Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me for again drawing the attention of this House to the highly irresponsible speech which the hon. member for King William’s Town made here yesterday afternoon. I do not want to go into his entire speech but I want to refer to one aspect of his speech in particular, i.e. his remark, “A person who thinks that the Black man can govern this country is out of his mind”. Sir, apart from the fact that it is not in the least the intention of the National Party that the Black man is to govern this country—in fact, the very object of the policy of separate development of the National Party is to eliminate this possibility—surely the remark implies that the Black man is not capable of governing himself even in his own territory. This remark is, in the first place, disparaging and hurtful and most certainly does not promote sound race relations. The statement is highly irresponsible coming from a member of this House and is aimed at disturbing racial harmony in this country.

A second point he made was that the Black man did not want political rights but indeed human rights. Apart from the fact that this statement is completely incorrect, it will be interesting to learn precisely what this member means by “human rights” and how he differentiates between human rights and political rights. To my mind the concept of human rights includes the concept of political rights. What are “human rights”, Sir? Now the hon. member must be honest and tell us at some stage what he sees under the concept of “human rights”. Is it equality for the Black man in the White area?

It is the possibility for him to enjoy a family life.

Is it the lifting of all colour bars; is it full political authority? Sir, hon. members of the Opposition has a habit of playing with words, and it is time they clearly defined specific words so as to leave us in no doubt what they mean when they use those words.

If at any stage any doubt existed about the differences between the National Party and the United Party, not only in respect of our race relations policy but also in respect of our approach to the Black man, I think this debate has removed all doubt. This debate has highlighted not only the differences in policy but has also subjected to close scrutiny and clearly defined the differences in approach and thinking in respect of our relations problem, particularly in so far as the Black man is concerned. In respect of Bantu policy the U.P. finds itself on the horns of a very serious dilemma, a dilemma from which it cannot disentangle itself unless it radically and drastically changes its basic thinking in respect of the Black man. In the first place the dilemma of the U.P. is that it has entangled itself in a kind of near-colonistic outlook in respect of the Black man. What its view, as it crystallises in its race federation policy of “one country, one loyalty, one nation” and as it has been very clearly stated in this debate, amounts to is that the Black man always is an inferior, raceless, cultureless being who will just meekly accept that the White man will be his leader for all times and is in fact his master. The United Party accepts that the Black man will accept this for all times. The United Party, the Official Opposition in this House, sees the Black man as the labourer who has to maintain our economy and, as became very evident from the no-confidence debate, as a kind of inflation suppressor. This is the only function, according to the United Party, which the Black man has in this country. The lessons and the realities of Africa since the end of the last World War have passed the United Party by altogether. They have not yet heard the Black man’s cry of Uhuru. The United Party still believes that when it assumes the reins of government the Black man will be satisfied to accept without another word the White man’s self-appointed White leadership as a less important, yes, even as an inferior partner, and to approach the future in that way.

May I ask a question? What about the Coloured people?

I have expected that type of question from that hon. member. We are dealing with Bantu legislation which has nothing to do with the Coloureds as such. There is indeed a gnawing at the conscience of the United Party and it is hearing a very faint voice which is telling it that it is unavoidable that the Black man too, will sooner or later demand political rights for himself in this country as a right; hence its intention to give the Black man only limited political authority in the government of this country. But in this process the United Party is overlooking the fact that the Black man wants the franchise not for the sake of the franchise alone but that he wants it so to satisfy his own national aspirations and to give substance to his connectedness with his own people. In other words, he wants to be a human being in the full sense of the word and he wants to be a citizen of a state of his own. Sir, this fact is basic. It is as clear as a pikestaff that the Black man will refuse to accept this dispensation which the United Party is offering him because, in the first place, it is morally indefensible and, in the second place, it does not satisfy in any ways his urge for and his awareness of a national feeling of his own. Of this reality not only in South Africa but indeed in the whole of Africa, the Opposition is not taking any cognizance or, in so far as they are taking cognizance of this reality, they are disposing of it with this dangerous statement: If the Black man under their dispensation were to agitate for more political rights, they would oppose that agitation even by force. Therefore it is clear that the policy of the United Party carries within itself the seeds of revolution. As a matter of fact, the whole revolutionary idea is built into its policy.

The second dilemma in which the United Party finds itself, is that it sees the population of South Africa as a politically homogeneous community, a mass of 20 million people with one allegiance, one loyalty, one citizenship, one nationhood and everything related thereto. The United Party refuses to accept that the Black man, particularly since the Second World War, has become aware of his being different, that he has become aware of his own national aspirations, and to belittle those aspirations, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) did yesterday afternoon, is to incite racial disturbances and racial friction. The Black man has in fact become aware of his human dignity and of himself as a cultural being with all the aspirations, all the urges and all the longings inherent in being a human being. The Black man is not satisfied merely with having a roof over his head, filling his stomach every day and having a job, as has been alleged here. As a cultural being he has other yearnings and urges, too, of which we as Whites and as his guardians must take due cognizance. Just as the Whites, he wants to be a human being in the full sense of the word, and political rights, too, are included as an important element of his existence as a complete human being. Just as the White man is a social animal, so is the Black man, and he wants to belong to a group and to a specific race. He wants to have full co-partnership, and he wants to be able to exercise it, in the weal and woe of his people and of his country. He is aware of his being different, his different background and his different manners and customs, in other words, his different culture, and he wants to have the opportunity of exercising, maintaining and developing it in his own way and amongst his own people and in his own country.

Sir, these things I have just mentioned, are not cold philosophical theories. These are hard, real truths of life, and he who denies this has lost all contact with reality. The policy of the United Party shows unequivocally that it is making no allowance for these truths and realities of the Black man of Africa and of South Africa. Dr. Dönges once mentioned in a debate in this House that we in South Africa were the slaves of history which had brought White and Black together here. On our shoulders, therefore, rests the task of creating a pattern and order of life here; of maintaining and strengthening the White man’s endeavour of continued existence in this country and of reconciling it further to the Black man’s ideal of nationalism and his yearning for freedom. And let us admit that these ideals of the Black man and these yearnings of his most certainly are not improper or unreasonable.

The National Party took cognizance of these realities and these seemingly irreconcilable standpoints and aspirations as long ago as in the forties. It took cognizance of the feeling of the Black man that he wanted to maintain himself that he wanted to develop and cultivate a national feeling of his own, that he was aware of an identity of his own and that he wanted to maintain it. We also took cognizance of the fact that the Black man wanted to give substance to those aspirations and yearnings of his geographically as well. The National Party took cognizance of this because it itself was nationally orientated and consequently had sympathy with the Black man. But above all it realized that if the Black man were not left an outlet, these irresistible urges and these aspirations of the Black man would have the end result that we would come up against racial conflict which would inevitably lead to the downfall of the Whites.

The allegation was made here that this policy of separate homelands and of independence was an idea which developed only recently. In the course of my argument I shall point out that this policy lies at the root of the National Party. Already in the forties a committee of the party— and one might well recall who served on that committee: The members were Mr. Paul Sauer, Dr. Gerdener, Dr. E. G. Jansen, Mr. Serfontein and Mr. M. C. de Wet Nel—made a very penetrating study of the subject of race relations and the living together of races in this country, and it brought out a report which today lies at the root of the policy of separate development. For the sake of the record as well as for the sake of the hon. member for Maitland, who unfortunately is not present at the moment, and in order to give greater clarity, I shall read a few extracts from this report. Right at the outset the following is stated (translation)—

Somewhat later in the report it is stated—

These things are quite possible under a federal policy.

That may be so. I am dealing with the argument of the Opposition, i.e. that the legislation at present before this House is a flight of the imagination of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, that it is something we have discovered now, and that there is confusion in our ranks about this legislation. One hon. member on the Opposite side said that it was being forced on the non-Whites. I just want to indicate that this whole concept of apartheid, of separate identities, of separate national groups and of eventual independence for these Bantu homelands, is a basis of the policy of separate development.

Sir, I want to read another short quotation to this House. The report continues to state a policy specifically in respect of the Natives, as they were called at that time. In this connection the following general statements are made—

I am sorry that the hon. clever member for Maitland is not present here, because I think he would agree that if words have any meaning, the concept of independent states for the Black man within the geographic area of South Africa is built into the entire concept of separate development as a corner stone.

Therefore it astonishes one that this Bill has come as an obvious surprise to the Opposition. Very clearly they have been caught on the wrong foot. They believed we were not in earnest with this policy. This is the story they spread far and wide in the rural areas. That the Opposition has obviously geen caught on the wrong foot is very clear from what was said by various Opposition speakers when we note the arguments advanced by them. Amongst others the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) alleged yesterday afternoon that this Bill was a bluff. He said that independence was being forced on the Black man in terms of this measure and that the Black people did not want it. On the other hand the hon. member also said, as I indicated yesterday, that the urge was so great that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration had to make every attempt “to hold these people back”. So urgent, he said, was their striving after independence.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the final remarks made by the hon. member for Transkei when he participated in this debate. He used these words—

In my opinion this attitude of the Opposition is a dangerous one and a further indication of the possibility of revolution and racial uprising being built into the policy of the United Party. Surely one cannot give rights to people and subsequently take them away in exchange for an inferior form of government. Surely this must lead to unrest and rebellion. I regard this remark of the hon. member for Transkei as something extremely dangerous, as it indicates that if they were to come into power, they would undo what had been done by this Government in respect of the Bantu homelands. What would the United Party do if the hon. the Minister and the Government were to decide in a year or so to grant the Transkei independence? Would they really carry out this threat and undo that independence? Surely that would necessarily and inevitably lead to racial war in this country.

Sir, to the Bantu Territorial Authorities this measure is the last step but one in the direction of independence in the full sense of the word. How rapidly they move along that road depends on themselves. Therefore we trust that they will proceed along this road which is now being opened to them, with a sense of responsibility and idealism.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cradock read from a very interesting document during the course of his speech. If I recall correctly, this document was prepared for his party in 1947. He referred to it as the “Sauer Report”. I wonder, Sir, why he did not refer us to some of the more interesting passages in that document. That report, prepared for his party, made some recommendations regarding the representation of Bantu in our Senate. Perhaps he would tell us whether that report in fact recommended that there should be seven representatives of the Bantu people in the Senate. [Interjections.] All he has to do is tell us.

You tell us.

Sir, I think it is quite clear that that is the position. If the hon. member had pondered upon the implications of some other parts of that report, instead of being selective, he might not have been so aggressive in his speech. Speaking of his aggressiveness, he made some references to the hon. member for King William’s Town. Among other things he said that that hon. member had been irresponsible when he referred to people’s natural desire for human rights before political rights. I suggest that that hon. member himself was highly irresponsible in suggesting that Bantu people might prefer votes instead of a good life first.

That I never said.

Yes, you did. What the hon. member for King William’s Town was pleading for was a more compassionate approach towards the Bantu people of our country; an approach which would give them, in place of a shiftless, migratory life, some hope of a fixed existence in homes of their own with their families around them. Who would exchange this for a vote in the Transkei or some foreign place unknown to many of them? I suggest that this hon. member should think very carefully before he talks of irresponsibility. If anything indicates irresponsibility it is many of the statements made on that side of the House and many points inherent in the legislation before us.

In coming to this House with the Bill before us, the hon. Minister is, in essence, asking us as a parliament to grant him powers so wide and so unfettered that it will probably make him personally the most powerful Cabinet Minister in the history of this country. Much has been said about the powers he is seeking in terms of this Bill, but it is important to mention some of them in order to examine what little we know of the Minister’s real intention and to try to assess what actions he proposes to take in bringing the embryo tribal states to the point of sovereign independence. Let me say immediately that this hon. Minister was singularly uninformative when he introduced the Second Reading. What he is proposing to do is to arrogate to himself the power to define firstly the borders of the tribal states. This is very interesting, because the hon. gentleman’s party has had immense problems down the years in trying to define the borders of the Bantu homelands. I recall being at a congress of that hon. gentleman’s party in East London three or four years ago, when the former Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, Mr. Vosloo, came under considerable fire from his party’s members for the Government’s tardiness even in telling them in broad outline what the boundaries of the Ciskei, which is just one small part of the whole scheme, were to be. I can remember the hon. the Deputy Minister making a speech purely of apology. All he could say was that the Government did not have the means or the money, to do more than move forward at a snail’s pace. This we have seen down the years. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, funds made available for the purchase of land for consolidating Bantu areas, have been dwindling year by year. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would indicate whether that is so.

Among other powers, the Minister wants to arrogate to himself the right to set up by proclamation, legislative assemblies on lines to be determined by him; to decree who may vote in elections for the Legislative Assembly; to decide and make known by proclamation what electoral laws shall apply; to establish both inferior and superior courts; to decide the lines on which each tribal state shall have a Cabinet or executive and to control, in his discretion, all the important and highly crucial matters that are tied up with this Government’s avowed plan to destroy the Republic of South Africa, as we know it, and to break it up into a series of mini Black States and one racially mixed state, the so-called White state, in which the White people will still be in the minority. In doing all this he wants to avoid one thing—having to come to Parliament to get its permission for taking specific action in respect of each and every Black state he wants to create. That he has told us. The hon. member for Durban (North) put it so aptly a while ago when he said that what this hon. Minister wanted to ensure was that this highly important planning for the breaking up of South Africa was done not in Parliament and under the scrutiny of Parliament but in some backroom in Pretoria.

The hon. the Minister has told us precious little of his plans or indeed of his philosophy regarding the breaking up of our country or about the timetable he proposes to work to. As far as the timetable is concerned, he has made it clear already that he will tell us absolutely nothing. Last year, during the discussion of his Vote, he told us bluntly that he was refusing to disclose the timing of events leading towards the independence of these Black states. All he did was to tell us that these developments would not occur in a precipitate or rash manner. But, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that that hon. Minister’s ideas of what is precipitate and rash differ very much from the ideas in that respect of this side of the House; what we might consider to be very precipitate and very rash would probably be regarded as quite normal by him. He is not the only senior member on that side of the House to refer to the timetable for the progress of these Black states to independence. The hon. the Prime Minister also did. During the Censure Debate of last year he told us that his party would not stand in the way of any nation which wanted to become independent. I take it he was referring to a Black nation and not to a Coloured or an Indian nation. At the time the nature of the Prime Minister’s remarks was interpreted as indicating that independence for a Black tribal state was likely to come sooner than many people anticipated. However, that speculation turned out to be wrong. Only a few days later the hon. the Minister of Defence banished the prospect of there being any independent Black state; he banished it into a far away limbo. The hon. member for Lane laagte only yesterday afternoon queried this when it was put to him. The position is that during the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Defence last year the question of homeland independence and defence was raised. It was raised on the basis that as soon as a homeland reached sovereign independence it would naturally also control its own defences. The Minister, however, replied—

His meaning here was perfectly clear. What he was telling Parliament in quite unequivocal terms was that no homeland would be allowed to progress towards independence. towards sovereign independence, in the foreseeable future. Soon after that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration came on the scene in his usual oblique and rather rash way and threw a completely new light on the question of a timetable for independence. It is true that he did not commit himself to a date, or even to a year; he was not prepared to use the sort of calendar we are accustomed to using. However, he did give us some yardstick, a yardstick which could only be evolved by a man as unique as he is. He told us, namely, that it was his conviction that a Bantu homeland would become independent and that this would happen still in the lifetime of the hon. member for Houghton. To those of us who are accustomed to setting dates by using the usual calendar, this sort of timetable is a difficult one to follow. Of course, we can make one deduction from it, and that is that the hon. member for Houghton is likely to live for as long as the hon. the Minister for Defence foresees the future. But that does not get us very far when trying to fix a timetable for homeland independence.

This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, with implications which might not have occurred fully to the hon. the Minister. Let me put one of these implications to him. The Bill before us makes provision, among other things, for some of the trappings of independence to be accorded to these homelands, even at the pre-independence stage, which can be at any time decided upon by the hon. the Minister by way of regulation—as soon as he likes after the passing of this Bill. For instance, there is provision for each homeland to have its own flag and its own anthem, and those other things which would suggest to the people of those homelands that they are in fact moving towards their own separate state. One of the most important things which the hon. the Minister and his department will have to consider is the pace at which these homelands are to be detached in emotional terms from the Republic as we know it today. He will have to inculcate in them—they will probably do it themselves with a little encouragement—strong feelings of tribal nationalism that will ultimately have to supersede any feelings of loyalty they may have towards the Republic and any allegiance they owe to the Central Government.

This is unavoidable if the hon. the Minister has the courage to carry out his policy towards its logical conclusion. I need hardly warn hon. members opposite of the real dangers inherent in this. Loyalty and allegiance are not things that can be switched on and off at will, or created or destroyed at the stroke of a pen. The further the Minister pushes these homeland people towards independence, the more he will have to ensure that their allegiance to the Republic wanes and that their loyalty to the new embryo tribal states grows. This process will have to start long before independence comes about. In this connection I want to sound one warning, a warning which ought to be heeded by hon. gentlemen opposite. The day the people of the Transkei or of any other homeland abandon their loyalty to the Republic and cease to acknowledge this Parliament as their highest legislature will be a tragic and a dangerous day for South Africa. And it is this hon. Minister which is leading us towards it.

But this is not the only danger inherent in what this hon. Minister is setting out to do. Perhaps a far greater danger lies in the bustling manner in which he and his senior deputy are setting about creating a network of Black political institutions, each of which will operate, for as long as the imagination can stretch, in an economic vacuum. In the last year or so it has become fashionable for senior members of the Government to avow that economic viability is not a necessary prerequisite to independence for these homelands. In a sense it reminds me very strongly of what a former member for Kempton Park, Dr. Albert Coetzee, evolved as a theory a few years ago, a theory which I think embarrassed that side of the House quite a lot. the theory that a nation could exist and in fact be self-governing without actually having a country in which to exist. Even to speak of economic viability in relation to the homelands is ridiculous for they for the most part, do not have the beginnings of independent economies that would give them a modicum of self-respect.

What this hon. Minister and his Government are doing is to try to put political clothes on an economic skeleton. Now, in the excitement of seeing this Minister creating Black Parliaments, in the designing of seven homeland flags, in the choosing or writing of seven national anthems, the people of the homelands might well be forgiven if they for the moment overlook the importance of having basic economies to support their political structures. But this hon. Minister cannot be forgiven for overlooking it or for allowing the people of the homelands to overlook it. I believe that this Government quite deliberately over the years has played down how vital it is to establish sound economies and infrastructures long before juggling with constitutions and political institutions. The people of the homelands quite clearly need bread first; votes can come later. That, broadly, in a slightly wider context, is what the hon. member for King William’s Town was telling this House. But this has not been the view of this Government, and in the last year we have seen this attitude being adopted more strongly than ever. Herein lies the gravest danger of all. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the cold, bitter frustration that will be experienced by the people of these homelands when they finally realize that every trapping of independence, even their independence itself, is valueless, because there is nothing to support it? What this hon. Minister and his Government are doing is to hold out promises to the people of these homelands that can never be fulfilled—dreams of their own countries, their own economies, their own legislatures that will surely be shattered as a realization of the true facts dawns on them. Mr. Speaker, can you wonder why we on this side of the House who have our feet firmly planted on the ground are so determined to oppose this measure every inch of the way?

Are you prepared to take up arms?

That is a silly interjection.

It is the most irresponsible of the lot.

That is what the member for Maitland said yesterday afternoon.

Sir, can you wonder why we are so adamant that Parliament should remain the sovereign body over the whole of South Africa and that this Minister should not be given sweeping powers to by-pass this House in regard to some of the most important and controversial constitutional developments since Union?

In trying to evolve a master blueprint for his future Balkanization of the Republic, this hon. Minister has presented himself with some thorny problems. One sees it simply by looking at the legislation itself. On the face of it, some of these problems seem almost to defy solution, and I am quite certain that the hon. gentleman would not be the one to find solutions, if anybody can. We know him as am impetuous gentleman, as we know his senior deputy. The abortive attempts last year to introduce a type of job reservation through the now notorious notices of intent are proof of that, and he and his Deputy must bear equal responsibility for that. It was a shameful thing to do, but more than that,

it was a foolish thing to do. It showed how unpractical he is. How he now proposes to tackle some of his really thorny problems, I do not know.

The Bill before us, for instance, provides that legislative assemblies will be created to have jurisdiction in two respects. Each legislative assembly will pass laws that will be applicable firstly to the territory over which the assembly governs and, secondly, to the so-called citizens of the homelands, wherever they might reside, either in the homelands or elsewhere. Let me give the hon. the Minister an example of how scrambled the egg already is. Last week during the no-confidence debate the hon. member for Yeoville put something very pointedly to the hon. the Minister—I think his Deputy was here too—about the situation at Ga Rankuwa outside Pretoria, which is a border area town of the Tswana homeland. These are facts put by the hon. member for Yeoville and they were not disputed by the hon. gentleman or his Deputy. The hon. member for Yeoville pointed out that although Ga Rankuwa was much vaunted as part of the Tswana homeland, the majority of the people living there, and living there permanently, were not even Tswanas. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would afford himself a second chance to reply. He would not reply to the hon. member for Yeoville when this was put to him last week. Perhaps he would just nod his head and say whether this is so. Sir, I gather then that he does not know.

I will reply to you fully.

Why cannot the hon. the Minister reply now?

I cannot reply fully.

These people, whether it is a majority or whether it is perhaps a little less than a majority, come from other homelands. It is quite clear that these people who live and work in the border areas are regarded as part of the permanent population there. Yet coming from other homelands they will be subject to the laws of their own homelands, not the laws of the Tswana homeland in which they have permanent residence unless, ofcourse, the hon. the Minister is either going to have them reclassified as Tswanas or he is going to move them all back to their own homelands. Sir, can you imagine a more Gilbertian situation? But it is not funny. Here we are dealing with people. That again is what the hon. member for King William’s Town was saying yesterday. We are not playing with pawns, we are dealing with people. One’s imagination boggles at the prospect of how many situations of this nature are going to arise. We already know that in building this vast empire which this hon. Minister already has, he has been a very highhanded, autocratic administrative head who has not ever had much regard for this Parliament and indeed has shown very little regard for the people over whom he and his department rule. He, I submit, is probably the last person to whom delicate matters of human relationships and aspirations and important decisions relating to the future of our country should be handed. These things should not be placed in the unfettered hands of this hon. Minister.

This brings me to probably the gravest warning of all, a warning that my hon. Leader has already sounded on occasion, that once independence has been promised there is a real danger that the control over the timetable can be lost by the one who makes the promises. That is why we on this side of the House have demanded to know of this Government and of this Minister how much further we can go before we reach the point of no return. That is why we want to have each and every proposed move by this Minister and his Government brought here for the scrutiny and the criticism of this House, and why we object to the concept of South Africa’s future being decided administratively in the backrooms of that Minister’s department. During the speech of the hon. member for Zululand, the hon. the Minister was almost threatening when he demanded to know if, in consequence of this attitude, we wanted seven Acts brought to this House all at the same time. In reply to a question by my hon. colleague, he went so far as to say that all seven of the remaining Black states could quite possibly be granted independence at the same time and on the same day. Unless the hon. the Minister is now taking the attitude that the process of creating independent Black states within our borders is something akin to what goes on inside a sausage factory, I doubt whether he was serious, but I can assure him that we on this side of the House are deadly serious when we demand that each and every move in the direction of this Nationalist Government’s aim to fragment South Africa should be brought before us here in this House however and whenever this hon. Minister might want to bring it.

I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Kensington, but he really did not have very much to say on which I could comment. He complained, inter alia, about the tremendously wide powers which are being allocated to the hon. the Minister by this legislation, so that he will become the most powerful man in the country, and he mentioned, as did all the hon. members before him, that this legislation would now lead to the sovereign independence of a number of mini-states. I do not think that hon. members opposite have the slightest comprehension of what is stated by this Bill before the House. There is no mention in this Bill of sovereign independence being granted to the Bantu states. Nor does this Bill give the Minister any other powers than those he already has. It is a Bill which is based on the model of the Transkei, which has self-government. It is also an enabling Bill which affords the Minister the right to ensure that when other territorial authorities in other Bantu homelands have reached that stage, they will also be able to obtain self-government, and self-government does not mean sovereign independence. Apparently hon. members do not understand this. Self-government is when there is a legislative power and an executive power, and the executive power may be made subordinate to the legislative power. This has been the case in the constitutional history of all the countries, and this is the term which is used for that. There is no mention of sovereign independence here. What is going to happen here is that the other seven or eight homelands will be able, through this legislation, to obtain the same self-governing status the Transkei has had since 1963 already, and does the hon. the Minister at present have such wide powers in terms of the Constitution Act of the Transkei? The hon. members therefore do not understand what this Bill implies, and it does not have anything to do with migratory labour either, nor with all the other atrocious things mentioned here. But after having said this, I want to say at once that I personally, and this side of the House as well, am not afraid to say that we are through this Bill saying to the Bantu peoples of Southern Africa, and we are saying to every nation in the world that wants to hear this, that the Government is once again with this Bill making known its clear and irrevocable intention to the effect that every developing Bantu state within the borders of the Republic of South Africa is being led to self-government, and ultimately, when it is time, to independence as well.

Who decides when that will be granted?

The time when full independence is to be granted will be determined in consultation with those people and this Parliament, and it will not be done by way of proclamation. This Bill is simply casting into the mould of legal language two fundamental principles which this Government has accepted in regard to our relationships problem in this country, and has been proclaiming as its policy all these years. These are two fundamental principles which are being rejected by that Party, although they are not always prepared to admit this, and that is why they are so vehemently apposed to it. The first fundamental principle to which conception is being given by the Bill is the concept of segregation between Whites and non-Whites, and that, whatever those hon. members may say, has been the traditional philosophy of life of the White people of South Africa since their establishment. It is traditional to the philosophy of life of the South African people. I shall return to this point of segregation.

The second fundamental principle to which conception is being given here is the concept of multi-nationality in South Africa, and if those hon. members now want to say that the concept of multinationality is the brainchild of this side of the House, or of Dr. Verwoerd, as someone also said, then they do not know their history. The course of history determined that when the White people came here, there were different peoples. The concept of multi-nationality was destroyed by the people of whom they are today still the kindred spirits, the colonialists who wanted to destroy all boundaries and who wanted to make loyal British subjects of everyone and in that way tried to destroy the concept of multi-nationality. And it is true that new dimensions have been given to this concept of multi-nationality since this Party came to power in 1948. Since that time it has been adhered to, and expanded, and has developed to full maturity. It is a concept which has inherent in it the principle of parallel development and the principle of the self-realization of every ethnic group. That is why this Government has over the past decade been conducting a dynamic and unremitting campaign to lead, stimulate and to activate every ethnic group to self-realization.

It is this concept of multi-nationality which led in South Africa to the Bantu peoples within the borders of the Republic obtaining those things which African leaders noisily claim they desire for their own peoples but in reality never given them. It is as a result of the concept of multi-nationality that these things are actually happening here in an orderly manner and to the fullest extent with every ethnic group. President Julius Nyerere said on one occasion—

These things which President Nyerere and other African leaders want for their people and are unable to give their people, they do not want to give their people, for nowhere in Africa are the human rights of minority groups recognized.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I do not have the time. These things we will give to every Bantu within South Africa in terms of our concept of multi-nationality.

What about Afrikaans and English then?

We are not dealing now with Afrikaans and English but with the Bantu peoples within the boundaries of the Republic of South Africa. Hon. members on that side of the House, who refuse to accept the fact of multinationality and who stubbornly cling to their nineteenth century idea of one people and one nation under one great umbrella in South Africa are living in a dream world. In the light of political development in Africa over the past few decades it is clear that history itself has already given judgment. People who do not want to accept this judgment, are living in an artificial half-world and do not want to believe what they see happening before their very eyes. Unless the Communists take over in Africa and cause chaos the inevitable course of events and of history is that the Bantu peoples in Africa and also every Bantu people in South Africa will and must eventually obtain their full independence. This is the inevitable course of events. It is because of this inability of the United Party, which is itself unfortunately still an anachronism from the nineteenth century, that they cannot see what is happening in front of their very eyes. It is because of their blind prejudice, stubbornness and contrariness that they are running counter to the course of history. It is because of all these things that there is no hope and future for them in the politics of this country. The hon. member for Transkei said: “We strenuously oppose this Bill because it has as its aim the fragmentation and the balkanization of South Africa”. What pathetic and obtuse shortsightedness that is! The hon. member persists in conjuring up this spectre for the voters of South Africa, in order to panic them. He asks what would happen if there is a horse-shoe of eight or nine hostile peoples, who have their independence, on our borders. However, the hon. member omits to explain why we already have three independent states on our borders, not one of which is hostile to us. These states played host to communists within their borders before they obtained their independence, but they have already cleared their areas of any Communists. The hon. member omits to tell us why these people, when they obtain their independence from us, will be hostile towards us. If these people are hostile to us after they have obtained their independence, would they not at the present moment, while they are in a condition of subordination and find themselves under the eternal political tutelage of the Whites, be more hostile towards us? Would it not then be more dangerous if they become hostile within our boundaries than outside? If one has to live with poisonous snakes, should one not rather have them outside your house than in your sitting room?

Who are the poisonous snakes?

They are what almost gave the hon. member for King William’s Town goose-flesh yesterday, so that he almost ran away in fright from his own speech; so afraid did he make himself of those poisonous snakes, which do not even exist. Although this Bill only paves the way to self-government for these Bantu peoples, and although it has nothing to do with independence, this party is nevertheless proud to be able to say and admit candidly that through these measures every Bantu peoples within the borders of the Republic of South Africa are being placed on the road to independence. When the day will arrive when these peoples obtain their independence, we do not know, nor will we say at this early stage. It may come quickly for some, and take many years for others.

What we do know however is that that day will arrive at some time in the future, and that is why we regard it as our duty to prepare them for that day. I am nevertheless prepared to wager one forecast in regard to this matter, and it requires no great vision for the future. I want to predict that when that party perhaps comes into power one day, at least one of these peoples will already have received their independence; that is, within the next 25 to 30 years. Now I want to know something. If we accept that at least one independent Bantu state will exist, a state which received its independence through legislation in conjunction with those people, and also through final legislation of this Parliament, what will the attitude of the United Party be in respect of that Bantu state by the time the United Party comes to power? Will the United Party do what we were able to deduce from the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei, which is that they will not feel themselves morally bound to recognize that independence? I think they owe it to the country, the Bantu peoples of South Africa and to the House to tell us in very unequivocal language whether they will be prepared to take away that independence which a Bantu people will by that time have. Will they take it away by force? No nation gives its freedom away for nothing. What will the policy of those hon. members be? Is the standpoint of the hon. member for Transkei, the shadow Minister, the official standpoint of this party? Do they want to remove the independence, the word given by the Whites to the Blacks to give them that land and that freedom? If that is the official standpoint of the United Party, the people of South Africa and the voters of South Africa will have to take cognizance of the fact that if the United Party comes into power they will be dealing with a Government which will be returning to the colonial period, and a Government which will remove by force the freedom of people, will oppress them, and that they will be dealing with uprisings and revolution because a people that have once had their freedom will not be satisfied to get along without it.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak. The hon. member for Transkei said, and I quote: “We shall not consider it immoral when we get into power to stop this type of development”. What will they do with an independent state? What will their attitude be in respect of the states which would by then already have achieved self-government in terms of this legislation? Will they remove that Legislative Assembly, and put in its place an old communal council which will mean nothing, or will they keep to the road of independence? We should like to know precisely whether they are going to run counter to the course of history. I think, however, that we are reasonably safe. I think the people of South Africa will never again place such an irresponsible party in office.

You must read my speech again.

The hon. member for Transkei went on to make the following assertions, and I quote:

We are convinced that the majority of the people, Whites and non-Whites, do not want this Bill and that they reject this measure as a solution of our problems in this country.

How can an hon. member, how can an hon. shadow Minister, utter such an irresponsible statement in this House? Does the hon. member not know that the people and the voters of South Africa have in the past six elections supported this policy, of which this legislation forms a part, in ever-increasing majorities? Did the hon. member not hear the hon. the Minister give the House the assurance that these Bantu peoples accept this legislation almost unanimously? How can he then make an allegation like that? Surely it is irresponsible.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was so kind the other day as to give the hon. the Prime Minister a written, and therefore a very thoroughly considered, definition of his concept of petty apartheid. According to that definition one must conclude that that hon. member, and the members who agree with him, reject any form of segregation on the basis of colour,

He did not say that.

He said it by implication.

He did not.

He did say it. That definition revealed that there is very serious division in regard to the concept of segregation in that party. We know the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to be a very astute politician. I know that he would not have had the courage, without consulting his leader, to make an unsolicited written policy statement available to the hon. the Prime Minister if he had not known that quite a number of those hon. members agree with him that discrimination on the basis of colour and race is unacceptable, although the hon. the leader of the Opposition did to a certain extent repudiate him and said that he did in fact believe in certain forms of segregation, for example residential segregation and segregation in swimming baths and schools. But, Sir, one must really accept—this is also clear from their speeches here and their entire political history—that that party is in point of fact an integration party. It advocates economic integration, on which its entire economic policy is based. In addition it also advocates certain forms of social integration in the labour sphere, the sphere of entertainment and the political sphere. In those spheres it advocates integration. The United Party is also rejecting this Bill because it will for all time eliminate integration, particularly in the political sphere. That is why the people of South Africa will reject that party; because, as I said at the beginning of my speech, segregation is the historic and traditionally acceptable philosophy of life of the people of South Africa.

In fact, Sir, quotations were read out here—and I want to read out further quotations—to prove that that party have lost their way in regard to this concept of segregation between Whites and non-Whites. They have wandered off the course adopted by their founders. They have wandered off the course adopted by the founders of the old S.A. Party and of the old United Party. Gen. Botha said in 1913 …

We have heard that already.

Hon. members can hear it again, because they must think about it. I quote (translation)—

That is what Gen. Botha, the founder of the S.A. Party, said in 1913, and that is what we are doing here. Where is the Opposition? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular is very proud of the fact that Gen. Hertzog—he says this all over the platteland—was a co-founder of the United Party. Gen. Hertzog said:

Where does the hon. member get his fragmentation and the rending asunder into pieces from? Gen. Hertzog went on to say—

That is what the founders said. But the great Smuts as well, the man whose spirit still inspires that little party to such an extent that it still has the right to exist —the only right it has, is that the spirit of Gen. Smuts still inspires it—said in 1970 at a banquet held in his honour in London, and now the hon. member must listen very carefully, because these are great words—

What are we doing?—

Further to that, Smuts said—

From this, surely, it is quite clear that every political figure of any importance since Union—I am including in this the names of Dr. Malan, Mr. Strydom, Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. John Vorster—has maintained this standpoint. I challenge hon. members to mention to me a political figure of significance since Union who has not maintained this standpoint. Now how do they arrive at their standpoint that it is not traditional for South African society? I tell you, Sir, they are off course. Some of them sitting there—more than one of them sitting there is a good friend of mine —know that they are off course, but they allow a few of the liberalists on that side to lead them by the nose.

I am grateful, and I am saying this with heartfelt conviction, that I belong to a party who are not out of mule-headed stubbornness running counter to the course of history. I am grateful that I belong to a party which does not begrudge and deny officer peoples those things which I and my people regard as being of the highest value, i.e. the freedom, independence and right to govern themselves.

The hon. member for Algoa has spoken about history. If ever there was a member of Parliament talking about history and then misreading the history of development in South Africa, then that hon. member is the hon. member for Algoa.

What do you expect from a teacher?

I do not know whether the hon. member was a history teacher; I hope not.

I was.

Then I can only say “May the Lord have mercy upon our pupils!” The truth of what has happened in South Africa is that in the old colonial days, those days of which the Nationalist Party speaks with contempt, there were separate independent Black states in South Africa. It was not until the White man under the influence of that very policy put his hand upon the whole of South Africa that we had peace, progress and order; not until that day when the writ of the White man ran throughout the whole of South Africa was there peace between White and Black, between Black and Black, was there progress or any kind of economic activity—not until the day when the White man put his hand across the whole of South Africa. That was the beginning of progress in South Africa. The history of our own time, the history also under this Nationalist Party, is a history of development in South Africa, of economic development which has provided the fuel for civilization. What the Nationalist Party is trying to do here is to reverse the clock, to go back to a time of which the hon. member was dreaming and about which the hon. member for Koedoespoort quoted our great leader, Gen. Botha, in the year 1914.

I hope you listened carefully.

I listened very carefully. I must say that it must have been a very good speech Gen. Botha made at that time because even the hon. member could not ruin it by quoting from it. But Gen. Botha was dealing with his times, the time of 1914—a great man dealing with his time; a leader and a fighter, a man of inspiration, but a supreme realist. The one thing one can say about Gen. Botha is that he was a realist. Would he today, in view of the situation which has developed under this Nationalist Party, say that those were the conditions which prevailed? Hon. members sit here with their heads wrapped in the mists of time, dreaming of the days that used to be while we ought to deal with realities of South Africa, as they are today. I believe that when we are debating this issue we are, as the hon. member said, apparently debating two different things. The United Party deals with South Africa as it is today. The future of the whole of South Africa, Black and White, depends upon the actions of this hon. Minister, on the way in which he is going to apply this legislation, legislation which itself recognizes a difference between self-government and independence. An hon. member opposite quoted Gen. Smuts where he said that there shall be self-government for the Bantu peoples. However, nowhere in his statement did he say there shall be independence for them. The whole system being followed by the United Party is tailored to take account of the fact that there are these differ groups of people in South Africa. Why do we have a federal proposal if we do not believe that there are in fact different groups of people, groups who have to coalesce somehow to find some unity in diversity on which to build a future for White South Africa and for Black South Africa. Why do we bother? The problem is that we have a Nationalist Party which is seeking to destroy what has happened even in their own time, and of which even they ought to be proud.

We are not destroying, we are building up.

We have here today the hon. the Minister and his deputy —the modern Don Quixote riding out on his ancient and tattered nag: the Nationalist Party, with his friend the Deputy Minister as Sancho Panza sitting on his ass, or on his donkey I should have said, tilting at windmills. Let me say that this is a very real analogy. The windmills are the source of power and of strength; they are the factories of South Africa and it is against these that this Knight of the Woeful Countenance sets forth to tilt. But then the fabled Sancho Panza warned him; but alas! in these days Sancho is as blind as his boss. Here lies our problem—they have no sense of reality.

This Botha will go down in history as a greater Botha than yours.

There is a great difference between this hon. Botha and the other one. The other one took the parts and brought them together; this one is thrusting apart that what he has found together. The judgment of history will fall upon this hon. Minister and upon the Nationalist Party. It is going to take the wisdom of a Solomon to decide upon the future of these peoples, when the time is going to be ripe for them to be independent. We have here a would-be Solomon come to judgment. Mr. Speaker, you will remember the Bible story of the two women coming to Solomon. When these two mothers appeared before him with their infant, to which both laid claim. Solomon decided that it should be severed and half given to each. The one mother agreed to it but the other one, out of love for the child, could not accept it. So this party of ours says that South Africa should not be severed, while the party on the other side says that South Africa can be cut up in portions and thrown about in wild abandon. I believe that this is the true position of the Nationalist Party today … [Interjection.] I have said that as a compliment, Mr. Speaker. It is not my privilege to be a member of the cloth but if I am told the tale has brought tears to members’ eyes, then I can appreciate it. However, the problem we have to face is that while the United Party is concerned with civilization in South Africa, the Nationalist Party is concerned with separation. They are concerned with that for one reason only—that we are concerned with people who are not of our colour.

That is nonsense.

That is the simple truth. Today we are the civilizing agent. We as a White group have built something which is the only real source of growth for civilization in Africa. Also under this Government that has grown up, and we carry in our hands the seed of that plant which by its flowering brings blessings to everybody. But here we have a Government today who is intent upon forcing apart into separate channels the entire development of the peoples of this country.

The point was made by the Minister, by the Deputy Minister, and by other hon. members that all the Bantu peoples agree. May I draw to their attention an analogy? In the time of the establishment of the Government of East Germany, a communist government, there has been a continual stream of people seeking to escape to West Germany …

Why?

That may well be asked. I can ask you the question “why?”. This desire to escape was described as a process of voting by their feet—they left. What is happening in our country despite all the pretences on the other side? Our Black people too are voting with their feet—they are leaving the countryside whenever they can and by any means they can—legal or illegal; they are leaving the countryside, while these hon. gentlemen are setting up shimmering palaces of unreality; they are coming into the urban areas where realities rule, where there is a livelihood for them and from where everything they need for their future comes. I believe the people themselves—not the leaders, not those who stand to benefit by any kind of government system set up— are voting with their feet. I believe that the Nationalist Party, at its own peril and at our peril, ignores and turns its back upon this kind of system which is going on.

It has nothing to do with this Bill.

Of course it has something to do with this Bill. If you are going to give independence to Bantu peoples, if you are going to create countries for them, what does it mean other than that you have rejected their contributions to what is going on here and that you are forcing them now to go their own way, that you are denying them association with us, the White people, who are the civilizing agent; that you are forcing them to look somewhere else for their inspiration and their future. That is what it has to do with this Bill, Sir. It has a great deal to do with this Bill—a very great deal indeed. I believe, Sir, that the problem of the Nationalist Party is that it seeks to perpetuate the existence of the White man in South Africa by total non-contact with the non-Whites in every field—cultural, administrative, even legal, political …

Absolute nonsense. You have never been in contact with the non-White population.

Sir, I will ask the hon. the Minister a question.

Do not make it a difficult one.

There was recently a case where a Bantu pianist applied to be allowed to perform in a concert in competition with Whites, and he was denied permission on the ground that he should rather play his own sort of music, that Beethoven was the White man’s music, and that he should not be allowed to compete with Whites in that kind of competition.

No, he must play the tom-tom.

Absolute nonsense.

Is it true or not?

The Nationalist Party believes that there should be separation in all those fields, and here we have proof of it. This hon. Minister who has been interjecting is not going to wish away the fact that it is there in the hearts of the Nationalist Party and in Nationalist thinking. It is a reality, Sir. The United Party sees the task of the White man as that of a leader, as that of providing inspiration. If I may use the word, we have to make the values of Western civilization native to the non-White people of South Africa. If those values are to persist in South Africa —and surely these are the values of the whole of the Western world; these are the values of our own Christian Western civilization—then they have to live in the minds of all the people of South Africa. They can only live in the minds of all the people if they accept for themselves that these are real values, that they are things which are of real value to each man as an individual in his own daily life. Sir, I want to know how the Nationalist Party is intending to perpetuate those values which are of the greatest, as the whole of our history teaches us, and of which the hon. member for Algoa is so proud. How do we get this message across to those Bantu people if we are going out of our way to create for them totally separate institutions in every single sphere of life, including the political sphere, where we are prepared to cast them out into the nether darkness of South Africa, deliberately, because that party has not got the philosophy, and has not got what Mr. Churchill referred to as the intestinal fortitude—because the word “guts” was non-parliamentary in the House of Commons—to be able to stand up to the challenges of governing a country in which there are many people of different races.

Where has your philosophy brought you?

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 formally move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) taking immediate steps to recruit adequate and specially trained staff for the South African Police and the Department of Customs and Excise to combat drug-peddling;
2. (b) training and using sniffer dogs for the detection of dagga and other drugs;
3. (c) revising the sentences applicable to drug pedlars;
4. (d) undertaking State-sponsored research into the pharmacological effects of dagga and other drugs; and
5. (e) investigating methods to detect the presence of drugs on suspected persons.

I want to preface my remarks with a quotation from a distinguished physiologist, Dr. A. J. Carlsen, who said—

This is what I propose to do, Sir; I propose to deal with facts however unpalatable some of them may be to hon. members opposite.

Sir, the first section of the motion deals with the fact that we deplore the delay and indecision that have characterized the Government’s approach to the question of drug abuse. I want to take the House back to the year 1963, when I addressed a question to the then hon. Minister of Health. I asked him whether he had any information concerning the injudicious use, and the tragic consequences from the injudicious use, of certain drugs; what the drugs were and whether there were statistics. The answer appeared in Hansard under the heading “More effective control of drugs needed”. The Minister’s reply, which I paraphrase, was firstly that there were no reliable statistics; secondly, that it was known that there were many harmful drugs being used injudiciously and, thirdly, “the department is satisfied that better control measures are urgently required in the interests of the public”.

That was eight years ago. We know that the Drugs Control Act of 1965 made certain provisions. It provided for the establishment of a Drugs Control Council; for the registration of drugs and for the banning of drugs; and for the formation and appointment of committees. To the best of my knowledge, Sir, up to the present time six committees have been appointed, all with experts in their fields serving upon these committees. But to the best of my knowledge there was no committee appointed by that body to deal specifically with the question of drug addiction or dependence. I ask, Sir: Is it a fact, then, that the Cabinet had no confidence in its own creation? Surely this was a body which could have dealt with the subject urgently. Was it necessary then, some years later, for the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to appoint another committee to ensure further delay in dealing with this problem? We are waiting anxiously for—and we believe that we will soon receive—the report of the Grobler Committee on the abuse of drugs, and I believe that much valuable information will be disclosed when this committee’s report becomes available. But, Sir, my question is why the delay when we had a Drugs Control Council, which in my humble opinion could have dealt with this matter?

Then, Sir, I want to give another example of this delay. In 1964 the South African Pharmacy Board, of which I was an elected member at the time, passed a recommendation to the Minister of Health to the effect that in its opinion the time had come for the illegal possession of potentially harmful drugs to be made a punishable offence. Let us just get it clear what we mean by “potentially harmful drugs”. These are Californian sunshine or L.S.D., purple hearts, Bennies, Dexies, amphetamines and phenol barbitone. Those are regarded as the more dangerous of the potentially harmful drugs. Sir, what happened? It took almost five years before that recommendation, made in all seriousness by a statutory body, one of whose functions was to advise the Minister, became part of the law of the land, and in that interval the Police were virtually powerless to deal with illegal possession of potentially harmful drugs.

Sir, if the Department of Health was unaware of it, surely the Cabinet itself should have been aware of the growing urgency of this matter. We ask what has been done, what funds have been allocated and what funds have been spent? In order to get a true picture of this, Sir, I tabled a series of ten questions to Ministers in charge of various departments, asking them what funds had been allocated and what funds had been spent in combating drug abuse and addiction, each year over the last three years for which figures were available. Sir, in four cases I received the bald answer that “no funds had been allocated”, and this answer was given to me by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Minister of Bantu Education. May I say that at the present time I have one question, the answer to which has not yet come to hand.

Then, fifthly, we come to the same question which was addressed to the hon. the Minister of Education. I quote portion of his answer—

Sir, can you compare the drug threat in 1948, when the last Government was in power, with what is going on in 1971? The Minister went on to say that the matter was receiving the attention of his department, and I know that he has a sympathetic approach to this and is aware of the problems, but my appeal is that this matter should be pursued by the Department of Education with the utmost vigour.

Question 6 was addressed to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the reply indicated that nothing was allocated. He said that no specific amount is spent on drug addiction and the whole problem, but the prevention of smuggling drugs was the normal duty of the Department of Customs and Excise. I accept that, but let us examine the position in that regard. In July last year I addressed a question to the hon. the Minister of Finance and I asked whether reports of the extent of the smuggling of habit-forming drugs and potentially harmful drugs had come to the notice of his department, and the answer was as follows—

What does this mean? Is there smuggling, or is there no smuggling? I call on Maj. Van Zyl, the head of the drug section in Pretoria, and apparently the chief of all the drug sections in the various cities and towns, as the hon. the Minister explained to me in his answer to my question this morning. Maj. Van Zyl said this, as reported on 27th January this year—

How can we judge the extent of this offloading? Let us take a look at the Department of Customs and Excise.

In 1970, last year, I was advised that in the Department of Customs and Excise nearly one-quarter of the posts were not filled; many of them were filled by temporary incumbents, but over 100 posts were not filled at all. That covers the whole of the administrative section of the Department, and this despite the assurance given by the hon. the Minister of Finance that the Department is constantly endeavouring to fill the vacant posts.

Sir, I want to deal with the narcotics gateways to South Africa, and I think you will agree with me, Sir, that there are three main narcotics gateways to South Africa. I take the port of Durban, my home town. I believe that since the closing of the Suez Canal the importance of Durban has assumed even greater significance than ever before. It is the busiest port in the country. Last year alone it dealt with 7,000 vessels and the amount of cargo handled in the harbour was 2 million tons. It is the gateway from the East, the port of entry for the Reef and Johannesburg, and we know that from the East come the fruits of the poppy: opium, morphia and finally the end product of deadly menace, heroin. These are the things which come from the East, and the first port of call to South Africa is Durban, and what do we find in regard to the control and entry of these hardline drugs? I want to make it clear once again that I level no criticism at the work of the men in the Department. I am just sorry that their numbers are so depleted, because the position in the Durban port area is deteriorating. It is worse than it was in 1969, and both the number of vacant posts and the number of temporary posts have almost doubled since May, 1969.

Then we come to Cape Town, which I think we could say is the gateway from the West, which is the birthplace of L.S.D., Californian sunshine, this mind-bending drug and many other sophisticated drugs such as the amphetamines and others. We find, too, that at the port of Cape Town the customs staff is depleted and the position is deteriorating. Then we come to the gateway to the heart of the Republic, Jan Smuts Airport. There we have approximately 700,000 international passengers departing or arriving in a year. What is the position there? Out of an authorized establishment of 48, there are no fewer than six vacancies on the staff of the customs officials. It does not take a great deal of imagination to indicate the extent of extra and overtime work which these officials must do and also to indicate the problem that confronts them, when they are involved in the examination of such a vast number of passengers and the luggage they must bring with them or take away with them.

I want to compare the deterioration in our country with the position that exists in other parts of the world. I want to refer to the United States and I quote—

This is the seriousness with which the problem is viewed in the U.S.A.

Next J come to the seventh question, to the Minister of Police, who indicated in his answer that no separate amount is allocated to the detection or handling of drug addiction, but that funds are provided annually for investigation, combating and prevention of crime generally. That I accept, and I want to say here and now that I have the highest regard, respect and admiration for the men of the S.A. Police. They are doing a wonderful job in this connection. It was through the courtesy of the Police that I was able to accompany them on a raid to a teenage club in Durban, and subsequently to some of the drug spots, communes, etc., which exist in any major city of the Republic. This experience was enough to shatter anybody’s complacency and to instil grave concern. I also saw the policemen operating at their best dealing with humans and showing compassion and understanding when needed by some of these humans who have a very real problem. Some of these humans, some of these children, could be your grandchildren, Mr. Speaker, but they could be our children and they could be the children of people whom we know, and they are, because many of them come from decent and respectable homes, as I saw from their appearance and their deportment. Sir, it is a shocking state of affairs. My information, arising from this operation by the Police, was that all the 30 or 40 people who participated in this raid from the Police angle were acting voluntarily on an unpaid overtime basis. They were doing it out of, I think, a personal respect for the man in charge of them at that particular drug squad in Durban and out of dedication and devotion to their duty. They were also doing it out of their concern for these young people, these young South Africans. Why should it be necessary for the Police to act in a voluntary overtime capacity in a matter of such vital importance to South Africa? The answer is a simple one: The Police are gravely understaffed. I will quote just a few particulars. I want to make it clear that the figures to which I refer deal with the White establishment of warrant officers, sergeants and constables only, because I regard that particular section of the Police Force as representing the core of the Force. The wastage amounted to 9,619 men in the last six years. These men either purchased their discharge or were discharged or dismissed since 1965. This figure represents 66 per cent of the present actual establishment of the Police. What I found even more disturbing was the fact that the hon. the Minister, in a reply to me this year, indicated that during the year 1970 1,347 White policemen were trained and 1,537 men purchased their discharge from the South African Police. Therefore the hon. the Minister is losing more than he is gaining. Hence I put forward a very urgent, sincere plea for the immediate recruitment of adequate specially trained staff in the Police Force and also, the same plea is to the Customs.

While I am addressing a plea to this hon. House, I make a further very sincere and earnest plea, namely that as a matter of priority, the Cabinet shall give consideration to legislation which will prohibit the free establishment of teen-age clubs and discotheques. It was there that I was with the Police. I saw these teenagers being examined. I saw them being searched, and I saw them being taken up to the Police station, some to be charged. The man in charge of the operation said that they could do nothing about these clubs. They do not have to have a licence, the admission fee is 40 cents and the Police cannot stop them. They can only take action if they are of the opinion that illegal activities are taking place there. The Police cannot stop them because the local authorities themselves have no power over them. I believe this is a priority that some legal power be provided immediately to deal with something which to me is undermining many of the youth in our society today.

My eighth question was directed to the Department of Health. I will read the question again so that members will be aware of the nature of it. The question to the hon. the Minister of Health was: What amount was (a) allocated to and (b) spent by his Department in the combating of drug abuse and addiction each year for the last three years for which figures are available? This was his reply—

I found it a little cryptic, but I let that pass. But is it any wonder that the hon. the Minister’s answer is so vague when I know from figures that were given to me last year that he has a grave shortage of district surgeons in his establishment, that there is a shortage of inspectors and that as far as personnel in the professional and technical sections of the Department of Health are concerned, this particular section is functioning at 40 per cent below strength?

Another aspect which I found puzzling and, to me, disturbing, was that examination of the reports of the Department of Health from 1965 until December, 1968, showed no reference to the terms “drug abuse”, “drug addiction” or “drug dependency” whatsoever.

My ninth question was addressed to the Minister of Social Welfare. The answer indicated that no amounts have been specially allocated for drug addiction, but that an estimated amount of R47,000 would be spent in this financial year. A further question elicited the information that the Grobler Committee had cost roughly R15,000. I assume, therefore, that the difference between the amounts of R47,000 and R15,000 could have represented the cost of the treatment of drug addicts in the retreats and rehabilitation centres under the aegis of the Department of Social Welfare. However, figures for previous years in this connection were just not available.

I want to refer to the report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for the period 1966 to 31st March, 1970, which was laid upon the Table on Tuesday this week, I believe. In the introduction to the report the following statement is made—

When the department was established in 1937 the following two tasks were among those entrusted to it: To determine the nature and causes of factors giving rise to social maladjustments and to take steps to combat them.

What was disturbing was that I could find no specific reference in this report to drug abuse, drug addiction or drug dependency. I am open to correction because it may be there, but I could not find it. Surely drug abuse is a form of social maladjustment.

The next section of my motion deals with the training of sniffer dogs. I wish to refer very briefly to this aspect. In September last year I addressed a question to the hon. the Minister of Police, asking him whether sniffer dogs were being trained to detect dagga and other drugs, because I had learned that in other countries this particular practice is reasonably far advanced and seems to be operating fairly effectively. The answer I received was: “No,” because the present dogs were unsuitable and that experiments were being conducted with crossbreeds. Sir, any policeman or customs official will tell you what a hopeless task it is to try to search a ship, including the crew’s quarters, for narcotics. Could you just imagine the psychological effect that would be created if the customs officials or the Police were to board a ship with a sniffer dog? I believe that this news would soon get around and that it would have a deterrent effect on people who intended smuggling drugs into or out of our ports. I believe that in other countries they have had quite outstanding successes. In the United Kingdom Labradors have been used. I have been told by somebody who is not entirely a stranger to the South African Police Force, that he was over at Heathrow Airport when he saw a sniffer dog moving down a line of parcels and picking out those containing dagga. Of course, this made the task of the Police so much easier. I am told that those parcels disappeared into the incinerator. I do not suppose that the senders or recipients were particularly interested in instituting a full-scale inquiry into the matter! I therefore find the answer I received from the Minister this morning disappointing. It is disappointing to hear that the experiment is still continuing. Surely we must keep abreast of these things.

I now want to deal with another aspect, relating to the revising of sentences applicable to drug peddlers. My time is running out, but I briefly want to make it clear that there is a differentiation as far as the hard-line habit-forming drugs such as opium, heroin, etc., are concerned. In the case of these drugs there is a differentiation in sentences imposed upon the peddler and the user. However, in the case of potentially harmful drugs we find that there is not only no differentiation, but that the maximum sentence is a fine of R200 and/ or imprisonment for six months. So many people today believe that they are just as dangerous as the habit-forming drugs. I want to point out that the only drug which the Drug Control Council has in its wisdom seen fit to ban in South Africa is L.S.D., and that L.S.D. falls into the second class, with a lower sentence.

I want to ask what other steps have been taken to deal with the drug addict. I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the publication Robot as far back as 1963. It is headed: “Department of Health warns against medicines and driving.” The article says in bold type: “In the case of drug addicts the department is of the opinion that these people should be dealt with as severely as in the case of persons driving under the influence of alcohol.” That article was in 1963. I ask in all seriousness what steps the Cabinet has taken to implement a suggestion made by a responsible and important department.

Then I want to deal briefly with the question of State-sponsored research. The resolution refers to dagga and other drugs and this is what is asked for. But marijuana, hashish, bhang, or whatever one wishes to call it, is a king-sized problem and it is big business in South Africa. If you do not believe me, then I draw your attention to the latest report available from the United Nations which indicates that South Africa’s share of the dagga amounted to 89 per cent of the total seized in the whole civilized world. We know that during this year alone 5 million pounds weight were seized by the South African Police in the Republic and this amount was valued at R20½ million. It is big business. Furthermore, basically the nations of the world admit that they do not know enough about dagga and its effects. So, surely, research should be a priority and we in South Africa are vitally involved in this? I believe and am confident that we have the men with the brains. All we need is a government with initiative and the finance to sponsor these men with the brains to do something about it.

Then, Sir, I want to take the House back to 1952, when the report of a committee of inquiry into the abuse of dagga was published. Recommendation No. 340 said this: “Scientific research into the effects of dagga should be encouraged.” In 1967 I addressed a question to the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and I asked him whether research had taken place. The answer, inter alia, said that there had been research by private individuals and workers. However, the department had not been involved, so full particulars were not available. Then reference was made to research which had been conducted by private individuals 35 years earlier in 1935. But this is the final paragraph of the answer of the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions which I find so staggering: “The results of such research or investigation will in no way have any effect on the present methods applied to combat the problem.” Can you credit it that any Minister could have such a closed mind on such an important issue?

In 1964 I tried to get some information from the Minister of Health. I asked him whether the department had undertaken recent investigation in regard to the mental health of persons addicted to dagga. The answer was: “No, but cases suffering from this state are frequently treated in our mental hospitals with good results.” The second part of this question was whether investigations had been made in regard to tests to establish the degree of dagga intoxication of arrested persons. The answer was “no”. It seems almost an attitude of utter and complete indifference. In conclusion let me say that, when I started my questions in 1963, I did not realize what a tragic unfolding of ministerial inefficiency I had stumbled upon. I trust that this debate will act as a catalyst to stimulate urgent and positive action.

Mr. Speaker, each of us welcomes the discussion of an international problem. Before contributing my share I should like to refer to this hon. member’s motion. The hon. member has the ability of presenting a strange motion to the House each year. This year he moved a motion in the form of a speech in which he addressed the whole Cabinet. He even made an exception and omitted the hon. the Minister of Transport from his series of questions when he was referring to the big part played by the Railways and Harbours Police. Why he did not also put a question to the South African Railway Police, I do not know.

To come back to the motion that this House deplores the delay and indecision that have characterized the Government’s approach to the question of drug abuse and addiction. He moves a motion of no confidence and sad tidings in the Government, and immediately after that he cannot say enough in praise of the South African Police, the Department of Customs and Excise and all the other persons concerned with the evil. The hon. member puts me in mind of a man who goes to a garage to buy a motor car. He condemns a certain model, and then turns around and buys that model because it has a good engine, good tyres and cushions, a hooter and all the other benefits. That is precisely what this hon. member is doing. He condemns the Government and then praises all the aspects of the Government that have contributed positively towards dealing with this matter. The hon. member went so far as to say that he deplored the fact that we are doing nothing. The United Party caucus put forward this motion as a priority because nothing had been done. I just want to remind the hon. members on that side of the House—and I quote from the minutes of the Opening Address of the State President at the beginning of this Session:

Mr. Speaker, that is a part of it. We all listened to the hon. member for Berea’s argument, and now I should like to refer him to the second part of the State President’s address:

How much did we get from the hon. member for Berea in respect of appealing here to the community and to each of us, wherever he may be, to contribute his share towards combating this evil? What we did get were his questions to the hon. the Minister of Police about what kind of dogs are used, what the colour of the car was and how many people were involved. He wanted to know from each department how much they are spending to combat this evil. We have a war, and here the hon. member comes along and wants to expose his weapons and his muscles to the enemy. We can surely never fight the enemy that way.

In June, 1969, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare appointed a commission to which specific reference has been made. This commission began its deliberations in June, 1969. Evidence was gathered throughout the country at all the important centres. It is the most comprehensive report about the misuse of and addiction to drugs, and about alcohol and dagga, etc. This commission has only recently, in May 1970, gathered its last evidence, and members of the commission even went to the International Congress on the rehabilitation and treatment of these cases in Lausanne. Then the members of the commission also went to America to carry out research there. And as befits this Government the hon. the Minister is busy with this matter, and this very session we are going to have legislation which we cannot, of course, anticipate at this stage. But we are confident that it is going to be model legislation.

But that is not the only research that has been done. I have here the report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and if the hon. member had taken the trouble to look at it he would have read on page 31 of an inquiry about the occurrence of divorce in South Africa. There it is stated: “Since the inquiry of the Family Life Commission, which falls under the National Welfare Board, into divorce in South Africa has a direct bearing on family life, this inquiry should also be mentioned.”

I also want to involve this facet in my argument, a facet about which the hon. member who moved this motion did not say a word. He had little to say about the factors giving rise to the use of drugs and alcohol.

As regards the higher divorce rate and the consequent disintegration of family life we find, upon looking at the statistics, that in a city such as Johannesburg alone there were more than 8,000 divorces in the year 1970, more it is said than the number of marriages contracted. I maintain that the source of this evil lies in the disintegration of family life. Our youth thereby land up in a frustrated world and become lost. In 7 institutions for orphan children in Johannesburg there are 1,500 children, but only 2 per cent of them are really orphans— the others are the products of the disintegration of family life.

The hon. member referred here to research, but only to pharmacological research, in other words the effect of medicine on human beings. But dagga is no medicine; it has an effect on the personalities and characters of people; the same applies to other drugs. They have only a psychiatric effect on human beings, and not a physical one, for example where a person becomes blind or something like that. Consequently research into the use of dagga, for example, is chiefly undertaken by psychiatrists and in institutions where people land up who are suffering from its abuse. It goes without saying that it is difficult to do research into the psychological effects of dagga, for example, on a dog or a cat. Tests have nevertheless been done on mice in order to determine the influence of dagga. It was found that after those mice had smoked dagga for ten days they displayed a genetic deviation that came to light in physical deviations amongst their off-spring—for example split palates. The results of these tests are therefore significant.

The greatest problem we are faced with in connection with dagga is that persons using dagga already display psychopathic deviations, deviations that are aggravated by the use of dagga until their condition becomes manic and they display homicidal tendencies. Research into these psychiatric symptoms in persons using dagga was done by Dr. Elizabeth Tylden of London. Dr. Joan Louw did research specifically among the Coloureds of the Western Cape in order to determine the influence of dagga on the incidence of crime. Her finding was that if dagga is freely used it can give rise to an 80 per cent increase in crime amongst youth. We must bring all these things into alignment.

The hon. member did not say that in 1965 this House passed an act for the control of drugs, an act with the specific object of establishing a control board and to prescribe that all drugs entering the country should be registered. Along those channels any remedy which, through research, is proved to have a narcotic affect on human beings can be eliminated.

I concede that this problem is a substantial one. It has developed with time; it has come along with the age of youth; it has come along as a result of family disintegration, and since youth has begun to regard itself as a separate identity, as separate from the adults. Now, through the frustration in which they find themselves, they are being forced to flee from the reality of life and to have recourse to these drugs. The quantity of drugs used is phenomenal. In Denmark, for example, a country with a population of 4½ million, 1,800 million pills are swallowed annually. In 1967 in England, a country with about 60 million inhabitants, 200 million prescriptions were filled in by doctors for persons suffering from sleeplessness. The big problem with our society is, how do we live? Last year I had the opportunity of visiting one of our neighbouring states, a country with about 7½ million inhabitants. When I asked the director of medical services whether they also had drug addiction he said “No”. I almost fell on my back and then asked him whether they had legislation against it. He also replied “no” to that; it is not necessary, because if someone there is addicted to drugs, or is an alcoholic, he is taken in hand by the community. This ought to be our approach here as well.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, before the lunch adjournment, the hon. member for Brentwood took the hon. member for Berea to task for moving a motion which he believed was premature in that legislation is forthcoming in accordance with the speech of the State President, dealing with this problem of drug addiction and dagga smoking and so forth. This legislation will be based mainly on the report of the Grobler Commission. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Brentwood that if he reads this motion, he will see that the mover of the motion has moved the motion in order to stress the urgency of this problem. He then makes certain suggestions which he thinks the Government should consider. He then sets out these five steps which he believes would go a long way towards tackling this problem immediately and giving it the urgent attention which he believes, and we believe, it requires. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Brentwood that of these five suggestions which have been made by the hon. member for Berea, all of them can be done administratively by the various Departments with the exception perhaps of recommendation (c) which is the revision of the sentences applicable to drug pedlars. All the other items which he has suggested in support of his motion are matters which can be attended to administratively.

I think the hon. member for Berea should be complimented in moving this motion in this House today. This is a problem which exists throughout the world and we in South Africa have at all times been proud of our youth, in particular. Therefore it is important that every possible step should be taken by the country as a whole and by the responsible Government to ensure that the youth and its good name in the Western world should be maintained. That is why we believe this motion which is before us deserves the unanimous support of this House. The hon. member who has moved this motion has taken to task the Government for a lack of action in certain respects. I would like to refresh the memory of members by referring to the record of the hon. member for Berea in bringing forward this matter which causes great concern, to the notice of the House and to the country. As far back as 1963, some eight years ago, the hon. member asked various questions concerning this problem and he has moved various motions in this House in this regard. He has also spoken on this matter in Committee of Supply and on other opportunities, trying to bring to the attention of the Government and the country, the grave consequences of this problem as it stands at the present time.

If one looks at the motion which the hon. member moved in 1968 for example, we see that in moving that motion the hon. member once again referred to the urgency as far as this problem is concerned. On 22nd March, 1968, the hon. member moved: “That, in view of the alarming increase in the world-wide use of dagga and drugs, this House urges the Government to give immediate attention to the dangers inherent in the growth of the dagga traffic and the abuse, sale and distribution of dangerous drugs by unauthorized persons in the Republic.” Here again it is a matter of urgency. We on this side of the House believe that this is a matter which has been neglected by this Government and that they should have taken more timeous steps to tackle this grave problem. The Grobler Commission has evidently reported to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, but we have not had the opportunity of seeing that report. We understand that legislation will possibly be introduced during this session. However, as indicated in the motion, and as indicated by this side of the House and by members sitting on the other side of the House, it is not necessary to have such legislation before action can be taken administratively.

Let us look at the debate which took place in 1968. I should like to refer particularly to the fact that the then hon. Minister of Justice, who is still the Minister of Justice, on that occasion replied on behalf of the Cabinet to the motion that was before the House. Here the hon. the Minister of Justice referred to the fact that a committee that had been appointed in 1949 and which reported in 1951, some 20 years ago, had made various recommendations. One of these recommendations was that it was found that it was not necessary to introduce amending legislation at that stage. But as I am referring to this, it is some 20 years ago and we have seen what has occurred throughout the world as well as in South Africa, since then. In column 2761 of Hansard (22nd March, 1968) he quotes the recommendations of the committee as follows—

This is exactly what this motion is endeavouring to do, calling upon the Government to take immediate action to get to the roots of the problem. Here the root of the problem, as the hon. member for Berea has clearly indicated, is the fact that it is so readily available. It is so easy for many of the young people today to obtain dagga and dangerous drugs, that this matter requires the urgent attention of the Government.

The motion clearly indicates what the hon. member has in mind and ways and means of tackling this problem. First, in dealing with the question of the Police, it is quite obvious that the Police are doing all in their power to try and eliminate to a great extent the growing of dagga. We know that there are certain difficulties involved. However, Sir, it is an undeniable fact that still today dagga is readily available almost anywhere in South Africa. One only has to go around with one’s eyes open to see how readily dagga is available to many people. I have discussed this matter with the Police and with the authorities. They say it is impossible for them to cope with this problem, particularly on a 24-hour day basis.

The hon. member for Berea has indicated ways and means whereby this problem can be tackled. First of all, he suggests a special branch of the Police to deal with this matter. Here we have had occasion to see the work that has been undertaken by the Drug Squad, particularly in the Durban area and the excellent work that they are undertaking. The Police themselves realize that this is a problem which is increasing at an enormous rate. The experience of the Police and of persons who administer youth clubs on behalf of welfare organizations is that the work of the Police is indeed extremely difficult. Recently there was a report of two senior Police officers in Durban who are doing what they can with the limited resources that are available to them to find ways and means of combating this problem. But I would like to draw attention to a Press report where one of these senior officers said on the 18th December, 1970, referring to dagga smoking and drug peddling—

He then refers to the fact that the Police have to work around the clock in a bid to squash the racket “but it must be stopped socially”. Here we can see the difficulties that the Police are facing in trying to cope with this problem as it exists today. Here the establishment of a special section of the Police in dealing with this particular problem, I believe, is long overdue.

If one looks at the situation in other countries, one soon sees that many of them have youth squads, which concentrate on juvenile delinquency. Others, such as in New Zealand, where they have a Juvenile Crime Prevention Branch of the Police, place the accent on prevention. This, I believe, is one of the most important factors of all, namely the prevention of the spreading of drug abuse and excessive dagga smoking. Here the Police are hamstrung by the fact that they have insufficient numbers to carry out the necessary work that is entailed in trying to stamp out this evil. This means that the Police are faced with the problem that some of them have not been specifically trained in dealing with this matter. Here the training of the Police squad that are required in this work is most important. We know that this is a specialized type of work, work which requires special training. In this regard we assume that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is taking responsibility for the tackling of this problem as it would appear that he is to reply on behalf of the Cabinet to the debate here today. However, I think it is important that the Police in close co-operation with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions should endeavour to have available to them sufficiently trained persons to deal with this specific problem.

In this regard I refer to the position as far as tackling juvenile delinquency is concerned. Here again the Government has taken certain steps in appointing a committee. But when it comes to try and follow up what positive action has been taken, we come across a difficulty. In 1964 an inter-Departmental Advisory Committee was appointed on the need for care, misconduct and delinquency amongst children and juveniles. This Committee has representation from various Departments. In reply to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in 1968, it was disclosed that from 15th June, 1964 until that date, the Committee had only met on six occasions. The various Departments that are included in this Departmental Committee are the Departments of Social Welfare and Pensions, Justice, Health, Bantu Education, Bantu Administration, Indian Affairs, Coloured Affairs, Labour, Higher Education and the South African Police.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions whether this aspect of dealing with the drug addiction and dagga smoking amongst young people and particularly amongst juveniles, received the attention of his Department and whether this Department has made any recommendations in this regard. In the latest report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, reference is briefly made to the activities of this inter-Departmental Committee. In paragraph (g) (i) and (ii) it is said that juvenile delinquency showed the largest percentage increase each year in the case of Whites and the fact is also mentioned that the analysis of the types of offences showed that the most prevalent offences amongst the Coloureds are in regard to liquor and drugs. The question I ask the hon. the Minister here is whether he feels that this inter-Departmental Committee has given sufficient attention to this very real problem that we are discussing here today, namely the increase in excessive dagga smoking and drug addiction, particularly amongst our young people?

As the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is evidently becoming responsible for this problem, it is interesting to note that all the racial groups are involved. Previously when the hon. the Minister of Police participated in the debate, it could be dealt with as a whole. As far as the welfare services and the role of the welfare workers are concerned, we know that the Government has divided the responsibilities of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions amongst the various Departments concerned with each racial group. Therefore we have to deal with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for the Whites, the Department of Bantu Administration for the Bantu, the Department of Coloured Affairs for the Coloureds, the Department of Indian Affairs for the Indians and I see since just recently, the Department of the Interior for the Chinese. It will be rather difficult to co-ordinate this whole problem in the Republic of South Africa if the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is not going to take responsibility for all the other racial groups as well in the tackling of this problem. Obviously it is a matter which vitally affects the other racial groups. If one looks at the list of convictions over the past few years, one sees that the other racial groups certainly have a very great problem as far as dagga is concerned with the growing of dagga, the smoking of dagga and the smuggling of dagga.

The motion that is before us also deals with the question of the sentences as applicable to drug pedlars. Here we see that it has been a long time since the sentences and the offences were revised. It appears that in 1954 the sentence for the dagga pedlar, smuggler or cultivator was increased to a fine of R1,000 for the first offence. For a person being in possession of dagga it has remained at R200 or six months’ imprisonment.

We believe that the question of the sentences that are involved require further review. In a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Justice in 1968 he said that he was of the opinion that the sentences at that stage were adequate. I think it is obvious that the sentences that are on the Statute Book today are not proving to be a deterrent to these people guilty of smuggling dagga and other dangerous drugs. We must get to the root of the problem, namely the pedlar. That is why this motion that is before the House calls for a revision of the sentences applicable to the drug pedlar. These are the people who infiltrate into youth clubs and into many other good organizations which are endeavouring to provide young people with the necessary facilities to enjoy themselves. One then finds that a drug pedlar or a dagga dealer infiltrates into that organization and that it is faced in no time at all with a very serious problem.

I believe that serious consideration must be given to the imposing of more severe sentences for the person who is a drug pedlar, because these are the people who cause the greatest evil. However, I wonder if the hon. member for Hercules’s view, namely that the death penalty should be imposed is the right attitude. Certainly, it should be a severe penalty, perhaps imprisonment of 20 years, but I do not think one should go so far as to suggest the death penalty. I think there is sufficient capital punishment offences on our Statute Book at this stage. This is obviously a matter that can be dealt with on another occasion when we have had the opportunity of studying the Grobler Report to see whether it might be necessary or not necessary to impose capital punishment. At this stage it would appear to be a most severe attitude to adopt. However, a severe penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment would, I believe, act as a deterrent. Obviously, in terms of today’s legislation sentences are not proving to be a deterrent.

I would like to say one final word about bringing about prevention as far as this problem is concerned. We know that many of the welfare organizations endeavour to achieve what they can as far as youth clubs are concerned. These youth clubs should not be confused with the type of youth club that is created as a teenage night club or purely for the idea of making profit and gain. In regard to this I think the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions should institute an inquiry through the medium of his Department, his professional officers and probation officers who can deal with this problem. These probation officers are called upon to submit reports and they are also called upon to investigate at any time during the day or night and over weekends to investigate various matters. I do hope that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions will give this House the assurance that he will not hesitate to appoint further probation officers, which can be done administratively, to assist these organizations and to assist the Police in dealing with this very grave problem. We on this side of the House fully support the motion moved by the hon. member for Berea because we believe this requires urgent action by the community, the public and also by the Government administratively in order to see to these different matters. It should be seen to that the youth and the young people of this fine country are fully protected.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to which the Opposition is today giving priority is actually, in my opinion, not only surprising but also amazing. I find it amazing in the sense that they are just as aware as I am that this matter is at present receiving the Government’s serious attention, as it has in the past. One can come to no other conclusion than to say to the Opposition, if I may use the English expression, that “they want to steal the thunder”. They are making a political issue of this matter in the sense that they want to abuse it politically, and that in itself is a form of abuse. In their approach to the matter from a political point of view, one does not know if one must take their plea very seriously. Both the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Umbilo had very little to say, Sir, about rehabilitation. The hon. member for Umbilo said that every possible step must be taken to protect the youth. Well, the Government has been saying this all the time, and I shall presently furnish proof for this. The hon. member for Berea made one appeal here; he asked that the Government should give more attention to the recruiting of Police. I now want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Umbilo and ask them to appeal to the English-speaking youth of the country to join the Police Force. Last year, on 9th December, 990 Police students completed their training, and only 99 of them were English speaking, i.e. only 10 per cent.

Sir, to grasp this problem at all one must know its background, and because time is limited I want to sketch that background quickly. As far back as 1928 Act No. 13 was passed by this House, and this was specifically done by the National Party. We must remember that prior to 1960 this question had not assumed serious proportions anywhere in the world. It is very important to remember this.

As far back as 564 B.C., as far as it known, drugs were in use and there was even abuse, but it was a very gradual process. At the turn of the 18th century A.D. use was being made of dagga, opium and cocaine, all of them plants that grow. Between 1800 and 1900 morphine was extracted from opium in the East. In 1811 codeine (headache tablets) made its appearance; in 1898 heroin appeared—extracted from morphine. Heroin is, of course, the most dangerous component of the opium plant. From the 18th to the 19th century people began to take an interest in the active component of the plant and began to extract it. For use in religious rituals it was boiled and brews were made of it. From 1900 to 1960 people went further and began with barbiturates, i.e. sleeping tablets. By the compounding of chemical elements it is manufactured synthetically today, and now for the first time it is becoming an international problem of large proportions. From 1930 we get amphetamines and dexedrenes such as “purple hearts” and “black bombs” as stimulants. As far back as 1938 L.S.D. made its appearance. In the early fifties we got “tran-quilisers”, calmatives and sedatives. From 1800 to 1900 very little was done to combat the evil. We ourselves only began after 1900 to take steps in South Africa, and in 1928 we had Act No. 13 which also relates to drugs.

Sir, that is then very briefly the history of the development of drugs. As regards the Government’s standpoint in connection with the matter, I must quote to you from a speech by the hon. the Prime Minister at Welkom on 26th October, 1970, and I ask the Opposition to listen very closely to it (translation)—

In a radio talk by the hon. the Prime Minister in The News at Nine on 2nd November, 1970, he expressed himself as follows—

Sir, then I come to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. During the discussion of his Vote in 1969, the hon. the Minister announced the appointment of a committee of inquiry, and shortly after that he appointed the members. It is interesting to note that before President Nixon of America established their committee, our Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions had already appointed our committee in South Africa.

The United Party members know nothing of that.

During his period of leave the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions studied this report, and in an interview with the Daily Mail of 5th January, 1971, the hon. the Minister expressed himself, inter alia, as follows—

He then continues and states—

I want to repeat “… a number of methods”. Not only legislation—

It is interesting to note that that committee was appointed by the hon. the Minister within two years of the closing of Suez. I think this is sufficient proof of the serious light in which the Government views this matter. I do not doubt for a moment that everything possible will be done to combat this evil.

Sir, now we come to the South African Police, and in this connection I just want to bring a few points to your attention. One of the members of the committee, appointed by the hon. the Minister, was major F. van Zyl who studied the evil overseas and who linked up with several countries in this connection. On his return, for 14 days in Johannesburg, he gave lectures to about 40 selected officers of the S.A. Police from throughout the country, and apart from that he also gives lectures to the public from time to time, and that knowledge is made available to the public in order to make them aware of the danger that is threatening. Those Police who attended the course serve as instructors at other Police centres in the country. Among those police who attended the course there were also two Railway Police officers. In this motion I do not, in any case, see anything about how the Railway Police should also be involved, in every large city of the Republic Police have also been assigned to the liquor, immorality and drug sections, and Police are continually keeping themselves abreast of the modus operandi, which is changing almost by the minute.

The biggest threat in practice has always been dagga, because this is the most easily obtainable and the cheapest. For the past 40 to 50 years the Police have done their best to trace and destroy dagga and to institute legal proceedings. In January each year every Police station in the country must report on how much dagga has been destroyed. If we look at Item J of the Police budget we see that every year more than R1 million is estimated for combating that aspect. I must draw attention to another point, and that is the destroying of dagga by the S.A. Police. In 1968-’69, 2,431,477 lbs. were destroyed, valued at R9,725,908, if we take it at R4 per lb. In 1969-70 5,145,635 lbs. were destroyed, valued at R20,582,540. Only the day before yesterday the Police in Natal destroyed 60 tons of dagga in one day, according to yesterday morning’s Cape Times, an amount valued at R6 million. How can one now fail to pay tribute to the S.A. Police for the work they are doing, for the great deal of overtime they are working and the provocation they must sometimes suffer in this connection.

I now come to the S.A. Railway Police, who have a very close link with the S.A. Police and with Customs, for the efficient combating of this evil. Identified addiction cases receive professional attention in collaboration with doctors in order to try to break the psychological and physical dependence of the addict. In the period 1st April, 1970, to 31st December, 1970, the S.A. Railway Police brought 3,087 accused before the courts for the possession, trafficking and use of drugs. Apart from this, on 31st December, 1970, there were a further 462 prosecutions for this same period pending in the courts. We accept that the Sick Fund of the S.A. Railway Police is also attuned to combating the evil. The problem is that people are inclined to take stimulants, stimulants that keep them awake, and then later they must take tranquillizers or sedatives to let them relax or sleep. As in the case of the S.A. Police, the S.A. Railway Police has the necessary statutory powers, and legal authorization is granted to them in terms of section 57 of Act No. 70 of 1957, section 22 and section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No. 56 of 1955, Act 13 of 1928, as well as Railway Regulation 259 and Harbour Regulation 151 (1) in respect of contraventions on Railways and Harbours property. From time to time the Acts are amended, and we can quote several examples upon examination of the amendments to Act 13 of 1928. As the drugs have developed and become available the Act has continually been amended in order to keep pace. The latest amendment to Act 13 was in April, 1969.

Up to 1958 Britain had no problems, except for doctors and nurses who came into direct contact with these drugs. In 1958 Britain introduced compulsory registration for addicts and I wonder whether we in South Africa should not try it as well. I want to make a plea, however, to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I know that attention is being given to it, but I just want to emphasize that we should give serious attention to rehabilitation centres where these poor, unfortunate young people can be treated.

The hon. member who has just sat down made the allegation that this motion was moved to play politics. I throw that allegation back at him with the contempt it deserves. The complaint the hon. member for Berea has, which is contained in this motion, was that not enough is being done, and not enough was done in time, to stop this very serious menace in our social life. The hon. member for Hercules tried to tell us that the Government has good intentions; they are going to do something and they are going to appoint commissions, etc. That is all perfectly true, but what we want is action. We do not want commissions which take two years to report on a very serious problem like this. That is our complaint.

The two hon. members who have spoken on this side are both men who have made a long study of this very serious problem. It is a great pity that we have not got the Grobler Report to guide us in a discussion like this, but nevertheless I would like to give some views as a layman, who over the last couple of years has had quite a lot to do with these very unfortunate people.

I want to say at once that the average person does not realize the amount of harm done, nor the extent of this menace, I refer to the amount of harm that is done to human beings and the extent to which it is taking place in this country today. Nor does the average man understand the difficulties of rehabilitation. It may be that hon. members will realize what one means if one compares with the fate of people who smoke tobacco the fate of those who are addicted to drugs. I think smoking is also a form of addiction, but fortunately it is a very mild form of addiction. It is a habit which is very difficult to give up. To give up drugs is very much harder. There is, however, a vast difference between a man who smokes and a drug addict. The smoker harms himself and himself only. He slowly but surely poisons his whole system, and very many of them come to an untimely end. The drug addict is very much worse. He does not only harm himself, but harms all those who come into contact with him, all those near and dear to him. There was a story in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago of a young girl who has evidently been a drug addict for years. The story she told was true, but she did not tell the whole story. I have personally had a lot to do with her case. She is the daughter of a neighbour of mine. She used to play with my teenage daughters when she was small. I knew her at the age of seven or eight and she was then a very difficult personality, a wayward child. She complained, as they all do, that she was not given love and affection. She blamed her stepfather. I know that she has had much affection and a great deal of help from other people. Nevertheless, she has let them all down. She has been rehabilitated in institutions on several occasions. On several occasions she has decided to go straight but the same thing happens over and over again, and she finds herself back on the road. Of course her story is very characteristic of all such people. They all find somebody to blame for their problem. It must be somebody else and not themselves. In this particular case the person who stood by her for many years, the person who would do anything in the world for her and the person whose heart she has broken on many occasions, her grandmother, is now being blamed. One feels very sorry for these people, but that is characteristic of them.

One asks oneself why these people take to drugs. Again I want to emphasize that I am speaking as a layman. I think that people who resort to drugs are people with a personal problem, a weakness or a deficiency from which they want to escape. Sometimes such a weakness or deficiency is apparent, but sometimes only they themselves know of it. They then turn to drugs or to drink in order to find an escape route. They find a crutch to lean on, something which allows them to escape from reality and to live in a dream world of their own.

This is a problem which to my mind has two aspects which we should consider. The first one is the preventative aspect and the second is the question of rehabilitation.

*In my opinion the most important of these two aspects is that of prevention. We all admit readily that the various departments are taking steps for the prevention of this evil, but our complaint is that there is a manpower shortage in the Police Force. The men, therefore, cannot do their work properly. There is also a manpower shortage in the Department of Customs and Excise. That is our complaint. Our complaint is not that those who are there are not doing their best. In spite of all efforts this evil is still increasing. As the hon. member for Umbilo said, one of the biggest problems is the question of the distribution of drugs. Many of the distributors are caught and punished, but they are the small fry. The big men, the suppliers, are the people who must be traced. They are behind the entire organization. Unfortunately many of these distributors, the “pedlars” and “pushers” as they are called, are themselves addicted and are again wholly in the hands of the large suppliers. There are, of course, those distributors who do this for monetary gain. We find today that these drugs are obtainable with the greatest ease in the world. If one just has the money to pay for it one can obtain a supply. One obtains it in cafes, in the clubs mentioned here, one obtains it in the streets and so on. In order to combat the problem a method must be found to trace and punish the distributors and the most serious transgressors of all, the suppliers.

Now we come to the question of the punishment that must be imposed on these people. I must say right away that I do not think we should have the least sympathy with or feel sorry for these people. There are people who have said that the death penalty is a fitting punishment for them. That is admittedly very drastic, but I want to say, however, that a murderer who kills a person is hanged, while these suppliers do not only destroy one life, but hundreds. For them no mercy whatsoever must be shown. It is a pity that one does not know what to recommend in respect of the small distributors, the “pushers”, because if he is an addict himself he cannot help himself. For them it would be a terrible punishment if they were to be caught and put into goal, not so much because they have to sit in goal, but because they are being deprived of their drugs. For them it is a terrible punishment. They must nevertheless still be punished. As far as the big men are concerned, I hope the Government will find a method whereby they can really be frightened off. One sometimes wonders whether corporal punishment should not be taken into consideration.

Rehabilitation is a difficult matter, because although good work is being done in the institutions, or wherever they are treated, we find that in many cases, after they have been rehabilitated and when they experience the first setback, they once more have recourse to the “pill” to help them through the difficulties. The craving for drugs always remains, and they go back to them so easily.

In conclusion I just want to make some remarks about dagga. It disturbs me to see that certain people say that there is nothing detrimental in dagga. I was still a very small boy when I became acquainted for the first time with the dagga that was smoked by the Bantu on my father’s farm. One can distinguish them from all the others. The dagga smoker is lazy, he is not able to do his work, he is unreliable, he is a thief and he is prone to violence at the drop of a hat. When people want to come along and tell me that dagga does no harm I am reminded of the person who smokes tobacco while knowing that it does harm, but in spite of that he defends it to the death. I think that the people who are now saying that there is something beneficial in dagga are probably dagga smokers themselves. Sir, I feel that the object of this motion is to focus the attention of the public once more on this atrocious evil that is increasing so rapidly in our country. If the motion does no more than focus the attention of the public on this evil once again, as did Mr. Alfred Whitman’s campaign in Johannesburg a few months ago, it has served a very good purpose.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Rand was right when he said that it is a pity that we do not have the Grobler Commission report at our disposal. I believe this because hon. members on the other side could also have engaged in a much more constructive discussion with the aid of that report.

The hon. member for Berea, who moved this motion, was very concerned because the Drugs Control Board “has at least six committees, but no committee on drug addiction,” as he put it. But the hon. member ought surely to have known what the circumstances are. This is not a matter of the pharmacological effect of these drugs. The pharmacological effect is very well known. The drugs are very well known. In fact, the World Health Organization states in its latest report, according to Medical Proceedings/Mediese Bydrae:

Now the hon. member asked why the Government is wasting time again. Why could the Drugs Control Board not have investigated this whole problem? Then he continued by telling of the series of questions he put to the Police and to the Customs. Where should the Drugs Control Board and Customs and Excise have carried out their investigations?

Why not?

At the Police? The Drugs Control Board?

Why not?

He still does not understand the matter. The Government was altogether correct in appointing the Grobler Commission of experts to issue us with a comprehensive report touching on all aspects that a few pharmacologists and doctors cannot get at, because this problem is far more comprehensive than pharmacological and medical control. This problem is not the Government’s problem. It is the problem of the South African people. It is the problem of every one of us. That is why I find it so tragic that hon. members of the Opposition singled out this problem in order to make a little political capital out of it. This is a problem of the permissive society. It is the problem of every parent. It is the problem of every friend.

Sir, I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the symptoms created by just one of the drugs, L.S.D., an hallucinogenic, which is being heard about so frequently in recent times. Earlier it meant money, but now it means something totally different. It is a drug that is manufactured as a derivative of ergot. Ergot is a fungus that grows on rye. Hence it has been found in the past that if rye bread contains ergot people can go mad from eating that bread. The symptoms of these hallucinogenics affect those parts of the brain where the senses are analysed. Hallucinations and distortions of sensory perception are caused. The reaction begins after 20 minutes. There are colour changes. Colours intensify and flash to and fro. Then such a consumer already hears that pop festival.

This problem can be combated, and I believe that the Government will take the necessary steps to punish those smugglers that must be punished. But this will not solve the problem. In the U.S.A. today heroin is a prohibited drug. In England it is not prohibited. And yet the percentage of heroin addicts in the U.S.A. is higher than that in England. It is therefore not a problem that can be solved by legislation alone. Legislation is necessary, but there must be other additional means. In this permissive society, this hallucinogenic society, this L.S.D. society, this society that uses drugs which allow them to see flashing lights, it is necessary for all of us to know where our children are tonight. We must know who our children’s friends are. It is likewise also the duty of the other man to know who and what his friends are. That is where the solution of the problem lies. We as parents, the public of South Africa, must help the Police. Simply to say that this happens in that country and that happens in another country does not hold good. The position is not comparable. But it is typically the mentality of that side of the House to regard South Africa as an absolutely homogeneous community. We are not a homogeneous community. Even the drug addiction of the Bantu and that of the Whites are poles apart. We must think of these problems.

I think that the second way in which we can tackle this problem and which is of extreme importance to us, is to have the help of every single newspaper in this country, so that these problems and these evils can be brought to the attention of the public day after day. I want to say that that side of the House is still going to be grateful to this side of the House for the Press censure which is to a large extent, aimed at keeping in check this evil that causes so many problems. I am still waiting for anyone from that side of the House to make a remark about Mr. Stanley Uys writing in the Sunday Times about a “very, very dull society”. Hon. members may go and read that article. It is a full invitation to a permissive society.

We must realize that this is not only the Government’s problem. The Police must receive every possible assistance. I would in no way advocate that the smugglers of these drugs should be hung, but that problem must be tackled by the entire South African population. It is not the Government’s problem; it is South Africa’s problem.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left to me I want to say that I look upon drug addiction as a form of pollutions, pollution of the mind and the body and like all pollutions we have to clear it up as quickly as possible or else it is going to leave what we see around us every day, an ugly, wasteful and destructive mess. This form of pollution very often starts off innocently. It gains momentum rapidly and everything in its path becomes tainted and destroyed. Before we can talk about getting rid or treating addicts we have to find the source and how we can stop the distribution of drugs of any form coming into the hands of irresponsible people. As was explained by my friend the hon. member for Berea, drugs enter the country through the ports. What I am more perturbed about is the lack of security in many of our hospitals and health institutions where drugs are used and where they are not kept under, very close lock and key. We also find, over and over again that thefts take place at wholesalers who legitimately distribute pharmaceutical products. These drugs then fall into the hands of the irresponsible pedlar or pusher. These pushers operate in clubs, cafes and even in streets. They are very often not the persons who get hold of the drugs directly. They get it indirectly from combines who only employ them to distribute these drugs. It is the combine, the king drug pusher that we have to get at. For him I have no mercy and he should receive the strongest punishment we can mete out. The death penalty will not solve the problem, but these people have to be punished severely and put to work. Drug addiction does not affect in the same way all the people who use the same drug. But very often it leads them on the path of addiction. We have to make sure that the people who are proven addicts do not have some other psychological upset. We have to separate those from the people who take drugs as the young people say “for kicks”, for excitement and because their friends do it. I am very often perturbed about the statements that appear in the Press publicizing those people, very often sportsmen and people in the entertainment world, who take drugs. Their photos are splashed about and one, after reading the captions of these statements would feel that the newspapers sometimes even glorify them. We have to condemn that sort of publicity. It is the duty of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and also of the Department of Information to do everything in their power to stop and to counter that type of newspaper reporting. Let us rather publicize what happens to drug addicts. We know it becomes a temptation for a young fellow who joins a football club to take a drug when he reads that leading football players overseas take drugs. He thinks this will help him to play a better game. We have to show that this is not the case.

The hon. member for Berea spoke about the entry ports. He pointed out that we have not got enough people to search every seaman who comes off a boat; to search every suspicious character who comes off an aeroplane. He has told us that we have not got enough police and that we have not got enough personnel to watch every crate that is loaded on to a railway lorry until it is delivered into a pharmacy depot. Those are the ways in which these drugs get into the hands of the unscrupulous, and the Police must try to stop the illicit handling of drugs right at the source. I also want to make a plea to my medical colleagues not to over prescribe potentially harmful drugs that could be used harmfully. To me a drug which is potentially harmful today becomes harmful tomorrow in the hands of the unscrupulous and in the hands of people who already have a tendency towards mental aberration; it is with these people that we tie up the obscenities of the present permissive age, the pornography, the laziness, the refusal to work, the destruction of homes, the tendency of alcoholism to increase. It is all these things combined that sometimes make me feel that the permissive age that we are going through today is doing our world, especially our world in South Africa, a terrific amount of harm.

We must do everything that we can to stop it. Sir, the hon. member for North Rand has said that we want action. The Police are doing what they can. The handful of officers at the ports are doing what they can. The commissions which are sitting and writing out their findings on reams and reams of paper, which take ages to reach our hands, are not helping, except to explain to a handful of people what is happening. But, Sir, we know that today children of 10 and 12 in schools are already taking drugs. We do not need a commission to tell us that that is happening; we know that it is happening. We know that teenagers cannot hold down jobs today because of drug addiction; we do not need a commission to tell us this. What we need is more manpower to come and help the Police to do the job of clearing up. I agree that in our country particularly dagga may be a root cause of drug addiction and that it is causing the destruction of some of our youth. They start up with dagga but they end up with the hard-line drugs, with cocaine, heroin and morphine. Let us try to recruit, if not on a full-time basis, then part-time people who will volunteer to do day-and-night work to assist the Police who have undertaken to try to rid our country of this evil.

Mr. Speaker, the question of drug abuse and addiction has in our time become a social problem. That is why, just like other social problems, it deserves the attention of my Department. That is why I am dealing with this debate in my capacity as Minister of Social Welfare, although numerous other departments, such as the Departments of Health, Police, Justice and others are also very closely affected. For that specific reason my Department dealt with this commission of inquiry, and for the same reasons I shall deal with the legislation which will be introduced in this connection. That explains in brief the whole reason why this Department has taken over this matter.

Sir, I immediately want to say thank you very much to most of the members who participated here today for the fine manner in which they did so and for the spirit in which they did so. One was able to note deep concern in the speeches, as well as a deeply serious attitude in regard to how this evil is affecting our children and our youth in particular, and how it can be counteracted. That is why I want to say thank you in general for a good debate which, for the most part, was conducted on a relatively high level. This is of course a world-wide problem. In the U.S.A., just to give you an idea, it was found for example in the Report of the Task Group Convened to Recommend Appropriate Revision to the Department of Defence Policy on Drug Abuse, which appeared on 24th July, 1970, specifically to determine the quality of the manpower for the American Army, that at the University of Yale, between 18 and 49 per cent of the students were smoking dagga, that at Harvard University more than 50 per cent of the students were smoking dagga, that at the University of Connecticut, at which a survey was made in March, 1970, it was found that 85 per cent of the students were already smoking dagga and that half of this number were smoking it more than once a week and 20 per cent of the dagga smokers were also using L.S.D., amphetamines and other drugs. At the high schools in California tests were carried out and 32 per cent of the high school pupils were found to have smoked dagga, and 17 per cent had already smoked it more than ten times. More than 10 per cent had taken L.S.D., and 16.7 per cent had already experienced the effects of amphetamines. More than 10 per cent of the total population of the U.S.A., that powerful leader of the West, is in some form or another associated with the use of drugs. In England, France, the Netherlands and Germany, in all these Western states, the incidence of drugs is steadily increasing. Now we have this situation. I do not want to anticipate this committee’s report in South Africa, which we are now busy discussing. After the investigation had been fully completed, I just want to say this, and I shall return in a moment to certain aspects of the committee’s report, it was the committee’s finding that what had revealed itself, was only the visible tip of the iceberg, and that nine tenths had not yet been fully established. So world-wide is the problem, and so complicated. The results of this tremendous abuse is that the young people, particularly in the beginning, get the feeling that the abuse of these drugs causes them in most cases to react very energetically, in a wide awake manner, and very rapidly, and it creates in them the feeling of activity. But in practice it eventually turns intelligent, educated young people into nervous wrecks and weaklings with all kinds of psychological complexes, and if it is taken to extremes, they eventually become like mindless animals who only have one gnawing desire and need, and that is to get hold of the drugs in question.

Then there is still the phenomenon which makes things even worse, and that is that the more he uses, the greater the quantity of drugs required each time to have the same effect as the previous occasion, because his system becomes used to it. This causes endless suffering and pain, the breakup of families and the disappearance of the ideals nurtured by proud parents. It eventually leads to the isolation, rejection from society and self-withdrawal of the user, and a valuable force is lost for the nation, for his family, for himself and for everyone. Because this is the case, and because this evil is clearly cropping up in South Africa now. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Berea has brought this matter to the attention of the House and is once again focussing the attention of the public on it. I appreciate that, but the phrasing of the motion of the hon. member for Berea and the timing of its introduction and the spirit emanating from it, however, I find anything but beneficial. On the contrary, I think it is clearly politically orientated. It is as clear as can be that the hon. member wanted to make political gain out of the matter. Let us understand one another. I am saying this without any beating about the bush. After all, we all know that the matter is in progress. We all know that legislation is going to be introduced during this very session. We all know that we can thrash out this matter fully on that occasion; we will have the report available and we can debate it in full and we can take steps.

This has been clearly stated on numerous occasions, but the hon. member introduced this motion at this stage. Why? What can be the object behind it? Why should it be discussed now? Surely he knows that nothing further can be changed; it has been dealt with. No, it is because there are definite political aims behind it, and the political gain is already there. Tonight’s Argus stated: “Drugs pouring in. No action, says M.P. State accused of indecision”. So the question of politics has already had its immediate effect. I am not blaming the newspaper. It gave an accurate rendering of the political speech made by the hon. member for Berea. The newspaper acted correctly, but the hon. member for Berea did it deliberately.

This is an ill-considered and half-baked motion which contradicts itself and attempts to make political gain out of a question which has caught the imagination of the entire nation and in regard to which there is concern throughout the political section, on a countrywide basis, and in regard to which countrywide support has been promised in the combating of the problem. I have received more English letters than Afrikaans letters in this connection. I have received more letters from people who state frankly: “We do not belong to your party, and we do not support your party, but as far as this aspect is concerned, we are 100 per cent behind the Government. Carry on with the work”. But here it is being utilized for political gain. Sir, I do not want to judge the hon. member too harshly. I know that he has broached this matter frequently. Initially we discussed the matter of dagga and subsequently drugs. He has investigated the matter himself, etc. I shall return to that. The fact remains, however, that he could introduce the motion if he wanted to obtain the necessary publicity. I have no objection to that. Hon. members know the procedure of this House. When a motion is introduced it is publicized. The newspapers can then give immediate publicity to the matter. In that way the hon. member could have gained the limelight, but surely the United Party as a whole considers which motions should be discussed and in what sequence they are going to be discussed. The U.P. Whips, or their shadow Cabinet, or whoever it is, then decided that this half baked motion should be given top priority. Of all their private motions after their leader’s motion, this motion was the first to be discussed. With what purpose was that done? It was done because they wanted to steal a march on us before we introduced this legislation, so that they could say to the world at large that it was at their request that the legislation had been introduced. Their action was aimed at proving that the Government was not strong enough to act in that way. That is the object behind it.

I want to analyse the motion, In the first instance, the motion deplores the delay and indecision of the Government, but at the same time the motion expresses its sincere thanks and appreciation for the work of the South African Police and the Department of Customs and Excise and then, in a comprehensive provision, also thanks “all personnel” of theirs who are dealing with this problem. Now I want, in all honesty, to make this point: An official of the State, whether he is in the South African Police Force, in my Department, or in the Department of Customs and Excise, or anywhere else for that matter, acts on the instructions of his Minister, according to the policy of the Government of the day. How can the hon. member blame the Government for having done nothing and then say that the officials are all doing the most wonderful work on earth? After all, those officials serve under the Government, and carry out the instructions of the Government.

Let us now consider the five points which the hon. member put as part of his motion. Let us analyse the motion further. In the first place the hon. member stated that immediate steps must be taken to recruit adequate and specially trained staff to combat drug-peddling. Attempts are being made in all quarters and at all times to recruit as many policemen as possible to do this work, and all other kinds of police work. There are tremendous campaigns to acquire the necessary staff and to give them the necessary training. There are already special courses to keep officials fully informed as to the background of the problem, and also to train them in the handling of drugs. Involved in this are the Police, the Railway Police and many other people. Secondly, the hon. member states that sniffer dogs must be used for the detection of dagga. The Police are already doing that. The hon. member has already received a reply in this connection to the effect that the police dogs that are now being used are not the best type for this kind of work. Experimental cross-breeding must take place in order to find other types of dogs. Thirdly, the hon. member states that the sentences applicable to drug pedlars should be revised. The hon. member knows as well as I do that this requires legislation, and that it cannot be done administratively. How can we do it then? Legislation has already been envisaged for this session, but now the hon. member states in his motion that it must be done immediately. How must we do this? Surely he knows that it cannot be done without legislation. Fourthly, the hon. member asked for further research in this connection. I am standing here with two reports on this matter in my hand, and research is already under way. Apparently the hon. member has not seen these reports. The first one, dealing with the dagga problem, is report No. 5 of 1966. It is a comprehensive report on dagga. The second report, No. 7 of 1970, deals with alcoholism and drug addiction. This is research on which we are engaged. These are the reports. Then the hon. member accuses us of not undertaking research. We are occupied with this daily. In the fifth place the hon. member states in his motion that methods for detecting the presence of drugs on suspected persons must be investigated. This is what this committee of inquiry has done. They are busy doing so. That forms part of this report. In other words, Sir, I welcome the fact that the matter is being brought to the attention of the public again, but I reject with contempt the petty politicking the Opposition is trying to make of it in this debate.

The hon. member told us quite clearly that he was tired of words and wanted to see deeds and facts. Let us now discuss deeds and facts. This problem is a relatively new one in our country. It is generally known in the world, but it was only a few years ago quite unknown here in its present form and scope. Dagga is in fact an old problem. In that connection I have the figures here, but time does not allow me to mention them. The fact of the matter is however that we have been taking steps against dagga for years now. Every year between 30,000 and 35,000 people are prosecuted in this connection. What are the facts in regard to the other drugs? In the year 1964-’65 there were only 27 prosecutions, and 20 convictions. This is a minimal incidence. In 1965-’66 there were 30 prosecutions and 22 convictions. In 1966-’67 there was a decrease: 25 prosecutions and 18 convictions. In 1967 there was a further decrease: 24 prosecutions and 18 convictions. In other words, it was not disturbing. The normal laws showed that this matter could be handled. Then the closure of the Suez Canal took place, and after that there was suddenly a new situation. Then, in 1968-’69, we had 47 prosecutions and 30 convictions. After that these numbers have increased every year. In other words, steps were taken the moment this increase occurred. What steps were taken? In the first half of 1969 my Department was already giving attention to this matter when the phenomenon had clearly manifested itself. The inter-departmental committee on the need for care, misconduct and delinquency amongst children and juveniles, which the hon. member for Umbilo mentioned, expressed concern in its report on this matter in 1969. That and the National Council for Alcoholism, which also mentioned this in its report, was the original contributory cause of my giving this matter my specific attention.

On 9th June, 1969, the member for Germiston, Mr. Cruywagen, put a question to me in the debate in this House when my Vote was under discussion, and in my reply to the debate on the same date, namely 9th June, 1969, I announced that I intended appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate the entire matter. I did that immediately, on that very day. In that same session of this House we had already taken steps, and these were taken by means of a provision in the General Law Amendment Bill. In that Bill a clause was inserted, on the initiative of the Minister of Health, to amend the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act of 1928, i.e. by means of section 65 ter, which reads as follows—

The first year this matter came to our attention we specially inserted these provisions in the General Law Amendment Act, in order to make it possible for the Police to take stricter steps immediately. Does that look like delay or unwillingness or indecision on the part of the Government? On 25th June the committee was appointed, and immediately commenced its activities. In August, or September, of 1969, Mr. Alf Widman, the M.P.C. for Johannesburg, began his publicity campaign. He disguised himself and visited nightclubs. He began to give the matter publicity in the Press, and in this way it came to the attention of the public. At the time my committee had already been appointed, and was hearing evidence. This had all been finalized. Everybody in this House knows that. I shall return subsequently to Mr. Widman and the excellent work he did in this regard. The committee began its work immediately. On 3rd October, 1969, its itinerary and a complete questionnaire was published in the Gazette. People were requested to complete the Questionnaire and submit memoranda. On 13th October the committee began to hear evidence. The Press and radio gave wide publicity to this matter. I am very grateful to a responsible Press and a responsible radio who gave this country-wide publicity, and for the fine spirit and fine disposition with which they produced various programmes and articles on the matter. Everywhere it was well presented. On 26th October the Prime Minister stated quite clearly at Welkom that legislation would be introduced this session still. He even envisaged that the confiscation of property would be considered as a punishment. Even the hon. member for Berea knew that we were working on this matter. On 1st July, 1970, he put a question to me in Parliament on what progress the Committees’ report had made. I furnished him with a full reply to that. During 1970 I saw the Press frequently in regard to this matter, and time and again I set it out clearly. On 8th December, 1970, this report, still in its typewritten form, was handed over to me. On that occasion, which was also given publicity, I said that I would study the report during my vacation and would immediately take the necessary steps in order to deal with the evil as rapidly as possible. On that occasion I also envisaged that this Government would not be weak or lax or loath to take steps, but that we would take drastic and severe steps because we believed that this evil should be eradicated completely. Does that sound like delay or indecision on the part of the Government? I can go on like this and produce one item of proof after another, but I see that time is marching on, and I will not be able to do so. It was again envisaged in the State President’s speech that legislation was coming. Is there any person in South Africa who does not at this stage know that we are working intensively on this matter, and that drastic legislation is going to be introduced in this Session? Everybody knew this, but the United Party preferred to squeeze this motion in quickly at this stage, so that the public outside could get the impression that it was at their request that legislation was ultimately being introduced. This subterfuge will not work. The public has been timeously and fully informed in regard to the matter. I take the strongest exception to the fact that the Opposition has tried to make a little political capital out of this disturbing problem which has tragic consequences and which is ruining the lives of numerous young people.

I want to deal for a moment with the hon. member for Berea himself. He takes an interest in this problem, and he has been discussing it for a long time. He has discussed dagga, and he has discussed this matter. I listen readily to any advice in this connection because we are in earnest about dealing with this problem. From the speech made today by the hon. member I deduced that the hon. member knows quite a good deal about and that he has made a study of this matter. It appears to me that he knows a great deal about it. He has investigated the matter himself. I have here the report of the Afrikaans newspaper Rapport of 19th December of last year, in which it was reported that he had disguised himself and had entered nightclubs to investigate this matter. I in no way want to belittle what he has done because this is the way to find out. He co-operated with the Police in this connection. I want to tell him that it is true that I also visited the nightclubs, together with the Police, in May of last year. I have therefore been there personally and have seen everything for myself, but I did not disguise myself as the hon. member did, because that is not necessary. I went in there and moved about. I had the Police with me, as well as a member of the committee, and an official or two accompanied me. We investigated this matter in Cape Town, and not in Durban or Johannesburg. Because I have gone to see for myself what is going on there, I also know what is going on there.

Was it enjoyable?

No, it was not as enjoyable as the hon. member would have found it. In all honesty, does the hon. member have the right to come to this House with such a motion and accuse the Government of delay and indecision if he has not himself done his basic duty as a citizen of this country in this connection? What was his duty as a citizen? A committee of inquiry was appointed to investigate the matter in all its aspects. Advertisements were placed to the effect that the committee was going to hear evidence and that it would accept memoranda from all those who were interested or had any knowledge of the matter. Do hon. members know what that hon. member, who is pointing a finger at us and accusing us of not doing enough, and that there has been no deeds and no action, did? He did not lift a finger to make his knowledge available, which is considerable as we all know, to the committee. He did not give evidence, he did not submit a memorandum and he ignored the committee completely while they were in actual fact looking for evidence of stature and while his evidence, as we heard it today, would definitely have been of value to them. It was his right to do so and he could have done so with the greatest pleasure.

Why should he?

Naturally, the hon. member’s standpoint would be the same as that of the hon. member who is now saying “why should he?” No, the hon. member kept quiet and did not say a word until he came here today to make political gain out of this problem. Now the hon. member for Durban (North) is asking me, “Why should he?” What did the other members of the United Party, who investigated the matter, namely Mr. Widman, do? Mr. Widman of Johannesburg also investigated the matter and he visited night clubs in Johannesburg. Not only did he submit a memorandum, but he appeared personally before the committee for hours to give evidence and to consult with them. His evidence was indicated by the committee as being among some of the most useful evidence they received. That is the other side of the matter. This hon. member chose to keep quiet and he did not say a word, but at this stage he chooses to attack the Government, although he neglected his first duty which was to make his knowledge available to that committee of inquiry. He shamefully neglected his duty. In that case I am asking in all honesty what the hon. member’s motive was. I do not think the hon. member can blame me when I say that I have appended a large question mark next to the pristine honesty of his motives.

The hon. the Minister of Justice told me the other day that I must not raise a matter outside; I should do so in this House.

I leave that hon. member to his own conscience as far as this matter is concerned. However, may we be spared our using such a diabolical threat and such a serious problem as this is as a political football. Then we would not be serving our country and our people. Then we would not even be furthering our own interests, but would be bringing about our own doom. Then, at this stage, I should just like to make an appeal in advance to the hon. members, since we shall later today be debating this matter, to regard it in a serious light, knowing that such a responsibility rests on us.

The Government is very firmly convinced that we must act, and we shall act. I do not want to disclose the contents of this report before I have laid it upon the Table. However, the Government at present stands accused of delay and indecision. This forces me to make certain information available. I shall, however, do it with great circumspection. I am only making certain information available; I only have a few minutes left. The committee visited seven urban centres, and no fewer than 239 persons gave oral evidence. In addition to that 54 written memoranda were submitted and considered. The sittings took place in Cape Town from 13th to 17th October, in Port Elizabeth from 24th to 26th November, in East London on 27th November, in Johannesburg from 19th to 26th January, in Bloemfontein from 16th to 18th February, in Durban from 9th to 13th March and in Pretoria from 27th April to 1st May. Four members of the committee also attended the international seminar on the prevention and treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction in Lauzanne, Switzerland. Two of the members, in addition to that, made a study of the problem abroad, while three other members of the committee paid visits to America and other countries to study the matter. I want to express my personal gratitude and appreciation to the committee, which was appointed on a broad basis and represented numerous interested organizations. It consisted of full-time people, who have their own work and professions and who had to spare the time for this purpose. On behalf of the Government and the people of South Africa I want to thank this committee for an outstanding piece of work which was accomplished as rapidly as possible and was done comprehensively and well. This document will serve for years as a basis whenever these matters are discussed.

But, Sir, I want to say at this stage already that this problem, as I saw it, and as the committee found it, is a multi facetted matter. It is easy to say that we can deal with all these matters administratively; but the medical profession and the pharmaceutical profession are the first people who would immediately begin to react if we were to take the administrative steps recommended to us here by the Opposition. This committee made no fewer than 80 recommendations. Those recommendations affect a variety of matters which in turn affect 22 Government departments and other bodies. It will be possible to implement some of the committee’s recommendations by means of legislation, and others without legislation.

I just want to make it very clear that we will definitely have to find effective means of dealing with the smuggling trade and to ensure better control over the availability and distribution of drugs. We have already reached the point where we have overseas liaison. That overseas liaison is, as far as the smuggling trade is concerned, already showing results. We can see that our overseas links—I do not want to say more about it, or the whole scheme will be ruined—is already having an effect on the entry of drugs into our country.

We already have special drug units. These have been established by the Police in all our major cities. An intensive course on all the facets of the abuse of drugs have already been given to a number of detectives and policemen. Members of the Railway Police, the Department of Prisons and even the Defence Force have attended the course. I have already mentioned the use of dogs. We have all the necessary particulars at our disposal, and I just want to make the following statistics available to give hon. members an idea of the scope, and then the committee states that this is one-tenth of the actual scope. As far as LSD is concerned, from one capsule of 280 micrograms to 400 capsules of 800 micrograms each have been found. Recently there has been 12 arrests for LSD. The age groups of the accused varied between 18 and 25 years. All were found guilty. As far as barbiturates and amphetamines are concerned, between 12 and 650 pills or capsules per case have been found. There have been 31 arrests. The ages varied from 16 to 35 years. Thirty out of the 31 accused were found guilty. As far as morphine is concerned, two doses of 1.1 millilitres were each found. There have been two arrests. The case is still awaiting trial. The ages are 18 and 19. As far as dagga is concerned, quantities of one thirty-second of an ounce to 700 pounds per case have been found. There have been 1,990 arrests. The ages vary from 15 to 60 years. The number of accused persons found guilty was 85 per cent. There statistics deal with the period from 1st July, 1970 to 9th February, 1971, slightly more than six months. These statistics apply only in respect of the Cape Peninsula. This is in the area of the Commissioner of Cape Town. The picture in respect of the rest of the country for the period 1st January, 1970, to 8th February, 1971, is that 155 persons, 127 males and 28 females, have been arrested in respect of various kinds of drugs, of which 92 were found guilty and 14 cases are still awaiting trial. In respect of dagga there have been 31,948 prosecutions in this one year. As far as these drugs are concerned, 144,000 tablets were involved. But this Government is being accused of doing nothing whatsoever. We are accused of being indecisive.

No, that is not really the case.

That side of the House is accusing us of indecision and delay, and is doing nothing.

You are saying that we are accusing the Government of doing nothing. That is not true.

Very well then, we have not been accused of doing nothing, but have in fact been accused of doing far too little.

I should like to summarize and conclude what I have to say in the last five minutes at my disposal. I am not going to anticipate my legislation. I have no intention of doing so. It will be introduced, and on that occasion we will all have every opportunity of debating this matter in full. The Grobler committee report will at that stage be available to members. Hon. members will have all the facts, and we can then conduct a fruitful debate on the matter on that occasion. That is why I do not want to anticipate it. Yet I just want to make it very clear that we are aware of the manifestation of this problem. We have had it very thoroughly investigated, and as we should have done, by experts each of whom represented his own profession. We are going to act; we are undoubtedly going to take severe action because it will be in the interests of our country and our people and the future of South Africa.

There are a few facets which must receive attention. In the first instance there are those drugs which have no or a minimal medicinal value, but as LSD, dagga and others. In most cases we will impose a total prohibition. Secondly, there are those drugs which do in fact have a medicinal value and which are used by the medical profession. The handling and distribution of these drugs at all control points will have to be fully regulated. Thirdly, there are the exploiters and the pedlars who abuse these lawful medicinal drugs, and who apply them unlawfully and unscrupulously in order to enrich themselves and for their own gain at the expense of thousands of promising young lives. They will be dealt with without mercy, as is the duty of a State and a Government.

Fourthly, there is the question of rehabilitation. Urgent attention will be given to this by the State and voluntary welfare organizations. As I said the other day in reply to a question, quite a considerable number of these people are being admitted to and rehabilitated in existing institutions. But this number will have to be increased.

Fifthly, there is public opinion, which can be of assistance. I should like to illustrate this with an example. Punishments for these offences vary from one country to another. In five countries in the world the death penalty is applicable to illegal suppliers and distributors. In other countries heavy penalties and long prison sentences are enforced. In this way, for example, a fine of up to $20,000 is applicable in the United States of America, and in the State of New York a prison sentence of 40 years is even possible. In France the penalty was recently increased from 5 years to 25 years’ imprisonment. So, too the penalty in Britain was recently increased to 10 years. In Japan it was initially three years, but it was subsequently raised to 10 years. I am deliberately mentioning this, because I maintain that I need the help of the public in South Africa.

In Western countries the use of drugs is not abating. In spite of these higher penalties which America, Britain and France have announced, statistics indicate that there has, on the contrary, been an increase. A moment ago the hon. member held up the United States as an example to me and said that the United States had made additional money and manpower available for combating this problem. But in spite of that as well, the use of drugs in the U.S.A. is steadily increasing. There is one country that solved the problem. It is not Russia. In 1954 in Japan 55,664 arrests were made in respect of drug pedlars. In 1958 this figure dropped to 271. The epidemic in Japan is virtually at an end today. The reason for this is given in a report of the British Journal of Addiction, 1969. I am quoting from Volume 64, page 91—

That is therefore where the secret lay when the problem was epidemic, and it has now virtually disappeared. The mass media, our newspapers, public opinion must revolt against the epidemic. I want to express my thanks once again to our newspapers and the radio for what they have done up to now. However, they must carry on with this. Let us therefore get away from the morbid condemnation of the abuse as it is at present being done by some persons and newspapers. In the name of human individual freedom and the so-called revolt against the existing establishment, young people are being encouraged and told that they can escape it all by means of drugs. Have these so called young people who want to change the present order of things made one single positive, practical and realistic suggestion as to how the order should be changed so that they can also fit in and law and order still be maintained? Unlike the Western world a young and dynamic country like South Africa cannot afford to lose hundreds of its most serviceable men. And there is still such a thing as moral standards and moral codes. We will maintain these in South Africa even though all the Western countries give way to the pressure of opinion formers who elevate individual licentiousness and permissiveness into a virtue. In this country we will not risk law and order being demolished, even if we have to maintain it by force. The purpose of the legislation which we are going to introduce will be to deal with this matter, and every well-intentioned citizen in our country will support our efforts. When the world comes to its senses again one day, there must still be a country somewhere where ethical and moral standards are being maintained and where an example can be found. South Africa will, even if it is against the stream, not allow itself to be swayed from its course in this permissive society of the Western world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now move the following motion, as printed in my name—

1. (a) recognizing agricultural co-operatives which have for some time successfully been providing their members with agricultural information, as an ancillary extension service operating in addition to that of the State; and
2. (b) granting these co-operatives the requisite financial assistance in order to promote efficient and economical agricultural production in South Africa.

Our present Minister of Agriculture has said on occasion, “there have been few periods in the history of agriculture in South Africa in which our industry has been subject to so many revolutionary influences”. During the past two decades our physical agricultural production has more than doubled itself. Agricultural extension services and research have necessarily made an enormous contribution to improved farming methods, thanks to, inter alia, the assistance given and the research done by the Department in this regard. In the scientific field South Africa need not take a back seat to any agricultural country in the world. There is talk of a technological revolution in the world of today, and this revolution also affects agriculture in South Africa.

It is demanded of the South African farmer that he should always keep abreast of the latest and most modern systems of farming; otherwise he, with an inherently risky undertaking, will not be able to keep going. The modern farmer of today, if he is a crop farmer, has to make use of expensive hybrid seed and of increased, scientific levels of fertilization so as to obtain the highest yield possible from each morgen. He has to mechanize and try and push his labour production to the highest level possible. All these things have economic implications. The sound and prospering farming undertaking of today has become capital-intensive. Its capital requirements have increased steadily. From the nature of the case this means that the modern farmer has to be a planning manager. In addition he has to be a finances a production manager and a marketing manager. Not all of us were born with these talents. We see today that in the larger undertakings these things have become specialized managerial functions. In the case of the one-man concern in modern farming today the farmer is expected to be able to perform all these functions on his own.

The question now arises whether the State on its own will be able to satisfy, as it did in the past, all the needs for more intensified extension services. In the first place, the State and the department concerned, do not have sufficient manpower at their disposal. In the second place, that close contact between the farmer and the extension service can never be effected. Physically it will not be possible to do so, because communication plays an enormously important part in an intensified system of extension services, especially as regards economic guidance. Sir, this is a type of guidance which one might describe as individual guidance. The extension officer must have knowledge of every specific problem in all the facets of the farming enterprise. I believe that the solution to this problem and the filling of this gap for the farmer is to be found in his own organizations, i.e. his agricultural co-operatives.

Sir, what is an agricultural co-operative in short? A co-operative is formed when a group of farmers come together, mobilize their powers in order to attain a common objective which the farmer as an individual in his own enterprise may not be able to attain with as much success. Basically this is the object of a co-operative. The agricultural co-operatives, as we know, already provide a variety of these services which a farmer as an individual cannot perform successfully on his farm on his own—the marketing of his produce, the provision of his farming requisites, his financing, the processing of his produce. This joint attempt of farmers has already met with success in South Africa. It may be important just to mention a few figures on this occasion so as to illustrate the development of agricultural co-operatives in South Africa. In 1947 the number of registered co-operatives was 232 with a membership of 173,702, and with a total turnover—i.e. produce handled and farming requisites and other services provided—of R119.4 million. Twenty years later, in 1967, the exact figure was 317 registered co-operatives with a total membership of 297,080, and with a total turnover of R965.4 million.

Sir, I learn from an authoritative source that the agricultural co-operatives’ turnover figure for last year passed the thousand million rand mark. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it is a foregone conclusion that the co-operatives, through this mobilized power of farmers it has built up over the years, will also be able to render a service in the field of agricultural extension to a member in gathering scientific knowledge for him; in imparting this knowledge to him in the best possible and most practical way, as a co-operative has closer mutual contact with its members, has more statistics at its disposal and has to deal more often with all the facets of a farmers’ problems on his farm. What is important is that the success of the individual farmer is also the success of the co-operative as an organization. The co-operative has a direct interest in the success of the farmer.

This need has already made itself felt, and a considerable number of co-operatives has moved into the field of guidance to their members, and great success has been achieved in this regard. My seconder will tell you more about this. But it is nevertheless interesting to point out that as long ago as 1939 in the Co-operative Societies Act in the objects stated in section 6 it was envisaged, inter alia, that co-operatives would enter this field. In section 6 (1) (k) and (1) the Act provides—

This is what the Act provides. Mr. Speaker, it is therefore within the province of co-operatives to provide agricultural information as an additional service to its members. But as a result of this scientific development in agriculture, extension services are in great demand. They have started to acquire commercial value. Extension services have become commercialized. The private sector has integrated those services as part of its sales service to the farmer, and here, if I may be specific, I refer to fertilizer companies. They have drawn agricultural technicians away from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to perform this service.

But what is important is that these people have not been able to give rational guidance in this process of giving information, because basically the object has been to sell. I know that co-operatives have been parties to this; they, too, have drawn some of these technicians away as it is necessary for them to meet the farmer’s rational need for guidance. I say “rational guidance” because an extension officer appointed by a co-operative gives guidance solely in the interests of the farming enterprises of its members and not necessarily to perform an additional function of salesmanship.

Sir, it would have been a tragedy if agricultural co-operatives, purely out of sympathy with the Department, were to have remained passive and were to have looked on how this service became more and more commercialized; in that case we might have had the position that many more of these technicians would have been drawn into the commercial world. In order to eliminate overlapping and a resultant waste of manpower in this service, we must take a look at the three bodies providing guidance at present.

The demand for this service is so great and extensive that there need be no question of overlapping and a resultant waste of manpower. The field of each ought to be clearly defined. I want to try to put to you in brief, Sir, the ideal set-up, as we see it. Firstly, the State, in the first place is to conduct research on an extensive scale, as it is doing at present and as it did in the past; secondly, there is the drawing up of national extension programmes —for instance, soil conservation and conservation farming systems, etc. The State is to have the additional function of supervising and co-ordinating these various extension services. It is also important that the State should lay down standards of quality. In this regard the Department of Agricultural Engineering comes to mind in that it subjects certain implements and farming machinery to tests in order to determine their efficiency and their performance in the interests of the farmer—in other words, their standards of quality.

Sir, the others are the private bodies. We have reached the position in South Africa that if this extension service which has developed and crystallized over the years, were to be taken away from these people, it would mean enormous disruption, not only to the farmer, but to agriculture as a whole. Therefore, the function of the private bodies in this regard should be specialized product research—let it do its own research in respect of the products it wants to provide to the farmer. In addition it should provide information as to the use of its specific products. But this information should be given to the distributors, in this case the agricultural co-operatives. Then the field of the agricultural co-operative should be applied research, demonstrative and co-operative tests, composition of study groups to bring farmers together in a group action in order to be able to carry this service through successfully. In addition, practical technological guidance as well as economic guidance must be provided.

The State is the main protector of agriculture in South Africa for very sound reasons. Agriculture forms one of the most important bases of our national economy. It is the provider not only of food, but also of many important industrial products, and next to gold it is the biggest earner of foreign exchange. There is also a direct connection between carrying on farming operations and the conservation and development of our most important natural resources, namely water and soil. In our soil conservation effort we have a subsidy system under which compensation is paid for soil conservation works, and not necessarily for conservation farming. Soil conservation works alone are no guarantee that conservation farming will take place. Soil conservation works are just the physical aspect. Soil conservation works do not guarantee the development of the soil and the improvement of its fertility. One asks oneself whether the time has not arrived for us to move in the direction of compensation in our subsidy system in the case of conservation fanning as well? I readily admit that there are practical problems in this regard, but I want to try to illustrate the matter by mentioning an example.

The Government does take part in conservation farming by, for example, subsidizing fertilizer on the basis of plant food content and maintaining the fertility of the soil in that way. We know that the total subsidy on fertilizer is in the vicinity of R14 million each year. This is probably done partly to provide the farmer with cheaper fertilizer, but most certainly also to supplement inorganic plant food in the soil. We cannot double our physical volume of agricultural produce in a matter of two decades and never put anything back into the soil. The growth rate of the fertilizer industry virtually doubled itself during the past ten years, and at present the annual growth rate is, I think, between 8 per cent and 10 per cent. If an agricultural co-operative in its extensive process of agricultural guidance were to ask the State for financial assistance for the erection of, for example, soil analysis laboratories so as to lay down improved fertilizing programmes for its farmers, that would not only be to the benefit of the specific number of farmers belonging to that co-operative, but also in the interests of the fertility of the soil, which unquestionably is a national asset of which the State is the protector. The levels of fertilizing in South Africa are developing in such a way that the time has arrived for us to have a soil map for each farm, so that each farmer may determine by means of analysis the need for fertilizing. The time has for a farmer to obtain a prescription, just as a patient obtains a prescription from a doctor for the medicines he has to take, before buying his fertilizer. We have reached that stage in South Africa, and it is rapidly creating problems for our farmers in regard of fertilizing. Therefore, if a co-operative asks for financial assistance in respect of building costs of this nature, it is not a new principle in our subsidy system in respect of conservation practises. If a body such as a local authority decides to carry out a water scheme, or if they decide to build dams in the service of its public, it is subsidized by the State because it is conserving water. Here we have exactly the same principle. If a co-operative in its process of guidance and of applied research launches certain projects that are in the interests of soil fertility and the conservation of this national asset, it is perfectly entitled to ask the State for financial assistance. I believe that in that case such a co-operative qualifies for such assistance.

Sir, we are not asking the State for a subsidy for the agricultural co-operatives because we have drawn away its technicians and now find ourselves in a position of being unable to pay them. We shall pay these people a decent salary, and we shall offer them a decent career. I think it is also the co-operative’s duty in this regard to see to it that agricultural technicians are trained, that better opportunities are created for them, and that, bursaries are made available to them, if possible, in order to supplement in this way the numbers of these essential scientists in the agricultural industry. Financial assistance of this nature to co-operatives should be available to all farmers and not only to members of the co-operative. Virtually all farmers are members of some co-operative today, and to serve the few who are not members, will make no difference to its administration. In other words, the co-operatives can act as a kind of agent of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to supply all farmers with these services free of charge, At present the co-operatives are supplying these services to their members free of charge in any event. Only by encouraging and stimulating certain directions in the extension service by means of financial assistance, will the State be able to perform its function of control and co-ordination efficiently. In this way it can work out national programmes and see to it that these are applied. No overlapping can take place in this regard, as the State will be able to obtain the necessary control in this way.

I said at the outset that it was necessary for us to apply modern farming practises in South Africa and that technological and scientific development was making steadily increasing demands on the South African farmer. With our climatic conditions in South Africa, which are very difficult, and with the limited agricultural land we have to our disposal, I believe that if we make the necessary adjustments and if we can effect this co-ordination of extension services in South Africa, we shall not experience any problems in the future in providing this country with food, even in the year 2,000. I am not one of those pessimists who believe that the time will arrive when we in South Africa shall no longer be able to supply the food our country will need. I believe that in the South African farmer we have the necessary human material. I believe that the South African farmer is the toughest in the world as he has to carry on his farming operations under very difficult climatic conditions.

Mr. Speaker, all of us have listened with special attention to the hon. member for Bethal, because he introduced an unusual motion here. I want to tell the hon. member that we on this side of the House are not going to move an amendment to his motion, but that does not mean, however, that we are going to follow the hon. member in his arguments and that we agree with everything contained in this motion. In the first place, we have no objection to the sentiments expressed by the hon. member in the preample to his motion. He said there that increasingly more demands will be made on the South African farmer in future. The hon. member now asks that agricultural co-operative societies which have been providing a good extension service for some time, be granted general recognition and that they receive financial assistance in future as well. I simply want to tell the hon. member at once that we on this side of the House unfortunately cannot agree with that part of his motion. It is not because we are opposed to agricultural co-operative societies. Also, it is not because we do not appreciate the assistance they have already granted and will be granting in future. In the course of time I hope to illustrate to the hon. member why we think that this motion of his and the proposals he made, will not fulfil the requirements of the future.

The hon. member delivered himself of a panegyric on how the physical volume of our agricultural production had doubled itself over the past few decades. We agree wholeheartedly with that. In addition, we agree with the hon. member that South Africa need not stand back for any other country in the world. We are proud of what we have achieved. But I want to say to the hon. member that I am not so optimistic as he is in thinking that the agricultural production in South Africa will be able to provide for our future needs, especially not if note is taken of the tremendous population explosion in our country. I do not doubt that there will always be an increase in agricultural production. I do in fact believe that there will be an increase. Indeed, I believe that in the next decade or so, we shall perhaps again be able to attain the same achievement as we have attained in the past decade. But the hon. member is not taking account of the fact that the population is increasing so rapidly that at the end of the century, or by 1980, as calculated by some experts, there will be famine in many parts of the world. The reason for this is that the number of mouths which must be fed, is increasing more quickly than the corresponding increase in agricultural production. It can increase, but not sufficiently in order to provide for the increase in the population. However, I agree with the hon. member that the demands which will be put to the agricultural industry in future, will be increasingly stringent, stronger and stricter. For that reason we, like that hon. member, are concerned about the question of agricultural information in South Africa. But we want to say at once to the hon. member that there is a Department of Agricultural Technical Services which provides agricultural information. This Department has tremendous shortage of staff. The figures were divulged to us a year or two ago. I think that out of 358 agricultural extension posts, only 168 were filled. That is the situation.

The number of young men today following a B.Sc. course in agriculture at universities, is becoming fewer and fewer. Stellenbosch is saddled with that problem. I understand other universities have to deal with the same problem as well. The students at agricultural colleges, viz. those people from whom one draws one’s technicians and extension officers for the future, are becoming fewer and fewer. Only this week we heard to what extent the number of students at Grootfontein had decreased. If, at this stage, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is not able to fill the posts it has, I should like to know from the hon. member how, if we were to try to create the opportunity for co-operative societies to do more extension work, together with the provision of financial assistance, it could improve the situation in South Africa. The agricultural co-operative societies to which the hon. member referred, will continue competing with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. In reality, therefore, there will not be an improvement in the situation.

There is another point as well. Why should the co-operative societies be singled out in this respect? There are indeed many other companies in the private sector. The are the fertilizer companies. The hon. member had quite a lot to say about the distribution of agricultural fertilizers. The fertilizer companies of the country are among the best examples where a tremendous amount of information is given to the South African farmer.

I said they have a place in extension work.

Yes, the hon. member was correct in saying that they have a place in the extension service, but in regard to financial assistance, the hon. member singled out only the co-operative societies and did not mention the others which still have to compete with the co-operative societies and with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. For that reason, the hon. member will not be able to solve the problem of the shortage of manpower by means of the motion he moved. I remember that a former hon. Minister of Agricultural Technical Services launched a certain institute for agricultural extension services in South Africa a few years ago. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services was in the first instance drawn into this institute of agricultural extension services. The services of the private sector, and probably those of the co-operative societies as well, were also drawn into this. The whole purpose of agricultural extension services was in fact to co-ordinate the activities of the private sector and those of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in this respect. What has become of these people? Are they not functioning yet? I hope the hon. the Minister, or whoever is going to take part in this debate, can tell us, because everybody thought, and I personally said so on one occasion, that it was a good step. What has become of it? These are the people responsible for finding the correct kind of co-ordination. I am not fighting with the hon. member for Bethal, because he also pleaded for co-ordination as well as for more co-operation, but a body has already been created to ascertain whether we cannot improve the extension services to the South African farmer. I shall be sorry if such an institute for agricultural extension has not yet been launched and if no progress has yet been made in that direction. Normally, a discussion on technical information and its adequacy today would have prompted an interesting debate. We realize there is increasing degree of mechanization. Every day new pests and plagues appear and the most modern methods of soil cultivation must be applied as well. Together with this, of course, there remains the indispensable economic information for the farmer. All this makes the provision of adequate and effective agricultural information absolutely essential. What we appreciated most in the hon. member’s proposal and also in his speech, was the way in which he stated the problem. Unfortunately this is the only point on which I can agree with him and with which I can find no fault. In addition, however, I must say that the hon. member’s concern about the inadequacy of extension services is supported by this side of the House as well.

†But, Mr. Speaker, what I find difficult to understand is why the hon. member should have singled out only our co-operative societies for particular praise in this particular field. Many private firms are connected with our industry and they are also doing just as much as the various co-operative societies in order to put across the most recent agricultural information available. Their work is just as praiseworthy as that of our co-operative societies. This is unfortunately our difficulty with the hon. member’s motion. We are aware of the good work which is being done by the co-operative societies, but they are also acting in competition with other firms. The hon. member wants them to be recognized, but he does not want the others to be recognized as well. He wants them to receive financial assistance, but the other institutions and the other organizations may not get financial assistance.

I have never said that.

The hon. member has not said it, but his motion is quite clear. His motion suggests:

Of course, Sir, if it is the hon. member’s intention that other institutions and private firms should also receive financial assistance from the Government, then it is an entirely new matter.

*Then he would be approaching the matter from quite a different angle. But I am surprised, if that is the hon. member’s view, that he did not include it in his motion.

†We realize that co-operatives enjoy a special position in our agricultural industry. Many of us on this side of the House are also members of such co-operatives. The reasons why we are members of various co-operatives, are quite obvious. It is because there are special advantages attached to one’s membership of a co-operative. They also assist our farmers with the marketing of our products. They are farmers’ organizations. Belonging to a co-operative improves the collective bargaining power of the farmer. But they are not the only essential chain in our economic system.

*What we on this side believe should be prevented at all costs, is the development of a monopolistic tendency in agriculture. We would want to see monopolistic tendencies being terminated. There should be a healthy element of competition, even in regard to the purchase of one’s product. I am afraid that if the hon. member’s motion is accepted as it stands here, it would mean that the co-operative societies would reveal an almost monopolistic tendency in their provision of essential agricultural requirements in South Africa. It would eliminate the competitive element, because it would be able to offer more advantages than any other institution from the private sector. For that reason, we believe that the hon. member’s ideas are sound, but that his solution to the question of adequate agricultural extension services, as contained in the motion, is not an effective one.

I just want to outline briefly to the hon. member how we regard the matter of extension services. We also regard the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as being the most important institution to do basic research work. Thus they undertake thousands of projects a year. In this way they create the opportunity of supplying us with the best plants and seeds. They are carrying out research in order to cultivate the best drought-resistant plants for us, something South Africa will need very badly in future. We on this side of the House appreciate those things. We regard the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as the department which will have to carry out its task in this respect even further. It will have to be taken much further.

But we are also concerned about the fact that there is such a tremendous shortage of trained manpower in that department. We believe that sufficient staff must be trained, especially for the agricultural expansion services and the technical departments. We believe that those people should be paid sufficiently well, that they should receive good salaries and that we should offer them conditions of service which will attract them to that department. It should be attractive enough to obtain the people for that department and prevent their joining other institutions. The fact that these people join other institutions, costs South Africa a tremendous amount every year. For example, we know that as a result of animal diseases our losses cost South Africa millions of rands every year because we do not have enough veterinary surgeons.

I have already said that there is a shortage of extension officers. I mentioned the figures which were mentioned in this House a year or two ago as well. We know that there are countries which have one extension officer for every 45 farmers. In South Africa there is one extension officer for approximately 750 farmers. We believe that many of our extension officers’ time is taken up by the work they have to do at their desks. We believe this is one of the reasons why a career as an extension officer is not attractive enough. The extension officer really spends only 60 to 70 days outside his office. He must spend the rest of the year in his office in order to deal with essential paper work. We believe this type of work should be taken over by other staff. Leave the extension officer so that he can do his work outside for the farmer. If we were to fulfil that requirement, namely that we could have an extension officer for every magisterial district in South Africa, if this were our ideal, I believe that we shall progress much more than at present in informing the farmer of South Africa.

But that is not all. We shall also have to make more bursaries available to young men who are prepared to study in this direction. There are many of them today who should like to do that and who have the scholastic qualifications as well, but whose parents cannot afford it, who do not always know the right people and who are not always in a position to be able to obtain the right bursary. It is our task and the task of the Department of Agriculture to ensure that those people manage to attend our universities and colleges.

We Nationalists are taking care of that.

I shall concede that in regard to bursaries, the position has certainly improved a lot. The position of study loans has improved a great deal. But I know of numbers of young boys and girls who would like to attend university, who would like a higher education, but who are simply not able to do so. This applies to our agriculture as well.

Agricultural training?

Yes, of course there are numbers of them who would like to receive agricultural training. But because sufficient facilities are not being created for them to be able to attend a university, they cannot do so. And we need them.

Lastly, we must impress upon the extension officer that he has a task to fulfil which will provide him with a considerable status in the community. In other words, he will not be there only as the source of knowledge to the farmer, but as the agricultural leader in the true sense of the word. It can be done by giving him that status. But today the extension officer is in the first place an officer of the department. The department expects too much from him personally, while we would rather have expected him to perform his task in regard to the farmer instead of to the department. His time is being taken up by the filling in of reports and forms; office work is the largest stumbling block in the road of making the task of the extension officer as attractive and ambitious as possible. If this co-ordination existed between the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, private firms and the co-operative societies, I believe we would be successful in transferring our agricultural information to the farmer. In terms of the proposal of the hon. member for Bethal, I believe more problems will be created and it may even be found that the private sector will think that we are excluding them entirely from the agricultural industry. At this stage, South Africa cannot afford that. I believe that the private sector and its interests, disseminate as much information as any other agricultural co-operative society I know. For that reason, it is to be regretted that the hon. member restricted his motion to agricultural co-operative societies and did not include the others as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the hon. member for Newton Park could not help keeping his voters in mind today. When the hon. member saw that what was at issue here were co-operative societies and primarily the farmers and that there was a possibility of a subsidy, he could do nothing else but think of those people who are normally regarded as consumers and who live in our towns. I am sorry that the hon. member, who must be a fine person because he comes from Swellendam and he knows all about farming, could not see his way clear to lending his support to this fine motion. I also noticed that this whole question of manpower was so prominent in the thoughts of the hon. member that one was actually waiting for him to suggest as a solution the fact that more Bantu should be utilized for this purpose. As far as private firms and co-operative societies are concerned, I want to make it quite clear that there is a real difference between these two. After all, the co-operative society works on an agency basis on behalf of its members, and it is in itself not an ordinary business undertaking as such.

I want to support this motion which is now before this House. As the primary producer of food and raw materials for our textile industry the agriculturalist or farmer is still indispensable to all countries, and this has been the case at all times and in all civilizations. In these modern times in which we are living, where science has succeeded in opening unprecedented avenues for mankind and in harnessing new powers for the benefit of mankind and is even performing such marvels for us, as farmers, as landing two people on the moon, the farmer as still indispensable to any country and has not become less important. Although it has become technically possible to produce food in factories which is even better balanced than the natural product the farmer is able to produce, the farmer has remained an important person because he is the producer of raw materials. It is no wonder, therefore, that governments throughout the whole world allocate an exceptionally large portion of the annual total budget to agriculture. We know from history that some of our major civilizations disappeared because agriculture was neglected. Even the wise Solomon offers advice to governments which is applicable even today, i.e. that a king will be considered wise who takes care of agriculture. If judged by the portion of the annual budget allocated to agriculture, the farmer has at all times been treated sympathetically in South Africa. South Africa’s Ministers of Agriculture, particularly those of the National Party Government, have always been actively engaged in agriculture, not only as politicians but as farmers. Thus a sympathetic approach and sound and practical relations between the State and the farmer have been made possible throughout. Through the years the officials in all ranks of the various Government Departments have been drawn from farming stock, something which in itself guaranteed enthusiastic co-operation on the part of the farmers. The entire set-up of the State from top to bottom as far as the agricultural industry is concerned has always been rurally orientated and, it is hoped, will remain so in future. However, it cannot simply be accepted that this is always going to be the case, because more and more children leave their homes in the cities and towns and go to the colleges and the universities and are channelled into agriculture after they have completed their studies, a development the primary producer views with suspicion because the agricultural research workers, extension officers and controlling officers are going to view the agricultural industry more from a technical than a practical point of view. Particularly South Africa with its poor agricultural soil and irregular and relatively low rainfall requires, particularly in view of the credit economy of today, as distinct from the cash economy of the past, a particularly sympathetic approach of the problems of the farmers as a result of droughts and floods and other disasters.

It is therefore essential that there should be the closest liaison with the farmer and the soil. I think everybody will agree with me when I state the obvious, i.e. is that the farmer, the entire structure of the State, the Ministry, officialdom in all its facets, the co-operative societies, co-operative agriculture, trade and industries—and here I am referring to the objection of the hon. member for Newton Park—are all entitled to a justified right of existence solely on the basis of the service they render to agriculture. This rendering of a service is primarily the provision of food and clothing and that which agriculture supplies to the people. Furthermore, it is obvious that the more adequately all these bodies are joined together, the more adequate will this primary function be fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, agricultural research and extension have always been regarded as functions for which the Department and the State are responsible. For many decades this policy was a sound and practical one. Gradually, however, specialist industries, corporate as well as co-operative, have appointed their own research workers for specific projects. Probably one of the most successful appointments made by a co-operative society and one which proved to have been of particular merit, was the appointment of Dr. Charlie Niehaus, who retired recently, by the K.W.V. Dr. Niehaus not only made it possible for the sherry industry in South Africa to develop, but also, undoubtedly, achieved personal international fame for South Africa and played a leading role in making South Africa’s wine industry competitive on the world market. With these words I should like to pay tribute to a great son of Stellenbosch and a great agriculturalist.

Today the State is undoubtedly being regarded as playing the leading role in the sphere of research and extension, but there is a tendency throughout the world for other bodies to participate in this function as well. Industries supplying agriculture, draw to a large extent from sources outside the department and outside the State. The chemical industry, such as the suppliers of fertilizers, fulfil both these functions, research and extension, on a countrywide scale. The manufacturers of herbicides, which is a totally new chemical development, and the manufacturers of pesticides, all of them, even the suppliers and manufacturers of stock feeds, are doing the same. Even guidance in the field of bookkeeping and agricultural analysis are today being provided for the farmer by the private sector and other bodies. Not only have the large co-operative societies switched over to the appointment of agricultural extension officers and men undertaking practical research projects, but it has become general practice to appoint well-qualified and experienced agricultural officers in order to provide members of the co-operative societies with technical advice and scientific agricultural guidance. These services are not regarded as competitive with and, in any way, as a duplication of the services rendered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services but, on the contrary, as supplementary to the services rendered by the State. Not only is the closest co-operation being retained in the majority of cases, but the establishment thereof is being diligently pursued. Because the farmer has to bear the costs of appointments of this kind, such decisions are not taken lightly but only after thorough consideration, taking into consideration the requirements of and advantages to the farmer himself. If this motion before this House means anything, then it must be seen in the first place as a plea for the development of these services which are now being rendered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and that this development should take place through the co-operative societies which have these people in their employ. The co-operative societies have long ago ceased to be what they were initially established to be. This has already been mentioned by the mover of this motion. They have long ago ceased to be merely an ordinary channel by means of which the produce of the farmer is marketed. The co-operative society became involved in all the facets of the agricultural industry and the function of liaison in the field of extension between farmer and research worker is no longer one of their minor functions. This has become one of the most important functions today. Hence the appointment of these people. But its ability will be severely limited if it should be cut off from the source of information and research which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, in fact, is.

In the second place, this motion implies the need to emphasize the value of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in the sphere of research and information, particularly in the basic and specialist fields. In the third place, we have numerous instances today which give proof of the practical need for co-operative extension officers who have proved their function in practice by stimulating production and bringing about better farming results. Sir, what we advocate, is the establishment of reciprocal liaison between the farmer and the Department on a level which has never vet existed in the past, because a scientifically trained officer of the farmer’s own co-operative society, who is acquainted with all the facets of the particular problems experienced by that farmer, now maintains liaison on an equal level with his counterpart in the Department. For the first time the farmer maintains liaison on a scientific basis with the Department through his official. To me this is very important. Finally, this service is of a completely supplementary nature.

As a former official of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, I want to say that I am convinced that this motion should be given consideration and carried out. I know there are practical problems. Officials are being enticed away from the Department. They are being offered higher salaries and better working conditions. I know that is the case, but let us simply accept it as a fact. We sympathize with the Department which is suffering these losses, but this is simply a fact, and, what is more, it is a fact which, it seems to me, is here to stay. Other concerns such as the fertilizer companies and all the other companies serving agriculture, are doing precisely the same thing and the source from which they supplement their officers, is exactly the same. There is duplication. This may be a problem, but the very thing we are pleading for, is that there should be greater co-operation in order that the duplication may be limited to the minimum. Duplication is a problem which does not only exist between the farmer and the Department. After all, we are conscious of the fact that duplication takes place in many spheres, even in the State sector. What we are experiencing at present, is a waste of expensive and indispensable manpower. After all, Sir, you know yourself that there are many more trained agriculturalists outside the various departments of agriculture than inside, but the object of this motion is the possible elimination of problems of that kind. Its object is to join all these powers, so that the agricultural technical officer of the Department as a whole may be given the opportunity of meeting the private trade, the co-operative society and the farmer himself. To my mind this presents an opportunity which has a great deal of merit, and that this is definitely going to be an active means of supplementing the aims of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services which is to be of the utmost use to agriculture. In reply to the hon. member for Newton Park I want to say that what we are definitely pleading for, is greater co-ordination not only between the farmer and the Department through the officers of the co-operative societies, but between all the people who are involved in agriculture. We want to bring together all the people concerned with agriculture, and this can be done by recognizing these officers of the co-operative societies who are in a position to bring together the farmer, the trade, the industry and the Department in activities which are of interest to the country.

People so often get the idea that the farmer is being given a subsidy when, in fact, it is being given to agriculture. I want to refute this statement completely. I honestly feel that, when money is being made available to agriculture through the State, it is being made available to agriculture to the benefit not only of the farmer, but particularly the consumer, because if it is possible through State assistance, to supply the consumer with a product of a better quality, it guarantees that he will at least be getting better, healthier and cheaper food. To me this is of particular importance. For that reason I feel that we can quite rightly come forward with this motion and submit to the Minister a plea that he should comply with our request by recognizing the officers appointed by the co-operative societies in the interests of agriculture as a whole and that the rendering of State assistance in this case is merited.

I do not think that on this side of the House people will be found who will in essence and in tenor speak against what was raised by the hon. members for Bethal and for Swellendam. How can there be a farmer in this House who does not appreciate the importance of agriculture, of the research, the extension work and the task of providing guidance? Surely, all of us are agreed on these points, including the hon. member for Newton Park. I do not think that there are any representatives in this House who do not have at heart the importance of the agricultural industry in respect of food production and food for the population of this country and the world. If one considers that it has been predicted that by the year 2,000 the population will have doubled itself to 7,000 million, and if one considers that on an average the agriculturists in India as such have at their disposal less than half an acre each on which to produce crops, the world is asking itself where the food will come from and how it is to be produced.

From the nature of the case the agricultural industry has over the past two decades undergone a greater revolution than has any other industry of which I know. Matters cannot be any different either; this state of affairs is inevitable. Gone are the days when we ploughed with a team of red Afrikander oxen and with the double-furrow plough and when we sowed maize and red corn. I am sorry that those days are past.

Those were good old days.

But those days are gone for good. We are living in an age in which every individual who is dependent upon the land, has to ensure, in the first place, that the fertility of his soil is retained, and, in the second place, that he produces on it as much as he possibly can. We find that the production is increasing day by day, especially in the sphere of animal husbandry, and yet, this is not being done at the expense of the fertility of the soil. We shall have to go on in this way, for we do not have at our disposal millions of morgen which can still be made serviceable and utilized for the purposes of food production.

The respect in which the hon. member for Newton Park and I myself want to differ with the proposer and the seconder, is that the State should subsidize undertakings which, in research and guidance, are competing with the State for the same, sort of person. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will feel exactly the same way about it. I shall come back to this point later on, because it is an absurdity.

In regard to the co-ordination of the services, we have no differences of opinion. It will always be the position that agricultural industries as such will, either through their own boards, or through their agricultural co-operatives, conduct research for the benefit of their own particular industries. There are very few boards which do not do this. There are many industries which have made a name for themselves in the field of research and which have also done so in the field of extension services. This will always be the case; it cannot be any different. All these industries are becoming, and will be becoming, specialized industries within their own fields. They have their own boards of control, and at present there are only a few that do not have such boards of control. This kind of research and this kind of extension work will inevitably be done. In cases where this extension work is being done, it is essential that the extension work as a whole will be co-ordinated to the maximum extent. In cases where this is not being done as yet, it will undoubtedly happen. I have no fault to find with it.

Nor do I have any fault to find with the overlapping of research services. As a person who has dealt with research for a long time, I must say that this is one of the best things that can happen, i.e. that as far as research services are concerned, overlapping does take place every now and then. In itself this is no sin. Nor is it by any means an absurdity. Overlapping in research services is often a good thing, especially when one answer is received from certain quarters and a different one is received from other quarters.

What causes us anxiety, however, is that the country with its small White population does not have the manpower to do the work. The hon. member for Newton Park has already referred to the ratio of guidance officers and extension officers in South Africa as against the position in other countries of the world. It is not so easy to have this position solved. The fact remains that we have a desperate shortage of people of this kind, and whether they are employed by the co-operatives, by boards or by whoever, there is still a joint shortage in this sphere as a whole. The shortage is a tremendous one. What happens in any neighbouring State when a dam has to be built? Within three weeks after the date on which the applications closed, the engineers Will be there to plan the dam, and from then on weekly visits will be paid by an extension officer until such time as the dam is completed. He will come to see what progress is being made and whether one has excavated the site properly, whether one has used the correct materials, whether one is going to fence it in and whether one is planning it. They have many more officials at their disposal than we have. We have a tremendous shortage of these people. At this stage I cannot rise and say with sincerity what can be recommended to the Department of Agriculture and to the hon. the Minister in order to save the situation.

Let us take a look at the students at the faculties of agriculture at universities and agricultural colleges. In reply to a question the hon. the Minister told me this morning that four to five years ago between 150 and 160 students were studying at the Grootfontein Agricultural College as against the 50 students they have this year. To my mind this is a warning in the direction of the people who have to do that work and also that in the future they will become scarcer and scarcer.

There is the drought as well.

It may also be the drought that has something to do with it. I am by no means saying that the drought has nothing to do with the fact that there are fewer and fewer students at the faculties of agriculture at universities and more and more students at the other faculties at universities.

The other colleges are full.

That is not due to the drought. Farmers’ sons are going in for fields of study other than agriculture. We know that they are not being afforded much scope if they should go in for agriculture. I do not know what to recommend in order that that situation may be straightened out. The indisputable fact remains that there is a tremendous shortage of these people in the spheres of research, guidance and extension work. As long as that shortage exists, it will astonish me that the hon. member could not have given better consideration to this matter than to ask that agricultural co-operatives be subsidized. I have no objection to the fact that they may perhaps be subsidized in their research services, but how can we ask that the State, which is experiencing an acute shortage of people of this kind, should subsidize the co-operatives as regards their extension officers and those people of theirs who will be doing this work. How can we ask that the co-operatives, other bodies and industries should be subsidized by the State, while they are enticing these officers away from the State? Surely, this would mean that they would entice even more of them. [Interjection.] It is being stated in the motion that the co-operatives should be subsidized in regard to the services they are rendering to the agricultural industry. One of the services they will be rendering to the agricultural industry, will be the extension service.

I mentioned an example of a specific project.

The motion implies that a request is being made for agricultural co-operatives to be subsidized for the services they are rendering, which includes guidance to the farmer. This is why we believe that it is an absurdity. One cannot do this. I want to refer to the wool co-operatives—about which I know a fairly great deal—as a characteristic example. At a certain stage the wool co-operatives alone had more than five times as many extension officers in the field as did the Government itself. In addition to that the Wool Board has officials as well. There was a great number of them. But we should not forget that many of them are recruiting officers as well. They are not extension officers only. They are recruiting officers for the cause they are serving. Therefore, in that respect there is overlapping. This is an unhealthy kind of overlapping, which one does not want at all. Fortunately the situation has now begun to consolidate itself to a certain extent, owing to the pressure on the wool industry and the inevitable savings that have to be effected. But there was a stage when there were in the service of the wool industry more than 130 persons who were serving exclusively as extension officers of the wool co-operatives. Although they did good work on behalf of the industry as regards the practical work, the classification of sheep and other extension services, they were to a large extent agents or recruiting officers for the industry. But they were not only recruiting officers for the industry and for the cause they were serving. There were, in addition, quite a number of abuses as well. They were, in addition, ram salesmen, and so on. The position that developed was an unhealthy one. It was so unhealthy that the leaders of the industry repeatedly warned the hon. the Minister by saying that it was getting out of hand and could not go on that way. I repeat: If it had not been for the acute pressure experienced by the wool industry at that stage, this might still have been the position. I am mentioning this as an example of what may happen if, in a matter such as this one, one approaches the State for assistance in regard to extension work. To me it looks like an absurdity. However, I have nothing against agricultural co-operatives. I myself am a member of more than one of them.

I wonder what hon. member in this House will, as a practical farmer, say anything against the co-operative movement as such. If it were the idea—I am sure the hon. member for Newton Park did not mean that—to point out that it would be unfair for this subsidy to be granted by the Government to agricultural co-operatives and not to other organizations, I must also regard it as an unfair approach to the whole matter as such. I also fail to see why agricultural co-operatives should receive it, even if they are our own co-operatives in which we have invested our own money and even if they do not pay out profits by way of dividends, whereas this is in fact done by other concerns. Why should it be subsidized when the other organizations, such as the fertilizer and other industries, are not being subsidized for the services they render? The last thing on earth I would advocate, would be that the other organizations should be subsidized. I cannot see way. The industry stands on its own feet, and it is its duty to help itself as far as it possibly can. For that reason, Sir, although we are to a large extent agreed on this point for discussion that was introduced by the hon. member for Bethal and supported by the hon. member for Swellendam, i.e. as regards the necessity for extension services and the co-ordination of extension and research services, we do, however, differ sharply as regards the question of subsidizing. I think all the members on this side of the House will adopt the same attitude in this regard. We do not want to hear of that. However, we agree as far as the main theme is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the points made by the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for East London (City). They are very concerned about the duplication which may take place in that regard. There is a very easy method for eliminating this duplication altogether. In various sectors of the agricultural industry we already have departmental advisory boards ensuring that no duplication takes place. They are continually engaged in co-ordinating research among the various bodies: the co-operatives, the State, the advisory boards and the private organizations. I think both of the hon. members opposite missed the point made by the proposer of this motion. The proposer of this motion very clearly referred to field services and marketing services. I am aware that the State has for many years already recognized that co-operatives and boards may perform field services for their members. For instance, this is recognized by the Citrus Board. It is very obvious to me that field services can be performed more effectively by a co-operative. I am thinking, for instance, of the problems which are peculiar to a co-operative and not in the national interests as such. There are, for instance, the variety tests of various products. I am also thinking of leaf analysis, which is being done in the interests of a specific industry. Then there is also pest control. In this respect I want to say that I have no confidence in the research being conducted by fertilizer companies and pest control organizations. Those people are simply doing it for the profit motive, and with a co-operative there is no such thing. Therefore I want to say at once that the subsidizing of such companies would be quite a mistake. There are, in addition, many other services, such as the testing of machinery on the farm for a specific industry, or the testing of warehouse machinery, such as in the citrus industry. What interest does the State have in testing certain machinery for a warehouse? The co-operative renders this service for the benefit of its members.

Now I come to the marketing of the product. The hon. member for East London (City) said that for many years already marketing studies were being undertaken by boards. I believe that lit will also be the case in the future that boards of control and co-operatives will undertake marketing studies for their members to an increasing extent. This is a highly specialized field, and I cannot see how the State can do this as effectively for a member of a co-operative as it can be done by that board of control or co-operative itself. These people know exactly what their problems are; they find solutions. We are hearing all the time that there is a lack of communication between the State and the farmer. To my mind this is a very important aspect, i.e. that the State conducts research work, that it has field services, but fails to reach the farmer. Now, here we have a means whereby we can in fact reach the farmer, namely through his co-operative. I feel that if we handle this matter correctly and ensure that the necessary co-ordination exists, and if the State retains control, it will be to the advantage of the agricultural industry. The hon. member for Newton Park is afraid that we shall entice people away. Conditions of service can be laid down and study facilities can be created which will correspond with those of the State. If that is done, there will not be any competition. We should also bear in mind that we shall not always have a manpower shortage in this country, and in this manner we can create opportunities for more people to pursue such fields of study, because co-operatives will make money available to students. In this manner we shall attract people rather than drive them away.

I believe that in this manner, through co-operation, through the proper co-ordination of research and advice, we can promote the interests of the farming community.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Bethal for introducing this motion. I am grateful to him for having stated here in this House the importance of extension work. He also stated very clearly the need that exists for extension work today. There was a time, not so long ago, when the people regarded an extension officer as a kind of potato or erosion officer, or as a bull inspector. It was only in the twenties that agriculturists were appointed as full-time extension officers. During the years of the depression and also during the Second World War this service did not expand much. However, since 1948 special attention has been given to the extension service. Whereas in 1947 there were only 93 posts for extension officers, of which 76 were filled, the number of posts increased until, on 30th June, 1970, it amounted to 263, of which 218 were filled. Therefore, it does not contrast so poorly if it is compared with many others. In addition to these 193 technical posts in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services have now been filled. Special attention has also been given to the professional training of extension officers, which is a great necessity in the extension service. At the request of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services the University of Pretoria introduced in 1961 a department of agrarian guidance, especially for the post-graduate training of extension officers, which enables them, subsequent to having obtained the B.Sc. degree, to receive further training at the expense of the Department and to obtain an M.Sc. degree. This, in turn, enables them to obtain doctors’ degrees and to be placed on the same competitive level with the researchers in the Department. The Department regards its extension service—and this is perhaps not always the view taken by others —as being just as important and indispensable as its research service. Extension officers in the service of the Department and research officers have the same opportunities for promotion.

During the past number of years, as hon. members rightly observed, a major technological revolution has taken place in South Africa. This has also affected the agricultural industry. Science and technology have made tremendous strides. This revolution has had a major influence on our farming and agricultural industry, and in many cases it has in fact given our agricultural industry a factory basis. In this regard we can think of a number of industries—such as the production of hens’ eggs, the production of chickens and a few others—which, in actual fact, are organized on a factory basis today. There are cases where people in those industries are doing their own research and where the extension officer is the real manager of such a project.

Furthermore, the capital investment in the agricultural industry and the need for such investment have soared in recent years. Moreover, at present it is more essential for a farmer to have a greater measure of business acumen and experience. Consequently the farmer expects guidance in a very wide variety of spheres today. For instance, he expects guidance in regard to his soil, the cultivation thereof, the growing of various crops, the combating of weeds, insects and diseases, in regard to meat and milk production, in regard to stock diseases, in regard to grazing management, in regard to mechanizing his farm, in regard to soil conservation, in regard to the planning of his farm and his farming enterprise as well as the economic and financial aspects of his farming enterprise. In other words, it goes without saying that no single extension officer, whether he is in the service of the State or in that of a private organization, can be enough of an expert to furnish the farmers with all this information. That is impossible; he simply cannot be such an expert. What is more, science is making such rapid strides today that things that are accepted at present, are outdated within a few years. Fortunately the position is that the extension officer does not have to have all this knowledge at his command, for the entire research service of the Department is at his disposal and at the disposal of the farmer. The specialized information and extension service with which the researcher provides the farming industry should therefore never be lost sight of when guidance is being discussed, and for that reason it is also essential that any extension officer, no matter what organization he belongs to— whether he is a member of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, or whether he has been appointed by a co-operative for the purpose of providing his farmers with guidance, or whether he has been appointed by a private organization—should always be thoroughly conversant with the research being done; otherwise his knowledge will be outdated in a few years’ time. For that reason it is essential that any extension officer wherever he may be, must maintain contact with research. It is impossible for every organization in South Africa to conduct research in its own industry. This may not hold good for large companies operating on a specialized basis, but in a general industry, such as the agricultural industry, there is in actual fact only one body which does not necessarily have to do basic research only, but also applied research in particular, for the agricultural problems in the practice of agriculture, do not remain the same. One finds that situations may crop up all of a sudden, situations which do not require basic research but applied research in regard to that specific problem, and it would be impossible for a co-operative or any other organization to conduct that particular type of applied research. It can in fact put to the test the research results at its disposal in various regions where it is working; it can probably conduct applied research there; I readily grant that, but applied research that has to serve the agricultural industry as a whole, must necessarily be centralized research, in order that one may allow various kinds of people —whether they are geologists, meteorologists, entomologists or botanists—to work jointly on that project, and no co-operative can have in its employ such a broad layer of people for the purpose of conducting research. The extension service must operate in the closest co-operation with the research service. In every region regular meetings of extension officers and researchers are being held, and in many cases extension officers assist in carrying out research projects. In addition they do, of course, pay regular visits to experimental stations and return to them from time to time in order to brush up their knowledge. Short refresher courses are given there by officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. When one makes the request that extension officers, appointed by outside organizations such as co-operatives, should be granted official recognition, it means that they have to be members of this Department on a part-time or semi-part-time basis. If they are to be granted official recognition in the work they perform, the Department must at least know that the guidance provided by them is in accordance with the investigations and the research conducted by the Department. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services or the State cannot grant official recognition to researchers over whom it has no official control, but it is in fact essential—whether those people are working for the boards of control, whether they are working for private organizations such as the fertilizer companies, or whether they are working for other private organizations such as the co-operatives— that there should be co-ordinated action in the guidance provided. Arising from this it will be clear that in the long run a detached extension officer—a person who is not connected with research or an organization—cannot be conversant with everything that has taken place in research over the years. From time to time he must come back in order to obtain his knowledge from research, and the Department of Agriculture is quite prepared to do this. Research results are made available to any person. It is also because the things to which the hon. member for East London (City) referred, happened in the past, i.e. the fact that various organizations, including co-operatives—I am referring to wool co-operatives, for example—provided the farmers with information services by telling them what kind of sheep they were to breed and how they were to classify their wool, etc., but always against the background that they were associated with a certain organization or a certain body and that they also had to work for the economic benefit of that organization, that the South African Agricultural Union has for a very long time been holding talks with us, with the Department and with the various organizations which provide guidance, that a great deal of progress has also been made by means of co-operation among these various organizations, and that there is a greater measure of co-ordination between the guidance provided by the Department of Agriculture and the guidance provided by other organizations. I just want to mention a few examples. Hon. members are asking that the extension service provided by the co-operatives be subsidized by the State, but in dealing with co-operatives, we must bear in mind that this is not only an extension service provided on how a farmer is to farm or on how he is to use fertilizer; there are many other things which are of importance to a co-operative. The Department of Agriculture has established a special mechanical division, the Institute of Mechanization, where implements and machinery are being tested and where the results of those tests are being made available to the farmers in an unbiased manner. But hon. members can appreciate that in cases where a private organization, be it a co-operative or any other organization, provides its members with information, it will of necessity give that information in favour of the article which it is selling or for which it has the agency. It is not going to provide the farmer with the best information; it is not going to tell him, “This is the unbiased report given by Agricultural Mechanization.” It is going to tell him, “My co-operative has the agency for this or that tractor, and if you want to buy a tractor, you need not look any further, for this one is the best.” Surely, this is obvious. If a person is connected with a fertilizer company he will not say, “This is the unbiased finding of this company”; he will say, “This fertilizer of mine is the best.” This is happening at every private organization, and this will also be the case at the co-operatives. I am convinced that a co-operative which has the agency for Mercedes motor-cars, will recommend no motor-car other than Mercedes. It is going to tell you that its product is the best on the market, and its extension officer will tell you the same thing. If he does not say that, he is not going to remain in the service of that company, and it is for that reason that the Department, which provides unbiased information based on research results obtained by it through its researchers, is in the best position to provide the best, unbiased information. If private organizations are prepared to co-operate and to co-ordinate with the Department, the Department will be prepared to co-operate with them in every respect, and that is why these talks have been taking place from time to time and why it has been agreed that there must be more effective co-ordination among the various people providing such information. As regards economic guidance, there is also an opportunity for the co-operatives to contribute their share. I do not want to say for one moment that a co-operative should not provide its members with an information service. A great deal of progress has already been made in ensuring co-operation between the co-operatives and the Department in this respect. In cases where economic surveys and studies are conducted by them amongst groups of farmers, be it jointly or separately, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is prepared to analyse those results for them and to give them the final results on the basis of which they can then provide their additional information.

There is no objection to information being provided by other organizations, but what one should like to have, is that in providing such information, they must find themselves in such a position that their information will also be unbiased. We find it very easy to talk about extension officers and researchers at co-operatives and about their having to be specially subsidized, but you must also bear in mind, Sir, that a large number of the present managers of our co-operatives used to be extension officers or researchers with the Department of Agriculture. Today that person is no longer an extension officer or a researcher; today he is the person who has to ensure that the statements of that co-operative balance at the end of the year. In other words, he has in the meantime become quite a different person. Furthermore, many of the people who are working for the co-operatives as extension officers, are eventually taken up in their general managements. That is why I say that as regards official recognition by the State of extension officers working for co-operatives, it would merely mean that if one had to recognize them officially, one would have to recognize them as forming part of the Department. In that case one would have to give the blessing of the Department to the work done by him, and how can one expect the Department to give its blessing to the information provided by an extension officer if it does not have control over that information? That is why I say that it is impossible to grant official recognition; co-ordination and co-operation are in fact possible, but not official recognition. Secondly, to subsidize the employment of the extension officer is even more impossible, and for a very good reason. In the first instance, those people must inevitably compete with officials trained by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. One of the hon. members said here that the co-operatives appointed proven agricultural officers to their service, but Where did they prove themselves? They could only have proven themselves at one place, i.e. in the research service or the extension service of the Department. There are no other places where they could have proven themselves. That is the only place. In other words, the person who proved in the Department of Agriculture that he was capable enough to do extension work, is appointed by outside organizations to continue doing that extension work for which they require his services. But if we as the Department have to subsidize him to do that work, it means that the State, which appoints its officials under the Public Service Commission and under a salary structure, is prepared to subsidize other organizations in which it has no control over the salary structure. Surely, then it is understandable that the State will always have the bad end of the stick as far as its extension officers or researchers are concerned, for it will not be able to retain their services, especially now that we already have a shortage of manpower.

Therefore, as far as subsidizing by the State is concerned, I want to repeat that it is absolutely impossible for the State to do this. We must remember that the function performed by the State in the training of agriculturists, whether it is for extension work or research, is being exercised by its institutes, etc., which train people for agricultural extension work. This is an absolutely important function. If one wants to go on drawing extension officers and researchers, one has to have a source from which to draw them; and if one has to destroy that source in that too many people are drawn away from it, so that the trainers and researchers do not remain behind in that source, then the outside organization will in due course not have the trainer or researcher at its disposal, for it cannot train them. That is why it is essential that one should have a nucleus of training and agricultural research in South Africa or in any other country. That nucleus, with its expensive apparatus and its expensive research projects and institutes, can only have its seat in the State and its universities. It can only have its seat there, and if one prejudices it, it will also be impossible for the other people to have the source from which they can draw in order to do these things. For that reason it is vital that research and extension work should essentially be vested in the State as a function. It is for the very reason that the South African Agricultural Union is concerned about the various methods of providing information and the various bodies providing information—such as the boards, the co-operatives and other private organizations—that they are adopting the attitude that basically the State should be responsible for rendering these services and developing co-ordination as far as possible. I want to say that, as far as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services or even the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is concerned, it is our aim to develop this co-ordination as far as possible and to ensure that the information provided by those people, is drawn from the research conducted by the Department of Agriculture by means of its institutes, universities and otherwise, for with our approach to the most effective utilization of our soil it is essential that our people should be provided with the correct information and that our research should be concentrated not only on our basic problems, but also on the application of such research to problems cropping up in the agricultural industry from day to day. There are many organizations in the country which have agriculturists in their service. More and more pressure is being brought to bear on the State to ensure that agriculturists are trained. I want to say here today that our boards of control, our Department of Agriculture and other organizations involved in these semi-State and State institutions have at their disposal a tremendous number of bursaries in connection with agriculture. In regard to the shortage of students—the fact that not enough students are attending universities for the purpose of being trained in agriculture—I want to say that a large number of the bursaries made available by us were not taken up this year by people who want to qualify as agriculturists. There are more bursaries available than we can find students to take them up. We have even lowered the requirements for admission for students applying for such bursaries, the result being that there are more failures in the first and second years of training in agriculture. There are simply not enough people who are interested to that extent. In recent years, with all the developments which we have been discussing, a tremendous demand has arisen for the services of these people, both in the private and in the Government sector.

Will those bursaries which you are making available, cover the student’s training in full?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they cover their training in full. These bursaries amount to R500 a year. I want to grant that a student cannot buy and maintain a motor car on such a bursary, but R500 a year is a good bursary. There is, of course, much more available for post-graduate study. These bursaries have been made available because students desirous of studying agriculture are not so easy to find at present. A moment ago the hon. member referred to the number of students at the college at Grootfontein.

The reason why there are so few students there and why there has been such a considerable drop in their numbers, is obvious, namely the fact that the wool industry has in recent years, owing to the drought and poor prices, experienced such a tremendous shock. The people are simply not interested in being trained further in this profession. This is one of the problems we have. If the wool prices were to increase again by 70 per cent tomorrow or the day after, the college at Grootfontein would have too many students again. This is simply the course of events. That is why I say that it is not a question of a shortage of bursaries or a shortage of training facilities. Now I also want to make an appeal to those people who always regard the Department of Agriculture as the source from which they have to draw their people, and I want to ask them that they should also be of some assistance in regard to this training. I want to ask them to provide some encouragement by making bursaries available to those people whom they want to use for their own purposes. Instead of our co-operatives taking away the person who has been trained by our department, who has proven himself as a capable extension officer and who has been subsidized by us, they can take one of their young men and send him to university so that he may qualify there and so that they may appoint him. By doing this they can assist in promoting the agricultural industry.

They will, in turn, grant bigger bursaries.

They can grant bursaries of R1,000 if they please. There is nothing to limit them in the amount they can make available for bursaries. That is why I say that it is a good thing for us to have a discussion of this matter. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that the best possible co-ordination should be effected amongst the various bodies providing information in South Africa. This co-ordination must be effected between the boards of control and the other organizations. Some of my hon. friends here know that difficulty is even being experienced in effecting co-operation between a board of control and the Department. That best co-ordination must be brought about. If the co-operatives and the outside organizations providing information in South Africa are inspired by one objective, and that objective is to make the most effective use of our soil, and if they are prepared to place our agricultural industry on the best basis, there will be no problem in effecting that co-ordination.

The Department of Agriculture is fully prepared to allow any organization which wants to co-operate with it in effecting the optimum utilization of the soil and which wants to join it in practising soil conservation, to avail itself of its knowledge gained by research. At a few co-operatives which have extension officers—and now I am thinking specifically of the co-operatives of Vaalhartz—there are co-ordinating committees between the co-operatives and their extension officers and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. They are jointly undertaking the programming, and a great deal of success has already been achieved with this system. Therefore, the situation is that the department is fully prepared to undertake this co-ordination, and the condition attached to this is that the extension work should be aimed at the optimum utilization and protection of the soil, for this is the policy of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

I think it was a very good thing to have been able to have this discussion. As regards the question of the financial contribution which the hon. member proposed the department should make to the extension services of co-operatives and other private organizations, I just want to tell the hon. proposer of this motion that the Government does not see its way clear to doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I have found this discussion here this afternoon extremely interesting, especially when one considers how we have been pleading over the years for better recognition of our extension officers and the people who render technical services. The other day, someone asked me why I still kept on farming under the difficult economic and technical conditions? I answered him by saying that, it is a way of life. I gave him this answer with my tongue in the cheek because I believe today if a man wants to carry on farming and if he wants to remain on the land, it is a luxury to say he is remaining on the land and he is farming, because it is a way of life. We can no longer afford this luxury in our country.

I have been at a loss to find out why this motion was ever introduced. Personally I believe that it was a reflection on the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. This is how I view the matter. We know what the problem is and we have pleaded over the years that our Department of Technical Services, and particularly the extension officers who are degreed men with B.Sc. in agriculture, should be upgraded. These people should be looked upon, and recognized as being very important people in this country. I remember my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Walmer, suggesting some two years ago that a technical officer or an extension officer who has obtained a degree and has all the qualifications, should be upgraded to the same level of a local magistrate. This is not asking for too much. We are indeed so short of manpower in all walks of life, not only in industries and businesses; but in this department we are actually facing a crisis when it comes to manpower. I use the word “crisis” and I will illustrate to hon. members what has happened to me, and all due to the manpower shortage. In January, 1970, I completed certain works on one of my farms, but I have not yet been paid a subsidy on those works. I am not blaming the department or the extension officers, because I know what they are going through. I would not have their jobs for anything. Unfortunately, the engineers who started with the work and did all the surveying, etc., and who subsequently passed those works have since resigned one after the other. Some have joined road constructors Murray and Stewart, others have joined Murray and Roberts. The papers have been passed from the one official to the other, resulting that the papers have never been …

Order! The hon. member is discussing a matter which is quite beyond the subject of the motion.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out the crisis in which we find ourselves today.

Yes, the hon. member may discuss that under the hon. the Minister’s Vote. This is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Speaker the whole motion gives me the impression of panic, and that hon. members opposite admit today, that we are desperately in need of better services, and that we must assist the co-operatives to do this work for us. As the hon. the Minister has rightly said, the co-operatives are doing the work and in fact, in certain fields they are doing a wonderful job. We all acknowledge this. I can have my soil analysed as often as I like through the Capex people here in the Cape. In fact last week I brought soil in a small parcel, not from the moon, but from my farm in East London, to be analysed at their laboratories. This I can easily have done. I can have my wheat graded, my sheep examined and classed and my wool classed and graded by co-operative societies. I cannot see why we should now, in a state of panic, try to assist the co-operatives so that they can do the work which the Department of Technical Services is meant to do, and which they can do if they have the manpower. It is a tragedy under the circumstances, that so many of our young men who should remain on the farms are being forced off the land. There are certain works like the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam where they find refuge and where they can find employment but what is the solution to it all? A certain Dr. Ross who is the father of soil conservation, estimated some years ago that it would cost R200 million to halt the erosion or deterioration of our soil. I want hon. members to note that he used the word “halt” and not “reclaim”. It has since been assessed by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that the figure of R600 million would be more realistic. I believe that within 10 years a figure of R1,000 million will be needed to arrest soil erosion in this country. The salvation of our agriculture and our country is dependent on the injection into agriculture of not one or two million rand, but hundreds of millions of rand. It is no use discussing this problem year in and year out, and doing little about it physically.

I have here the salary scales of our extension officers. I do not want to go into the details. My time is limited. On going through the new salary scales, which were announced in January of this year, I do believe that there is a lot of room for improvement in this regard, not only as regards salaries but the amenities as well. There should be more recognition. These extension officers who are doing such a wonderful job of work, should be assisted in purchasing their homes and so forth. If a man is worth so much to road, rail, and dam making companies, surely he is worth more recognition; surely he is worth more to us in the Department of Technical Services. They are leaving their jobs in this Department, and as the hon. the Minister said, you even find them becoming managers of co-operatives, and how does he come to be there? It all boils down to L.s.d.—they work under trying and difficult conditions and I am surprised that they remain in the Department as they do.

We farmers accept responsibility for the implementation of conservation.

*From a technical point of view the country’s present water resources—and this is very important—are being consumed in the following manner. In the sphere of agriculture 80 per cent of our water resources are being consumed for irrigation purposes, etc. Cities, industries, etc., are consuming only 17 per cent. The stock and the dry-farming industry are consuming only 3 per cent. We should realize here how important it is for us to have a sufficient number of extension officers in the country. Much of the water we are using today, is being supplied to the farmers by the co-operatives.

†Most of the water and pumping plants are supplied by the co-operatives and private enterprise. I do not believe it is wise to assist the co-operatives more than we already do, because the moment we do this, as has been suggested, we will run into trouble with private enterprise, which is also doing a good job in regard to assisting the agriculturalist whose engineering works are also being assisted by private enterprise and the co-operatives.

Unless we approach this problem with honesty and purpose and do something constructive, I foresee starvation in South Africa within the next 50 years, possibly by the turn of the century, when we will have approximately 40 million people to feed. I was just working out this morning that a person of 70 years of age will have consumed 1,400 times his weight in food on reaching that age. When you think of a man weighing 200 lbs. at the age of 70, he will have consumed 280,000 lbs. of food. When I think of the official Opposition here, and how hard we work, we will probably only weigh an average of 150 lbs. on reaching the age of 70, and will have consumed 210,000 lbs. of food. Even this is a lot of food and I certainly cannot see where we are going to find it by the turn of the century if we allow agriculture and soil erosion to continue as at present.

Should South Africa at some future date, again celebrate the festival of the soil, let us be able to rejoice instead of having, as we had last year, a festival of sorrow.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of the explanation given by the hon. the Minister, especially in view of the fact that he said that his Department was trying to bring about the co-ordination of extension services in particular, we believe that he will be successful, and therefore I want to withdraw this motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.