Mr. Chairman, in replying to the speeches made by hon. members, I should like to begin with the hon. member for Malmesbury. The hon. member said yesterday afternoon that a previous Minister of Agriculture had said that a people which took care of its agriculture was taking care of its future. He emphasized that taking care of agriculture was not a task for the Government only, but for the whole nation. This includes the consumers as well as the producers. We are all in this game together. I appreciate that approach of the hon. member for Malmesbury.

That hon. member, as well as the hon. members for Caledon and Bethlehem, expressed concern about the future of the wheat industry in the country. I want to agree with them that there is unrest among our wheat producers. We have just announced that the wheat farmers of the Springbok Flats, who are now harvesting their wheat, will again get a price of R123 a ton for their wheat, as they did last year, but that a levy of R23 a ton has been imposed upon it because there is an export loss of R60 a ton. I do not foresee any increase in the price of wheat in September. If we lower the price at the end of September, our wheat farmers are going to be unhappy. However, world circumstances have changed to such an extent that we cannot make an upward adjustment to the wheat price. What is going to happen when the wheat farmers of the Overberg, of the Swartland, the Rûens area, who are already producing at a very small profit margin, realize that the State does not have the money to help the industry?

The export loss is so great that even if we were to export we would lose a large amount, and the Stabilization Fund has already been exhausted. What is the answer? If we want to be partners in this game, the consumer will also have to contribute his share. The hon. member for Malmesbury rightly said that by depressing the price, we are not only hurting the farmer, but his labourer as well. The three million Blacks and thousands of Coloured people in the rural areas are being hurt just as much as the farmer. By the end of September we shall have to produce proposals which may be drastic, but which will also be realistic. We cannot afford a set-back to an industry such as the wheat industry. We cannot afford to let old men fall by the wayside and to cause bankruptcies, for what is it going to cost us if the world does not have a surplus next year and we have to import our wheat? The hon. members must remember that when we fixed the wheat price at R123,40 for A1 wheat in September last year, the world price of wheat was R160 a ton. As I said yesterday, Russia, America and Argentina had record crops, and today there is a surplus of 59 million tons of wheat in the world. The record crops have had a depressing effect. Up to 30% of the wheat farmers in America, which does not have a system of control boards such as we have, are going to leave the wheat-producing industry this year. They are having financial difficulties and they do not have a system such as ours to protect them.

The hon. member for Caledon said that we would need five million tons of wheat by the year 2000. I agree with him. We have to plan over the long term.

I want to thank these hon. members for their contributions.

†I want to thank the hon. member for South Coast for going to the trouble of making a study of the report. Sometimes we make investigations and then the reports are put on the shelf. I could see that the hon. member made a very thorough study of the report. I can tell him that the police are investigating some of the findings in the 1 700 pages that the member referred to. He said a broiler should only have a 5% water content. At the moment our inspectors insist that broiler chickens should have a water content of 8%. Personally I cannot understand why we eat broilers; we have enough red meat. [Interjections.] However, we will go into the possibility of altering the water content to 5%.

The quarantine facilities at Kempton Park are actually for cattle. We shifted those for poultry to Irene. In terms of a new regulation one can import poultry under supervision of the department. The regulation also provides that the importer must give 15% of what he imports to smaller breeders. According to the proposals of the poultry industry, I think this works very well. It is impossible to guard all our borders for smuggling of eggs and new material, but I think we have now opened the door for honest people. In the light of what we have experienced in the last 18 months, I am completely happy that this system is working perfectly well.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister if there have been any prosecutions as a result of this adulteration of the broiler water content?

I cannot answer the question off-hand, but I am sure that there were prosecutions, because at one stage I understood that some broilers even had a 12% water content. I can find out whether there were prosecutions and will let the hon. member know before the end of the debate. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Fauresmith made a plea for another faculty of veterinary science. We are in favour of this, but the matter falls under the Department of National Education. If it is possible, we can establish it. At Onderstepoort we have facilities for 90 students at the moment, while it used to cater for only 45 students. However, we shall have to train more veterinary surgeons.

The hon. member for Prieska greatly encouraged me with his positive attitude, and also because he realizes that a farmer can no longer buy land indiscriminately, at least, not without considering the economic aspect. If one is paying so much per hectare and one works out how many hectares one needs for a certain number of sheep and cattle, and if one supposes that the meat price will remain what it has been over the past ten years, one has to realize that one cannot pay exorbitant prices for land. He also said that the Government had caused more economic units to be created. It grieved the Government to do this, for larger economic units have led to fewer farmers. The gnat plague is a new experience. We are now doing research on it and we are giving special attention to this problem to see how we can combat it However, we have already had some success, as the hon. member for Prieska said.

The hon. member for King William’s Town asks what I was doing to increase production. He should ask the Nationalists. Even if “oubaas” Malan and I have achieved nothing else, we have asked the farmers repeatedly to produce as much as they can. Providence was on our side and we had some very good years. Today we find ourselves in a dilemma because we have surpluses. However, this is no problem; the situation will right itself. Then there is the R2 million of the IWS. Concerning the amount that was invested in Rand Bank, I cannot give hon. members a better reply than that given by the hon. member for Barberton yesterday. The hon. member for Barberton made me realize again yesterday what kind of man we have on the control boards. He has his feet firmly on the ground and he thinks with his head. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon. member for King William’s Town that the Wool Board was able to send out good wool cheques last year. The meat price was also good. The wool farmers are recovering a little for a change. The hon. the Minister of Finance is having financial problems. We have made a contribution of R2 million to the International Wool Secretariat. I approached the Wool Board and told them that we should secure the goodwill of the Minister of Finance, because he was asking for more money. I asked them whether we could keep back that R2 million, although it had already been budgeted for and they were entitled to it. Do hon. members know what the reaction of the Wool Board was? They said that they knew that when times grew difficult—because the droughts would return—and the wool price fell, the Government would stand by them. They asked me to tell Minister Horwood that that R2 million need not be paid out. Truly, for such people one does one’s very best. Those wool farmers know that the Government will stand by them in times of adversity.

We have had a stock withdrawal scheme which cost more than R60 million. In the past, losses on wool exports have been made up for by Government contributions. They made a good investment by giving back this R2 million. The hon. member asked why the wool farmers did not get tax concessions as well. If he were a citrus farmer or a deciduous fruit famer who exported through his organization and could certify that he, Boet van den Heever, had exported so many cases of oranges, he would receive that concession in respect of export promotion, not in the form of cash, but in the form of a tax reduction which is granted to the farmer. It is not a cash contribution in respect of wool, maize and wheat. Where products are exported in bulk, the concession is not applicable. One only gets it if one can certify what a specific farmer has exported.

[Inaudible.]

One can identify maize and wheat as well. However, it has not been exported by the hon. member himself. It is done by a board. We can make out a case for it, but I do not think we can do it in today’s economic climate. What agricultural product is not being exported today? All industries have to be treated alike.

The hon. member for Barberton referred to one important matter. There are a great many trucks, motor-cars and tractors in this country today, and there are surpluses which cannot be sold. No one on the Opposition side has ever spoken of sound business principles. The hon. member says:“How can one increase a price when there is a surplus?” In the meantime the prices of the Mercedes Benz, the Mazda and the Toyota are going up. They are standing unsold all over the world. But with butter and cheese it is just … Sir, I want to be careful in the language I use today. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Virginia mentioned a major problem regarding mechanization. I agree with everything the hon. member said, but does the hon. member realize what the implications of mechanization are? It could cause unemployment in our country to assume such proportions that we would have to encourage people—this happened in America and in England at one stage—rather to use manual labour. That and the demand for salary increases could cause us to reach a stage where people would come to us—I experienced this during a drought next to a homeland—and say: “Just give me food to eat; I shall work for it.” I am afraid of the day when we shall no longer have enough work for all our people. A hungry man is an angry man, they say. If a man has food and work, he is happy, so we must be careful not to run out of food and work.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central suggested that we must take steps to increase our rainfall. My department, together with the departments of Transport and Water Affairs, are busy doing just that. The hon. Minister of Water Affairs is very closely connected with one of these weather modification schemes at Nelspruit for the suppression of hail. We can also implement that scheme for rain-making, and the people there are working at it. The hon. member mentioned the fact that a 20% increase in rain was achieved in Rhodesia. That is a bit too good to be true. Sometimes cloudbursts can occur as have happened in several other countries. One cannot pin-point where one wants the rain. It might fall on the farm next door where the farmer is busy cutting lucerne, and he might not want rain. It is rather difficult to interfere with the elements, but I am glad the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has raised the matter again.

*The hon. member for Standerton mentioned three aspects in connection with our milk production. We are familiar with two of the aspects he mentioned, those of volume production and butter-fat production, but his third aspect was a new one, that of proteins. I suppose we shall discuss the provisions of the Marketing Act at some time during this session, and in this connection I can only say that I cannot understand that there are still fresh milk farmers who say that they do not want one board, that they would rather have a fresh milk board and a dairy board.

The aspect which the hon. member mentioned yesterday is forcing the farmer to produce a higher butter-fat content today. We already have a surplus of butter; we hardly know what to do with it, and then we are forcing the farmer to produce even more butter-fat. The surpluses are passed on to the Dairy Board, and I am sure that if the two boards can come together, there could be better planning and co-ordination for the future. The hon. member for Standerton was quite right in saying that the production was five to eight litres per cow on an average, and that there is consequently no need for us to increase the price. We should rather try to increase the production to 12 litres per cow. The same animal has to be fed, the same trouble has to be taken, the same udder has to be milked, but the one cow gives five to eight litres and the other gives 12 litres. The solution, therefore, is to get all of them to produce 12 litres. The same argument applies to what was said by the hon. member for Paarl.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn comes from that part of the world where they have the biggest birds. I have considerable experience of ostrich farmers, because the hon. the Deputy Minister and I paid them a visit when there was a terrible drought in that region. The hon. member thanked us yesterday for having gone there to explain to them the normal measures of our department, i.e. that if they want State assistance they can have it. The people were grateful for that. Now their dams are full, for they have had rain; now they are keeping head above water again.

†I want to agree with the hon. member for East London North where he said the price gap between the consumer and the producer was too big. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet also referred to that.

At the moment there is a commission of inquiry which will bring out a report by the end of June. We want to investigate why the farmer is getting less for his red meat while the consumer is not paying less, but in some instances even more. The butchers tell me that because their turnover has dropped they have to increase prices. According to them they have to do this in order to be able to pay their staff, the rent and other running costs. My contention is that they should be able to reduce prices and have a bigger turnover. That could be a solution. We shall take that matter up with the National Marketing Council.

The hon. member said he could not get a permit to sell 20 steers. That is the problem all over. There are many farmers who want to sell. In fact, there are too many of them who want to do so before the winter. They are afraid that there will not be sufficient rains in time, and because the cattle are now, at the end of the summer, in a good condition, they want to sell. However, I hope that the matter will rectify itself within a few months.

*The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet thanked the taxpayers of this country for the stock withdrawal scheme. He mentioned the fact that because of the scheme, people were now beginning to conserve and protect the soil. He referred to the change of attitude that had come about. I have often said, referring to the Soil Conservation Act, that it is no use forcing a man by law to practise soil conservation. We must reach a stage when we shall have the right person on the land, someone who will love the plants and the soil. That kind of person is a man who is able to love the soil. He is not just making money out of agriculture. If a farmer possesses these other qualities, and he knows enough about economics to be able to make a few sums in the evening, that will look after itself. If a man has those basic qualities, that love for the soil which one cannot describe, that feeling that one would defend the soil against anyone who wanted to take it away, a feeling which has been fostered in our people over the last 300 years, and he has married the right woman too, he cannot help being a successful farmer, even if he is faced with all the problems of agriculture.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus pointed out that land prices were still rising. I must agree with him that this is a dangerous tendency. On the Springbok Flats, for example, there is a new tendency which is aimed at wheat production with low production costs, or at any rate, costs which are lower than in the other regions which have traditionally been used for this. The land is being bought up for wheat production. Beautiful sweet-thorn trees are being pulled up and the land is being ploughed to produce wheat. This is a dangerous tendency, and in addition, R400 a hectare is being paid for land which should actually have cost no more than R200 a hectare. We must remember—as the hon. member for Mooi River said—that our population is constantly increasing. Land is therefore a growing asset.

We have paid millions of rands for the consolidation of the homeland areas, and the people we have bought out are investing in land. Land prices have not gone up because farming is so profitable. Land prices have gone up because the value of money is going down. Therefore people are investing in land with the idea that this is going to appreciate. This pushes up the prices. Many professional people are buying agricultural land because it is a good investment. However, I believe we are in agreement about this dangerous tendency to pay too much from an agricultural point of view. I shall refer to this again when I come to the hon. member for Mooi River.

The hon. member for Parys asked whether it was going to be the policy not to use the profit on maize exports to subsidize the consumer in the future. I have always said that this was not a sound thing to do. The year before last, however, this was the only way we could get a price of R65 a ton. At that time I said:“Very well; if the consumer price is rising too rapidly, let us rather give R65 to the farmer and take a little for the consumer.” If we had not done that, we would have had to begin negotiating at R62 a ton this year. Now we were able to begin at R65 this year to arrive at R74. But it is an unsound principle to subsidize the consumer. I agree with the hon. member on that point. But now the hon. member asks whether the export profit of every year will be tied to that year. If we are going to pool, we shall have to take the Government’s contribution of R52,8 million into consideration as well. I would say that if the farmers said they wanted pooling, we would have to look into the matter. I personally feel that to say that a newcomer is now going to get the benefit of what has been built up by the older farmers in the industry is an argument which is not quite valid, because we have to see the industry as a whole. If we had agreed to the request of the Maize Board last year that the R3 be paid out—which would have cost the Stabilization Fund R21 million—this industry would have been in trouble now. I foresee that export maize is not going to show a profit either, but rather a loss.

How is one to make up for that loss if one’s Stabilization Fund has been depleted? If one had maintained it, one could have made up for that loss. But if that hon. member feels that the farmers no longer want to market maize on the old basis but would prefer to pool it, he must remember one thing. That is that we cannot fix a very high advance price. If we had pooled wheat when the price had been fixed at R123,40 in September and the world price was R160, we would have been inclined to give the farmer R100 at that time. That would have been an advance and he would have received his deferred payment, as in the case of oilseed. And then the world price plummeted to R70 a ton. So if we had done that, every farmer would have had to pay in approximately R30 a ton on the wheat that had been exported. Therefore it is a dangerous thing. We shall have to be very careful if we want to move in that direction. But the farmers are free to make a suggestion. I am a reasonable man, after all!

Hear, hear!

The “hear, hears” are few and far between!

†The hon. member for Mooi River said the farmers were busy burning up their capital. He said they had a net income of between 2% and 3% and an interest rate of between 11% and 13%. That is so. The tragedy of this whole thing is that a newcomer who borrows all his capital at between 12% and 13% for his implements his cattle and his farmhands, can forget it. Soos ek altyd sê: hy kan liewer ’n spieël koop vir ’n sjieling. Unfortunately, the position today is that the only man who can farm is the man who inherited the land, or the man who bought it before 1965, or the man who marries the right wife with a farm. A newcomer must have at least 70% of the capital he needs in hand. So, we need not cross swords about that. If land prices drop, we will have problems. I cannot ask for lower land prices because the security of the bank is the higher land values. That is the reason why our farmers are still in business.

It has to come down!

The hon. member says that land prices have to come down. But then we will have a lot of farmers going bankrupt, because the value of their security will be down. I cannot see how it will come down because the value of money is becoming less and less. I fully agree with the hon. member’s problem. That is the problem of the whole industry at the moment.

*I want to say to the hon. member for Middelburg that there are all kinds of people here in the House of Assembly. That hon. member is the chairman of the Plant-growers’ Association. I am not making propaganda for the man, but I just want to say that if anyone wants healthy peach trees, he should buy them from Nico Ligthelm. I am glad that he is concerned about the removal of officials at Roodeplaat, but as I have said, we view the problem in its entirety. As far as the question of open-cast mines is concerned, the hon. the Minister of Mines has already referred to that. He said that there was now legislation empowering him to prevent this.

The hon. member for Worcester is the last of the hon. members to whom I want to refer. I should like to tell him that I cannot see why there should be a dispute between the KWV, the producers’ association, and the CWSI, the distributors’ association, and the trade. I shall try to achieve consensus. There is the closest liaison between the producer and the distributor. Every time he speaks, he apologizes for liquor and he points out its evils. As a believer I want to say that I do not think we should abolish sin. If sin were abolished, I would not need my Bible and my religion. Temptations are placed in my way, whether in the form of a cigarette, liquor or anything else. Those temptations exist. One should drink in moderation. [Interjections.] I cannot agree with Daan van der Merwe. I interpret the Bible after my own fasion; I interpret it on a practical level. When a dish of tripe and potatoes is set before me, I could behave like a pig at a trough of buttermilk if I wanted to. All these temptations are sent to try one and to see whether one has the will-power to act as one should and to practise moderation in everything one does. For that reason I say the hon. member should forget about this thing. The drink which is referred to in the Bible is alcoholic drink. Drunkenness is referred to in the Bible. They had a jolly time at the marriage of Cana when they ran out of wine. Why did they run out of wine? They had been drinking too much. Actually, it is a funny thing: at other weddings one is served the good wine first and then the bad wine, but at the marriage of Cana it was the other way round. So there was alcoholic drink even in those days.

They danced there, too.

I do not know. Mr. Chairman, we are giving attention to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Worcester, and I want to thank him for his contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I think that South Africa is priviledged to have a Minister of Agriculture who not only has a sense of humour, but who also has such a balanced outlook. He is not only concerned with the welfare of the producer, but also with the welfare of the consumer.

I should like to raise a subject about which much has been said and written recently, namely the extremely poor quality bread which is sold in some parts of the country. This is not only according to my own taste—there is a widespread complaint that the bread is bad. I only want to speak about the areas that I know. I do not believe that there is reason for complaint in the Peninsula: good bread is sold here. I want to confine myself mainly to the Witwatersrand where there is probably the greatest number of consumers and where the bread at the moment is perhaps the worst. Nor do I simply want to condemn. I realize the accompanying problems. As a wheat-producing country South Africa is unique because of its climatic extremes. The climatic extremes give rise to approximately 80 different varieties of wheat in South Africa, which are not all equally suitable for bread flour. It still remains a strange phenomenon that the quality of bread on the Witwatersrand should differ so much from that in Pretoria while both receive their wheat for bread flour mainly from the Free State. In Pretoria good bread is baked. The consumer in Pretoria cannot complain. On the Witwatersrand, on the other hand, the bread is particularly bad.

On investigation, I found that the largest bakeries in Pretoria are independent bakeries not connected to one or other of the milling companies. Those independent bakeries buy their flour where they wish. Then they mix the flour as they wish and lo and behold, they bake good bread. On the Witwatersrand on the other hand, a certain milling company owns and controls more than 50% of the bakeries, with the result that the bakeries concerned have to take the flour they are given. They have no choice at all. They cannot blend the flour as they like. What is more, the bad quality flour is not the only reason for the bad quality bread which is sold. The millers’ profits are to a certain extent dependent on the profits of the bakeries to which they supply flour.

The question arises as to why the independent bakeries with their better bread do not eliminate the other bakeries belonging to the millers, or force them to sell better bread. However, the matter is not quite that simple. As a result of the methods employed by the large organizations, the independent bakeries can no longer make a living. The price war recently waged in the Peninsula, was not a price war between bakers: it was a price war between the millers to whom the bakeries belong. What is at issue here is the elimination of the small bakery in order to get the monopoly here in the Cape. Those same millers who have the monopoly on the Witwatersrand, are also moving in here now. If they succeed in that, I prophesy that the Peninsula will experience the same problem that we have on the Witwatersrand at the moment. On the Witwatersrand the independent bakeries are being bought out one after the other by the big organizations. What do they really do to eliminate the independent bakeries? They give a discount of 80 cents to R1 per dozen loaves to cafés and distributors to sell their particular bread. The result is that the independent bakeries cannot give such a discount and therefore there is only one path open to them, and that is the road to ruin.

Now what happens in those bakeries with the baking of bread and where they still want to make a profit to be able to carry on? The Wheat Board has only prescribed certain compulsory requirements for the baking of bread and there are price control measures. There are directions relating to the type of flour used, the minimum fat content, and the length and weight of the loaf. For the rest, a bakery can do as it pleases. However, what happens in practice? Some bakeries add more than 60% water to give mass to the bread. Then the bread is baked for a shorter time to prevent loss of mass. The result is that the bread is half baked, dries out quickly, becomes hard and crumbles easily when cut. I think there is a shortcoming in this respect, because there is no stipulation relating to the mass of that dry material in the bread. I think we should get the Wheat Board to have the right to determine the dry mass of the ingredients of bread so that much of this cheating can be eliminated.

Bread is wasted on a large scale, because of the low quality. This is hurtful. One should keep in mind that a white loaf is subsidized by 4 cents and a brown loaf by 6% cents, and that that subsidy is actually meant for the consumer, to keep the price low for him, but in effect the consumer does not benefit from that subsidy. The man who derives the most benefit from it, is the distributor, such as the café owner, who is not satisfied with the 1½ cent profit margin but demands a larger discount and then sells the bread at the fixed price. I should like to read to hon. members from part of a memorandum which I received from one of the large bakeries—

During March alone, only in the Cape district, more than 205 000 loaves were thrown away and wasted as a result of that practice. Something should be done to eliminate these malpractices and this wastage. If the time comes for the price of bread to be raised, it will be a pity. But I think the consumer will understand and the consumer will be prepared to pay it if the quality of the bread is right. Therefore I think that one should see to it that the bread flour used by some bakers, is also of a better quality. It can be done. In the second place, new requirements should be drafted by which, inter alia, the dry mass of the ingredients of the bread can be fixed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Boksburg on the neat way in which he stated the bread problem on the Witwatersrand here in the House. I am grateful to learn that the hon. member for Boksburg, as a representative of a consumer constituency, does not experience problems with the meat one gets on the Witwatersrand. Fortunately I am aware of the fact that the meat which consumers get on the Witwatersrand, also originates in the Northern Cape.

I want to raise a matter here today which I have already discussed with the hon. the Minister and with his department. However, I do want to ask whether the hon. the Minister can possibly give us more light on this matter. I am talking about the border fence between the Republic of South Africa and Botswana. The problem arises where the dry Molopo River forms the northern border between the Republic of South Africa and our neighbouring state Botswana. We are very grateful that after many years of negotiations, an agreement has been reached as to where exactly the border is, and that during recent times beacons have been erected. The beacons have been erected in the river bed and indicate where the border fence should be put up. We are also very thankful to know that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has already begun putting up the border fence.

Some practical problems have, however, arisen, problems which only came to light when a start was to be made with putting up the fence. These are problems which I believe will have to be solved without delay before we can continue putting up the fence. In the first place I have to mention that in many places the only access road to farms bordering on the Molopo, is a road which runs along the dry river bed. After the demarcation of the international border, at some places that road is on the Republic side and in other places on the Botswana side of the border. If the border fence were to be erected at once, it would mean that the route linking many farmers with their town, their school, their church and their marketing areas, would be cut off in the process.

In the second place I want to point out that the Divisional Council itself is not sure whether the road should be next to the border in the river bed or whether they should proclaim another road further away. Unless finality is reached soon about this matter, it could happen that two separate roads are eventually built across some farmers’ lands. Furthermore, some farmers put up the boundary fence of their farms on the Botswana side of the international border. Those are boundary fences which were put up many years ago. Now there are farmers who want to move their boundary fences, but the problem is that they do not know exactly where they should put them up now. In the third place, farmers want to know whether, after completion of the international border fence, they should erect the fences of their inner camps, as well as their boundary fences, up to the international border. The question arises whether the Department of Agricultural Technical Services wants to inspect the international border fence from time to time and whether the S.A. Police wants to undertake inspection trips next to the international border. I accept that it is essential for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, as well as the S.A. Police, to be able to move along the international border without impediment, with a view to carrying out their inspections there. The aim of many of those inspections is, say, to ward off timeously foot and mouth disease and other contagious diseases which may originate in the neighbouring State.

We are furthermore thankful that the international border fence must now be put up. Many interesting stories are told, of course, about things which happened in the old days, as well as about things which perhaps still happen. In that wild part of Botswana bordering on the Kuruman district where game is still relatively abundant, many interesting and adventurous stories are told of people crossing the border to go and fetch game, either living or dead, from the other side. For that reason I believe inspections will have to be made.

It would be quite impossible for the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the S.A. Police to inspect this international border if every farmer puts up his boundary and camp fences up to this international border. I want to mention an example. A farm can have five inner camps and that means that together with its boundary fence, seven gates will have to be made next to this border fence on the farm. The question arises: Who has to supply these gates. I pity the inspectors, that is, the Police and the officials of Agricultural Technical Services and other people who want to do inspections, because they will have to open so many gates along this international border, that they will not have time to do their inspection. Much valuable time will be lost in this way.

Personally, I think that the best solution to all these problems will be to proclaim a buffer strip along the border. Perhaps a road could be built on which the inspectors, the S.A. Police and others can travel freely. If that is the best solution, I believe that the beacons along which farmers can erect their boundary fences, should be indicated as soon as possible so that they can go ahead with putting up their inner camp fences. For example, there are areas proclaimed as “jackal-proof areas”. If this area should be proclaimed, the farmer might also perhaps be assisted by the divisional council or whoever, to make his outer boundary fence jackal-proof.

We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for having shown sympathy with our people in the Northern Cape in the same way as he showed sympathy towards the person who had problems with bread, wool, sugar, tobacco etc. I want to give the hon. the Minister my assurance that we have a high regard and respect for him and his Deputy Minister because of what they mean to us in these outlying areas. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he could possibly give an indication as to whether such a committee has been appointed to decide on the matter, which can consult with the farmers along the international border as well as with the divisional councils concerned to see to it that a practical solution can be found here for the establishment of the international border.

Another matter which I should like to touch on, is the question of farming units which are too small. I want to quote from the second report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture—

There are many farmers who eke out a precarious existence on small pieces of land today because of subdivisions many years ago. When small pieces of land in the vicinity of these farms come up for sale, in the normal course of events these farmers are not able to compete with the larger farmer to acquire that land. In the Northern Cape there is quite a lot of Government land which will be made available in future and I want to make a plea today that when this Government land is allocated priority be given to farmers who have small pieces of land bordering on or close to them. At Vlakfontein in the Reivilo District the department set a wonderful example. Eleven farmers were farming uneconomic units on the farm Swartkol, which consisted of 5 000 morgen. Instead of dividing this into two economic units, thus ruining 11 farmers on small uneconomic units, the department awarded the farm to adjacent farmers as an extension and they were able to create seven economic units out of this piece of land. Garaloos-Maremara Reserve near Kuruman is a Black spot from which the Bantu were moved to the Tswana homeland. I want to ask the hon. Minister and his department to award this ground on the same principle. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman dealt with the matters which arose out of his own constituency. I am sure he will excuse me if I do not follow him in the matter.

I wish to refer to the reply which the hon. the Minister gave on the question of the credit-worthiness of the farmers and the question of the value of land. I wish to remind the hon. the Minister that I was quoting the hon. member for Malmesbury. It was he who said:“Die boere is nou besig om hul kapitaal te verteer.” So I have support from that side when I say that this is a process which is going on in the farming community. I merely want to reinforce what the hon. the Minister has said. He says we are heading for a very serious situation indeed. If it so happens that the price of land, on which the whole credit structure of agriculture is based, is going to start to go down, the entire credit-worthiness of the whole farming community is going to be very seriously affected. That was precisely the point I was trying to make. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister can see that this is going to lead to a very serious situation. The purchase of land has always been a self-renewing thing. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that people who have made a success of business and have retired, who want to do something else, who want to invest their money safely, who want a pleasant way of life, who want to play polo or go fishing, etc., come and buy a farm in Mooi River. This is the sort of thing that happens continuously. There is a continuous ingress and egress of people. The people make big money and they buy farms. The hon. the Minister quite rightly said that these people had 70% of their capital invested in the land. Land has always been looked upon as a safe investment. This is a continuous turnover process.

There is another problematic aspect to this sort of thing, an aspect we must not lose sight of, namely that a lot of people with a lot of money, people who have made a success of business and who have big investments, enter the farming field because they benefit from it. Farming carries tax benefits. If they make a loss on the farm they run—which they invariably do—they are able to write off their loss against other investments. They turn this loss, in fact, into a profit on their farms.

I think the farming community in this country has suffered for a long time. The ordinary farmer, who is battling to make a living, has suffered because people are able to sell their produce at a figure which may not actually be rewarding to them seen in the light of the amount of money invested and the interest the normal farmer has to bear. I think that that particular situation, which has inspired many people to invest a great deal of money in agriculture, is coming to an end, because those people do not show that kind of profit or have that kind of money to make a success of it. They will not get the benefit from taxation for owning farms as in the past. The whole present setup in industry—where they make their money—the holding of investments, particularly property investments with which many people have made a lot of money and the tax structure we have today are going out of fashion. It is going to have a very real affect on the attractiveness of investment in agricultural land which has been such a stimulus to the development of agriculture in the past. That, coupled with the fact—which the hon. the Minister and I mentioned—that the financial institutions—the banks and the big money lenders—have at last tumbled to the fact that one is not making a profit with one’s farming venture when one has to borrow money at an interest rate of 14%. That in itself is affecting the whole credit-worthiness of a farm whose value is based on the capital investment it represents. I very much regret to say it, but I think the hon. the Minister and his department are going to be faced with an increasing pressure on them for capital funds. The hon. the Minister says that if it is so that land values are falling, a great number of farmers will go bankrupt. I am absolutely certain that this is what is going to happen. A tremendous burden is going to be placed on the hon. the Minister and his department in terms of Land Bank loans, Agricultural Credit loans and so on to keep people in farming. I think it is a very serious situation indeed, and it is with regret that I have to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I really believe that there is going to be a change in the investment pattern, the investment which has kept the value of farmland high and which has brought an indirect benefit to people purchasing land. I draw this to the attention of the hon. the Minister with a great deal of regret, because I think a potential cloud is hanging over the future of agriculture and we cannot afford that to happen. To reinforce my contention, I would like to come back to the case which I was making to the hon. the Minister last night.

On a previous occasion I asked the hon. the Minister what the indebtedness of the farming community was and, according to his answer, the total debt of farmers in 1976 was R2 357 million. Now, take that at an average of 10% interest, because the debt is divided up between the private sector which has a higher interest rate than 10% and the interest rate of the Land Bank and of Agricultural Credit, which is approximately 7% a year. On that figure the average annual interest payment the farmers have to make is R235,7 million. That amount has to be repaid before 1 cent of capital can be repaid. I also asked the hon. the Minister for the total income figure of farmers for the year 1976. The figure that was given to me was R1 177 million. On that figure the interest payments amounts to approximately 20%. But that cannot be so. I do not accept that the figure given to me by the hon. the Minister’s department is the correct figure. I suppose it must be a net figure and that they meant another figure, one which is somewhere in the region of R2 232 million. But even then the interest rate payment is a figure of 10% and, to my mind, this is a completely unsound situation towards which the farming community is moving. The pressure on the farm income is such that to be able to service debts, there are many farmers who are going to find themselves in serious financial trouble, especially if the present interest pattern continues. There is some indication that the interest pattern might be coming down, because there appears to be a lack of people who want to invest money, who want to borrow, and it seems as if there is a gradual sifting down in interest rates. This will, however, not help people who have borrowed money on fixed terms. According to the figures which the hon. the Minister gave me, 10% of the gross income of farmers goes for servicing the debt. Whether the figures are correct or not, is something which I shall dispute with the hon. the Minister later on.

The hon. member for Standerton said: “Die boer kan nie loseerders in sy stalle hê nie,” referring to the dairy cow and the fact that in our country the average production per cow per day was approximately 5 litres while we should aim for a production of 12 litres a day. In Israel they have succeeded in pushing up the average production to approximately 19 litres a day. I have drawn the attention of the hon. the Minister and of the House to the programme which has been set in motion at the Cedara College of Agriculture. They are investigating dairy farming by computer. There are some very efficient dairy farmers in our district, farmers who have, together with the Department of Agriculture at Cedara, evolved a process whereby information about every cow in their herds is put through the computer. A computer model for that particular herd is then worked out, whereby the computer works out the optimum feeding level of a particular cow in order to give maximum production. This is a tool which can be used to improve all the herds in the area, and there is no reason, especially if one has the trained operators to apply it, why this scheme should not be extended to more and more of the herds in the area. I am, however, not sure about the details, because I have not been able to go into the matter with Cedara College. The point of value is that one is maximizing the use of protein for the production of milk, because by using the most modern aids and the most efficient methods, one is determining what the optimum feeding level of a particular cow is in order to get the cow to produce her maximum. There is no more point in overfeeding a cow than there is in underfeeding it. The efficiency of our operation is therefore one of the factors of which we in this country have to take very serious cognizance. I think it is very important to keep in mind an operation like this. It was, I think, started by Dr. Hawthorne at Cedara and has now been taken over by other members of the staff.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River is quite justified in being worried about the future with regard to the financing of the farming industry. I believe that he hit the nail on the head. I also believe that the hon. the Minister and the government department concerned are well aware of this and that the department is planning for this. At the same time I believe that the private financial sector, that is, financial institutions like banks, etc., should also make a contribution. They should take this situation into account and also adopt the correct line of action in future.

The hon. member for Mooi River, for the sake of those hon. members who do not know it, really represents a good farming district. I hope that sound political insight will develop there presently. [Interjections.]

Sir, I just want to mention to the hon. Minister that in my area all is well in the field of agriculture. The grazing is excellent, the cotton crops are good, the pineapples are growing well and the sugar-fields are looking beautiful. In February and March of this year, however, we had a great deal of flood damage, especially in two areas. In the one area damage is estimated at approximately R7 million and in the other area it is estimated at approximately R1 million. I want to thank the hon. Minister sincerely for the great interest which he took in this matter. I might just mention to the House that the hon. Minister and his Deputy, together with the Minister of Water Affairs and the Department heads, are to receive delegations from these areas next week. I am confident that the hon. the Minister will give all the help he can.

Sir, I believe that we should make every effort to end the estrangement that has come about between the agricultural producer and the consumer. Because every farmer is also a consumer, he understands the consumer’s resistance to high food prices. He is prepared to put heart and soul into doing all he can to produce on an economic basis. However, I get the impression that the consumer who is not a farmer, is so far removed from farming that he finds it difficult to understand how agriculture works. I say that, because if the consumer did understand the facts of farming, we would not have boycotts such as breadless, meatless and milkless days. The fact remains that the agricultural producer and the consumer are interdependent. They should not be at loggerheads. Each should take it upon himself to get to know and to understand the problems of the other and not to oppose each other without being fully informed beforehand.

I believe that the consumer should get out of his system the mistaken impression that the South African Farmer does not farm efficiently. By means of the increasing use of scientific techniques and better management methods, our farming industry has already proved its efficiency. Between 1960 and 1975 the production of fields crops increased by 106%; that of horticultural products by 83%; and animal products by 43%. That was achieved in an industry which is highly vulnerable as to climate and in a country which has a small percentage of high-potential agricultural land.

With regard to the future, the South African farmer realizes that if he is not to go under, he has to keep on trying to produce more efficiently. Those who do not realize this, have their noses rubbed in it. I think that it is reasonable to ask the consumer to take note of problems like increasing production costs and marketing costs which have often been referred to in this debate. Over the past few years the number of cost increases has risen considerably in, for example, the field of fencing material, fertilizer, dips and sprays, fuel, fodder for livestock and railway tariffs. It is no use throwing up one’s hands and reproaching the hon. the Minister for not averting these price increases. Each one of these cost increases had merit and was debated in the correct places. These cost increases were only awarded after thorough consideration and the decision was taken very responsibly.

When considering these cost increases, the consumer should understand the position of the producer. Take beef for example, which represents more than 70% of the meat industry in South Africa Despite the considerable increase in production costs and marketing costs, the producer’s price for beef has remained virtually the same during the past two years and has even tended to drop. The consumer should therefore understand clearly that the price of meat is determined on an auction market without regard being had to the farmer’s production costs and marketing costs. The hon. member for Omaruru still receives the same price for his cattle despite the fact that his marketing costs alone are now more than R50 per head, whereas they were only R27 per head two years ago.

In the time at my disposal I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to pay special attention to the position of the beef producer. The cattle farmer finds himself in the position where he has to produce more efficiently, while his production costs are rising. Without detracting from the goal of producing high quality meat, I believe that it is in the interests of the producer and the consumer that meat with a thinner covering of fat be produced and consumed. To encourage this in practice, I believe it would be as well to revise the existing grading system. It seems that the existing system has not kept up with the new conditions. It places too much emphasis on the covering of fat. The question arises whether there are not too many grades. I believe that it would be as well to investigate this matter too. Looking at floor price purchases, one sees that the purchases by the Meat Board are chiefly in respect of super and prime carcasses. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Eshowe who made a good and interesting speech and who dealt with his subject very comprehensively. For that reason, it is not my intention to elaborate on the hon. member’s arguments.

The importance of the agricultural industry in South Africa has been emphasized in various debates in this House in years past. For many generations farming in South Africa has been a particular way of life rather than an industry. In the past few decades, however, it has undergone a radical change and has evolved into a highly specialized and highly intensive industry which plays an extremely important role in the South African economy. At the same time agriculture has become a capital intensive industry in which, according to estimates, as much as R16 942 million had been invested as at 1 January 1976, with an estimated expenditure of R458 million during 1975-’76 on fixed improvements and other capital goods.

Although the total gross income of farmers for the year ended 30 June 1976 amounted to R2 684 million—thanks mainly to high producer’s prices—which was some 7% higher than the gross income for the previous year, the net income of farmers for the year concerned was R121 million or 10% lower than the net income for the previous year, chiefly due to increasing production costs. So it is not surprising that the farmers’ total debt is steadily increasing as a consequence of this. For example, the estimated amount of the debt at the beginning of 1976 came to R2 058 million, or approximately 12% of the total investment in agriculture, as against R1 790 million and R1 731 million at the beginning of 1975 and 1974 respectively.

It is evident from an analysis of the various sources of finance that commercial banks and the Land Bank were by far the most important single sources of finance at the beginning of 1976, contributing R455 million and R432 million respectively. Financing by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, on the other hand, is increasing at a relatively slow rate and amounted to approximately R167 million only at the beginning of 1976. During the last three quarters of 1976, 1 284 loans amounting to approximately R10 million were granted, but as many as 808 applications for assistance of some kind were refused or had to be turned down during this period. This represents virtually 39% of all applications. I make bold to say that not all 808 applications were turned down because they had no merit, but because of other factors, to which I shall return presently.

I am not mentioning these things in a spirit of wishing to level reproaches at the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure or the Agricultural Credit Board. On the contrary, the department and the board deserve a great deal of gratitude and appreciation for their responsible handling of agricultural financing with the limited means at their disposal. The department and the board can undertake only as much agricultural financing as the limited available means allow them to do. So, mindful of the present unfavourable economic and financial climate, it is pleasing to see that an amount of approximately R16 million is nevertheless being voted for agricultural financing during the financial year 1977-’78, a figure which compares quite favourably with the amount granted by the department last year in the form of assistance rendered.

We trust that in future they will find it possible to be a little more accommodating in considering applications for assistance, without their acting irresponsibly in any way. For various reasons, and due to circumstances beyond their control, many farmers find it impossible to make a decent living from their farming if they have to meet their capital requirements in the private sector at a rate of interest of 14% per annum.

The department and the Agricultural Credit Board rightly follow the policy of helping applicants for assistance to self-sufficiency and they are extremely careful not to help anyone out of the frying pan into the fire. That is why an agricultural credit loan for the purchase of land, receives favourable consideration only if, inter alia, it appears that apart from his ability to meet his financial obligations, the applicant will also be able to make a decent living on the property concerned. There is certainly no fault to find with this approach. In fact, the department and the Agricultural Credit Board deserve praise for this responsible approach. In considering the question as to whether a specific property has the potential to assure an applicant of a decent living, they apparently depart from the assumption—and I emphasize the word “apparently”, because my impression is based solely on my own observations, and I consequently speak under correction—that a decent living implies a net income of plus minus R5 000 per year.

The relatively modest appropriation for agricultural financing obliges the Agricultural Credit Board to go about the granting of assistance selectively and not to grant assistance to applicants who can help themselves, or who can find and afford the necessary assistance in the private sector. In this regard, too, the applicant’s financial means, or his potential means, are of cardinal importance. Now I have the impression that an applicant with a net farming income or potential income of R5 000 and more per annum, finds it difficult to qualify for an agricultural credit loan, since he is usually considered to be self-sufficient as far as the provision of capital is concerned. If my impression is correct, then the financial means, or potential means, of the successful applicant have to be just right, and it happens very easily and all too often, that these are at fault in one direction or the other; in other words, either the applicant cannot make a decent living on the property concerned or, on the other hand, his means are such that he is considered to be self-sufficient as far as the provision of capital is concerned.

It is in this respect that a certain amount of accommodation, by widening the limits on financial means within which applications for assistance will receive favourable consideration, would be welcomed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay made a plea on behalf of the farmers who request assistance from the Department of Agricultural Credit. The hon. member requested that the Department should be more accomodating towards them. I want to point out to the hon. member that it has been argued on this side of the House for many years that agricultural financing is one of the bottlenecks in the farming industry and that it will in future become more and more of a bottleneck. The possibility will have to be investigated that in the long run a department of agricultural financing should be created in South Africa. This could perhaps become necessary in order to co-ordinate properly the activities of the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit. If it should become necessary to give more assistance to these bodies, this must needs be done.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the possibility of a drop in the value of land. If one looks at the price of land, however, it becomes apparent that it has fluctuated constantly over the years. However, the fact is that the curves tend to go higher and higher. It is not a matter which most of us are concerned about. I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay pointed out that what we are actually concerned about, is the fact that in spite of the gross income of the farmer increasing as a result of improved prices and an increase in the volume of his production, increased production costs cause the net income of the farmer to be much lower. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is also a matter of great concern to us in these benches.

During the past six or seven years we have reached the point at which the agricultural faculties of our universities are again being filled with students. Our agricultural colleges are also full up: in many cases they are overflowing. According to the latest available figures there are approximately 590 students at our agricultural colleges. That is the best attendance figure for the past seven or eight years. Therefore, we have now reached the stage where there is much more confidence in our farming industry than there was ten to twelve years ago. Therefore, no-one wants to see us suddenly experiencing a period again in which there is a lack of confidence in the farming indusrtry. We want to keep these young people as students and as scientists. We want to retain them, especially if it is still possible for them to find work on farms.

That is why the question of agricultural financing is so important. It is the father who has to tell his son whether the farming industry can be really successful or not. If the father says to his son that he does not know why he is farming, and why he did not rather invest his money in a building society, we find that in many cases the son prefers to go and make his living elsewhere, and not in the farming industry. When we discuss these three Votes, it is inevitable that we should consider the issue of the provision of food in South Africa. As of old, we have to see whether our granaries are full. They are definitely full. According to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UNO, 40 out of the 48 African states are experiencing food shortages. Therefore those countries have to import food. In 1974 only 9 African states produced more food per capita than 10 years ago. Those countries were the Ivory Coast, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, the Republic of South Africa, Tunisia, Zaïre and Zambia.

The average food production of most African countries dropped to less than the average production for the period 1961 to 1965. Experts reckon that if drastic steps are not taken to rectify the position, 40 million of Africa’s inhabitants could die of hunger in the following year or two. We in South Africa are fortunate. The picture here is one of optimism, because South Africa produces enough. Our position is such that we can even help others by means of food exports. We have always found it an amusing, but also tragic question, why the wealthy countries of the world have never been able to create an efficient organization to right this state of affairs. I am thinking especially of those people who have so much to say about human rights and about things being wrong in other countries. This affords wonderful scope and opportunity for a world organization to help by creating an organization to see to it that the countries that have a surplus, should place that surplus at the disposal of the millions of people in the world that are dying of hunger.

In the past we have always adopted the point of view that everyone should first put his own house in order, that we should first put our own house in order. I think this is a sound point of view. One should first see to one’s own people and one’s immediate neighbours. Our population has increased by 2,7% per annum over a period of 30 years, and our volume of agricultural production has risen by 4,1%. Therefore we in South Africa have more than we can consume, and if we take the performance of South African agriculture up to the present into account, we can come to the happy conclusion that we will be able to keep it up in the future as well. I share the hon. the Minister’s optimism that with the help of the South African farmer, of the departments that are equipped for it and the necessary research and improved practices, we will be able to increase our agricultural production substantially towards the end of the century. The question whether we will be able to get rid of our surpluses is closely bound up with this. In this respect, I want to return to the point made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. When the gap between income and expenditure narrows and there are surpluses, this gives rise to a lack of confidence.

There is no sense in producing and then not being able to get rid of those products. Most agricultural products are perishable and cannot therefore be stored for an indefinite period. Neither do we want a repetition of the lowering of producer prices. The moment there are surpluses, the inevitable result is that prices are lowered. I hope this does not happen, but when I listen to the hon. member and take note of the vast surplus of wheat which we have, it seems to me that we could easily land up in the situation within a year or two in which, if the crops are good, and we cannot compete with a falling world price, the hon. the Minister could be forced to lower prices. In my 20 years in Parliament, this has in fact happened. The moment the producer’s profit margin becomes insignificant even drops below the production cost plus entrepreneur’s remuneration, we find that the producers are forced out of the industry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, today I should like to speak about a matter which is very dear to my heart. I am referring to the criticism in the daily Press to the effect that the agricultural industry and the farmers are not doing their share in the struggle against inflation in South Africa. The allegation was made as a result of the increase in the prices of agricultural products. In the article the impression was created that all increases in costs and all the adverse effects of inflation are compensated for, as far as the farmers are concerned, by the increased producer prices. The impression was wrongly created that the farmers are not doing their share in the struggle against inflation.

Today I should like to deal with this erroneous impression in my reply. Firstly we must take note of the fact that there has not been an increase in the prices of all agricultural products during this production year. Secondly, we must note that only direct increases in costs are recovered by way of increases in the prices of those agricultural products. No provision is made for increased entrepreneurs’ wages and increased profits to those producers; only proven, direct cost increases are made good. Theoretically this means that the farmer remains in exactly the same position he was in previously. The position in relation to his profits has not improved at all.

There is, I admit, the argument that the salaries of artisans and salaried staff have been pegged. Exactly the same applies to the farmer. If the farmer’s yield per unit is the same as it was last year, his income or his profit is theoretically also pegged, and no provision is made for any increase. There is perhaps still the one factor adversely affecting the farmer, and that is that although the salaried worker is on a certain salary scale and receives a salary increase every year, no such facility is built into the producer price, and the farmer’s income remains exactly the same. There is also another side to the argument. In spite of his income remaining constant, a farmer is also a consumer like any other consumer in this country and is also bowed down by the pressure of the increasing cost of living in all spheres of life. In other words, the allegation that farmers are being benefited, and are not making their contribution to the struggle against inflation, is absolutely untrue and a false representation of the true facts.

I want to present another argument. The hon. member for Mossel Bay and other hon. members have already referred to the fact that during the year from July 1975 to 30 June 1976 the total gross income of the farmers in our country did, in fact, increase by 7% above that of the previous year. However, the net income of the farmers decreased by R121 million, i.e. by 10%. On balance the farmers in this country were R121 million worse off than in the previous year. Surely those figures speak for themselves, and I do not even need to argue the point that the farmers are financially in a worse position than they were the previous year.

I want to go further and submit that there is not a single group in the country which makes a bigger direct contribution to keeping down the cost of living in South Africa than the agriculturists. I do not want to make any claim in the House that I cannot substantiate with facts. I am therefore prepared to argue that matter with anyone. In order to substantiate my statement I want to take a few commodities as examples.

The fact is that these days certain commodities can be exported to countries abroad at tremendous profits, but they are being sold at much lower prices on the local markets specifically to meet local needs. I want to begin by referring to a commodity such as cocktail peanuts. The consumer price on the local market is at present R400 per ton. The export price of the product, the net export realization, is R600 per ton. In other words, the 22 000 tons of peanuts sold on the local market give rise to a loss to the farmers of R200 per ton. In monetary terms what this amounts to is that the farmers, by doing their duty in satisfying local needs, sacrifice R4,4 million in income they could have earned abroad. As far as crushed peanuts are concerned, every ton crushed in South Africa and supplied to the local market could have been exported to overseas countries at a net profit of R100 per ton. We give 73 000 tons of peanuts to the local market before we start exporting. The farmer—and no-one else—therefore gives R7,3 million to the local consumer in the form of export profits which he sacrifices in favour of the local consumer. With regard to peanuts alone, this year the consumer is getting a subsidy of R11,7 million from the farmers. I am not complaining about that, but I just want to make the point that there should also be a little recognition for the farmer’s contribution.

Another product I should like to mention is sunflowers. This year we expect a sunflower crop of 500 000 tons. The hard facts of the matter are that every ton of sunflowers sold on the local market this year could have been exported, at a minimum profit of R60 per ton, to countries abroad. The fact of the matter is that the 500 000 tons of sunflowers are going to remain on the local market this year to meet the needs of local consumers. 500 000 tons of sunflowers could have been exported abroad at a profit of R60 per ton, and this means that the sunflower farmer is subsidizing the local consumer the the tune of R30 million this year.

Export it!

One of my hon. friends says we must export it, but what is going to happen on the local front if there is no margarine available? Everyone would die of hunger. [Interjections.] With respect to the two products, peanuts and sunflowers, this year the farmers are subsidizing the local consumers to the tune of R41,7 million. One must not be obsessed by the R41,7 million; one must, amongst other things, also gauge the value of agriculture correctly. One must therefore determine what it would have cost South Africa if it were to have imported those products. It would not have cost R41 million more, but it would have cost R41 million plus the freight charges, handling costs, insurance, etc., to import the products from overseas. I made a quick calculation and found that it would have cost our country approximately R60 million per year more if we had to import those products to South Africa. Our farmers do not want to be patted on the shoulder all day long, but at least we do not want to be criticized unnecessarily, unreasonably and without justification.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I should like to complete the argument I raised previously. A while ago I pointed out that when profit margins get too small, and even decrease below production costs-plus, producers are forced out of the industry. Therefore I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in the present circumstances it is exceptionally short-sighted to reduce subsidies to the consumers. It is extremely short-sighted, especially at a time when the public’s purchasing power—and I include those who are less well-off—is not increasing though their needs are continually on the increase. In this respect the State must not shirk its responsibilities. I listened to the hon. the Minister’s arguments about subsidies and about why they must be reduced at present, but one still cannot argue away the fact that the State has a great deal of say in, and exercises a great deal of control over, the determination of producer prices. Particularly when a strategic and vital industry such as the food production industry is involved, it is correct—and I agree with that argument—that the State must intervene when it comes to price fixing. I am not arguing about that But, Sir, with the passing of the Marketing Act in 1937 that principle was already acknowledged. That is why we submit that together with the say in the control of certain producer prices, the principle of food subsidies is also involved. In the first place there are subsidies to stabilize the price for the consumer. I am advancing this argument because we are developing surpluses. There are already surpluses in our dairy industry and in our grain industry. Subsidies were originally introduced to stabilize prices for the consumer. As soon as the consumer subsidies are drastically reduced or even completely withdrawn, however, a certain number of things must happen. Firstly we shall find that the price to the consumer will increase, as was indeed the case with meal and maize. The moment that increase, which goes hand in hand with an increase to the producer, takes place without an additional subsidy on the part of the State, we immediately find that the interests of the producer on the one hand and the consumer on the other are played off against each other. Both the producer price and the consumer price then increase, whilst on the part of the State there is a decrease in the subsidy. The moment this happens, it creates dissension. The producer is seen as having been given preference because he is the person who gets the price increase for his product. We acknowledge that he should get it.

However, because there is no subsidy, there is immediately an increase in the price to the consumer. The consumer is not worried about the fact that the producer has had increased production costs. He simply states that it is the producer who is being benefited. That is why I state that this system of consumer subsidies is of great value when it comes to stabilizing prices and limiting dissension to a minimum between consumers and producers. Therefore I must express my personal disappointment at the decrease in the subsidy in the case of meal and maize. I have already asked the hon. the Minister what is going to be done with the surpluses. Thus far we have not received adequate replies from the hon. gentleman. The hon. the Minister told us of his dilemma in connection with butter and cheese. We want to know from him what is going to happen to these mountainous surpluses. What plans does he have for getting rid of them? I told the hon. the Minister that as soon as there are surpluses this creates a lack of confidence in the industry concerned. It therefore becomes the function of the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Minister to give us an indication of how one is to get rid of these surpluses. I do not want the confidence in this industry to be damaged in any way. We are therefore entitled to ask what plans the hon. the Minister has up his sleeve. The country and the House ought to be duly informed about this. We have surpluses of certain dairy products—butter, powdered milk and apparently also fresh milk at the moment. Fresh milk producers who deliver more than their quota must get rid of the surplus as industrial milk. This further increases our surpluses of cheese and butter, in spite of the fact that a large number of butter factories have already closed down. Can we not give thought once more to the kind of scheme that so many of us can still remember, the kind of scheme that was introduced about 30 or 40 years ago? I am thinking of the school-feeding schemes. In accordance with that scheme, at a time when we also had such surpluses children received one or two glasses of milk and a certain amount of cheese. This was done, in particular, in those schools in the less well-to-do parts of South Africa, specifically to help them. The State could give some thought to this again and investigate it as a way of at least getting rid of the surpluses in the form of cheese and milk. We should like to see the hon. the Minister investigating this as one of the possible steps. Since I have told the hon. the Minister of the position to the north of us, of people who are starving, we also want to know from him whether the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has taken any steps to see whether we can obtain new markets, possibly for our surplus wheat and our dairy products. That is what we should like to know from the hon. the Minister on this occasion. It is no use simply telling us of the mountains of stuff that are heaping up. He will have to get rid of those mountains of stuff on the local or overseas markets. If not, the hon. the Minister has only one way out, and that is to ask certain producers not to go on producing. Then, within a year or two, he will again have a shortage and have to encourage people to come into the industry or he will have to import at tremendous cost. That is an unnecessary process; it is much better to devise plans for getting rid of these surpluses within the next few years.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, must please excuse me if I do not react to his speech. At this late hour in the debate I should like to raise a specific matter here. Along our West coast there are eight islands which are actually the property of the country’s Minister of Agriculture in his capacity as head of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Let me say at once that this hon. Minister is the most imaginative Minister we have ever had in this country. I want to deal with the merits of these islands one by one. I think that we have reached the point where we must look anew at the future of these islands. At present the Minister of Agriculture has them controlled by the Department of Economic Affairs, which picks up guano at most of these islands. I think the time has come for us to take another look at these islands. In the first place there is Marcus Island. I noticed that last week there was a question in the House about Marcus Island. That island has been joined to the mainland at Saldanha Bay in order to form the new harbour. The question that was asked involved the beautiful bird life at the front tip of the island. The question asked was whether the bird life would not be threatened by wild animals which could reach the island as a result of the present link with the mainland. I do not know which of the hon. members have already been there, but it is a beautiful area and it is worth having a look at.

Deeper out to sea there is Malgas Island. I recently visited this beautiful island with some tourists. Foreign visitors become absolutely ecstatic when they visit this island with its fantastic bird life. Lower down there is Dassen Island which is, in many respects, in a position similar to Malgas Island.

Then there is Robben Island. Two or three years ago I asked that the prison be removed from Robben Island. I said that in my opinion it was wrong to have a jail at the front door of our mother city. At the time I had repeated discussions about that with our previous Minister of Justice, the late Mr. Pelser, or Oom Peet, as I called him. I held him in very high esteem. He never wanted to listen to me, however. He did not see his way clear to removing the prison from the island. When the new Minister of Justice took over I immediately took this fight to him. Today I have here in my hand a document which is perhaps one of the most important I have in my possession. In it the new Minister of Justice immediately declared his willingness to remove the prison from Robben Island. He concluded his letter with the words—

We can plant mealies there.

Then there are still four other smaller islands, i.e. Jutten Island, Schaapen Island, Meeu Island, and Vondeling Island. Meeu Island is situated in the beautiful lagoon at Langebaan, an area which, from the point of view of water sports, is one of the most beautiful playgrounds on our coast. The way in which this area is being handled by the local authorities, however, I can only describe as clumsy. That is really the present-day set-up. Then there are also a few other small islands, for example Vondeling Island and Jutten Island, and in my opinion their potential is not as great as that of the other islands. When, at the time, I raised the possibility of having the prison removed from Robben Island, I got a tremendous reaction, particularly from the Western Cape, about what should be done on the island in the future. Today I have in my possession more than 200 letters containing proposals from people who wrote to me saying what they thought could be done on this island. I can actually divide these proposals up into four categories. There was the one group of people who said that a casino should be built on the island. They argue that South Africans go for weekends to Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana and spend their money there. They claim that we should rather build a casino on the island. There were a large number of people who thought that way.

There was another group of people who thought that ecologists should devise a balance for protecting the bird life on the island and that a dual underwater subway should be built from Blouberg Strand to the island; it was suggested that toll-gate charges be levied so that the costs of such a structure could eventually be paid for. There were also the ecologists who, with an almost jealous love, said that if the prison is removed the island should be left so that the birds could return to the island and take up where they left off before there were the present activities on the island.

Then there was the general public, particularly from the Boland area who said that there should be a balance between the development of tourism on the one hand, particularly with a view to the bird life on the island, and on the other hand the question of conservation, the view of our ecologists.

It is against this background that I want to put my case to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. Can we not create a completely new future dispensation for these islands and the beautiful lagoon on our country’s West Coast? The Minister is the one who owns the land in that part of the world. Take it away from the Department of Economic Affairs, because the collection of bird guano is no longer actually a factor on the island. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to transfer this asset to the National Parks Board because then we would be giving the National Parks Board in South Africa a new marine activity. At present the National Parks Board looks after our Zoos. They are performing a fine function, an imaginative function in South Africa in regard to tourism on the one hand and conservation on the other. Along our West Coast there is a new world, a new facet for South Africa’s National Parks Board to explore. That is why I am lodging this plea with the hon. the Minister and asking him: Let us take a new look at this asset that he has in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure for me to listen to the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He usually comes up with good and interesting proposals, and I should very much like to support him in his plea that these islands be allocated to the National Parks Board for the establishment of a kind of island national park for the protection of our threatened bird and marine life in that area. We already see how some of that bird and marine life is threatened by the pollution of the sea and by the economic activities of man who, of necessity, must promote his economic survival. I feel that this, specifically, is an ideal opportunity for the development of such an island national park. At Marcus Island, where an isolated island was joined up to the mainland, the balance was immediately disturbed by predators such as skunks and other animals immediately devouring the penguin chicks. There the breeding spots were threatened too. I want to suggest that a wall be built to keep those predators out so that we can protect that colony of Cape penguins.

I should like to come back to the very important report which was published by the Committee for Inquiry into Rural Reform. Several hon. members referred to it, and here and there there was a positive approach about what ought to be done. However, we have not yet heard what the hon. the Minister has decided to do about the matter. We do not know yet what he is going to do in an effort to put this matter right. I should very much like to hear which of these recommendations the hon. the Minister sees his way clear to accepting officially. We noticed that the relevant committee accepted a norm in terms of which the net income of a farmer must be at least R3 500 per year in order to enable him to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

Here we have seen the shocking results of the fact—something, let me say, that we have long suspected—that 67% of White families on farms have incomes of less than R2 000 per year. This is the case in a total of 49 magisterial districts. As a consequence those families simply cannot survive economically. We also see in the report that there are large areas in South Africa in which 40% of the farms are too small to grant the farmers a net farming income in keeping with the standards of human dignity. It is also apparent from the report that large numbers of White families on farms are economically depressed and destitute. I think that we must set ourselves the very positive aim of seeing what we can do to help those poor people and to try to keep them in agriculture. "

The problem is that if, because of the pressure of circumstances, they are to disappear from the farms, their properties will be taken over by other farmers. That is something that can give rise to the development of a similar problem. I should therefore like to know what we can do to prevent other well-intentioned farm owners, particularly young farmers, from buying up uneconomic farms with the small amounts of capital available to them, thereby going the same way as the previous owners. In many of our districts we know of farms which have, one after the other, been cast aside by their owners. Time and again one of those farms is sold and the same thing happens again after a mere five or six years. I feel that the department ought to step in and pinpoint such farms. The department can, if need be, draw up a list of such uneconomic farms so that people can know in advance which farms are problem farms. Such farms ought to be treated as a special category. I feel that a norm ought to be laid down for every district, indicating what every farming unit in the district concerned can, in point of fact, produce. An income norm ought to be laid down, a norm on the strength of which potential buyers can know in advance what kind of income to expect if they buy one of those farms. An aspiring owner ought to know in advance what to expect if he is farming properly. He ought to know what the farm’s possible yield will be and whether or not it is within his capabilities to pay off his mortgage loan and the interest on the loan. In my view this is a task that could be carried out with excellent results by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. In this way the said department could further develop its outstanding system of income returns.

We already have a large number of participants who can determine this kind of thing and give us a very good idea of the incomes of the respective farms in the various districts. In cases where the incomes are too low, such farms ought to be placed on a list of farms which ought to be consolidated as soon as they come onto the market again. Where a farmer is really in trouble, I feel that it is essential for the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to buy up and consolidate those farms, as they have already done with several farms in South Africa. This system ought to be developed far more positively and tackled more actively.

The hon. the Minister’s problem is that there is insufficient capital available to tackle this system. However, we cannot just sit there and see one farm owner after the other succumbing to the stranglehold of these small uneconomic farms without actively and positively being warned by the extension officers or being told what the problems are. Neither must one expect discrimination against the sellers in such cases. Therefore the only solution is for the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to buy up the farms and consolidate them with neighbouring farms or to see to it that the farms are, in fact, made available for sale to the owners of the neighbouring farms.

This net income norm, which must be laid down for the respective districts and farming regions, will also be of great benefit to the other farmers in the vicinity. I myself would like to know how my farming unit fits in with the average of our particular district. I may perhaps think that I am a very good farmer, whilst in fact I may fall quite far short of the actual potential or norm for that district. Once such a norm or indication has been laid down, I would know that I am making a mistake somewhere—spending too much and possibly farming unscientifically—and I would therefore have to approach the extension officers for help, as well as consulting the various economic advisers in an effort to improve the income from my farming unit.

I also feel that such a fixed norm will help future buyers. It could serve as an indication of the potential of a district.

Such information is sometimes difficult to obtain. I have frequently spoken to extension officers about what the income per morgen in a particular area ought to be. Usually one gets a vague answer about it depending on the entrepreneur and what he is farming with. When all is said and done one does not get a definite answer. I feel that something really ought to be done to increase the standard of our whole farming industry.

Another matter I want to raise is the question of the very good work being done by the department to test respective breeds for actual achievement. However, it seems to me as if we are not making the best use of this. I know that in Australia the tested animals which perform the best are placed, for a certain length of time, in a central flock where the department or the associations, which collect knowledge in connection with achievement tests, allow rams and other breeding stock to breed. The very best breeding stock of the participants in such a scheme are therefore kept back to establish a preferential stud flock for the breeders’ association and the country. The farmers can obtain rams and other breeding stock from this flock. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to what the previous speaker said. The hon. member is quite right and I agree with him completely. When one travels around in the cattle districts, particularly beyond the Soutpansberg mountains, it bothers one a little to see one farm after the other lying there deserted. The farms belong to doctors and professional men. There is only one Black worker on each of the farms and hardly any animals; perhaps only a few head of cattle. One must keep that in mind, and also the number of uneconomic units to which that hon. member referred, when one opens up the Landbouweekblad. If one bears that in mind, one cannot help laughing, because one sees those pieces of land of 50, 150, 300 or 360 morgen being offered for sale as “beautiful cattle farms”. They are advertised as “cattle farms”. They are uneconomic farms which are not in production. Farms lie empty and deserted. They serve as dumping spots for people who are well-endowed with capital and invest their capital in those farms as an income tax dodge.

I shall furnish a few facts that we are all familiar with. These facts are not my own. Four hundred million tons of our soil is washed out to sea annually. We surely all know that. Our experts hammer that home to us. However, it seems to me as if our people do not want to understand it. Sixty-four years ago Gen. Hertzog began with segregation, and it was only in 1976 that we saw the first results of those efforts. We had to keep trying for 64 years to get apartheid hammered into our people’s heads. Thirty-five percent of the Republic of South Africa’s fertile soil is already in the sea. Annually roads and building swallow up more and more of our valuable, fertile agricultural land. What is terrible—it is a conservative calculation—is that hotels, cafés and restaurants annually waste food and vegetables to the value of about R500 million. Sometimes fresh vegetables also become unfit for use as a result of a poor infrastructure, a lack of cold storage facilities and a lack of proper transport. Yet in the UNO one hears it said that there are 460 million people on earth who are starving.

In the year 2000—i.e. in 23 years’ time, when these young people will still all be sitting here—in South Africa and in our homelands we shall have to be feeding 50 million people. What is the picture as regards the population growth? Let me refer to the World Bank Atlas. On page 6 there is a heading:“Population per capita product and growth rate.” It was published in 1975 by the World Bank in Washington DC. In South Africa the present population growth is 3,2%; in Australia, 1,9%; in Nigeria, 2,5%; in Brazil, 2,9%; in India, 2,3% and in the USA 1%. Our population growth is 10% higher than that of Brazil, 40% higher than that of India, 68% higher than that of Australia and 220% higher than that of the USA. The time has come for us to give top priority to the question of the growth in the White, Black and Brown population.

We could look at other figures that are more alarming. I am referring here to the Brittanica Book of the Year, 1976, page 564. There we find a survey of the number of people who are dependent and of the numbers of potentially productive people. In South Africa 47,1% of the people are old people and young, economically inactive and unproductive people as against 52,8% who are potentially productive people. In Australia the relationship is 39,6% as against 59,9%; in the USA, 42,7% as against 51,3%; in Kenya, 53,8% as against 46,2% and in India, 47,9% as against 52,1%. The Republic of South Africa and the Black fatherlands which are bound together in a web of inter-dependence, have the greatest possible number of dependent persons who lean for support on the smallest possible number of potentially productive persons.

Surely there must be confrontation some time or other. We could try to side-step this by way of political independence or all kinds of mechanisms, but the eventual confrontation of numbers will come and we must give that top priority. If we do not give it priority, there is only one remaining alternative, i.e. a stagnant and a decreasing standard of living, unless we are prepared to come face to face with the eventual confrontation problem. I say again that political independence will not, for the Black fatherlands, resolve the future, relieve the position or shift it further away from us, and donations will not help either.

We must bear in mind that there is a famine belt stretching round the world. Today, with the utmost seriousness at my command, I want to issue a warning about something which we must guard against. We must see to it that we ourselves, and the Black countries to which we are granting independence, do not, as a result of population growth, some time or other fall into that famine belt that is stretched around the world. We must face those facts squarely.

We have restrictive and decreasing agricultural resources and we need ever-increasing capital sources, because our capital is becoming more expensive. We are being surrounded by a Third World which makes very little contribution to food production. Two-thirds of the world’s population live in poor countries and that two-thirds of the world’s population furnishes 44% of the world’s food. I think the hon. member for Newton Park referred, a short while ago, to the fact that the production in Africa, the States closest to us, is amongst the lowest in the world. What will happen if America, and the other countries which also produce the biggest crops, have crop failures for a couple of years in succession?

The problem in Southern Africa is therefore not as much of a political problem as it is an agricultural and food problem, and that is woven into the socio-economic pattern. There is ignorance and illiteracy here amongst us next to us and to the north of us. There are old, obsolete and inefficient production methods, a lack of know-how, a lack of technological sources and a lack of research. There is a total imbalance between population growth and food production. South Africa is the leader in the field of research and in the agricultural-technical sphere, and it is a tremendous challenge that South Africa is being presented with. When we speak about agriculture and food production, we are speaking about a problem of fundamental importance in South Africa, and that is not uhuru or human rights; it is food and food is life—bullets mean death! We shall only be able to fight communism efficiently if we can tell our own countries, and the people with whom we have bonds of interdependence:“There is food.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I follow two of the most independent thinkers in this House. The hon. member for Carletonville said very many things with which I am in complete agreement. For example, he said that too much of our soil was being washed down into the sea, that too much of our agricultural land is wasted and that there is going to be a scarcity of it, and that the dangers we face are a shortage of food and an excessive population growth. I think we are lucky that in this House every now and then we have the benefit of the wisdom and experience of the hon. member for Carletonville, who always makes a good contribution. Then, Sir, I wish to refer to my friend, the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He spoke about islands around our coast. Many of those Islands I am personally familiar with and those with which I am not familiar, I have read about. I agree with much of what he says. I agree, for example, that this Minister should assume responsibility for those islands and that they should not be the responsibility of the Department of Commerce and Industry. Under that department they are not being utilized to full effect. I do not believe they are fulfilling a proper function under the department of the Minister of Economic Affairs. The hon. member has suggested that those islands should fall under a department of this Minister. That may be a good suggestion. I have from time to time raised the possibility of a maritime affairs department being established. It might be even more appropriate that those islands should fall under an overall department of maritime affairs. Nevertheless, it is an interesting suggestion and I support the hon. member’s thinking in this matter. Then, Sir, I also follow the hon. member for Benoni, who used to be an independent-minded member of this House but who is now unfortunately rather inclined to go with the stream. I hope that one of these days he will resume his status of being independent-minded. Perhaps he will even consider joining us in these benches. I know that philosophically he is certainly one of us. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a matter which has not been dealt with in this debate so far. I want to deal with the export of wild animals and the situation regarding zoos and circuses in South Africa. I do not mean by that the UP/Prog circuses in my immediate proximity here on my right; I mean the circuses which contain wild animals. [Interjections.] I raise this matter with a certain amount of trepidation because the last time I raised the question of treatment of wild animals in this House, some years ago, I was deluged with telegrams and letters and representations from all sorts of animal-lovers, associations and societies, because they thought that in me they had found a champion. With the best will in the world, I cannot be their champion; I do not have the time. If one has to deal with 16 000 constituents one does not have time for wild animals as well. Nevertheless, Sir, this matter must be ventilated. It must be given publicity and I think that with regard to some of the matters I am going to raise the hon. the Minister should give consideration to having them investigated.

The first point I should like to raise relates to the export of wild animals to zoos or zoological gardens, as they are called, and circuses overseas. His department approves permits for the export of animals for these purposes. It is, in fact, a flourishing business. A few years ago I read in Life magazine that 28 million live creatures are imported into the United States every year, of which 75 000 are mammals. These animals go not only to zoological gardens. They also go to pet shops. I have had the experience of seeing some of these pet shops in Europe and in the States, and I would not like to see any animals from South Africa going to those pet shops. They go to roadside zoos and private zoos; they go to carnivals and they go to circuses. I have been horrified to see animals from South Africa on exhibition in circuses in Europe. They look a pale shadow of what they were as we knew them here in South Africa. I think the question of this type of export, which I understand is a flourishing export, must certainly be looked at by the Minister.

There is also the question of travel conditions. From time to time one reads, particularly in overseas magazines, how animals from African countries—and I take that to include South Africa—suffer death in transit from suffocation, from hunger and from thirst. May I say in passing, too, that the transit of our livestock internally in South Africa leaves a lot to be desired. Many of the livestock in South Africa are in transit for three, four or five days at a time in cooped-up conditions with little ventilation and without adequate food and water. I think the hon. the Minister must certainly look at this matter more seriously.

I now come to the question of zoos. I want to go so far as to say that any need there may have been in the past for zoos in towns and cities in South Africa has long since fallen away. Today we have the situation where people can travel and cheap travelling facilities are available for people to go and see animals in wild parks and reserves. We also have films and television by means of which animals are brought on the screens for the people to see. There are also the natural field research facilities available in our game parks and our national parks. Therefore the arguments that zoos are necessary for purposes of research no longer apply. Before I came to Parliament today I had a look at the zoo at Groote Schuur. There I saw five lions. There might have been more inside the cages, but I saw only five. I saw three leopards. Beautiful animals. Two of them in one cage and another one—there may have been another one inside—in another cage standing on cement floors and surrounded by cage bars. I saw a lemur—a miserable and pathetic looking creature—and apes and baboons and then the birds. They at least seem to have more lebensraum and are able to live in more natural conditions than is the case with the animals. The hon. the Minister does not live far from Groote Schuur. I therefore ask him to go and have a look at the zoo and see the conditions …

He does not live there.

No, but he aspires to live at Groote Schuur one day! Therefore, let him go and have a look in advance at the zoo. I would suggest that that zoo be closed down. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

Don’t you want it for the Progs?

Maybe for birds. I am not going to enter into a controversy about that. Cement floors and bars before the cages are, in any event, too good for the Progs! I think the zoo could possibly be kept for birds. Maybe it could become a bird sanctuary. One thinks also of the possibility of the property, which I understand belongs to the Minister’s department, being made available to the University of Cape Town, which is cramped for land for expansion. The property could perhaps be made available for residences for the University of Cape Town. Certainly the conditions under which wild animals live in that zoo are not healthy or proper and, in any event, not civilized by today’s standards. I have read that animals under these circumstances become bored and depressed mental patients. They stand in cold concrete cages. They become pathetic neurotics. It is an extreme case of mental cruelty. They are deprived of everything that they need for normal behaviour. They develop a chronic depression and all sorts of sexual obsessions and perversions. Often physical damage is done to them, which can result in their death. Let me give a couple of examples of animals that can be kept in captivity and those which cannot. In the case of specialist animals you have for example ant-eaters. Ant-eaters can eat ants and koala bears for example can eat gum-leaves until the cows come home and no great harm comes to them in captivity. They are diet specialists.

How do you know?

If the hon. member should read books on this subject he would know what I am talking about. For them it is not so bad to be in captivity. But when we come to the opportunist animals, and I do not mean those on my right, but monkeys and the apes, those animals that are always investigating, that are always on the move …

That is right.

They have the nervous system of opportunists and they are bored in captivity. That kind of animal which, in the parlance that my friends would not understand, are known as opportunist animals and they cannot exist in cages. There is also the aspect of the public that is attracted to zoos. Well, anyone who goes to a zoo will see how the public behaves. They throw lighted cigarette ends and things like that at the animals. It brings out the worst of a perverted sense of humour in members of the public.

I think as far as animal parks are concerned, we have done a tremendous lot in the Republic. Our national parks are respected and famous throughout the world. Game parks are developing. I have not been to High Noon, but I hear that High Noon is magnificent. That type of game park is the form of captivity, if you have to call it captivity, for animals in future.

I ask the hon. the Minister to investigate and see if it is not possible for him to do away with zoos in towns and in cities, such as that at Groote Schuur. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the hon. member for Simonstown’s speech, but since he is worried at the fact that certain animals are kept in the zoo, as he said, in view of the debate yesterday about extending the hours of sitting, I wonder if provision cannot be made for certain young pups to be kept at that zoo. They could possibly be given some living space in such a zoo. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members on the Opposition side are very sceptical about one expressing words of thanks in debates such as these. I can tell hon. members even now that I should like to do so this afternoon before I broach another matter. I want to refer to action which, in my opinion, was an example of how a serious situation can be solved quickly if there is co-ordination. I am referring to a situation that arose in my constituency last year, a situation well-known to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. Overnight in my constituency 100 000 ha of grain we destroyed as a result of a cloudburst. Our Government departments are frequently criticized. The cloudburst occurred in the second half of October, the peak of the planting season in the Western Transvaal. The small plants that were destroyed were already two weeks old. I do not want to dwell at too much length on this matter, but I should like, in the House today, to have it placed on record that with our aid programme we enabled all the producers in that area to replant their grain within three weeks, thus ensuring them of a crop. This may appear, at first glance, to be unimportant, but we must bear in mind that that is the same area where the hon. member for Newton Park went to look at the flood damage the previous year.

I helped them a great deal on that occasion.

The people in that area did not only lose the production costs of one crop; they also lost the yield of a crop and also the production costs of the next crop for which they had planted. The people there were completely down and out. I should like to say in this House today that the sincerest thanks is due to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the help they furnished there. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing was not all that closely involved. I should like to thank certain individuals by name. Let me mention, amongst others, Mr. Steyn and Dr. Verbeek, and also Mr. Von Ludwig and Mr. Kramer, who are both officials of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and let me also include Dr. Slabbert, the Director of the Highveld region at Potchefstroom. I want to thank them for the fact that all that could be done in so short a time and that we could have that area declared a disaster area in absolutely record time. I also want to refer specifically to the help I received from Mr. Schalk Neethling and Mr. Paul Nel of the Minister’s office. There was excellent co-ordination between all the relevant bodies. It is no use merely putting wreaths on people’s graves the day they are buried; it is my wish to avow this today. I also want to mention that we had the best, and nothing but the best, co-operation from our co-operative in that area, the South West Co-operative.

I should now like to broach another matter with the hon. the Minister. In certain parts of our country agricultural products are cultivated on land situated very near to Bantu homelands. A subsidy scheme was introduced to help farmers erect houses on their farms. In that connection I want to lodge a plea today with the hon. the Minister. I think he has the necessary imagination to match mine. My request is that in our agricultural set-up we think about declaring certain agricultural areas in South Africa areas something like border industry areas.

We were very quick to say that we would be prepared to grant concessions if industrialists shifted their industries to border areas. It is unnecessary for me to go into all the concessions, but there were, amongst other things, income tax and transport rebate concessions. We looked at certain areas in the North-Western Transvaal and in the Northern Cape. If in those areas, say within a radius of 32 km from the nearest homeland, we were to think of developing accommodation for Black people—who are settled there on farms, i.e. within a radius of 32 km of the homelands— chiefly within the Bantu homelands, and if we worked out a system whereby the Black people from the homelands could work on the farms on a weekly or even a daily basis, without necessarily removing from the land the key staff that a farmer needs to have on his land, we could succeed in shifting up to 80 000 families. That could be done very easily. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that a method be sought—and I think there is a workable method—by which the money that farmers get for the establishment of housing is employed in the erection of houses within the Bantu homelands instead of on the farms themselves. We could then also make certain concessions because a farmer could easily find himself having to provide transport facilities for his workers. We could delimit an area and say that farmers within that area should get certain concessions, as in the case of people who establish their industries in border industry areas. When one thinks about that, one finds reasonable possibilities opening up. These are matters we can swop ideas about and this can give us an opportunity to do on our farms what we would like to see happen under our overall policy. This is not impracticable. It has possibilities. One can work out the details and present them to the hon. the Minister. In the process, however, we must state very clearly that we want to give these people certain benefits. That is also important for another reason. Ever more frequently one finds one farmer whose farm borders on a homeland while another farmer’s does not. If we accommodate the people who have inevitably landed up in that situation—their forefathers bought land there or they inherited land there—and feel a little concerned about their position, we could create an area there inhabited by satisfied people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke had introduced the concept of border farms. I wonder whether that concept will not suffer the same fate as the concept of border industries. Many of those border industries have in fact become border-line industries. The hon. member for Carletonville raised a matter which, I believe, is of vital importance. He raised the matter of the value of food production in dealing with political problems. He said that whereas the gun means death, food means life. There is something I would like to add to that. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has within his grasp the means of South Africa’s sophisticated agricultural research development, and sophisticated agricultural production to play a vital and a decisive role to bring about stability and peace in South Africa and in Africa.

In South Africa the provision of higher standards of living as far as its population is concerned, is something which is within the power of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. He also has the opportunity of, in the short term, making survival possible to people in Africa who are facing death by starvation. The hon. the Minister can provide them with food supplies in the short term. He also has the opportunity, in the long term, of providing technological guidance, education and assistance, and thereby of providing the peoples of Africa with self-sufficiency as far as agriculture production is concerned. The problem in Africa is desperate. In Africa there is a 2% decline in the per capita production of food. In some countries it is 7%. 42 million people in Africa are starving at present. In Ethiopia alone over 100 000 people died of starvation in 1975. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that no less than 40 of the 48 African States cannot produce anywhere near the food needed to keep their people alive. And that in spite of the fact that Africa is the continent with the highest agricultural production potential per hectare in the world.

Let us take Nigeria as an example. Between 1965 and 1975 agricultural production in Nigeria declined by 5%. In that same period the population of Nigeria increased by 13,5%. Nigeria now imports five times as much food as in 1960. The point I want to make to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is that he has an opportunity of replacing the gathering conflict in Africa with a productive and positive attitude of assistance. Where political confrontation is the order of the day at the present moment, the hon. the Minister has the opportunity of replacing political confrontation with technological confrontation by offering Africa technological assistance. Where political conflict is causing a threat, the hon. the Minister has the opportunity of replacing that conflict with assistance and with the provision of food.

We would like to thank the hon. the Minister for a step taken by him in December 1975 when he appointed a permanent protein advisory committee. I would like to talk very briefly about the concept of the protein equation of our country. The concept of a protein equation can determine and measure the general well-being of a society. It can determine the security of a society against disease. It can indicate the socio-economic status of a society. The protein equation is the comparison between actual protein production and the optimum protein consumption of the people of a nation. If a country is producing sufficient protein to meet its optimum consumption, such a country has reached a viable state as far as its protein equation is concerned. If it produces less, it is in a retrogressive stage, as is the case in most countries in Africa. If it is producing more, it is in a progressive situation and therefore in a position to actually export protein to other parts of the world. In South Africa we have the situation that whereas our protein demand is increasing by 3% per annum, our actual supply is increasing at only 1,5% per annum. I think that is something which requires the urgent and immediate attention of the Government. In 1975 South Africa produced 94% of her total protein requirements. In five years’ time, in 1980, South Africa will be able to produce only 82% of her total protein requirements—a reduction of 12% over a period of only five years. That is a red light, a danger signal, which the Government must look at immediately.

In the protein equation there are certain factors that have to be looked at. The first is that of land. The hon. member for Carletonville spoke about the loss of 400 million tons of our farmland per annum. In addition to that, I would like to mention that where we now have 0,75 ha per capita we will, as a result of the population explosion, only have 0,33 ha per capita in the year 2000. Obviously the conservation of our land must be the highest priority and must get the urgent attention of the Government. The proper management of our land is the responsibility of this department and the farmers of the country.

Fertilizers supply constitute another problem, in that the raw material resources for fertilizers are being exhausted at a very fast rate. By the turn of the century our water resources will be exploited to the maximum. These are problems to which the Government must give immediate attention.

We note that vegetable oil-cake production in 1977-’78 will be 240 000 tons, compared with 180 000 tons in 1974-’75. This is a very favourable indication. It is a 3373% increase over a period of three years. But despite that increase we still do not have sufficient to export on a large scale. We have a surplus of grain this year and because of the surplus the international prices have fallen. This indicates that a bigger market is developing for protein-rich foods and the Government must plan to exploit this market.

I also want to point out that in 1976 we actually had to import 50 000 tons of fishmeal and vegetable oil-cake. We find that as a result of the conservation measures that have been taken, with regard to fish, fishmeal production has dropped dramatically this year. We only expect 180 000 tons this year reducing protein feed availability and as a result increasing competition between the red meat producers and the white meat producers. The indications are that in the period 1975-’80 poultry production in South Africa will increase by 20% per annum, pork by 5% per annum, beef by 3% per annum, while mutton consumption might come down. The point is that it is clear that the public is moving from red meat to white meat. The Government must take note of this and must accept the fact that there is a growing demand for the production of more protein-rich feed.

In the limited time remaining I would like to list three points. I believe we must look at, as Israel has done, the greater utilization of poultry manure, for instance, as a source of protein-rich feed. I believe the Government must take cognizance of the fact that the protein content of yellow maize is dropping dramatically and take steps, by price structure changes, to persuade farmers to produce more yellow maize of a high protein content which is an important feed. I also believe that the Government must look at the production of the synthetic amino acids. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the end of a two-days debate. I believe these two days have been beneficial not only to hon. members, to the hon. the Minister and to the department, but also to the whole of the agricultural sector as well as the rest of the Republic. I think the debate this year followed a better line than in the past. Then we had nothing but complaints and moans about the farmers and the poor conditions they experienced. This year we have had a far more positive debate. It has involved the whole sector of agriculture, from the producer right through to the ultimate consumer.

At the outset I would like to say that it appears that my comments of yesterday have been misunderstood by some hon. members on the other side of the House and also by the hon. the Minister. It is obvious that they did not follow my argument to its conclusion. It seems that they settled at the point where I talked about subsidies and took it that this was the end of the line. What I tried to do yesterday, was to make a case that subsidies—in the words of the hon. member for Bethal—should be used as a cushion, particularly in the economic circumstances which pertain in the Republic today. Subsidies should be used as an economic cushion for our underprivileged people. It should be used to enable them to acquire the foodstuffs produced by the farmers and acquire it at a price which is economic to the farmer in the light of his increased costs of production. The hon. the Minister is faced with the problem that he can do nothing about stopping the increase in the cost of production. Therefore he has to increase the price to the consumer and is now faced with the problem of consumers who cannot afford to pay the price. This is why I ended my speech yesterday afternoon with a plea to the hon. the Minister that he must use his influence in the Cabinet to do something about uplifting the earning power, and thereby the buying power, of the 20 million Black people who cannot afford to buy our agricultural products today. The farmers are producing food for 25 million people, but only 4 million people can afford to pay for that food. The other people will have to be helped now, in the interim, until such time as there is a social reform—I am prepared to concede that it is happening—and the earning capacity and the buying power of the under-privileged people are increased. However, until the time they have been uplifted to the point where they can afford to buy the surplus of red meat, wheat, maize, eggs, butter and cheese we are sitting with, we are going to continue to sit with those surpluses. The hon. the Minister must please understand this concept. Hon. members on that side of the House say that there have been no positive suggestions from this side of the House, but I made the first positive suggestion and others were made by my hon. colleagues. I commend them all to the hon. the Minister. He must use his influence to do what he can about this.

I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Lydenburg is not here. He has made the most shortsighted and selfish speech I have heard throughout the debate.

Oh no!

I am serious. The hon. member for Bethal must not say that. The hon. member for Lydenburg has said that we must look at circumstances as they have been over the last couple of years, circumstances where the world price of oil-cake and oilseed has been far above that of the local price. He bases his whole argument on that. He says they are subsidizing the consumers of South Africa to the tune of R30 million. However, he forgets about the previous years, the lean years, when our prices were way above world prices. Therefore, when he talks like this, he forgets to look at the whole picture. What is the position with maize at the moment? For how many years have we not had a surplus of maize with the world price almost double the local price? Why are we today producing 9 million to 10 million tons of maize? In one year we produced 11 million tons. We have done this because there was an export market. There still is an export market. However, I want to warn the hon. the Minister that there will be a world surplus of grain. He knows that.

What must he do about it?

The hon. member asks what he can do about it. The time has come that the hon. the Minister must talk to the maize farmers. He must tell them that they might have to curtail their production because the same situation might arise in which we were five or six years ago, when the Maize Stabilization Fund stood at R37 million. In one year it was all used up by losses on exports, because the world price was half the domestic price.

This situation will come again, and that is why we shall have to have planning in the agricultural sector. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that this is happening. He knows about the record crops in Canada, in the USA, in Europe and in Russia. Russia has produced again, after three years in which they produced nothing. All of a sudden Russia is producing a surplus and this will change the whole world situation. This is why I say that the hon. member for Lydenburg made a selfish speech. The wheel will turn in his industry as well—as a matter of fact, it is already beginning to turn, and within a few years’ time a situation is going to come when the local consumers of these products are going to subsidize the producers, because they will be paying a price much higher than the world price. This is where we need planning.

To come back to the question of the consumer and consumer resistance, let us take a look at the position in the meat industry today. We know that the per capita consumption has dropped, that the overall consumption of red meat has dropped. Why is this so? I believe it is because of the price. What do we find when we look at the report of the Controller and Auditor-General into the scheme of the Livestock Industry Control Board? In June of 1974 they had a stock of R4,5 million on hand. That stock was disposed of at a loss of more than R1 million to the producer. It is the levy the producer has paid which went to pay for the disposal of that R4,5 million worth of stock at a loss of R1 million, a loss of almost 25%. We find that in June 1976 the situation had improved. The stock on hand then was only R2,3 million. What is the position today? I am told that today one cannot put another carcass into cold storage in the Republic of South Africa, because everything is chock-a-block full. There is no more room for any meat to be put into cold storage. Is that situation true? If it is, what is the position today? What stocks is the Meat Board holding today? This was the situation in June last year, and I am led to believe that it could well be double now, in the region of R5 million worth of stock with which the board is sitting today. I also believe that the stock is of top quality. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us what the situation is, whether the board is sitting with a tremendous surplus, what the surplus amounts to, what the grades are and what price have they paid for it. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister the other day, he said that the board imported nearly 2 000 tons of low-grade beef. I have a copy of a letter written by the board in which it said that the hon. the Minister only allowed this after deep consideration. I accept that. The hon. the Minister would have looked at it, but I think he has been misled, because the board states here—

I accept that, because we are producing more high-grade products and that is why we have to uplight the buying power of people in order to enable them to buy the higher grade products. The letter continues—

I cannot believe that. I cannot accept it. When I had a look at the report of the Livestock Industry Control Board, I found that the highest price for grade III meat was during December, when an average price of 83,9 cents was paid in Johannesburg, which is usually the highest price market. The lowest average price was 68 cents in March. This meat was imported at a price of 75 cents per kilogram. Why are we importing, even if it is only 2 000 tons, when the canning industry uses 48 000 tons a year? It is a matter of 5%, but why are we importing 2 000 tons of meat when we have a surplus in the country at the moment?

You received an answer yesterday.

I did not get an answer yesterday. [Interjections.] The point is that we are sitting with a surplus, and surely we must use our own meat first. Think of the foreign exchange that we could have saved, even if nothing else. The board’s stabilization fund is being eaten away by cold storage costs all the time and it is costing the producer more in this case, because the farmer pays the levy and the levy is not built into the consumer’s price. I concede that in this case it is the farmer who pays.

I support everything that the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has said about the officials and the staff of the three departments controlled by the hon. the Minister, because we on this side of the House have had nothing but courtesy and helpful assistance from them. We pay a tribute to them for that. I particularly want to congratulate them on the reports that we have had, because this year, even more so than in the past, I found them comprehensive, informative and very readable. To those who want to know where I get my information from, I want to say I get it from these reports.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by replying to the matter raised by the hon. member for Boksburg. The hon. member referred to the poor quality of the bread which is being produced. I cannot differ with him. He seems to have made a thorough study of the matter. We have already instructed the Wheat Board to go into his suggestion concerning the dry mass of bread. That just shows you how quickly we act, Sir! When they submit a proposal to the Marketing Council, we shall consider it in an effort to find a solution to this problem. I share the hon. member’s concern. There are milling companies that possess 50% of our milling capacity. That just shows you what can happen when a monopoly develops. They are in a position to dictate to the bakers, particularly in the Pretoria and Witwatersrand areas, and to refrain from giving them the necessary flour. There is also a problem with the grades in the northern provinces. Brown bread here is better because the wheat from the Western Cape, the Swartland and the Rûens areas is of a better baking quality than that produced in the Free State and in the Transvaal.

Hear, hear!

Yes, it is no use concealing the fact. They cannot play rugby, but can they produce bread! [Interjections.] When it comes to the discount on bread which was offered here in Cape Town, I want to call a spade a spade. There are two powerful companies here whose aim it is to wipe out Bokomo and Sasko here in Cape Town. That is the whole object. The companies wanted to destroy them because they are co-operatives. Even if I have to make a special law on my own, I shall make it my task to prevent this, because we do not eventually want to end up in the grip of powerful organizations which can shunt us around wherever they want us.

I may just tell the hon. member that I have a letter here from the Housewives’ League of Pietermaritzburg. Their chairwoman wrote as follows—

So you see, Sir, that when we get inquiries, we attend to them. In this case the problem in Pietermaritzburg was rectified. I am sorry that it had to be in the constituency of the hon. member opposite and not in the constituency of the hon. member for Boksburg, nevertheless the matter was rectified!

The hon. member for Kuruman referred to the border between Botswana and South Africa, and asked what their situation was in regard to the fencing of the border. The divisional council, the province as well as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services have already appointed a committee to go into the matter. The farmers’ associations may also be consulted when it comes to a practical solution to the problem of fencing the border. The survey office has already determined the border. It cost a great deal of money, but we are giving special attention to the matter.

The question of the allocation of State land, also causes the hon. member concern. If there is State land which can be allocated, we definitely consider the adjoining farms first, to see whether or not they are economic. We also establish whether another area can be added to it. If it is not an uneconomic farm we advertise it and this enables us to establish a new man in agriculture. Such a person does not necessarily come from the neighbourhood. The methods which we apply in this regard are, however, the most practical, in my opinion. The hon. member must bear in mind that when we advertise State land, we advertise it at an economic agricultural value.

It is then cheaper than the market value, because we cannot burden a person with heavy debts. That is in fact one of the arguments that was raised by the hon. member for Mooi River. This is the only way of bringing a new man into agriculture. An example of this is the fact that we have now established the first 12 farmers along the Rama Canal on the P. K. le Roux Dam. Incidentally, we no longer use the term “land settler”. A stigma attaches to that expression, and these people are new farmers whom we are establishing in a new irrigation area. If there is a farm in the Kuruman area which is an economic unit, for example, we first determine a price, based on the agricultural value. One receives as many as 140 applications for such a farm. However, it can only be allocated to one person. The Land Tenure Board, which consists of practical people, then gets a few of the best applicants together, and questions them. It tries to discover what the approach of each of the applicants is to the economy, whether he knows what the carrying capacity and the yield per hectare in the area is, etc. Once you have asked such a person a few questions, you can establish whether he is the right man for the job. However, one must remember that if you have received 140 applications, 139 of them are fed-up, but after all, they cannot all get a farm. That is always the problem when such land is allocated.

†The hon. member for Mooi River wants to know how, under present circumstances, I think the financial institutions in this country are going to be prepared to lend money to farmers. It is a big risk. As I explained previously, there is a money shortage in this country and the payability of agriculture is so low that people are not prepared to invest in it. Banks are not prepared to give loans. The hon. member has mentioned a figure of R2 327 million. The figure I have is that the balance between the debts and assets of farmers is 12%. That is a definite figure. I think it is still sound. He also mentioned the dairy farming industry and said that we should support the member for Standerton. I fully agree with him. If there is a problem in fixing a price, the only solution is that the farmer has to be more efficient and produce to the optimum.

*The hon. member for Eshowe referred to the flood damage of R8 million. His people came to see us and we shall see whether, under the existing aid measures, we can assist those people. I shall not get any additional money, but having regard to the existing measures of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and of Agricultural Technical Services in respect of money for fences, etc., I shall consider their case sympathetically.

It was also said that there was too much fat on and too many grades of meat. I agree. We are at present discussing the floor price with the Meat Board. We cannot adjust the floor price upwards in some grades, but between the grades we can give some encouragement to the grade which the public actually wants. Today the housewife does not want a carcass with excess fat. We can see what the auctions on the hook in the controlled areas produce. The butchers concentrate on grades with less fat. We can adjust our prices according to the need.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that we should make more loans available from Agricultural Credit. At the moment we cannot grant loans for the purchase of land from Agricultural Credit. We can only grant loans for production means. This department’s debt burden is considerably heavier because the banks are not assisting us as they used to do. In 1956 the total loans to farmers of the old State Advances Office amount to R26 million. In 1966, when Agricultural Credit took over, it was R74 million. In March 1976 it was R134 million in respect of this type of loan. This proves what other hon. members have said, viz. that the State will have to accept responsibility for more of the loans, as is in fact the case with Agricultural Credit.

The hon. member for Newton Park spoke about a hungry Africa in which only eight of the 48 States are self-sufficient as far as foodstuffs are concerned. He was quite correct, and I agree with him. This emphasizes what I always say. I differ with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. We shall discuss this matter again in a year or two. After all, one does not receive the Sunday Times on a Saturday so that one can predict before the time which horse is going to win. No one can give me the assurance now that we are going to have good rains again this year.

The Sunday Times does not predict very well.

Make it Rapport then. I just want hon. members to understand that one cannot predict these things. Our experience, and the tendency in our country and the world, is that one does not have a succession of surpluses. The production costs of the producers and the prices must go hand in hand, provided one has a market for those products.

The hon. member for Lydenburg was quite correct. The oil-seed farmers made a tremendous contribution. But the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is also correct. There are years in which the domestic price is lower than the overseas price. But during the past five years the trend was for the domestic price, in spite of surpluses in other countries, to be considerably lower than the overseas price. If one imports food at today’s oil price and freight costs, then the hon. member is correct when he says that the producer in South Africa is pulling his weight in the combating of inflation and in providing people with cheap food. I cannot differ with him on that score. No one—not even the industries—has during the past three years made a contribution equal to that of the South African farmer towards providing food cheaply and combating inflation.

The hon. member for Newton Park again discussed subsidies on basic foodstuffs to prevent ill-feeling between the consumer and the producer. Why does the hon. member say that when the consumer has to pay more it creates ill-feeling towards the producer and that we should rectify this by means of subsidies? The farmers have never rebelled. Last year, when salaries were increased by 10% and the farmers were not given a cent, they were not up in arms about it. When I told the maize farmers and the wheat farmers that their price would be determined solely on their proven cost increases and the Cabinet decided that they would not receive a cent increase in their entrepreneurial remuneration, not one of them was up in arms or said that they begrudged those people their salary increase. Why do they not become rebellious when the railway rates are raised? The consumer travels by train every day.

They are becoming rebellious about it, yes.

When electricity becomes more expensive …

Look what a fright the housewives gave you.

The housewives did not give me a fright. [Interjections.]

The hon. member asked what we were going to do with the mountains of dairy surpluses. We have exported a considerable quantity of butter. The mountain of surplus butter has shrunk considerably. The hon. member asked me to spell out the position to him. However, I cannot spell out everything to him. If I do that, the consumer will immediately say:“If you can export butter at a loss, why cannot you offer it to us at a lower price?”

Hear, hear!

My goodness me! To crown it all, the hon. member is shouting “hear, hear!” If one offers the housewife butter at a lower price in proportion to the loss one suffers overseas, it will not mean that she will consume more of it. All that happens, is that she does not eat the fresh butter which is still being made every day. Does the hon. member for Newton Park understand that?

Why did you not try it?

We did try it. We had that polemic in November, but we did not succeed in selling one additional kilogram of butter or cheese. I say that the buying power is not there.

The hon. member also referred to school feeding schemes. In this regard I agree with him 100%. Let him go to the Minister of Finance and tell him that we should donate this butter and cheese free of charge to the school feeding schemes. Does he want the dairy farmers to pay for it? The dairy products are in cold storage.

In the good years, when there was money, you have done so in the past.

That is correct, but now there is no money.

Yes, now there is no money, and now you are objecting.

Because there is no money. In any case it is only a fundamental business principle. To say: “Do not export at a lower price; give it to us at a lower price” …

Surely it costs money to store it.

That is correct. That is why I say: “Export it and have done with this rancid butter. Let us keep the new butter here.” That is what we have now done. The hon. members are trying to turn this matter into a political issue. They want to go from here and say in public: “Just see what kind of Government this is. There is a surplus, but the Government is exporting it at a lower price instead of offering it to our people at a lower price.” We reduced the price, but not a single kilogram more was consumed. Hon. members must remember that we are not dealing here with the poor people. What is involved here is cheese and butter. I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park: What does a kilogram of cheddar cheese cost?

My wife sees to that.

Ask Harry.

It costs 171c.

Mr. Chairman, I come now to the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He is frequently criticizing, but I like him. He is a man who sometimes comes forward with visions of the future. Such people I like. Our party is so unified a party that some of us may say wild things if we wish. Personally I am often criticized for the wild things I say. But, my friend, this party is a unified entity. Pietie is my friend when he holds out future prospects for the islands along our West coast. He said we should give the islands to the National Parks Board. This is one of the boards whose object it is to preserve such pieces of land. At present the islands belong to the Department of Industries. A committee of that department is at present going into the entire matter with a view to increasing the supplies of guano. When we have received that report, I shall go into the matter again. I shall discuss it with Dr. Rocco Knobel of the Parks Board. What the hon. member suggested is indeed the best method of preserving this asset of South Africa. This will redound to the further credit of a man who is known as “Piet Weskus”.

Piet Guano.

The hon. member for Benoni asked which of the rural reform proposals put forward by Dr. du Plessis’ committee I accept. We have just released the report. At present we are making a study of it to see which we can accept. The only problem is that many of these recommendations are recommendations which will cost the department money to implement. At present the department is only giving land to these uneconomic units, as found in some districts—the hon. member himself said that 70% of the farms were uneconomic. When an uneconomic farmer wishes to buy out another uneconomic farmer, the Land Bank gives him a tremendous amount of assistance. But these are voluntary transactions. We shall in fact announce at a later stage which proposals the department accepts.

The hon. member for Carletonville discussed our limited food resources. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member that I differ with him over the tonnage of soil which is washed away every year. We hear every year of how many million tons of soil have been washed away, but as I said yesterday, when I began to farm, a record maize crop in this country was 19 million bags. When I came to Parliament, it was 49 million bags. Under today’s circumstances 70 million bags is regarded as a crop failure. When I began to farm, they determined the maize price on a yield of 4 bags per morgen; today we speak of an average yield of 22,1 bags per hectare for the whole of the Republic. South Africa’s agricultural land has become less because we have built cities, freeways and roads, etc. Yet I say that in spite of this tremendous quantity which is being washed away, we shall still be able to feed 50 million people at the end of the century. What the hon. member said in regard to our power position is important. In Southern Africa we are going to be saddled with problems, and the homelands will have to develop very rapidly. A country such as Transkei has the potential to produce more than 40 million bags of maize. These are the things to which we shall have to give attention. It is a country that has the deepest topsoil, with a rainfall of approximately 28 inches per year on the Pondoland side.

What are they producing?

I should not like to say. However, I think the hon. member is correct when he says that our future strength lies in food.

†The hon. member for Simonstown mentioned the export of animals to zoological gardens overseas and also referred to the treatment of animals in zoos in South Africa. I was not aware that the animals that are exported are not well-fed overseas. I thought that foreign countries also had their societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals. This is a very important matter, because we hate to ill-treat animals. Concerning the Groote Schuur Zoo, I think the land belongs to the Government although the municipality is running the zoo.

That would not surprise me at all.

In Pretoria I know that the zoo there is run by the Department of National Education. However, I shall go into these matters and report back to the hon. member.

Concerning the transport of cattle and sheep for a period of five days, we have received letters from the SPCA concerning this matter and we have taken it up with the Minister of Transport. But I am glad that the hon. member mentioned this matter, because it is important that we should not ill-treat dumb animals and that we should pay more attention to this matter in future.

Since the hon. the Minister has just replied to the question concerning animals, I want to point out that the Natal newspapers of 2 or 3 December went mad about the game which the hon. the Minister was supposed to have shot at Njala. The story is not dead yet, in spite of all the denials of the department and the people involved.

Order! The hon. member must only put a question.

Could the hon. the Minister tell us what the true state of affairs is, so that this story can be quashed once and for all?

Let me reply to the hon. member quickly.

In any case, you are such a poor shot …

It was a very unfortunate episode that occurred here. The Secretary for Agricultural Credit, a few officials and I, paid a visit to Njala at Nkozi. We received representations from the Parks Board to the effect that it should be added to Umkozi. A Commission of Inquiry is investigating the matter at present, and the Planning Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister is also involved. The Parks Board was not happy about the fact that we were culling the game, but we have to do it every year. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services tells us that we have to shoot at least 300 or 400 buck annually. The Treasury determines the price, the buck are sent to the market or are delivered according to orders at prices determined by the Treasury. The price for an impala is I think, plus minus R17 to R19. The Parks Board then asked for the farm, but they were notified in writing by the Secretary that they could not get the farm. Personally I feel that there is enough land. We need more land for food production. I am therefore inclined to say that that land should be subdivided into economic units and made available to farmers. Besides, it is an area with a good rainfall. That is also how the M.P. concerned feels about it. He accompanied me. That is also how the farmers’ association feels, and how everyone in that area feels about it. The unfortunate part of it is that there is a Mr. Steinbeck, a person whom I have never met. He is the MPC in charge of this matter. The first I read of it was that Njala had become a “shooting box” for Ministers and that I had gone shooting there. However, I can assure the hon. members that I sometimes play it very safe. I always had a great liking for shooting. However, when I became Deputy Minister, I knew from what I had read that State land fell under the Department of Agriculture. Believe me, since I became Deputy Minister and subsequently Minister—no matter how difficult it may have been—I have never fired a shot at a buck, not even on my own farm. I accepted it as a principle never to shoot. So in that respect Steinbeck was barking up the wrong tree. [Interjections.] He was under the impression that I had gone shooting there myself. I do not blame him for doing so. He never spoke to me personally. He always spoke to me through the Press.

He is probably a Prog!

Yes, he must definitely be a Prog, or a very stupid UP man, to adopt this procedure. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke thanked me for the quick action during the damage which occurred in his constituency. He referred to the degree of co-ordination between the department and the officials of my Ministry during the planting season. That is true. I am pleased he mentioned it. People often say that there is too much red tape. However, in that case we made 100 000 ha of land more productive in a very short period of time. Fortunately those farmers harvested crops with which they could make good the damage they had previously suffered.

The Bantu dwellings in the border areas are a matter I shall discuss with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The proposal which the hon. member put forward in this respect was a practical one.

†The hon. member for Bryanston … Mr. Chairman, you know I make a point of replying to every speaker in this House in his native tongue, regardless of how difficult it may be, I always try my utmost.

*But honestly, to have to reply to a Van Rensburg, who is as much of a dyed-in-the-wool Afrikaner as I am, in English! Why does the hon. member not speak Afrikaans to me? [Interjections.]

His article was in English!

The hon. member said that we have to provide Africa with food, and that we can strengthen our position in Africa and ensure peace by providing Africa with foodstuffs, from our own surpluses, and by sharing the results of our research with Africa. Any African State is welcome, at any time, to come and examine any research project in our country. We shall make all the necessary information available and place all the necessary literature at its disposal. Any African State is welcome. It need only ask for it. If an African State wants foods from us, and it has the money to pay the ruling world price, we shall supply it. However, we cannot give it away for nothing. That is our standpoint. We do not want to see people starving. They are welcome at any time.

The hon. member went on to say that we should begin to undertake research in regard to the utilization of chicken manure as a feed, owing to its high protein content. We need not do any further research. Our cows have been feeding on chicken manure for a very long time. We did the research a long time ago. We are undertaking further analyses. The hon. member should learn to visit our agricultural projects. Instead of reading about them, he should go and see what is being done. He will be amazed to see what progress we have made.

Finally I want to turn to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

†The hon. member said we should uplift the 20 million Blacks in order to get rid of our surpluses. That is what the hon. member said. If we want to uplift the buying power of the salaries of our 20 million Blacks in South Africa, we have to bear in mind our economic situation. It all depends on our economy whether we can do it at this present moment. If salaries are increased, it is an inflationary measure. Inflation is something we cannot carry with us indefinitely. I agree with the hon. member that if the Black man has more buying power he will help us get rid of our surpluses of milk, red meat, etc. I fully agree with the hon. member on that point. The hon. member asked whether there was a surplus of beef in cold storage. He mentioned red meat worth R5 million. I can assure the hon. member that the surplus beef left is worth far less than R5 million. The hon. member wanted to know for what price we bought that meat. The answers to all the questions asked by the hon. member, are in the annual report of the Meat Board.

That is only until June last year!

Well, I can give the hon. member the latest figures. Why does he ask at what price it is bought? I explained to the hon. member yesterday that they are buying at the floor price and the floor price is always published in the Gazette.

*Mr. Chairman, I must finish my speech. “Oubaas” still has to pilot through his Bill quickly in all its stages. [Interjections.] I want to conclude by mentioning that permit control on egg production did not work. I just want to say very quickly that we are going to revise this system.

The farmers and producers who are sitting here are uneasy in their minds over the possibility that we will again have a record crop while the world prices could drop further. During this short time I have been Minister of Agriculture, I have often wondered “Whither, Lord?” And then a door was opened and we found a solution. Our farmers must produce with courage and zeal. “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work,” is the commandment our farmers should carry out. If one does that, one does not have time to protest and become a “bitterbek” Hertzogite or something like that. Then one is pleasantly engaged every day in one’s daily task. That is the way our farmers feel about this matter.

To me the future is unpredictable. Suppose we were to enter a deeper depression. These young men, myself included, have not yet gone through hard times. Who of us have gone through hard times? All of us sitting here who are 49 years of age and younger, have since our birth not experienced one day of hardship or sacrificed anything for this country. We have not known a war or depression. Our parents gave us everything on a plate. When was this nation built? This nation was built in the time of the depression when the children ran barefoot to school and toted in the bathwater in a bucket. That is the attitude of the farmers of this country: If hard times should come, they will smile. Because they love the soil and because they are part of this country, the farmers are the clients we must take care of. I want to thank hon. members for their fine contributions they have made to this debate up to now.

Votes agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Land Settlement Act of 1912, which was substituted by the Land Settlement Act, 1956, made provision for the setting aside of a surveyed piece or pieces of State land, for use as common pasture by irrigation settlements established by the State. These settlements were laid out years ago when the farmers were still to a large extent dependent on draught animals and the initial object of the pasture was therefore to provide each settler with grazing for the draught animals and a few milch cows. It is important to note that the Land Settlement Act provides that the cost of this pasture was proportionally to be added to the purchase price of each site. This provision was, however, subsequently amended so that the full cost did not necessarily have to be recovered. It was also provided that the Minister, with the consent of 75% of the owners, could subdivide such pasture and allocate a specified portion to each holding.

But the Land Settlement Act also provided that the Minister could make available any State land not required for immediate allocation in terms of the Act for use as common pasture for as long as he deemed fit. Although the standpoint is adopted that the users of this State land did not acquire vested rights as in the case of the surveyed pasture that had been set aside, this view is based solely on a technical legal point and in practice no distinction is made.

The management of the pasture is regulated by means of committees of management established in terms of the provisions of the Land Settlement Act, 1956. That Act has already been repealed by the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, but the relevant provisions remain in force in so far as they are, inter alia, applicable to the common pasture.

The committees of management are vested with limited powers and do not qualify for aid by way of subsidies in terms of the Soil Conservation Act or any other assistance from the authorities. The only income at their disposal is an annual rate levied from the owner of each holding. Therefore, it has never been possible to utilize the pasture to the optimum, owing to a lack of the funds required to undertake proper planning and development.

†The proposed legislation aims to remedy these shortcomings. It is proposed to establish pasture management committees and to empower these committees to raise money by way of loans from the State for the construction of soil conservation works, for the provision of adequate water supplies for livestock and for the erection of fences. Such committees will have to comply with directions issued in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, but will also qualify for loans under the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, and for subsidies in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, 1969.

The rate levied by a management committee in terms of the existing provision, to which I have referred earlier, is payable by each and every owner of an agricultural holding entitled to grazing on the common pasture. This naturally gave rise to many complaints as some farmers were not interested in the grazing available to them while the holdings of others were situated too far from the pastures. Provision has now been made in this Bill that such farmers may either transfer their grazing rights on a temporary basis to other owners or advise the Minister that they do not wish to be allocated grazing rights. In the latter case the owner will be exempt from the payment of rates levied by a committee.

A pasture management committee will consist of five or seven members, the majority of which will be elected by the landowners. The remaining members are to be appointed by the Minister. Actual control of the pastures will be possible by means of regulations which will be tailored to suit the requirements of each area.

Provision has also been made for the dissolution of a committee and the withdrawal of State land as a common pasture should the need therefor arise. In the event of such withdrawal the consent of at least three-fourths of the owners is required.

*I am convinced that this Bill will place the matter of common pasture on State land on a much better and healthy basis. The committees are receiving greater powers and authority, but at the same time greater duties and responsibilities are being entrusted to them. We are living in a time in which every hectare of agricultural land has to be preserved and utilized to the optimum. It is hoped that this Bill will contribute to that State land which serves as pasture for irrigation farmers being utilized to the optimum in order, particularly in those cases where the farmers in question have units of dubious economic ability at their disposal, to provide them with a useful additional income.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the immediate assurance that we shall not oppose this Bill. It would appear to us that this is just another re-enactment of many of the provisions of the old Land Settlement Act of 1912, which was re-enacted in 1956 and repealed in 1966. It was a good old UP Act which benefited many people and we hope that many people will also benefit from the provisions of this new Bill.

†The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he is concerned mainly with the question of the conservation of the land concerned. We have these common pasture areas adjacent to the irrigation settlement schemes, particularly the two schemes with which the Bill is concerned, viz. at the Orange River and at Vaal Hartz, although there are two or three other smaller ones dotted around the Republic. But these are of minor importance as far as we are concerned.

I am sure that to the people concerned, this Bill is going to be a great assistance. The position at the moment is that these people have grazing rights on these lands and have a certain responsibility particularly with regard to conservation measures, measures which these people are not in a position to carry out. They are not in a position to carry out any soil conservation works, and the department, much as it would like to serve a direction in terms of the Soil Conservation Act on the owners of the land, finds itself in the position where it cannot do so, because these people are not the owners and do not therefore have the responsibility. Therefore this Bill is going to settle the anomaly which exists in this respect at the moment. I am also particularly pleased that the committee will be a legal persona, that it will get assistance from the Department of Agricultural Credit and, can benefit from the subsidies payable to a landowner in terms of the Soil Conservation Act. But it must understand that it will also have certain responsibilities, i.e. to repay the loans which it receives, to maintain the works and to carry out any direction which might be served on it. They also have to look after such things as noxious weeds, the eradication of vermin and all the other responsibilities of landowners. The cost of these works and the repayment of the amounts borrowed are going to have to be recovered from the landowners on the irrigation scheme. I believe this is going to be done by way of a levy. At the same time I believe that where many of these irrigation plots have now become almost sub-economic or un-economic units, this will give the owners the opportunity of earning a little bit more by way of raising cattle.

I believe the provisions of clause 3 of the Bill are of importance. Clause 3 provides that these grazing rights do not pertain to the owner, not to a person, but to a plot. The rights remain with the plot and the owner may not dispose of them separately or he may not dispose of the plot without the grazing rights, because they pertain to the plot. I am very glad that the draftsman and the hon. the Deputy Minister have put into the Bill one proviso, i.e. that if a landowner is satisfied to simply carry on with irrigation farming and does not want the particular grazing rights or if he is—as the hon. the Deputy Minister put it in his speech—so situated that he cannot use the grazing rights, he will be able to transfer them to another landowner. This is of course going to relieve that landowner of the responsibility of paying a levy.

I do not think that there is any need to waste more time of the House. This is enabling legislation. I believe it is a step in the right direction. As the hon. member for Mooi River said, we are re-enacting an Act which was passed by the old “Sap-regering” and therefore we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to express a few thoughts on the factors which have given rise to this piece of legislation. After 1966, the Government, the hon. the Minister and Parliament decided to allot this State land as farms. The common pasture for irrigation farmers—which affects Buchuberg as well—comprises an area of 102 000 morgen. In the days when they were still poor, the irrigation farmers benefited greatly by those 102 000 morgen. Years ago, farmers owned only 3, 6, 8, 9 or 10 morgen of land and they had to make a living from this. The Government then made a concession to the farmers to keep a small number of livestock. In those years of set-backs, when they first had no water and then had floods, this concession was a great help to the farmers. Had the farmers not been given the concession at that time, they would not have been able to survive until today to experience a better position. At that time, we formed a delegation to see ex-Minister Uys. We pointed out that if these people had to do without that benefit, they would not be able to make a living. He said to us, “In terms of the Act, we shall have to sell the land to you but go back and try to form a company, a co-operative society or a syndicate to enable you to buy the land from the State. I shall do my best to ensure that it is sold to you.” Having made all these attempts, we were unable to succeed in doing what had been suggested, because we found that the financial obligations that would rest on the irrigation farmers, would be so heavy that they would not be able to afford it. In 1972 we approached the present Minister and put the case to him. On 7 May 1972 this Minister finally decided that this land would once again be made subject to the regulations that had been introduced to apply soil conservation. However, under the circumstances prevailing under those regulations at that time, this Act could not be put into operation. New regulations had to be drafted in terms of which the committee of management could be a body corporate as required. We submitted these regulations time and time again and they were received sympathetically but referred back to us. Every time our people revised it as well as they could. The regulations were then returned to us for the last time because I had promised the riparian owners that before these regulations became law, they would once again be submitted to them in order to ensure general satisfaction. The regulations were submitted to the control boards and to all the owners. They were so satisfied with them that they sent me the following telegram—

Sir, I am pleased that we have not taken this concession away from the farmers. We know that the Government has been sympathetic towards these farmers all those years. We do not know what the future holds for them, because we live in a temperamental part of the world as far as agriculture is concerned. We cannot say what is going to happen to them tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. This concession of being able to keep a small number of livestock in order to supplement their incomes in difficult times has always been a support to our farmers in that area. I want to thank the department for its contribution over a period of nine years whilst we were wrestling with this problem. We also want to thank the Minister and his Deputy for having acted so obligingly and humanely in making this concession possible in the interest of our farmers in the lower Orange River area.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on this Bill and also on his speech in support of the Bill. His speech was very interesting. In particular I found his presentation of the background history to the creation of commonages in this country absorbing. It was a well motivated speech, especially in regard to the question of funds in relation to commonages. This Bill will result in a greater availability of funds and the improvement of commonages in terms of the Soil Conservation Act. It will also result in a fairer dispensation for those farmers who do not use trek-oxen any more and therefore will not have to pay for their fuel, i.e. their grazing. We in these benches support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt fully with this Bill and gave this House a detailed explanation of its provisions. I do not believe it is necessary for me to make any further comment on the Bill. Of course we support the Bill. We are glad, of course that the Opposition also supports the Bill.

Are you not part of the Opposition? [Interjections.]

I hope they are now going to tell John Scott how many times they have agreed with the NP. Somebody has just told me that this is the 51st time that they have agreed with the NP.

†Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that they are supporting this Bill. The Bill is entitled: “The Common Pasture Management Bill.” They must have misread it to mean a common society. [Interjections.] They are so anxious to find common ground with the Progs that they will vote for anything which they think will lead to that. As long as they can have something in common with them, they will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, since every member who stood up here thanked the previous speaker, so much appreciation has already been expressed that in effect I need only say thank you to everyone. It is very clear that none of the parties here have any doubts about the legislation. Therefore I only want to agree wholeheartedly with what was said here. But I do dissociate myself from what the hon. member for King William’s Town said at the end of his speech.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask one question which escaped me during the Second Reading debate. We shall now pass this Bill, and the effect of this Bill will be that there will now be certain land which will continue to resort under the control of the hon. the Minister’s department as commonage land and as State-owned land. Last week a number of proclamations were tabled in this House and in the Other Place which will in due course be considered by both Houses. The one referred to the acquisition by prescription of two portions of unregistered State-owned land known as farms 99 and 147 of Blaauwbergvlei. It appears that here one has two owners who have acquired certain land by prescription. I was wondering whether this is really still happening in this country. I did not believe that it would still be happening and that the State by now would have full control over all its land. I want to ask of the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will just tell us what plans the department has to protect its land against the acquisition by people by prescription.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a man who likes participating in a debate in which there is general agreement. I do not particularly like all this embracing, but this debate is a very important one to me in that we have a large piece of land in the constituency which I represent and in the district in which I live, which would have been covered by this Act, but because it was impossible in the past for those people to administer that piece of land under the old Act, they approached the State and asked the State to take back the land from them and to administer it. In view of the fact that the effect of this new Act will be to render this matter so much more manageable and to make it an attractive proposition once more to those people who let their animals graze on that common land, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to adopt a very sympathetic approach towards people who request in terms of the new Act that the way in which that land is being managed be reconsidered.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South asked me a question and I want to state unambiguously that I do not have the particulars of the specific case he mentioned, but I do want to point out that since 1971 prescription has no longer been operating against the State. It would appear that the transaction referred to by him was disposed of in terms of the State Land Disposal Act. I want to tell the hon. member for Namaqualand that unfortunately I did not follow his argument fully and should prefer not to answer him. I should like to furnish him with the particulars personally.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, a Select Committee of the House of Assembly was appointed on 3 April 1973 to inquire into and report on the control structure which had developed in terms of the Marketing Act, 1968.

The Select Committee indicated on 17 May 1973 that because of the extent of the investigation and the advanced stage of the session it would not be able to complete its investigation before Parliament was prorogued. The Select Committee consequently requested that it be relieved of its charge and that a commission of inquiry consisting of the same members be appointed to continue the investigation. The commission of inquiry was appointed by the State President on 23 May 1973, and after a very comprehensive and thorough investigation it submitted its report to the State President on 9 February 1976. The Afrikaans version of the report, with a summary of the recommendations in English, was tabled during April last year.

The report was officially made available to interested parties with the request that their comment be submitted to my Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. After having received the comments I requested the National Marketing Board to evaluate the various proposals and to submit its remarks to me.

Because some recommendations of the commission would necessitate statutory amendments, while others can be implemented as a matter of policy, I have deemed it advisable to inform hon. members in broad outline of the decisions taken by the Government concerning the various recommendations of the commission.

Mr. Speaker, I shall confine myself in the first place to those recommendations which do not require any statutory amendments and which can therefore merely be implemented as a matter of policy. For the sake of completeness, I shall give the recommendation of the commission as well as the decision taken on it in every case.

Organizational Structure of the Marketing Council:

The commission recommends:

1. (i) that at least two members be drawn from outside the Public Service for appointment to the Marketing Council, at higher salaries than the other members if need be, but since payment of a higher salary to two members of the Marketing Council could cause practical problems, I am afraid that the recommendation cannot be accepted;
2. (ii) that producer members of the Marketing Council should as far as possible be well-known leaders from the farming community—this recommendation is logical and is accepted; and
3. (iii) that the salary structure of the Marketing Council be placed on a par with that of the more important control boards. This recommendation is accepted and has already been put into effect. Liaison between the Marketing Council, the Minister and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing:

The commission points out that if the Marketing Council lacks the staff to give it the necessary professional assistance and statistical information, it will be greatly hampered in its task, and the commission therefore recommends that urgent attention be given to the matter. This recommendation has been accepted and an inspector of the Public Service Commission has already conducted an inspection in my department. The recommendations of the inspector have already been partially implemented. On the basis of practical and economic considerations, the commission recommends that the existing arrangements in respect of the liaison with and the services to the Marketing Council by the department be retained. This recommendation has been accepted.

Liaison between the Marketing Council, the Minister and the control boards:

The commission also recommends that if the Marketing Council cannot support a decision taken by a control board, and if the council deems it appropriate and practicable, it should consult the control board again before reporting on the matter to the Minister. This recommendation has been accepted.

Liaison between the Marketing Council and other bodies:

The recommendation of the commission that important principles be discussed with the Marketing Council by the management committees of control boards before being finally considered by such boards I regard as a sound principle, and it has accordingly been accepted.

The recommendation of the commission that the Chairman of the Marketing Council be appointed a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council is supported and is being followed up.

Powers and duties of the Marketing Council:

I regard liaison between the Marketing Council and the Co-ordinating Consumer Council as very important and I have accepted the recommendation made in this connection by the commission. However, I am not prepared to make such liaison obligatory by means of legislation.

The recommendation of the commission that decisions by control boards concerning staff affairs, subsidized transport, allowances and overseas travel need not be referred to the Marketing Council, but can be dealt with by the department in consultation with the Minister, has been accepted.

Extent to which controlled marketing has developed:

Under this heading, the commission makes the following two important recommendations:

1. (i) that if it is justified and necessary to bring further products under control, an attempt should be made to include such products under existing schemes as a matter of preference, but if this is impossible, control in terms of sections 84A to F of the Marketing Act should be considered; and
2. (ii) that in order to place on a sounder basis the marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables which are not yet included under control schemes, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing should collect and make available market information on the major products as well as information concerning the expected production and marketing opportunities.

Both these recommendations are accepted and attempts will be made, with the manpower available to my department, to furnish producers with the necessary information concerning markets and marketing opportunities.

†Number of marketing schemes:

The commission was of the opinion that the Marketing Council should continually consider the necessity of retaining existing control measures.

Apart from feeling strongly about the merging of the Milk and Dairy Boards, the commission also recommended that attention should be given to the possibility of incorporating the Dry Bean Board with the Maize Board.

These two recommendations have been accepted and I have already appointed a working group consisting of representatives of the Milk and Dairy Boards, the Marketing Council and the department to investigate the method of combining these two control schemes and to submit a draft scheme.

The Marketing Council will also, as early as is practically possible, report to me on the possible incorporation of the Dry Bean Board with the Maize Board.

Types of schemes:

Although the commission was impressed by the simplicity and the advantages of floor-price schemes, it could not support the opinion that such schemes are necessarily the most advantageous under all circumstances. The commission accordingly recommended that, as in the past, every case should be considered on its merits.

This recommendation has been accepted together with the recommendation that it should be endeavoured throughout to restrict the scope of control measures.

The commission also had serious misgivings about the existing marketing scheme for barley, oats and rye and pointed out that, in its opinion, a more flexible floor-price scheme has more possibilities than the existing single-channel fixed-price scheme. The commission’s recommendation that the most suitable marketing arrangements for these products be investigated, has been accepted.

The recommendations by the commission with regard to the acquisition of raw materials by dairy manufacturers and the fixing of minimum transport tariffs by the Dairy Board have been accepted and will be given the necessary attention.

Handling and processing of products by control boards:

I support the commission in its recommendation that, apart from a few necessary exceptions, control boards should leave the physical handling and processing of products in the hands of the private sector.

Restrictive registration of commercial enterprises:

The commission’s recommendation that restrictive registration of commercial enterprises should not be applied to more industries has been accepted as a general guideline.

Mr. Speaker, I will now deal with the specific recommendations regarding existing powers of registration of the following boards:

Dried Fruit Board:

I have accepted the recommendation that the system of restrictive registration of packers be retained on condition that the board does not implement it in such a way as to impede the marketing of dried fruit produced outside the Cape Province. I can also mention, for the information of this House, that the Dried Fruit Board has been requested to review the present form of control over dried fruit.

Wheat Board:

The recommendation that the Wheat Board should retain the power to register millers and should continue to control entry into the bread-baking industry is accepted subject to the board not acting in a too restrictive manner.

As regards the registration of confectioners, I accept the commission’s recommendation that the system of restrictive registration should be replaced by a system of formal registration coupled with suitable conditions.

Milk Board:

I have also accepted the recommendation that restrictive registration as applied to producer-distributors be retained, and I am likewise of the opinion that the board should continue applying restrictive registration in the case of distributors. The commission’s recommendation that the prices of the various sales categories of fresh milk should be determined more in line with actual costs will receive careful consideration since the different rates of profitability may easily lead to disruptive competition.

Maize Board:

The commission points out that restrictive registration of commercial millers has not contributed towards rationalization of the industry. I therefore agree with the commission’s recommendation that this form of registration be replaced by a more liberal system of formal registration which may be granted subject to appropriate conditions and qualifications. Similarly, restrictive registration in the case of gristing millers and maize dealers should preferably be replaced by a system of formal registration subject to suitable conditions.

The Maize Board has been requested to give full attention to these matters before the end of the year and to submit recommendatonions to me.

Dairy Board:

The commission recommended that in the light of the adjustments being made in the industry, restrictive registration of dairy factories be retained. This recommendation has been accepted.

Meat Board:

No decision concerning restrictive registration by the Meat Board has as yet been taken since the Marketing Council is at present investigating certain aspects of the industry. As I mentioned during the discussion of my Vote, we expect a reply by the end of June.

Mohair and Wool Dealers:

The recommendation of the commission that a system of formal registration also be implemented in respect of these dealers, has been accepted.

Simplification of control measures:

Although the commission is in favour of flexible arrangements in regard to matters such as salaries, conditions of service, investment of boards’ funds and an age limit for board members, it recommends that the tried and tested policies should as far as this is possible also be embodied in legislation. I accept this recommendation in principle and provision regarding some of these matters is actually included in the Bill.

The recommendation that constant attention be given to the prescribed requirements governing the delivery of products to agents of control boards, has also been accepted.

*Desirability and feasibility of centralizing certain powers and functions of control boards:

Two of the recommendations made by the commission in this connection, namely that discussions on prices which control boards wish to have with the Minister be arranged for a time after the report of the Marketing Council has been received, and also that a timetable for price meetings be drawn up annually in consultation with the control boards and that the said boards keep to the timetable, have been accepted.

Furthermore, I have taken cognizance of the recommendation that a conference on agricultural prospects be held annually under the chairmanship of the Marketing Council. The practical implications of this recommendation will first have to be investigated.

Centralization of powers to handle quasi-legal matters: Restrictive registration of commercial enterprises:

The commission recommended that the power of registration be vested in the boards concerned, but that they be authorized to register only provisionally and that appeals against the decisions be heard by a central body.

This recommendation has not been accepted, since I believe that the present procedure, in terms of which the Minister gives his ruling on an appeal after consultation with the Marketing Council, is much simpler. In cases where a board is unable, because of its composition, to decide on an application, I should also prefer the application to be considered by the Agricultural Reference Board. However, I am prepared to amend the composition of the Agricultural Reference Board so as to provide for the chairman and a member instead of the chairman and the manager of a particular board to serve on the Reference Board.

Domestic and Foreign Marketing:

The recommendation of the commission that the domestic marketing of agricultural products be left to the private sector, but that the existing dispensation be maintained in those few cases where boards already undertake the physical handling of their products themselves, has been accepted.

The opinion of the commission that if a marketing scheme under the Marketing Act is decided on for uncontrolled fruit and vegetables, their foreign sales should be incorporated with the Citrus or Deciduous Fruit Board, is supported in principle.

Sales Promotion:

Foreign:

The recommendation of the commission that no active steps be taken at this stage to create a central foreign marketing organization, but that the foreign representation of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing be strengthened, has been accepted in principle.

Domestic:

The possible establishment of two publicity committees for all control boards—one for nutritional information and one for fibres and Karakul pelts—as well as the recommendation of the commission that no board be allowed to engage in publicity in this country, unless this be done through one of these two committees, has been accepted in principle as far as food products are concerned. However, we shall first have to consider very carefully whether publicity for food products can be justified in all cases. In the case of fibres and pelts there will obviously be practical problems involved in the joint promotion of rival products.

Research:

Cognizance has been taken of the recommendations made by the commission in connection with applied research analysis services and statistical services.

The recommendation that if the problems experienced in keeping statistics cannot be remedied in the space of a year within the framework of the Public Service, a statistics corporation should be established over which the Minister exercises full control, I am unfortunately unable to accept.

Cognizance has been taken of the commission’s belief that a central computer service for boards cannot be recommended.

Extension:

The recommendation of the commission that, as a general rule, boards be not allowed to provide or to finance extension for producers, is accepted. However, I agree with the commission that cases may arise where specific specialized extension may be of great value, so I also support the idea that where the Department of Agricultural Technical Services cannot undertake such extension, it should be undertaken by the interested bodies on a co-ordinated basis and in consultation with the department.

Producer majority on control boards:

The existing arrangement of producer majority on control boards has been examined by the commission. However, it has recommended—I have accepted the recommendation—that the principle of producer majority be upheld. The recommendation that control boards be divested of their power to decide on certain matters, such as prices and quasi-legal matters, I have not been able to accept. The suggestion that boards should be more marketing-orientated, and that this should be taken into consideration in composing control boards, is accepted.

Departmental representatives:

The recommendation of the commission that a panel of senior officers be designated to represent the department on control boards cannot be accepted, unfortunately. However, it will be a matter of policy that officials should serve on those boards in a purely advisory capacity where this is deemed necessary.

Allowances to board members:

The recommendation of the commission that a daily allowance be paid to members of boards on the existing basis is accepted. The commission’s recommendation concerning an entertainment allowance payable against claims is also acceptable.

In order to promote the effective functioning of boards, by having more frequent meetings of the boards, for example, the majority of the commission recommended that it be accepted in principle that an honorarium may be paid to board members. I cannot fully subscribe to this recommendation, since this could be regarded as compensation for services rendered. After serious consideration I have decided that payment of an honorarium can only be justified in the case of chairmen of control boards.