Mr. Speaker, please permit me, on behalf of the Leader of the House and for the information of the House, to make a statement on the business for next week. I should just like to say that next week we shall continue with the legislation as printed on the Order Paper, except that on Monday we shall give the Minister of Coloured Affairs an opportunity to make his Second Reading speech regarding his Training Centres for Coloured Cadets Bill, and then the debate will be adjourned until Tuesday. The same applies to item 2 on the Agenda, namely the National Education Policy Bill. The Minister of Education, Arts and Science will make his Second Reading speech on Monday, and then the debate will be adjourned and we shall continue the discussion on the Second Reading on Wednesday.

I move—

I think as this Bill has progressed through the House, we have made progress in our consideration of the aims and the method to achieve those aims of technical education. The hon. the Minister has accepted one important amendment we have moved. I regret very much that he was not able to accept another amendment which would have granted a greater degree of autonomy, but I gathered he was sympathetic in his attitude. I feel sure that in the future, when he has seen how these new bodies—because they are becoming new bodies with, as the hon. the Minister has described it, a degree of semi-autonomy—have developed, and has seen they are responding well and are obtaining local support, he will be prepared to come forward with legislation to grant them an even greater degree of autonomy. That is our aim. We are all agreed on that. We look forward to the day when we shall have not only technical colleges, but technological institutes developed on the lines of modern states right throughout the Western world and, if I may say so, throughout the communist world, because that is the modern development in education. We are glad that progress has been made. We are glad that the Minister has departed from the principles laid down in the 1955 Act, which was to have tight Government control of these institutions. We therefore give our unstinted support to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for certain amendments to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945. Before amplifying the principles incorporated in the Bill, I wish to explain that the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, regulates the financial relations between the Government and the provincial authorities, and provides for certain legislative powers to be transferred to the provinces, in addition to those vested in them in terms of the Constitution Act, previously the South Africa Act. Four principles are incorporated in the Bill, and I want to deal with them separately.

The first principle contained in the Bill is that it is provided that the provincial administrations may also incur expenditure to enable their administrative and clerical personnel to study part-time for certain diplomas. At present the provinces have the power to incur expenditure required for enabling persons qualified or training as teachers or nurses to study at higher education institutions, for example universities and university colleges. In addition the provinces are also authorized, in terms of section 18 of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, to incur expenditure, with the approval of Treasury and after consultation with the Public Service Commission, to help persons to study at higher education institutions in order to qualify or improve their qualifications for occupying professional or technical posts, excepting teaching or nursing posts, in the Public Service, including the provinces or an institution controlled, aided or subsidized by the State or by a provincial administration.

Since 1st February, 1959, the Technical College, Pretoria, has been offering courses to enable administrative and clerical personnel in the Public Service to qualify as accountants and auditors in the Public Service. Subsequent to that date the Technical College, Pretoria, also established a diploma course in public administration. After consultation with the Public Service Commission the executive committee of the Orange Free State decided to establish a bursary scheme for making bursaries available to provincial personnel as from 1965, in order to enable them to study part-time for the diploma in public administration and the diploma for accountants and auditors. It was found, however, that the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, did not provide for making available such bursaries.

The present position is therefore that officials in the service of Public Departments are able to obtain part-time bursary loans in order to acquire the above-mentioned diplomas, but that officials in the service of the provincial administrations are excluded from this privilege because the provinces are not empowered to utilize funds from the provincial revenue funds for this purpose. The provincial authority of the Orange Free State consequently asked, with the support of the three other provincial authorities, that the Act be amended to the effect that the provinces also be granted authority to award bursaries to their officials for part-time study for the above-mentioned diplomas. It is consequently proposed that paragraph (d) of section 18 (1) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, be amended as set out in clause 1 (1) of the Bill, in order to confer the requested power on the provinces.

In terms of paragraph (e) of section 18 (1) of the Act the Public Service Commission and Treasury will be able to exercise control over the award of such bursaries. In clause 1 (2) of the Bill it is proposed that the authority be granted with retrospective effect in order to validate expenditure which provinces may have incurred in this regard in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the second principle contained in the Bill provides that the provinces may incur expenditure to enable paramedical personnel needed in the provincial hospitals to be trained at higher education institutions such as universities. In terms of the Financial Relations Amendment Act, 1964, the provinces were authorized to undertake, for such periods as may be determined by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, the training of persons for paramedical professions and occupations determined by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, in consultation with the Minister of Finance. The amending Act did not revoke the existing powers of universities to train persons for the paramedical professions and occupations, but merely authorized the provinces to provide for the training of paramedical personnel required for their purposes in institutions established and maintained by them for this purpose.

After this legislation had been passed, the Cape Provincial Administration raised the question whether certain arrangements it had made with the universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch to provide for the training of certain paramedical persons were valid in law. Physiotherapists and sister-lecturers are trained by the University of Cape Town at the Groote Schuur Hospital, and occupational therapists by the University of Stellenbosch at the Karl Bremer Hospital, in terms of agreements entered into with the universities by the Cape Provincial Administration.

As far as the theoretical part of the course is concerned, the lecturing staff concerned are clearly rendering a service to the universities concerned, but as regards the practical part of the courses, both they and the students render a direct service to the Administration in its hospitals. Expenditure in respect of the salaries of the lecturing staff is shared on a percentage basis by the Administration and the universities concerned.

This arrangement is unexceptional; in fact, it can only be commended, but the question arose whether the Cape Provincial Administration had the power to enter into such an arrangement, which involved higher education. It is held that this arrangement amounts to subsidizing higher education, which is illegal because the provinces do not have this power.

It is consequently proposed that subsections (f) and (g) of section 18 (1) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, be amended through clause 1 (1) of the Bill to the effect that the provinces shall have the power, if they so wish, to enter into agreements with higher education institutions with a view to the training of paramedical personnel needed in the hospitals. Clause 1 (2) of the Bill lends retrospective effect to this power in order to legalize the illegal actions of the Cape Provincial Administration in the past.

The power vested in the provinces in respect of the training of paramedical personnel, which is now to be extended, will be exercised only in respect of the paramedical professions and occupations determined from time to time by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and then only during the periods designated by him.

Mr. Speaker, the third principle contained in the Bill is that legislative power may be transferred to the provinces to provide in their ordinances that a special charge be imposed on owners in the case of illegal building work. In the second schedule to the financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, there is a list of matters the control over which and the power to promulgate legislation in respect of which may be transferred to a provincial council by proclamation by the State President.

One of these matters in respect of which legislative power is already vested in the provinces is that mentioned in paragraph 14 of the second schedule to the Act, namely town planning, including, inter alia, the regulation and limitation of building upon sites. During 1964 a commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Diemont enquired into and reported on illegal building works in Cape Town. Amongst other things the commission pointed out in its report that if a local authority approves building plans conflicting with a town planning scheme without having obtained the prior approval of the Administrator, the relevant Towns Ordinance left no alternative but the demolition of the building. The commission therefore recommended, since in some cases the illegal building work was of such a kind that its demolition was impracticable, that provision be made for an alternative.

On the recommendation of the Provincial Council the Administrator of the Cape Province appointed a committee consisting of members of the council to enquire into and report on suitable amendments to the relevant Towns Ordinance with a view to giving effect to the recommendations of the Diemont Commission. Like the Diemont Commission, this committee found that in some cases it was impracticable and virtually impossible to have illegal building work demolished, but felt that illegal building work could not simply be condoned. In many cases the owners benefit considerably through illegal building work. The committee therefore recommended that provision be made for a charge by the Administrator on illegal building work. The Committee found that the nature of illegal building work and circumstances differed from one case to another, and therefore felt that the amount of the levy or a formula for its determination could not be set out by legislation in advance.

In clause 2 (1) (a) of the Bill it is consequently proposed that paragraph 14 (h) be added to the second schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945. Here it is provided that legislative power be vested in the provincial councils to provide by ordinance that illegal building work shall be demolished or that instead of the demolition, a charge may be imposed on the owner of such building work.

In clause 2 (2) of the Bill it is proposed that this legislative power be made of retrospective effect to 1st April, 1925. This is necessary to validate possible unlawful actions by the provincial administrations in the past in this connection. 1st April, 1925, is the date of commencement of Act No. 46 of 1925, to which, inter alia, a further matter was added to those in respect of which power may be vested in the provinces, namely town planning.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to the fourth and last principle of the Bill. In clause 2 (1) (b) of the Bill it is proposed that a further matter be added to the matters in the second schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, in respect of which the State President may by proclamation vest legislative authority in the provincial councils, namely legislative authority regarding the establishment of and control over public resorts, places of rest, seaside resorts, holiday centres, holiday camps, caravan parks, tent camps and picnic places. For some years the provincial administrations have had the problem that they have no control over the establishment and development of holiday camps, etc. Along the Natal Coast, in particular, such camps eventually develop into towns without proper prior planning of streets, parks, schools and other public buildings. When the relevant town planning ordinances are later made applicable to such camps, it is virtually impossible to plan a proper town.

The provincial administrations also seek powers to establish and develop public resorts, places of rest, etc., from provincial revenue funds. Legislative power is already vested in the provincial councils in respect of the matter mentioned in paragraph 5 of the second schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, namely the control and management of such places on State-owned land as the State President may reserve as being places of public resort, of public recreation, or of historical or scientific interest. It is in terms of this legislative power that the Transvaal Provincial authority established a board of trustees for mineral baths, which controls certain public resorts in the Province. It is contemplated, if the proposed legislative power in respect of the establishment of and control over holiday camps, etc., be vested in the provinces, to expand this board in order that it may also control holiday camps, etc., which the province will then be able to purchase and develop from its own funds.

In view of the fact that the Department of Tourism is responsible for the co-ordination and for advice in respect of the improvement of existing facilities, guidance with regard to facilities that may be offered and the planning of tourist resorts and facilities, and that the Department of Sport and Recreation is responsible for the co-ordination and promotion of public recreation, it is provided that the establishment and control of facilities such as holiday camps, etc., established through private initiative, shall be regulated by regulations promulgated in terms of an ordinance. Such regulations will be promulgated in consultation with the Departments of Tourism and of Sport and Recreation. The facilities to be established by the provinces are to be excluded from the stipulation of arrangement of establishment and control by regulations promulgated in consultation with the above-mentioned Departments.

It has been brought to my attention by the hon. member for South Coast that the Bill, in its present form, provides that only organizations established exclusively for that purpose will receive those powers. That was not the intention. We also want to grant that power to organizations such as the Parks Board in Natal, for example. I propose to move an amendment in the Committee Stage in order to meet the difficulty which the hon. member for South Coast quite rightly mentioned. It will be proposed that in clause 2 (1) (b) all the words after “body” in line 47 up to and including “5” in line 49 be deleted, i.e. the words “created solely for that purpose or for a purpose contemplated in paragraph 5”. As I said, I shall move this amendment in the Committee Stage. I conclude with this explanation of the principles embodied in the Bill now before the House.

Hon. members will certainly agree with me that this Bill is not contentious and is merely aimed at making it possible for provincial administrations to incur certain expenditure in respect of their personnel and to provide that legislative power be vested in the provincial councils in respect of matters with regard to which the provinces have been experiencing problems for some years. I therefore trust that hon. members on the opposite side, like hon. members on this side of the House, will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I say at once that we on this side of the House will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. We appreciate the full explanation the hon. the Minister has given in regard to the details of this Bill, which in the main are in line with requests which have been received from the different provincial administrations who have found themselves in some difficulty from time to time because of the restrictive effect of existing legislation. The provisions of this Bill will widen the powers of the provincial administrations in many important respects.

Clause 1, which substitutes section 18 of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act is one of the most important clauses from the point of view of the provincial administrations and deals with increased powers asked by them. That has been before us for many years. This clause deals with the question of the training and the right to issue bursaries and other incidental expenses for the training of teachers in schools controlled by the provincial administrations. It deals with the training at university colleges and other places of higher education and also permits the province to help financially the Public Service Commission which is having such people trained. The provisions in paragraph (f) of the new section 18 (1) deal with the training of ancillary assistants in so many branches of the provinces’ work and functions. In this paragraph the paramedical professions are dealt with.

We have to-day a vast new group of semi-professional people which has come into existence as a result of progress in the medical profession in its very many branches, branches which in many cases have led to the need for partially trained people. I say “partially trained” in the sense that they are neither fully trained nurses nor fully trained doctors. They are however fully trained in respect of some particular branch of the hospital service or the medical profession or the nursing profession. For people in that particular branch to be fully trained, they do not require the complete training of a doctor or of a nurse. They do require specialist training to carry on those branches of the work in hospitals and in the nursing profession. It has been difficult in the past when the powers of the provinces were limited and they were unable to expend money for the proper training of these people. Incidentally, there is a provision here for retrospective payment to be made legal, because some of the provinces were in fact spending money in this regard unaware of the fact that it was not legal for them to do so. With our shortage of manpower it is quite clearly impossible for the provinces with their big training programmes to provide the nurses and assistants to the doctors in our big hospitals which come under the care of the provinces unless some kind of specialist assistant can be made available. Those specialist assistants must be specially trained and that costs money. The provinces have been without the necessary legal authority to expend that money but this provision will put it right and cover expenditure of the past.

The provinces can now go forward in good heart and train these people who are of inestimable value to us in our hospitals and in the nursing profession. Similarly, in regard to teachers at the universities and university colleges where special courses have to be taken and special training has to be given, it is not a question of taking over the training of teachers but it is a question of these particular courses and special training for the various branches in the Provincial Administrations where they are required. Authority is now granted for the provinces to make bursaries available and to expend money for the training of these people, something which has been highly desirable in the past and we are glad that provision has been made for it here. It is true that there will have to be consultations with the Government departments and the Ministers of Education and Finance etcetera, but that is a natural corollary to the expenditure of this money and we have no objection to that being provided for. The Minister dealt very fully with clause 2 (1) (a) in regard to what has happened down here in the Cape as the result of an inquiry that was held in regard to the demolition of a number of buildings which was ordered because it had been ascertained that they had exceeded the space provided for in the plans submitted to the City Council. I shall be followed by a colleague from the Cape and I think that I will leave him to deal with that matter. Far be it from me to stick a finger into the pie of the affairs of Cape Town.

We have enough trouble with Durban.

No, I am sure that hon. members will appreciate that I do not want them to stick a finger into Durban’s pie in such circumstances. Let us say that a fifty-fifty basis will be the rule in this matter. I leave my colleague from Cape Town to deal with this particular matter.

I now come to subsection (1) (b) of clause 2 with which the Minister also dealt. May I say that I appreciate his willingness as exemplified by an amendment which is already on the Order Paper to deal with the word “solely” in line 47. That small word “solely” created a considerable amount of furore when it was first noticed because it had the effect of saying that only a body created solely for the purpose of dealing with these matters could deal with them in such a manner as was provided for here and without going to the Department of Tourism and of Sport and Recreation. This body which could deal with these particular features had to be created “solely” for the purpose of dealing only with these matters. It could not engage in any other activities. The moment it went beyond the activities specifically provided here, then it lost its rights. Some of these matters are in fact already dealt with in Natal by the Natal Parks Board, as the hon. the Minister has said. Resorts, picnic spots etcetera are controlled to-day by the Parks Board. I was going to say that this was the labour of love but it is almost love’s labour lost because of the problems created by many of these places at the present time. There has been doubt as to the precise powers of the provincial councils to legislate in regard to the control of these areas which are springing up all over the country. Caravan parks was the case in point. They have come to the fore in the past few years to a phenomenal extent. Until a few years ago, and I am dealing with my own province a few people who had caravans even two or three years ago could find a nice quiet spot near the seaside but during the past year we found as many as 400 and 500 caravans in one centre. No proper facilities are provided. People go along and merely pile in to these caravan parks. The position is becoming completely out of hand. It is necessary that there should be adequate control and that has been exemplified by the experience of other people. We have on two occasions sent people to the U.S.A., to find out how a public body charged with the control of such places as are enumerated here, namely public resorts, picnic spots etcetera, deals with homo sapiens in the mass in a populous country such as the U.S.A. The matter has become a leal issue not only because of caravans but because of our increasing population. The higher the standard of living of the population, the more do people seek a vacation in an area away from the big centres. They therefore seem to increase in number in those areas where peace and solitude is obtainable. One of the most remarkable reports I have seen came from one of the men we sent to America to consider the position there so that he could return and advise us and say: “This is what I think should be incorporated in an ordinance by the Provincial Council enabling the Parks Board to control these places of public resort in such and such a manner.”

In this report he specially mentioned that amongst the redwoods in California there was one particular tree which the public of America for some reason or other wanted to see. They wanted to go and have a look at that “big tree”, as they call it. As a matter of fact, in one year no less than three million people walked around that tree—nearly equivalent to the entire white population of South Africa. They nearly killed the tree because they trampled the soil away from its roots with the result that a great big concrete platform had to be put around it for the people to walk on.

And what about the dogs?

The question arises whether there should not be a charge for examination by both humans and non-humans! However, this is the type of problem you get with a growing population. Here we are touching upon the fringes of another problem, a problem which is associated with this question. I should like to bring it pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister that our tourist and visitors traffic is growing. When I speak here of “tourists” I mean visitors from outside the borders of South Africa and when I speak of “visitors” I refer to people within the borders of South Africa. As I said, our tourist traffic and our visitors traffic was growing. But our visitors traffic is to a very great extent limited to Whites. However, it is not remaining so because already there are signs of a growing number of non-White visitors, i.e. non-Whites from within the borders of South Africa. This is already causing the Parks Board of Natal deep concern in the light of the amenities that are provided, the laws governing the use of those amenities and through trying to look into the future to try and determine what is going to happen. If there is a continually growing demand then this is a problem which would have to be dealt with somehow. But whether it can be grappled with by the provincial councils under their existing powers is a question into which I have not gone very deeply although I should like to venture the opinion that they do not have the necessary powers, at any rate not to go as far as one would wish. And it is not only one race of non-Whites starting to show an inclination to go out the same as the Whites are doing. Indians are doing so to an appreciable extent to-day. At one of our public resorts in Natal we already had to accommodate a single group of no less than 30 Indians. They arrived there in their cars and wanted to spend the day there. We are grappling with this problem but whether we have the power to grapple with it as fully as we would wish is a matter about which I have some doubt.

Then there are the Coloured people who have no wish to mingle with the Indians nor with the Whites although, in common with these two groups, they also have the desire to go to a place where they can enjoy peace and solitude. Then there is still the Bantu. We have been pressed repeatedly to make some provision for them. Well, provision was made. We tried it. We made provision for 100 camps in one of their own game reserves. Not so long ago we showed a film to Native schoolchildren and we were amazed to find that although there were scholars amongst them of an age up to 17 years none of them had ever seen a buck. In speaking to the children afterwards we found that they were tremendously interested in this film about wild life. But as I said, although there were scholars amongst them aged up to 17 years, not a single one of them had seen a buck in South Africa. One normally thinks of the Bantu as being used to seeing wild animals of all kinds from childhood onwards. But nothing of the kind! Here there was positive proof—they had never seen a living animal outside the one or two domestic animals such as milk cows on farms close to a town. About wild animals, however, they knew nothing whatever. But this film started inquiries coming from them where they could go and see wild animals.

Recently a well educated and capable Bantu wrote a letter in which he dealt with the facilities provided by the Natal Parks Board and suggesting that many of his own people would be well advised to go and have a look and see for themselves the natural beauties of their own country. It evoked an enormous response. We have taken him on now; we have given him a special job—he is going to be the man in charge of publicity so as to be able to handle the Bantu who may express the desire to go along and participate in some of the pleasures and relaxations provided at places of public resort. But where? These things do not just fall from Heaven; they have to be provided. Under what laws do we deal with it? Under what law can the provincial administration deal with it?

The shoe pinches because we have to find out what the law is and how it can be applied if we are to provide amenities to peoples of our own country to go and enjoy and participate in the beauties of this country, each group in its own place. Here let there be no misunderstanding—we are determined that there shall be no question of one race impinging upon another. But above all it is a question of the law. The law shall have to be looked at because this is a great problem.

In regard, then, to this clause, we appreciate the hon. the Minister’s desire to meet our wishes in regard to the word “solely”. The amendment which he proposes to introduce in the committee stage we shall deal with then. Meantime we are very pleased to see the additional powers that are now being given to provincial councils.

In rising to associate myself with the support expressed by the hon. member for South Coast for this measure I want to deal with four aspects of this Bill. The first of these is the latitude which this Bill permits in so far as the training of paramedical personnel in the Cape Province is concerned. I am sure the entire province will be grateful to the Minister that it may continue with the very satisfactory arrangements which have been established between the province and the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch for the training of paramedical personnel. These arrangements are operating very successfully. They are operating very satisfactorily, inter alia, in so far as therapy and other aspects of medicine are concerned. In addition to this there is another course which I am sure is going to have valuable results in so far as the financial control exercised by hospitals over the costs of hospitalization is concerned.

I refer here to a post-graduate course for nurses in hospital administration which is now being introduced by the University of Stellenbosch. This is filling a long-felt want. Also in this respect I feel that this particular provision in the Bill will be greatly welcomed. However, there is one query I should like to raise with the Minister. I come here to the question of bursaries granted by the Cape Provincial Administration to medical students at both universities. I presume such bursaries are in order and can continue as they are although there is no special mention of the training of doctors in so far as this Bill is concerned. The hon. the Minister is no doubt aware that in order to meet the need for house doctors in the Cape the Administration instituted a system of bursaries at both the universities whereby medical students are assisted in their fourth, fifth and sixth years —both white and non-white students—on condition that these students serve in the hospitals for a period of time after completion of their medical training. This is helping considerably to meet the need for house doctors in the province. I take it that although there is no specific reference to such training and to such bursaries in this Bill there is no question of the powers of the province in connection with these matters being restricted in any way.

The second aspect of this Bill I should like to deal with is the amendment contained in clause 1 of the Bill to section 18 (1) (d) of the Act. It is proposed to delete the restriction of assistance to only professional and technical staff. I do think it is a wise step to extend bursaries to other employees in the service of the provinces. It will lead to a higher standard of efficiency being attained in the provincial administrations. There is, however, one problem, a problem applicable to provincial administrations as well as to the Public Service generally, namely the erosion of the best trained men as a result of the temptations and offers coming from commerce and industry, offers tempting these people to leave the services of the provincial administrations and the Public Service. It must be realized that every time a student is granted a bursary to qualify himself in the service of the State he becomes a more tempting target for commerce and industry. If course that can only be countered, as the hon. the Minister will be aware, by adequate remuneration and satisfactory conditions of service for those men who have achieved higher qualifications through these opportunities.

A third aspect of the Bill I should like to deal with is the provisions of clause 2 (1). I am very pleased that my colleague, the hon. member for South Coast, referred with such circumspection to the Cape Town Municipality in so far as this clause is concerned. What, in effect, is happening now is that with the passing of this amendment the final step is being taken to implement the recommendations of the Diemont Commission in so far as rectifying the position found to exist by the investigation into the passing of plans in Cape Town. Let us look at the picture which is now completed by this clause. One of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Diemont was that the criminal sanction for the contravention of town-planning regulations was quite inadequate. This aspect has been attended to by the provincial administration which amended the ordinance and increased the penalty to R5,000 on conviction of a contravention of town-planning regulations. Another recommendation was again one which the provincial administration could deal with in terms of its own powers. This recommendation was to revise and clarify the provisions relating to orders for demolition. It was recommended by Mr. Justice Diemont that there should be some latitude or discretion allowed to local authorities. That has been done. The final recommendation was that new legislation should provide a sanction alternate to demolition. The amendment envisaged will provide either for the payment of a lump sum penalty or for the payment of an annual rate based on the advantage which the owner has obtained. This meets the position which we have in Cape Town, five or six storey blocks of flats may have been exceeded in bulk by two or three feet in width. It would be quite impracticable to require of the owner to demolish two or three feet or to demolish the whole block on that account. However, his advantage might in rand and cents amount to the rental of two or three additional flats. Therefore we welcome this provision in that it meets this position.

In regard to the extension of powers dealt with by the hon. member for South Coast, powers in regard to the control of places of recreation and public resorts, I should just like to say that the powers already exist of course in the hands of the provinces to legislate for the control of public resorts established on State land. The important aspect of this amendment is the power which is now being given to the provinces to establish places of recreation. That, Sir, carries with it the power to expropriate private properties. One is aware that there are extensive tracts of property along the coast, in the Cape Province at any rate, consisting of farms which go right down to the coast and where the use of that coastline has been denied to the general public.

I take it that this will enable the provinces to look into the position where access to the coast is denied to the general public and will enable them to expropriate, if necessary, so as to establish outlets for the public to the coastline in the proximity of their own towns. One only has to look at the map of the coastline between Hangklip and Mossel Bay to find that there are very few coastal spots which can be reached by the general public other than by the permission of an owner who might control from five to ten miles of the coastline which he keeps for his own personal use. Striking a balance will be a difficult problem. One will have to see to what extent this power of expropriation will affect those people who wish to maintain their properties along the coastline. I mention these matters, and particularly the last one, because that is a matter which obviously should be watched in so far as t affects private ownership of property.

I should like to thank the hon. members for South Coast and Green Point for the interesting and constructive ideas they expressed in supporting this legislation. The hon. member for South Coast discussed a most important matter, namely the increasing need among population groups other than the white group to use recreation resorts, holiday camps, parks, etc. I want to assure the hon. member that if the provinces find that their legislative powers are not adequate to deal with that position and to exercise proper and sound control, and if they bring that to our notice, we will certainly investigate it sympathetically and consider what steps may be taken to assist them in that regard. I agree with him that it is absolutely essential that the necessary facilities for orderly, comfortable and pleasant utilization of holiday resorts shall be provided and assured.

As regards the hon. member for Green Point, I just want to assure him that the powers now vested in provincial administrations to grant bursaries to doctors, etc., for their training, are not affected by this Bill. What is in fact done in the Bill is that we are expanding their rights and powers to make it possible for them to grant bursaries not only to the professional and technical personnel but also to the administrative personnel.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The principal object of this Bill is to adapt the existing control over the admission of persons to and the departure of persons from and the travelling of persons through the Republic, to changed circumstances.

The first matter I want to deal with relates to ports of entry. At present there is no obligation on a person entering the Republic to enter only at certain specific places. The only obligation resting on such persons in this respect is the obligation in section 19 (3) of the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, 1913 (Act No. 22 of 1913), to appear before a passport control officer as soon as practicable after entry in order that such officer may determine whether or not they have the right to be in the country.

The result of this state of affairs is that persons enter the country anywhere along the borders, and if they are found they merely prove that it has not yet been practicable for them to visit a passport control officer. A further result is that such persons cannot be prosecuted, if they are in the Republic illegally, before such a passport control officer has notified them after investigation that their presence in the country is illegal, and they fail to leave the country upon such notice. This state of affairs hampers efficient control over the entry of undesirable persons into the country.

In order to establish more effective control in this respect. it is proposed in subsection (1) (a), inter alia, that no person shall enter the Republic at any place other than a place where a passport control officer is stationed and that he shall first satisfy that officer that he is not a prohibited person before he can obtain admission.

The result of this will be that if a person enters the Republic at some other point he will already have committed an offence over and above the fact that he may possibly be an undesirable person in terms of the Act, who may be removed from the country.

It is appreciated that on either side of our extensive borders there are people for whom it is a matter of daily necessity to move to and fro across the borders either to do business, such as visiting shops, or to visit relatives, or to work. They do not penetrate far into the Republic but merely move in certain specific strips along the border. Although there are passport control posts at virtually all the major crossing points on the border, such posts are sometimes situated long distances apart and this will mean that persons who want to move only a few hundred yards across the, border will have to cover long distances in order to cross the border at a passport control post.

In order to meet this existing position without giving such persons the right to enter the Republic freely and then move about anywhere for any purpose, it is provided in this clause that the Minister or a passport control officer may permit such a person to enter the Republic at a specific point where there is no passport control post, and to stay in the Republic or in a particular portion of the Republic for such purposes and during such period as the Minister or the passport control officer may think fit and as may be set forth in such person’s travel documents.

This concession may be withdrawn at any time by the Minister or by a passport control officer, but if it is withdrawn by a passport control officer then the person concerned, if he feels aggrieved, may ask the Minister to revize the decision of the passport control officer.

A further requirement of admission which offers scope for abuse relates to the admission of children to the country.

Section 24 of Act 22 of 1913 prescribes the travel documents a person has to show a passport control officer on request before he may be allowed to enter the country and also provides, inter alia, that only persons 16 years of age or older can be required to produce such travel documents.

Under international usage, however, it is required that if children under 16 years of age travel with a parent their names shall be endorsed on the parent’s passport.

The fact remains, however, that children may enter the Republic without their parents and without travel documents, which is an unhealthy state of affairs which has frequently presented the Republic with problems, because such children wander about the Republic without control or care, and without their parents being aware of where they are.

It is therefore provided in subsection 2 (a), read with clause 14, that all persons, even children under 16 years of age, shall be permitted to be in possession of a valid passport before being admitted to the Republic, unless it can be established that they are South African citizens by birth or descent, but that children under the age of 16 years shall be admitted to the country if they accompany a parent in whose passport, which shall be valid, their names have been inserted by an authorized person.

The next matter that requires attention relates to visas.

The question has frequently arisen whether the Minister has the power to withdraw a visa after it has been issued, or whether he only has the power to issue it. and his task is concluded upon doing so.

In terms of the existing provisions of section 24 of the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, 1913 (Act No. 22 of 1913), the granting of visas rests in the sole discretion of the Minister of the Interior. There are no explicit powers, however, by virtue of which the Minister may withdraw a visa after issuing it. It frequently happens that only after a visa has been issued, particulars are revealed from which it is apparent that the issuing of the visa is not in the interests of the country. In such a case there is some doubt as to whether the visa may be withdrawn, and the only and safest line of action is to limit that person’s sojourn in the Republic to a few hours or days, which in any event is not in accordance with his original intention, as stated in his application for a visa. Although a visa does not confer the legal right to enter the Republic but only the right of the holder to apply at a port of entry for investigation in terms of the admission laws, the Republic is nevertheless morally obliged to admit the holder, for if there had been any objections to him, the Republic had the opportunity to refuse him entry by rejecting his application for a visa, and thus to save him a vain journey.

By taking the power to withdraw a visa the Minister of the Interior will be able to take more effective action against undesirable persons, and to obviate reproaches of vain journeys to the Republic.

I now want to make a proposal in respect of the withdrawal of certain exemptions.

At present only the Minister has the power to withdraw exemptions from the requirements to be in the possession of a visa or an aliens’ temporary permit which is issued to certain aliens, in cases where the presence of certain aliens in the Republic is undesirable. As a result of this it is not always practicable to act as quickly as circumstances frequently require to prevent the entry of an undesirable person into the Republic. The Minister is not always readily available, particularly if he is out of town.

It is therefore proposed in clause 2 (d) and clause 7 that the Minister be empowered to delegate his powers of withdrawal in respect of visas and aliens’ temporary permits to an officer with a rank now below that of a Deputy Secretary, who may exercise that power under the Minister’s control and guidance.

I now want to deal with a problem regarding the entry of alien Bantu.

The Republic is entered continually by alien Bantu who are found there without travel documents or who are prohibited persons in the Republic for other reasons. These Bantu are here mainly to work, and because they are not in possession of travel documents they are prohibited persons in the Republic. Such Bantu cannot be issued with identity cards because they are aliens who can stay here only temporarily, therefore some other documents of identity will be issued, which should also serve as proof of permission granted to be present in the Republic for certain purposes, mainly work.

Because such persons are prohibited persons in the Republic and because it should be possible to remove them at any time, the document of identity cannot be granted recognition as a travel document because then the grounds on which they are prohibited persons would fall away, namely that they are in the country without a document recognized as a travel document by the Minister of the Interior (section 24 of Act 22 of 1913).

In terms of section 25 of Act 22 of 1913, however, prohibited persons may be admitted, on a temporary permit subject to strict conditions, to even a specific portion of the Republic for a specific period, without obtaining right of residence in the Republic, which gives them an unrestricted right of admission. It is frequently necessary to admit the said Bantu on such a temporary permit; in fact, it has been done for many decades without it being apparent from the permit that prohibited Bantu are dealt with differently from other prohibited persons, but the conditions which are now to be attached to the permit for Bantu by virtue of legislation are so extensive and descriptive that the permit is now invested with a character of its own and can be issued only to Bantu, and must be distinguished from the permit that can be issued to Whites and other non-Whites.

It is therefore proposed in clause 3 that the permit issued to Bantu may differ from the permit issued to other persons. This provision is inserted as a concession to alien Bantu in that they are allowed on the strength of it to enter the Republic, which they could not have done otherwise.

I now come to the issuing of temporary alien permits. Apart from the provisions of Act 22 of 1913 the admission to and residence of persons in the Republic are also controlled by the provisions of the Aliens Act, 1937 (Act No. 1 of 1937). In terms of the present provisions of section 2 of this Act no alien, that is, a person who is not a South African citizen, may enter the Republic for the purpose of temporary sojourn therein unless he is in possession of an aliens’ temporary permit or has been exempted from the requirement of being in possession thereof, as most British subjects, for example, are exempted. The aspects of an alien’s sojourn that can be regulated and controlled are the duration of his sojourn and the purposes for which he visits the Republic, but he cannot under the conditions of an aliens’ temporary permit be restricted to only a portion of the Republic. As regards the so-called border traffic, in particular, there are persons who in addition to passports must also be in possession of aliens’ temporary permits to sojourn in the Republic because they neither are or can be exempted from the requirement to be in possession of such permits. Because such persons are admitted to only a portion of the Republic, it is necessary that an aliens’ temporary permit shall also be made valid in respect of only that portion of the Republic which the person is allowed to visit by virtue of his travel document.

In clause 5 it is therefore proposed that the power be granted to make an aliens’ temporary permit valid for either a portion of or for the entire Republic, according to the requirements of a particular case.

Act 5 of the Aliens Act, 1937, further provides inter alia, that an aliens’ temporary permit may be issued subject to certain conditions as prescribed by regulation. It is frequently found that if the conditions could be amended according to the requirements of a particular case, it would provide better control or the person could have been allowed to enter the Republic, but as the officers were bound by the provisions this was not possible. By deleting this requirement, greater flexibility in considering applications will be created, which will have better and more satisfactory results for both the visitor and the State. In consequence of the amendments in clause 5 it is therefore proposed that the conditions of entry shall be laid down, relaxed or tightened up as the case may require. Whereas the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, 1913 (Act No. 22 of 1913), and the Aliens Act, 1937 (Act No. 1 of 1937), control the admission to and sojourn of persons in the Republic, the departure of persons from the Republic is controlled by the provisions of the Departure from the Union Regulation Act, 1955 (Act No. 34 of 1955), and clauses 8 to 9 contain mainly provisions that propose to introduce in the latter Act the principles in this Bill that have been dealt with above, with the necessary amendments.

Finally, I want to deal with the extremely important right of transit through the Republic: In clause 13 it is proposed that the transit of persons through the Republic be incorporated in our legislation in order to obviate any doubts that may exist. The principle contained in the proposal is fully in accordance with international law, as far as international law is clear. The Republic cannot afford the existence of any doubts regarding its right to control transit through its territory, particularly not now that the three former High Commission Territories will shortly all be independent.

Of the three territories one is surrounded entirely by the Republic and the other two are virtually also land-locked territories in respect of the Republic. In terms of international law the Republic is compelled to grant right of transit to inhabitants of such countries under certain circumstances, although the Republic is entitled to prescribe conditions for such transit. Every state has the inalienable and recognized right to refuse transit to persons who pose a threat to the existence of that state, but where persons are not a hazard to the state such conditions may be prescribed as a sovereign state shall deem necessary to maintain order. The customary document or endorsement which is issued is known internationally as a transit visa (transito-visum), which also differs from an ordinary visa in respect of the right granted to the holder. In terms of South African law an ordinary visa grants the holder the right to apply to a port of entry to the Republic for investigation with a view to admission to the Republic, whereas a transit visa, on the other hand, grants the holder the right to travel through the Republic from and to a place outside the Republic. The transit visa procedure grants no admission to the Republic to a person who merely wants to travel through it, but only such transit on such conditions as may be deemed desirable in any particular case, with a view to the country’s security. The crux of the difference is that any country may refuse admission to its territory, and is entitled to legislate accordingly, whereas in the case of land-locked territories transit to those territories can be refused only where there is proof of the fact that the transit of a particular person will prove a hazard to the country through which he wants to travel.

In the first case only the country’s laws apply, but in the case of transit the country’s laws apply to the extent to which the country may be bound by international law. If a person in transit fails to comply with the conditions attached to his permission for transit, he becomes a prohibited person in the Republic and may be taken into custody, punished and removed. The customary power of exemption is granted to the Minister in the draft legislation in order to enable him, in his discretion, to exempt certain persons or groups of persons from the requirement to be in possession of a transit visa. Such exemption may be granted on the grounds of agreements entered into with the territories concerned. Although the principle that there must be control over the admission of persons to and the departure of persons from the Republic has been contained in our legislation for many years, and transit of persons through the Republic is a principle of international law, I trust you will agree with me that we have now reached a stage in the development of traffic between nations and countries where regulations which in some cases were introduced more than half a century ago justify examination.

This side of the House accepts this Bill, which amends three existing Acts of Parliament and adds a new control over the passage of people through the Republic. Sir, before I go on to deal with one or two aspects of this Bill, I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to consolidate as soon as possible all the various measures which are designed to control entry into and exit from the Republic and to control people within it who are visitors or who come here under permit or passport. Sir, members of the legal profession themselves are having the greatest difficulty in keeping up with the provisions of all these Acts which have been in existence since Union and before, and which have been so amended that it is almost impossible for the layman, for the person who is in fact affected by these measures, to know what they mean. I think this is a very, very important factor. Here we are amending these three Acts with a Bill of 15 clauses, and the work involved in trying to analyse this Bill with a view to ascertaining what the Minister and the Department intend the effect of this Bill to be, is a job of work which is almost beyond the capacity of the ordinary member of this House who is not a trained legal man.

It is impossible for the lawyer too.

My colleague here says that it is impossible for a lawyer to do it, and I think that statement alone justifies my request to the hon. the Minister to amend and consolidate all this legislation which is all interwoven and inter-dependent to such an extent that I believe it should be consolidated.

We agree and accept that the object of this Bill is to tighten up control over entry into the Republic and exit from the Republic and to control people travelling through the Republic. It contains certain other provisions which in fact control movement within the Republic itself without having to go outside of the borders. It removes, for example, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, the exemptions enjoyed by people under 16 years. Everybody is virtually now under control of some kind or other within the Republic, the only exemption being children travelling with their parents, but penalties are imposed on people who remove people under 16 years. In other words, all the exemptions which apply to people under 16 years are now being removed, so we can assume that the object of this Bill is to bring within the orbit of control every person of whatever age who is within the Republic or who wants to come into or leave the Republic. That is the object of the Bill. Sir, in these days of identity papers when you have to prove who you are and because distances have become so short, we do not take exception to that provided these conditions are applied intelligently and without creating undue delay and hardship to the people to whom they are going to be applied. You see, Sir, for every “skelm” you get you get thousands and thousands of people who are honest and sincere people travelling around in the ordinary way and I do not think they should all be treated as if they were trying to get in illegally or get out illegally. I think these people can be sorted out. They have to satisfy the passport control officer as to the legality of their entry and that they are not prohibited people. So I think—and I sincerely hope—that the introduction of this measure will ensure that the handling of people who are not prohibited or who are not trying to enter the Republic illegally will be speeded up. Because, Sir, if they can produce the necessary proof then surely to goodness they can then be allowed to enter or leave in the shortest possible time. I believe that this clause can in fact speed up the handling of people, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will do something to expedite such handling. Delays in passport control are very annoying. We are trying to attract tourists to this country and if we cannot cut down on the control measures applicable to those entering and leaving the country we may find people, especially tourists, becoming irritated.

One has to fill in a book before one can enter the country.

In some cases that is correct.

There are one or two provisions that I should like the Minister to clarify for us. Clause 3, which amends section 25 of the Act, refers to the exemption and control of Bantu, reads as follows—

that is in the case of Bantu—

The Minister has touched on this particular aspect, but I do not think that he has told us fully to what type of person he intends to apply this provision, and to what extent he intends to control their movement within the Republic itself. One is inclined to think—and the newspapers have reported on these lines—that perhaps the object of this is to assist the citizens of Lesotho to come into the Republic to work in the mines and do other jobs, as they have done almost from time immemorial. But there are also other types of persons who may be affected. I think of the Bantu of the Transkei. I am saying all this as a question to the Minister. These people can now, according to this provision, as I read it, be controlled in their movement from province to province. In other words, I believe that this Bill could actually enable the Minister to control their entry from the Transkei into Natal, or restrict it to Natal, or restrict their entry from the Transkei into the Transvaal or the Western Cape. These are aspects which I think the Minister should enlarge upon in his reply to this debate, so that we can have a true picture of what is actually intended by the control of the Bantu and the imposition of conditions other than those imposed on persons who are not Bantu. I think the Minister should elaborate on this point.

We also know that we employ many thousands of Shangaans from Portuguese East Africa, and one should like to know what the position is regarding those people. What does the Minister have in mind? Is he going to use these powers to restrict their entry? These people are very important to the sugar industry in Zululand. As the Minister possibly knows the bulk of the work in that area is done, so I understand, by Shangaans and not by Zulus.

I now want to deal with the control of the movement of persons from province to province. Under this Bill the Minister can restrict anybody entering the Republic to any particular province, or two or three provinces. He can also apply quite severe measures to them if they overstay their leave in any of those provinces, which period is stipulated on the permit given to them to enter the provinces. One wonders what the additional effect is going to be on South African Indians who have restrictions placed on them in so far as interprovincial movement is concerned. Is this going to affect them more seriously than they are affected at the moment? We, as the Opposition, should like to know what the Minister’s intention is in this regard, and to what extent the Bill will affect them further than they are affected at the present moment. As the Minister knows, at the moment they cannot enter certain places, for instance the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, without a special permit given for a specified time. What is the intention of the clause if it is not going to be applied solely to Indians?

There are powers of arrest, powers of deportation, and various other penalties which we on this side should like to discuss during the Committee Stage, because we believe that this Bill, which is largely an administrative measure, is essentially a Committee Stage measure. We on this side of the House will go into it more fully and discuss it in more detail during the Committee Stage, where I think it should properly be done.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the assurance of the Minister on one or two things. First of all, I want him to assure us that the powers that he is now taking in this Bill will ensure that there will not be a repetition of the recent Tsafendas case. The Minister will no doubt remember what the senior immigration officer at Durban said concerning the day Tsafendas re-entered the Republic via the port of Durban. He made a statement, included in the Van Wyk Commission report, in which he said that even had he seen Tsafendas’ name on the stop list, he doubts whether he could have stopped him from coming into the country because he had a valid visa. This all seems so contradictory. I sincerely hope that the Minister can give us the assurance that such matters are now going to be cleared up. A person wishing to enter will now have to prove to the officer concerned that he is not a prohibited person or that his entry is not illegal. Here we had the peculiar case of a man whose name was on the stop list and yet he had a valid visa. As I say, the officer in charge of that port doubts whether he would have been able to stop Tsafendas from entering the Republic, even had he seen and identified his name on his stop list. I want to know from the Minister whether he is absolutely satisfied that sort of thing cannot happen again under the powers which he is taking in this Bill.

The other point I want to make regards the timing of this measure, following, as it does, so closely on the heels one might say of arrests of certain civil servants under the 180-day section, officials whom it is reported have assisted illegal immigrants to enter South Africa by giving them false papers. I should like the Minister to take us into his confidence. I think we ought to know about these matters. If we have to pass the legislation to deal with these breaches—if in fact this measure is designed to deal with those breaches—we should know what those breaches are. We should be advised whether in fact this measure is aimed at sealing up certain loopholes and avoiding a repetition of these breaches. We should be given the opportunity of assisting the Minister and his department in ensuring, during the Committee Stage, that these clauses in fact do deal with the problems he is facing. Has this measure been brought before us to amend these matters. We have had amending Bills of this nature from time to time. But this Bill is so obviously intended to stop something, namely the illegal entry of certain groups of people.

I believe that this measure aims at preventing repetitions of the occurrences to which I have referred, namely the Tsafendas re-entry and these particular cases that have been reported in the Press. We have not seen any reports of these people having been brought to court. As I have said, we on this side would like the Minister to take us into his confidence so that we can assist him. We on this side do not want these people coming into the Republic. I should imagine that we want them here less than the hon. the Minister, if anything. But I do think that we, as the Opposition, have the right to criticize and help, especially during the Committee Stage, so as to ensure that this Bill is in fact watertight, that it will enable future cases of the sort mentioned to be adequately dealt with, and that it will safeguard us from the infiltration of the type of person whom we do not want here in the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to what the hon. member for Umlazi said in connection with the consolidation of this legislation, I can only agree with him that this has indeed become a complicated piece of legislation. At present one has to refer back to previous sections in the Act and then one has to check what is contained in present sections, etc. Any lawyer naturally has to support any proposal for consolidation. Therefore I too want to say that I support that proposal.

I am very pleased that the hon. the Opposition deems it fit to support this Bill. In my humble opinion this is a very important piece of legislation. I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Umlazi said in connection with possible charges which might be brought against certain officials for alleged offences. I want to tell this House that no law under the sun can turn a dishonest official into an honest official. One must not blame the Department for offences which may sometimes be committed within the Department, because no one can help it if someone else is dishonest. No one can be blamed for the appointment of an inherently dishonest person while no one had any knowledge of his dishonesty. I do not have any doubt whatsoever that this Department is trying to do its utmost under very difficult circumstances. This is a department with an enormous staff. This is a department which tries to guard our borders and to control the movement of people to the Republic. In respect of white persons for instance, visitors who enter and subsequently leave the Republic, and South Africans who leave and subsequently enter the country, this department checks approximately one million passports per annum. Hon. members will realize that this is an enormous task. When we speak of border control, we inevitably have to think of the borders we are trying to guard. Numerically-speaking we are a very small republic, but geographically-speaking we are one of the biggest countries in the world. If one for instance considers our border which extends from the Atlantic Ocean where the Kunene flows into the sea all along the Angola border right down to Moçambique above Golela in Northern Natal, one realizes how big our country is. This is a distance of approximately 3,500 miles which we have to try and guard. If, in addition, one takes the fact into account that our coastline is extremely long—approximately 2,500 miles—and that too has to be controlled, one once more realizes how big our country is. Then we have the additional problem that an independent state Lesotho, for example, exists within the borders of the Republic.

And the Transkei.

The Transkei is still to come, but Lesotho is in existence already and has a border which is approximately 420 miles long. This gives us 6,420 miles which have to be controlled.

Then too there is the fact that the economic prosperity of the Republic has caused a tremendous number of foreign Bantu to be present in the Republic. We have, for example, people from Zambia. Statistics show that 7,473 Zambians worked in our country in 1961. The statistics furnished in Hansard of 17th April, 1963, show that 836,000 foreign Bantu were within the borders of the Republic in 1961. Die Burger of 4th February, 1953, informed us that 265,000 Bantu were in the country illegally at that time. According to a report in Die Burger of 13th February, 1954, the population of Lesotho, the then Basutoland, remained at a constant figure of 500,000 people over the previous ten years, i.e. from 1944 to 1954. In other words, the Republic absorbed the population increase of Basutoland. When one considers the problems with which we are faced in this regard, one can only speak with appreciation of the work done by the Department. In days gone by, in the very earliest times, it was very easy to control borders because people simply built walls around their cities for the purpose of keeping foreigners out. At present, of course, there are no such walls but every citizen forms a brick in the wall of his country’s border control. We do not have any statistics relating to the number of illegal immigrants we have in the country at present. However, if we consider the figure of 265,000 illegal immigrants given for the year 1953, one must come to the conclusion that these people entered the Republic illegally for one of two reasons: They came here either to make trouble and not to work or to seek work although they did not have permits for that purpose. A further consideration is that if it is possible for 265,000 foreign Bantu to enter the country illegally without being caught, it simply means one of two things: Either they are protected, or someone is not sufficiently aware of the need for exercising control. One can understand that such a large number of foreign illegal immigrants is tantamount to allowing a Trojan horse to be pulled into the Republic. For that reason I want to make an appeal to the public, to every single member of the public, to assist the Department and virtually to act as passport control agents. If a foreign Bantu arrives at one’s place of employment, one ought to determine whether he is really entitled to be there, and if a foreign White person enters one’s area, one ought to try and determine whether such a person is entitled to be at that specific place. The point I want to make is that every one of us is responsible for exercising the control provided for in this Bill. It is no use simply leaving all this work to the officials. For that reason I am making the appeal that each one of us must realize the importance of border control so that we may keep our country safe by ensuring that foreigners about whom there may be doubt are in fact entitled to be here.

As regards the Bill itself. I want to say that to my mind it is a particularly well-drafted measure. Clause 1 prohibits any person to enter the Republic at any other place than a port. This was our main problem in the past, namely that people simply entered the country at various places with the result that we never knew who entered where and who found himself where. Henceforth it will be an offence to enter the country at any other place than a port. The definition of “port” is being extended so as to include specific places along our coastline, specific railway stations, specific airports and places where a passport control officer is stationed. The clause also provides that if a person enters the country in any other way, he will be committing an offence and may be imprisoned, without the option of a fine, for a period not exceeding two years. I regard this provision as being a particularly essential one. Up to now the only thing we have been able to do to people who entered the country illegally was simply to send them back—in other words, there was no fear on the part of the person to enter the country because he could only be sent back again. Therefore there was no penalty. In this case the rights of people —our hon. friends opposite always have a great deal to say about the rights of people—remain the same as under section 2 (5) of the original Act. That gives people the right of appeal to the Board. A person may appeal if he feels that he is being kept out in a way in which a passport control officer is not entitled to do so.

Clause 9 controls departure from the Republic. It provides that a person may not leave the country without a proper passport or permit. In addition he has to leave the country through a port. Clause 13 makes provision for controlling the transit of people through the Republic and provides that no person may proceed from any place outside the Republic through the Republic to another place outside the Republic without the necessary documents. We have already had to deal with cases of this nature. Just recently we had the case of certain persons who wanted to apply for the right to travel through the Republic. Those people were people we would have liked to catch in the Republic—they were criminals for whom we were looking. Then there are the 16-year-olds to whom the hon. member for Umlazi also referred. There were cases where persons under the age of 16 years moved about in the country as communistic agents. They could enter the country and leave it again and we were not able to exercise any control over them. It happened that children were used to carry messages to and from the Republic. A stop is now being put to this type of espionage work.

How will you prevent them from carrying messages?

It is now being provided that every person, whether he is over the age of 16 years or not, must have the necessary documents …

But surely he can still carry messages?

In any event, not without the necessary travelling documents. Therefore this is a measure of control. We shall know that he is in the country as well as where he is. He can no longer enter the country without control as in the past.

I want to conclude by saying that I am pleased that this Bill was introduced. As far as I am concerned, its importance cannot be over-emphasized.

I do not share the optimism of the hon. member for Prinshof. He seems to think that this amending measure is going to solve all our problems. For instance, I do not think that the last point he made was such a good one. I should like to deal with the influx of Bantu both from the reserves …

From the Transkei.

Yes, from an independent Transkei, from Lesotho and other independent territories within our borders. Quite obviously the hon. the Deputy Minister too is worried about how the law is going to be applied.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move—

1. (1)reviewing the relationship between the State and the universities in order to increase the output of agricultural scientists;
2. (2)placing greater emphasis on the training of agricultural economists;
3. (3)establishing at least one more agricultural college; and
4. (4)making provision for adequate practical training of the industry’s non-White labour force.

In introducing this motion I shall try to be as objective as possible because I think there is a great deal of common ground between both sides of the House when it comes to the question of the need for more agricultural educational facilities in our country. I think there should also be common ground between us as far as the ultimate goal of all agricultural education is concerned. After all, that ultimate goal is to enable our agricultural industry to produce the food the nation needs at a reasonable price and, at the same time, to ensure that the industry itself remains prosperous. We may, however, differ about the means by which that goal is to be attained. But through a debate such as this one where there is interchange of ideas I am sure fruitful results can be obtained which could lead to a better understanding of the scope of this problem and could possibly point the way to avenues offering solutions to our problems.

The motion has deliberately been framed in wide terms. It might not be possible for me, in the time available to me, to deal in detail with each aspect of the motion. However, I know that I will be followed by my colleagues from this side of the House and that they will make positive contributions to this debate and will fill in the gaps. There is one particular aspect of agricultural education which has not been mentioned specifically in this motion. I refer here to the question of agricultural high schools. This has not been mentioned because it is largely a matter falling within the province of the provincial authorities and not within the province of the Central Government. It has not been excluded because I have failed to appreciate the importance of and the need for that level of agricultural education. Indeed, it is one of the most important levels. In many cases it forms the basis of further higher agricultural education.

The motion refers to the acute shortage of trained personnel in the agricultural industry. Here I do not confine myself to officials of the two agricultural Departments, but include lecturers, university professors, teachers of agriculture at the high school level, departmental officials themselves, people like private veterinary practitioners, scientists and others working for firms, such as veterinary supply and fertilizer firms, firms associated with the agricultural industry. Naturally, I include farmers themselves, farm managers and farm foremen and, lastly, the agricultural labourer on our farms. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there is indeed an acute shortage and I do not think it is necessary for me to quote a series of figures in order to prove that. I can quote several sources which hon. members opposite will regard as being impeccable sources. The hon. member for Stellenbosch, for example, on the 6th October last year quoted figures in this House, figures which were supplied by Professor Kolbe of the University of Pretoria, based on tests undertaken in collaboration with a group of farmers. In knowledge tests on specific practices, such as agronomy, the average percentage was 50 and on mixed farming 40. As regards the level of education of the test group, it was shown that only 35 per cent proceeded beyond Std. 8 and that only 7 per cent had studied at a university or a college.

That applies to the farmers only?

Yes. What is more, it was found that 87 per cent of the test group did not attend any short course in agriculture during the preceding five years. Now, the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Technical Services himself, when opening a congress on agricultural education at Grahamstown in April, 1965, said that notwithstanding the important improvements made in training at colleges of agriculture in recent years and the fact that the number of students had been doubled during the last 15 years, the fact remains that the number of young farmers getting college education was too small, and he continued to say that the universities were not training sufficient agricultural men. What is true of our farmers is also true of that very important, but unfortunately dwindling band of people, our farm managers. They are very often the sons of farmers and there is an unfortunate tendency for these people to migrate to the larger towns because of the living conditions there and because the salaries there are in many instances more attractive. If they are to be kept on the land, they, too, must also be able to receive the education that the farmer himself can receive. This is indeed a long-standing problem, farmers’ education. Another authority, Dr. Henning, referred to it in 1960, when he said that in South Africa up to 80 per cent of the 2,500 to 3,000 new farmers who enter the industry annually do not get any form of scientific agricultural training.

As regards the shortage of personnel in the agricultural Departments themselves, we know that this is an old story which has been ventilated often enough in this House. The last occasion, I think, was when the hon. member for Standerton in October last year said that in the constituency of Heidelberg and in a part of the constituency of Standerton, 2,912 farms were in proclaimed soil conservation districts; they covered 960,000 morgen and yet there is only one extension officer. I am not contending that is the case throughout the country, but it does illustrate that there are sections where the shortage is very acute.

His colleague the hon. member for Wolmaransstad said he wished to draw the attention of the authorities to the fact that extension officers trained by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services were being attracted by private concerns like the fertilizer companies and that in some cases they were being offered double the salaries offered by the State. That hon. member was echoing what had been said by the then Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, the present Minister of the Interior, who in 1965 drew attention to the fact that in the past three years up to 40 per cent of the staff of his own Department had been attracted by industrial firms through the offer of more tempting salaries. This serves to illustrate the shortage, because obviously if there were not an acute shortage, the industrial firms would themselves not be tempted to offer those more attractive salaries. We get the same story with veterinary officers.

The hon. member for Smithfield last year mentioned that in Canada, which has something like 1,600 veterinary officers, each one has to care, if you divide the total stock population by the number of veterinarians, for 6,000 head of large stock and 4,000 head of small stock, whereas in our own country each veterinarian has something like 30,000 head of large stock and 110,000 head of small stock to care for. The hon. the Minister himself, replying to the debate, said that he himself lived in a region where they need more veterinarians, and he said that he thought we needed more of them all over the country but it is of no avail to create the posts if one does not have the officials to fill them. According to the latest report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, for 1964-’65, there have indeed been some improvements since 1964. But in June, 1965, there were still 403 posts vacant, of which 131 were professional and 60 were technical. We have the same position in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing.

There I would merely like to refer to one instance, for example in the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, where during that particular year five new posts for inspectors had been created, but the problem still remained to have the vacancies filled. So one could give one example after the other. We have this shortage of skilled people, people with “know-how”, throughout the industry, and it is hampering the industry at every turn and is reacting upon its efficiency. The motion speaks of the urgent need to increase productivity and to reduce production costs. Not for one moment am I thereby suggesting that our farmers or our departmental officials are an idle and good-for-nothing lot. On the contrary, the increase in production which the industry has achieved has been little short of magnificent. But we are now reaching the stage where increased production alone will not be sufficient to ensure prosperity for the industry.

There are exceptions, of course, and wheat is one of those exceptions, where we do not produce enough for our own needs, and in those cases the prime need is still for more production. In other sectors we have reached the stage of full or over-full supply, and in those sectors every possible avenue must be explored to peg or reduce production costs. In those sectors producers’ prices may be expected to either rise more slowly than production costs, or they may even decline. We have a disastrous instance of that in the case of the sugar industry. The taxpayer is to-day footing the bill at something like R50 million in food subsidies for the consumer and it is clear that however much justifiable pride we may take in the wonderful achievements of the agricultural industry, we will still have to strive constantly to raise that efficiency to even higher levels and thereby produce the food we need at a price that the people can pay. That, then, is the problem. Where do we start trying to solve it?

I say that we must start at every level simultaneously, at university level, at agricultural college level, and also at school level. Dealing firsty with the universities, the question is whether our facilities for turning out trained agricultural scientists are being used to the best advantage, and also whether those facilities themselves are adequate. During 1964 Dr. H. O. Mönnig, the scientific adviser to the Prime Minister and chairman of the Scientific Advisory Council, visited some 11 overseas countries in order to study their organization for scientific research and to see whether we in South Africa could learn from their experience and thereby strengthen our own research set-up. He brought out a report on his study of scientific organizations covering the 11 countries he had visited. Of those 11 countries, eight were what one may term the older, more highly developed industrial countries with very highly integrated industrial structures, namely France, Belgium, the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, West Germany and Switzerland; while three of them were at a stage of development more akin to our own, namely Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Although Dr. Mönnig went to study research organizations, his findings and his recommendations are of direct importance when it comes to the question of the training of scientists and the efficient utilization of those scientists for the progress of our country; because research and training are interlinked, and this interlinking of the two may be summed up in the old dictum: “No teaching without research and no research without teaching”. He writes in his report—

To-day a modern country’s economic progress and its general welfare depend ever-increasingly on the level of its scientific progress. In this age of scientific advance, it is the relatively few with outstanding ability at the top who enable the whole economy and the whole society to make the necessary advances. They are the leaders and the pacemakers, and these people are limited in number, and no country can afford university staff who lecture but do not do research, and research workers who are not available for lecturing. Still less can any young country, particularly a country like ours, where the relatively highly developed and educated small White group of some 3½ million have to provide leadership for a total population of some 17 million, afford this brain drain, this loss of its young research workers who go overseas because research opportunities are better there, and who in many instances are lost forever to their own country as researchers and teachers. I want to say that the first and prime requirement is that more funds should be made available by the State to our universities in order that our young post-graduates can find greater scope for research in our own country, and can stay here to assist in the training of the other young scientists whom we so very desperately need. Dr. Mönnig made certain recommendations in regard to the organization of our research, which again he so closely linked with teaching. Briefly, these were the retention of the existing Atomic Energy Board, but the sub-division of the existing C.S.I.R. into three research councils, of which one would be the Council for Biological Research under which agriculture and veterinary science would fall. He went further and made some very specific recommendations regarding veterinary science and agriculture. He said—

No less an authority than Professor O. S. Reinecke strongly supported Dr. Mönnig’s recommendations and said that the reforms advocated should be implemented without delay to overcome, as he put it, the frustration which is eating out the soul of many research workers. We in South Africa are almost alone in having the system of divided control of the universities, with the Department of Education controlling the universities, but with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services staffing the faculties of agriculture and veteriary medicine, with scientists whose research programmes have to fit in with the needs of their departments, and with salary scales and conditions of service—and I understand this is correct; the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—of the Civil Service, and not university salary scales and conditions of service. In the light of Dr. Mönnig’s evidence I believe that this divided control is having a stultifying effect on the training of agricultural scientists and I would like to quote one example of this. The then Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, the present Minister of the Interior, said in Port Elizabeth—

But, Sir, I think it is somewhat disappointing that this statement made by the then Minister of Agricultural Technical Services has so far not brought forth any positive response from his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. Since the publication of the Mönnig Report a Department of Planning has been set up with divisions for scientific, economic and physical planning, but otherwise there have been no further developments which have been made public. One understands that the report was referred to the Scientific Advisory Council, and the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services said in this House last year—

Sir, whether one agrees or disagrees with Dr. Mönnig’s findings, it is clear that his report has thrown the whole issue of agricultural instruction at our universities into the melting pot. Things cannot be allowed to drift. Is it not time that the veil was lifted and that we be allowed to peep at what is going on behind the scenes? I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to give us some information on this matter this afternoon.

I want to refer briefly to the shortage of teachers who are qualified to teach agriculture at our schools and even at our agricultural high schools. Many teachers teaching agriculture to-day are not properly equipped for the task. If prospective teachers take B.Sc. (Agric.) at a university plus a teacher’s diploma, they are tied down to study for five years, and as a matter of urgency bursaries should be made available to agricultural students who intend becoming agricultural teachers in order to try to encourage them to enter the profession. Secondly, special consideration should be given to the institution of a special four-year degree course in agricultural education at at least one of our universities. Sir, if agricultural scientists are scarce, then agricultural economists are perhaps even scarcer. We will need more and more of these men as agriculture becomes less a way of life and more a business enterprise, akin to an industrial undertaking. As mechanization and other technical advances are more generally adopted so will the proportion of fixed costs in farming increase and so will the need for greater attention to the business management side of farming increase. It is significant that the S.A. Agricultural Union recently appointed economists on a part-time basis to advise it on the economic aspects of the industry.

Sir, I welcome the announcement which appeared in the Natal press by prof. Behrmann, professor of agricultural economics at the Natal University, “that an economic advisory service is due to be established in Natal by the extension services division of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services at the University of Natal”. Sir, this is most encouraging but this in itself, if it is going to be extended to other areas of the country where it is very badly needed, will increase the demand for trained agricultural economists, and I wonder whether the courses offered at our universities are designed entirely in accordance with our needs. I understand that the University of Potchefstroom offers a course in agricultural economics and at the other four universities which have agricultural faculties, students specialize in agricultural economics as part of their four-year course for the Bachelor of Science degree in agriculture, but it is only part of that course and they have to take a lot of other subjects as well which are unrelated to economics. Has the time not come when a special three-year degree course in agricultural economics should be tried as an experiment, if necessary? I believe that the time has come.

My time is very limited and I would like to refer very briefly to the third leg of the motion, that is, the question of the establishment of at least one more agricultural college. Sir, we have seven departmental agricultural regions in our country, of which six, including the Transvaal because of the establishment of the new agricultural college at Roodeplaat, now have colleges, but the remaining region is still without a college, and here I refer to the Eastern Cape Grassveld region which stretches from Humansdorp through Port Elizabeth, East London, Queenstown, in an arc up to Aliwal North. Sir, this is an important region, and in the few minutes left to me I would like to quote the production figures in that region plus seven fringe districts which abut on it. There are 8.9 per cent of our farms in that area; 85 per cent of our pineapple production is centred there; 100 per cent of our chicory production, 16.6 per cent of our citrus production; 7.3 per cent of our cattle; rather more than 17 per cent of our sheep; a little under 25 per cent of our wool is produced there and no less than 65 per cent of our mohair. Sir, these are figures which speak of the importance of this region. I have not got the time to dilate further on this point; this will be done by a subsequent speaker, but we do feel that there is a very real need for this extra agricultural college.

In the one or two minutes still at my disposal, I would like to refer briefly to the last leg of my motion, namely the portion dealing with the training of non-white labour. The position is that we have training facilities for our coloured employees at Kromme Rhee, and although there may have been some difficulty about the courses initially, that institution is meeting the need. But I do not think that this is true as regards our training of Indian labour, which is of importance in Natal, nor as regards our training of Bantu labour. Sir, I have raised this matter before and this will no doubt not be the last time that I raise it in this House. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is here this morning and I just want to put one thought to him. I think it is fair to say that his attitude is that the Bantu will be trained in their homelands in order to guide their own people in those homelands, but they will not be trained in their homelands for use on the European farms in the so-called European areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that there is a petrol company doing good work in this regard and training Bantu tractor drivers, and presumably the authorities have no objection to that. Sir, if that is correct in principle then surely it must be correct for the Government itself to train Bantu labourers, even if they train them in the reserves, who subsequently want to go and work on European farms, even if it is on a contractual, temporary labour basis. Sir, I merely want to repeat in conclusion that I am convinced that proper training of our non-white labour is one of the greatest needs of our agricultural industry.

The hon. member who has just sat down is known to us as a worthy man, a good man and, as we have all heard now, not unnecessarily antagonistic or aggressive, but he was somewhat negative in drafting and presenting his motion. I rise to propose something more positive in the form of an amendment. [Laughter.] Hon. members need not laugh; it is not every Tom, Dick and Harry that can talk about agriculture. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (a) expresses its gratitude to the Government for the positive contribution it is making towards the training of agricultural scientists and for its co-operation with the various universities in this regard, and appeals to commerce and industry not to entice these scientists away from the public service to do the same work;
2. (b) welcomes the new trend among the farming community of farming study groups as a result of which farmers, under the valuable guidance of the departments of agriculture and in co-operation with organized agriculture, are enabled, in this sphere of farming and economic planning, to utilize the large volume of research data which is already available to them; and
3. (c) is convinced that the Government will continue to establish new agricultural colleges, where justifiable, as and when financial circumstances permit”.

Is that the hon. member’s speech?

It is my amendment, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that it is so clear that the hon. Speaker thinks it is my speech, and once I have made my speech, there will be even more cause for surprise and wonder.

The hon. member for Albany complained about the grave shortage of persons trained in agriculture. May I just remind him that during the Second World War the United Party withdrew our students from our agricultural colleges and curbed the financial contributions to such an extent that those colleges had to be closed, to be re-opened anew in 1946? That was their contribution towards stopping that regular flow from the colleges to the practical sphere for a while, and that is one of the reasons why there are complaints about a shortage at present.

May I ask a question?

I shall raise my voice against hon. members on the opposite side …

Order! The hon. member wants to know whether he may ask a question.

No, I shall answer the hon. member’s question in advance. The hon. member urges an increase in productivity. I just want to point out that there is a gradual and constant increase in production in our country as a result of the zeal and industry of the farmers and the application of their practical knowledge together with the assistance they receive from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. To mention just one example, in 1962 the wheat production of the Swartland wheat area was 6.9 bags per morgen, in 1963 it was 9.6, and in 1964 it was 12.1. But I also want to refer to the increased production of maize in the Western Transvaal. Where less than two years ago an average of only ten bags per morgen was harvested, the production is now between 30 and 40 bags. Despite the increase in population the demand for certain important agricultural products could not keep abreast of the production, because it is the position that if the climatic conditions are right, the farmer is right and the extension and the aid services are right. Where else would the 80 million to 100 million bags of maize expected now and the 12 million bags of kaffircorn, which represents an increase of between 500 per cent and 600 per cent on the previous kaffircorn crop, come from?

Mr. Speaker, in order to achieve increased productivity the hon. member asked for a better relationship between the State and the universities, with a view to improving agricultural teaching. I shall leave agricultural teaching in the hands of my hon. friend who will also talk about this matter. But I just want to point out that a shortage of trained manpower is a world-wide phenomenon. It has been said so many times that it has become quite hackneyed. There is a shortage of trained man-power, not only in the agricultural sciences but in all spheres. There is also a shortage of trained man-power in the ranks of the United Party.

The man-power shortage to which the hon. member referred arose as a result of the dynamic development of our country in the spheres of commerce, industry and technology, with a consequential and unavoidable, strongly competitive demand for trained personnel. Thanks to the highly appreciated financial aid by the agricultural boards and the State through bursaries, to enable students to study agricultural sciences, and thanks to the arrangements for advanced post-graduate studies, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is succeeding excellently in training our young men in agricultural sciences. In 1926 and 1940, respectively, the University of Stellenbosch and the University of Pretoria established faculties of agriculture, and subsequently also the University of Natal and the University of the Orange Free State. But since then the Government has had to reject several similar applications from other universities on the grounds that if we make full use of the existing faculties at these universities there is at present absolutely no necessity for further expansion. I suppose hon. members will now ask why these facilities are not utilized to the full. I shall answer the question by referring to the University of the Orange Free State. At the moment there are facilities to quadruple the number of registered students. That means that the 39 second-year students can increase to 156, the 15 third-year students to 60, the 21 fourth-year students to 84, the 20 B.Sc. Hons, students to 80, the 15 M.Sc. students to 60, the 10 D.Sc. students to 40. That means that right now the 120 students can be increased to 480. In other words, there is room for another 360.

Like the accommodation, the bursaries are not utilized to the full either. The close cooperation between the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the universities under which the faculties of agriculture and of veterinary science come, has the result that the support to the above-mentioned universities in the form of money, personnel, accommodation, experimental farm facilities, equipment, etc., is more generous than any of these universities could appropriate from their own funds for any of the other faculties.

The distribution of students at the various faculties of agriculture in 1966 was as follows —Orange Free State, 120; Stellenbosch, 278; Natal, 256; Pretoria, 388. That makes a total of 1,042 students. Of these 78 were B.Sc. hons. students, 259 were M.Sc. students and 97 were D.Sc. students. In the light of these facts one comes to the conclusion that an increase in the number of faculties of agriculture is not justified.

The hon. member asked whether a sixth agricultural college should not be established. There is a strong possibility that if the hon. member presented the necessary proof that there is a real need, an agricultural college may perhaps be established in his region. This is not a promise I am making, nor am I now speaking on behalf of the hon. the Minister! The fact of the matter is that the existing five agricultural colleges provide for 570 students. At the moment the enrolment figure is 481. There is room for another 89 students. In principle the Minister has already approved the establishment of a sixth college, which is to be established somewhere in the Transvaal. Unfortunately it will not be established in the Waterberg. It should of course have been there. The college will in fact be established at Roodeplaat. The land has been bought and a good deal of progress has been made with regional research activities, so that when that agricultural college is eventually established the experimental farm developing there will have reached an advanced state of progress.

Let us now consider building works completed at agricultural colleges since 1948. At Potchefstroom additions were built to the value of R196,000; at Grootfontein to the value of R300,000; at Glen to the value of R95,000; and at Elsenburg to the value of R220,000. That makes a total of R645,000 spent on additions for the benefit and stimulation of education at our agricultural colleges. What is the position as far as bursaries are concerned? In respect of agricultural colleges a total of 230 aid-bursaries to the value of R20,752 was approved from 1961 to 1965. All this bears out the truth of a statement made by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture in a speech at Grahamstown on 13th April, 1965— I studied the same speech as my hon. friend on the opposite side—during an agricultural teaching congress. Amongst other things the Deputy Minister then said the following—

That embraces much more than the old idea that one needs only land, capital and labour to be able to farm. The advocate, the teacher, the minister and the medical doctor leave the doorstep of the universities after five to seven years of intensive preparatory study, with the timid question in their minds: “Am I now trained and equipped for my task?” What was the position in agriculture? The position in the past I shall leave aside for the moment. But I do want to say that this Government has proved clearly that the time has passed when a farmer could plunge unprepared into the profession—to put it this way, “for better or for worse”. This is the most unpredictable profession one can imagine. The reason is of course that farming results on the same farm do not even correspond from day to day, not to mention from year to year. This is the profession that makes the strongest demands on the ingenuity of the man practising it. Why? It is because the application of specialized knowledge, of scientific research, produces divergent results from day to day, because there is an ever-changing pattern of climate, germination, pests, costs, labour, marketing, etc. Hence the one-year courses for students and the shorter courses for farmers’ study groups. These courses were not established to train them as lecturers, but to add to their practical knowledge and their vicarious knowledge which they receive from our Agricultural Technical Services the knowledge of experience after self-study and self-research.

To the measures that have already been mentioned the following may be added. There is the expansion and intensification of the training of extension officers and informal training through the establishment of sub-regions. There is also the improved training of our extension officers. Furthermore there is the linking of the farming community with the soil conservation programme.

I want to refer, furthermore, to agricultural research. Here I have two publications in my hand, bulky books, from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The first book is Part I for 1965 and contains sections 1, 2 and 3, and the other is Part II for 1966, containing sections 4, 5 and 6. The two books comprise 676 pages, Sir, and in them you will find brief summaries relating to agricultural research published by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The summaries appear under the following heads: Current projects, new projects, research staff, interim and final reports on research projects, summaries of theses, and scientific publications. Part I contains an index of 1,711 projects offered on the registration list of the two Agricultural Departments as at 30th June, 1965. Part II contains summaries of 588 new projects offered for registration during the year under review. Part IV contains 91 reports on completed and well-advanced projects, while Part V contains 61 theses on agricultural research by officers of the Department for their master’s and doctor’s degrees. Part VI contains a list of 680 scientific publications. Although 743 were published, only 680 are mentioned here, and in fact under the following heads.

Mr. Speaker, a good friend told me I still had six minutes left, but seven minutes will also do. The interruption of a man’s speech for the sake of food and drink is not a good thing, neither for the man nor for the speech. I just want to say that Part VI of the works referred to contains 680 publications on scientific subjects. There are 17, all on agricultural matters. This is an unprecedented achievement, and one comes to a point where one wants to ask: “Is there anything new under the sun as far as agriculture is concerned?” But in any event there are two problems in this regard. The first is, are those research results not presented too technically to our farmers? Secondly, are there adequate channels through which these results may reach our farmers quickly enough and widely enough? On the first question the reply may be given immediately. That is that the knowledge is surely transmitted to the farmers in popular terms in numerous periodicals, newspaper reports and radio broadcasts and on farmers’ days. With regard to the second question there is somewhat of a problem. This is that a cause for concern is the fact that the knowledge does not reach our farmers widely enough and quickly enough. Here I just want to suggest something, namely that planning should be undertaken so that the knowledge may be disseminated to the seven agro-ecolo-gical regions through more and well-distributed channels. The farmer should also visit the reservoir of this knowledge and should open the floodgates, because they are at his disposal.

I also want to refer to two other important aspects. In the first place the terms of reference of the Water Plan Commission cannot be overlooked, without anticipating their work or trying to dictate to them, with a view to increased production. I hope and trust that when they have presented their report to us after three or four years, in accordance with their terms of reference, we shall appreciate two things, amongst others, as never before. That is, firstly, that we have our subterranean water not simply to pump it out without any control, and secondly that rainwater may not flow away to the sea uncontrolled, and in addition carry away our soil.

A great task also awaits the agricultural commission of inquiry and the farmer as regards increasing productivity and the reduction of production costs, once that commission has established the biological and economic principles of sound agriculture and has made its recommendations for the elimination of deficiencies in all branches of the present farming system.

I should also like to refer you to an article in Georganiseerde Landbou of January, 1967. It refers more specifically to the farmer’s share with regard to all these things in respect of which we look to the State. The movers of the motion also pointed out that the State was doing too little and that we should turn to the State to a larger extent. I am referring to four points of advice offered in the above-mentioned article. The first is: increase the production in order that the production cost per unit may decrease. These are well-known, old things that one may repeat time and again for the edification of some person or another. The second recommendation is that there should be standardization in order that the unnecessary travelling salesmen who cost us so much may be eliminated. Thirdly, if we standardize the servicemen who carry out reparations, they will concentrate on a few models to such an extent that they will give us specialized work. I also want to tell the farmers this: Do not only market your produce co-operatively, but also try to buy agricultural requirements co-operatively. Mr. Speaker, you must forgive me if I read this quotation from a document I drew up myself—with reference to the article mentioned above (translation)—

In this regard I want to read another extract.

Order! What does the hon. member want to read from?

It is a quotation from a speech by the former president of the South African Agricultural Union, in connection with farmers who should try to help themselves to an even larger extent. It appeared in Georganiseerde Landbou of November, 1956. He offers us this advice (translation)—

That is the very opposite of what the mover of this motion advocated to-day. He recommended that we should look to the State more and more, which amounts to our doing as little as possible for ourselves. The farmer does not deserve such an underestimation of his initiative.

I move my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Albany. I have listened with interest to the amendment, to the motion which I support, but I have listened to the hon. member for Waterberg with difficulty. I am thoroughly conversant with the other language but even with my earphone I found it somewhat difficult to follow the hon. member. The essence of his speech seems to be that because there are not sufficient students at our agricultural colleges, in other words, because they are not filled to capacity we on this side of the House have no claim for another agricultural college. If that is so, I wonder how the hon. member for Waterberg could have supported the claim to establish another agricultural college in the Transvaal north of Pretoria, namely Roodeplaat. When one studies the figures in regard to the capacities of students at the agricultural colleges, one sees that they are by no means full. Yet the figures are certainly not alarming. We on this side of the House are not worried or perturbed about the figures at all. When we look at the figures in respect of Potchefstroom we see that the capacity for the Potchefstroom Agricultural College is 128. To-day Potchefstroom has 104 students. If we were to base our claims on the statement made by the hon. member for Waterberg, namely that because our colleges are not filled to capacity we have no claim on another one, how could he have claimed a new college called Roodeplaat? We are viewing this subject on completely different lines. It does not mean to say that because the colleges are not filled, we should have no claim on another one. That does not follow at all. It is according to the pastoral potential of a region that the people in that region should have a claim on another college. I therefore think everybody will agree that his argument is completely without foundation.

While on the subject of attendances and capacities of colleges, I want to bring to the notice of this House the figures in regard to the agricultural high schools. One wonders why it should be that when one looks at the agricultural high schools, which fall under the Provincial Administration, one sees that the figures are very good indeed, and that those high schools are almost filled to capacity. I cannot see that we can wish for the attendances at our agricultural high schools throughout the Republic to be better. Why is it that the figures in respect of the agricultural colleges should be lower? They do not drop very much, but there is definitely a drop. While on this subject, I must mention that the figures at Agricultural Colleges are encouraging in that they are improving year by year. Many members of the public have already asked me whether I could explain why the figures in respect of our agricultural high schools should be so much better than those in respect of our agricultural colleges. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has considered this point? It is something which is worrying the public and naturally has worried he as well. Students at the agricultural high schools have their elementary education up to matriculation standard. But at the same time they do manual work. In other words, these young students are taught to work. I think that is one of the main reasons why our agricultural high schools are so popular to-day. Parents who have boys at Marlow have said to me that they send their boys to Marlow at Cradock because they are taught to work. I know of other people who have told me that they will not send their boys to agricultural colleges because they are not taught to work.

They are not taught to work?

They are not taught to do manual work. They are taught to study, but this is an argument which has been mentioned to me and I am now mentioning it to the hon. the Minister. These are the facts. I wonder whether this is not one of the reasons why there is a falling off of attendances in our colleges. So many people are sending their boys to private farms to learn farming and agriculture. The reason is that they are taught to work from six in the morning until sunset. They are taught to work as well as do the theory. I see the problem facing those people. When their boys have been taught to work and have learnt about agriculture, they leave those private farms without any diplomas at all. It is the diploma of course which we are after. I believe this is something which the hon. the Deputy Minister should seriously consider.

I now come back to what I want to stress here this afternoon. Included in the motion of the hon. member for Albany, is a claim for the establishment of at least one more agricultural college. A region which has been overlooked, and which I believe has a strong claim for a college, is the Eastern Cape grass veld region. I believe we have a strong claim particularly in view of the fact that Roodeplaat was justified because of the need for a college, north of Pretoria. We are indeed very happy that area should have got a college after so many years. It was justified. In the same way the farmers of the Eastern Cape feel that they are being neglected because of the very large area which is not served by an agricultural college. The statistics in regard to the potential of the Eastern Cape grass veld area were ably given to us this morning by the hon. member for Albany. He gave us all the statistics in regard to the potential and the carrying capacity of that vast area. Organized agriculture has so frequently stressed that point at all the congresses we have had the pleasure of attending over the years. The urgent necessity for another college in the Eastern Cape has been stressed. The department has been made aware of this fact by deputations. Strong views were expressed by the bodies representing the agricultural industry of the North Eastern Cape. For 20 to 30 years the departments have received resolutions and representations by organized agriculture and indirectly too by regional development associations. I do not want to give the statistics here. I do not want to bore the House. Many of them have already been given by the hon. member for Albany. A memorandum was sent to the hon. the Minister in 1964 by the Eastern Cape Liaison Committee on behalf of the Cape Province Agricultural Union. In that analysis the production of that vast area was included, namely the area stretching from the Transkei right across to Humansdorp and then to the north to Steytlerville, Pearston, and Cradock up to the Orange River. We all know that the wool being produced in that area from merino sheep, and hair from angora goats is second to none in the Republic. That goes for the cattle too as regards beef production and dairy products. I know of no other Region which can exceed the grasslands area of the Eastern Cape for production in the agricultural sphere.

The great pastoral potentialities of this area are second to none. We have a high rainfall and we have an environment which is completely different from that of other regions which fall under agricultural colleges. We have an area which, if I may say so, appears to be in No Man’s Land, because it varies and differs completely to other Regions. It is a region which falls between an agricultural college in the west, i.e. Grootfontein, and the college in the east, Cedara, and what I am saying now is the theme of every agricultural congress held in the Eastern Cape, that this Region differs from all other Regions. The training at Grootfontein College does not cover our problems. You find that the students who leave Grootfontein and Cedara—I mention those two because they are the colleges closest to this Region—once they leave those colleges, they very rarely go back, or refer back to those colleges, because the colleges are out of touch with so many of the real problems in the Eastern Cape.

It has been said that extension officers are often at a loss because of the lack of local scientific knowledge and that their suggested solutions are often out of step with the conditions in the eastern grassland regions, creating many problems. We have three research stations in that Region, namely the one at Dohne, one at Collondale and another at Bathurst. I must say that it is wonderful to see what good work these research stations are doing in the grassland Region. The personnel are first class. We could not wish for better, not only in this country but anywhere else. But to a degree they are at a loss simply because the research done at these stations cannot be channelled into practice through instruction at a local College of Agriculture, and through the attraction of local trainees to such an institution, without this facility the Region’s potentialities are being retarded.

Now I come to another suggestion or claim, if I may put it that way. The Eastern Grasslands Region extends right into the Native territories, i.e. into the Transkei to beyond Um-tata. It covers the whole of the Ciskei. In other words, the whole of the Xhosa race is embodied in this area. Now we have been hearing for years of the development, not only in the Eastern Cape, but in the Native Reserves as well which must be developed as much as possible. When one thinks of the development of the Native territories, including the Ciskei, agriculturally, I believe that this college which we would like to see established there, could play a very big part. For the development of these Native territories the White youths brought up on the Eastern Cape farms and trained at an Eastern Cape Agricultural College would constitute a most valuable reservoir for the recruitment of Whites for service in the higher administrative and teaching posts in the Transkei and the Ciskei Agricultural Departments, as well as the border area com-prizing the grass veld region. This is my claim this afternoon, and I sincerely hope that the Minister and his Department will give it serious consideration.

It is with much pleasure that I support the amendment to the motion as moved by the hon. member for Waterberg—I shall furnish my reasons for doing so in a moment—and I just want to enlarge briefly on the statements made by the hon. member for East London (North). I am not trying to pick a quarrel when I say that I really found it particularly pleasant to hear the words “Native reserves” and “Native territories” in this debate instead of the customary “African”. It was very good to hear that from the Opposition benches for a change.

Then there are two minor technical points I wish to put right. The hon. member spoke of Mara as an agricultural high school. That is not the case. Just for the sake of the record I want to say that we have a research station there, but not an agricultural school. The second matter I just want to put right, is the question of Roodeplaat. It is not Roodepoort; Roodepoort is on the West Rand and Roodeplaat is the new agricultural college which is being envisaged.

Further the hon. member made a very good agricultural union congress speech which will be very much to the liking of the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union, of which the hon. member who introduced the motion was the president for many years and for which he did very good work. Nor did the introducer of the amendment say that he did not support that claim to a college for the Eastern Cape; he said that there was a strong case in its favour. But unfortunately there is just as strong a case in favour of an agricultural college being established in the Northern Transvaal Bushveld. where they are also struggling with localized problems, and those problems are also serious. The problems with which the farmers of the Low Veld-—also as a localized area—are struggling, are just as serious and they have just as valid a claim to that. Where I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for East London (North), is where he spoke of agricultural high schools at which boys are supplementing their technical knowledge with sheer hard work, and I shall return to that in a moment.

Now I come to the motion as moved by the hon. member for Albany. He stated that the Government had to consider the advisability of improving and expanding South Africa’s facilities for agricultural education. The motion asks for the advisability of such a step to be considered. That advisability was considered a long time ago, and it has been Government policy for a long time to provide the best facilities for the academic training of agricultural students. That has been the policy for a long time, as the hon. member for Waterberg very strikingly explained and substantiated by means of figures. Further the hon. member called upon the Government to consider the advisability of expanding the facilities for agricultural education and then he embroidered mainly on universities, colleges and training for the Bantu labour force, but with the exception of a few meagre references he never got down to agricultural education. The only hon. member on that side who pointedly referred to that matter, was the hon. member for East London (North).

To the best of his ability the hon. member for Albany makes an appeal in regard to a serious matter, but he wants to remedy what is wrong by smarting at the top instead of at the bottom. There is a deep-seated difference, which he does not seem to notice, between agricultural education at agricultural high schools and agricultural training subsequent to leaving school—be it technical or academic, the thing which the farmer is able to use. However, he refers to agricultural education in his motion, and I want to elaborate on that because the hon. member did not do so and I thank him for the opening he has given me. At the moment agricultural education is provided by agricultural high schools, of which we have 15 in our country. Last year those schools had 2,800 pupils from Std. VI to matric. The hon. member for East London (North) will agree that 2,800 pupils a year are merely a drop in the ocean. The best-known agricultural schools in the Transvaal are the Bekker Agricultural High School near Maga-liesberg, the equally well-known Kuschke near Pietersburg, Merensky in the Low Veld, General Koos de la Rey in the Western Transvaal, the very well-known ones on the Eastern Transvaal Highveld, Morgenson and Amsterdam, and the very well-known agricultural high school at Brits. In the Cape Province we have the well-known Boland Agricultural School which was established in collaboration with the Agricultural Union of the Cape: in the Free State we have, amongst others, two very well-known schools, namely Tweespruit and Jacobsdal. At present these schools are, as the hon. member justly remarked, no longer a dumping site for those who are below average in intelligence. They are excellent schools which achieve excellent results and turn out excellent citizens for this country, whether they are assimilated in agriculture or not. In remarking obliquely that the teachers at agricultural high schools at present are not really properly equipped for their task, I think that the hon. member for Albany has done them a disservice, and here in this House I should very much like to praise the principals of those schools as well as the teachers attached to them for the truly great work they are doing in the interests of the child and, more than that, for the soil of South Africa and thus for our people and our fatherland. We are deeply indebted to those teachers for the self-sacrificing work. Those schools do not only offer courses of study for normal academic matriculation training; they offer the same matriculation as is offered by the urban high schools, plus agronomy, stock-breeding and farm mechanics and, as is the case at the Bekker Agricultural High School, also a course in domestic science for girls. But they offer even more than that. Those boys do practical work in the lands, in orchards and vineyards and in milking stalls. For a few years they are in daily and the closest contact with the living soil and the living animal. They are in contact with the soil. On a certain occasion the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said that the greatest asset of our Republic was its soil and its youth.

These particular schools provide in this need, the nearness to nature, to the soil, which the child in the city usually misses, the city where it is so often the case that both the mother and the father work and that even over weekends they are so busy socially that the children simply have to plod on by themselves as regards their respective academic careers. Therefore pupils at agricultural high schools do not only learn about the Pythagorean theorum, Shakespeare, Van Wyk Louw, Hymne Weiss, Napoleon and Bismarck as their daily and only bill of fare, but also about contact with the good earth—the soil which has over the years always produced in this country the greatest percentage of leaders who set out to conquer the city as well, to conquer science and industry, as they are doing at present, and to give new character and content to them—the type of leaders of whom the hon. member for Albany spoke a moment ago and of whom there is a shortage in agricultural science at present. In the years gone by that was easy. There was a time when the agricultural population of this country amounted to 47 per cent of the whole, and from the nature of the case it was possible then. To-day the situation has changed, with a migration of people from agriculture, as is the case in other Western parts of the world where agricultural countries are changing into industrial countries. At present we are experiencing a migration from agriculture amounting to 6,000 to 7,000 people a year, with the result that the present agricultural population only represents 9.8 per cent of the total population. At any rate, we are still in a more favourable position than Europe where the migration from the farm to the city amounted to 30 per cent over the past ten years. Mr. Speaker, as is the case in the United States, in Germany, in Western Europe and all over, this migration from the farms will continue, and for that reason it is all the more important that our youth should be kept in contact with the soil, even if it has to be done by other means. However, what worries me is the fact that a so much smaller percentage of our youth is getting that prolonged contact with the soil, the living veld and nature as it really is. At present there are thousands upon thousands of people in the cities who are yearning for those fine characteristics of the rural areas to be acquired by their children as well, those characteristics of diligence and of endurance, that characteristic of, as the Bushveld farmers are doing at the moment, still being able to laugh after setbacks and being able to say, “We are still ready to continue with our work.” They are not discouraged. They have steely determination, diligence and endurance, honesty and integrity, level-headedness and humility and strong faith in God. In the silence of rural surroundings one is affected much more by the miracle of the creation than is the case in the concrete jungles of Hillbrow and Sea Point, as the hon. member for Hillbrow and Green Point may perhaps agree. In towns and cities the land service movement, the Voortrek-kers and other movements are already doing very valuable work in this regard, but the answer is more agricultural high schools. In those schools the youth and the soil are brought together effectively and a permanent bond is forged. Instead of 15 of these agricultural high schools, I am pleading that the Republic should have not 15, but 115 of them. At present it is becoming more and more of a necessity that every large city should literally be surrounded by these agricultural high schools—each of our larger cities, also Cape Town where numerous parents have asked me recently whether they, too, could not possibly have a school such as Bekker at Magaliesberg here on the Cape Flats so that their children might also be educated in that manner; schools within easy reach of the city so that the pupils might be home over week-ends and so that family ties might be preserved and so that the parents themselves may also become share-holders of that school in spirit, of that small piece of soil with which their children would be associated. That will ensure a natural and a permanent flow of adapted and primed man-power to the agricultural sector, man-power which will also be inspired by love of the soil and not only by love of money. Those who do not go in for agriculture, will nevertheless be better citizens because the native soil will have extra significance for them. They will be better citizens; history has already proved that.

I said that at present agricultural schools were no longer dumping sites for those who were below average in intelligence. As was the case with the Defence Force gymnasiums ten years ago, agricultural high schools are indeed becoming the attraction for the cream of our youth. I can substantiate this by telling you that the Bekker Agricultural High School can take a total of 500 pupils a year. Last year they had 400 inquiries in excess of the number they could accommodate. Is that not the best testimonial for an excellent agricultural school?

As regards agricultural education I shall content myself with the plea that, in the interests of preserving the nation’s inherent good characteristics and of its struggle against the erosion of the youth, the authorities should scrutinize agricultural high schools thoroughly in the event of a new era dawning for our system of education before long, and that millions should be poured into this literally and figuratively under-capitalized branch of our education as being one of the best investments we in this country can make—a much better investment than one in gold or in silver.

As regards the hon. member’s plea for the training of more agricultural economists, I just want to say the following. What is the use of training more and more agricultural economists if the findings of their research are gathering dust on the shelves? The new trend adopted by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing under its Agricultural Economic Research Division, namely that of forming agricultural economic study groups, is a step in the right direction. For his initiative in this regard the head of that section, Mr. S. P. van Wyk, deserves the highest praise. His studies on farm-planning, production costs, efficiency, labour and mechanization, which were carried out in collaboration with economists, extension officers and farmers, are practical and very useful. The 14 active agricultural economic study groups—Underberg in Natal, Lydenburg in the Transvaal and the study group in the Elliot-Maclear area are a few excellent examples of these—have produced results which have caused the nett incomes of participating farmers to rise astronomically, to such an extent that some of those groups of farmers approached the extension officer in question with offers to enter their personal employment at a much higher salary than he received in the Public Service. However, he was sensible enough to refuse their offers. It is impossible to have enough agricultural economists in the foreseeable future, because, as the hon. member for Water-berg said, the man-power shortage extends over the entire wide sphere of the South African scene. But by means of these agricultural technical and agricultural economic study groups these two Departments of Agriculture have, in collaboration with organized agriculture, clearly shown the way. When he was president of the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union, the hon. member for Albany himself helped to show the way. They showed the way by making the best use of the available agricultural economists. The facilities are there for the farmers to use. Research is being carried out. as was borne out by the hon. member for Waterberg. It has only to be applied in practice.

Through his motion the hon. member infers that the Government should create more facilities for the training of agricultural scientists. What is his reason for not supporting the Government’s attempts—the hon. Ministers have already made such appeals—at discouraging commerce and industry from enticing away expensively-trained veterinary surgeons with offers of up to R100 a month more to peddle stock remedies. It costs the State R8,000 to train a single agricultural scientist. Then commerce offers such a person an extra R100 and more. To them it is a relatively cheap investment to entice away that veterinary surgeon or agricultural scientist. Why does the hon. member; not-criticize those profit-organizations which seek to entice away’ a man who has obtained his M.Sc. degree at State expense, with a higher salary to become a fertilizer salesman? If the hon. member wants to do the correct thing, he should have suggested that an extra tax should be levied on every profit-seeking company which steals scientists who were trained by the Departments of Agriculture. I myself am not so negative. I am pleading for higher salaries for agricultural economists in the Public Service instead. The commencing salaries are good, but after that they do not make the progress they deserve. Then their progress is painfully slow.

The hon. member asked for more technical instruction for the Bantu labour force. Unfortunately he did not elaborate much on that. However, I want to conclude with a quotation from Organized Agriculture, the mouthpiece of the S.A.A.U., a body which the Opposition is so fond of using in their speeches on agricultural matters. On page 53 of last year’s September edition one finds the following—

Now I want to refer to Kromme Rhee. It is a well-known fact that farmers are not making full use of the facilities at the Kromme Rhee Training Centre for Coloureds. Amongst the farmers themselves there is as yet no clarity in regard to this matter, and it will therefore still have to be deliberated upon in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) who has just sat down has rather confused the issue here in that he supported the motion introduced by the hon. member for Albany in many respects, and yet he stood up and said that he was supporting the amendment. I must give the hon. member credit for one point, though, namely that he has not run away from the last point included in the motion now under discussion, i.e. that portion dealing with the provision of adequate practical training for the industry’s non-white labour force. However, I wish to deal with that later.

I want to go further and say that both the hon. member for Pretoria (District) and the hon. member for Waterberg have told us an awful lot of what has been done, how much has been spent, and how many people have passed through these various institutions that have been established by the Government. But I want to ask the Deputy Minister, who I see (is present, whether there are enough trained personnel in agriculture in South Africa? The answer is “No”, Sir, and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree because both his Ministers agree that there is a shortage. They both agree that, particularly in the realm of conservation, South Africa is going backwards instead of forward, and this is partially, if not wholly, due to the lack of trained personnel.

I want to get back to the hon. member for Waterberg, and I particularly want to cross swords with him on the first point that he made. He tried to place the blame for the present shortage on the United Party government which, he said, during the war took the students out of the agricultural colleges, and because of that, so he says, we to-day have a shortage. Mr. Speaker, those students were not taken out of the institutions but they went of their own accord. Does the hon. member know where those students went? They went to defend their country. Unfortunately I was too young at the time to go with them. They went to defend their country and to fight for what we considered the ordinary standards of common decency. Yet this hon. member has the audacity to criticize us. My retort to him is the question, what has this Government done in 19 years? It has taken the Government 19 years of prosperity in this country, prosperity in spite of a Nationalist Government, to do what? What have they done? Nothing. At that point I think that I want to leave them and get on with what I really want to say.

The amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg also refused to acknowledge the validity of point (4) of the motion; that is the provision of adequate practical training for the industry’s non-white labour force. But embodied in the wide terms as mentioned by the hon. member for Albany is the question of the training of the farmers themselves. I want to repeat to this House the warning given recently by Dr. Halliday when he said that the problem of feeding the world’s hungry is one of the greatest challenges of the present times. Least of all South Africa can ignore this warning. We must make the farming industry in this country as efficient and productive as possible. To do this we must assist every farmer, I repeat every farmer, to attain the highest degree of efficiency, not only our white farmers but our non-white farmers as well. I am glad to see that this Government has appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate the allocation of farms to Indians. I believe that it is the Government’s intention to encourage various types of farming amongst the Indian community. This is most admirable but I sincerely hope that this commission will also go into ways and means of training these Indians. We have agricultural colleges, faculties of agriculture, etc., for our white farmers—insufficient as we have heard said today and as the hon. Deputy Minister admits —but there is no college for training non-white farmers. The Indian farmer makes a positive contribution to the economy of this country. Any of the members from Natal will tell you that Durban and Pietermaritzburg would starve for vegetables without the Indian farmer. They even make a very positive contribution to Natal’s largest industry, the sugar industry. I urge the Government in all seriousness to establish an agricultural college for Indians immediately and also to institute some form of training for Indians as farm managers, overseers and workers. During the last session a Bill was introduced which removed the benefits to which Whites are entitled in terms of our agricultural laws from non-Whites. I was told that their control has now passed to the Departments of Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs. I appeal to those Ministers to look into this matter and to take some steps now before we are faced with a crisis in the production of food in this country.

In a radio talk on the 22nd May, 1966, the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services said:

He then defined “conservation farming” as follows:

I submit that the hon. the Minister omitted to mention one important resource, namely our labour, both white and non-white, and the farmers themselves. I cannot agree more with what the hon. the Minister has said but I submit that the time has come when he and this Government must stop just talking about these things and act. They must do something practical about it. We have heard this afternoon from the hon. members for Waterberg and Pretoria (District) about how much is being spent on agricultural colleges, etc. We have heard about training. But, as I said before, there is still a shortage. I go further and ask—what about the training of our workers? Why is it that a person like Dr. L. B. Knoll, managing director of Massey-Ferguson, can say at a productivity conference in Pretoria, as reported in Die Transvaler of the 26th October, 1966 (translation)—

He said this because there are no facilities for the training of labour in South Africa. I know about the two centres in the Transkei and I know what they are trying to accomplish but are they really accomplishing anything and is that of benefit to the farmers of South Africa? Why are there no facilities? It is because farm labour in South Africa is almost exclusively non-white and because the ideological policies of this Government are too inflexible to allow an attempt to be made to train non-Whites in white areas. Unfortunately they are not here, but the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputy Ministers have all said repeatedly that they will not allow Bantu to be trained in the white areas. What was the answer of the Secretary for Bantu Administration to a farmer in the Orange Free State who had inquired about this and who wanted some form of training instituted for Bantu labour in the Free State. I believe that he was a good Nationalist. The reply of the Secretary was, “’n Bantoe-landbouskool in die blanke gebied sal teenstrydig met hierdie be-leid wees”. That is why there are no training centres. This is the old story of apartheid gone mad. We may work with the non-Whites, we may use them as labourers, but we must not train them in the white areas. In the words of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development which he repeated in this House only a few days ago, “no, we will not train Bantu in white areas”.

Of course you would like to see them in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, this is the old story of trying to divert attention. Once they start dreading attack, they try to divert attention. Mr. Speaker, only last year the Natal and East Griqualand Fresh Milk Producers Union, realizing the need for such training of non-white labour and realizing that it was too much to expect this Government to do anything about it, asked permission to establish a training institution for Bantu themselves in the midlands of Natal. What was the answer from this Government: “It is Government policy to train Bantu only in their (so-called) homelands.” Especially in view of the statement of the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration which I mentioned earlier, of what earthly use is this to the farmer, especially as nothing positive is being done there anyway? During the last session both the hon. member for Albany and myself made pleas to these Ministers to do something about training farm labour. We received exactly the same answer and nothing has been done, neither in white South Africa nor in the homelands. How does this affect the Bantu people themselves? I do not think I have time to deal with that aspect right now. I shall deal with this question from the point of view of the farmers of South Africa. We are today discussing a motion which we hope will be of some benefit to the farming community in this country. The farmer admits that he is using too much labour. I do not think that there is any farmer who will deny this. But this is not entirely his fault. It is on account of the poor quality of the labour which he has at his disposal.

Both the Minister of Bantu Administration and his deputy say that even the farmers must reduce their Bantu labour by 5 per cent per annum. On the 14th October we also had the hon. member for Standerton saying: “Die boer, net soos die fabriekswese, moet gedwing word om minder Bantoewerkers te gebruik. Ons van die landbou moet ook ons aandag aan die saak gee.” What is the best way to assist the farmer to reduce his labour by 5 per cent per annum? The only way that this can be done is by increasing productivity. How are we going to increase productivity per unit? By training them. That is the only way in which we can do it. What is the position in South Africa to-day in regard to labour? According to Dr. Knoll, whom I quoted earlier, one farm worker in South Africa provides food for ten persons. This is a terrible indictment of the Government and of the farming community in this country, because that was the figure obtained in the United States of America in 1930. In 1962 in the United States of America 28 persons were provided for by every farm worker. How did they attain this figure of productivity? Merely by better training of the labour force. They have a better trained labour force where not so many people are required to do a particular job.

Wastage of labour resources can no longer be tolerated in any facet of our economy and least of all in our farming industry. I think that hon. members here will agree with me. The industry that utilizes its labour potential to the best of its capacity will reap the benefit of South Africa’s economic progress, but the price of inefficiency—here I hope hon. members will take note—in this utilization is something that the farming industry cannot afford. I submit that it is up to this Government to assist the farmer in this regard. Farm labourers are expected to work with expensive and sometimes complicated machinery, and very often with very valuable animals. They must have a degree of responsibility. They must be stable and permanent. The producer is directly affected by the level of labour efficiency. Large employers of Bantu labour have shown that screening tests can be used to determine the aptitude and ability of labourers. When these are followed by appropriate training, labour efficiency is very greatly improved and turnover is reduced. There is a compelling need in our farming industry to-day for properly selected and trained Bantu labour. Individual farmers—I think this is what the Deputy Minister said by way of interjection just now, namely that individual farmers can train them—are endeavouring to train them, but when this is coupled to the other facets of the policy of this Government, with the perpetual turnover of labour and with the system of migratory labour, what is the good of a farmer training them? No sooner has he trained a person to do a particular job when he has to move out and go back to his homeland. [Interjections.]

It is being enforced in the Natal Midlands. Individual farmers obviously cannot operate training schools. They are what are required, not the training of an individual to do an individual job on one farm. We want training schools so that there is a pool of trained labour available for the farmers in this country. Regional training centres are required. But who is to establish them? The hon. member for Waterberg said that farmers must help themselves. He said that they must not expect the Government always to help them. That is what they are doing, Sir. They are being compelled to help themselves. I think, however, that they do need a little bit of assistance. No Government department is prepared to undertake the training of Bantu. What happened when a farmer organization attempted to do something on behalf of its members? This Government refused them the necessary permission.

You know that is not so.

I know it was so.

You know it is not so.

This Government refused them permission to establish a training school of their own for Bantu labour. Why did they refuse permission? Because of the Government’s pre-occupation with ideological concepts. This is another instance bearing out the statement of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs when he said: “I will rather bend the economy than deviate in the slightest from our ideology.” We have the farmers sacrificed as well on the altar of “apartheid”.

In conclusion I should like to say that with labour steadily becoming more costly and more difficult to find, the establishment of training centres is an urgent necessity. I call upon the Government to stop talking and to do something about this matter now. The hon. member for Albany is to be congratulated for bringing this motion before the House and I hope that this Government will take cognizance of some of the suggestions made. I therefore support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) I just want to say that it is a tragic day when a man from Pietermaritzburg states here that his voters in Pietermaritzburg and people in Durban are totally dependent upon the Indian farmers. Imagine a man’ ‘telling us in this House that’ the Natal Whites cannot produce their own food and that they are dependent upon the Indians. It is a tragic day. Because that is so he is now asking that we establish an agricultural college for the Indians without delay because the white people cannot produce their own food. The Indians must do it. His voters will not want to see him again if he raises that kind of argument. In regard to this general motion that hon. member also devoted all his time to one paragraph, the paragraph dealing with non-white training. He has stated that the Government is prohibiting private bodies and organized farmers from training Bantu. Is he not aware that the Shearing Service Co-operative, which is responsible for the shearing of millions of sheep in South Africa with migratory labour, train and organize their shearers? Did the Government prohibit that? He is a stranger in Jerusalem.

I want to refer very briefly to the hon. member for East London (North). It is perhaps understandable—and I do not take it amiss of him for doing so—that he should plead on behalf of local interests in this motion. That is a very good thing, but he must not, as a result of the fact that we have reduced the period of study at our agricultural colleges from three years to one year, complain in this motion that the farmers are saying that their sons must go and learn to work there. We cannot at a college where training is expensive waste time teaching a young man to clean a pigsty or milk cows. His father should teach him that at home. Love for work must be inculcated at an early age. We assume that the farmers have in fact done their duty and inculcated a love for work. Those young men then follow a short one-year course in order to gain the scientific and technical knowledge, and not to learn how to work. That they should have learnt at home.

I shall return later to a few matters which the hon. member mentioned. First I want to congratulate the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Pretoria (District) on the way in which they introduced that amendment and stated their case.

In regard to the motion itself I want to say at once that I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Albany in regard to this motion; not at all, because he made certain statements with which I must agree, for example when he stated: “There is an acute shortage of personnel.” We do not deny that, because there is a shortage of scientists not only in South Africa but throughout the world. The fact that he says 87 per cent of the farmers have not yet attended a short course is not a complaint to the effect that there are too few agricultural schools or too few facilities, it is a complaint against the farmer to the effect that he does not go and obtain the information where it is available. Those short courses are being given and they are not over-attended. The farmers can come and acquire the information. The farmer going in for intensive farming goes to acquire the information at the research station and the experimental station and the colleges. But it is a good thing that the hon. member mentioned it because it only means that the farmers will have to take cognizance of it.

It is also a good thing that the hon. member acknowledged that there has been a phenomenal increase in our production. I have a Sapa report of 4th January, which states that the increase in agricultural production in South Africa is amongst the most rapid in the entire world, and that report then goes on to mention a few leading countries. South Africa is first, then Canada, then Russia, then Japan, then East and West Europe, and then Australia and New Zealand. [Interjection.] I am talking about gross agricultural production now. Progress in South Africa has been the greatest in the world.

But let us analyse this further. It is a good thing that we do so. Hon. members also received the Economic Development Programme. Let us just glance briefly at the gross income in South Africa. If we glance at the contribution of agriculture alone, then we will find that in the year 1960 it was R589 million, and that it increased in 1965 to R686 million. I just want to mention these figures because they are sometimes used incorrectly. The increase in agriculture was enormous. As a percentage, as against the total income, it decreased from 12.3 per cent to 9.6 per cent because the other went ahead so rapidly. I am just mentioning this in order that the figure might be rectified. We can also consider it in another way. There is the domestic consumer’s pattern. When considering the motion of the hon. member we must take cognizance of that. It asks for increased production.

The consumer’s pattern in South Africa in regard to the various agricultural products and processed foodstuffs, etc., was R658 million in 1965, and in 1971 we expect the consumer’s pattern to be R883 million. In other words, if we consider only the consumer’s pattern and the need to supply South Africa with foodstuffs, only up to 1971, it is a good thing that we also have to consider the demand which there is going to be in regard to supplying our nation with foodstuffs, and we shall have to increase our productivity. I do not want to tire the House with these figures any further.

There is just one aspect in regard to the preamble to the motion. The hon. member himself admits that there has been a tremendous increase in the productivity and he is asking that we take steps to keep the production costs as low as possible. It is necessary that we place it on record that if one looks at the producer’s prices in comparison with the production costs in recent years one should bear in mind two figures which I also want to mention. Our producer’s price index was 95 in 1948 as compared with the 100 between 1948 and 1950, and the index for agricultural requirements was. 93.2. In. 1966 the index for agricultural “products was 168.9, and that of agricultural requirements, i.e. the production costs, i.e. was 165.7. In other words, they remained practically constant.

I want to return to productivity. It is a good thing for us to consider it and take cognizance of how it was increased. I am just going to mention three or four figures in this regard. I want to mention mealies as one of the chief products. We find that in 1965-’66 the total gross value of our agricultural products was 49.2 per cent. Wool is the next highest. In stock-breeding wool is the most important. In 1965-’66 it was 21.6 per cent of the gross value of all stock-breeding products. I now want to indicate what the increased productivity was.

Let us take our cattle. Between 1949 and 1950 the number of calves increased by 48 per cent as against a 9 per cent increase in the number of cattle. In other words, so many more cattle were slaughtered, but there was also so much more productivity, which is indicated by the birth figures of the cattle, as a result of sound technical guidance. During this period the number of calves per 100 female animals increased by 29 per cent, or almost 2.5 per cent per year. That shows immediately that it was improved farming methods which caused the figure to rise. The weight production per beast has increased by 16 per cent between 1958 and the present day, and that happened in a period in which we have come to slaughter animals at an earlier age and in which we have also had a faster turn-over. That indicates that things were in order as far as feeding was concerned. If one were to glance at the physical volume of agricultural production one would find that between the years 1947 to 1950 and 1950 to 1964 it increased by between 65 per cent and 70 per cent. That is a fine increase in the physical volume, and perhaps later on this afternoon I shall mention the amount of land which has been brought under cultivation during this period. That indicates increasingly greater productivity as a result of services.

I have said that I would mention mealies. In 1948 our mealie production was 7.6 bags per morgen for the entire Republic, and in 1961 it was as much as 11.3 bags. Take wool. In 1948 it was 7.3 lbs. per sheep; in 1959 it was as much as 8.1 lbs. and it is now considerably higher. Again greater productivity has been displayed. I do not want to bore hon. members with wheat, etc.

I have said that I found no fault with the motion of the hon. member for Albany. It is just a pity that party and the hon. member did not think about these things a long time ago. He is too late. The United Party should have had him in 1947, perhaps they would not then have lost the election in the rural areas. Do hon. members not know that we have appointed the De Villiers Commission and that its finding was that the agricultural colleges and schools which were 50 years old boasted of a fine record, that two of them had beep: closed during the war, and that it ‘ then found as a result that—

That was the finding of the De Villiers Commission which had been appointed by this Government because the United Party government had neglected the agricultural colleges in order, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) has said, to fight a war to strengthen the Russian colossus. The United Party must even at that time have known that one of the greatest American economists had stated that: “The growth in agricultural production is only to a small extent the result of the application of traditional product factors of soil, labour and capital.” He states further (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, this Government has taken cognizance of those facts, and that is why I say that this motion, although it was a good one, came too late. Let us consider the shortage of manpower. In most European countries as well as in North America we also find this shortage, particularly in the field of science because that entails the most difficult and protracted course of studies.

But we would have no shortage of manpower in South Africa if we would only utilize our full manpower.

Is that hon. member not aware that we have a shortage of manpower in all spheres in South Africa?

A shortage of trained manpower, yes.

Is the hon. member not aware that South Africa differs from the rest of the world in this respect? In any other country where there is a homogeneous population, a certain percentage of those people are responsible for education, a certain percentage are the scientists and a certain percentage are the administrators, but in South Africa one has to take that percentage for the entire population from only 25 per cent of the population in order to supply those services, and in spite of that fact South Africa is in the forefront of the countries of the world as far as productivity is concerned. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District’s) time in this House is short. One finds this competitive demand for trained staff in all the industries and not only in agriculture. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services encourages young people to further their studies in the agricultural sciences and in spite of the competition which exists we have achieved outstanding results thanks to the contributions of the control boards, etc. I am not going to enumerate the figures in regard to post-graduate study, etc.; it has already been done by the hon. member for Waterberg. Just consider what we have done in regard to agriculture. I have already referred to our productivity and I am not going to tell you what has been done in regard to research. The result of this research are available to all farmers. Mr. Speaker, in the second part of his motion the hon. member for Albany referred to the relations between the State and the universities, and when he was dealing with that part of his motion he dragged in the Möunig Report. He said that Dr. Möunig had gone overseas and that upon his return he had pointed out that research could not be proceeded with as had been the case previously because there was divided control and because with this divided control the research worker could not do justice to his research and his training. But is the hon. member not aware of the fact that after Dr. Möunig had been overseas a number of these countries returned to our system? I shall furnish the hon. members with the reason for their having done so. If one has a shortage of scientists one cannot afford to allow a person to continue with research for purely academic gratification, research which was not specifically aimed at the problems with which one has to deal. In South Africa one finds a Department of Agricultural Technical Services which, with its staff, is engaged in research at the universities. That state of affairs must remain for these reasons: One can easily obtain the results of the normal academic research which is being carried out in the rest of the world, but South Africa is a developing country with certain agricultural problems which demand top priority research and if agriculture is deprived of that research and it is left in the hands of the academic people alone they undertake that research simply to obtain a degree or write a thesis even though the subject of the thesis has nothing to do with the real problem, and that is why it is necessary that the existing association should remain. However, it is not the only reason. Let us look at the historical background to this question. The agricultural faculties of Stellenbosch and Pretoria have already requested that agricultural technical services should make its staff and financing available. Stellenbosch made this request as far back as 1926 and Pretoria in 1940, and this link has been in existence from those dates. The university have found that this arrangement works so felicitously that both the Free State and Natal have also subsequently requested that the same facilities be made available to them. Research faculties at those universities have been made possible with financial support from this Department, and now the hon. member wants to separate them; he now wants us to wean our staff, which made faculties at these universities possible, away from agriculture and give them to the universities. What is then going to become of productivity in our agriculture? No, let me state this very clearly: All four universities support this arrangement, and we have subsequently received repeated requests, including requests from the hon. member for Albany’s own area, from Grahamstown and Rhodes, for Agricultural Technical Services to make staff available for agricultural faculties including research. We find that it is not necessary at the moment, but Agricultural Technical Services is convinced that these agricultural faculties, if they are put to the fullest use, will meet all these requirements, and I shall tell the hon. members the reason for that in a moment. The progress being made in the training of students in the agricultural sciences is at the moment very satisfactory as a result of this liaison between the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the universities under which the agricultural and veterinary faculties fall, and it has been possible, by this means to give very generous support to the training of students in the agricultural sciences in respect of staff, accommodation, facilities, equipment and financial support.

What countries returned to our system?

Two states in America; America is one of the countries. It can be put on record that this support was more generous than the support which any of those universities could have supplied from their own funds.

The hon. member spoke about assistants. The provision of lecturers and their assistants is particularly generous in agriculture in proportion to lecturers in the other faculties. Even compared with similar faculties overseas the ratio between our professors in the agricultural faculties—professors who are also attached to the Department and who have to undertake research—and professors in the other faculties is much more favourable than it is in other countries. At the moment there are 186 lecturers in the faculties of agriculture. Let us glance at the following figures. During 1966 there were 1,042 graduate and post-graduate students in the four faculties of agriculture. This figure has remained practically constant in recent years. Almost 42 per cent of those students were engaged in post-graduate studies, which emphasizes a high degree of training. This is what we are seeking to achieve in agriculture and we also make use of them. In addition to that there are 45 students in the faculty of agricultural engineering. In the faculties of agriculture 462 degrees were conferred in 1965, of which 222 were B.Sc. degrees. If one were to consider the various universities one would find that there were 39 second-year students, 15 third-year students, 21 fourth-year students, 20 B.Sc. honours students, 15 M.Sc. students and 10 D.Sc. students at the University of the Orange Free State in 1966. At the University of Stellenbosch there were 72 second-year students, 49 third-year students, 67 fourth-year students, 26 B.Sc. honours students, 43 M.Sc. students and 21 D.Sc. students. In Natal we find the same pattern. The figures in respect of the University of Pretoria are 64, 45, 63, 32, respectively, with 136 M.Sc. students and 48 D.Sc. degree students, all of which have been conferred over the same period. As far as university training is concerned, I merely want to tell hon. members who have asked for additional facilities that there is room for considerably more students in the existing facilities. The number of students at the University of the Orange Free State can be increased at least fourfold without any further capital expenditure being incurred.

I did not ask for new facilities in that connection.

You asked whether the agricultural colleges could not be expanded further.

What I actually want is further training in the economic field.

In 1966 we established a B.Agric. degree course, lasting three years, in the faculty of agriculture at the University of the Orange Free State. For that degree the students take general and agricultural economics who can qualify as farmers or as teachers. At the same time we have a four-year course for the degree B.Sc.Agric. In other words, training in agricultural economics is already being supplied.

I know.

The hon. member says that he is aware of those courses. Well, if he knows that they are being offered then surely he must not ask for them? What he must say then is, “Thank you, Sir, for having made it available”, not so, Mr. Speaker?

They take other subjects as well, and what I asked for are courses in economics.

We are quite satisfied as far as this aspect is concerned. The hon. member also pleaded for the establishment of at least one other agricultural college. Well, I just want to repeat what I said previously, at Grahamstown. The establishment of an agricultural college at Roodeplaat has already been approved in principle. As soon as a further agricultural college becomes necessary the Eastern Cape can be reconsidered. As far as the other aspect which has now been touched upon here is concerned, I want to say the following. The hon. member has complained that our farmers cannot receive enough training because of the shortage of staff. In South Africa we have 85 research and experimental stations. I would like to analyse this figure because the hon. member has asked for details particularly in respect of his area, i.e. the Eastern Province, and his request was repeated by the hon. member for East London (City).

One must be established at Somerset East.

Do you want it at Somerset East? Let us consider what is being done on the experimental stations. At Addo near Port Elizabeth experimental work in regard to citrus is being done. Then there is Döhne where stockbreeding as well as crop and pasture studies are carried out. At Bathurst stockbreeding and crop and pasture studies are carried out. At East London we also have the pineapple and horticultural research station. These research and experimental stations do in fact exist. In other words, Sir, if the farmer is in earnest and honestly wants this instruction, if he wants solutions to his problems, then there are these experimental stations which can be of service to him. For that purpose 85 research stations have been created throughout the country so that instruction for the farmer is readily available. He need only go there and the necessary advice will be furnished to him. There is no excuse for a farmer who does not obtain the necessary instruction. There is no excuse for farmers who do not make use of these services. The doors are always open for them.

Should the farmer not attend agricultural colleges first?

No, it is not necessary for him to attend an agricultural college.

Are you saying it not advisable?

No, no. I have never said it is not advisable.

Do you say it is not necessary?

It is not necessary to attend agricultural college to learn to work: When I went to an agricultural. college I could already shear a sheep, clean a barn and milk a cow—those things I did not have to go and learn there. It is not necessary to attend agricultural college for that. But we want as many people as possible to attend the agricultural colleges, and that is why the Government has introduced a one-year course so that, with the same facilities, twice as many students can be trained as was previously the case. That is why the Government has already decided in principle that another agricultural college will be established at Roodeplaat. That is why the Government, when it becomes necessary and such a need arises, will also bear these problems in mind. We will not neglect them. However, I also want to say that they are not being neglected at the moment. That region is properly served as far as agricultural training is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that I had no fault to find with the hon. member’s motion. Something which I do want to find fault with, however, is that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) saw only one thing in this motion, i.e. colour policy. All he spoke about as far as this motion was concerned was the establishment of Bantu universities, colleges, and training centres. When agricultural matters are discussed why cannot we come forward with positive ideas and deal with things realistically, as the hon. member for Albany did in his speech? If we adopt a realistic approach in these matters it can only be to the advantage of agriculture. Why must we drag in politics, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) did?

Who are the labourers in agriculture?

If they are the labourers, is there no opportunity for them to train themselves? Who train the Bantu working in factories? Who train the Bantu working on the mines? Is it the Government, or is it those bodies themselves who do so? Who train Bantu to shear sheep in this organized shearing service co-operative? That hon. member ought to know? Is it the Government, or is the organized farmers who do so? There is every facility for Bantu to receive training if they want to do so. Bantu education will take place in the Bantu areas and not in the white areas. It is not the task of the Government to do so in the white areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I must say that much of what he has told us this afternoon is incorporated in many of the reports we receive from the Agricultural Departments. We have read those reports, and we are fully aware of t the progress that is being made in the field of agriculture in this country. I would be surprised if that progress was not made. But we on this side of the House are concerned that progress is not what it could have been, and I think it is for this reason that the hon. member for Albany has moved this particular motion. As we all know, it deals mainly with education, and I believe that it is in this field that we have to make more progress, and that way to increase productivity of the agricultural sector.

We so often get the impression, when we listen to hon. members on the other side of the House, that all is well, that there is little room for improvement, and that we of the Opposition really have a cheek to come with criticism. But we only have to look at the statistical year book for 1966 to find the following—

It then goes on to enumerate these problems.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, motion and amendment lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.

I move—

1. (a)that the desirability of withdrawing such land is thoroughly investigated; and
2. (b)that the withdrawal of such land is properly planned in consultation with all the bodies concerned.

In moving this motion, I ask myself the question: “For how long will South Africa itself be able to supply its growing population with food?” If it cannot do so, the question arises whether it can import the necessary food from ahead. This happens to be one of the world’s two major problems, and consequently it also affects us to-day.

The first problem is water. As regards this matter, it may be said that water can be desalinated, although at a very high cost, and can be taken to the residential areas. The food question, however, has become much more serious throughout the world. Although I do not want to elaborate a great deal on this matter, I just want to read a few quotations in order to illustrate the situation which is developing in the world at present. From the American News Digest I quote the following: “World losing food supply race, U.S. officials warned.” In addition it states that over the past six years between 60 and 80 per cent of the countries in the world have gradually been losing this race. During the past six years, the Digest states, the world has consumed more food than it has produced. The result is that the U.S.A, is returning something like two-thirds to three-quarters of its soil bank to production so as to be able to supply the world with the necessary food. As regards food, Europe, Africa and Asia have in fact become net import countries. The only countries which still export food at present, are the two Americas and Australia. To a certain extent France, too, is able to export food. Therefore the position in all countries, as far as food in the future is concerned, is very serious. Therefore it may safely be assumed that when South Africa may no longer be able to produce sufficient food, it will not be able to rely on countries abroad to supply it with food. The approach in South Africa has always been that we have large expanses of land. We have 142.6 million morgen of land. For that reason various bodies and persons gave very little attention to the withdrawal of land in the past. Nobody can manage without land, without the soil. Everything man uses has its origin in the soil. I doubt whether hon. members will be able to think of anything man uses, except the air he breathes, which does not come from the soil. For that reason it is not for nothing that millions of rand have been spent on soil conservation during the past number of years. However, I am afraid that we have neglected one of the most important aspects of soil conservation. At present it is possible for anybody, from a department to a private person, to buy land and to do with it whatever they pleased without let or hindrance. Therefore it is essential to pay attention to this state of affairs now. Perhaps it is our own fault that a warning has not been issued before against this constant withdrawal of agricultural land from the production areas by various bodies and persons.

Land has three principal uses. The first is the occupation of the land. The second is the exploitation of the soil, in other words, the mines and industries. That takes up land. The third use of land is for agricultural purposes. These three heads can be subdivided into concrete factors which take up areas of land. Let us, first of all, consider the question of occupation. One does not merely think of the land which the building of a house occupies, but also of the clay, iron and timber which have been taken from the soil. If this was merely a question of one or two houses, it would not have been such a serious matter, but when thousands and hundreds of thousands of houses are built a large area of land is occupied which, in most cases, is fertile land. So much then as regards occupation.

As regards the second use of land—for industries, mines and even offices—the same things hold good. Although mining operations are carried on deep under the surface of the earth and leave a large hole, a large area of the surface soil is exposed to pollution. This is the second factor which take up land.

With regard to these first two uses of land, we have an enormous task. This is where the greatest measure of misuse is being made of land. I do not want to blame any department or body or person. They have merely carried out instructions. In order to provide in the needs of these many thousands of people, means of transport, such as roads and railways, must be made available.

Although our figures are somewhat old at this stage—they were obtained during the last census—I want to mention the following things to hon. members. For urban housing 24 million morgen of land have already been withdrawn from the agricultural sector. I shall come to the final figures in a moment. What is much worse, however, is the withdrawal of such land for roads and railways, something which amounts to 12.4 million morgen of land. These figures were obtained in 1959-’60. In order to provide land for transport services, a tremendous quantity of land has therefore been withdrawn. In accordance with the latest decisions of provincial administrations, even more land will be withdrawn. It has been decided that national roads will be widened to 208 feet, leaving an island of 44 feet between double roads. I do not want to judge whether it is necessary to do so. I accept the decisions of the bodies concerned with this matter. Whereas Transvaal public roads are 120 feet wide, those in the Free State are 100 feet wide, which is also the width taken up by railways. Now one may ask oneself: “Are 120 feet and 208 feet, with an island of 44 feet, really necessary?” So much as far as roads are concerned. Hon. members will realize that it is absolutely essential to withdraw land for residential purposes. It is also essential, however, to provide places where people may relax. I do not have at my disposal all figures relating to the withdrawal of land for that purpose. But, Mr. Speaker, I can say that virtually four million morgen of land have been withdrawn for nature reserves at this stage. I accept that one of the reasons why that has been done is to create holiday resorts for the population. These reserves include national and provincial parks only. But other bodies and persons are also taking a hand in these matters. Practically every town is creating its own nature reserve. Now, it may be asked whether the withdrawal of land by these bodies and persons should be controlled and whether this is something which is essential. On the other hand, however, it is necessary for the population to have holiday resorts.

Mr. Speaker, small holdings, measuring from 2 to 5 morgen in extent, surround our towns which amount to more than 2 million morgen of land which have already been withdrawn. I ask the question whether houses are going to be erected on them. I want to come back to the question of roads. It is not merely a question of the quantity of land which is withdrawn for roads, but roads are also constructed from raw materials. Do you realize that the roads constructed at present take up a tremendous quantity of surface soil? But what makes the position so serious in South Africa, is the fact that of South Africa’s 142 million morgen of land only between 15 and 16 million morgen of land is land which is suitable for crop-farming. It is this land in particular which is being withdrawn. I do not want to involve Bantu Administration in this matter, but in Johannesburg some of the most fertile land for crop-farming has been used for Bantu locations.

As far as this is concerned, I think that all our farmers, including myself, are guilty. When we want to build a house we look for a soft piece of land and we build our house on that. We must realize that if we continue in this way every piece of soft agricultural land which we withdraw will reduce the 15 or 16 million morgen of land which is suitable for crop-farming and which we have at our disposal for producing food. The same applies to the Railways. The approach of the Department of Transport is chiefly this. They want to look after the travelling public. They also want to save as many working hours as possible. As regards roads, the shortest possible distance between two points is always chosen. Here the question is not one of compensating the farmer but one of taking land which is suitable for crop-farming as against other land which is less useful. A farm is cut into two pieces and sometimes the road is only shortened by a few yards. Calculations are made of the number of man-hours and miles and years which will be saved. However, calculations are never made of what the country is being deprived of, also as regards the future. In making his measurements for roads or railways the official never has the idea in the back of his mind that he may save South Africa some land. It is never borne in mind that South Africa is not as large as we think, that South Africa has a limited quantity of land for crop-farming and that one-third of the country has a low rainfall of between 2” and 10” per annum. In those areas crop-farming cannot be carried on. For two-thirds to a three-quarter of the time during the past 60 years that area received 20 per cent less than its normal rainfall and it was declared a drought-stricken area. If we take stock of South Africa’s position, then we realize that in addition to the millions of rands which have already been spent on soil conservation, we may do a great deal more as regards the conservation of the soil by restricting its withdrawal.

I do not hesitate for a single moment in saying that civilized man destroys the soil to much greater extent than nature with all its floods and dust storms. The Year Book of 1966 furnishes the difference in figures as from 1959. On the basis of those figures one can only come to the conclusion that the withdrawal of land for other purposes has increased tremendously since 1966 and is still increasing. According to the Year Book the population increased from 12,671,000 in 1951 to 15,994,000 in 1960, which constitutes an average growth in the population of just under half a million per annum.

What was the withdrawal of agricultural land during that period according to the Year Book? In 1956 it was 108,883,000 morgen of land. It takes a steady course, but in 1960 the withdrawal of land was less. At that time there was a balance of 107 million morgen of agricultural land. That constituted a withdrawal of approximately 2 million morgen of land. According to the latest figures we have—those for 1960 to 1963 which are given in the latest Year Book—the 107 million morgen of land decreased to 104 million morgen of land. There was a withdrawal of 3 million morgen of land, or 1 million morgen of land per annum. Do you realize how reckless this withdrawal is as regards the interests of the population and as regards the land, in that one has had a withdrawal of approximately one million morgen of land per annum during these three years, whereas the increase in the population was less than half a million? In other words, land utilized for purposes other than agricultural purposes, amounts to approximately 2 morgen of land per person or per capita. This being the case, for how long will South Africa be able to feed its population? And this withdrawal takes place in the high-rainfall areas, in the higher production areas. We can spend money on soil conservation and soil erosion until we are blue in the face, but if we allow this withdrawal at this rate for how long will South Africa be able to feed its population? According to scientific information and surveys it is predicted that according to South Africa’s water supplies, South Africa will be able to support 70 million people, but by the year 2000, according to the increase in the world population—the increase in the world population is 3 per cent and ours is also calculated at 3 per cent—if South Africa maintains that increase in population, we shall have a population of between 30 and 40 million people. If we have 35 million people, at 2 morgen of land per person for residential and mining purposes and for roads and railways, we shall have too little land. We must have it but if we withdraw land at 2 morgen per person we would have withdrawn 70 million morgen and no one is going to tell me that we cannot be more economical in this sphere. We cannot proceed in this hopeless way. One must have land for roads and railways; that is essential, but I am convinced that one does not need 2 morgen per person. I think one can make do with much less. At present, however, there is absolutely no control over purchases of land. One asks oneself whether the time has not arrived for steps to be taken. Where we are spending millions of rands on soil conservation, I ask myself whether the time has not arrived for steps to be taken by the authorities and for the necessary machinery to be created to ensure that the withdrawal of every morgen of land in South Africa will be properly planned so as to ensure its proper utilization. We are living in a scientific and planned world. We who have experience of the past and who hold our ancestors in high esteem know that we are faced with this problem because there has not been sufficient planning. Now we are saddled with this problem. We shall have no excuse, however, if our future generations are going to be faced with problems and will experience a famine in South Africa, if we continue to deal with our land in such a reckless way. Then future generations will say that we have not planned. I do not think that there is anybody who does not regard this matter in a serious light and I assume that I shall have the support of the Opposition as far as this matter is concerned. I have deliberately not tried to get a body or a commission appointed; I think sufficient Government machinery has been created. I merely wanted to bring it to the attention of the Government that essential steps must be taken. We must not only spend money on combatting soil erosion, but the withdrawal of land is a much more serious matter because that takes away more land than anything else and must be properly planned and many bodies and persons must be restricted. I do not think these things were done deliberately in the past. I do not want to make any accusations but attention has never been drawn to this matter. For that reason I think it is necessary that the authorities draw the attention of the guilty parties, municipalities and provincial councils and others, to the fact that withdrawals of land in South Africa cannot take place injudiciously and in an unplanned fashion. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for discussing what is to my mind an extremely serious matter.

This is a good motion and I want to congratulate the hon. member for Christiana, not on his speech but on the very sincere way in which he presented his case. I am convinced that this House was impressed by the sincere way in which he presented his case.

There is one thing wrong with this motion. The hon. the Deputy Minister recently said that there was one thing wrong with a previous motion: It was too late. I say this motion, too, is just too late. This motion recognizes the grave nature of the deficiency and asks the Government to take steps for investigation and proper planning in the interests of agriculture.

This motion differs widely from the usual motions one gets from the other side. This is not the usual motion of thanks to the Government. I want to tell the hon. member that we do not intend moving an amendment, because we too do not intend thanking the Government for what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a long speech. The hon. member presented his case very well. Proper planning is absolutely essential. The hon. member for Christiana told us how much land is available for agriculture— 15/16 million morgen—and that we are reducing that continually by building more roads and railways, by erecting buildings, establishing towns and by mining, etc. But we are also reducing it in another way, and that is through neglect. The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us repeatedly that 400 million tons of our soil is washed away to the sea every year, and that means that about 250,000 morgen are lost completely to agriculture every year. The grave position which has already been created is aggravated constantly. We have less and less agricultural land and our population increases more and more. We must therefore do something now to see to it that such neglect and misuse of our land is stopped. As I have said, our population is increasing more and more. We shall perhaps succeed in getting water from the sea, as the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs said on Tuesday, but we shall not succeed in making more land, and our agricultural land is becoming less and less. We must put a stop to the waste of good agricultural land and do everything in our ability to retain as much agricultural land as possible for the purpose of agriculture.

The hon. member for Christiana also referred to railways and roads. He is quite right. They are relayed unnecessarily and some of our best agricultural land is lost in the process. Of course industrial development is necessary in the cities, but industries should be planned in such a way that the best agricultural land is not used for the purpose. Factories that process agricultural produce should be established as close as possible to the region where such products are produced, in order to save costs. Here I have a brochure of the Natal Tanning Extract Company, in which the following appears—

The point I want to make is that the situation of the factory was not properly planned; those factors should have been taken into consideration in the first place. In addition one should also take into account that the profit margin on agricultural produce is rather meagre. Factories should therefore be established as close as possible to the production regions.

What you are actually advocating is border industries.

Yes, why not?

I said I did not want to make a long speech. I just want to say that there is no proper planning at present and that we should see to it that the best use is made of our agricultural land.

First of all I want to congratulate the hon. member for Christiana on his motion. It is one of the best, most positive motions ever introduced in this House, a motion with beautiful, constructive ideas. The hon. member presented his case most ably. From the way he presented his motion one could see that this is a matter of sincere concern to him and that he regards not only agriculture but also the conservation of the soil with the necessary love and devotion. The hon. member for Gardens said that it was not a motion of thanks to the Government and that the Opposition would not oppose the motion. He also said the motion had come too late. I shall agree with him that it may be too late, but the fact of the matter is that we are here dealing with a person, namely the hon. member for Christiana, who thinks profoundly about the soil and who is concerned about the conservation and best possible utilization of the soil in South Africa. We should take cognizance of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has established a new department for us, namely a Department of Planning. Planning as far as this aspect is concerned is one of the functions of that Department, because the Board for the Development of Natural Resources will fall under that Department. The Department of Planning, in cooperation with the Board for the Development of Natural Resources, may possibly set aside certain lands; it may stop sub-division and plan the siting of industries.

This motion relates to the soil. On Tuesday we had a motion relating to water. Water and soil are linked inseparably. The soil provides life, as the hon. member for Christiana expressed it so eloquently. The soil is a living organism which should be cherished and fostered; which provides life to man and animal and to civilization, and it is therefore correct that we should make the best use of it. The hon. member for Christiana has already pointed out that the soil is used for dwellings, for places to work and for the production of food, which is perhaps the most important, for although one may go and live on the sea or stack one house on top of another, one can produce food only from the soil. The soil provides us with everything we have to work with; it gives us things like cotton, wood, steel, etc. One has a place to work only because one can extract something from the soil to process there. Mr. Speaker, we should see all these things against the background of the fact that there is a population explosion, a population which has to be fed, which must have a place to live, which must have a place to work, and facilities for recreation. I am not going to repeat the figures as far as South Africa is concerned; the hon. member for Christiana has done that. In 1960 the world population totalled 3,000 million. It is anticipated that in 1980 the world population will total 4,000, million and in the year 2000 it will total 6,000 million. We must bear in mind that every hundred million people require 13 million tons of grain and 14 million tons of animal products. In other words, by the year 2000—and that is in our generation—the percentage increase in grain production must be hundred per cent and in animal production three hundred per cent. That must be taken from this soil; that is the demand made of us. Let me read what Dr. Muller of America said—

How can we make that possible from this soil? The hon. member for Christiana spoke about the withdrawal of agricultural land. I should like to refer to what is happening in the rest of the world. By the year 1900, 122 million acres had been withdrawn for industrial purposes in the United States of America. By 1950 that had increased to 197 million acres, and they anticipate that by the year 2000, 266 million acres will have been withdrawn. This is a world trend. If we consider England and Wales, we find that from 1900 to 1963, 2½ million acres of land were withdrawn for industrial and other purposes. The position in the Netherlands is that it is anticipated that within one generation an area as large as the entire Zuyder Zee, which is drained land, will be withdrawn from agricultural production just to provide dwelling space, roads, railway lines, etc., because they need 7,500 acres a year.

Let us consider our soil in comparison with other countries and see what we can do. Here the arable soil which is already being tilled represents 8.4 morgen per capita in respect of all races. In the rest of the world it is less, namely 6.8 morgen per capita. In South Africa, however, only 1 morgen per capita is arable, whereas in the rest of the world it is 1.9 morgen per capita. But now we come to the disconcerting fact. We are already tilling .7 morgen per capita in South Africa, whereas the rest of the world is tilling only .4 morgen per capita. South Africa’s reserve is therefore much lower than that of the rest of the world, only reserve we have left for food production is .3 morgen per capita. The rest of the world, on the other hand, has 1.5 morgen per capita available for food production, which may be used for population increases that may take place. I quote these figures because I want to emphasize that we here in South Africa have to see our soil differently from the rest of the world. Many people, when talking about our soil, picture the map of South Africa and see the 142 million morgen, but they lose sight of the fact that vast tracts of land are completely uninhabitable because of mountain ranges, etc. They fail to realize that 50 per cent of our agricultural production is produced on less than 10 per cent of our soil. That 10 per cent cannot be expanded very far. We must therefore see the matter in the correct perspective. The hon. member for Christiana referred to the surface area of the soil that can be utilized. He gave a brief resumd of the rainfall figures. We must study that 29.4 per cent of our total land surface receives less than 10 inches of rain and therefore so to speak verges on desert conditions. Because this area verges on desert conditions it offers no opportunity for agriculture and development and the soil is left fallow while all available land in the high rainfall areas is tilled. 36.2 per cent of our land gets only 10 to 20 inches of rain. In addition the rainfall fluctuates. These are the marginal areas, areas which are not densely populated either. 25.8 per cent gets from 20 to 30 inches. Only now we are coming to the agricultural area. 7.3 per cent gets more than 30 inches. Only 1 per cent gets 40 inches of rain. The fact of the matter is therefore that 65.5 per cent of our land is not actually agricultural land, because of the low rainfall figure. Then it must also be borne in mind that not the entire area with a high rainfall figure consists of good land. Mountain ranges occur in this area and these are worth absolutely nothing to agriculture.

But we must pursue our analysis of the picture even further. 123.6 million morgen get summer rains, 15.2 million winter rains, but only 4.8 million morgen get rain throughout the year. In other words, this also influences the use of such land.

I said I was not going to quote figures which are available. We must remember, however, that 85 per cent of our total land surface is unsuitable for tilling. It is good only for grazing. Only 15 per cent may perhaps be tilled if the Orange River scheme, the Pongola Poort scheme and other irrigation schemes are added. Of this 10 per cent, equalling 12 million morgen, is already being tilled. This includes tree plantations.

We must now consider how the soil is being utilized, because this will put the picture in the correct perspective, 105 million morgen feed 67 per cent of our cattle and 19.1 per cent of our sheep. We must also consider the agricultural figures. For maize alone we have 4,858,000 morgen of land available in South Africa. That includes a large part of the marginal land. For wheat there are 1,482,000 morgen of land. For oats, barley and rye there are slightly more than 1 million morgen of land. The rest of the land is used for other agricultural products. In other words, Sir, regard must be had to what can be produced on this land and how it will be done.

In this regard I want to refer to one aspect on which I also want to dwell for a moment. Concomitant with a larger production of food we are using more and more artificial fertilizer, and we are using mechanization to an increasing extent. I now want to deal with maize as an example. From 1953 to 1963 we increased our maize production from 27.7 million bags to 64 million bags, an increase of 131 per cent. The increase per morgen represented 78 per cent. The consumption of fertilizer increased by 170 per cent. It increased from 673,000 tons to 1,820,000 tons. The number of tractors increased by 78 per cent. But we must take close note of the following; and this is our problem. In order to obtain this increased maize production, the land surface utilized increased from 3.7 million morgen to 4.7 million morgen over this period. In other words, over a period of ten years the land used as far as agriculture is concerned increased by 28 per cent in order to obtain the higher maize production. If we see this picture against the background of the population explosion, it is a story in itself. In course of time a situation will be reached where no more additional land will be available, as the hon. the Minister said the other day. We cannot increase the land. Over a period of ten years we have utilized 28 per cent more land for agriculture, just to increase our maize production. Here the pattern is the same as that in respect of wheat.

In view of the fact that this is the pattern, we would do well to reconsider and to look at this motion of the hon. member with close attention. I want to congratulate the hon. member on his motion. I want to analyse the situation in the light of a picture I want to base on Cape Town, in order that we may see matters in their correct perspective. I went to look at the Cape Flats, There are 7,600 morgen of land from which people removed the sand in order to convert the soil into agricultural land. On those 7,600 morgen of land they dug wells. The water level lies only four feet deep. They installed sprinkler irrigation systems. It has cost the State nothing for a water scheme. It has not cost the State the building of a large dam. There is no evaporation because there is no surface water supply. Those people have harnessed the sponge under the sand which the good Lord provided for them. I think those 7,600 morgen are supporting about 85 families. But it is not so much a matter of the families which are supported there. What counts is rather who can be fed and what can be done with the soil.

Mr. Speaker, I made an analysis and I found that in the year 1966 the value of food produced on these 7,600 morgen and sold on the Cape market totalled R6,748,000. They are producing an average of 60 to 70 per cent of the total vegetable requirements of Cape Town, plus the ships passing through. I analysed the entire matter, and I do not want to give you all the figures; I shall merely refer to two years. In 1964 the total value of the food produced was R5½ million and in 1965 it was R6,390,000. I am not going to give these figures in tonnage, because there is no need for that. The fact remains that food is produced here. What is happening now? As a result of the fact that there was formerly no planning, a divisional council or some other concern came along and put a Coloured Township in among all those people, on top of that good soil. In view of its health regulations, etc., that soil is withdrawn from agriculture because the flies from the manure and the fertilization of the soil is supposed to be bad for the townships. Can we afford that, the hon. member asks. I am therefore grateful that we not only have a Department of Planning but that we also have a Minister of Planning who derives from the land and who loves the land.

I may tell the House to-day that consideration is already being given and enquiries undertaken with regard to the possibility of introducing legislation during this very session to make it possible for this Minister to carry out the necessary enquiries into certain land, in co-operation with his Board for the Development of Natural Resources. If it is found after that enquiry that land should be reserved for agriculture or something else, it will be done, and he will then take the legislative powers to do that in order to protect the soil in that regard. In other words, there is the Department of Planning, and side by side with it there is the Department of Agricultural Technical Services which may provide the necessary analysis and give the necessary guidance and request what is necessary in order to say: “You may not put houses on this land. You may not put factories on this land.” There is also the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and its Land Tenure Board which may be expanded with a view to keeping a proper register. Once the Minister of Planning has taken such legislative powers and reserved such land for agriculture, he hands it over to the Land Tenure Board. The Land Tenure Board is the body which has to see to it that land is not subdivided into uneconomic units in the future. The Land Tenure Board is the body which sees to it that the people who farm there, if possible, are financed correctly. I am grateful that the hon. member for Christiana put it so pertinently, because I also want to say that even before I knew about this motion I interviewed the administrators of the four Provinces and the Department of Transport with a view to taking proper care that in planning roads, in constructing roads and planning and constructing national roads, we shall see to it as far as possible that this land, which is so small for the purposes of agriculture, is not withdrawn from agriculture. As we are building large by-passing roads for the sake of safety in South Africa, we shall have to come to realize that with a view to feeding the population in future, we shall also have to build by-passing roads to avoid our agricultural land, because the safety of the human being does not relate only to the accidents taking place on the roads, but also to the ability to feed him. It is perhaps much more important, because one may still ensure the safety of people on the roads by imposing a speed limit of 70 miles per hour on the roads, but if one cannot feed them, no legislation can secure their safety. Therefore it is well that the hon. member introduced this motion. The provincial administrations and their engineers and the Department of Transport, after consultation with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, will go further into this matter, and through the proposed legislation, which will provide planning, and the work we shall do in co-operation with them, we shall perhaps be better able to meet this question—thanks to the constructive and positive way in which this Government considers all its problems with loving regard for the soil—than was the case in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the mover of the motion has been congratulated by my colleague, the hon. member for Gardens, and by the hon. Deputy Minister who has just sat down, in regard to the contents of his motion and the manner in which he presented his case. I do not think that it falls to me to say very much in that regard. I do not want to repeat what has been said regarding our approval of the motion and the manner in which it was presented by the hon. member. I want for a moment to come to a rather different aspect. I listened very carefully to what the Deputy Minister had to say and I noticed his approval for the setting up of a body which would have as its main function the planning of such areas as are contemplated in this motion with a view to protecting the agricultural land which may fall within those areas. We on this side of House have contemplated moving an amendment to the motion which in effect would have asked, without disturbing this motion, that the Government consider setting up a body for the purpose of planning. In other words, the establishment of a statutory body with powers to control the acquisition of land for the various purposes, land which otherwise is good agricultural land and should not be disturbed. We decided against that because we felt that it was sufficient that we make a case for the principle that as far as possible good agricultural soil should not be used for these other purposes. Therefore while what the hon. the Deputy Minister said was in line with the thinking of us on this side of the House, it was not in line with the reason which eventually prompted us to go on with the amendment to the motion. What prompted us was a belief that we in South Africa are entering upon a proliferation of planning committees. There are so many to-day. Frankly, I want to say that in my opinion a body is necessary and I shall return to this in a moment. You must have someone who is going to have the authority to say in regard to agricultural land, “No, you must not put a road there. No, you should not put the railways there. No, you should not establish a town or industry or something else there. That land must be preserved.” It follows quite naturally that if an essential road has to be built or a town or factory must be established, the people concerned must get together. It may be that the first objection to the taking of that land may have to be withdrawn or modified. We accept that. There is a certain amount of land, whether we like or not, where all our activities must take place, namely the Republic of South Africa. Where there is a conflict it would have to be resolved. Such a body as we have contemplated would have to negotiate with other people and it would have to be sure that it was not merely a plain obstinate body, refusing the acquisition of land when all the evidence was against it. The hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with the amount of land that has been taken in other countries. I read in a newspaper recently that in Great Britain an area twice the size of their smallest county, Rutlandshire, is covered with buildings every year. It is not a case of roads and railways, but of towns and urban development which is taking twice as much land as their smallest county every year, not every 10 years but every year. That is an old country with a tremendous population and great industrial potential still spreading, while the amount of land is for ever limited. It is not the same in Holland where they are increasing the area of their land. But I do not think that we can do what they are doing in Holland by reclaiming land from the sea.

What is the position in South Africa in regard to the question of planning? Quite frankly, the reason why I am participating in this debate this afternoon is that many years ago in Natal the Town and Regional Planning Commission was established by provincial ordinance. It was a body established by the Provincial Administration. The Town and Regional Planning Commission is the body which has prepared the now well-known Tugela Valley Development Scheme. The report dealing with that scheme is now recognised the world over for the exhaustive manner and the able and scientific way in which all the problems of the development in the Tugela Basin have been dealt with. It is now looked upon as a model. I remember a few vears ago going into the office of the head of the C.S.I.R. in Pretoria, Dr. Meiring Naude. On his desk was a book which he had been reading. I came in and he rose to greet me. I gave the book one glance, and when we sat down I said to him: “Dr. Naude, I see you are reading a copy of the Tugela Valley Report.” He said: “Yes, I am. I am reading it for the second time.” I said: “That is very interesting. I am very pleased to know that. Do you find it of interest? Do you find it of value?” He said: “Of its kind, I think it is one of the best I have ever read in my life ” That report came from the Town and Regional Planning Commission. It is quite objective. But when we come to this question of the planning of our land, it is because I do not want to see a proliferation of town and regional planning commissions because of the overlapping of planning and the possibility of a conflict between the requirements at various places, that I decided not to recommend any such bodies. We have a Minister of Planning, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said. The Minister of Planning has a certain organisation of which use can be made. Incidentally, I may say that he made use of our chief planner. He is a man whom I brought out from overseas as our provincial planner. He is the head planner for the Town and Regional Planning Commission. I think he has been with the Minister of Planning for the last two years now and we have had virtually no work out of him because the Minister of Planning has got him. He was seconded for a few weeks, but it has now run into some years.

He is doing a very good job.

Yes, he is doing a good job. He is doing it for South Africa. I have no complaint. I am not grousing about it. I should like to assure you of that. We have a Minister of Planning, and I think that somewhere or other within the ambit of the Government departments concerned, some organisation can be established, which must have authority. Here I agree with the Deputy Minister. That authority must come from Parliament because it must be on over-riding authority. It is no good having five or six people of equal authority and hoping that they are going to settle this kind of difficulty in practice by just discussing the matter with one another. We have the heads of departments at the present time.

I shall give you a classic example, Sir. We have the heads of departments to-day and we have the Ministers who can sit down and discuss things, and they can go a very long way. But you reach a stage—we have found this in our history repeatedly—when, in spite of the best will in the world between departments and between Ministers, a knotty point arises which cannot be unravelled. I said I would give you a case in point. The case in point is when we had national roads, falling under one Minister, being inundated by the water from a dam, falling under another Minister. Who pays who and what does he pay? Never mind the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who had his telephone and telegraph lines inundated. Virtually, Sir, they took too much water with it, not too little. Who settles that problem? They go on arguing about it for years and years. I know that these things cannot all be done together in advance. I am not throwing bricks at anybody. There comes a time when, to benefit South Africa, we build a dam in a place where ten or fifteen years ago we did not expect to build a dam. Then railway lines, telephone lines etc., are there. Now a dam must be built in that area. It is inevitable that sort of eventuality will arise, but there should be a body which can deal with these difficulties. In only one case have I been able to have these difficulties sorted out between department and department. That was when we had Mr. Paul Sauer, now in the Other Place, as a Minister in this House. I have the greatest respect for him and I am sure he will not mind my mentioning him in his absence. He was Minister of Forestry and also Minister of Lands. When I went to the Minister of Forestry and I found that he was at odds with the Minister of Lands, I used to say to Mr. Sauer: “Can you not sit down with the Minister of Forestry, Mr. Minister of Lands, and have a discussion with him and see whether you cannot come to an agreement with each other?” In that way agreement was sometimes reached between the two departments. We had the one Minister in the same pair of trousers sitting down to discuss the matter with himself. Sometimes he agreed with himself and we managed to get over the difficulties. That is not always possible. In regard to the Town and Regional Planning Commission we have in Natal and the work that it has done, from my own personal experience over the last sixteen or seventeen years, I can say that commission is on the right track because it takes into account the basic principles which include the soil itself and the fertility of the soil. That is basic. Even where urban development is concerned, I think we have to be careful. Like the other provinces we had a town planning board created by legislation. When an authority, private, provincial or Government, came along and there was a question of establishing a township, the private townships board examined the widths of the streets, the open places, gradients for the roads, where water was to come from, where the cemetery was to be sited, and all such matters. That took place, however, in respect of the establishment of a town in regard to which the principle had already been accepted that it was to be put there. The private townships boards in the four provinces do not consider whether that is a good place. They just decide, in respect of that town, what is required in regard to streets, public places and so forth. When the Town and Regional Planning Commission was established, they started off by saying: “Is this the right place for the town? Is this the correct place to have a town?” If they advised against it, the people who might have contemplated establishing a town there were told: “The Townships Board will not approve of your town because we are going to recommend to the Administrator that you should not be allowed to establish it there. You must look somewhere else. There is a better place. As far as we are concerned that is not a good place for certain reasons.” Sir, we have to realize that quite apart from the points set out so well in this motion dealing with the protection of our soil, there are other aspects associated with this matter as well.

There is the question of water supply and all sorts of services. The public ought not to be called upon to provide that kind of thing for people who choose to site themselves in most unsuitable localities. If the public is going to be called upon to provide services of all kinds, is should be planned in advance. I am thinking at the moment of the case of people for whom I have the greatest respect. I do not know who their representative is here. I want him to realize at once that I am not casting any criticism his way. There is a little place called Hotazel. I went there once and I agree that it is a very good name. I understand they are getting a railway. Mr. Speaker, they should never have been allowed to establish themselves there, good as it is—hot as it is. The public purse has to carry the cost of a railway and of a road there. B that the kind of development that we really need, until such time as we can take advantage of the facilities that are there, when a railway and a road will be justified? This development is created ad hoc way out somewhere or other. I admit to the Deputy Minister that if I were a member of the Nationalist Party representing the constituency in which the particular place happened to be, I would also press his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to give me a railway. [Interjection.] Well, I would feel hot under the collar if I did not get it. These are all things which should be determined in advance as far as possible. We will never be able to see the whole picture of development. It is beyond the wit of man to say: “I will tell you where development will take place in South Africa over the next ten years.” He can be the finest town planner or regional planner in the world, but he cannot do that. If we strike oil in any one place in the Republic, what will be the development there? You will immediately have a town, railways, roads, and endless other activities. One cannot foresee that kind of thing. But within the scope of what is possible, I say that this is a very good motion indeed. We will need authority which will be able to decide the issue when there is a conflict between departments which may be interested in development. Let us save our soil and make that one of the basic principles together with the conservation of water. If our soil and water are saved, we have something on which to build.

This proposed Bill of the Minister of Planning will grant those powers.

I am sorry the Deputy Minister has come back to that Bill, because I wanted to give the hon. member for Christiana the credit of having come here with a brain-child of his own in moving this motion, but now the Minister fills me with suspicion that the hon. member has been prompted to move his motion because he had a peep behind the scenes and knew what was coming. The Minister has let two cats out of the bag. That is not planning. But I give the hon. member for Christiana full marks, and I think the hon. member probably prompted the Government to come with this Bill. The position then is that we bless this motion. Because we do not know what is in the Bill, we cannot bless the Bill in advance. Heaven only knows what autocratic powers the Minister may take in the Bill. Perhaps we will have to oppose it tooth and nail, but on the principle of the protection of our soil and the need to have administrative machinery clothed with authority to deal with these matters, we bless the motion.

I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Christiana. The hon. member’s speech was after my own heart. Those are the sentiments of the farmer of South Africa who loves the land. I am convinced that he also spoke from his heart and that his motion bears no relation to the legislation which is still to come. It is a cause of concern to us how future generations will subsist in South Africa if the erosion of the agricultural land continues through expropriation for railways, roads, etc. We here in South Africa are inclined to live somewhat too extravagantly. In the past there has been a great deal of waste, even in our eating habits, and because we lived so extravagantly in all respects we also allowed wastage of our agricultural land. Nowadays, when we sometimes hear that there are great surpluses of maize in the country, the people get the idea that South Africa has a tremendous deal of agricultural land and that is the origin of surpluses. But we forget that we also have to import agricultural products, and that we are not producing enough wheat to feed the nation. If we consider how much land is taken away from agriculture every year, it is disquieting to think, in view of the fact that the world already has a virtual shortage of food, that we shall reach a stage where we will have to import more and more food and will not be able to get it. Only some years ago America had large surpluses which she distributed to countries that had a shortage of food. But recently we noticed that she has begun to curb such exports because her surpluses are disappearing. Last year I was in London and at a congress America pleaded strongly that other countries should also begin to help to feed the world because she no longer had those surpluses to share out. We here in South Africa find that in planning roads and railways, apart from the tremendous stretches of land occupied by them, considering that they plan so easily to take a road through a farmer’s fertile land, they could easily have retained that agricultural land by perhaps merely making a small curve in the road which would not have been dangerous. But we fear that the engineers who have to carry out the planning do not have much love and respect for agricultural land. Despite the farmer’s objections, they say that the road has to be straight, and not only do they build the road, but they also use a tremendous deal of topsoil to build it; nor do they care if the water flows into the ploughed fields; and then the farmer has to stop that fertile soil from being washed away. In that respect the Railways are as guilty as the people building the roads.

I feel that if a body is to be established, or if planning is to be undertaken and new roads built, the soil conservation committees should also be consulted in those areas where they are to be built, and those committees should then see to it that the minimum agricultural land is wasted and that the water left there will be left in places where it will not cause washaways.

There has been mention of smallholdings, and in the vicinity of all the large cities and towns we find smallholdings of five to fifteen morgen. I really do not see the necessity for those smallholdings. They are an evil. On each of those smallholdings a borehole has to be drilled and subterranean water has to be pumped out to provide that one family with water. I cannot understand why one family needs five morgen to live on, because the people living there do not produce to supply the country’s requirements. They are usually people who work in the cities and find it pleasant to live on five or ten morgen. This should be stopped altogether, because millions of morgen are lost in that way, and it is usually very good agricultural land. We then come to the game reserves. I know that we are all anxious to preserve nature and game, but we should ask ourselves whether we are not going too far in that direction. At present our national parks in South Africa cover 3,423,000 morgen of land; the provincial parks cover 285,000 morgen; a total of more than 3,700,000 morgen. Then we find that some of the large cities and towns also establish small game reserves outside the city or town to attract tourists. I do not believe that this is to the advantage of South Africa. Purchasing land for this purpose does enable the city or town concerned to brag about its game reserve, but they are not essential. We must be very stingy and thrifty in dealing with our agricultural land. We should teach our people not to waste the land. It will be of no avail spending large amounts on soil conservation if we allow agricultural land to be ruined and reduced in the ways I have mentioned here. In this regard I also want to refer to the injudicious establishment of villages. In the past many villages were established which are now occupying a considerable deal of land. Those villages were established in the days when people travelled by cart and horse. The inhabitants wanted a post office, a shop, a bottle-store, etc., near them, and for that reason the villages were established. Now that we have motor transport those villages are no longer necessary; the land occupied by such towns is lost to agriculture, because very little is produced there. The establishment of that kind of village should therefore be discouraged.

We then come to forestry. Forest cultivation is also being expanded to a large extent, and here we should also see to it that forests do not occupy good agricultural land. We should see to it that afforestation is undertaken only on land which cannot be ploughed. There are even regions which can be used as grazing and which are afforested. That should also be stopped because in future we shall need all that land for agriculture. Then there is also good agricultural land which is not ploughed because in terms of the wills of parents heirs have only grazing rights. For generation upon generation that land has been used as grazing only. That is also to the detriment of the land. That portion is not developed, the land is over-grazed by stock and the soil gets washed away as a result of over-grazing.

I hope the motion proposed here by the hon. member for Christiana has met with so much favour on the Dart of the Government that legislation will shortly be placed on the Statute Book in terms of which it will be possible to take steps to see to it that our agricultural land is preserved for our progeny.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have achieved my object in introducing this motion. I am very grateful to hon. members on both sides for the way in which they received this motion, and under the circumstances I want to ask the House for leave to withdraw my motion.

Motion withdrawn with leave of the House.