumers.

During 1976 consumers spent 14% more on food than they did in 1975. They spent R4 522 million on food. However, the consumer price index for food went up by only 6%. This is a measure of the efficiency of farmers and the sacrifice made by the agriculture sector whose net income—as I have said—is down by 10%, or R121 million.

If that income had not come down, we can imagine how much more the surplus would have been and how much less the consumption would have been. How much longer can the producers absorb increases beyond their control? That is the question which the hon. the Minister has to answer today. How much longer is he going to have to say to the producer:“I cannot put your price up and I cannot control your production costs?” At the same time the consumer, the punch-drunk buying public, cannot take any more increases. The public is faced with an appeal from the Government for wage restraints and it can no longer take any further price increases. The civil servants have had no increase in salaries for three years. A top official in Cape Town told me that his family was now buying less food. They were not consuming food at the same rate and in the same quantities as they did three years ago. What about the lower income groups? What about the non-White people in particular? They cannot afford to buy less food. They can only be helped by the payment of subsidies. The hon. the Minister is faced with an either/or situation today. Either he must control production costs or he must subsidize consumer prices. What has the hon. the Minister done in regard to this problem? He has done neither.

In this morning’s newspaper we find a report that the Transvaal Agricultural Union complains of uncontrolled production costs which are increasing daily. They say that they have to get an increase in their selling prices otherwise they are no longer going to be able to produce. At the same time, the hon. the Minister allows his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, to reduce the subsidies by R45 million. The hon. the Minister is faced with an either/or situation, and he does neither.

The Minister of Finance is bankrupt. What the hell can I do? [Interjections.]

I am very glad to hear that from the hon. the Minister. The Government says it can no longer afford subsidies at the existing levels. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture now confirms that the Government is bankrupt. The test for a subsidy must not, however, be whether the Government is solvent, whether the Government can afford to pay or not. The Government is to be blamed for inflation, and the Government has it within its power to soften the effect of the price increases of basic commodities to our less privileged people. The size of the subsidy must be determined by the need of the consumer and not by the ability of the Government to pay it. The need to help those who are living on the bread-line, must be the sole criterion in the determination of a subsidy and in the calculation of the amount of the subsidy. Where the Government is indirectly or directly responsible for the economic plight of those citizens, it is morally bound to subsidize them. In this country today we have job reservation, a lack of economic opportunities, inflation and the bonds of ideologies— situations which have all contributed to the present economic plight of our underprivileged people. We believe that for now—and I want to stress “for now”—the Government should restore the subsidies at least to last year’s level, or increase them to meet the demands of inflation. I call upon the hon. the Minister to at least restore the level of subsidies, to restore the R45 million which has been taken away. It cannot be done now at this stage in the debate, but I plead with the hon. the Minister that when the time for the additional estimates comes, he should try to see his way clear to at least put the R45 million back to help the poor people of the country. I believe it would be to the benefit of both producer and consumer, because consumption will increase, and think of the bonus we shall get as a result of improved racial goodwill if this can be done.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister, as I have said before, that he by all means can tax the rich to feed the poor. We shall not oppose that sort of taxation at all. The privileged class—the hon. the Minister and myself—can still afford to pay more, but I am afraid that the non-White peoples of South Africa cannot afford to do so. The payment of subsidies is only an interim measure, because generally the privileged classes can pay, and our food prices are still cheap, judged by world standards. Subsidies are only for underprivileged people, and if we eliminate the underprivileged classes, we shall be able to eliminate subsidies. That is the challenge which this hon. the Minister and his colleague in the Cabinet face. Again I say the fault lies with the Government. They have not allowed the Blacks, the Indians and the Coloureds to develop into a middle class economically in South Africa.

They drink a lot of Coca-Cola!

Yes, they drink a lot of Coca-Cola and I do not deny that for one moment. However, does the hon. the Minister not have any weaknesses? Does he not have any luxuries?

Yes, I have some.

Then the hon. the Minister should allow them their little luxury with the odd bottle of Coca-Cola too.

I want to repeat that the fault lies with the Government, because they have not allowed Blacks, Indians and Coloureds to develop into a middle class economically. They have not allowed them to create a larger buying public with the capacity to purchase agricultural products. The farmers of South Africa today, to whom I pay tribute, are producing food. They are producing food for a population of 25 million, but of the population of 25 million, only 4 million to 5 million have the capacity to pay economic prices for those products. That is why the hon. the Minister has to subsidize today. My challenge to the hon. the Minister and the Government is—I repeat—to raise the economic standard of all our economically under-privileged people. Their earning capacity must be raised. The hon. the Minister of Labour has acknowledged this and he has just appointed a commission to investigate the effects of job reservation. The Government should proceed along those lines. The underprivileged people should be afforded the opportunity to improve their earning capacity. The existing economic barriers should be broken down so that all our 25 million people in the country will have the capacity to pay economic prices for agricultural products. In that way the agriculturalists will benefit, we will be able to sell all our production, agriculture will prosper and the country will prosper. I want to repeat: Just think of the bonus we will get by way of racial goodwill!

Mr. Chairman, permit me to convey my congratulations to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South on his appointment as the chief spokesman on agriculture on the other side. I want to admit that he started well. In fact, he started extremely well. Listen to what he said:“South Africa has an excellent bunch of farmers.” I want to thank him for that statement, because that is what I think, too.

It is not thanks to you!

I did not hear what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said.

He said that it was due to your and my work that the farmers are so good. [Interjections.]

However, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was unable to resist the temptation and he soon fell back into his old ways. He made so many statements that if the hon. the Minister were to accede to the request of the Leader of the House that he should only take up one-third of the time for discussion in his reply, he would only be able to reply to the speech by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. The hon. member made an amazing number of statements and accusations. He discussed railway freight, inflation, electricity, production costs, the whole lot, but each of those matters has already been dealt with in the House at great length. What is disturbing, however, is that the hon. member provides no grounds for his accusations. He simply makes accusations and fails to take them further. Why does he do so? He expects us on this side of the House to come up with the solutions. Surely a responsible Opposition which at least believes that it will come to power at some stage does not act in this way. Surely such an Opposition raises alternatives which will at least be attractive to the farmer so that the farmer may at least vote for it some day. Surely an Opposition cannot simply raise a song and dance; after all, that does not provide solutions! What purpose does it serve? I could mention a whole list of problems—far more than the hon. member could. I know the problems of agriculture far better than he does.

The problems mentioned by the hon. member are not the problems we struggle with daily. Our problems lie far deeper. The hon. members opposite sit back and relax; after all, they do not work! The brainwork is done on this side. I am sorry the hon. member has allowed himself to be so misguided as to fall back on the old type of discussion. With what did the hon. member come to this House? He came here with the problems which a recession will cause the country. But, Sir, is he forgetting that the whole world is faced with this problem of recession? In fact, this recession is lasting so long that for the farmer it has become a depression. He does not come up with a single alternative. What he is in fact forgetting are pleas he made here in the past because milk had become more expensive than Coca-Cola. Can he remember that? What does Coca-Cola cost now? Buy a bottle of Coca-Cola in a container and it will cost you 42 cents.

It costs 49 cents now.

That is still worse. This therefore constitutes exploitation of the poorer man. On the other hand one can buy milk in its own container today at 32 cents. I should be very pleased if the hon. member would elaborate on this matter again.

What does the container cost?

I fear that here I am allowing myself to be misled by the hon. member. He is merely skimming the surface and all he does is to pursue trivialities. He has not made any real contribution.

In the past the discussion of agriculture took up a great deal of time in this House, and the further back we delve in Hansard, the more we are impressed by the time spent on agriculture. I believe it is good that the House of Assembly should devote its attention to all facets of the national economy in such a way that all sectors of the population will feel that they are well represented here. We are all aware that agriculture does not constitute one of the lesser facets of our economy. In fact, looking at the bottlenecks in the world economy today, we can sum them up as energy, raw materials and food. Agriculture is making a vast contribution in regard to food and also provides a major part of the raw materials. I say that agriculture is not a minor part of the economy. In fact, the contrary is true. It is true that the number of farmers in South Africa has already dropped to fewer than 80 000 and their contribution to the gross domestic product has also dropped to less than 10% of the total, but on the other hand the contribution of agriculture—in the primary, secondary and tertiary spheres—constitutes almost a third of the total in our national economy. This is certainly a very important part of our economy and of our set-up in this country.

Under the present conditions of economic recession, agriculture is a very important factor, providing indispensable support in our battle to balance our foreign accounts. That is why I should like to call to witness the State President, in the speech with which he opened this session of Parliament, and also the hon. the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. In this era of world history we are experiencing an astonishingly rapid rate of population growth. Just think of it:“that every second four extra mouths” and “every decade a milliard more people on earth”. This is an astonishing state of affairs.

Let us come nearer home. Here in South Africa the position is such that every day, 1 900 more mouths to be fed are added. This alone gives agriculture a special significance.

That is true.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Mooi River agrees with me. This has become so disturbing that the demographers of the world are anxiously looking to the producer of food. World leaders share the concern of these people and I am sure that this is the case here too. Agricultural scientists—particularly geneticists, authorities on the soil, economists and all interested bodies and persons—hold congresses and symposia and there is a great deal of discussion concerning this problem in order to meet the demand for food for the masses in the future. But what is more, the housewife—not the kind the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South drags in here, the kind that climbs on the bandwagon with the politicians for the sake of political expediency—and also the man in the street, are already adjusting their perspective and are steadily giving food a higher priority. Food is undoubtedly becoming important today.

But they are buying less.

If they do not have the money for it, they will eat less.

Precisely.

Surely this is a normal phenomenon. Unfortunately this is our dilemma in South Africa. We eat so much that we can afford to prune the food account. This is true, and I am not arguing with the hon. member on that score. But, Sir, there is something else which I find tragic. You will certainly have noticed, Sir, that over the past few years, agriculture has been discussed less and less in this House. We can only come to one conclusion and that is that the Ministry of Agriculture is handling the agricultural affairs in this country in such a way that the Opposition are not even able to express criticism of it. I want to maintain that the situation has changed to such an extent that if a Rip van Winkle from the days of the first few Parliaments of the Union of South Africa were to turn up here, he would certainly have felt ill at ease. He would not have felt at home. He would really have thought that agriculture had been brushed aside and no longer formed part of our national economy or at best, played a very subordinate role in it. To judge from the lion’s share of discussions in the House of Assembly, which agriculture had in the past such a Rip van Winkle could be forgiven for feeling strange, disappointed and even shocked. He may even have come to the conclusion that this important and indispensable section of our population was being neglected and that the present House of Assembly may have lost its perspective and evaded its responsibility to a large extent. The farmers, together with the housewife and the consumer, have reason to see matters in this light, and I want to lay the blame for this at the door of the Opposition parties. In their wisdom, the parties opposite have decided to divide into three. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Mooi River for his goodwill towards me. As I said, the parties opposite have divided into three and they have done so in their wisdom. In the meantime, however, they have neglected the important facets of the national economy, particularly agriculture. To a large extent they have fixed their attention on matters which I do not regard as fundamental. Perhaps they were matters which were politically expedient, but it should be borne in mind that these are matters which will not keep the pot boiling for us in this country. Unfortunately it is true that our Westminster system of government has the property that the Opposition determines the drift of the discussion and the subjects discussed. What, for example, has happened in the present session? In the no-confidence debate we had perhaps one interjection concerning agriculture, but for the rest no reference was made to it. The hon. the Minister and I sat here and waited to reply to arguments from the other side. There were various other matters, too, in connection with which agriculture could have been discussed, but not a word was said about it. Eventually we came to the discussion of the Appropriation Bill. The Second Reading debate of that Bill has traditionally been the occasion on which we have been able to discuss agriculture to our heart’s content, but in that case too the Opposition parties were so satisfied with agriculture that they had nothing to say about it.

Where were you and the Minister when I spoke?

The hon. member’s few references to agriculture were nothing but a few random potshots which we on this side of the House did not even smell. It was not a discussion of agriculture. If the hon. member wants to deal with agriculture in that way then he definitely falls into the category I am now describing. There is no doubt about that. What is more, do hon. members realize that it is not only we who miss it? The general public, too, have begun to mention the fact that agricultural affairs are not being discussed. When I discuss agriculture I do not refer to the farmer only; my field of discussion is surely far wider than that. What discussion is taking place here, and what points did the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in fact raise? All he is doing is playing the part of the housewife’s hero. Agriculture being what it is, the fact is—and one cannot get away from it—that if one eats, one is a customer of the Minister of Agriculture. This is a simple fact. And who does not eat? Not a single member of the public can dissociate himself from agriculture. Whether he likes it or not, he is involved in agriculture. In other words, each hon. member in those benches opposite would do well to be a representative of the consumer public. In my opinion the debate on agriculture is the most important debate because there is no other portfolio in which the voter is so totally involved as this very portfolio of agriculture. Where are the urban representatives? This is just what I find so difficult, because there are only urban representatives. It is very clear that we should have waited until we came to the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill, more specifically the discussion of the Vote of the Minister of Agriculture. Then they had no choice but to discuss agriculture. Today is the first time this session that a ten minute speech has been devoted to discussion of agriculture. I want to reproach the Opposition for this and I really want to take the consumer along with me because when this session began in January, there was a terrible controversy in this country. Can hon. members remember that we had a surplus of cheese and butter? This was discovered by the Press and then politicians climbed into the bandwagon and, together with a group of housewives organized by them, they tore into us. It was a storm which made us feel that we ourselves had landed in the butter. What did the Opposition say in this House when it was said that this was a matter of current interest? They were quiet as mice about it, except for a few brief references here and there, such as when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to the “butter bungle”. Do they want me to react to that? Surely that is not a debate on agriculture. We shall reply if anything specific is addressed to us. It simply cannot be denied that the Opposition has neglected the farmer and the consumer in regard to this difficult situation in which agriculture finds itself. Agriculture is in a difficult situation—here I must agree to a large extent with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South—and the farmer is being caught between opposing forces. His prices are dropping and his production costs are increasing. After all, this is not something which hon. members opposite need point out to us. We are far more aware of the situation than they are.

What are you going to do?

We are doing everything in our power to alleviate matters.

How are you doing it?

I want to put it to hon. members—it is a simply economic law—that when a country goes into a recession or a depression, when the graph drops, then the farmer, together with the wage-earner, is the first to suffer. And it is also an economic law that when the graph rises, both remain behind. And wishful thinking on that side can do nothing about these laws. We must be quite clear on this. If we do so, then when we come forward with suggestions we can expect to get support for them. I accuse the Opposition of saying nothing when there are opportunities to draw attention specifically to matters of this nature.

I sincerely hope that since up to now, the Opposition has said nothing about agriculture and have thereby attested that they are satisfied with the handling of agriculture in this country, they will now adopt a positive stance in this debate and leave politics in the background. The Opposition cannot derive any further advantage from agriculture. Let us leave it at that and, for the sake of clarity for both the fanner and the consumer, publicize the vast quantity of knowledge contained, inter alia, in three departmental reports and in so many other places.

I am convinced that the farmer in this country will not be able to produce if he does not get a reasonable price for his products. The fact is that the profit margin for the farmer is steadily dwindling and that this fact must be brought to the attention of the consumers. It is necessary for both the farmer and the consumer to know that they will get sympathetic treatment from this House. This is my invitation to the Opposition. I ask them to conduct the debate in this spirit and to do something positive about it.

I want to conclude. It is my conviction that the cause of agriculture is worth fighting for and championing. It is also worthwhile to see to it that we protect agriculture and there is no doubt that this House can play a major role in this regard. I can discuss butter and cheese with the hon. member down to the finest details. However, he himself knows everything about it. He himself served on the commission and therefore has the necessary data at his disposal in this regard. He knows that the way in which the Dairy Board handled these matters was correct …

Never!

Why did we keep the hon. member for a full six months … No, it was three years. Why did we keep him in the commission for three years? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Our country has many limitations.

[Inaudible.]

Man, my time is up. [Interjections.] Our country has many limitations. The country has little high-potential land. The climatic conditions are uncertain. The country suffers from climatic extremes such as droughts and floods, excessive heat and cold, etc. Unfortunately these are the conditions in our country. However, we have good human material in agriculture. Here I am not referring only to the farmers, but also to the sectors which serve agriculture. When I discuss agriculture I should like to include the departments. They do a tremendous job, not only in the interests of the farmers but also—and particularly—in the interests of the consumer. The contribution of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing in the interests of the consumer is a matter to which I want to make specific reference. The high quality of the food marketed in the country today, of which our consumers derive the benefit, attests to this. This is a result of the sound system of inspection.

I believe that the people of this country can leave agriculture in the hands of the hon. the Minister with confidence and that if we do so, we shall prosper.

Mr. Chairman, to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister speak with such enthusiasm and insight ought to make any farmer feel happy, despite the problems he faces. [Interjections.] I want to join the hon. the Deputy Minister in congratulating the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I must say that I think he has a very difficult task. To speak about the butter and cheese débâcle in Parliament and then go home and sell margarine is probably not very easy. In any event, we hope that the hon. member will make a success of one of the two.

[Inaudible.]

I should like to associate myself with the statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister concerning the problems relating to food. While the world is at present engaged in an ideological struggle and is concerned with the organization of political thinking among people, the one major question with regard to future generations is being forgotten. As the hon. the Deputy Minister rightly indicated, there are probably few people who are unaware of the fact that our problems with regard to the future are twofold. On the one hand there is the increase in the population. This adds about 75 million more mouths to be fed per annum. On the other hand, the world’s natural resources are being exhausted to such an extent that they are no longer able to meet the demand for food.

A realistic ratio between producer and consumer is therefore a matter of growing importance. The consumer will have to see to it that a greater demand than that for which provision can be made is not created. The producer, on the other hand, will have to see to it that the available resources are utilized and preserved to such an extent that it will be possible to meet the future needs of the consumer. However, there is one important fact of which we must take note and that is that although not all consumers are producers, it is nevertheless true that all producers are also consumers, because no producer can meet all his own needs. This is particularly true of the agricultural sector. The statement that a farmer who has a sheep to sell does not have meat to eat, and if he wants meat to eat he does not have a sheep to sell, is very true, particularly in the agricultural sector where the producer is the biggest consumer of his own product. That is why I believe that any increase in the price of agricultural products has a greater impact on the producer in the agricultural sector, as a consumer, than the salaried man.

A great deal can be said about human relations and the rights of the individual, but when it comes to food, there are no borders. The future will show that the country which can feed its people will be the country which enjoys domestic peace and order. Fortunately, it is true that in a time of world recession South Africa has had a few good agricultural years and that we have in fact been able to produce more than our needs. We should be grateful for this because it is chiefly for this reason that food prices rose by only 8,26% over the period October 1975 to September 1976, whereas the cost of living increased by 10,51%. Over this period the price of dairy products and eggs increased by a mere 5,69%. However, favourable climatic conditions have created the problem that in the midst of increasing production costs we have built up large surpluses of perishable products. In this regard I should like to refer in particular to the problem of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Whereas the stocks of butter rose from 1 200 tons in 1973-’74 to 5 200 tons in 1975-’76, consumption remained virtually the same, in spite of expensive and widespread advertising campaigns.

In these circumstances one finds it difficult and strange to understand the type of argument we have had once again from members of the Opposition, and the campaign launched against the higher prices in November 1976. Just to satisfy the exotic taste of certain consumers, cheese is imported which costs three to four times as much as our own product. However, no objection is made to these prices. As the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated in the budget debate, butter is no longer such an essential item for the housewife either. Why, then, were feelings aroused to such an extent when the increased price of butter was announced? The subsidy on dairy products dropped from R9 million in 1974-’75 to R7 million in 1976-’77.

Why, then, did they not get the butter sold?

It is a pity, but there are circumstances of which the hon. member is just as much aware as I am. The money has to come from somewhere. The deficit in the industry has to be recovered somewhere. Although, after discussions had taken place, the Minister was given the assurance that stocks would be reduced at the reduced prices, the stocks of butter increased from 3 900 tons in October 1976 to 8 400 tons in February 1977, whereas over this period production remained fairly constant. The stocks of cheese grew from 8 800 tons to 10 900 tons. In order to reduce the prices, a loan of R6 million had to be obtained from the Land Bank. If it is borne in mind that 988 tons of butter were sold in December at a loss of R19? 000, and that from October 1976 up to now 5 300 tons of cheese have been sold at the loss of R1,3 million, as a result of which the Rates Equalisation Fund—taking into account the Land Bank loan—will only amount to R1,7 million on 30 September 1976, I cannot see how a price adjustment can be averted. Perhaps the hon. member for Bryanston can provide a solution. He said: “It was nonsensical to suggest reducing surpluses by raising prices.”

However, if we can only export butter at a loss and the production costs continue to increase, how are the costs to be recovered, if the tremendous costs involved in storing this product are taken into account? If they are not recovered by way of a subsidy, then they must be recovered in some other way. Since today, due to the advent of margarine, this is not such an important consumer item, there is no reason why this loss cannot be recovered from the consumer. Perhaps it ought to be noted that last year, when the country had the same economic problems and money was available in the Rates Equalisation Fund of the Maize Board, the farmers contributed R3 per ton to keep the price of maize products low. The producer is not indifferent to these prices. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. member for Losberg; I wonder whether he and the hon. the Deputy Minister really have their fingers on the pulse of the agricultural industry at the moment. They talk in most unrealistic terms. They state the obvious when they say that food production is very important. We all know that it is very important. He spoke, amongst other things, about the R6 million which was borrowed by the Dairy Board from the Land Bank. One just has to remember that that has to be paid back some time. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister exercised a little control in that he refused the R20 million they, in fact, asked for. However, I shall come back to this.

The hon. member also stated that food prices had not risen all that much in relation to many other things. It is indeed a very relative matter. Any housewife who goes into a supermarket knows perfectly well just how much food prices have gone up.

If one looks at the present agricultural situation in South Africa, one sees a very bleak picture indeed. It is certainly very bleak from the point of view of the farmer. I think it is on record that the hon. the Minister has said that he is in his present position to look after the farmers of South Africa. That is very praiseworthy. It is also a very bleak picture from the point of view of the consumer. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister sees it as part of his role to look after the consumer. The hon. the Deputy Minister obviously does not. I hope the hon. the Minister believes in looking after the consumer as well. Looking after the consumer of agricultural produce is, I believe, part of his duty. Until he does that, I do not believe he will be doing the job he ought to be doing.

The farmer is unhappy, and with good reason. The consumer and the housewife are also unhappy, also with very good reason. When we consider this hon. Minister’s success or otherwise, we should in all fairness look at his performance from both points of view, namely from the point of view of the farmer and of the consumer. Let us start with the farmer. He is faced—we have heard a lot about this this afternoon—with a tremendous escalation in the cost of production. Fertilizer has gone up; farm machinery is much more expensive, and the farmer is paying much more for his labour and for fuel. Virtually every item in the farmer’s cost structure has rocketed. One is inclined to ask: Has there been a commensurate increase in the farmer’s selling price? Is the farmer getting more in proportion than before? The answer, in almost every field of agriculture, is “no”. Most farmers are worse off today than they were a year ago and certainly worse off compared with two or three years ago. During that period the situation of most farmers has deteriorated to a marked degree. One must ask oneself why this is so. The farmer looks at his selling price and then he looks at the price the consumer is paying for his product. The difference is so tremendous that it simply does not seem reasonable to him. The farmers are not happy and to them the difference between what they are getting for their products and that the housewife is buying it for, simply does not make sense at all. On the other hand, how does the housewife, the consumer, feel about the price of foodstuffs? I do not think I have to tell the hon. the Minister how the housewife is reacting. Most hon. Ministers are married men and are therefore well aware of the reactions of the housewives. Housewives are disgusted about the way in which prices have accelerated over the last few years, and no one in South Africa is eating as well as before. Living standards are dropping very fast indeed. In previous years in this debate the hon. the Minister told me that I was talking nonsense when I said this and that the incomes had more than kept pace with cost increases. I hope the hon. the Minister will not try to take that line this year, because it is patently obvious that it is not the case. The hon. the Minister might have been able to argue that to a few years ago, but it is not the case any more, because South Africans simply cannot afford to eat as well as they used to. In regard to the less privileged members of our community, this is a very serious problem indeed, because for the millions of people in South Africa who fall into this category, the increases in food prices spells malnutrition and actual starvation. To pensioners and others on fixed incomes present-day food prices spell disaster. Most of their incomes either has to go into rental or into food, merely to keep alive. When the prices go up, the effects are disastrous to them. In regard to our Black people, the escalating food prices are a threat to our security. I believe that much of the discontent and unrest amongst our Black people has its roots in the cost of food which, to the Black people, is in many cases the price of survival. I do not think it can be argued at all that the situation is totally satisfactory both from the point of view of the farmer and from the point of view of the consumer. We must consider what can be done in this situation, where the trouble lies and what we can do to solve the problem. We all know that there is a recession in the world, that conditions are not as good as they ought to be and that markets are difficult because other countries do not have as much money to spend. The prices of our agricultural products have, however, kept up very well. There are two areas in which the Government can do something to improve the situation, i.e. the area of marketing and the area of subsidies.

In the first place I should like to take a look at subsidies, because in this regard—in spite of the hon. the Minister’s admission that the Government is bankrupt—I want to warn the hon. the Minister that cutting subsidies on staple foodstuffs is a very dangerous thing to do. When millions of people are living on the breadline, one cuts subsidies at one’s own peril in a very volatile political situation. The hon. the Minister will no doubt come back and say:“Where will I get the money?”

You tell us!

The hon. the Minister must take joint responsibility with his colleagues to ensure that subsidies of that nature will ensure the highest priority. If necessary, the present list of priorities must be reassessed. It is vitally important that these subsidies be kept up. Even with the money available at present, I believe there is room for criticism of the way in which subsidies are applied. However, in the time at my disposal, I want to discuss the whole vexed question of agricultural marketing and our 22 control boards established under various marketing legislating. Last year the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act was put before us. This commission came forward with certain recommendations which made very interesting reading, especially when one looks at some aspects of marketing and at the activities of some of our control boards during the last year. I should like to quote some of the basic principles underlying the recommendations. I read on page 1, paragraph 195, of the “Summary and Recommendations of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act”—

I think this is a very good and, in fact, a first-class principle. I read further—

With these quotations in mind, let us look at the activities of the Dairy Board during the last year and let us see whether its actions were based upon sound economic principles.

I find it very extraordinary that it should be a sound economic principle to raise the price of a product when you have a surplus of it. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South called it a “debacle”, but I would call it a “fiasco”. On 8 December last year the General Manager of the Dairy Board sent a circular to butter and cheese manufacturing concerns stating, inter alia—

This is one of the sound economic principles on which the Dairy Board operates!

[Inaudible.]

It is obvious that the hon. the Deputy Minister too operates on that finding. Perhaps he should have an elementary lesson in economics. I have heard all the complicated arguments in justification and rationalization that have been advanced by the Dairy Board about this, but all I can say is that it is not good economics; it is not sound principles of economics.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member to briefly explain to the House how he forsees that the price of a commodity which is controlled by a control board, can determine its supply and demand?

Order! The time of the hon. member for Orange Grove has expired.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove raised certain matters which I expected him to raise. He referred, inter alia, to the “underprivileged” and said by implication that because agriculture is in such a terrible state, there are quite probably “underprivileged” people who are staring famine in the face. The hon. member must tell this committee where the starving communities in South Africa are. I think he should do his duty in this House as a representative of the people and inform the committee of people who are starving or who will quite probably soon be staring famine in the face. He must tell us where those communities are, so that we can take the necessary steps. We have large surpluses in South Africa and we should very much like to distribute those surpluses among these communities at sub-economic prices. If the hon. member fails to tell us where such communities may be found, I shall not be certain of his probity in this regard. I think the hon. member is trying to score political points off someone.

I should like to come to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I like talking to a person who knows a little more about agriculture than the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South made a few statements to which I should very much like to reply. He stated, inter alia, that his solution to the problem in agriculture lay therein that farmers would be paid a higher price while the consumers would acquire the goods at a lower price. He wants to bridge the difference between the producer price and the consumer price by means of subsidies. That is a wonderful idea. In addition, it is probably a popular idea among the consumers as well as the farmers. However, I really did not expect this comment from the hon. member, since he and I spent three years studying this type of situation. The Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act made a recommendation in this regard. Now I want to point out to the hon. member that before one simply proposes subsidies one has to consider a few very important matters. Let me mention one example to the hon. member straight away. The hon. member said that one should not consider the solvability of the Government, but that one should consider the needs of the consumers. Subsidies are paid for by the consumers. In other words, the ability of the Government to pay depends on the same ability on the part of the taxpayer. One cannot therefore adopt that premise. I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member the astronomical amounts which such subsidies could run into. Each additional cent which is paid on a loaf of bread, means a subsidy of R16 million. If one reaches a situation in which one has to choose between priorities, it is probably time one considered the extent of the subsidies.

Do you wish to reduce the subsidy on bread now?

I am developing the argument. The hon. member for Newton Park should merely give me an opportunity to do so. I am saying that one cannot be opposed in principle to a system of subsidies, but one should see whether the present system is a sound one for agriculture in general. One should, in particular, look at the subsidy on certain selected agricultural products, namely maize, bread flour and dairy products, and then one should establish whether one would actually achieve the economic objectives which one wants to achieve with the subsidies. I agree that it could be a valuable means of cushioning the tremendous rise in the cost of living during this period of inflation. I say “cushioning”. If one says “cushioning”, it still does not mean that one has found a solution to the problem. It is merely a palliative which one is administering for the problem, for by subsidies one creates artificial prices, not only for the consumer, but also for the producer. I shall return to this later.

Let me mention to the hon. member a few of the weaknesses which may develop as a result of subsidies. In previous years we in South Africa produced food extremely cheaply. The hon. member will agree with me. But what is more: We produced a large variety of food products in South Africa. The effect of that was very important to the consumer in South Africa, for in that way a selective consumption of food products was stimulated among consumers. The result is that our people eat selectively. The public makes a choice of what it wishes to eat because the various products which it wishes to eat are in fact made available by our marketing system in South Africa. Therefore, to subsidize a specific product as a staple food does not mean that the general consumer will in fact consume that particular product. He is going to make his choice in any event, according to his own taste, and according to what suits his pocket.

I want to refer to the Bantu. The hon. member for Orange Grove should pay attention now. They are the so-called “underprivileged”. The economic position of the Bantu has changed tremendously during the past few years. If we look at the figures, we see that in the Witwatersrand area the per capita income of the Black people rose from R297 in 1970 to R628 at present. This is an increase of 112%. Therefore, they can also afford to eat selectively. They can also make a choice from the food products which are placed at their disposal. To prove this statement, I want to refer to one particular food product which is subsidized, namely maize. The human consumption of maize-meal has dropped tremendously during the past 10 years, from 128 kg per capita to 113 kg per capita. In other words the Bantu who, as we know, were great consumers of maize porridge, are no longer eating maize porridge. Why not? Because they prefer other products. Let us, for example, consider the position of bread, and particularly the ratio of the consumption of white and brown bread. As you know, white bread is more expensive then brown bread. The consumption in the case of white bread is 26,3 kg per capita, while in the case of brown bread, which is cheaper, it is only 13,5 kg per capita. This means that half as much of the cheaper product is being consumed. The consumer therefore prefers the more expensive product, which has a prestige value. On the other hand the production of maize in South Africa is constantly increasing. I therefore want to assert that there are other kinds of food which play as important a role in regard to the food requirements of our people as any of the food products which are at present being subsidized.

Meat is also a very important food product. 20% of the total amount spent on food products in South Africa, viz. R1 244 million, is spent on meat. I think that meat has the potential of being one of our cheapest sources of protein in South Africa. I am saying that it has the potential, for there are certain cost problems in the case of meat which still have to be investigated. The marketing costs, conveyance cost, slaughtering cost, etc. are still creating somewhat of a problem, but the fact that meat is being produced in large quantities in South Africa on a natural grazing, makes it one of the most essential protein resources in South Africa. If the degree of consumption of various food products were to be the criterion according to which a product should qualify for a subsidy, then meat most certainly qualifies to a greater extent than butter, for example, the consumption of which is dropping at the moment. Therefore, to say that we are to any appreciable extent keeping the cost of living, particularly that of the poorer sectors, down by means of the present food subsidy system in respect of certain products, is not correct. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising simply to afford the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, I thank the hon. member for Mooi River. Food subsidies cannot therefore be seen as a socio-economic measure, because the so-called cheap foodstuff does not necessarily end up in the hands of those who deserve it. In any case, if it does end up in their hands, it is only a very small percentage which can make almost no difference.

There is another aspect which I want to raise in this regard. Comprehensive food subsidies mean tax increases which not only the rich people, but also the consumers in South Africa pay for, owing to the taxation system which we apply. One is therefore taking with the one hand while giving with the other. In reality, therefore, it makes no difference.

Another aspect which I want to mention in respect of injudicious food subsidies in South Africa is that they could also have a detrimental effect on the production sector. The subsidization of a specific product can have a detrimental effect on its production in a marginal area I want to demonstrate this by referring to the case of maize. In the case of maize even its internal conveyance is subsidized. In addition, if the producer receives a fixed price for his product, regardless of how close to or how far from the market he is situated, you will understand that it will have a stimulating effect on the production in that particular area, which is then marginal. In such a case subsidies can create artificial prices. It means that as soon as one removes the subsidy, the area becomes submarginal, in other words uneconomic. With a subsidy system which is linked to a preferential product the natural and even the economic production factors can be disturbed. This is also in conflict with our policy of the optimum utilization of the soil. I want to say that if there is any merit in the subsidization of the internal conveyance of maize, surely there is also merit in the subsidization of the conveyance of slaughtered cattle from the natural and traditional cattle-grazing regions in the remote Bushveld areas.

I want to mention a second weakness which could cause problems to develop from our present subsidy system. It is that by paying large amounts of subsidies in respect of a particular product, the production of a certain industry can be tremendously stimulated. As an example of one of these industries I want to refer to the broiler industry. Production in the broiler industry has increased fourfold during the past 10 years, viz. from 61 000 tons to 226 000 tons, while the consumption of beef and mutton has dropped. This is as a result of the fact that the broiler industry makes use of the subsidy system which we have on maize, namely the consumer subsidy. Besides, the disadvantage is that if an industry grows on the basis of financing by way of a subsidy from State funds and these funds are curtailed as a result of other priorities which may arise, for example housing, defence, etc., and the subsidy is withdrawn, that industry can be dealt a tremendous blow, and I suspect that this could be the case with the broiler industry because the subsidy has already been reduced in this year’s estimates. It could constitute great disadvantages, not only to the industry, but also to the consumer, for it means that he will have to change his eating habits and adjust them to the amount of income he has to spend on food. Therefore, it could lead to major problems. On the other hand it is of course wrong to give preference to a particular industry by way of a subsidy. In any case, it is wrong to subsidize people’s eating habits.

In a highly modern economy with sophisticated consumers one has to proceed with the utmost circumspection before preference is given to a specific product for the purposes of a subsidy. I am referring here to the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into Marketing. The commission said that the present system of subsidization was not the desirable system and that there should be a systematic reduction of this type of subsidy. Our suggestion to the committee and to the hon. the Minister is that we should look into the entire system of subsidies in respect of food products, so that the consumption and the production of certain industries will not be wrested out of context.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethal concentrated mainly on subsidies and I shall return to the same subject a little later. However, there is another matter I should like to raise first. Therefore the hon. member should pardon me for not reacting to his speech immediately. I should first like to refer to the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. He thought fit today to drag some politics into this debate by saying that the Opposition had neglected agriculture. The blame could be laid at our door. Did I hear the hon. the Minister of Agriculture saying “yes”?

No! I did not open my mouth.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said that we had neglected agriculture. Further on in his speech the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture himself pointed out the bottlenecks in agriculture. He referred to the prices of fuel, fertilizers, electricity, etc.

Who is arguing about that?

Did that hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. the Minister of Agriculture address a single word of criticism to the Ministers concerned when their Votes were under discussion or even during the no-confidence debate? Did they say a single word against the increase in rail tariffs, the atrocious injustice the farmer of South Africa was done? Did they say a word about the prices of fertilizers? Did they say a word about the prices of fuel and electricity? No, it had to come from this side of the House. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is sitting over there. He is still sulking because of what I said. [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture never attacked him. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Agriculture did nothing about it. However, I am coming to his department now. Now we shall see who has neglected the farmer of South Africa. We see that rail tariffs for the transport of meat, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who is now the chief spokesman of the new party, “the Welcome-Andy-Young Party” … [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that rail tariffs for the transport of livestock had increased by 354% since 1973. When we raise this matter with the hon. the Minister of Transport, he says we must talk to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture about it, because it is his affair. We are talking to him now. And what do we find? We find that railage for a sheep—live weight—railed from De Aar to Johannesburg, amounts to R1,85. If there were abattoirs in the production areas, transport costs in a refrigerator wagon would be 44c per carcass. In other words, a farmer loses R1,40 on every sheep he markets today. What is worse, is the fact that every sheep spends an average of three and a half days on the train. In the process it loses 5,49% of its mass. This means a further loss to the amount of R1,39. If the sheep travels for five days, it loses 9,6% of its mass. This amounts to a loss of R2,49. Therefore the farmer of South Africa is losing R2,49 on every sheep he markets today. Let us rather keep it at three and a half days. This is the average period mentioned in the report.

[Inaudible.]

No, wait. Be quiet for a moment! We are serious now. The hon. member for Boksburg should keep out of the debate. He only participates in the minor debates in any event. [Interjections.] In other words, a farmer loses R2,78 on every sheep he markets today.

How long is the train?

No, wait a moment! Forget about the length of the train. [Interjections.] That is R2,78 which the farmer loses on every sheep. In other words, an average farmer who markets 2 000 sheep a year, loses R5 560 every year. [Interjections.]

May I ask you a question?

Yes, go ahead.

The hon. member speaks of abattoirs that should be erected in the production areas. Where must those abattoirs be situated?

They can be erected at De Aar. That is the most central place in the country. [Interjections.] I shall return to that point later. Now, what else do we see? When we look at the agricultural reports, we see that 6 291 000 sheep were slaughtered in this country last year. Of that number, 4,5 million were slaughtered in the controlled areas. Therefore if we do a small calculation, having regard to the fact that R2,78 is lost on every sheep, it means that the Government is costing the sheep farmers of South Africa R12,7 million every year. [Interjections.] Wait a minute! There is much worse to come. In the report of the Abattoir Commission, which has just appeared, it is said with regard to slaughtering facilities in production areas that, even in 1980, there will still be a surplus of slaughtering facilities. The report goes on to say that there will still be sufficient slaughtering facilities by 1990.

Now, we know what happened in this country. We know how much delay there was before the Abattoir Commission was appointed. We know for how long a period no new abattoirs were built. Then suddenly they started building abattoirs, and building all of them at the wrong places. [Interjections.] Now this state of affairs is going to last another 13 years, and the fanners will have to put up with it for 13 years.

No, that is not so.

Mr. Chairman, now the hon. the Deputy Minister says that this is not so. Does he disagree with the report of the Abattoir Commission and the Meat Board?

I am just shaking my head at the hon. member’s argument.

Very well. Are they going to build abattoirs in the production areas?

No.

The hon. Deputy Minister says, “No”. I have pointed out to the hon. the Minister that a farmer loses R2,78 on every sheep he markets due to rail tariffs and loss of mass. [Interjections.] After all, most of the sheep farmers are in those areas. This is just the average …

You did your small calculation without taking the offal and the skin into account. Should these lie rotting at De Aar? They must be used.

That argument is as old as the hills. It is as old as Noah and has little substance. That was the argument they used at the time to oppose the erection of abattoirs. Surely it is nonsense. The offal and skin can be frozen and sent away or factories can be built there. Surely it is a perfectly simple matter. Does the hon. the Minister disagree with the Marketing Commission? Does he disagree with the hon. member for Bethal and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet? They are experts in the field of agriculture and cattle farming. Does he disagree with them?

I do not disagree with them, but I do not agree with them either. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, let me just show what the Government is going to cost the farmers. For a period of 13 years, the period we shall probably be saddled with this state of affairs—since the hon. the Minister said that he was not going to build them at all, it probably means for ever—the average farmer who markets 2 000 sheep a year is going to lose R72 000 over that period of 13 years. It is a fortune. He could have retired on the money that hon. Minister is costing him Do hon. members know what this is going to cost the farmers of South Africa in this period of 13 years? It is going to cost them R165 million. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister talks about the Opposition neglecting agriculture. Surely the blame for this cannot be laid at the door of the Opposition. That is the most expensive Deputy Minister in the world. Over the next 13 years he is going to cost the farmers R165 million. We can give him a pension of R1 million so that he can leave, and it will still pay the country to do so. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal with another matter. Last year Parliament voted R2 million for the wool industry to be spent on sales promotion and publicity, especially abroad. Wool is a product which earns R134 million in foreign exchange for South Africa every year and in these times in which we must step up our exports, wool production is absolutely essential in order to improve our balance of payments. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to what was said in the course of this debate, especially to the arguments of the Opposition. I am very disappointed at the way in which the Opposition has been participating in the debate up to now. I counted as many as 32 statements and problems which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised. The hon. member was also a member of the Commission of Enquiry into the Marketing Act. The hon. members of the PRP and the hon. member for King William’s Town also raised a number of problems. I really think that we owe agriculture in South Africa something more than that. To play politics with this matter as the hon. member for King William’s Town did at the end of his speech, is definitely not fair. The Opposition dragged politics into the debate in an attempt to disparage the Government, to harm the image of the Government in the eyes of the farmer, and, on the other hand, to harm the image of the hon. the Minister in the eyes of the consumer. Everyone in the country, not only the farmer but the consumer too, owes the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the Government a debt of gratitude for having identified the problems of agriculture in South Africa by means of numerous commissions of enquiry into various aspects of agriculture. The latest report published by a commission is this one on rural reform.

All the problems of agriculture—South Africa is a difficult, and we must admit this frankly to one another, agricultural country— have been identified. The hon. the Ministers and the Government have always tried to run matters in the interests of agriculture and the consumer in such a way that everyone may be satisfied. We have proof of this. On what side are the representatives of the agriculturist sitting in this House? Are they not sitting on the side of the NP? How many farmers are sitting on the Opposition benches? The NP represents the agricultural community in this House. I think it would be a sad day if we were to try to play cheap politics in an attempt to cause a rift between agriculturist and consumer in the country, because it cannot do them any good.

Today production costs are one of our biggest single problems. Many reasons may be advanced for this. However, time does not permit me to go into the matter fully. I think that we have the opportunity today of trying to make a positive contribution. That is why I should like to do this in this regard. Production costs are one of our bottlenecks on various levels of the industry. I should like to refer to the question of maize and the production cost surveys in this regard. Maize production is one of our basic industries. If the price of maize fluctuates, it affects a number of our other industries.

Hon. members are aware of the fact that the Division of Agricultural Marketing Research is responsible for production cost surveys in the three regions of the maize triangle, i.e. the Transvaal Highveld, the Western Transvaal and the North Western Free State. These surveys are used annually in determining the maize price. They are one of the very important components which go to make up the maize price. In terms of an agreement entered into with the Department by the Division, a full production cost survey is made on a rotation basis in one of the three production regions every year. This year a full cost survey was made in the Western Transvaal area, while cost adjustments were made in the other two regions, viz. the North Western Transvaal and the Transvaal Highveld. We have great appreciation for these surveys made by the Marketing Research Division, but the full cost survey showed that the costs in this region were much higher than the cost adjustments indicated. The cost for the Western Transvaal was given on the old basis as R40, 765 per ton in the case of a yield of 2,046 ton per hectare, while the latest survey gives it as R50,36 per ton for the same yield. This change of R9,591 per ton indicates the extent to which the producer has fallen behind since the last full cost surveys were made. I do not reproach the division at all, in this regard. We know that there are problems attached to this. However, in applying a specific method, this difference decreases to R3,487 per ton and the producer is affected adversely in this way.

I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept a proposal from me in the interests of agriculture in South Africa. Reports have been published dealing with rural reform and all the problems with which we are acquainted now. To my mind production costs are a factor which is very important. Not only the farmer but also the consumer should know this. If the farmer knows what his true production costs are, he knows how to plan. In these times of inflation he should in fact be cost-conscious so that he may be able to arrange his affairs, because we are also concerned with marginal areas.

On the other hand, however, I want to prevent the creation of a rift between the producer and the consumer. That is why it will be no more than right for the consumer to know too what the production costs of the various agricultural products are. Then we shall not have the type of argument and reproach to which we have had to listen here. That is why I should like to advocate to the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that the co-operative movement is an institution in the interest of the farmer and is an institution which has the ability to do cost surveys amongst a large variety of farmers over a large area, that the cost figures of Uniegraan—our co-operative exchange—be recognized for the purposes of determining the maize price and be recognized in the case of other industries like wheat, grain sorghum and others. I want to advocate that the figures of Uniegraan be accepted and that the Marketing Research Division, which is still doing a fine job of work in spite of the small number of officers it has at its disposal, be used to do random tests so as to assist the hon. the Minister to ensure that nothing goes wrong. The surveys, as undertaken in recent times, were not in the interest of the industry. They promote discord; do not keep abreast of structural changes and affect the producer adversely. Costs, time and manpower are of great importance to the State. The co-operative movement has all the necessary staff. In the past cost surveys made by the co-operative societies were recognized by the Marketing Council for determining the margins agents were to receive. The calculations of costs by the co-operative movement are recognized in other spheres as well. They also have a share which they contribute with regard to extension work which they do for our farmers. At first the task which they are performing now did not receive recognition. That is why I want to advocate that we make use of the co-operative societies with their exchanges in this sphere, that we recognize the cost figure, that these be calculated on a much broader base than at present, and that we can employ these usefully in the interest of the producer as well as in the interest of the consumer. Harmony between the consumer and producer must simply be effected in South Africa. In dealing with marginal areas in particular, one cannot prescribe to someone else what he is to do, but if someone becomes cost-conscious himself and if we have the cost figures drawn up by the co-operative societies so that they may be audited and so that they may correspond to the statements of account which they draw up for the farmers, we can do the agricultural industry a service. In this way we can help to bring the cost aspect to the attention of the farmer—we shall find many ingenious farmers who will lend a hand in trying to solve many of the problems which will emanate from this—and we shall be creating harmony as regards the consumer, he, too, will know what the production costs in the agricultural sector are. As a farmer, a maize farmer mainly, I should like to retain my market and I should like to take my consumer into consideration, and that is why it is important to me to take the consumer along with us in this process so that all of us—in view of the problem concerning the many uneconomic units in agriculture—may see what problems we have to contend with. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Heilbron will excuse me if I do not react to his speech which was mainly about maize, because I want to speak about a much more delicious product, i.e. fruit and grapes. Before I do so, I first want to come back to previous Opposition speakers, i.e. the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South, Orange Grove and King William’s Town. The first two speakers’ solutions to agricultural problems are mainly to the effect that subsidies should be paid. The hon. member for Bethal replied to this argument very effectively, and I do not want to say much more about it, except that I do not believe that subsidies are the solution to the problem. The hon. member for King William’s Town did not try to find a solution to the problems of the farmer; he tried to speak a little too much about the problems of the farmer without giving a solution. In the course of my argument I shall in fact spell out a solution, including a solution to the problem of the hon. member for King William’s Town.

I really believe that the best solution to the problem of high production costs for the farmer on the one hand, and the rate of inflation which results in the consumer not being able to buy enough of the farmer’s products on the other, is that our farmers should farm more efficiently, that they should find varieties which yield more so that the unit costs can be lower and they will therefore be able to sell at a lower price. Therein lies the solution to the problem of the farmer and the consumer.

I want to try to prove my argument on the basis of what is happening in the fruit industry. At the same time I want to pay tribute to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and its fruit-breeders for the wonderful work they are doing by placing cultivars on the market which give the farmer a much higher yield, thereby enabling him to produce more cheaply. For instance, a few years ago the department put two kinds of plum on the market. I am referring to the varieties “Son-gold” and “Harry Pickstone”. Figures for this year are not yet available, but in the previous year Songold was sold at R5,80 per double layer case, while the same quantity of the old and well-known Santa Rosa was sold at R4,20. I can also refer to other cultivars which the department has bred to enable the farmer to farm much more efficiently. In the case of canned peaches, 100% South African-bred peaches are being canned today. The old imported varieties which gave a low yield, have completely disappeared from the scene. Some of the new South African-bred cultivars are selected, while others have been bred deliberately by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

I want to point out that breeding is difficult work which takes a lot of time. I have done some breeding myself and I therefore know what I am talking about. If one wants to breed a new grape cultivar, it means that one has to remove the grape bud before it has opened completely—that bud is no larger than the head of a pin—together with the stamen so that only the pistil remains. The bunch is then covered by a plastic bag so that the pistil cannot be pollinated accidentally. Twenty-four to 26 hours later, when the pistil is ripe and receptive to the pollen, one has to use the pollen of the specific father cultivar which one wants to add in order to breed the new cultivar, to pollinate the pistil. The plastic bag is then removed and the bunch with ripe pistils has to be fertilized with that specific pollen. It is hard, time-consuming work. When the grapes are ripe, the pips have to be removed. The pips are dried and kept in a cooling chamber until planting time. They are planted and when the shoots of the seedlings are thick enough, the sleeping buds have to be taken and inoculated onto rootstocks so that the new type of grape will soon be available for judging. It is said that one is fortunate if out of 10 000 seedlings one finds one new type which is better than the old type. That shows what hard, time-consuming work breeding is. In the case of canned peaches I said that we already use up to 100% of our own bred types for canned peaches, most of which we export. In the case of dessert peaches, 51% are already South African-bred peaches. In the case of apricots, the figure is 40%. I could continue to mention examples. Unfortunately we are very far behind in the case of the three main types of exported fruit, namely apples, pears and grapes. The only new types of grape which have already been bred and are being exported, were bred by farmers. They are Salba, Golden Hill and New Cross. As far as apples and pears are concerned there has been nothing yet. But there are already quite a few promising types which promise to give very favourable results soon. In the case of grapes the problem is that 99,9% of the grapes which are exported, are cultivated in the Western Cape. Despite this the Western Cape does not have a grape breeder. There was one grape breeder after the other at Bien Donné, but they resigned and disappeared one after the other. Then the work came to a halt again. The grape breeder of this country stays at Roodeplaat in Pretoria where he does brilliant work. He is a brilliant breeder and breeds brilliant new cultivars which produce wonderful results in the Transvaal and which are then brought to the Western Cape to be planted here on co-operative tests. Five farmers in Paarl and five farmers in the Hex River Valley then plant those cultivars to see whether they will do well here.

Last year and this year the first of those cultivars was exported and buyers abroad say that they were not at all enthusiastic about those new cultivars. They compare unfavourably with our present cultivars. Therefore I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to bring Mr. Evans, who does such wonderful work at Roodeplaat, to Bien Donné so that he can do breeding here where the product is grown. He should not be at Roodeplaat where the product is not needed. Only 0,1% of Transvaal grapes are exported. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South who discussed the various bottlenecks in, and various aspects of agriculture here. He fired a few haphazard rounds of bird-shot all over the place. Those hon. members who replied to his speech, did so reasonable well, and I have nothing to add, except that I want to say that the criticism which is being levelled at us is very unfair. If there is a portfolio in our country which can compare with one in the administration of any other country it is probably that of the Minister of Agriculture. We are fortunate that the Minister of Agriculture, and his various departments, together with the people responsible for the marketing of the farmers’ product in South Africa, form one large family. We know that there was a commission of inquiry into the various control boards and that certain recommendations were made. The control board is also a member of that family. Many people, and particularly the Press in certain cases, are creating the impression among the public that these control boards arose as the result of the will of the Government. I want to say that this is not the case at all. We as farmers all know—and those who represent urban constituencies, ought to know it as well—that this is only one of the facets of the marketing of agricultural produce. The control boards were in fact established at the instance of the farmers. A number of farmers cultivating and handling the same product ask for the establishment of a control board, and then such a control board is established. The control board co-operates with those farmers as well as with the Marketing Council. The three of them in turn also co-operate with the Minister and his departments to achieve in the end what all of us long for, orderly marketing. There are other agricultural sectors in which there is no orderly marketing. Forestry is one of these, for we are only on the verge of orderly marketing as far as forestry is concerned. We shall have more to say about that at a later stage perhaps. In the vegetable industry we have only just begun to introduce co-operative marketing, but where co-operative marketing or orderly marketing is not applicable, constant exploitation occurs.

I think the public should know that when exploitation occurs in the case of agricultural produce, it does not arise on the part of the farmers. It is only after the product has left the farmer’s field of vision and finds itself in the hands of private commerce, for example a café owner, that the exploitation occurs. That is when the consumer public is suddenly up in arms and claims that it is paying too much for the produce of the farmers. Sir, it is a fact that the farmers are not a constant burden to the Government. They organize themselves. Allow me to quote a few figures in this regard. On 30 June 1976 there were 326 registered agricultural and special farmers’ cooperatives, as well as 209 farmers’ commercial co-operatives. That gives us a total of 535 co-operatives, with a total membership of 438 635. It means that there are farmers who are members of 1, 2, 3 or more co-operative associations. The most interesting figure of all, however, is that the turnover in agricultural produce, in the case of all registered cooperatives, rose from R1 475 738 million in 1973 to R2 458 950 in 1977. These figures indicate that over a period of four years the turnover increased almost fourfold. This also means that the farmers are beginning to have faith in the ability of their own organizations to meet their share of their obligations as well. In this process of course a great deal of capital is required, and we would be failing in our duty as farmers if we did not, in the first place, express our thanks to the Ministry of Agriculture. We are fond of our Minister and we are fond of his Deputy. We are also fond of the two departments. We want to convey to them our sincere thanks for the good work they are doing. If those members of the PRP, who are constantly taking up the cudgels for the Black people, could only teach those people that they might help themselves by means of the co-operative movement and perhaps produce their own vegetables, fruit, meat, maize, etc. in their own areas—and they are able to do this—then they would be doing something positive, instead of being a constant burden to the Government and constantly hurling reproaches at us.

As far as the turnover of the commercial co-operatives are concerned, I want to point out that even on the consumer side a reasonable degree of co-operative marketing is being done. The consumer co-operatives had a turnover of R67,3 million in 1974-’75. Last year it was R60,6 million. In the case of home industry, where the housewives sell their own produce without making use of a middle-man, the turnover rose from R1,4 million last year to R1,9 million this year. In the case of mutual aid associations, the turnover rose from R32,6 million to R37 million. In the case of garages there was an increase of R6,3 million to R7,6 million. In the category miscellaneous there was an increase from R5,7 million to R6,6 million. The total increase was therefore from R106 million to R120 million, in round figures. If we take these figures and we add them to the other farming interests, we see that the total domestic product last year amounted to R24,346 million. Of that the co-operatives produced R3 386 689; in other words, a very considerable part of the domestic product was produced by agriculture, and more specifically by the co-operative movement. Those who are associated with the co-operative movement know—it is stale news to many people, but not to many people in our cities—that the point of departure of the co-operative movement ought to be—and when I say “ought to be” I assume that it is indeed everyone’s standpoint—that if they have the purchase price of an article, they determine their profit and that article is sold in the retail trade to its members. The books of co-operatives are public documents and we hope that we shall reach the stage where private business firms will also open their books to scrutiny so that they can prove to us that they are honest in their actions. We hope that they will afford us the opportunity of examining their books, as the co-operatives are affording commerce and anyone else to inspect their books. They will find that during the past year or two there were few cooperatives which worked on a gross profit of more than approximately 12%. This means a net profit in the region of 2%, just below, or just over 2% of its total turnover. I am referring now to the commercial cooperatives. If those in the motor trade, in the private trade, the clothing trade and in those areas in which the co-operative movement has not yet have a hand, can give us the assurance that their profit or turnover is also only 2%, and we can see this in black and white in their books, not merely in the form of an audited statement, I think the cost of living in South Africa would be dealt such a blow that it would never recover. Then living would be a pleasure again, knowing that a commodity which one is buying has a fair mark-up and the middleman is not walking away with an exorbitant profit. That is what we in the co-operative world are still reaching out for. The co-operative movement is in the position that those things which cause the price structure to rise, those things which are responsible for the price being loaded on the consumer side, are given to us from a source which is able to determine itself what its profits should be. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs listened with great interest to the pronounced wish of the hon. member for Vryheid for the co-operatives to move out into all sorts of fields, for example into the motor industry and into all sorts of other things which are today the domain of private enterprise. One has one’s thoughts about co-operatives. The hon. member mentioned the question of co-operative marketing of vegetables. Any of us who at any time have had anything to do with the Natal Agricultural Union will remember the experiment that was carried out by the SAP & D when they tried to organize and in some way rationalize the marketing of vegetables. It was a complete and total failure. I do not think anybody has investigated why it was such a failure. It was indeed a total failure.

Wrong management.

The management were people elected by the farmers. That is the way a co-operative works. I think the hon. member must be very careful indeed before he commits the co-operative movement to moving outside the normal sphere of its activities as a marketer of agricultural products and enters into private enterprise. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs might have some thoughts on that one. I agree with the hon. member with regard to the marketing of vegetables that the high cost is not something for which the farmer must bear the blame. I know from personal experience that there are many people in my constituency who have gone in for the growing and marketing of vegetables who have lost money to such an extent that they have simply got out. It is a continual process, people coming in, losing money and going out. The housewife of this country is able to purchase vegetables at a relatively low figure, while the farmer loses money in producing it. This is a continual process of renewal. It goes on all the time. One of the places where farmers do make money out of vegetables is the mass growing of cabbages for the market which supplies the Black people of this country.

One of the points I wish to raise is the question of the breeding of cabbage seed. There is a tremendous shortage of cabbage seed in this country. Cabbage seed is largely imported, and we desperately need a new variety which will be adapted to our own particular use, a variety which we can reproduce at a high rate to make it available for the local market. I mention this in relation to the work which is done at the Cedara College of Agriculture. This is the point I really want to raise with the hon. the Minister. The Cedara College is in my constituency, and it is undergoing, what I regard as, a profound change. Until now the Cedara College has been a centre of education in agriculture. Young students attend the college, follow a course and leave the college, I believe, well equipped to take their part in the agricultural industry in Natal. However, what is happening, is that the entire Natal region is now being centred around Cedara. An ambitious building programme is being undertaken there. It is a programme which will total something like R4,5 million. The programme includes the erecting of offices for the Natal region at Cedara. I believe tenders will be called for in October this year. That means that work will only be underway at about the end of the current financial year.

My concern, however, is that where one has an institution which is today already divided between the functions of people who are heavily committed to research and those who are occupied with teaching, there is a third dimension about to be introduced as well. We have there the two aspects, that of research which is absolutely vital for the people of Natal—and research work carried out there has been, and still is, of outstanding quality— and the teaching element, that of training students. Now, within that one complex, there is to be superimposed on those two elements, the direction of the whole of the Natal region. My concern is that we are going to find that the emphasis is going to be moved away from the teaching and training element. I know from personal experience that people doing research there, have to devote half their time to the training of students because of the fact that the college is understaffed. I would not say that they resent the time they have to devote to training. However, they do so unwillingly, because it deprives them of time for, what they regard as their more important task, that of doing research work.

I do not quite know how this is going to work. Where one has people who are today looking away from the student aspect people who are now going to be engulfed by a far larger organization, I believe it is going to require, on the part of the hon. the Minister as well as on the part of his department, a very sharp attention being given to the maintenance of the teaching aspect and to the problems of the students trained at that institution. They do play a very important part indeed.

If I may deal with only one aspect, I want to refer to the grass breeding research programme which is being carried out at Cedara. A new variety of rye-grass is being produced—the Midmar variety, a variety which is very well adapted to that particular area. It produces good results.

One of the most extraordinary things that happened was that while attention was being given at Cedara, by Dr. Pierre Theron and others, to the cultivation of kikuyu grass from seed—kikuyu grass is a fantastic grass in our area—it was found that the Australians had already done the work. In fact, we are today importing kikuyu seed from Australia, seed which we sow in our pastures in the Natal Midlands. I believe this is something that should not have been allowed to happen. However, it has happened. It is my contention, though, that it is vitally important that increased attention should be given to the production of varieties of grass, because grass is so important to the livestock industry. One of the points made here this afternoon, was that of the importance of producing red meat for the consumer public. If grass could be used in the process, and if we could cut out feeding stock on maize, especially in the light of the ever-increasing price of maize, we will be able to reduce the price of red meat to the consumer public. What has been done at Cedara, is really only one of the aspects. It is only a part of what we would like to see being carried out.

I want to go on to the question of soil conservation and in particular to the staffing of the offices. It appears to me that in some way we have a tremendous array of generals, majors and captains, but we have no troops. This is one of the problems. I honestly think it is inevitable, because one has people who come out of university, serve an apprenticeship in the department, get to know what is going on in the area and really get to be of some value to the farming community, but who are then hired away by somebody because of the experience that they have. In a period like this, when we have an economic downturn, I believe and hope the department will be full up with applications from people who want to join the department and that all the department’s posts for extension officers would be filled. On 4 May I put a question to the hon. the Minister asking him how many soil conservation districts have been established. The answer was 240. I also asked in respect of how many districts regular meetings were held, and again the answer was 240. This means that all the established districts have meetings held there and the committees are functioning. I would ask the hon. the Minister if those committees cover the total area of South Africa or whether there are areas which are not served by a committee. The second part of the question which I put was how many extension officers serve one area. The answer was 92. I also asked how many officers served more than one area and the answer was 50. I also asked how many areas had no extension officer. It would seem that there are 50 districts with no extension officer at all. I came across an interesting thing in one of my areas where the department has approached the local soil conservation committee and asked the committee whether they would regard it as within their capacity to do the extension work, because the members of the department who served that district had to serve another area as well. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how this process is going ahead. Is it working? Because one has the priceless advantages that the chairman of the soil conservation committee and the members of the committee are leaders in their area. By using them one is avoiding one of the prime problems that one has when one introduces a new extension officer to an area, particularly a chap who has just come straight out of university. The farming community, conservative as they are, tend to look upon this chap as not really knowing much about what he is talking about. As I have said, it takes him a number of years to get himself integrated into that community and to get himself acceptable. What happens then? He is either hired away by another organization or the department shifts him to do something else within the department’s normal promotion system. I would like to know how this concept of the committee undertaking the work is working. I think it is a tremendous idea, because here we have the natural leaders in that farming community who can go out to try to instruct their fellow-farmers and help them to solve some of the problems which they are facing.

I have mentioned the fact that the extension officer is often taken away from the work he is doing by the department itself. I added that that was inevitable. However, we had the experience in our area where the member of the staff was taken from an extension office where he was doing outstanding work and was transferred to the staff of Cedara to undertake another activity in the department. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note how rapidly things change. Only last year a famine was feared and we expressed our concern at the possibility. In the interim America, Russia as well as the Argentine has had golden grain harvests which resulted in a drop in the world prices for grain products. The European Common Market has a surplus of 1,9 million tons of powdered milk. There are a few commodities, for example, coffee, which are in great demand as a result of crop failures and a drop in the production in Angola, something which was to be expected. We in South Africa have a surplus of every product except coffee,—to which we are now devoting a great deal of attention—rice, as well as a slight shortage of tea, but I foresee that within the next 10 to 15 years we will be self-sufficient as far as tea is concerned. One can mention almost any product—chicory, pineapples, avocado pears—we are an exporting country in virtually every sphere. Why? Firstly because we have the researchers in our country. We have people who have dedicated a lifetime to the cultivation of the correct varieties. Today we are experiencing the problem that there are hon. members on the Opposition side, and on our side as well, who are apprehensive that the price of the farmer’s product will not keep pace with the increase in his production costs. The hon. member for Paarl furnished the reason for the concern which we feel. We can no longer be satisfied with 15 bags of wheat per ha. If the price of the farmers’ produce cannot be raised, the time has arrived for the farmer to say that he has to produce the optimum, 20 or more bags per ha. We are doing this. Hon. members could take a look at the research being undertaken by the department at the various research stations, inter alia, research on the root-stock of fruit. With my own eyes I have seen that if one uses the correct root-stock, one’s production can increase by 30%. One’s production also increases if one uses virus-free material, farms scientifically and fertilizes correctly. We have only just begun.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that I had not yet stated that we would be able to feed 50 million people. I have said so repeatedly. With the human material and the researches we have in agriculture, we can easily provide 50 million people with food. We are no longer able to expand horizontally, but we can definitely do so vertically. When I came to this House 11 years ago, we spoke of a record mealie crop of 37 million bags. Today 70 million bags is a crop failure and one is not going to recover one’s production costs. It should also be borne in mind that during the past two years the weather all over the world has been very co-operative. The debate we are now conducting, might be conducted next year in the same way as the 1973 one was. In 1973, when I became Minister of Agriculture, I had to attend a mass meeting at Wolmaransstad. At that meeting there were farmers who had planted thousands of morgens of land to maize and had not harvested a single bag. So it happens, then, that sudden changes occur in agriculture in our country. There are some of the hon. members who get the fright of their lives when we produce surpluses. I should much prefer to have surpluses and, together with hon. members, rack my brains to see how we can overcome this problem, than to reach the stage where we have to say that our weather conditions were against us and we are therefore unable to feed our own people. Then, too, we would not have earned the large sum of more than R1 million in foreign exchange from exports.

I now want to thank the three departments, the Secretaries for Agricultural Technical Services, for Agricultural Economy and Marketing and for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and all our officials who have accomplished these things. We often rub shoulders with one another and we very often have our differences. However, we have one common objective. We do not want to build empires; we simply want to get the job done. I do not mind who gets the credit. I do not mind who achieves success. However, my conscience must be clean on the point that we are, as far as is feasible, feeding a nation in South Africa and also earning exchange. While gold production is a wasting enterprise, agriculture is a growing asset.

I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the contribution he made today.

I just cannot succeed in congratulating a new chairman of a group. I cannot congratulate the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South on the fact that he became chairman of his group. I feel that I do not need the Opposition. I do not need anybody, because I can do this job alone.

In our neighbourhood there was a Railway official who retired early. He invested all his savings in a dairy farming enterprise, a small dairy farm. His name was Mr. Wolmarans, but we called him oom Wollie. He farmed on the farm “Sonder Fout”. That was a misnomer. He had a small herd of cows, and he had to buy himself a bull. However, he did not have enough money to buy an adult bull. He then bought a young, immature bull. He was a milk producer, and that is why I am telling the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South this joke. He so badly wanted the young bull to be capable, for he was still very young. He fed the bull and wondered when it would become capable, for he was losing out on calves. After a while he saw that the bull was beginning to take an interest. He opened the paddock gate so that the bull could go to the cows. He watched in great expectation. What happened? The first cow the young bull encountered, he suckled dry.

The hon. member for Heilbron was correct; I cannot reply to all 32 points the hon. member raised.

†The hon. member did make a few suggestions. He asked me to give the producer the encouragement to produce food for 50 million people, but the hon. member does not spell out what encouragement we should give to the producer. When I increase the price of maize, the next day in the Natal newspapers I see that the hon. member says it is a disgrace to increase the price of maize to the consumer by more than 20%. The hon. member says that the producers of fresh milk are asking for an 18% increase. They cannot have it. The hon. member is right when he says that the consumption of fresh milk went down by 7%. How does one make ends meet? If the consumption of milk is down and the production costs of fresh milk—as the hon. member has spelt out—has gone up, what must I do? Can the hon. member make any suggestions? We cannot subsidize; forget that once and forever. It is impossible to subsidize the milk price in South Africa, because if we did so by one cent, it is going to cost us R10 million. Therefore, what is the use of subsidizing milk by one cent? To have effect, one has to have about R50 million to R60 million for subsidizing milk. The hon. member said that the net income of the farmers dropped by R121 million. That is perfectly right, but if one compares this year with last year, one finds that last year was an exceptionally good year. The hon. member compared the two years and stated that the net income had decreased.

I cannot cover all 32 points which the hon. member raised, but I want to refer him to an incident in the House when he suggested that we should take away the subsidy on white bread and that we should stick to the subsidy on brown bread. What alternatives did we have? I told the hon. member that it was impossible to subsidize brown bread only because the baker would sieve the subsidized flour bought for the purposes of baking brown bread and eventually, by doing this, would manage to get a subsidy on white bread as well. Therefore we decided to put the subsidy on the bread and not on the flour. It stood to reason. In regard to the increase in the bread price, we first wanted to see whether the measure would work, because some bakers and certain millers are not all very honest. We had a subsidy on the 12,5 kg bag of flour, but on Friday we decided to alter this to the 5 kg bag, because we found that the bakers bought the smaller bags, the bags which are subsidized. Thirty percent of our bread is still baked in the private homes, especially in regard to the lower income groups. We could not take away the subsidy completely, because we still had to subsidize the smaller bags in order to accomodate the poorer people. We did this, but we found that the bakers were also buying the 12½ kg bags. We even found a baker breaking up his paper bags by thousands. Therefore we decided to put the subsidy on the 5 kg bags of flour. Eventually we shall reach the stage where we shall be able to say— provided that the measure works—that we are only going to subsidize brown bread. Hon. members might want to know what the case in regard to white bread will be. My verdict will be: The price of brown bread is not going up; only the price of white bread. Then my conscience is clear, and the housewives cannot take me to task over the bread price as they did in the past. The hon. member must realize that the price of steel, of the refrigerator or of the stove can go up. Those items the housewife only buys once in every five years, but she buys a loaf of bread and a litre of milk every day. What happened in South Africa and in the rest of the world? We could not give salary increases because we did not have the money. I am very sympathetic towards the railway-men, the teachers, the nurse, the civil servant. But we simply do not have the money to increase their salaries. What alternatives did the housewife have? In the past 24% of her total budget was spent on food and the balance went for other commodities. What do we find today? The housewife cannot cut down on the price of electricity, because then it will be cut off. She cannot cut down on the price of water, or the rent for the flat or the television instalment, because the neighbours will see the television set being taken away. Therefore she cheats in the kitchen by cutting the meat a little smaller, by telling the children to take only half a glass of milk. That is the only way in which the salary man can save on his budget. That is why we find a 4% drop in the bread consumption. The hon. member quoted the correct figures; even meat consumption came down. South Africa also has the cheapest eggs in the world; hon. members have to admit that. Nowhere in the world can one buy a high vitamin product like eggs so cheaply. Yet in spite of that the consumption has dropped by 3.8%.

*Very well then, the demand for these commodities is dropping, because the consumption is dropping. Production, however, is displaying an upward tendency. I am now caught between these two phenomena.

†However, the hon. member for Orange Grove says that he wonders whether the Minister, in always talking about the producers, is concerned about the consumer too. The best friend of the producer in this country is the consumer. The producer can achieve nothing without the consumer! Were it not for the consumer, the producer would have had to export. Oh, I wish I could address a meeting of the Housewives’ League in the hon. member’s constituency. I think when I am finished with them, they will sing to me “For he is a jolly good fellow!” The hon. member has said that milk is priced out of the consumer’s reach. That is not the truth. The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted some figures. Does the hon. member realize that the consumption of Coca-Cola has increased? The price of a bottle of Coca-Cola with a screw-on bottle-top is 49 cents in my home town. If one brings back the bottle, one gets a 10 cents refund.

10 cents? They are cheating you!

What amount should they give me?

14 cents.

Well, in my home town they are only giving me 10 cents. Let us take it at 14 cents for the purposes of my argument. Milk is sold in a non-returnable container, but the price of milk is still lower than that of Coca-Cola.

No, that is not so.

Well, if the price of milk is the same as that of Coca-Cola, one must also take into account the value of milk as a foodstuff.

Yes, but that is something else again.

Let us consider the question of white cheddar cheese for export purposes. I am so sick and tired of the cheese and butter business—I can scream! The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about sound economic policies. Let me remind him that last year we decided on a wheat price of R123-40 per ton. At that time the world price stood at R160 per ton. We had in the Wheat Stabilization Fund a reserve of approximately R30 million. However, at the moment we are exporting wheat at a loss of R60 per ton with the result that the Stabilization Fund has been drained to nil. In October we shall once again have to determine the wheat price. How should we determine the price? Should we decrease the producers’ price? We cannot get any subsidy from the hon. the Minister of Finance—we can forget about such a possibility. Should we decrease the producers’ price notwithstanding the more expensive fertilizers, diesel, tractors, etc? How can we subsidize if we do not have the money? Should we decrease the price of wheat? The only alternative is to follow the example which we set in the case of milk or in the case of cheese and butter. The mistake the Government made in so far as the dairy farmer was concerned was its decision six years ago to allow yellow margarine. [Interjections.] No, the hon. members opposite should remember that they pressed for such a decision. At that time I was the Deputy Minister and hon. members can read the relevant debates in Hansard. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I hope you do not want me to discontinue my speech. [Interjections.]

†At that time the consumption of butter in this country was 60 000 tons and the production in the vicinity of 65 000. What happened? Today the consumption of margarine in this country is nearly 70 000 tons where it was nil six years ago. It was an unfair competition. We also had the story of cholesterol and about heart diseases attached to a good quality thing like butter. The Opposition—I will read it from their Hansard—told me two years ago, because there was a shortage, that there was a possibility of people standing in a queue for fresh milk and dairy products and they shouted at me to increase the price of dairy products …

No.

You were one of them!

Fresh milk!

Fresh milk. We increased the price first by 14% and then by 18%. Then suddenly the rains came. The rains came and we were thankful. Then the production came, but the consumption kept decreasing in favour of margarine. We found that cheddar farmers were already paid. The factories were already paid; the butter was paid for and was in cold storage. The Minister of Finance came to me and said it was impossible to subsidize a luxury like butter and that people preferred to ear margarine. We are decreasing the subsidy. Do you differ on that? Should we not decrease the subsidy on butter and rather use if for education, etc … ?

How much butter do you sell to the margarine manufacturers?

No, we do not sell to the margarine manufacturers. We do not mix margarine with butter. We do not mix it. There is no butter in margarine. I am telling you. We export it at a loss. You can find out everything from the Dairy Board. I will take the hon. member a bet for half a bottle of Scotch! But now let me complete the story. I want to show up the unreasonable attitude of the Opposition. We said to the farmers—of all the people with increased production costs—that we had a surplus of 7 000 tons of cheddar cheese of 6 800 tons of butter and that we cannot sell it anywhere in the world. Every country has a surplus. We went to the farmer who was producing dairy milk and asked him to reduce his price by 31%, so that we would put money in a fund because we were short of R24 million, almost R25 million. Hon. members can ask where the shortage came from. It was paid for already. Cold storage must be paid for at expensive rates. We had to pay for all this. We are R25 million short. Make it R24% million. Go to any man today and tell him that you are going to deduct from his salary and see the reaction. But my customers said they understand the problem. We went to the fresh milk farmers and said that for the surplus they were producing and was going to the dairy factories they would get 6c a litre. 6c a litre! Can you believe it? We deducted 6c a litre and the average price was 12,8c. They said that they would rather keep it on the farm, feed it to the calves or give it to their labourers. They were heavily penalized. Nobody can differ from me on that. Then what did we do? We went to the factories, who were working not even on a 12% return on their capital, and said we were going to deduct R1,3 million of their profit. We found that we were still short by about R6 million.

*Mr. Chairman, can you believe that at that stage we were still about R6 million short. I met the Housewives’ League and told them that it meant 17 cents on a kilogram of cheese and 10 cents on a kilogram of butter. Were the farmers supposed to cough up this additional R6 million as well? I asked one of the ladies what a kilogram of cheese cost. So help me, she did not know. But they were complaining about the price of this product. Who are the cheese eaters in our country? Not the poorer classes. What was the alternative when the supermarkets told me that they did not go along with this, that they were going to boycott it, that they were going to place advertisements in the newspapers and boycott it? Then we made this tremendous mistake— we had no alternative—of saying that we would burden the dairy farmers of South Africa with this entire problem, and borrowed the money that was needed from the Land Bank. Fortunately we have such an institution as the Land Bank. The hon. member said that the consumption of cheese rose by 1%. Well, the consumption only just broke even. There was not an increased consumption of cheese, and the consumption of butter went down even further. The problem grew worse. I ask you, Sir, if one speaks of sound principles now, how do we get out of this dilemma? May I not tell the housewife from Orange Grove that she should pay a little more for her butter and cheese, in order to help us out a little? Should we allow this industry to go under? I do not know, Sir; I think the stupidest professor at a university would understand it if I spelt out to him in this way. [Interjections.] But everyone is climbing onto the band-wagon and saying: “Can you explain how there can be a surplus and yet the price is rising?”

What about a subsidy?

Yes, we come back again to the question of a subsidy. I say again: Forget about it. Our country has to be defended. We cannot use money to subsidize butter; it is just not possible.

†The hon. member concluded by saying, “tax the rich to feed the poor”. Sir, do you know that we are busy overtaxing the rich people in this country? To take one example, if a person has four children at school, each child costs this Government R500. This means that a person with four children at school receives a direct subsidy of R2 000 a year. Usually that person does not pay a cent in tax. I know of many workers who do not pay a cent in tax but who receive a subsidy of R2 000 a year to keep their children at school. Who is paying that R2 000? Who is paying for the food subsidies? Who is paying for education and for the expenses of this Government in total? It is the rich people, Sir. Are we going to break their necks? Are we to destroy initiative in this country? Sir, I am not pleading for the wealthy people, but let us be careful not to destroy initiative by overtaxing people in order to subsidize certain commodities which are wasted.

*I tell you, Sir, if I were Minister of Finance, that hon. member would have got it in the neck! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the Opposition could no longer profit from agriculture. Sir, those times are past; it is no longer possible to profit from agriculture. Do you know why? Because I have always said that I do not turn agriculture into a political issue. I say to the farmers candidly:“This is our dilemma and these are our problems. We have no alternative. Let us put our heads together.” This is what I say to them, whether they are NP or UP. Fortunately there are hardly any “Prog” farmers. We do not have such stupid farmers! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Losberg made it very clear that all producers were also consumers. When we become so excited about producers and consumers, we must bear in mind that every producer is also a consumer. In agriculture today we have 3 million Blacks living with the farmers on their farms. Those people, with their youngsters, are all part of the consumers in this country. The farmers are as concerned about them as they are about their own consumption. In that respect the hon. member was quite correct.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove said that farmers are all worse off than they were a few years ago, and that this was especially the position this year as compared with last year. He added that neither the farmers nor the housewives were happy. In other words, nobody was happy. Let me mention one example to the hon. member. Last year we had a maize crop of 7,4 million tons, at a producer’s price of R65 per ton. Including the “agterskot”, I think the farmers’ earnings were approximately R520 million in total last year. This year they have 9,4 million tons at a price of R73,60 per ton. That means a gross income of nearly R700 million. Then the hon. member says that the farmers are not happy.

What about the cost increases?

We try to cover the cost increases by means of the fixing of this price. However, as I said right at the start in reply to the hon. member for Paarl, there are farmers in this country who are not completely happy with 40 bags per hectare. In three or four years’ time, with the assistance of research work by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, there will be new seed varieties which will give them 60 to 70 bags per hectare. That is the only solution there is for these farmers, because the price of maize on the world markets is busy coming down. It is in the vicinity of R92 per ton in the case of yellow maize and nearly R100 per ton in the case of white maize. When we fixed these prices, the world price was well above R100 a ton.

I think I have replied to the story about sound economic principles. Reference was made to the dairy debacle or fiasco. It was a fiasco. The hon. member is perfectly right, but he was on the wrong side. The fiasco we created was in giving way to the pressure of the chain stores and the misinformed housewife.

*The hon. member for Bethal summarized the whole position of subsidies. The one cent subsidy on bread, costs the State R16 million per year. Let us get our priorities right. Do hon. members want the State to give a R16 million subsidy on bread?

You are doing so now.

Yes, but should we continue to do so?

Yes.

You feel we should continue to do so?

I did not say that it should be reduced.

If the State finds itself in further difficulties and we want to take that R16 million for education, even for the Blacks—if you are concerned about that— would we not receive better results. That is the recommendation of the commission of inquiry into the Marketing Act, of which the hon. member was a member. Is it not better to get our priorities right, as the hon. member for Bethal said?

I did not agree with that recommendation. [Interjections.]

Yes, but I think the hon. member was speaking with his tongue in his cheek. I ask him: What is the right thing to do? Cannot we utilize this R16 million more effectively? The consumption of bread is down by 4%, however regrettable that may be. We must eat up our tremendous production of wheat. The hon. members must bear in mind that bread is still being wasted here to an unparalleled extent. By increasing the subsidy on maize to last year’s level, when we even went so far as to transfer R3 per ton of the farmers’ export profit to the consumer—a producer’s price of R65 per ton, and the consumers paid R59 last year—we subsidized the broiler industry.

†The hon. member mentioned the increase of over 100% in the consumption of broilers and a decrease in the consumption of red meat of 18%. What was the reason for this? It was because we subsidized maize too highly.

Because the price was right.

No, the subsidy enabled those factories to produce more.

*I just want to reply quickly to the points raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town. I want to state candidly that that hon. member and I are friends. I have nothing against him, and what fills me with such glee, is to think that before I became a member of the House of Assembly, I made that kind of speech in my home town, and I was the hero of the farmers. They cheered me, and I could not have been misleading them more. How could you hope to rouse the De Aar farmers more than by saying to them:“Let us build a regional abattoir in De Aar; we must have an abattoir in the production area?” After that, one has to make a speech at Carnarvon. But what did we inherit, and not unjustly so either? Traditionally the abattoirs were built within the controlled area at a time when we did not have cold storage facilities, etc.

When you lost the traditional abattoir.

Yes, but I am referring to the time when we built the abattoir. The hon. member said that we had sufficient facilities for 13 years, under today’s slaughtering circumstances. But if there is an increased consumption and we have to slaughter at full capacity, I foresee that some abattoirs will have to work two shifts, whether the hygiene people like it or not. For the present we cannot build abattoirs; we have enough facilities. At present we are only slaughtering 6 million sheep. At one stage when we had a drought, we slaughtered 9 million sheep. We then decided, also as a result of pressure from the opposite side, that we would build new abattoirs. When we began to build abattoirs, we reached a level at which we could say that an abattoir would cost between R22 million and R24 million. But then there were tremendous cost escalations. Cement and steel prices soared. Now an abattoir costs R36 million. Who pays for those abattoirs?

The production areas.

Very well. I come then to the production area Traditionally we built in the consumer’s area, for hon. members must remember that the housewife does not want frozen meat. Slaughtered meat in cuts from Windhoek per train loses 1,9% in weight. That must also be taken into account. The housewife does not want that meat as much as she wants meat slaughtered here in the cities. But where did we establish the leather tanneries? Were they not constructed near to those abattoirs? Now I have to say: Bring the hides back to De Aar. But the factory is on the Witwatersrand. Who will eat vast quantities of offal? The offal will be cleaned at De Aar and then conveyed—it is a cheap product—under refrigeration, which will result in that offal more than doubling in price, for the consumer area of offal is in the urban complexes where there is a concentration of people who will eat offal. Surely De Aar will never consume all this offal. You can do what you like. It will have to be brought to where the people want it. [Interjections.] The hon. member quoted figures and on the basis of those figures made the accusation that “Oubaas” Malan and I were the cause of the farmers losing R165 million over a period of 13 years. It is a pity the hon. member quoted that figure. It is definitely not correct. I think the hon. member simply felt like making a rousing speech for a change. [Interjections.]

We are not sulking!

However, the hon. member for King William’s Town was unable to complete his speech. He wanted to come to the R2 million which I contributed to the IWS fund. The hon. member is unhappy about that contribution not being made again. Is that the statement the hon. member wanted to make?

I am going to speak again in a moment. Then I shall tell you what I wanted to say.

Oh, is the hon. member going to speak again? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Heilbron, referring to the cost figures of Uniegraan, requested that Uniegraan should make the cost calculations themselves, and that Agricultural Economics and Marketing should simply do spot checks. The hon. member knows what our problems are. He said that the department did not have the necessary staff. He happened to refer to Uniegraan. At the moment there are three of our top officials at Uniegraan. The farmers want to know why Agricultural Economics is not able to do cost surveys for them. However, we have to adhere to the salaries laid down by the Public Service Commission. The week before last an official of the department left us to go to Uniegraan. He is now earning R18 000. We shall have to investigate this entire matter, because the Departments of Agricultural Economics and of Agricultural Technical Services have become training centres from which the private sector recruits its manpower. If a solution can be found, I say it is quite right that we should investigate this matter. I just feel a little uneasy about the figure perhaps not being entirely realistic.

The hon. member for Paarl referred to Mr. Ted Evans. Mr. Ted Evans was initially at Roodeplaat, where he began to cultivate grape varieties, including Golden City. I prefer to call it “Goudstad” because it is too fine a grape to bear an English name. We followed Evan’s activities in the Press. He cultivated earlyripening grape varieties. Because our people, for the same reasons as those I mentioned a moment ago, have been lured away out of this sector as well, attention will also have to be given to this aspect. The Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services heard the hon. member’s speech, and he shall give attention to the matter. We shall discuss the matter further. However, the fruit region falls in the winter rainfall area. If Mr. Evans were then to come here … However, I do not meddle in staff affairs. “Oubaas” and I lay down the policy and the Secretary and the staff implement it. However, we shall go into the matter.

I now want to discuss the research to which the hon. member for Paarl referred. I am sorry that he is not in the House at present. He probably went to inspect his vineyards. An extension officer from Stellenbosch gave a talk last week in regard to the way in which a farmer should plan his farm. In practical agriculture we have reached the stage of research in which one specific piece of land can no longer be planted to the same grape variety throughout. There are study groups investigating this matter. Extension officers are keeping farmers informed and are pointing out to them that on a specific piece of land, for example, Richter 99 root-stock should be planted, while in the middle of the piece of land Jaques should be planted, and on the top portion Salt Creek. So it varies. In this way one ensures that the land yields its optimum production and that a farmer’s output increases by upwards of 40%. This is all guidance which is provided by that young man Pienaar. It is he who is trying to convey the message of optimum production to all farmers.

The hon. member for Vryheid asked us to develop our co-operatives. I know the Chambers and people of that kind, do not like that kind of speech very much. However, the co-operatives are paying tax now, my friend. Now that the co-operatives are also paying tax, we must see whether they, too, cannot be led into green pastures.

There where the big money is.

Yes, that is true. However, I want to point out to hon. members that, if agricultural co-operatives were to be done away with today, they will see how the price of food soars in this country. Then the organizations which see to it that the farmers are provided with their means of production at the cheapest prices, are no longer there. Then the farmer will be deprived of that kind of service. However, I believe that we all understand this, and I thank the hon. member for raising the matter.

†The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the breeding of vegetable seeds. The matter is receiving attention. If the hon. member would go to Oudtshoorn, to a place called Schoemanshoek, he would see there how onion seeds are being produced for the export market. Investigations are also being carried out in respect of carrot and beetroot seed. We are exporting this seed. The hon. member wanted to know why we have to import kikuyu grass seed from Australia. This year I planted Australian seed and the germination was 12%. This might mean that I planted it the wrong way. [Interjections.] It is a hell of a price. It is very expensive. However, this is a free country and anybody can reap the kikuyu seed if he can get the yield per hectare to make it a payable proposition. It is so. However, the hon. member made a very positive speech and I do not want to argue with him. If the hon. member is afraid that teaching and research might be separated at Cedara, we will go into these matters, because Cedara is becoming one of our top research and agricultural experimental stations. I do not want to do a thing that might harm the institution. I will discuss the matter with the Secretary, go into the matter and come back to the hon. member later in private.

The problem with soil conservation is that we have not got enough staff. In certain regions we are understaffed. I know of three sub-regions where we have not got the right “voorligtingsbeamptes” and other people to carry out the work, but in total, if I look at the whole of South Africa and see the achievements in the field of soil conservation, I am happy that we are doing a good job and will eventually succeed to conserve the biggest asset of our country, e.g. the soil. That is, of course, apart from those farmers who are prepared to undertake soil conservation themselves.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister to what extent the members of the committees are involved in extension work on soil conservation?

In some areas the committees work very well indeed, but in other areas they have not yet been inspired to do so. It depends on the people themselves. The hon. member was quite correct when he said that the committees were an incentive to the farmers of the area They are the leaders in that area and help to bring home our message.

I shall reply further tomorrow, or possibly this evening still, to the other points which were raised. For the moment I want to conclude by saying that the hon. members must remember one thing, which is that we should be grateful today that we are able to conduct this debate against the background of a measure of fear of surpluses. We should be grateful that this is our problem. Our problem is also what course we should adopt in future with our farmers when everything goes up. The hon. member for King William’s Town wants to know what I do in the Cabinet when the Minister of Economic Affairs increases the price of fertilizer and the Minister of Railways raises the railway tariffs.

He shouts his head off.

I shout my head off, but I am also reasonable and I realize that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs cannot allow the fertilizer factories of our country to go bankrupt. There are people who do not understand when we say that they have to work on a maximum return of 15%.

Two thousand farmers were driven from the agricultural sector last year.

We must realize that such a company works on 15% before tax. On that they pay almost 50% tax and only have 7,5% left. No one will tell me that I should invest in a larger fertilizer factory if I only get 7,5% on my investment, for in the private market today I can get more than 10%. The hon. member shouts:“Increase the Railwayman’s salary.” The hon. the Minister of Transport voted an aggregate amount of R74 million for increased salaries, but steel and coal went up in price. Must we keep the coal at home and tell the mining company that although they are able to obtain a higher price for their coal abroad, they should sell it at a loss at home? What is more, the miner was paid a higher salary to mine the coal. That cost the company more money. Are these the “sound business principles” now? The prices of all commodities have gone up. Diesel fuel is more expensive and there had to be an upward adjustment of railway rates. Should my request now be that the transportation cost of the farmers’ cattle should not go up?

The hon. the Minister of Transport will tell me to look at the floor prices. When I look at the floor prices, I find that the consumption has dropped by 8%. I am worried when I see that four years ago we had 8 million cattle and today we have 9,3 million. Four years ago we had 29 million sheep; we now have 31 million, and the consumption is dropping. [Interjections.] These figures are for White farmers. The numbers of our livestock are increasing, and the situation is going to return to normal and as I know South Africa, we will not have three record years in succession. I am not saying that the solution lies in a drought …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why he imported 6 000 beef carcasses?

Mr. Chairman, we did not import 6 000 beef carcasses. We gave our consent, and the Agricultural Union gave its consent, when the Meat Board requested that 2 000 tons be imported, but eventually 1 800 tons were imported. This was merely third-grade beef for the purpose of canning and export. It had no effect on the farmers’ prices. The conditions attached to this were that it should be canned and exported at a profit in order to earn exchange. At that juncture we had no third-grade beef. When was the transaction approved? The hon. member should look up the date.

When was it imported?

Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to reply to that later, because I am becoming restless now. I have never spoken for such a long time in this House before.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister made a very interesting speech, covering a very wide field. He made many interesting statements. Unfortunately, he made one statement which I cannot agree with. The hon. the Minister said that he would do this job alone. A previous Minister of Agriculture once said—I believe this slogan has been put up on the walls of many of our farmers’ studies— that a nation that looks after its agriculture, provides for its future. It is the nation that has to look after agriculture, and not the Minister, the Government, Parliament or the Land Bank. In other words, agriculture is the responsibility of every one of us. If that was true in the time of ex-Minister S. P. le Roux, then it is even more true today. Our hon. Prime Minister said recently at a farmers’ day gathering that the role of the farmer and the agricultural industry was very closely bound up with South Africa’s survival and future. “In the years that lie ahead, food will become an important strategic product. Since the whole world is engaged in a struggle for survival, the nation that can feed its people from its own resources, stands a better chance of winning. South Africa needs her farmers.” That is why I say agriculture is the task of the nation. The bottlenecks that exist in agriculture and those that will still arise—there are many of them—affect all of us in the sense that we all have to eat. Whether one is a railway worker, a soldier on the border, a Brown man or a Black, there is one thing one cannot do without, and that is food.

It is the prerogative of the consumer—we do not dispute it—to build up resistance if he thinks prices are rising too high. It is probably also his prerogative to put up organized resistance. If, however, through his resistance, and particularly his organized resistance, he forces producers out of production and later finds that that commodity is no longer available to him, he must be prepared to accept joint responsibility for that scarcity. I believe that whenever we have surpluses on our hands, it is the task of the nation and the consumer to play their part as well.

The farmer has always taken the consumer into account. I refuse to believe that there is a single farmer in South Africa who is only concerned about his own welfare and who does not take the consumer into consideration. If agricultural prices are forced down on an organized basis, then it is not only the farmer, but his employees as well who suffer as a result. The farmer is one of the biggest employers in the country and if things go badly for the farmer, then they go badly for his employees as well. If organized labour uses its bargaining power to force down agricultural prices, then it must also take into consideration that the vast majority of labourers in the country are unorganized, that they are in the service of the farmer and that they, too, will be affected by this.

At the moment, our problem as far as agriculture is concerned, is not a scarcity of products. In fact, it has been pointed out this afternoon that due to favourable factors, better production methods and the zeal of our agriculturists, we can boast of surpluses today. We must not be concerned about our surpluses, we must boast about them. Despite the surpluses and despite the fact that we have had favourable agricultural years, I foresee grave problems for agriculture in future. In that regard, I have in mind the Western Cape in particular, where agriculture is heading towards a very difficult period.

One of the most important bottlenecks in agriculture today is that as the industry develops, it is becoming more capital intensive and, as a result of economic conditions, the industry cannot generate enough capital to provide for its needs. In fact, I want to state that the agricultural industry is using up its capital. In that regard, I am thinking particularly of the crop farming industry. I shall indicate why it is that the agricultural industry is using up its capital. If we take a look at the index of product prices during the past 10 years, we find that the prices of field crop products have increased from 115 in 1966-’67 to 214,8 in 1975-’76. If we look at the price index of farming requisites during the same period, we find that the prices of all farming requisites have increased from 110 to 249. If, more specifically, we look at the index figures of the wheat industry, we find that the wheat index has increased from 113,7 to 178,0. What is important to the wheat industry? Fuel is an important element and according to the price indices of farming requisites, the fuel index has increased from 99 to 300. Fertilizer figures have increased from 101 to 204. The figures relating to tractors have increased from 113 to 292. That is enough statistics, however.

To me, this is clear proof that it is impossible for the crop farming industry to continue in this way. Nobody can continue to pay more, earn less and still survive. In that case, the only way to keep alive is to use up one’s capital. However, that is dangerous in our present situation.

In that regard, we shall have to sound a special word of warning to agriculturists to be careful not to pay too much for their agricultural land. The people who are in trouble today, are often agriculturists—not always, but very often—people who have bought land at tremendously high prices during the past five years. To us in the agricultural industry, it is very important that the industry remain in the hands of individual producers. The small farmer is important to the industry and it is true that particularly the smaller farmer is being very hard hit by present economic conditions, because he has to compete against the larger farmers for his labour on an equal footing. He also has to compete with the industries, however. In having to compete with the industries, he is in the unfortunate position of having to provide labourers with decent accommodation if he wants to attract labour.

After all, it is true that the agricultural industry is the one which provides all its workers with accommodation. After all, there is no other industry which provides all its workers with accommodation. We are grateful for the assistance given to agriculture in the form of housing loans made available by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Since the loans were made available, very good progress has been made. I note that since the introduction of the new scheme, 2 943 new dwellings have already been constructed with the aid of the loans. This is still not enough, however. Agriculture is the industry which could alleviate the housing problem of our Black and Brown people to a very great extent, but we shall have to be provided with the necessary capital. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I regard it as a privilege to be able to participate in the debate after the hon. member for Malmesbury because my part of the world and his are really the two mainstays of the wheat industry. I am referring to the Swartland and Rûens. Therefore the cost surveys of the wheat industry are calculated on the basis of data coming from those two areas. When the hon. member speaks as he has done today, he reminds me of the poem Ancient Mariner in which we read—

One can only discuss these things from the heart if one is a farmer oneself and if one has held the plough handles in one’s time.

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention more specifically to the future of wheat production and the problems surrounding this in the region which I represent. If the hon. the Minister does not know where that region is, he should simply drive away from here in an easterly direction and when he comes to a place that reminds him of the words of the psalmist—

then he will know he is in that part of the world.

Is the area to which you are referring situated in the Transvaal then?

It is a region which occupies a high position on the list of planning regions which has independent people in that there are not many people in the region who approach the Government for assistance. It is also the region which has the largest number of graduated agricultural entrepreneurs making a living from the agricultural industry.

We are concerned about the winter rainfall region and I include the entire Overberg and the Boland in this. We are concerned about the growing of wheat in that part of the world. We have reason for concern, because we are facing a previously unknown phenomenon. We have simply never had to contend with an over-production of wheat before. In the past, therefore, wheat could always be sold at a good price but today, of course, this is no longer the case.

At the beginning of the century our country produced 68 000 tons of wheat per year. In 1950, however, the production was 680 000 tons. There has therefore been a tenfold increase in production in the course of 50 years. The opinion was held in 1950 that it would not be possible to have any further increase in the surface area suitable for wheat production. By means of new techniques and better adapted cultivars, however, wheat production in the Orange Free State and the Northern Transvaal has greatly increased in recent years. Some experts think that the possibilities in the Western Transvaal as well as in the North-Western Transvaal, are just as good as in the Orange Free State and on the Springbok Flats. In addition there are the irrigation areas, the potential of which is unknown and which are undeveloped as yet. We must remember that the area of land used for wheat production in those areas must inevitably increase to a large extent and that the soil will not improve in that process as wheat exhausts the soil to a large extent. One reaches a stage when one has to resort to crop rotation so that other crops may increase the productivity of the soil. Eventually diseases set in.

It is true that our wheat consumption increases by 5% annually. At this point, I just want to refer to the estimated consumption up to the year 2 000. At present, wheat production amounts to approximately 1,68 million tons. By 1980, wheat consumption will amount to approximately 1,998 million tons; by 1985 to 2½ million tons; by 1990 to 3 million tons; by 1995 to 4 million tons; and by the year 2 000 to 5 million tons. All the figures have been reduced to round figures. It is interesting to note that during the period of a quarter of a century which I have mentioned, consumption increases by half a million tons every five years up to the year 1985, but during the second half of the period, up to the year 2 000, the estimated consumption increases by a million tons every five years. It is escalating more and more rapidly.

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that although we have to contend with many problems here in the old production sector of the country, one must not think that this sector should throw in the towel, seek its fortune in other directions or be thrown to the wolves by economic principles. The world production of 410 tons per year can be just as uncertain. A little more than a year ago the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that the crop in Russia was 140 million tons, and this year it is 250 million tons. The figures are unreliable and it could just as easily have been different. Incidentally, the Minister of Agriculture has been dismissed from his office and I do not know whether that is the reason for the crop being so much larger this year. Nothing like that is necessary in this country. As a result of that increase in production, wheat is being offered on the world market at between 50% and 60% of our domestic producer’s price. We now have an overproduction of approximately 450 000 to 500 000 tons on our hands and just the other day the wheat reserve fund still amounted to R24 million. I do not know whether that is still the case today. These figures are important.

I should have liked to have discussed barley and oats but the problem is not as serious in that regard. In the Rûens area, the revenue per hectare shows an increase of 22% over the previous year. That is 7% higher than the 15% price increase. That 7% above the increase of 15% is what will have to be used to keep body and soul together. In the Republic as a whole, however, there was an increase of 36% in yield per hectare over the previous year, which, on an average, is 21% higher than the 15% increase in prices. In contrast to that, the figure in that area, as I have already said, was only 7% higher than the price increase. In other words, the price is not the solution. We are not begging, but by increasing the price, we are progressively cutting the throats of the older sector of the country, which we regard as a reasonably reliable sector, although it produces only a quarter to a fifth of the entire country’s crop. My contention is that the losses that will have to be suffered on this export, will hit this part of the world very hard if that reserve fund becomes completely exhausted. It will have to be built up again at some stage in the future.

If I have the time, I should like to refer to the over-production of barley and oats. There is a surplus of 9 000 tons in the case of barley, but fortunately the reserve fund is strong enough to bear this. In the case of oats, production will have to be exported this year at a loss of R9 per ton. In this case, too, the reserve fund of approximately R1,9 million, is strong enough to meet this. I should appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister would apply his mind to the matter of the exhaustion of the reserve fund for wheat, because this is the only way of getting rid of the surplus. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have a difficult speech to make today. I have to praise the hon. the Minister. I shall be as diplomatic as I can about it! [Interjections.] I want to speak about a report which we all received towards the end of last year, i.e. the report of the commission of inquiry regarding the import of poultry breeding materials. I do not know how many members remember getting that report and I do not know how many read it, but I should nevertheless like to say a few words about it. In the first place I want to say that a great deal of thanks is due to the hon. the Minister for having had this commission appointed to investigate this matter. There are several people to whom a great deal of thanks is due. There is Prof. Douglas Coles who for years tried to get something done about this. Thanks is also due to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who first raised the matter in this House. I think every poultry breeder in South Africa is grateful to the hon. the Minister for this report. I am sure that South Africa and the industry are eventually going to benefit from it.

That does not give him any reason to crow about it!

It is a very valuable report, although at times it does tend to generalize. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is correct that the evidence which was presented to this commission—and I understand there is about 1 788 pages of it—has been given to the police. Is it intended to give this evidence to the police so that they can investigate whether there should be any prosecutions? If that is so, what else is going to be done about this report? The report does show to what depths the poultry industry, or branches of the poultry industry in South Africa, have sunk. It is unfortunate that the commission was not asked to investigate the allegations about the adulteration of broilers, namely the incorporation of water in carcasses during the skin-cooling process. There is no need for a broiler to contain more than 5% of water. This practice is not only unfair trading; it is also unfair to the customer, because he is being taken for a ride. I am sure that an investigation into this question would have revealed to what an extent this is being done and how it creates monopolies through the cornering of the market. It would really have been a worthwhile investigation.

In terms of clause 5, on the first page, where it says that the commission can investigate anything concerned with the industry, I am certain that they could have undertaken this investigation. They should also have been empowered to employ auditors to go into the books of the big broiler producers, because these auditors would have revealed some interesting figures relating to the efficiency of broiler production as well as to the engineering of take-overs which have taken place in the broiler industry. After all, the commission did inquire in terms of paragraph 5 into poultry rations and they have come forward in paragraphs 288 and 289 with some very interesting information. They say that in view of the world-wide shortage of protein-rich food it is recommended by nutritionists that our poultry feeds in South Africa are far too high in protein and something should be done about cutting down the quantity of protein in the feed. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has done anything or whether he intends doing anything in this regard. The commission also laid emphasis on the views of importers regarding the necessity to import poultry. That was the whole idea of this commission, namely to discover why it was necessary to import poultry material. In paragraph 224, which I think is the most important part of this entire report and which will be quoted for many years still, it goes on to examine this question of importing and the way it was misused. It reads—

It says: “If it were possible”. The paragraph ends by saying—

The words used here “absolute certainty” give one cause for much worry because I am certain that anyone will agree that it is virtually impossible to guarantee absolute certainty that the poultry stock is disease free. I am certain that any microbiologist knows that one would be very lucky if one were reasonably certain that the stock is disease free. It virtually means, if one reads this with its implications, that there must be a complete cessation of the import of poultry material and also of all wild birds which can carry these diseases. I have some difficulty in accepting that paragraph because of paragraph 190, which seems to contradict it. In paragraph 190 it says that after the commission had paid a visit to the quarantine station at Jan Smuts Airport they were reassured. Paragraph 190 states—

I do not see how the quarentine facilities can guarantee that there will be no importation of disease free stock. After all, if the hon. the Minister cannot guarantee that people cannot bring in eggs, for instance, in their luggage, and not declare it, the same way in which they bring in biltong and it gets into South Africa illegally, I am certain that poultry stock can be brought in through the quarantine depot. As a matter of fact, paragraph 132 goes on to criticize harbour security facilities at Durban and states that the facilities at Durban are very poor. It says that the conditions of trading at Durban harbour make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain effective control, which seems to contradict it. I would ask the hon. the Minister what is the intention now regarding these measures which have to be applied. In this regard I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to his reply to my speech in the Second Reading debate on the Livestock Improvement Bill in Hansard, 24 February, col. 2229, where I spoke about Newcastle disease having been introduced into South Africa through Durban. It was said that a drunken lascar brought a frozen chicken off a ship and introduced Newcastle disease into South Africa. At that time the hon. the Minister went on to reassure me by saying—

The latest annual report which we have just received from Agricultural Technical Services seems to contradict this. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this on page 104 where they talk about the introduction of this vaccine into the chickens at various stages by means of drinking water and also the aerosol method, i.e. by spraying. They go on to say that the drinking water method has been found not to be good at all. The aerosol method seems to have far better results. They end by saying that the drinking water method is therefore not recommended by the institute. There have been countless numbers of infections by Newcastle disease in South Africa. That we also see from this report. Venda, Gazankulu and all the homeland areas are riddled with Newcastle disease. I wonder how the hon. the Minister intends stopping that.

I have very little time left. However, I would like to reiterate that this is a very valuable report. It contains some very valuable recommendations. We would like to hear from the hon. the Minister how he intends utilizing the information and the evidence and the recommendations contained in this report. How is he going to do that to the benefit of the poultry industry, as well as to the benefit of the consumer public?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast will not hold it against me for my not reacting to his speech. One would not be a realist if one believed that the entire agriculture debate of 1977 could be conducted in a positive and optimistic spirit. Amidst all the problems agriculture in South Africa, as well as the world, has to contend with today, there are also some positive factors. I should like to dwell briefly on two of these.

Firstly, I want to point out that South Africa has a farming community whose image is much finer than that of any other country in the world. I should like to pay tribute to the South African farmer this evening, particularly because he has succeeded in carving out and maintaining his image, despite predominating industrial development, as the profession the desirability and survival of which have never been questioned. One is grateful that through his action, his training, his personal development and his planning—as well as his personal participation in the social and historic development of our country—the South African farmer has not acquired the image of the undeveloped and, in some cases, backward bungler, as happened in many other countries, including Europe.

In some European countries, in Belgium and France, for example, and even in the Netherlands and West Germany, schemes are being launched at the moment with a view to improving the image of the farmer. Perhaps it is necessary in South Africa, too, that the position and circumstances of the farmer be portrayed in a more effective manner, particularly as far as his problems are concerned. We are fortunate, however, in that the image of the South African farmer is fine and pure and strong enough to enable one to refer to this profession with pride.

That brings me to the second positive idea. However, I first want to refer to something else. A few years ago, Mr. Ted Heath, ex-Prime Minister of Britain, opened an agricultural show. After the opening of the show, various newspapers in Europe announced under main headlines that Mr. Heath’s action had set an example to politicians in Europe. It was said that politicians in Europe could establish contact with the farmer in this way, and that by so doing, the image of the farmer would be improved. In South Africa the situation has arisen in which it is more often the rule rather than the exception that our State President opens our agricultural shows. Both the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Deputy Minister are in such great demand as speakers, not only in the farming community, but everywhere, that their programmes have become so crowded that they are hardly able to cope any longer. Apart from that, I might also add that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture have talents which make them extremely popular. It is not only due to their talents, however, that they remain in such great demand. It is also because they epitomize the farmer in South Africa. What I regard as the most important aspect, however, is the fact that the farmer in South Africa knows that he has a friend in the hon. the Prime Minister. We, as agriculturalists in South Africa are very grateful for the fact that despite an extremely heavy and almost super-human programme, then, the Prime Minister can make time for the farmer. One does not want to refer disparagingly to an experimental station, Mara, in a virtually remote area—and we are grateful for the work that is being done there—but I wonder whether there is any other country in the world which has a Prime Minister who is prepared in the midst of his programme, to thank the farmer on such an occasion and to give him encouragement for the future. That is why, on behalf of the farmers of South Africa, I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for knowing our problems, and for having a love for the farmer and the agriculturalist in South Africa.

Let us also give credit where credit is due, however. The Leader of the Opposition is a farmer himself and we also know that the hon. Leader of the IUP is a farmer and an agricultural spokesman of no mean ability. We also hear that the hon. the Leader of the PRP has at least seen some cattle before. [Interjections.]

There are problems in the agricultural industry that have to be faced. According to calculations, a very special baby was born somewhere in the world during the second half of last year. That baby was the four thousand millionth child in the world that has to be fed. I do not think it makes any difference where that baby was born and who that child is, the fact is that the world’s agriculturalists have to feed more than four milliard people. It is also important that the farmer be enabled to carry on producing food for the world population of four milliard. The health of the country’s economy is of importance to every individual, but I think it is of even more cardinal importance to the farmer since so much capital has to be invested, at a growing risk, in order to produce. For various reasons, one could not expect agriculture to have been left out of the anti-inflation manifesto of 1975. I think it is clear today, however, that agriculture is being more hard-hit than any other sector, because of the very contribution the farmer has been making to the anti-inflation campaign.

Last year the net income of the South African farmer showed a further decline and I do not think even the biggest optimist can foresee things going better this year since the same problems still exist and we still have to contend with continuous cost increases in the production structure. The danger exists that there will not be a sufficient number of farmers who will be prepared to produce enough food for South Africa at the lower net profit margins. The farmer does not begrudge any sector a decent existence, but it cannot be expected of the farmer to provide food for an indefinite period without his having regard to his own financial position which is simply weakening due to a diminishing profit margin.

The farmer is harder hit by the anti-inflation provisions due to the risks related to natural conditions, the fluctuating demand for his product as taste, needs and means of the consumer change, as well as declining world prices.

Let us look at one of these products the world price of which has dropped and with which we are experiencing problems. It is wheat, and its price will have to be announced before long. In the past, when the world price of wheat was perhaps double the producer’s price in South Africa, the wheat farmer in South Africa subsidized bread and other wheat products in South Africa, as it were. Since we have now reached the stage where the world price is lower than our producer’s price, I feel that the farmer, as a partner of the consumer and of the Government may also ask the other partners to play their part in this respect. Perhaps it may become necessary in respect of bread to ask also the consumer for his share in the form of a levy so as to buffer lower wheat prices. However, I also think that we may feel free to ask the Government to help, as buffers, those industries which, in the past, have earned foreign exchange for the country, to buffer the wheat industry to the same extent in a way that will always render it possible for the wheat producer to remain one. We are running the risk of some of our farmers ignoring the less profitable type of production. In agriculture, it is always dangerous to reach rock-bottom as far as abandoning the less profitable industries is concerned, because the highly profitable industry can let one down. We are running the risk in South Africa that the farmers are going to move away from wheat production. The price we are going to pay for this, is that we shall have to import our wheat for the bread that South Africa will need and that price is going to be high.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, during the discussion on this Vote last year and the year before I made mention of the tremendous plague of gnats and mosquitoes which had afflicted my area and the Northern Cape and the very heavy rains we had had. I shall not discuss these subjects again tonight. However, those disasters we suffered opened my eyes to the tremendous shortage of veterinary surgeons in our country. It became increasingly clear to me that we could no longer be content with veterinary services of an entirely clinical, disease-orientated nature. In this country we need a comprehensive veterinary service which will also concentrate on extension services and so forth. I then examined the state of our veterinary services in this country. Here I am speaking of the number of veterinary surgeons in the country. I am not commenting on Onderstepoort and the fantastic services it has rendered to us in the past.

The World Health Organization considers one veterinary surgeon to every 5 000 stock units to be the standard ratio. I shall not go into the question of how stock units are calculated. When one makes a comparison with the figure applicable to developed countries, the Western Cape is in the best position. The ratio between veterinary surgeons and stock units in the Western Cape is one to 24 000. The Orange Free State area, including the area beyond Bloemfontein up to Upington, is the worst off with one veterinary surgeon to every 94 000 stock units. This figure represents a fairly hopeless situation.

There are 1 063 veterinary surgeons registered in the country. Of these, 753 are active. However, this is not where the problem lies. The problem lies in the fact that there are only 57 private veterinary surgeons in the rural areas of country who are interested in treating large stock, i.e. cattle and sheep. The others live in the cities and minister to cats and dogs. This is a very serious matter for us. In the Public Service there are 136 veterinary surgeons, 93 of whom are employed in the Veterinary Services Division. They are the people who render the services. There are approximately 43 who provide training services. There is another group that farms and a group which is employed in industry. All in all there are 753 veterinary surgeons. With the exception of KwaZulu, there is not a single veterinary surgeon in any of the homelands. It is true that some have been seconded to Transkei, but Transkei is no longer a homeland. This leaves us with a great shortage of veterinary surgeons.

Why is there such a shortage of veterinary surgeons in the country? There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, livestock in South Africa has a relatively low unit value. An exception to this rule is thoroughbred horses. In the second place, there is a low concentration of livestock. The animals are spread across the extensive grazing land of South Africa. In the third place, training seems to concentrate on small animals.

There is one matter in respect of which hon. members must not misunderstand me, and that is that the Onderstepoort training centre is doing its best to obtain clinical material. However, it is understandable that the course of developments has resulted in Onderstepoort’s being situated in the largest industrial area in South Africa today. To the north is bounded by the Bantu homelands and to the south by the PVW complex. Clinical material in the form of large animals is very difficult to obtain.

The shortage of veterinary surgeons is most acute in respect of the services that have to be rendered to the State, i.e. the people who have to render regulative services, who have to see to it that our borders are guarded and who have to implement the provisions of Act 13 of 1967. They are usually the people who have to render services to the homelands and to have to render extension and diagnostic services. From this it became clear to me that we have a great need for extension services, but we do not have the people available to provide these. With the increase in farming operations employing stall-feeding, we are experiencing an acute shortage of trained people. In the fourth place, we also need people to enforce the provisions of the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act. Finally, people are required for the development of research and for the manufacture of vaccines. Last year, approximately 170 million doses of vaccine were prepared at Onderstepoort, and outstanding work is being done there. It is not generally known that approximately 800 million doses of vaccine are being imported for the poultry industry alone.

These are all matters we shall have to see to. Hon. members will now want to know from me how we are to do this. The Government has already expanded the faculty, and instead of 45 students, 90 students are now accepted there every year. The fact that students are selected only on the basis of their results has led to approximately 20% of those students being women. I am not alleging that women students do not make good veterinary surgeons, but they are hardly likely to go and practise in the rural areas and they are hardly likely to care for the animals responsible for the food production of the country. Few of them come from the rural areas. Most of them come from the cities, with the result that they are not interested in the rural areas and do not go to practise there, where their services are required. It seems as if a second faculty will be necessary. I shall not be chauvinistic in advocating a site for it …

What about Pot-chefstroom?

No. As far as I am concerned, Potchefstroom is not in the running, because it is situated in the heart of the industrial area. However, we shall leave it at that. There does appear to be a need for a second faculty to be established in a stock-farming area where large animal clinical material would be available. [Interjections.] I never knew there were so many important towns in the country as are being mentioned now, but I do not share the hon. members’ enthusiasm for their places of origin.

Another important aspect in this connection is that the salaries of the veterinary surgeons will have to be improved. With the assistance of the Public Service Commission, the salary structure of veterinary surgeons was recently condensed to such an extent that a veterinary surgeon can now earn R9 700 after six years of service, and not after 12 years, as would be the case in terms of the normal professional salary scale. A doctor who has completed his studies and is employed by the State begins with a salary of R11 300 a year. In the light of this, it seems that the relative value of these professions will have to be adjusted if we are to render the necessary services to South Africa in the future. If, in addition, we consider that a medical practitioner performs services after hours for which he receives an extra allowance of approximately R4 500 from the State, it seems to me that this ratio is getting out of hand and that it has become necessary to give serious attention to it. I request the hon. the Minister to investigate it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in listening to someone who is telling me what he has done in the past, but I am not so eager to listen to someone who is trying to tell me what he is going to do in the future. Now, it has become customary at agricultural congresses to place items on the agenda dealing with the depopulation of the rural areas. At such congresses it has almost become a political tradition to blame the Government for that phenomenon.

It is true that there were many farmers in the past who farmed uneconomically. When I think back to the last years of the UP regime—the party which is now telling us what it is going to do—and I consider what was done by the Government at that time, I see that there were many farmers at that time who farmed uneconomically and who had to fight for their survival, as it were.

The late ex-Minister Conroy said that almost every farmer had a tenant farmer living on his farm in those days. According to him, 90% of the tenant farmers of that time preferred to remain tenant farmers, mainly because they did not possess the means of acquiring a farm or land. However, the 90% who were tenant farmers at that time were included as bona fide farmers in calculating the total number of farmers. However, no arrangement was ever made and no opportunity was ever created for them to obtain capital or to acquire their own land. Ex-minister Conroy also pointed out that 90% of the tenant farmers preferred to remain tenant farmers and never to purchase a farm of their own.

Ninety per cent of them preferred to remain tenant farmers, as the late ex-Minister said. They preferred it that way and they did not want farms of their own. However, if any hon. Minister were to make such an allegation today, there would be an outcry from the Opposition side at once and the Government would be accused of not wanting our own farmers to improve their lot. In those years there were the large land barons, of whom the late ex-Minister was one. At that time it suited the rich farmers to improve their own position and to enrich themselves even further, while the tenant farmers remained tenant farmers and remained poor. As ex-Minister Conroy said, there were six districts at that time in which more than 600 tenant farmers lived, tenant farmers who had to give up in the end because the Government of the day did not assist them in any way.

No possibilities were created for them at that time to acquire some land of their own. In the forties, as far as I remember, the old Settlement Board was the only body which rendered some assistance to farmers. As I have said in this House in previous years, there was a form one had to fill in in the forties. The heading on the form was “The Paupers”. The poor farmer who was looking for land was placed in a humiliating position, because he knew that he had to fill in a form under the heading of “The Paupers”. In those days he was a pauper. What would happen today if one told a farmer that he was a pauper? When we passed the Agricultural Credit Act, the Government was blamed for the fact that a man had to apply in terms of the Agricultural Act in order to obtain money. I myself and many of my fellow-farmers were not prepared to sign such a humiliating form, because it was humiliating for a farmer who wanted to farm and to make a living in that way to have to sign such a form describing him as a pauper. In my own constituency, where the Boegoeberg Scheme consisted of 511 farmers, there are fewer than 200 farmers left today. They have to grow fewer in number, because more than two-thirds of those 200 farmers have an economic unit today.

This is only logical, for this Government was prepared to pour R335 million into agriculture a few years ago, in order to achieve stability in the farming industry and to enable them to make an economic living. It is true that farmers have debts, but what are we worth? In 1970, our debt burden was R1 343 million, while our total capital investment was R9 202 million. This represented a debt ratio of 14,6%. In 1975, our total debt burden was R1 838 million, while the total capital investment amounted to R16 942 million. At that time, our debt ratio was only 10,8%. In 1976—these are the latest figures available to us—our total debt burden was R2 058 million and our total capital investment was R18 498 million. Our debt ratio was 11,1%. After we had done all these things, therefore, our debt ratio had nevertheless gone down. I have made inquiries and I have found that no country in the world has a ratio of debt to capital investment equal to what we have in South Africa today. I ascribe this to the fact that we have a Minister and a department that concentrate on caring for and stabilizing agriculture and creating a future so that we may produce food for South Africa—this is a matter we must never lose sight of. This is the strongest weapon in the whole world. In this we have succeeded, even though we would often like the prices of our products to be increased. As long as we have stability in agriculture, we would rather produce for a lower price as long as we have the assurance that we shall be able to feed the people of South Africa under all circumstances, in spite of world boycotts.

There is something else I want to refer to. Many farmers overrate the production capacity of their land. Then they enter into obligations on that basis. Farmers do not like us to say this. For this reason I say that our farmers—I am one myself—should adjust their obligations to the prices of their products and not the other way round.

I want to conclude with one last thought. We have been afflicted by a gnat plague lately and we have pleaded that Agricultural Technical Services should do something to combat this. Mr. Chairman, as you will know yourself—I mentioned the data earlier this year—our calving and lambing percentage in our part of the country was as low as 20%. Now there are some of our farmers who are having a very difficult time under these circumstances. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he has done and the relief he has brought to some parts with the measures that have been taken there. However, there is still a large part of the Orange River that will have to be looked at and where action will have to be taken soon. Large-scale research will have to be undertaken in this region to ascertain what methods can be used to get rid of the gnat plague. This would be in the interest of agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prieska went back to the forties. I am not going to follow him, for we are now living in 1977. He accused Minister Conroy of having been a land baron in those times. The biggest land baron in South Africa today is the Minister of Agriculture. The only difference is that we do not blame him for this; we congratulate him. In 1977 one is glad to see a man achieve success. [Interjections.] The hon. member went on to say that the production of the farmers was so large because we had a good Minister. That hon. member should go back to Prieska and ask his farmers there what the Minister has done for them which has enabled them to produce more. They will tell him, nothing at all. It is because of the perseverance, the ability and the diligence of the farmer of South Africa that he is producing more.

Sir, I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. In his reply to the question why there could not be abattoirs in the production areas, he asked what was to be done with the offal. Sir, offal is a sought-after product. It could be canned. It could be frozen and sold. It could even be exported. There is a world market for it. Then the hon. the Minister asked what was to be done with the skins, because the tanneries were so far away. Sir, it is no problem to transport skins. Eighteen tons of skins can be loaded into a truck, while only 60 sheep can go into a truck. The transport cost of skins is very low. Surely that is no argument.

What about wool?

The hon. member asks: “What about the wool?” Very well; let us examine the question of wool. Last year this Parliament voted R2 million for the wool industry. It was not only to help the wool farmers; it was to encourage exports from South Africa, because it is urgently necessary that we narrow the balance of payments gap. Therefore that money that was voted was not only in the interests of the wool farmer; it was in the interests of all South Africa. Now I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: What became of that R2 million? Did the wool industry get it? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says that they did not get it. Why did they not get it? Did the hon. the Minister agree not to have it given to them? Was the Wool Board consulted about the matter? That amount was voted by the highest authority in the country, and we did not take that decision lightly. We took that decision in the interests of South Africa, but still the wool industry did not get that money. Was that amount paid back into the State coffers? What became of it?

Sir, I come now to another point, and this is in connection with the wool pool money of the farmers of South Africa. In terms of this scheme, the farmers’ final payment is deferred. Now there is R19 million left which is to be paid out on 19 July. R3 million was invested in Rand Bank, and now it has been frozen. Was that money invested with the hon. the Minister’s approval? What is now to become of that R3 million? On 19 July this money has to be paid out. Just remember, Sir; this is one-sixth, or 16%, of the whole deferred payment of the farmers of South Africa. In other words, it is their own money. Where is that money to come from? Are they going to pay out that R3 million to the farmers? What will become of the interest? If they are going to borrow the money, who is going to pay the interest? After all, the farmers have nothing.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Cradock is being flippant. He has farmers in his constituency too. That is what he thinks of the money of the wool farmers in South Africa.

I should now like to come to another point. The Income Tax Act provides for tax concessions of up to 120% on expenses incurred in connection with exports. That provision is commendable, but as regards the wool industry, an industry which earns R134 million in foreign exchange for South Africa every year …

R170 million!

The hon. member says R170 million. That is even better. But what do we get? That industry is simply excluded. The wool industry does not get the tax concession.

Nor does maize, nor does wheat.

The hon. the Minister says that the maize and the wheat industries do not get the concession either. Why should an industrialist who goes overseas and promotes his product be given a tax concession, and not the wool farmer? The argument that is advanced is that the wool is first auctioned in South Africa and then exported. That is a small technical point. The second argument that is advanced is that the wool farmer has received R2 million from the Government and that the Government makes a large contribution to research. But the wool farmers have not received the R2 million.

In spite of this, they cannot get any tax concessions. Is this fair? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has received any representations from the Wool Board for this matter to be rectified. We are soon to have tax legislation introduced into Parliament again, i.e. the Income Tax Bill. What has been the hon. the Minister’s attitude? Has he made representations? Or does he not think it unfair that the wool farmer of South Africa should not receive that same concession? The farmers are not asking for more; they are just asking for an end to discrimination against the wool industry of South Africa.

I am between the devil and the deep blue sea; I cannot get it.

The hon. the Minister says he is between the devil and the deep blue sea. If they go on discriminating against the wool farmers in this way and the hon. the Minister cannot do anything about it, he should call in Mr. Pik Botha to help with the discrimination against the wool farmers.

I should now like to say something about the bread subsidy. I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Bethal, for we served on the same commission. However, I am not going to advance the argument that the subsidy on bread has been reduced from R90 million to R60 million. What I do want to mention tonight is another form of discrimination against the farmers of South Africa, and not only against the farmers of South Africa, but also against the farm labourers of South Africa, those 3 million souls who are still living on the farms today and who are being disgracefully discriminated against by the Government, for now the bread is being subsidized—no longer the flour, but the bread.

Oh, no!

That hon. member lives in the Free State, where they eat only maize-meal. Here in the Cape Province we give them “boermeel”. The richest people in South Africa are being subsidized as far as bread is concerned.

May I ask you a question?

No, I do not have time. I have only one minute left. The very richest people are now being subsidized. Do hon. members know what is happening now? Flour used to cost R6,20 for a 50 kg bag, and now it costs R10,20. This is an increase of R4 per bag. A family consumes 1½ bags a month, so the food of every member of the family, every labourer on the farm, has gone up by R7 a month.

He should buy the smaller bag!

How can a farmer buy five kilogram bags? Is he to buy 200 bags at a time? The best business enterprise in South Africa would now be to manufacture bags. When a farmer lives 80 km from the nearest station, how many bags will he have to buy if he buys bags containing only 5 kilograms? And the dealers simply do not have it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate after a fellow wool farmer. I have a great liking for the hon. member for King William’s Town, firstly because he does bring some new life into the debates, but principally because he is a fellow wool farmer. However, I am sorry to have to say that the hon. member’s presentation of the facts has not been quite accurate here tonight. Therefore I should like to comment on it briefly before I come to what I really wanted to say in the time available to me. The hon. member blamed the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for the fact that provision was made in last year’s budget for an amount of R2 million to be paid to the wool industry for the promotion of exports, money which the wool industry never got. I received the impression that the hon. member was blaming the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for having seen to it, personally and dictatorially, that the wool industry does not get that money. However, these are not the facts of the matter. I should like to inform the hon. member. I believe the hon. member was sitting in this House the year before last. In the budget then introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, there was no assistance whatsoever to the wool industry for the promotion of exports. However, if the hon. member had subsequently looked at the additional appropriation which was introduced at the beginning of this year, he would have seen that after representations made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, representations for which we are grateful to him, an amount was in fact granted. I cannot remember whether it was R1½ million or R2 million.

It was R2 million.

The Minister has given me the amount. It was R2 million. That amount was granted to the wool industry for export promotion. However, what happened then? Although we have had problems in the wool industry in the past, especially in respect of prices, the wool market has improved considerably over the past year, unlike the rest of the agricultural industry and unlike the rest of the economic activities in South Africa. After last year’s budget, when the hon. the Minister of Finance had granted R2 million to the wool industry, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture approached the wool industry with an open mind—as is characteristic of him. He approached the leaders of the wool industry and told them that R2 million had been granted to them in the budget. However, he pointed out to them that their position was not so bad and asked whether they would be prepared, in the light of the economic circumstances in the country, to forego that amount which the hon. the Minister of Finance had awarded to them.

This was not an easy decision for the wool leaders of South Africa. However, it gives me pleasure to be able to say that as responsible people—and here I am speaking not only of the Wool Board, but also of all the leaders of the National Wool-growers’ Association of South Africa—they told the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that they understood and appreciated the problems of the State. They pointed out that when the wool industry had been on its knees in the early seventies, the State had assisted it and set it on its feet again. They said that since times were now fairly prosperous for the wool industry, they were prepared to forego that concession which the hon. the Minister of Finance had granted to them. I just want to say to my fellow wool farmers that I think we ought to be proud of the fact that the wool farmers of South Africa are people who have been prepared to help themselves in the past and that they have displayed the necessary sense of responsibility. When they realized that the State and the country as a whole were faced with financial problems, while the wool industry was going through a fairly prosperous stage, they were prepared to renounce the right which they had to that R2 million.

Another matter which was raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town was the question of deferred payment for the present season. He referred to the investment of R3 million in Rand Bank and he asked the question, with some justification, perhaps: Where is the money to come from for the deferred payments to the wool farmers? The date on which the deferred payments have to be made is not 19 June, but 19 or 18 July. I can assure the hon. member tonight that there will be no problems whatsoever. The State will not have to provide that money. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to elaborate on this, but provision has been made for it, and not a single wool farmer will have to wait even one day for the full amount of the deferred payment due to him.

What about the interest on the amounts?

Arrangements have been made with the executive or the trustee—or whatever one calls him—to the effect that the Wool Board will be prepared to accept a lower interest rate on the money that was invested. The net effect …

And the new money which has to be borrowed to pay the frozen amount?

No, give me a chance. The net effect of the investment of the deferred payment funds of the Wool Board will still be that the wool farmer of South Africa will earn a much higher interest rate of his deferred payment than he would normally earn if he were to invest the money in the Land Bank, for example. We have been told, and we accept it, that there is no question in any event of any capital loss being suffered by the wool farmer.

However, I have been led too far astray by the hon. member for King William’s Town.

What I really want to discuss—I do not know how much time I have left—is the popular attack that is being made these days on the control boards of the agricultural industry in South Africa. The hon. member for Orange Grove has repeated the parrot cry that we are allegedly interfering with the free working of the economy of supply and demand, because the control boards interfere, by means of artificial price fixing, with the so-called holy cow of the economy according to which prices are determined by supply and demand. I want to put this question tonight: Does the law of supply and demand still operate at all in the economy of the modern world? When I look at last year’s figures, I see that tractor sales in South Africa went down by 32%. Nowhere in South Africa, however, have I seen the prices of tractors go down. When we read the newspapers, we see that thousands of cars cannot be sold in South Africa, but I have never heard of a decrease in the price of motor cars. In addition, there is an over-supply of labour in the South African economy today— in fact, in the world economy. There is unemployment because of an over-supply of labour, which is also an economic commodity. Has anyone on the Opposition side proposed that the price of labour in South Africa be lowered because there is an over-supply of labour? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Barberton will forgive me if I do not react to his argument concerning the wool industry and to the rest of his speech. Of course, it is a great pleasure to me to follow a speaker who does know what he is talking about. Personally I enjoyed the hon. member’s reaction to the speech of the hon. member for King William’s Town.

I want to express a few thoughts in connection with the contribution made by agriculture, firstly, as an employer of non-White labour and, secondly, the possibility that our farmers have to foster better relations with the Black population, more specifically those who are employed on the farms. The achievements of agriculture are the result of co-operation between the Whites and the non-Whites. No-one would doubt that. It is also true that the future development of agriculture will certainly depend more and more on co-operation between White and non-White on the farms. It is logical that this should be so as a result of the increased production which must necessarily follow and which can only be made possible by sound co-operation between all those who live on the farms.

Agriculture is a source of supply as well as demand as far as labour is concerned. In his work called The Stages of Economic Growth, Rostow rightly pointed out in 1967 that any country is more dependent on labour in the agricultural sector in its early stages of development. Up to 75% of the total population of a developing country form part of the agricultural sector. Because the secondary and the tertiary sectors show a more rapid economic growth than agriculture, it is inevitable that the percentage of the labour force employed in agriculture will go down, especially if there are increases in productivity as well. These very phenomena which Rostow described have occurred in the Republic of South Africa as well. We find, for example, that the contribution made by agriculture to the gross domestic product increased form R63 million in 1911 to R1 813 million in 1974. Over the same period, the relative contribution—and this is important—of agriculture went down from 21% to 8,7%.

As against this, the Black agricultural labourers in South Africa increased from 289 464 in 1911 to 867 797 in 1955. After that, the number decreased to approximately 715 600 in 1973. The proportion of the total Black population increased from 7,2% in 1911 to 8,4% in 1955. After that it went down to 4,4% in 1974. In other words, this is the very tendency that Rostow described. On the other hand, it is true that there has been a greater decrease in the population of White farmers than of Black farm labourers, with a resultant Africanization of the rural areas. In this way, for example, there were just over 867 000 Black workers as against 112 000 White workers on the farms in 1955. In 1973, there were 715 600 Black workers as against 82 000 White workers on the farms.

The Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture came to the conclusion, in its second report in 1970, that this tendency would increase and that there would be an increasing difference between the number of White and the number of Black workers on the farms. In my opinion, the farmers of South Africa have to realize that increasing mechanization will lead to a decrease in the use of human labour. A further increase in the wages of Black workers is inevitable, and the farmer will simply not be able to pay the same cash wages—I want to emphasize this—as the other competitors in the labour market while continuing to employ the same number of workers. Seen from this point of view, agriculture will become a larger source of labour for the other sectors in the future.

I want to refer to the good human relationships which can be fostered on the farms. In my opinion, agriculture is the most important factor in the labour field. The agricultural sector will have to develop without using more labour. There is only one way of doing this, and that is by increasing productivity. In order to increase productivity, two other main factors are required. The first is mechanization, with the problems it entails in the form of a larger capital investment as against increasing production costs in varying climatic conditions. In the second place, the farmer will simply have to give special attention to the people employed in the agricultural sector. I have already pointed out that the number of Black workers will have to be reduced. In this way it will be possible to counteract the Africanization of the agricultural sector as well as future socio-economic problems on the farms.

Regarding the Black labour remaining on the farms, I believe that its potential must be exploited to the full. In order to do this, it is necessary, I believe, to introduce proper training and extension services for the White farmers as well as the non-White labourers. Surveys have shown that the maintenance and repair cost of tractors in the Republic of South Africa is approximately 18c an hour, as against less than 5c an hour in Yorkshire, England. But this is not all. If the available farm labour, White and non-White, could be trained in maintaining and repairing farm machinery and implements, it is estimated that there could be a saving of round about 50%. The running expenses of farmers in connection with the repair and maintenance of tractors and implements amounted to R105 million in 1968-’69. If there could be a saving of only 20% as a result of better training of White as well as non-White farm labourers, this would mean a saving of R21 million. Surely this is an aspect one should keep in mind. In the second place, one should remember that trained workers will inevitably be entitled to higher wages. If one regards the matter in a realistic light, it is true that at first sight, a comparison between the wages paid to Black people in the agricultural sector and in other sectors appears to be alarming. It is important to know that the wages of the Black worker in the agricultural sector do not consist of cash alone. They consist of a cash wage which varies between 10% and 90% of the total wage received by the Black worker, but in addition he receives a wage in kind. In this connection I refer in particular to his benefits, i.e. free accommodation, food and other requirements. In other words, the farmer looks after the family of the Black labourer. The Black worker in the city may well receive a higher cash wage, but it is interesting to note that in every survey it has been found that the Black man in the urban area, although he earns a higher cash wage, does not receive enough money to pay for everything he needs in the city. On the other hand, however, it is also true that farmers will simply have to realize that more attention will have to be given to higher cash wages for their non-White workers. Lower cash wages place them in a very poor bargaining position as against the other sectors which also employ Black labour.

Pleasant working conditions and conditions of service are bound to result in a good relationship between employer and employee, i.e. between White and non-White. This can be achieved if there is the right relationship between White and non-White and between employer and employee. This is especially applicable to the wages to which the Black people are entitled, to their accommodation and to the fact that they now perform more important work because they have been trained. This will lead to job satisfaction and to a sense of pride in being able to participate in agriculture. It offers the Black population an opportunity to grow up in a rural environment and to become acquainted with the virtues so characteristic of the farming communities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Virginia with his speech. He has made a valuable contribution and I must say that I can find very little to disagree with in what he has said. However, in respect of mechanization if it is to replace the Black labour force in the platteland, I must warn that I see the excessive development of mechanization as one of the most serious problems facing agriculture. In very many instances this has led to higher cost in production and to other sorts of problems. I believe this is something that should be watched very carefully.

I do not want to follow the hon. member’s argument any further, because there are other points I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. I believe that as long as we have an agricultural industry we will always have problems with agriculture, because it is a difficult industry to control. It is an industry which is so largely dependent on the prevailing climatic conditions. Quite obviously, the problems we are facing today, the dilemma we are facing in the agricultural industry, is one of surpluses. I agree with the hon. the Minister that to have a problem of surpluses, is probably one of the least troublesome problems we could expect to have to deal with. The rapidly rising costs of production, costs over which the farmer has no control, are not being met by the increased prices which the farmer receives for his products. Obviously the farmer’s profits are getting lower. Unfortunately, when the product which a farmer produces is not consumed in sufficient quantities the result is a surplus. Although there is a surplus the word “surplus” is a misnomer. It is only a surplus at a particular price. If the price was lower all the surpluses the hon. the Minister has spoken about, would disappear. [Interjections.] We have a tremendous population of 25 million. If the price of a product were such that the lesser privileged groups could afford to pay it, all surpluses would disappear overnight. I do know that we cannot do this, but the problem is that it is not a real surplus; it is a surplus at a price. [Interjections.] The problem towards which the hon. the Minister should direct his attention is to how he could dispose of that surplus to those communities who cannot afford to pay the current price at the present stage. He would have to do that without upsetting the price he would like the farmer to receive. That is his dilemma.

However, accepting the fact that we have surpluses, I believe that the biggest challenge facing the farmer in South Africa today is how to meet the problem of rising costs. What can the farmer do to place himself in a position where he can keep rising costs in check? There are things, many things, the farmer can do. He can aim at a more efficient production, a greater return per acre, etc. Those are all things he can do. It is in this regard that I want to mention one or two points to the hon. the Minister.

I believe that probably the most priceless asset we have in South Africa is the natural grazing we have in this country. And then I also take into account our mining assets and the various other assets we may have. We have the vast Karoo, the Free State, the prairie lands of the Transvaal. Our pastures are our most precious asset. I believe that among all other things we have to do, we should also direct our attention to the optimal utilization of that resource. We should make quite sure of it that the optimal utilization of our grazing resources is receiving the constant attention of the Government, of the hon. the Minister and of the farmers in South Africa. But one of the most serious limiting factors we have, a factor that reduces very often the value of this very great asset, is the limitation of moisture. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has given sufficient attention to the fact that by taking certain steps which I believe are possible to increase our annual rainfall or rainfall in periods of drought by 20% he can probably almost double the production from our pasture lands in South Africa. We have been blessed with wonderfully fruitful seasons. We have had above normal rainfall over the last four or five years. Production has been high, but as sure as I stand here and the Minister sits there droughts are again going to make their presence felt in South Africa. What is the Minister going to do to try and solve that particular problem? I know that two other departments are busy with weather modifications. I believe that the experiments that are being done in South Africa in this particular regard are some of the most advanced in the world. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has consulted his colleagues, the Minister of Water Affairs and the Minister of Transport—who are dealing with this thing— to see if this particular technique of weather modification can be applied successfully in the pasture areas of our country. It is interesting to note that in Rhodesia very far-reaching steps have been taken. I have a report here from the National Drought Relief Cloud Seeding Operation from the Department of Meteorological Services of Rhodesia. They have taken very active steps to make the most beneficial use of the modern techniques of weather modification, and with great success. Over vast areas of that country they have increased their rainfall by 20% and by doing that they have very often saved crops that had been badly affected by drought conditions. I have it here in the report. I only want to read one paragraph because this is a big subject and time is limited—

Now as a result of the far-sightedness of the Minister of Agriculture in Rhodesia weather modification was applied to the benefit of that country’s agricultural industry. The results were of such a nature that agricultural production was increased. If you increase production then you are surely meeting the challenge of rising costs. I believe that this hon. Minister must look at this matter very seriously. I believe it might well be in the interest of the pasture industry and the production, as the hon. member for Bethal said, of red meat in South Africa, which in the end is going to be our cheapest protein food from natural pastures, to see whether steps cannot be taken to interest certain districts in the pastoral areas of South Africa to co-operate with the Minister through their farmers’ organizations, or any other organizations he may deem fit, to launch weather modification schemes. There have been meetings by farmers in this connection. There is actually a committee at the present time being formed under the chairmanship of the member for Somerset East. It would be helpful for the Minister to get something like this off the ground. I would suggest that as an initial step a district or area should be selected and the farmers should be approached by way of a questionnaire giving them the latest information of the techniques of weather modification and to solicit their support. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will find that in certain areas and districts farmers would be interested, especially if they knew … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central touched on a wide range of aspects. I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to the matters which he raised. I want to confine myself to a particular section of our agricultural set-up, the fresh milk and dairy industry. We are still experiencing a surplus milk supply for industrial milk purposes. During the latter part of last year and earlier this year we had an increase of 34% in cheese-milk production, and in the case of condensing milk production, an increase of 20%.

The reasons for this increase in production were mainly natural causes. In the first place, there were the attractive prices originally paid for dairy products when beef prices tended to level out and started to drop. In the second place, there were the favourable weather conditions in the producing areas which promoted production. In the third place, there was the fact that in these times of inflation our farmers are only goo glad to take the opportunity of making a little cash by producing milk and sending it on to the industrial market.

As far as our fresh milk production is concerned, we have two basic problems. In the first place, there is once again the problem of surpluses, and in the second place, especially in the case of our farmers in the Transvaal, particularly in the Highveld area, there is the system of purchasing on the basis of quality. As far as the surpluses are concerned, I want to say that surpluses occurred despite the pool-allocation system, or the quota scheme, not at low cost production, but at high cost production. This causes a problem. As such the system of purchasing on the basis of quality is not a problem. What did cause the problem was the formula which was applied and which was foreign to our farmers. What the formula really amounts to is the fact that one is paid for butter-fat—which is an old and well-known element in our milk production—that one is paid for protein and that one is also paid for volume. The butter-fat component can be introduced into the herd by means of breeding. The greater part of our herd animals on register, are registered in respect of the element of butter-fat production. In contrast with this, let us turn to the component of protein in milk production. As far as we could ascertain, protein production capacity was only mentioned in the case of a single bull on register. That is an entirely new component to our farmers and according to our scientists protein is closely linked to the feeding pattern. As far as volume is concerned, we again have the concept of breeding and feeding.

This section of our agriculture also had the following problems, and still has them. It will still have them in future, too. I am referring to the increase in wages and salaries. This is not going to level out. The land, the farm belonging to a farmer, will not become cheaper. Neither will buildings, the installation of machines or mechanization become any cheaper. In other words, at that level prices will continue to rise. Then what is the solution? In the first place, our producers will have to produce more at lower cost, with the same or a smaller capital outlay. In this respect I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Paarl. Whereas we can expect more from the same plant in the same soil, in this case we have to be able to expect more from the animal as the producer.

In the case of fresh milk, our average yield is at present approximately 5,29 litres per cow per day. A few years ago the average yield per dairy cow was 6,08 litres. We should strive to increase the yield per cow to 12 litres per day. That is probably possible, because in Israel there are herds with an average yield of 19 litres per cow per day. But that requires the implementation of certain basic practices or points of departure in the industry. I shall return to that.

The solution to this surplus is that our fresh milk producers should be registered with the Milk Board, or with the board which is going to be formed, so that we can protect these producers when they really need our protection. It often happens that in the surplus time in summer this sphere is overrun by producers who are casual producers and that the farmer who carries this industry through the difficult year, finds it more and more difficult to avoid having a surplus—viz. that quantity of milk above his quota—economically. This year our fresh milk farmers were in such a pickle that they were barely able to sell the surplus above their pool allocation profitably. Many of our farmers had to use it on the farm for other purposes, for example in the rearing of calves and so on.

The next aspect is that our farmers will have to concentrate on the quality of their animals. Our fresh milk producers will simply have to organize their farming in such a way that they will increase the quality of their animals so that there will be no more space for lodgers in their stalls. We should expect our farmers to administer their dairy herds on a very sound basis. A full record of milk production should be kept of each producer in that stall.

The next aspect which will have to be given very careful attention, is the feeding of those animals. We often find that our farmers pride themselves on their dairy herds because their cows are fat and because their cows look good. But if one asks them what the production of their cows is, one finds the production is scanty. There should not be an imbalance in the feeding of the cow. The feed should be aimed at producing good quality milk. Many of our farmers use their crop remains. That is quite correct, but crop remains should not be so bad that they do not provide the nourishment necessary for production. We should take that element very thoroughly into account. This could give rise to our farmers producing the same volume with fewer cattle—because cattle are an expensive element—but producing a higher quality milk and so getting the return he deserves, but at a lower unit cost. Our farmers are very level-headed and watchful with regard to price rises. They know full well that even if the hon. the Minister gave them a price of 25c per litre, their product would be off the market, because then the producer would not be able to buy that product. They are fully aware of this. They want to produce a product which is as good as possible and at such a price that the consumer cannot build up resistance to it.

Another aspect which our farmers will also have to take into account, is the scientific planning of their buildings on their farms so that expensive complexes are not built that cannot be fully utilised. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Standerton concentrated on cows in his speech, and I presume that cows play a very important role in his constituency. I want to talk about birds, which play an important role in my constituency. [Interjections.] Naturally I want to talk about ostriches. However, before I come to that, I should first like to say that I stand here a very grateful man due to the excellent agricultural conditions and prospects in the Little Karoo area. There were a number of years when we had extremely variable climatic conditions. For instance, droughts took on serious and very major proportions in that area. On behalf of the farmers of the Little Karoo, the Oudtshoorn district, I should like to convey a sincere word of thanks to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for his very sympathetic attention and his assistance during that very difficult time. Nor am I forgetting the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture who visited that area himself at one stage and saw for himself what happened there. We thank the hon. the Minister of Agriculture who met us halfway as regards the import of lucerne seed when the production of this commodity in the Little Karoo had dropped very low. In particular, I should like to say thank you on behalf of the farmers there for the loans which were made available to them at a very reasonable rate of interest, loans which enabled them to purchase fodder for their animals. I should also like to mention the very valuable services provided by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, especially the work and the experiments carried out at the experimental station at Oudtshoorn. Since we are an irrigation district, and an area with a very low rainfall, I should also like to thank the Department of Water Affairs here tonight for its constant attention. It is simply impossible to practise farming without water and irrigation works. That is why we appreciate the funds which have already been invested by the State to enable our agricultural activities to continue.

I should like to give the assurance here tonight that not only are the farmers in the Little Karoo hardworking people, but that due to the variable climatic conditions, they are also steeled to get the best out of their industry and will continue to make a very important contribution towards our agricultural development. This is a group of farmers for whom the risk factor in agriculture is a challenge, not a challenge which they grumble about and are dissatisfied about, but a challenge which they accept and make the best of. If one takes a look at the farmers in that part of our country, one also finds a very cautious financial approach among them. This is what we should like to see in all our farmers, especially those who have to deal with variable climatic conditions, who do not know whether it is going to rain the following year, and therefore cannot spend all of this year’s yield because they also have to provide for the future.

The industry which has to a very large extent been the salvation of these farmers in particular over the years, an industry which they rely on very heavily, is the ostrich industry. This industry is very strong today, and became strong under the wing of the Little Karoo Agricultural Co-operative. I should like to mention the total payments made to ostrich farmers in recent years. For the 1967-’68 financial year there was an amount of R265 000, but only about six years after that, in respect of the financial year 1974-’75, it already amounted to R3 229 000. We therefore find an increase of R3 million in the sum of money paid out to farmers over a period of only six years. We are therefore dealing here with an industry which has not come to a standstill, but which continued to develop and flourish and by so doing enabled the farmers to make ends meet. In the 1967-’68 financial year a slaughtering ostrich brought in only R22 and during the 1973-’74 financial year this had already increased to R92. This is an increase of approximately R70 per ostrich over this period. Therefore the Little Karoo Agricultural Co-operative followed a very sound policy, a policy for which they were criticized and which was discussed in the course of the session, last year. The co-operative had to reduce the advances for 1976-’77 in order to normalize production. However, the advances are still higher than those for 1973-’74.

What did the farmers in this industry have to deal with? We had to deal with the fact that approximately 10 257 ostriches were produced in the 1967-’68 financial year. In the 1974-’75 financial year it was 47 612. In other words, the co-operative had immediately to deal with an increase of approximately 37 000 skins. A stock of skins was building up, and since there is an economic recession throughout the world, it was essential for the co-operative to tell the farmers to normalize the production of skins. The complaint was made that too many ostrich skins were in stock. I want to say here tonight that the co-operative has in fact been obliged to keep a stock of 25 000 skins, because when orders come from abroad, it must be possible to export the skins immediately. There were also complaints because we did not want to give the number of skins which were in stock. I should like to put it very clearly tonight that this is a domestic matter and the co-operative decided that the number should not be announced publicly.

I want to conclude by quoting from the speech made by the chairman of the board of directors at the annual general meeting during December. He said the following on that occasion—

He went on to say—

There are people who criticize and find fault, but the ostrich industry is the industry that has kept the farmers of the Little Karoo going over the years. It is an industry of which they are proud and with which we shall continue in the interests of agriculture and in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that most hon. members will agree that this has been a very interesting debate on one of South Africa’s most important industries. I also believe that the speeches which have been made so far have been very constructive. I was particularly interested to hear the hon. member for Fauresmith complaining about the shortage of veterinary surgeons. I disagree with very little of what he had to say. He mentioned Onderstepoort, which, I believe, produces some of the best vaccines one can find anywhere in the world. It is a wonderful institution. Being a farmer myself, viz. a stock farmer, I can find very little fault with the vaccines and with Onderstepoort as such. The only problem we in the southern Cape experience, is that Onderstepoort is situated far from the southern Cape. There are certain vaccines, for example gallsick vaccines, which are only positive for two or three days. Onderstepoort is then almost out of reach when we want to get new vaccine in time, before it becomes negative. This is something we shall have to consider in future, e.g. that wé have a depot closer to the southern Cape to supply us with these vaccines.

No mention has been made so far of two institutions which—I think all will agree—are the backstage bodies of South Africa’s Agricultural finances. These are the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Unfortunately these two institutions have limited funds. When one looks through the books and one sees how much has been voted for these two institutions and one thinks of how much they are doing for agriculture, one realizes that the funds voted are very limited indeed. However, we agriculturalists do not take these two institutions for granted. We very much appreciate what they are doing for agriculture. They finance agriculture throughout our land. We find that if the farmers play the game with these two institutions, they play the game with the farmers. Of course, the farmer, like all businessmen, must be credit-worthy, otherwise he cannot hope to receive much sympathy from the Land Bank or from Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Last year it was unfortunately decided to increase the interest rate of the Land Bank by 1%. This has made a big difference to those farmers who are battling to meet the interest rate. Because of the extra load in respect of interest many of them find it impossible to meet their commitments. This has made things very difficult for the industry.

In the short time at my disposal, I want to discuss the meat industry. I think this is something which concerns people of all colours in South Africa Meat is our country’s most popular foodstuff. I believe the Meat Board does its best, seeing that it is a very complicated and involved industry. We know what the Meat Board comprises. We go to agricultural congresses and we hear that one of the best meat industries in the world is to be found in South Africa. Yet there are people who complain year after year. Most producers are happy about the meat industry. However, because of production costs—we have frequently heard it mentioned this afternoon— there is a big margin between the producer’s prices and the cost to the consumer. We know that the producer and the consumer are closely related and we want it to remain so. In Cape Town fat lamb is a luxury and is almost unobtainable. I have gone from butcher shop to butcher shop and I could not find fat lamb on their shelves.

I am not mentioning this light-heartily, because the difference between the prices which the producer receives for his red meat and the price the consumer is paying for that meat, is too big. That is not what I think, but also what Prof. W. E. Kassier of the department of agricultural economics at Stellenbosch University thinks. He said in June last year that the gap between the price paid to the producer and the price paid by the consumer was far too large. I accept that this is not an easy problem to solve, that there is no easy solution to it. I know that the department and the Livestock and Meat Industry Control Board are doing their best in this regard. Every year I receive a circular—as most stock farmers who produce fat lamb, baby beef and all other grades of slaughter stock do. I quote from the circular of the Livestock and Meat Industry Control Board.—

We fill these forms in, but straightaway I can see something wrong with the form. They want us to supply them with the information as to the number of animals marketed from 1 September to 30 November of the year, then they skip a period and ask us what will be marketed from 1 March until 31 May of the following year.

Most livestock farmers who produce slaughter stock in the eastern Cape, the Border and the Eastern Province, sell their stock during the months of May, June, July and August. This is, however, not what the Meat Industry Control Board asks for. They mention only certain months and these months, in our area, are dormant. That is when we are not selling livestock. If we do, it is very little. Therefore the information which I hand over to them for a year is immaterial, false and incorrect. If the “Livestock Estimates”, asked us for the full 12 months’ cycle, it would make sense. No wonder that when last month I applied for a permit to sell 20 steers which were fat and right for the market, I was told that I could not get a permit, because the market was flooded. It was only after I had gone on my knees to Vleis-Sentraal and Elliot Brothers of Queenstown, that I was able to divide the stock and send some to Port Elizabeth and some to Newtown. What a battle! Those animals had to remain on my property for an extra two weeks, which meant a loss to me because they were costing me money, as the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will appreciate. When an animal is ready for the market it must be sold. One must not waste a day or two. So after having filled in all these forms for years and years I am told that I cannot be supplied with a permit when my stock is ready to be sold. [Interjections.] The same applies to sheep. I do not know whether all farmers are required to supply the information, but we are told in the circular, that every producer of livestock, who markets, is being asked to supply the information. I do not believe, however, that they all supply the information. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London North raised certain problems about the meat industry. If the hon. member were to read the report of the Wentzel Commission, however, he would see that many positive proposals were made about the meat industry, but that the hon. the Minister did not, at that stage—nor does he even now—want to implement those recommendations since he has, as a result of the report, appointed a committee. I think the hon. member knows about this. The committee, which was appointed by the hon. the Minister, is under the chairmanship of Dr. Claude van der Merwe, a former Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I am, however, aware of the fact—and I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member—that where there is a drop in the farmers’ meat prices—I am now speaking about controlled areas—it is only reasonable for the butchers to transfer that decrease to the consumers. I think the hon. member really has something there. I believe it is necessary for us to say here in the House that the merchants must also play the game. If the farmer is prepared to accept the lower price in an effort to stimulate consumption, it is also in the interests of the retailers and the wholesalers to transfer the lower price to the consumers. Then there would, of necessity, be greater consumption. In the final analysis this would also mean a greater turnover for the merchants concerned. I think the hon. member really has something there.

The hon. member also spoke about the allocation of quotas. I know that at this stage there is a bottleneck, particularly in relation to cattle. This does not happen to be the case with sheep. In the case of cattle, however, there is a great bottleneck at this stage. I also believe that the investigation which, I hope, has nearly been concluded—the investigation by the committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Claude van der Merwe …

The end of June.

The hon. the Minister says the end of June. I hope that measures will now be introduced in terms of which positive steps can be taken to promote the consumption of meat—particularly that of beef—in South Africa. It deserves to be mentioned that South Africa is the only country in the world where the price of lamb is higher than that of beef. It is alarming to see how the consumption of meat in this country is decreasing. It is definitely alarming, particularly in the light of the increase in the consumption of broilers. I do not want to belittle any agricultural industry, but I think the hon. the Minister put his finger on it this afternoon when he said that throughout the years the broiler industry has been subsidized by the maize farmers of South Africa.

The maize farmers have had a difficult time of it.

Yes. I believe it is a good thing that we have eliminated this anomaly and that we are not creating an imbalance in the consumption. I sincerely hope that Dr. Van der Merwe’s committee will come to light with positive proposals that will enable us to bring the consumption of red meat back to the level at which it was a few years ago.

I think I owe it to the country to say a few words this evening about the livestock reduction scheme which has now almost been completed. I still remember how, in August 1970, the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Dirk Uys, the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Dirk Uys, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Hilgard Muller, the present hon. Minister, then Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and I travelled by air to Prince Albert where there were more than 600 farmers at a meeting. It was a meeting that was called to discuss with the Minister concerned, the biggest drought in living memory in that area. I shall never forget it. Our arrival at the venue that day made an indelible impression on me. We know that people who are hit by a drought are, first and foremost, rebellious. They are aggressive. However, when we arrived at Prince Albert that day there was no sign of aggressiveness amongst those farmers. The people there were in such dire straits that, with their hats in their hands, they were pleading to the hon. the Minister for help.

I well remember how ex-Minister Dirk Uys, when we boarded the aircraft for the return journey to the Cape, said to Dr. Hilgard Muller:“Hilgard, what are we to do with these people? They are going under. They are being wiped out.”

In the course of time, as does happen, there was an improvement in the situation. However, at that stage certain measures were introduced, and hon. members will be interested to know that even the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions had to intervene to help people to buy food and even to pay labourers. That is how desparate the situation was at that stage. I also believe that the meeting at Prince Albert in August 1970 gave birth to the livestock reduction scheme. It is called the wonder scheme of the 20th century, and I want to endorse this with all the emphasis at my command. Initially there were many problems with the introduction of the scheme. I can remember how, in this House, we debated the compensation that had to be paid out—the hon. member for Newton Park will remember this—as well as the carrying capacity of the various areas.

In the course of time, however, the scheme began to function smoothly and adjustments were made from time to time. Some individuals withdrew from this scheme, but the overall majority remained as members. I submit that the greatest endeavour in the history of the world is that of the restoration of the soil. We know that even a country like Australia is interested in this scheme. We learned this on our recent visit to Australia, and the department has had to send over certain data about this scheme. I do not think, however, that we would have been as successful if nature had not played along. Since 1972 the Great Provider has given the Karoo the finest years ever in its history. I do not think the recovery would have been as dramatic were it not for the fine rains we had and are still having. We are having the best seasons ever in the history of the Karoo.

One must, however, also issue a word of warning. The recovery was not as dramatic as the laymen would have it. Certain observations give rise to some concern because the optimum plant growth and perennial vegetation have not increased as much as appearances lead one to think. It is more the annual growth that has increased. After having analysed the results of the scheme a little, I can say that the greatest single value of the scheme is to be found in the changes of attitude it has brought about in the farmers of the Karoo. A change of attitude in respect of the soil and in respect of their animals. In fact, this scheme has brought about a complete change of attitude. I know of numerous farmers who have never believed in letting their land lie fallow. Today one only has to speak about that to a farmer and say: “That is a fine camp; you must put livestock in it.” He would shoot one. No matter what the cost, if we have been able to change our farmers’ attitudes about the soil it has been worth the effort and the cost.

Secondly, I want to point to the scientific approach. It does one’s heart good to walk into the co-operative of a Saturday morning and hear the people speaking about new types of grass seed, the analyses that have been done on their soil, analyses that have been done on their plants, the increase in their plant growth and the physical plant breeding that has been done under the guidance of extension offices. This links up with the change in attitude. The scientific approach to the soil amongst our people is one of the fine results of this scheme.

The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is also doing more purposeful research with respect to the Karoo, and I also ascribe this to the scheme. The research devotes itself to plant survey studies, the reaction of veld to rest periods, etc. Since I, and my friend there from De Aar, probably represent the major portion of the Karoo, it is fitting that we should say thank you this evening to the tax-payers of South Africa for the sacrifice they have made at a time when the Karoo farmers were in the most dire straits ever. I do not think the tax-payers will ever have need to regret this.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that tremendous bottlenecks do occur in our farming industry from time to time, but with positive and united action, as in the case of the livestock production scheme to which the hon. member has just referred, one can overcome these problems. These are some hon. members who also pointed to other bottlenecks in agriculture. The hon. member for Bethal pointed out that present-day cost increases are probably one of the biggest bottlenecks. When one examines the fine annual reports of the three departments, and the report of the Land Bank, it strikes one that they also point out these bottlenecks, and do so very thoroughly loo.

There is one bottleneck, in particular, that I should like to refer to, a bottleneck which, in my opinion, lies at the root of many of the bottlenecks in our agriculture. I am referring to the question of our land prices, the price of agricultural land which has soared in the past few years. These annual reports of the various departments and the Land Bank also point out this problem of the increase in land prices very clearly. It is not only the land prices that are affected. There is also the fact that as a result of the high prices these pieces of land become uneconomic farming units. Then, Mr. Chairman, there is also the problem of financing that crops up as a result of the increase in the land prices. There have been several commissions in the past that have investigated this matter. There is, for example, the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture and the Committee for Inquiry into Rural Reform which, amongst other things, pointed out these bottlenecks in regard to the increase of land prices, uneconomic units, financing in agriculture and all related aspects. At the beginning of the ’sixties the question of the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land was discussed with great emphasis here in the House and amongst members of the public. Fortunately we obtained legislation in this connection in 1970. Recently I read again what the hon. the Minister had said at the time. I think that this Act came in good time. It did a great deal to help overcome these bottlenecks in agriculture. If it were not for that legislation, our agricultural land would today have been cut up into much smaller pieces and we would have had to pluck the fruits of such action.

That is one leg. The other leg is that we already have too many uneconomic units in South Africa. The question now is: What are we going to do with those uneconomic units? How are we going to convert those uneconomic units back into economic units or consolidate them with other economic or uneconomic units in order to make viable agricultural units of them? I think that we must discuss this problem of existing uneconomic units in depth. A special investigation must be launched into the extent, the nature and the number of the uneconomic units existing in our country at present and into what plans can be made to consolidate those units into viable units. We have financing problems in the case of these uneconomic units. There is also the fact that these small pieces of farmland are sold at the most expensive possible prices. They have acquired speculation value. It is specifically this speculation value that makes it difficult to get financing for that land. In no way do I blame the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank for trying to force down the land prices by refusing loans for these uneconomic units, which are sold at the most expensive possible prices. I must say, however, that I doubt whether they are going to be successful in their efforts to depress land prices by refusing loans. This increase in land prices actually started in the sixties. It began to pose a threat to the stability of the average farming concerns. I think it is high time that we in South Africa gave primary attention to this matter. The Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are actually very conservative when it comes to granting loans. They calculate the production value of the land and not the market value, a procedure which is, of course, quite correct. On the other hand, however, I do feel that one should guard against being too conservative, because if one is too conservative, one can perhaps fail to help many people buy an additional uneconomic unit to add to their economic units. However, in spite of this conservative policy of theirs, the prices of agricultural land are still increasing. I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the tremendous price increases on the Springbok Flats. That is, of course, the result of the cultivation of com and the extent of that in the area concerned.

That situation, however, cannot continue forever, and those people could land up in difficulties. We know that the high land prices go hand in hand with other evels. Firstly, if a person has bought an uneconomic unit at too high a price, he wants to try to have that land justify itself economically. One then finds overgrazing and overloading of the land. One finds agricultural land being ploughed that should never have been ploughed. The farmer concerned, perhaps a young farmer, has possibly bought too small a unit because he did not have enough money to buy a bigger and better unit. He is very soon going to find out that his income and expenditure do not balance. This is going to cause him further difficulties.

I say that the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure have done a tremendous amount to help in the past few years. If one studies the reports and just looks at the amounts presently owed to those two bodies, one sees that on 31 December 1976 more than R483 million was owing to the Land Bank, and this is a considerable amount. On 31 March 1977 there was almost R153 million owing to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. This is only on long-term loans; I am not talking now about medium-term and short-term loans. Those are the mortgage loans which were still owing to those bodies at that stage. This makes one realize that those two bodies have also made their contribution to financing.

To sum up, I think that in order to meet our problems in the future, we shall have to have an investigation made into the present number of uneconomic units. The question that arises is what one can do about it. Can one not consolidate them into economic units? For example, when a farmer perhaps buys an additional piece of land which is an uneconomic unit, there must be a provision in his deed of transfer to the effect that he may not resell that unit as an uneconomic unit but that it should be consolidated with his own land. Thus one could, in the course of time, make one’s land more economical, and when one’s land is larger in size, one’s burden of debt automatically decreases, a state of affairs which would perhaps also help us as a counter-measure against these cost increases. I know the Committee for Inquiry into Rural Reform has stated that the subsistence position on many of the farms is extremely critical at present because the net farming income for many farms is in the vicinity of R2 500 per year, which does not make the farm a viable unit. When someone’s net farming income is about R4 000 or R4 500 per annum, he can make a living on that farm. This committee has found that 20% to 60% of the units in our country furnish less than R2 500 per year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, quite a number of members on both sides of the House have today drawn attention to the importance of agriculture to South Africa. I want to associate myself with that. This is quite correct, because a balanced and stable agricultural industry is an indispensable element for a sound and vital economy which, in turn, is the key to South Africa’s security. In the planning of the security of the country, a matter which in these times surely demands very serious thought, constant attention must therefore be given to the fact that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is dealing with strategic products. We dare not therefore allow the consumer to plague or argue with the farmer to such an extent that he stops producing because if we were to start importing food, we would find that it would be far more expensive than the oil that is imported to produce the food. I want to say here and now that it would not pay any consumer to try to find this out. Every farmer realizes, of course, that there must be a sound balance between the producer price of agricultural products and the consumer price. I also think that there is a very clear understanding of the fact that the task of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in maintaining this balance is just as delicate as the task of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, who is walking a tightrope with his ear to the ground.

However, what our farmers cannot understand is the fact that the trade unions have stated that they are prepared not to press wage claims as long as food prices are not increased. This type of blackmail will put the farmers out of business. This kind of attitude on the part of the trade unions is in fact nothing but a demand that the producer should subsidize the consumer, as has been the case for years in the maize industry—something to which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has also referred— in that the export profits of the maize industry which are deposited in the Stabilization Fund were utilized, inter alia, to keep the consumer price of maize down, something from which the poultry industry derived a great deal of benefit, as he mentioned.

However, the situation in the maize industry has changed this year and I think I am speaking on behalf of every maize producer when I thank the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for the fact that the State has now accepted the principle that it is exclusively responsible for subsidizing the consumer if it is of the opinion that food prices should be kept low. Indeed, this is clear from the fact that the Maize Board’s Stabilization Fund has not made a contribution this year, but that the State has in fact made a contribution of R2,50 per ton to subsidize the maize price. I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for the principle being introduced here. The result of this is that the farmer’s export profit of last year is safe in the Stabilization Fund.

This brings me to a very important matter on which I should like to have a reply from the hon. the Minister. I should like to know how he sees the future utilization of the Stabilization Fund. Does the hon. the Minister consider that every year should look after itself—this has been said in the past—and that on the conclusion of an export programme in regard to the maize of a specific season, the available profits should be paid to the suppliers of that maize, or does the hon. the Minister envisage that the Stabilization Fund should accumulate its profits and that they should be utilized on the basis of ad hoc decisions in the future, viz. to cover export losses, to make up the producer price or, in fact, to pay out export profits to the producer? I think it would be as well if our farmers could be clear on the hon. the Minister’s policy, particularly since a change in policy has now taken place in regard to the utilization of the Stabilization Fund and that the consumer price is no longer being subsidized from it.

The fact that the Stabilization Fund need no longer keep money in reserve to subsidize the consumer price of the following season brings me to the next matter which I should like to submit for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. This is the possibility of a pool system for the maize industry on the same lines as those which already exist for the wool industry and the oilseed industry, among others. The necessary adjustments would of course have to be made, because different commodities are involved. In essence, such a system would amount to a provisional price which would be as close as possible to the estimated final realization, sufficient account being taken, of course, of the export and administration costs which would have to be covered by such an export profit. If the export pool of a specific season ends with a profit, this would mean that the profits were paid to the suppliers of that season’s maize. This method has already been adopted to a large extent in the oilseed industry.

If we were to allow the profits of the Stabilization Fund to accumulate for unforeseen circumstances in the future and if periodic payments could be made to farmers on an ad hoc basis if the fund was reasonably strong, this could mean that people entering the industry for the first time could derive benefits from this for which they had made no contribution. It would also result in people who leave the industry in the meantime as a result of various factors not receiving the benefits they were entitled to. In some cases, whether or not a farmer receives his export profits can be the decisive factor which determines whether he is able to continue farming in the subsequent year. In other cases it could be the factor which would determine whether or not a farmer had to seek assistance in regard to production from his co-operative or assistance from the Agricultural Credit Board.

Personally, I think that there is probably no objection to the principle that as far as possible, every producer should get his rightful share from the industry for which he has worked. However, there can in fact be objections to the possibility that someone else who has not contributed getting the benefit which another should have had. The system I am now submitting for the consideration of the hon. the Minister will ensure that every producer will as far as possible receive his rightful share from the industry for which he has worked. I know of no principle making the system impracticable or impossible and I therefore want to ask that the hon. the Minister give consideration to it.

To conclude, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Virginia had to say about the relationship between White and non-White on the platteland. This relationship is and will continue to be responsible for the fact that we shall have a stable agricultural industry in the future. That is why I am a little upset about a report which appeared in Rapport during January under banner headlines to the effect that farm labourers are only paid R5 per month. The report was based on the area around the Free State goldfields, and according to the report Bantus were prevented from going to work in the mines for R100 per month and were obliged to work on the farms for R5 per month. I want to challenge Rapport to bring me a single Bantu from that area who qualifies to be a mine labourer and who only works for R5 per month and nothing more. That is what the report says; R5 per month.

The hon. member for Virginia showed very clearly that a Bantu farm labourer is offered many fringe benefits. If an urban employer were to do as much for his Bantu labourers by way of a stand, a dwelling, water, firewood or electricity, then we would no longer speak in terms of R100 per month for a Bantu labourer … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parys ended off by dealing with the question of wages of farm labour. I do not think there is anybody who does not actually farm who can understand the way this thing works. The relationship between a farmer and his labour differs entirely from any other relationship in the country. It is not only that, but the relationship goes beyond the question merely of wages. It is an intensely personal, close, almost a family relationship whereby a farmer is intimately involved in the whole family life of every single labourer living on his farm. I think this is a relationship which cannot be measured in terms of money. It is not a thing on which one can put a quantitative amount and say that it is worth so much or so much. It is something which has evolved in our country over the years. It is a system which is probably creating the utmost instability in the whole of the rural areas of our country. I regard this as one of the most vital factors in the struggle the White man has to wage in South Africa.

It is a feudal system.

The hon. member for Sandton says it is a feudal system. I know that he is trying to be funny; he is joking. Everybody knows … [Interjections.] … that the farmer is the representative of the Government. He is a representative authority who holds the entire area simply for stability, for good order and for all those conventions which make South Africa what it is. I must confess that I agree with the hon. member for Parys. In some ways it is a strange feeling, because on many occasions I have differed from him very radically. However, I tend to agree with what he has said here tonight.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus dealt with the question of capital in the agricultural industry. The hon. member for Malmesbury said tonight that “die boer is besig om sy kapitaal te verteer”. I think this is one of the problems the farming community faces, namely the question of the supply of capital. The hon. member is quite right. In these times in which we live the farming community is busy burning up its capital at an alarming rate. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he sees this thing developing. I want to say to him that at the interest rate which a farmer presently has to pay on borrowed money from any institution, other than the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit, makes it absolutely impossible to farm. If one is going to borrow money at an interest rate of 12% and 14% one cannot farm when one knows that one’s return is going to be in the region of only 2% or 3%, which is normal in farming activities. How does the hon. the Minister see the position developing? Earlier on in this session I asked a question with regard to the value of farm land and the amount of debt which was incurred with that farm land as security. I asked what the total value of agricultural land was in the years 1956, 1966 and 1976. I also asked what the total farmers’ debt amounted to. I say again that debts are secured against the value of the agricultural land. In 1956 the value of agricultural land— these figures were furnished by the hon. the Minister’s department and I do not want to discuss the basis on which they were arrived at—amounted to R2 836 million. In 1966 it was R5 266 million and in 1976, ten years later, it was R14 384 million. The value of land increased from R5¼ million to R1414 million over a period of ten years. It is the same land. There has been no increase in the amount of farm land.

That is because of the rate of devaluation.

That is quite correct. The hon. the Minister says it is due to the rate of inflation. This is the problem we are facing. The debt of farmers in the 10 years from 1966 to 1976 was R1 000 million in 1966 and R2 257 million in 1976. The hon. member for Potgietersrus quite rightly put his finger on the problem by saying that farm land has become an investment. I want to know from the hon. the Minister how he sees this unhealthy development and what he is going to do about it. The predecessor of the hon. the Minister warned the farmers not to buy ground at inflated prices, because they would not be able to make a living off it. What is happening now, is that at last the financial institutions are tumbling to the fact that where farm land has been a medium of investment, it is no longer so today, because they are realizing that at a 14% interest rate, there is not a farmer in the country who can make enough money to pay that interest. Loans are being called up, and in the year 1976 the total indebtedness of farmers to the Land Bank was R480,6 million, R1 617 million to private institutions and R134,5 million to the Department of Agricultural Credit. This gives a total of approximately R22 232,1 million. The basis of R1 617 million which the farming community owes to the private sector—we know that the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit have a reasonable rate of interest …

What is the value of that land?

I think that hon. member must listen to what I say. It has happened in my constituency, which is one of the best farming constituencies in South Africa …

The second best.

I said one of the best. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has the ideal one. The point I want to make is that the financial institutions are now beginning to call up these debts because the farmers are not able to pay the interest and to service the loans which have been granted. This is going to be the case in regard to the problem of the hon. member for Potgietersrus. Today farm land is no longer the attractive investment which it was, because everybody knows that the costs involved in farming are escalating beyond all control. The cost of everything is escalating to a point where this hon. Minister, by his own admission, is not going to be able to put up prices much further in order to reward the farming community. He has reached a situation where there is an immense amount of consumer resistance, and he will not be able to put up the prices of farm products at a rate which is going to compensate for a 14% or a 12% interest rate that the farmers have to carry on the loans which they have taken.

Impossible.

The hon. the Minister says that it is impossible, and I am absolutely in agreement with him.

The other side of the problem is that if one has an amount of R1 617 million that is owed by farmers, what chance is there that the Land Bank will be able to assist farmers to that degree? Ten years ago, if a farmer in my constituency approached the Land Bank for a loan, everyone looked at him sideways and thought that he was about to collapse. It was regarded as being almost a stigma if one knew that a man had approached the Land Bank for a loan. Today, however, there is not a farmer in the whole of my constituency who would not welcome the opportunity to get a loan from the Land Bank. They are applying for loans all the time, and in many cases they are not being granted the loans they want. I do not know how the hon. the Minister proposes to deal with the situation like this. As I figure it out, the relationship of the debt—the hon. the Minister gave me these figures and I am going to query them, because I am not quite sure that they are right—the total debt for the year 1976 was R2 357 million. If one includes the debts to the Land Bank, to Agricultural Credit and to the private sector and take a 10% average interest on that, it is about R235 million a year which has to be paid in interest only. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. member for Paarl. I was particularly interested in the plea he made for the transfer of the plant breeder, Mr. Ted Evans, from Roodeplaat to the Western Cape. I sympathize with the hon. member and am aware of the fact that there is a tremendous shortage of plant breeders. I nevertheless want to take the opportunity to say that it would be extremely regrettable if a person like Mr. Ted Evans were taken away from Roodeplaat.

I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the comprehensive plant breeding programme that Mr. Evans is engaged in. He is specifically engaged in breeding grape cultivars which are particularly well-adapted to the Transvaal’s summer rainfall climate. As hon. members know, in the Transvaal we have had to depend on Catawbas in the past. That is a grape that people in the Western Cape know nothing about. Here they only know the grapes that go into bottles. The Catawba one can at least eat. With the breeding of the new cultivars, which Mr. Evans has already placed on the market, there is now the possibility, in the Transvaal, of producing decent grapes that do not have to end up in bottles. If Mr. Evans is transferred to the Western Cape, I believe that Mooirivier will also be finished and done with. We have already suffered a great loss with the transfer, at the time, of Mr. Willie Carstens to Stellenbosch. Consequently there is only one plant breeder at Roodeplaat at the moment. I want to express the hope that we shall obtain even more plant breeders rather than bleed one specific research station dry.

I should have liked to devote all my time to this subject because it is a subject that is dear to my heart. I am also here, however, to represent the farmers of the Middelburg district, and this evening I should like to speak of the threat of open-cast mining in our district. In a country like South Africa one sector of our economy will unavoidably influence another. When mining is done in such a way that it affects agriculture, the latter surely has the right to make itself heard. Agriculture, from the very nature of things, chiefly has a long-term orientation specifically because what is done today only makes its influence felt tomorrow. For 50 or 100 years, for as long as the world keeps turning, agriculture must be responsible for the provision of food. That is why one must take a look at sources of food in advance. Mining, on the other hand, represents a temporary asset that is only realized once. As soon as the iron ore or the coal is sold, that is the end of it.

Because agriculture and mining basically use the same source of production, i.e. the land, and because there are frequently conflicting interests, I feel that it is in the interests of the country to have a long-term investigation into the optimum utilization of this indispensable resource, land. I can, of course, state without any reservations that agriculture does not want to stand in the way of the country’s development, be it in any sphere, but that in this world, with its growing demand for food, there must be a thorough investigation into the available means of production, and here I am very specifically thinking of land.

South Africa is not richly endowed with good agricultural land. In his speech the hon. the Deputy Minister also mentioned that fact. Only 3% of our total agricultural land is classified as high potential land. More than 90% of the total amount of cultivable land is already being cultivated. Extensions to irrigation land are limited and the estimated eventual surface area under irrigation is less than 10% of the total cultivable surface area of our land. Agriculture must unavoidably give up certain land every year for urban development, the establishment of factories, the building of roads, etc. This can amount to as much as 30 000 ha per year. I am only referring to one example. Hon. members may be interested to hear that the freeway between Pretoria and Middelburg in the Transvaal occupies a little more than 1 000 ha of land.

The farmer’s basic function, i.e. the provision of food to humans and animals, must be seen against the background of the increasing population and the decrease in available agricultural land. In the short time at my disposal I do not want to speak about the increasing world population and the increasing amount of food that are needed. These figures are well-known. I want to lodge a plea for the preservation of agricultural land and for its judicious use when valuable agricultural land is used for purposes other than agriculture.

In the past, when mining was carried out, the surface soil could still, to a large extent, be used for agriculture because use was made of deep-shaft mining methods. The present trend towards the open-cast mining of coal is alarming. The Petrick Commission report brought to light, inter alia, that although the Republic has relatively large coal sources, the supplies of certain types of coal, more specifically those for the generation of power and for metallurgic use, are not as extensive as was originally thought. The existing coal reserves must therefore be utilized to the full. This means that where open-cast mining can be applied at all economically it must, in fact, be done. The commission ascertained that some of the most important and richest coal fields are to be found in the Eastern Transvaal, the Highveld and the Springs/Vischkuil/Wit-bank areas. These areas stretch from Belfast in the east to Springs in the west. The commission also found that apart from exploitation by deep-shaft mining methods, there are also 18 blocks of coal each containing 280 million tons of coal which is recoverable by open-cast mining. These areas are situated in the Eastern Transvaal and lie to the south of Middelburg and Witbank and to the north of Bethal.

I can give the House the assurance that in this area we have some of the best agricultural land with a very high potential. In the Middelburg district there are, at the moment, two open-cast mines in production. One alone controls 14 000 ha of land and the intention, initially, is to apply the open-cast method to 2 000 ha.

Hon. members will find it interesting if I tell them how this process takes place. I shall sketch it briefly. The open-cast mine is worked in strips which are about 4,5 km long and 30 metres wide, and they are worked to a maximum depth of 30 metres. As soon as the first strip has been worked out, the second strip is taken and the ground and slag are worked back into the first strip. Subsequently the third and fourth strips are worked, and so on. This process leaves behind a tremendously big man-made mountain. It is true that restoration of the surface area is emphasized, but that land will never again become fully productive agricultural land.

What causes concern is the fact that these rich coal deposits and the resultant power network are situated in a good agricultural region. At present there are seven power stations in the Eastern Transvaal and two more are being built. In this area there are 8 900 farming units. That constitutes 10% of the total farming units in the Republic. This area produces, amongst other things, 21,8% of the Republic’s maize crop, 26% of the grain sorghum, 60% of the sun-flower crop and 65% of the potato crop. We also find 13,4% of the Republic’s cattle in this area. In the Middelburg area alone 42% of the surface area is coal-bearing.

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful to have been able to listen to the way in which the hon. member for Middelburg sketched his agricultural district for us.

When are you going to speak about wine?

Sir, this has now become a habit; as soon as I get up in the House, people think I am going to speak about wine. [Interjections.] This evening I am going to do so again, because that is something one can indeed speak about. Before I come to that I want to say—and I am probably speaking to the wine farmers now—that I notice that there is unfortunately a slight argument between certain interested parties about the reasons for the levelling off in the light wine market. I want to issue the warning—I think the hon. the Minister must support me here—that we must not fly at each other with accusations about the cause of the levelling off in light wine sales. There are some who say it is the result of the system of certifying light wines or natural wines. There are some people who say that this certification system is a new wine marketing system that only benefits certain parties. Others say it is because of the price structure; others again say it is the result of the monopoly which, according to them, exists in the wine industry. All I want to ask is that the hon. the Minister take the lead to get the producer, i.e. the KWV, and the marketers, i.e. the KWSI, the Cape Wine and Spirit Institute, to work together in the interests of this industry. It is true that there is great concern amongst us about the tremendous levelling off in light wine sales, and I think we should prevent mutual accusations being made by the producer and the KWSI. I think I can way that the Minister is mindful of the fact that the KWV, the KWSI and his department must and will come together to give direction to the further development of this industry in South Africa I am not accusing anyone, Sir. I am just mentioning the fact, because I have certain documents here that indicate that criticism is being expressed and that certain accusations are even being made. I think that we should put a stop to that as soon as possible. We should not destroy the product and the industry by flinging accusations at one another.

The hon. the Minister is aware of the next point I want to mention. It gives rise to concern that the Western Cape wine farmer has suffered tremendous losses in the past season. It is a fact that last year, in November, the flowering season, we experienced particularly uncertain weather conditions. The result was that the grape bunches were poorly formed or malformed and that certain individual grapes did not develop at all. As a result the wine farmer experienced weight losses in his crop. Secondly, in the past year downy mildew has caused tremendous damage. This has resulted in the wine farmer’s crop, to a large extent, not being a good wine crop, but in fact a distilling wine crop or a rebate wine crop. The price for such crops, as we know, is quite a bit lower than that for good wine. At the same time farmers had tremendous expenses and increased production costs. In my constituency there are 18 co-operative wine cellars. I went to visit them all during the recent grape harvesting season. I went to visit them individually to ascertain what the position was. I received the disturbing information that only two of the 18 cellars had losses of less than 35% during the recent wine harvesting season. Individual members of certain cellars had losses of up to 90%, not only as far as the weight of the crop was concerned, but also as far as the quality was concerned. Earlier this year the viticulture group, under the leadership of the hon. member for Paarl, did have a meeting in the office of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. We were given a sympathetic hearing and had tea at the hon. the Deputy Minister’s expense. We thank him for that. A statement was then made which I do not want to fight about, but I do just want to emphasize the point that there will, in fact, be a few farmers, not only in my constituency, but also in other parts of the Western Cape, who are not going to cover their working costs this year. I therefore want to request that when these fanners approach the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, they should be given special financial facilities.

The third point I want to make concerns something that is bothering me. I want to refer to two hon. members, of whom only one is present in the House this evening. I am concerned at the fact that as a joke—perhaps they are serious—hon. members are trying to belittle the image of this product of the Western Cape.

Who is doing it?

The hon. member must please give me a chance to put my case. The impression is continually being created that the product of the vine is the cause of many and varied offences. All that I have said, and this is something I want to repeat this evening, is that the product of the vine is not to blame. It is people who abuse the product. When those hon. members—two of them did so; I am not going to mention their names; one of them is sitting here watching me—object to the abuse of wine, I am in agreement with them, but when they blame the product of the vine and label it a causal factor, they are making a mistake, because people are the cause of the abuse. I should therefore like to request that we endorse the decision taken earlier this year by an international group of viticulturists who came to the Cape, and more specifically to the Western Cape, to talk about wine. They unanimously decided that the use of wine is only justified if it is used in moderation. That, is all they said. If the product of the vine is used in moderation, there is no disgrace in such use. The Bible tells me that on a certain occasion there was a wedding and that the wine had run out. Water was then turned into wine. If wine is properly used, and used in moderation, we cannot label it a causal factor; we should rather say that it is people who abuse it.

I want to conclude by saying that mention was made today of higher production per hectare on our farms. I have here an article from the Agricultural News of 28 January 1977 in which it is stated, amongst other things, that if a farmer can maintain good and sound moisture content in his soil, he can push up the production per hectare, and this fact is proved. As far back as three years ago I asked the hon. the Minister to help wine farmers so that they could have their drip and spray irrigation systems subsidized. I received replies from the department which stated that they agreed. The Department of Water Affairs also stated that it would give assistance, but both departments state that they are waiting for the Bureau of Standards to lay down standards before the Minister of Water Affairs can apply the subsidy. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.