Mr. Speaker, we have before us a Bill which will probably be welcomed by everybody, inasmuch as it is designed to prevent the ill-treatment of animals in our country. As a farmer I think that the accusation certainly cannot be made against the farming community that they have no love for animals. As a matter of fact I would go so far as to say that I think many people take up farming because of their love for animals so that they can be in daily contact with them. But since this measure imposes a great many restrictions, it is only natural that we as a community view certain far-reaching provisions of this Bill with a certain degree of hesitancy. When the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) referred to this, many members listened to him with a smile on their face. They adopted the attitude that the fears expressed by the hon. member were entirely without substance. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that he must not think, when we mention these things, that we are just trying to raise objections to a measure which deserves to be supported. But we are worried to a certain extent that the farmers, who have to deal with animals every day of their lives, may be prosecuted by vindictive persons, perhaps for personal reasons, when they do not deserve to be prosecuted. I want to refer, for example, to this provision relating to the way in which animals are to be driven, and which says that they may not be overtaxed. In this connection I want to mention that we as farmers know that sometimes one is obliged not only to drive sheep which are in poor condition to better pastures, but the farmer may also find himself in this position—and this has happened already—that sheep in good condition which are driven to the market faint along the road because of the heat or for other reasons. In order to be able to reach water at certain specific points and in order to get shelter for the animals, the farmer is obliged to drive the animals a certain distance during the day. It has happened already, as the result of climatic conditions, as the result of extreme heat, that these animals have fainted and have been unable to carry on. Such a farmer would then be liable to prosecution, because we know of cases where animals have actually died because of extreme heat. If the animal is very fat, the fat around its heart may melt and it may die. That may be regarded as ill-treatment of animals, whereas it may be a perfectly natural phenomenon in the warmer parts of our country. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention another example. I should also like to bring this to the hon. the Minister’s notice, and I am sorry that he is rather busy at the moment. Some years ago a farmer in my constituency, when there was a very serious drought, wanted to transport some of his weakest animals to another farm of his which was situated in the Lichtenburg district and which had had rain. He used all the tractors and trailers on which he could lay his hands to transport these animals from the Mafeking district to the Lichtenburg district. Because the animals were in a poor condition, some of them lay down. The road was particularly bad. The animals lay down, one almost on top of the other. When they went through Mafeking, the police stopped them. Some of the lorries had already gone past and those animals reached their ultimate destination. Those which had been stopped by the police were shot dead because this was regarded as cruelty to animals. All the other animals which went through Mafeking survived, but the other cattle were shot dead. I want to say to the Minister therefore that we should exercise the greatest degree of care in passing a measure such as this. This is a country of extremes and peculiar circumstances, and I want to ask whether the Minister will not consider the question of introducing certain small amendments at a later stage to eliminate this type of objection and to ensure that people who do certain things under the pressure of certain circumstances will not be subjected to the humiliation of being subpoenaed to appear before the court on a charge of cruelty to animals.

Mr. Speaker, like most people in this House, I welcome this Bill, but I feel that it is not altogether free from the risk of interfering with a great deal of medical and veterinarian work. I welcome the assurance of the Minister that he has no intention whatever of doing this, but I am not satisfied, and some of the universities are not satisfied, that he has achieved it in this Bill. I am sure that if it were left to the Minister to administer the Bill, everything would be satisfactory, but unfortunately that does not happen. As long as the Bill is applied to beasts of burden and domestic pets or to other animals used for the supply of a high quality proteins for the nutrition of human beings, there is nothing wrong with it, but when it begins to interfere with the care of animals used for the provision of vaccines and the investigation of diseases, I think some precautions should be taken. It may surprise the House to realize to what extent various animals are used for the provision of medicines and for experimental work. If you were to go out to Rondebosch to-day, you would find a very large laboratory which is quite unconnected with any university but which is employed by the State to provide practically the whole of Africa south of the Sahara with smallpox vaccine, and where there are a fair number of sheep which some people could easily consider were suffering. In connection with the monkeys used for experimental work in regard to polio, and without which no success could have been achieved with the present vaccine, the question arises as to how you are to catch these monkeys. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) agreed very strongly with the Minister about the provision of traps, but how are you going to get monkeys if you do not trap them? I know of no place where monkeys are bred for sale. Therefore the trapping of wild animals under some circumstances is desirable. Similarly, we have in Cape Town and in Johannesburg an institution which is quite unconnected with the university where horses are used to provide anti-snakebite venin.

Order! Hon. members over there must please converse more quietly. They are talking so loudly that I can hear every word they say.

This is one of the greatest countries in the world for the provision of anti-snakebite venin. In fact, I would go so far as to say that no other country can provide it to the extent we can. We also use frogs for pregnancy tests, and we use rabbits for the control of rabies, and guinea-pigs to control tuberculosis. All these are matters which could be affected. Even such a simple clause as the one which talks about confinement under suitable circumstances could interfere with the investigation as to whether cancer is due to cigarette smoking or not, because if you submit animals to an atmosphere full of cigarette smoke for a long period somebody might say that was cruel. The same applies to the provision of live rats as food for the snakes in snake parks. Similarly, the starvation of rats and rabbits to discover the value of various nutritive substances can be described as cruelty. How are we to find what dose of any new drug we should use, unless we can first test it on animals? Because we cannot experiment on human beings. Even in the Minister’s own Department, the pathologists in the Department of Justice must use animal poisons on animals to see whether the substance the alleged poisoner has used is actually a poison or not. All those experiments may be made very difficult. I would be the last to say that you must allow these private laboratories, or even Government or university laboratories, to be given a free hand. That is also undesirable. Many of these experimenters are carried away by their enthusiasm and do undesirable experiments. But in terms of this Bill, if a dog were submitted to an open-heart operation, that dog is sick afterwards and it has to be nursed back to health. It may go through a long and difficult period of ill-health, and there is nothing in this Bill to stop some enthusiastic policeman, or an even more enthusiastic S.P.C.A. official, from saying that this dog is suffering unnecessarily and he will kill it, and so destroy all the effects of the experiment. The same applies to some of the modern treatments of heart diseases, where the body is starved of oxygen for a long period and is kept at a very low temperature, and which might be described as cruelty, but we must learn what temperatures can be sustained, and we can only do this on animals. All these things are of the greatest importance, and while I admit that there must be some control, it does not exist in this Bill. I know the Minister will tell me that he does not intend anything of this sort, but he cannot cope with the cranks, and there are cranks in every walk of life. I would like to relate to this House what happened in regard to post-mortems in this country about ten years ago. As far back as we can remember there have been post-mortems carried out in this country, some for teaching purposes and others to investigate the cause of death, and others for various reasons in which the consent of the family was obtained. There were universities in this country with faculties of medicine, and suddenly a magistrate—I mention a magistrate particularly, because a lot depends on a magistrate in terms of this Bill—sent for a doctor in Port Elizabeth who had carried out a post-mortem. The facts were these. A patient had died under medical treatment. The doctor in charge was unhappy about the cause of death. He could quite easily have gone to the magistrate and said: I am unhappy about the cause of death and I would like to hold a post-mortem; but I do not think he suspected foul play, so he just asked the family whether he could do a post-mortem and the family consented, and the magistrate heard of it and sent for the doctor and said: You did a post-mortem on the body of So-and-So. The doctor admitted it, and the magistrate asked who gave him authority to do it, and the doctor said he obtained the consent of the family, but the magistrate said he did not have his consent, and it was found that legally he could not carry out a post-mortem without the consent of the magistrate, and he put every university in the country into the position that all their anatomy rooms were illegally run, and it was only by the intervention of the late Dr. Karl Bremer that they were able to carry on temporarily until the Post-Mortem Bill was passed. That was the effect of the actions of a crank, and it just shows that in the Department of Justice there are cranks as there are anywhere else. Therefore I would ask the Minister to take steps to see whether he cannot in some way protect the universities and the scientific laboratories which are supplying vaccines, and institutions like the Institute for Medical Research, and even the people who trap monkeys for scientific purposes, so that they will not be prosecuted.

As far as the principles of this Bill are concerned, there can be no objection from anybody, but there are some clauses about which I have certain misgivings. In the first place Clause 2 (e) says, “Or allows an animal to become infested with external parasites.” This is a clause which ought to receive serious attention. I want to speak here as a practical farmer. Our experience is that in our part of the country there is a very heavy infestation of ticks at certain times of the year. When animals, particularly cattle, become infested with ticks, how does one safeguard them against infestation?

You have not read the clause.

It says that you must not allow animals to become infested with external parasites. If an animal becomes infested with parasites there is only one way to cope with the situation and that is by dipping the animal. Well, it costs a great deal of money to construct a cattle dip on your farm. To a small farmer it is a serious matter to have to spend R200 to R400 to construct a cattle dip. I know of no other way in which one can prevent animals, particularly cattle, from becoming infested with ticks except by dipping them. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot bring about an amendment there. I do not want ticks on my animals if I can avoid it, but the question arises whether one can always prevent it and whether the small farmer can afford the expense. Then one finds certain places where cattle dips cannot be conveniently constructed, where there is no water to put into the dipping tanks. I would like the Minister to give serious attention to that aspect of the matter so that the farmer will not be unnecessarily prosecuted because his animals are infested with ticks.

But there is another matter, and that is in connection with people who drive animals along public roads which are fenced in, and here I refer particularly to non-Whites. I know of cases where they drive animals between fences where there is hardly sufficient food for a tortoise, but they drive the animals for days and weeks between those fences and the animals are simply starved. It may be said that the police can attend to this matter, but in our part of the country that is simply not done. Not only does the animal suffer because of this but in many cases human beings also suffer. I want to mention the case of a widow who had one son only who was killed in a collision with a horse while driving his motor-cycle along the road because those animals were being driven along the road between the fences and simply left unattended. We frequently read in the newspapers about motor-car accidents which take place on the roads simply because animals are allowed on to the roads. The animal suffers; the travelling public is exposed to very great danger, and some of these accidents are fatal. I would like the Minister to give instructions that very serious attention be given to this aspect of the matter. The animals are trapped between the fences; the non-White under whose charge they are does not care what happens, and the public is exposed to great danger. I hope the Minister will examine that aspect of the matter. Perhaps it does not occur to many people that this is cruelty to animals, but apart from that it also subjects the travelling public to very great dangers.

I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister two matters which, it seems to me, warrant his consideration. Both matters arise out of Clause 4 (1), which empowers the magistrate’s court to award damages against a person who has by an offence committed under the Act caused damage to another person. It provides that whenever such a person has committed an offence and it is proved that that offence has caused loss to a person, or has involved him in necessary expenditure, the court may on application by such person, or by the person conducting the prosecution and acting on the instructions of such other person, summarily inquire into and determine the amount of the loss so caused and give judgment against the person convicted for that amount.

I think we must understand very clearly that this measure is not being enacted to deal with people who love, protect and care for animals. Just as all laws are made to deal with offenders, so this Bill is being introduced to deal with those people who treat animals in a way which does not meet with our approval. I realize too that the South African Agricultural Union and the various animal protection societies have repeatedly asked for an Animals Protection Bill, and I feel, therefore, that every member in this House will be grateful to the hon. the Minister for the introduction of this measure. Although it is very essential that people should be taught to love animals, we cannot teach them to do so by inserting a clause in a Bill. This reminds me of what happened a few days ago while I was driving in Johannesburg. A small dog in poor condition dashed across the street and was nearly struck by a car; the driver of another motor-car pulled up in that busy street, got out of his car to save the little dog and to carry it across the street, unperturbed by the fact that he was blocking the traffic. It is a pity that one does not come across more cases where such love, such thoughtfulness, is shown towards animals as we saw in this particular case.

I want to differ from the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) who has some difficulty with Clause 2 (e). I want to make it perfectly dear that this Bill makes provision for the prosecution of those people who deliberately, or because of negligence, fail to safeguard their animals against external parasites. One is tempted to ask whether a clause cannot also be inserted to compel people to combat internal parasites to some degree, because in those areas where we have the blowfly menace we find that sheep which are infested with internal parasites are also the first sheep to become infested externally with the blowfly, perhaps because of the smell. The hon. member has raised an objection here in connection with the small farmer who cannot afford to construct a dipping tank. We know that in the majority of those cases there is at least a central dip where they club together. On our settlements there is usually a central dip where the settlers club together, and, failing that, the small farmer who is not close to a central dip can use a locust spray. But there are means of getting rid of parasites. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) mentioned just in passing the other day that with this measure we may be able to succeed in combating the sheep-tick plague in South Africa. I know of a few cases where people have been penny wise and pound foolish, where they have been too parsimonious to buy a little dipping material and where they have suffered losses to the tune of hundreds of pounds as a result of the contamination of their wool by the sheep tick.

But there is one point here that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. Reference is made in the definition of “animal” to “any equine, bovine, sheep, goat, etc., which is in captivity or under the control of any person”. My difficulty is this: Looking at Clause 2 I find that it is an offence for a person to—

I want to pause for a moment to deal with the words “goad” and “terrify”, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how one goads a horse that is stubborn.

You bite his tail.

That is precisely what I want to know. I want to ask whether you may bite his tail because then you do not have to whip it. Or if you have an ox which stubbornly refuses to move, you are not allowed to goad it. When I look at Clause 2 I also find that paragraph (p) provides—

In other words, if it is stubborn and you want to use turpentine to get it to move, then you are being wanton; you are not allowed to do that either.

Order! These are matters which the hon. member can raise in the Committee Stage.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that I have no fault to find with this Bill, but I want to say to him that this measure will have to be applied very carefully. We would all like to see an end to the state of affairs where emaciated dogs have to scratch in garbage tins for something to eat. People who keep such dogs ought to be punished. We all want to put an end to the situation where people ride horses which have been badly chafed by the girth or whose chests have been chafed raw by the harness or who have sores on their backs, and do not care how they ill-treat those animals. We all want to put a stop to the situation where draught-oxen which have been overworked are again used the following day, or even cows which have been milked the previous evening, with the result that they get into such poor condition that they can no longer feed their calves. Because that is the sort of thing that one finds, and this Bill is designed to put a stop to it. We also want to see that animals are not infested with external parasites because of irresponsibility. There is one matter, however, which I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain to us, and that is Clause 2 (d) which reads—

Our problem is this: Where sheep are attacked and destroyed by a pack of dogs, one often finds that the farmer buys strychnine and puts it all along his boundary lines or within his sheep camp in an attempt to kill the dogs. Because the owner of the dog can only be prosecuted if that dog is caught on your land with the sheep, and if you follow it to the house of the farmer concerned and then say to him, “I have traced your dog here; it is still full of the blood of my sheep; and I am going to have you prosecuted.” This sort of thing usually happens at night, and in terms of this measure I am afraid one will be precluded from poisoning such dogs. There is also this other important factor, however, that we must take into consideration. Where there are registered jackal clubs, protection is already provided by provincial ordinances inasmuch as no person may put down poison in an area where there is a registered jackal club unless the club is first notified so as to make sure that the club’s dogs will not be poisoned. But this Bill only makes provision for the poisoning of vermin, and I should also like dogs which catch sheep to be defined as vermin in this measure.

I think it can be assumed that on both sides of the House there is a good deal of support for the broad principles of this Bill. But I want to associate myself with what has been said here by the hon. members for Kuruman (Mr. du Plessis) and Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) and to a certain extent by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins). I refer to Clause 2 (1). The hon. the Minister told the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) a moment ago by way of interjection that he should read this clause again. But I want to bring an example to the notice of the Minister which will perhaps persuade him to reconsider the wording of this clause, because this clause is of the utmost importance to the cattle farmer, particularly in those areas of the country where we find heart-water. This clause provides that it is an offence for the owner of an animal deliberately or negligently to keep such an animal in a dirty or parasitic condition. I want to tell the Minister that cattle are deliberately allowed to be full of parasites in their earlier years in certain parts of the country, particularly in Northern Transvaal and in a certain part of the Eastern Cape. One cannot give a little calf an injection to prevent heart-water, as one can do in the case of other diseases. It has been found in practice that a calf will survive without assistance if it is bitten by parasites and gets heart-water while it is still drinking cow milk. But if the calf is kept in the kraal and is not bitten by parasites, the figures prove that in most cases the farmer suffers heavy losses if that calf gets heart-water later on. If, however, during the first two weeks of its life while it is still drinking, it is bitten by the type of parasite which causes heart-water, it will pull through without assistance. If the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) does not believe me, let him talk to prominent cattle farmers like the hon. member for Vryburg about it.

Why should I disbelieve you?

I want to suggest that there may be some stupid people who, when they see such a calf full of ticks, may go and lay a charge against the farmer when he admits that he is deliberately allowing the calf to be infested with ticks during the first week or two of its life. In practice we find that such a farmer is prosecuted; we know of such cases. Although we do not want animals to be infested with parasites—we have been fighting for years that animals should be kept clean—I am afraid that farmers may perhaps get into difficulties as this clause reads at the moment, and I want to suggest that possibly the lawyers may be able to amend this clause in such a way that this difficulty will be eliminated. I want to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) and the hon. member for Kuruman, because I am afraid that if this clause goes through unaltered, farmers may perhaps be prosecuted under these circumstances.

Then there is also this point. I think most cattle farmers will agree with me that where animals are in a poor condition, it is due mostly to internal parasites, not only external parasites. There are many cases of ill-treatment of animals because people allow them to be infested for months with internal parasites. The animal loses condition and becomes unhealthy and eventually dies. Those animals which are infested with internal parasites are ill-treated just as much, where it is negligence on the part of the farmer, as the animal which has external parasites, and to me it seems only logical, since a farmer may now be charged because his animals are infested with external parasites, to insert a provision to the effect that he can also be charged if his animals are infested with internal parasites as the result of negligence. I put forward that suggestion for the Minister’s consideration.

The hon. the Minister will forgive me when I say that unfortunately there are quite a few provisions of this Bill which I cannot support. It is a question of one’s conscience and it is a question of knowledge.

We in this House are concerned about cruelty to animals. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that practically all the societies for the protection of animals are to be found in the cities and towns; we do not find these societies on the platteland amongst the farmers. I do not know of a single one in the Western Transvaal, and I think I can say that I know the Western Transvaal. These societies are always found in the towns and the cities. We do not hold it against anybody who is concerned about the condition and the care of animals in general. But in most cases these people are concerned about animals in the towns and cities, animals such as dogs, which in many respects are a nuisance to people in flats and on public lawns. We have even heard people express concern about baboons, and we can also mention cats here. Mr. Speaker, there is no farmer who does not care for his animals. If he cannot do it by way of a dipping tank, as the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) stated, the farmer dips his sheep by hand, but he helps that sheep when it is plagued by worms and that sort of thing. Under this Bill the farmers are the people who may get into trouble. We are the people who will have to endure the humiliation of being charged with cruelty to animals. Even if one is found not guilty, the humiliation that one has to endure is just as bad as the penalty would be if one were found guilty. This Bill is not without its dangers therefore for the farming community. In the first place I want to refer to Clause 1 (iii) which defines “owner”—

I want to quote myself as an example. I have a great interest in cattle farming. I have 10 to 15 horses which my employees always use to round up animals. Those people may override my horses; they may injure a horse’s back, for example. I am perfectly innocent, because my instructions to my labourers are to see to it that that sort of thing does not happen, but if it does happen then the owner will be charged as Accused No. 1 under this Bill. In Clause 2 (1) (a) reference is made to a person who goads, ill-treats, neglects, infuriates, terrifies, tortures or maims any animal. I want to remind this House of what happens when cattle are loaded for despatch to the controlled markets or to some other place. These animals are wild, and sometimes one has to apply methods, which one does not like using, in order to get those animals into the truck, and as this Bill reads it is an offence to make use of those methods. We usually use a long stick with electric batteries in it in order to get the animal into the truck; sometimes the animal is dragged into the truck by means of a rope around its head, because these are animals which have grown up wild in bush country, and under this Bill these would be all contraventions. Then we read in (b) that it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal or to confine, chain, tether or secure it in any place which affords inadequate space, ventilation, light, protection or shelter from heat, etc.

Order! I think the hon. member is now dealing with points which ought to be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

I am explaining the dangers of this Bill to the House.

The hon. member must deal with the principles now; he should deal with the details in the Committee Stage.

But, Mr. Speaker, these are the principles of this Bill. We are dealing here with principles and I think I am entitled to express my opinion in this regard.

Order! The hon. member must deal with the principle of animal protection, and when we come to the Committee Stage he can discuss the details.

I am talking about the dangers which are implicit in this Bill. I just want to read out for the information of the House …

The House already has the information before it.

No, I do not want to quote from the Bill. Will you permit me to quote what the Chairman of the Meat Control Board said? I think I am entitled to do that, because it indicates what exactly is involved in “cruelty to animals”, and that is the principle of this Bill. The Chairman of the Meat Control Board says—

If we want to apply the provisions of this Bill as they read at the moment, then either the Railways or the municipalities can be held responsible and charged with cruelty to animals, because these animals did not die of diseases. We are dealing here with a serious measure; it is one that we cannot lightly place on the Statute Book; we must take into account the difficulties of the farmers who have to tame animals. A cow has to be tamed before she can be milked; a draught-ox has to be tamed. One is simply obliged to use methods which are sometimes a bit cruel; I admit that myself, but that is the only way in which that animal can be tamed and made fit for human use. These are all dangers to which the farmers are exposed under this Bill. Furthermore, the penalties are also very heavy to my mind.

That is also a matter which can be discussed in the Committee Stage.

Provision is made here for imprisonment for a period of one year or a fine of R200 for an offence which a farmer may commit through no fault of his own. I feel that that is a very heavy penalty, and in this connection I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I know that he means well; there are many other people who also mean well, as far as this measure is concerned, but it is a measure that we should analyse very carefully before we place it on the Statute Book. I want to express the hope that the Minister will give very careful consideration to the provisions of this Bill before he takes it to the Other Place.

I shall not detain the House very long. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not lend an ear to the arrant nonsense that we have heard here this afternoon about stock having to get heavy tick infestations in order to obtain immunity. We have battled here for the last 20 years through the agricultural organizations to try to clean up ticks. They are the carriers of diseases that are costing this country R20,000,000 per annum, so we welcome what the Minister is trying to do here. I sincerely hope that he will not lend a kindly ear to the representations which have been made here this afternoon because we have to get rid of ticks. Onderstepoort will supply these hon. gentlemen with all the vaccines they require to give immunity against all the various diseases. But let us get rid of ticks and let us make it a crime to allow stock to become infested with ticks.

I want to begin immediately by answering the points of view that have been expressed here, and I want to start with the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk). The hon. member says that we must be very careful in applying this measure because there are very many dangers connected with this measure. I want to tell the hon. member that we certainly have been careful in applying this Act in the past because the things that the hon. member complains about, the dangers which he foresees, have existed since 1914. If the hon. member had taken the elementary precaution of looking up the old Act he would have seen that it contains the identical provisions which are contained in this Bill, and if the hon. member has not had any difficulty between 1914 and 1961 I cannot see that he will not have any difficulty with the application of this measure in the next 50 years.

There is no guarantee of that.

I take it amiss that hon. members without having read the old Act, on which this Bill is based, and without having read the Select Committee’s report, come along and raise a hullabaloo about this Bill. Because let me tell hon. members that the provisions contained in this Bill were drafted by a Select Committee of this House, which sat under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). That Select Committee was representative of both sides of the House. Most of the members who sat on it were farmers such as the hon. members for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel), Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) and Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). The Select Committee viewed the matter from all angles—from the point of view of the farmer and from everyone else’s point of view—and I make bold to say that there is nothing in this Bill to which a farmer or anyone else could take exception. I did not like the theme of many of the hon. members that we are enacting a measure here which is designed to trap the farmers. This measure has nothing whatsoever to do with farmers or the trapping of farmers. This measure, as I indicated in the course of my speech, is designed purely and simply to prevent the ill-treatment of animals. Take the example that the hon. member mentioned. He said that if this measure was passed he could be held responsible, according to the definition, if his foreman or one of his servants rode a horse with a girth which chafed it. If the hon. member looks at the 1914 Act he will see that it contains precisely the same wording as this Bill. The only difference is that that Act was in High Dutch while this Bill is in Afrikaans. That is the only difference; for the rest it is exactly the same. When hon. members talk about dangers which are implicit in this Bill, they are only seeing ghosts, because in fact there are no dangers at all. Let me assure hon. members that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is not composed of people who are intent on prosecuting people. As a matter of fact they cannot afford to do so, because they are dependent for their very existence on the support they receive from the public and they have to act with circumspection to ensure continued public support. I do think that hon. members are doing them an injustice by suggesting that they are going to act in the way envisaged by them.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), together with other hon. members, referred to Clause 2 (e). Once again it is a question of not having read the clause, because the clause is very clear. I am not concerned here with ticks or other parasites on stock which becomes infested in the normal course of events. That is the duty of the Department of Agriculture; it is not my function, and it is not my intention to introduce legislation in that regard. As far as ticks or parasites are concerned, this Bill only applies when the animal has deliberately or negligently been allowed to become heavily infested. In those circumstances it will be possible to institute a prosecution; in other words, when the animal is so heavily infested that it becomes sick or is in such physical condition that it would be cruel and cause that animal unnecessary suffering to keep it alive. In other words, the animal must not only be infested, but it must actually be so heavily infested that, in terms of the words of the Act, “it would be cruel and cause unnecessary suffering to the animal to keep it alive”. To use plain language, it must be lousy with ticks before this specific clause of the Bill will come into effect. But it has nothing to do with animals which become infested in the normal course of events, and hon. members will surely understand why such a clause has to be included in the Bill. I invite hon. members, who do not understand why it is necessary, to go to Grassy Park or any other branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, so that they can see how people deliberately allow animals to remain infested with parasites and, once they have seen that, they will realize why it is necessary to insert such a provision. But again the position is that this matter was studied very thoroughly by the Select Committee and this recommendation is the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee which went into this matter at the time.

As far as the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) is concerned, I readily concede that he has raised a matter which should receive further attention, and that is the question of the placing of poison under Clause 2 (d) where reference is made to “vermin” only. I think there is something in the argument of the hon. member that dogs, or, for that matter, other animals, which cause damage should also be included there. That is a matter to which I shall give necessary attention and, if necessary, I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage.

That is the Road Ordinance.

Yes, all the road ordinances specifically exclude “dog”.

I will get the reference for the hon. the Minister. The Minister is now referring to the agreed ordinance between the four provinces.

Yes, the ordinance of 1956.

I was referring to another ordinance.

The various provinces have come to agreement in connection with their relevant ordinances. They have accepted a definition in respect of the meaning of “animal” if and when you run him over on the road and the various provincial authorities have thought it fit to exclude dogs specifically. As I said at the outset in my second reading speech, it is not my function at this stage to override the provinces and to introduce legislation in that connection.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) as well as other members have spoken about the catching of wild animals. In the first instance, of course, this legislation has nothing to do with that. This legislation deals with our ordinary domestic animals and then it goes further and refers to wild animals in captivity. Because many hon. members did not notice that, they have unfortunately misunderstood this Bill. As far as wild animals are concerned, hon. members will know, of course, that every provincial authority has a fauna and a flora division which has been very successful in protecting the wild animals on our farms and elsewhere. It is not my duty to make provision for that in this Bill. It is a matter which we can leave in the hands of the various provincial authorities.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) who in the first instance introduced a Bill in this connection. I am pleased to hear that he is supporting this measure, and I am also grateful to hon. members on both sides of the House for supporting the principle. The hon. member has raised the question of circus animals. I have no information at my disposal to indicate that animal welfare societies have found it necessary to take action against circus managers or circus owners in the past. I think we are all in agreement that they look well after their animals. No force is exercised in the training of the animals and they look well after them. As far as the abattoirs are concerned, to which the hon. member has also referred, as I explained in my second reading speech, I have nothing to do with that aspect of the matter at this stage: that is a matter which will at the appropriate time receive the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.

Once again, also on behalf of the animal protection societies, I wish to thank hon. members for the manner in which they have supported the principle of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This Bill has become necessary as a result of the fact that South Africa has now become a Republic. Naturally it is not necessary for me to make out a case and to prove to hon. members that we should have an Extradition Act. All countries in the world have extradition agreements amongst one another. The laws of the various countries, of course, constitute the basis of extradition agreements. The fact that we are only introducing an Extradition Bill in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa to-day does not mean that we did not have extradition legislation in the past or that we did not have extradition agreements. We did indeed have an Act, namely the Extradition Act of 1870 to 1906 of the British Parliament which has applied to us in respect of ourselves and foreign countries; naturally as far as we and Commonwealth countries were concerned the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881 has applied. Part I of that Act covered the position in respect of the Union of South Africa and other Commonwealth countries, while Part II covered the position in respect of the then Union of South Africa on the one hand and the Protectorates and the countries belonging to the Federation on the other hand.

When dealing with an extradition Bill, Sir, there are in the main four principles which should be incorporated in such a Bill and hon. members will find those four principles in this Bill. The first principle which is common to all extradition agreements and extradition laws, is that the Act in respect of which extradition is sought must be regarded in both countries which are party to the agreement as a punishable offence. That is the common basis of all extradition agreements and hon. members will find that principle in Clause 4 of the Bill. A second principle which is common to all extradition agreements is the retention of the right to refuse to deliver a person if he is charged with an offence of a political character. Hon. members will in the first place find that principle in Clause 3 of the Bill and again in Clause 15 of the Bill. That is a matter on which we need not argue. You could perhaps adopt the attitude, Sir, that it is also desirable to have power of extradition in the case of crimes of that nature, but the fact is simply this that it has been accepted throughout the world that in respect of offences of that character there will be no extradition between any two countries. A third principle which you find in all extradition agreements is that a person cannot be punished in respect of an offence for which he has not been extradited. In other words, you cannot go to a certain country, request the extradition of a certain person because he has committed a certain offence, and having obtained his extradition punish him for another offence when he arrives in your country. The principle which applies to all countries is that the person should be charged with the offence in respect of which he has been extradited and if the court finds him not guilty and you decide not to take any further action against him in respect of that offence, the principles of extradition demand that you reinstate him in the country from which he has been extradited, and you have to seek his extradition afresh if you want to charge him with another offence. Hon. members will find that principle incorporated in Clause 9 of the Bill. A fourth and final principle which is common to all extradition agreements hon. members will find in Clause 9 of the Bill and it is this that a person who is charged after having been extradited is entitled to all the privileges of bail, etc., to which an ordinary person when charged, would be entitled to.

These are the underlying principles which are to be found in all extradition agreements and which are also incorporated in this Bill. Where we had the position that two Acts applied to us in respect of extradition, namely in the first place, the one which governed our position in relation to foreign countries and in the second place the one which governed our position in relation to Commonwealth countries and in the third place the one which governed our position in relation to the adjoining Protectorates and the Federation we will in future only have one Act under which all arrangements will have to be made. Hon. members may ask me whether it is necessary to conclude new agreements with all the foreign states with which we have had extradition agreements in the past. Does our withdrawal from the Commonwealth mean that we have to enter into new agreements with those countries? My reply is that that is not necessary because Sections 107 and 112 of the South Africa Act provide that all rights and privileges flowing from agreements concluded in the past, will remain rights and privileges to be enjoyed in the Republic of South Africa. It is not necessary, therefore, to enter into fresh agreements. We will, however, have to conclude new agreements in respect of Commonwealth countries and Britain because we have never had agreements with them. Those agreements simply existed as a result of the Acts to which I have already referred. As far as the Protectorates and Rhodesia are concerned, hon. members will remember that Part II of the Fugitive Offenders Act provided for a system of “backing of warrants”. That was a much easier system than that provided for under the formal, extradition agreements and we will endeavour, after consultation with the countries concerned, to retain that system as far as possible. Hon. members will notice that Clause 6 of this Bill provides for a different procedure to be adopted in the case of the areas on our immediate borders. As far as Britain is concerned and because she is so far away from us, the procedure of “backing of warrants” cannot apply between her and ourselves and the ordinary procedure will be adopted; similarly in the case of Commonwealth countries we will go through the ordinary diplomatic channels in order to get extraditions.

Apart from these principles the Bill only lays down what procedure should be followed when a person is charged before court and how he should be extradited. These provisions are similar to those contained in the old Acts which have applied to us in the past and it is, therefore, not necessary for me to explain or to plead their cause. The procedure is characteristic of this sort of action and it is common to all countries with whom extradition agreements are in existence. Because there is nothing contentious in this Bill I feel myself at liberty to ask hon. members to accept it.

I would like to say immediately to the hon. the Minister that this Bill is welcomed and that it will be supported by this side of the House. Sir, at the moment the position is that it is almost impossible for the ordinary legal practitioner in this country to ascertain the laws in respect of this matter from his ordinary law library. The earliest of these laws goes back almost 100 years, and the others have been passed over a long period, and the latest Act involved is the Act of 1936. I think I am right in saying that our present law is to be found in no less than 18 various statutes passed over a period of nearly 100 years, and it would have been desirable in any case that there should have been a Bill of this nature so that it would be available to the ordinary practitioner at any time and readily accessible. Particularly is this true in respect of the fact that it is only to be found in respect of most of the pieces of legislation in old English statutes which are not readily available, and of course are not available in Afrikaans. We therefore welcome the fact that this Bill has been introduced, and as the hon. the Minister has said the principles in respect of the law of extradition are being followed carefully and exactly in this piece of legislation. The law will now be certain and will be readily accessible and therefore we are glad to lend our support to this Bill. Other hon. members may comment upon some of the provisions, but in principle we are in favour of this Bill.

There is no doubt about it, as the hon. member who has just sat down has made clear, that this is a desirable measure because not only does it make the law more accessible and more clear, but it is in keeping with the country’s new status as a Republic outside the Commonwealth. It is interesting to note that there is still retained a distinction between those states which have judicial systems very similar to our own and others who do not fall into that category, designated in this Bill as foreign states and associated states. There are two points in respect of which I think we shall be grateful if the Minister will give us some enlightenment. The first is this: One wonders why the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to re-enact in this Bill provisions similar to those set out in the British Act of 1870, Section 3 (i). In that section the surrender of the fugitive criminal is prohibited if the alleged offence is of a political character or if the accused proves to the governor, court or magistrate that his surrender is asked for with a view to punishing him for an offence of that character. I hasten to say immediately that a discretion is of course given to the hon. the Minister in Clause 15 of this Bill which reads inter alia—

Then he can discharge the person concerned from custody. That is a discretion which vests in the Minister in terms of this Bill. But the difference between that provision and the previous British Act was that this was not a discretion vesting in the Minister but it was a specific provision of the Act itself which necessarily enforced the setting free of a fugitive criminal, firstly if he could prove that his offence was of a political character or if he could prove that his surrender was being asked for for reasons other than those stated in the warrant. The reason why I ask for some elucidation of this point is that practically speaking, so it seems from the provisions of this Bill, the Minister will not in every case necessarily have the facts of the matter before him. There is a difference between an inquiry under Clause 10 and an inquiry under Clause 12. If you look at sub-section (3) of Clause 10, Sir, you will see that—

That is in respect of a foreign state other than an associated state. So the Minister will have the necessary information there on which to exercise his discretion. In respect of an inquiry conducted in terms of Clause 12, it does seem that the record of the proceedings will not necessarily be before the Minister and he may not have the facts upon which he can exercise his discretion in terms of Clause 15, that is an inquiry where the offence is committed in an associated state and a perusal of Clause 12 will indicate the point I am making that these facts may not be before the Minister because the magistrate is not compelled to forward the record to him if an inquiry is conducted under that section. If the old provision had remained then the magistrate would necessarily himself have had to inquire into this point as to whether or not the accused was being asked for by the foreign state in respect of an offence of a political character. As it stands at present it seems as though that burden is being placed upon the Minister and one wonders whether the Minister will always have the information upon which he can exercise his discretion in an inquiry under Clause 12 as opposed to Clause 10. That seems to be the most important point, Sir, as far as this Bill is concerned. I may say that I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has this discretion, provided there is machinery which brings to his notice the facts of each particular case.

The other point is a small one but one of some importance and that is the question of notifying the offender concerned that he has the right of appeal. Again, Sir, looking at Clause 10, one sees in the final three lines of sub-section (1) of that clause, that it is obligatory upon the magistrate conducting the inquiry to inform the person that he may appeal within 15 days to the Supreme Court. But that provision does not appear in respect of an inquiry held when the offence is committed in an associated state, that is in terms of Clause 12. He has the right to appeal, that is made clear, but it is not obligatory that he be told that he has the right of appeal. The importance of this that he be told that he has the right to appeal, is that if it does not come to his mind that he has the right of appeal or if he cannot get advice in time, then of course he is taken out of the country and sent off somewhere else.

He cannot be taken out before the time has expired.

I agree: that is correct. That is the importance of the 15 days. But it seems wise to make it obligatory that he be told that he has this right. I may say in all fairness to the hon. the Minister that this is a repetition of the provision under the old British Act. The Minister is not changing the situation here at all. He is reproducing here a distinction which did appear in the old British Act. The hon. the Minister is not introducing a new principle in this regard. One wonders why the old principle should be reproduced because it seems, in the absence of an explanation, that there is a flaw in it. I would ask the Minister to give this particular aspect his attention, because it does seem that if it is right in respect of Clause 10 that an offender be told that he has the right of appeal so that he can exercise it before the end of the period of 15 days, he should also be told that in respect of an inquiry under Clause 12; so that there too he will know that he has the right of appeal.

Those, Sir, seem to be the only points of difference in principle upon which we seek guidance from the hon. the Minister. Otherwise it seems that this measure is one which is both necessary and wise.

I thank the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) for supporting the principle of this Bill. As far as the hon. member who has just sat down is concerned, he will find the answer to his first question in Clause 3 of this Bill. Clause 3 reads as follows—

The answer lies in the words “in accordance with the terms of such an agreement”. In other words, the agreement must be before the court. As I have already explained in all agreements there is a clause to the effect—you will simply not get an extradition agreement if you are not prepared to include that provision—that nobody will be extradited for an offence of a political character. That is therefore contained in the agreement and the agreement is before the court. It is for the accused to say or to prove to the judicial officer concerned that he falls within the scope of that agreement and that his offence is one of a political character. The law advisers tell me that it is not necessary to specify it in this Bill.

Will the situation also be covered where although prima facie the individual is being extradited in respect of an offence which is not of a political character, he believes on valid grounds that that is not the true reason for the request but that the true reason is in respect of a political offence? Will he be able to show that to the court?

It is for him to satisfy the particular court that it is in fact an offence of a political character. That is in the country to which he has gone to or to which he has fled. If, in spite of that defence, he is handed over then of course he can be tried for the offence specified in the indictment and in respect of which he has been extradited. As a second safeguard the discretion of the Minister comes in. If he is satisfied that it is an offence other than an offence of a political nature, he can send the person back. So there is a double safeguard.

As far as the second point raised by the hon. member is concerned, I will consider that. I think it is best that we discuss it further at the Committee Stage of this Bill. The reason apparently why it was not inserted in the British Act was because all the various dominions were actually just possessions of Britain at the time when the Act was applicable to them. I suppose that was the reason, but I will go into the matter and we can discuss it further in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time

I move—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. It is somewhat unlikely that its provisions will ever be brought into effect, but it is clear that there should be some provision in respect of cases such as those which the hon. the Minister has mentioned. It seems logical perhaps that the domicile where the events shall be deemed to have happened should be the district of Pretoria, which is the district in which we have to administrate this Act in this country. Accordingly, Sir, we raise no objection to this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

We on this side of the House agree to the second reading of this Bill. We realize that most of these amendments are of a technical nature and that they are being effected to improve the administration of the original Act, No. 23 of 1954, in respect of the artificial insemination of cattle. There are one or two points which we would like the hon. the Minister to elucidate. The most important innovation here is in Clause 1 which amends Section 2 of the original Act, by the addition of sub-sections (ii) and (1) (b). The word “owner” is now limited to mean five joint owners in a bull. The first part of the amending clause, i.e. 1 (a) (i) helps the breeder to have his bull tested at home. Provision is made for facilities to be provided there so that such bull can be tested before it is used for artificial insemination purposes without having to send it to an A.I. centre. But in limiting the ownership to five, I think that is the hardship. We realize that it is essential that there should be strong veterinary control to see that there is no spread of disease owing to the animal contracting some venereal disease and giving it to a great number of cows. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that owing to one bull at a station becoming infected with venereal disease, he spread the infection to a large number of herds with tremendous loss to the industry and to the owners concerned, and I believe that A.I. centre had to close down in consequence. Of course A.I. in itself is one of the most important factors in the control of venereal disease, which has taken a tremendous toll of the dairy cattle in South Africa in recent years. We are all behind the Minister that there should be proper control, but I cannot see why, if you can control a bull isolated on one farm and its semen is used by five co-owners of the bull, what the difference would be if there are eight or ten co-owners. We know to-day that a good bull costs many thousands of rand and if five owners import an animal, if they have big herds of 100 cows, we know that the bull will be used to good benefit, if not to the full extent to which it could be used if it were made available to more owners. But if you have breeders who have highly bred herds of only 50 animals each, it will preclude five such owners from importing a preferent or proven bull, because the cost would be too high in relation to the amount of semen used, and it would be a pity if that semen could not be used for more cattle. I think I am correct in saying that if there are five or six co-owners they could come to some arrangement with an A.I. centre to keep the bull at their centre and to make semen available to them. On the other hand, that would cost those breeders still more money, and I cannot see that if five owners can keep the bull under proper control, why ten or 12 cannot do so. I realize that when you go too far and make it 30 or 40, those co-owners may wish to sell semen, and that it may involve further difficulty if a disease breaks out. But the case I quoted of the A.I. centre which closed down—there was only one bull, and it will not be affected by this amendment to the Act. That outbreak was in the very early stages of A.I. in this country, and perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that bull became affected afterwards or before it was tested and passed by his veterinary department. Our tests were not advanced far enough at that stage. I think that is very germane to the reason why only five co-owners should have the right to use a bull, without its being placed under the control of an A.I. centre. I also want to ask the Minister whether I am correct in saying that semen can be imported at present from the U.S.A., Canada and the U.K. through the Department, but not from Holland and certain other European countries. Will the Minister tell us why semen is not available from the Continent and Holland, where there are some of the finest bulls in the world, and if there is any question of disease involved, because this is all tied up with the question of the control of A.I. centres?

There is one other point I would like to raise with the Minister, and that is the question of inseminators. I see under Clauses 4 and 5 we are now registering A.I. centres for a prescribed period also inseminators under the regulations. I can find no fault in that because it is a good thing for these registrations to come up for revision when they are renewed, but I would like the Minister to tell us what provision there is at the moment, if any, to see that disciplinary action can be taken against inseminators who do not carry out their duties properly. Human nature being what it is, the medical profession makes provision for disciplinary action and a man may be struck off the register for misconduct, and I think it is just as important here that we should be quite clear as to what disciplinary action can be taken so that people who break the regulations can be removed, and if so, does the Board take the action, or the Registrar, or the Minister? Or do they investigate, and does the Minister take the final action? Who is the final arbiter, and is there an appeal to the Minister? If the Minister will clarify these points, I can assure him that we on this side of the House accept the principle of the Bill and will support its second reading.

I think this Bill is a step in the right direction. We know it is very difficult to spread the best blood in the country as it ought to be spread, and for that reason I do not wish to say too much about the control and the existing board. I think the people on the board are people with brains who know their work. But there are a few small points in regard to which I feel we ought to be very careful. The first is animal diseases. The Department should take every step to combat animal diseases. There is no doubt that once you have destroyed miscarriages and other diseases, the whole scheme will be a greater success, and not only among the animals you are using, but also the animals outside. Very often the infection does not take place through the semen you are using, where it is controlled, but where it is used outside, and that is the reason why there are many instances where it is a failure and does not take properly. We should insist upon combating the female diseases of animals as far as possible in order to make a success. I could also refer to the blood types or lines that should be used. This is a very delicate matter. In Holland they use the semen of tested bulls. All the bulls they are using there are not necessarily preferent but they are bulls that have been tested over a period of years, where you already know what their progeny are like. It is very necessary first to test such bulls before using their semen again. You find a bull at the Breeders’ Association in Holland that inseminates 3,000 or 4,000 cows. Very frequently the individual does not have the money to spend when he has only a small herd of cows, but you can do it when you have a number of cattle to inseminate. But the danger is that if you do not have tested bulls, you may make a great failure. For instance, you may have 3,000 cows inseminated and then find that there is something wrong in the pedigree. My friend over there has asked why we have not yet imported from Holland, but many of the bulls in Holland are not suited to us. The Frisian Breeders’ Association here maintain a very high standard, the highest in the world, and they have regard to the milk butter fat and the blood lines and they are many of the bulls in Holland that do not suit our pedigrees. There is a great difference between pedigree stock and pure stock, and we have to be careful not to use only pedigree stock; we should use only the best blood lines that have been pure over the years, so that we can have the heredity. I am very pleased to see that such bulls are being sold in South Africa, and I should like to congratulate our people on not being afraid to spend money to acquire the best. At the outset I doubted very much whether the people would not use it only for the purpose of gain, but I must admit that they are using the best blood they can get. There is only one small shortcoming that I sometimes think could be rectified, and that is to see to it that a bull is first tested properly before you distribute its semen, for when you have a bull with defects, such as black spots, you could of course cause a terrible catastrophe. As one of the old breeders in the country, I am in favour of seeing to it that we should use only pure blood. In the last instance, at the sale of Mr. Jordaan, they bought a tested bull that had already produced 20 or 30 calves of a very good quality. Its first 20 or 30 calves produced on an average 10,000 lbs. of milk with 3.67 per cent butter fat at two years. I hope that more use will be made in future of tested bulls. I know of instances where there are splendid bulls, but they are a bit ferocious, and you cannot send them to the insemination station. I should like to ask whether it is not possible to distribute the semen of those good bulls. There are so many factors in animal husbandry. There is the question of the duration of the period of lactation. In South Africa to-day there are cows that are 11 or 12 years old and that have produced more than 150,000 lbs. of milk. In Holland it is a requisite to see to it that that cow does not produce that quantity of milk for one or two years only, but over long periods, for it shows that the animals are strong enough to do so. I know of cows in Holland that are 11 years old, but are still as strong as they were when they were five years old. There is the case of a cow that produced 160,000 lbs. of milk and she is 13 years old, and her original points rating was 83, and after 13 years it is 85. That merely goes to show how strong that cow is. That is the kind of cattle we should breed. In South Africa we cannot quite go as far as that yet, but when the time comes we can go further and not only use young bulls to spread the semen, but tested bulls the heredity of which we know. I welcome the Bill, for it is in the right direction, but I should like to ask that we should not go beyond the stud book, for that contains the old blood lines. There are new movements in the country at the present time that are talking about pedigree stock after the sixth generation, but those animals are not good enough for us to spread their semen, for they are only pedigreed and not pure. I only hope they will adhere to the old stud books, where you can trace back the generations over a long period, for then you will have the heredity. If not, we shall not be successful.

This amendment Bill seeks to overhaul the control over artificial insemination. I should like to deal with the objections of the hon. member for Pietmaritzburg (District) and explain to him that his objections really have no substance, for there is nothing in the Bill that prohibits co-owners from falling under the control of the A.I. board, and then they can do as they wish, or in the case of the ten or 12 owners he referred to, there is nothing in the law that stops them from complying with the requirements of the A.I. board, and then they may use that bull to serve any number of cows.

I wish to reply briefly to the few questions raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). His main difficulty was the fact that we are now making provision for up to five joint owners only to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill as it stands, whereas in the past all owners of bulls who did not want to sell the semen of that bull but wished to use it on their own stock, were all exempted, whether they were five or 100 in number. We feel that it is not right that it should be that way, and the A.I. board as such has given a lot of thought to this matter. They considered control on the basis of the number of cows to be served, but that seemed to be quite unrealistic and impracticable. To the Department it also seemed to be quite unrealistic and impracticable to make exemptions on the basis of the number of cattle to be inseminated. Just think of the number of inspectors you will need to exercise control and to make sure that everybody complies with that regulation. We decided on a maximum of five joint owners. There is no clause in the Bill as it stands which makes it compulsory for a farmer or even five farmers who are co-owners of one bull to have that bull tested for infectious diseases, as long as they only use that semen on their own stock. We are still excluding them from the compulsions of the Act, but we say that more than five farmers can always organize themselves and have themselves registered as an A.I. centre, and then they have to comply with the regulations. To make it more than five would be dangerous, and for that reason we are strictly confining it to five co-owners, who will be exempted from the compulsory registration, or the regulations framed under the Act. I should have liked to see no exceptions made, for on the other hand that would cause too much hardship and inconvenience to farmers. But I have no doubt that even two or more farmers who are co-owners of a really good bull that has cost them a lot of money would go out of their way to see that that bull has no infectious disease and that he really complies with all the regulations with which other bulls or A.I. centres have to comply.

I move—

This is not a contentious Bill. The need for the Bill arises from the Coalbrook disaster that occurred about two years ago. This disaster profoundly impressed all the interested parties with the necessity for undertaking coalmining research in order to practice the most economical methods of coal mining without prejudicing the safety factors of this kind of mining.

The Government on its part immediately reacted upon the representations for such research to be undertaken, and the Government Mining Engineer, the Coal Mining Industry, the C.S.I.R. and the Fuel Research Board were asked to proceed forthwith to the establishment of a proper research organization, namely the Coal Mining Advisory Board. This body, under the chairmanship of the Government Mining Engineer, has as its members representatives of the Coal Mining Industry, the Fuel Research Institute, the Division of Geological Survey, the C.S.I.R. and the State Metallurgical Laboratory. They drafted a properly devised research programme and submitted it to the Government. It has been decided that this programme shall be carried out under the direction of the Fuel Research Institute, and that the financing of it should also be placed under the control of the Institute as the most suitable body.

The cost involved in the proposed research programme will amount to about R76,000 for the first year (1962), and for the next few years thereafter about R120,000 per annum. The duration of the programme will of course be determined by the measure of progress that is made and so the Cabinet has already approved in principle that the State will, for so long as this research continues, make a maximum financial contribution of R60,000 per annum, which means that the annual contribution by the Coal Mining Industry, in terms of the amendment of the law that is under consideration at present, will not amount to more than R60,000 per annum.

I should like to give a brief explanation of the financing of this research programme. Section 12 (3) (b) of the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Act provides that the State President has to impose a levy of not more than five-twelfths of a cent per ton per annum on all coal sold or used and produced by the coal mines in the Republic, after consultation with the Fuel Research Board. The quantity of coal used by the coal mine itself is not subject to the levy. Furthermore, this levy is imposed on coal mines with a production of more than 25,000 tons per annum. The State must contribute on a R for R basis from moneys voted by Parliament for the purpose, to the fund that is obtained in this manner, and in terms of the present statutory provisions, these funds have to be used to meet the current expenses in connection with the carrying out of the objects of the Fuel Research Institute. Therefore it is necessary that provision should be made in the Act in order to enable the Fuel Research Institute to acquire funds for research into coal mining also. As hon. members will note, it is proposed in the Bill that the State President may, for this purpose, impose a special levy of not more than half a cent per ton. This levy will be imposed on the same basis as the existing levies. The contribution of the State, to which I have referred already, will be on a R for R basis.

I should like to point out at once that in the case of the presently existing levy, there is a duty imposed on the State President, whereas the imposition of the special levy now being proposed for financing the programme of coal mining research is left to the discretion of the State President. The reason for this can be easily explained. The research programme contemplated will, by the very nature of things, be a project of a transitory nature. By making the relevant legal provision permissive, it will not be necessary to come back to Parliament again when the programme has been concluded, in order to repeal the provision that is being inserted in the principal Act now.

In conclusion I may inform the House that the manner in which the funds for the research in question will be raised, has met with general approval and that the Coal Mining Industry has voluntarily intimated its willingness to bear the burden of the special levy not exceeding half a cent per ton of coal per annum.

We on this side of course welcome this measure and the contemplated research work. It is a great tragedy that only a catastrophe such as Coalbrook should have led to this step. We trust that it will eliminate not only this type of catastrophe to a large extent in the future, but that the research that is being contemplated into the methods of mining will also in due course lead to a more economical production of coal.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) in welcoming this measure before the House at present as a practical means of dealing with the problem created by the disaster in 1960 at Coalbrook where over 400 Europeans and non-Europeans lost their lives. I appreciate that the hon. the Deputy Minister has just told us that the coal industry and the Government mining engineer agreed that in order to conduct more research into coal problems in the Republic of South Africa, the Advisory Council on Coal Research was formed and drew up this research programme which is presently going to be implemented.

In Act No. 36 of 1930, the original Fuel Research Institute Act, when it was constituted to study and investigate the fuel resources of South Africa, the Fuel Institute Board was constituted of five members, together with an additional director and a three-member technical and advisory council to advise and assist the director and the board on the technical research angle and the implementation of board resolutions. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, who are the members of these present bodies and who the director is. The functions of the Fuel Research Institute were to test coal for grading, both for domestic use and for export, and also to inspect mine premises, but they had no facilities, or they did not pursue coalmining research at that stage. In the original Section 12, which establishes the capital fund, which is credited with the moneys voted by Parliament to be used for capital expenditure, any unexpended part of this money may be added to the capital fund or used for its project by the Fuel Research Institute.

I would like to ask the Deputy Minister, following on the figure which he has just given us in the research programme that is anticipated—the R120,000—whether he intends to impose the full levy this year of the extra one-half cent per ton, which has been agreed on by the coal industry, and whether that will be the full levy to be imposed up to March 1963? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister consider that R120,000 is sufficient to start a programme of research into coal mining? I feel that research into coal mining needs to be long term and organized and well planned. In every new major research programme or undertaking, there needs to be built into the administrative side of this the correct pattern to find the answer to the problems to be tackled, such as those that caused the Coalbrook disaster. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister inform this House as to the type of research that is going to be undertaken by this unit-research into rock stresses and mine pillars, for example? This varies considerably according to the type of rock. Where you get the hard Witwatersrand shale in the gold-mining areas, in the coal mines you get sandstone and soft shale that collapses very easily. A great deal of research is necessary into this type of hazard. It is on the strength of these mine pillars, in mining, that much of the safety of the mining industry depends. There are also improvements in ventilation problems in mining shafts …

Order! Is the hon. member not going beyond the scope of the Bill now?

Sir, I was just outlining certain points in regard to research that might be instituted by a body such as that to be established under this Bill.

May I then put forward the point as to whether there will be consultation with the Chamber of Mines? I note that the name of the Chamber of Mines does not appear in the composition of the Advisory Council that the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned at the beginning of his introductory speech. The Chamber of Mines does not have representation from the coal-mining industry in the Chamber of Mines but the mining houses themselves control many coal mines. Last year the mining houses consulted Sir Basil Schonland as to the best way of conducting their research. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister contemplate consultation with coal petrologists concerning the best ways of research that this unit will be engaged upon?

There is one further point which I would like to raise concerning this Bill. I notice that in line 3 it says, “The State President may”, not “must”. May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of this means a temporary financial measure, for practical purposes, that must be renewed every year in this House, together with the Minister of Finance? Finally, I would like to say that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs referred recently in a speech to South Africa as the economic leader in the West. If this economic progress as outlined by the Minister is to be maintained, then we must remember that the power that drives our industries, the power that propels our railways and the power that produces our electricity, is coal. We produce a great deal of coal in the Republic of South Africa every year. We produce 43,500,000 tons of coal, the value of which is R50,000,000. I am quoting from Minerals of the Department of Mines of October-December 1961. I feel that surely it is worth while spending at least R100,000 or R200,000 a year on research into the coal industry and development also of the types of processing of oil from coal, such as has been undertaken at Sasol. The coal industry of South Africa is one of our economic life-lines and we have to safeguard it. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he is satisfied that the measures contemplated in this amendment will provide full facilities for financing a programme of research into coal. Sir, let us hope that this research programme that is outlined in this amendment that we are asked to approve will contribute towards the coal industry’s future permanancy and prosperity and that the work of the Fuel Research Institute will be strengthened by the additional research programme. I notice in paragraph (b) reference is made to research conducted by the Institute “or by any other person or body at the request of the Board”. I take it that this will mean the C.S.I.R. and also the coal industry itself. I hope that this is only a beginning in the promotion of intensive coal research in South Africa.

In my opening speech I clearly pointed out that this body was established after there had been discussions with an advisory board under the chairmanship of the Government Mining Engineer, but there were also present certain members who represented the Coal Mining Industry, in addition to representatives of the Fuel Research Council, the Division of Geological Survey, the C.S.I.R. and the State Metallurgical Laboratory. So it is clear that from the outset there was the co-operation of the Coal Mining Industry. That co-operation is necessary for any form of research of this nature. It will continue in that manner, and the hon. member may be assured that as regards this research, there will be the greatest degree of co-operation with the industry. As regards the work they are going to do, it is of a very technical nature of course. It will be the task of these already existing and tried institutions to work out the technical details; I do not have particulars of that here. But according to what they have planned, the cost thereof can be met by the proposed levy together with the contribution by the State. As regards this matter, it has been felt that it is of a temporary nature, and that is why this legislation is permissive. An annual contribution will be made and of course it will be asked for in the Estimates every year. But apart from that, once this research has been completed, if it is completed—and it is contemplated that it will indeed be completed—the contribution will lapse, and that is why this legislation is being made permissive.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to throw light on a matter which I think has aroused the interest of everybody, both in farming and Public Service circles, and it concerns the dilemma in which the Department finds itself at the moment, and has been in recent years, in connection with its research personnel. I do not think we can afford to allow a Department in South Africa to lose its staff at the rate at which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has been losing its research staff in recent years. There is a lack of research workers in South Africa in general, but particularly in this Department, because the Department has lost its staff to commerce and industry, as well as to large agricultural institutions. In the first place, I think the Department lost its research workers and scientists because it was not prepared to place a premium on scientific services, and these days the position is that a premium is being placed on scientific knowledge in practically every country in the world. Now the fact is that in recent years we have lost some of our best men at a rate at which we should never have lost them, and which our country cannot afford. An investigation was made under the leadership of Prof. Rautenbach, and therefore I hope that the Minister will at this stage be able to say something in this regard which will indicate to us what the attitude of the Department is going to be with an eye to the future.

I should like to have the privilege of the half-hour Mr. Chairman. Since we are discussing the Agricultural Technical Services Vote, I should like to deal mainly with agricultural research and thereafter agricultural training. And in starting with agricultural research, I want to put forward a plea for the establishment of an agricultural research board. If there is one thing which is lacking in our country it is co-ordination between agricultural training as such and agricultural research. I want to point out that about five or six years ago there was established an Agricultural Research Advisory Council, of which I personally was a member, but as far as I know it only met on one occasion. Mr. Chairman, the agriculturists are no longer satisfied with the state of affairs where industries are served by the C.S.I.R., that is to say, a special council, and where the mining industry will now be served by a special council, while the agricultural industry is served only by the Division of Agricultural Technical Services, which is not coordinated and which is inadequate in our view, and in which there are no farmers to give advice in connection with research work to be done in the sphere of agriculture.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the question of research with which he was dealing.

In connection with fibre research I want to say that if machinery can be devised to extract the fibre from the pineapple and to comb it clean, it will be possible, according to the calculations of the Department, to produce 1.6 tons of fibre per acre, and that we shall then be able to obtain 100,000 tons of fibre out of the 60,000 acres on which pineapples are being produced to-day. We are aware of the Minister’s reply last year that pineapple fibre is a particularly good and strong and fine fibre, but that it may be too expensive for the manufacture of bags. I should like to point out that to-day we are using a total of 75,000 tons of jute for the manufacture of bags that we need in this country, and that with an addition of pineapple fibre we shall be able to reach a production of 100,000 tons, provided we can devise a fibre extractor. And that brings me to the special appeal, that I want to make to the Minister, and that is that the pineapple industry should be assisted by the C.S.I.R. and also by his Department in its attempts to devise a fibre extractor, so that the maximum quantity of fibre can be extracted from pineapples. In this way it will be possible not only to save the pineapple industry but we shall also be able to build up our own fibre industry.

The pineapple industry is a dual sort of industry, and my opinion is that the fruit and the juice constitute the secondary product of the pineapple and that the primary product is the fibre, and since we can develop primary industry here at a time when our farmers are in difficulties it is surely the duty of the Department concerned to do the maximum research in this connection. But I want to emphasize again that we shall never be able to achieve success in developing pineapple fibre and all other fibres such as “stokroos” fibre, etc., and in mixing the fibres so that it will be possible to manufacture decent bags unless the industry concentrates on fibre research. I want to put forward a strong plea to the hon. the Minister that his Department should concern itself with this research, because this is an industry which is near and dear to the farmer. While I am on the subject, I also want to make a special appeal to the Minister concerned to lend a hand also in connection with the Wool Research Institute in Grahamstown. At the present time, as far as I am aware, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services makes no contribution to the financing of the Wool Research Institute at Grahamstown, all the funds come from Commerce and Industries.

I would also advocate that special funds be made available for fibre research and that research in these two directions should be closely co-ordinated because they are supplementary and because Grootfontein, as a biological research centre, is near Grahamstown. It is not possible to undertake industrial research in connection with fibre and wool without having the animal and the wool close at hand so that biological research can also be done in conjunction with it. That is why we are so anxious that Agricultural Technical Services should also grant assistance, not only in connection with the research that is being undertaken at Grootfontein, but that it should also make a contribution to wool research so that there can be continuity. I understand that inquiries are going to be instituted with a view to the possible removal of the wool textile research institution from Grahamstown to Pretoria, to the C.S.I.R., and that is why I ask the Minister to give special attention to this. If there is to be fibre research other than wool textile research, we should strive, since the agricultural college is at Grootfontein and the wool textile research institution at Grahamstown, to develop this fibre research in the area where the fibre can be cultivated, and there should be co-ordination between all four of them. If this institution is transferred away from Grahamstown, then we will not have the co-ordination that is so necessary.

Where should it be then?

I have already indicated that since the Department has land at its disposal in an area where the climatic conditions are ideal and where the pineapple industry already exists, so much so that 60,000 acres are under pineapples, that is clearly the area in which this centre should be. That particular division might be very suitable for a research station.

I have already said that as far as research is concerned, we would like to see farmers serving on a research advisory council. I have pleaded for a research council and I hope that that plea will receive the support of every farmer in this House. If the agricultural industry and the mining industry and secondary industries are the three props on which the whole economy of this country rests and secondary industries and the mining industry have their research councils, then surely the agricultural industry is justified in insisting that it should also be given its research council. But whether it is an agricultural research council or an agricultural advisory council, it is important that on that council there should also be farmers who are competent to say in which direction research should be undertaken.

That brings me to agricultural education, and I want to put forward the same plea in connection with agricultural education. It has happened too often in the past that an advisory council has been established, that it holds one or two meetings and then becomes defunct and we never hear of it again. That happened in the case of the Sheep and Wool Advisory Council; I do not know whether it held one or two meetings, but that council is completely defunct to-day. Here again, since this concerns the training of our sons in agricultural institutions, we regard it as essential that the farmer should have a say in the curriculum that is drawn up for his child. Where young men undertake a course of training extending over eight months or a year or two years, it is the desire of the agricultural industry that the farmer should have a say in the drawing up of the curriculum that these young men have to follow and in the time to be devoted to the subjects which are to be taught.

Now I come to research under item H, namely Animal Husbandry, and here I want to refer to this Government’s shameful neglect of research into the feeding of animals in drought-stricken areas. I call it a shameful neglect of research because year after year we have localized and sometimes widespread droughts in which thousands and tens of thousands of animals die, while we are still waiting to hear what would constitute a balanced drought ration to keep an animal alive during a period of drought and what would be the most economic way of feeding such an animal.

Do you want the Government to tell you that?

We know about the experiments which have been made in the past and we know what an animal needs to keep it going; we know that 1½ lbs. or 1¼ lbs. of lucerne and ¼ lb. of maize constitute a sustenance ration that can keep an animal going for months if it has not lost too much condition already. But I say here that if maize is simply to be thrown down on to the ground for the animals to pick up (or if we feed lucerne in any way other than in troughs, which have to be constructed at great cost and where a certain amount of waste still takes place), much of the maize will be blown away and trampled underfoot. But the question is how an animal can be fed economically and how the supplies can best be used. I would suggest that this is where we should start to undertake research to determine what supplies of feeds we have in this country. The quantity of lucerne hay varies according to whether we have droughts or good years. Apart from the maize surpluses that we are exporting on a subsidized basis to the outside world, we have enormous supplies in the form of teff and hay and straw which are not being used, or at any rate which are not being used in the best way, and we ought to do research in this connection in this country which is one of the countries most afflicted by droughts. We should undertake research with a view to developing a well-balanced cube. We would then be safeguarded against the fire risk attached to lucerne hay and against insects and against the weevil that attacks maize, and we should be able to feed this cube in such a form that there will be no waste at all. We should find out what is the cheapest and the best feed under drought conditions. We are not concerned here with a fattening ration or a milk ration but with a sustenance ration which will be able to keep an animal which is still in good condition alive for six months or nine months. It has been worked out more than once already, Mr. Chairman, that if you take teff or oats straw or any unprocessed fodder that you happen to have at your disposal, and add the necessary maize by way of mealie-meal and then add the necessary trace elements, bonemeal and the necessary molasses, having due regard to the vitamin content, it will be possible to manufacture a cube—I am referring more particularly to sheep now, a subject with which I am more familiar—to keep your sheep alive at rather less than 2 cents per day, taking lucerne hay at a price of R1 per 100 lbs. and maize at R3 per 200 lbs. That is the figure that has been arrived at.

Is that calculation based on research?

Yes. I said at the beginning that we were grateful for the research that has been done, but we say that more agricultural research should be undertaken. Mr. Chairman, when I talk about drought rations, it is not as though the agriculturists want subsidies. I do not think the agriculturist wants a subsidy when he talks about a drought ration to help him to prevent his stock from dying, nor do I think that he wants these amounts which the Government makes available to people who are already ruined and who then have to take up loans to keep their animals alive. What the agriculturist does ask is that there should be thorough research in this connection to determine what is the most balanced feed to keep his stock alive in times of drought and that the State should help in the first instance to establish a fodder bank. Once the fodder bank has been established, the agriculturist could go on making use of it. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of the fact that some years ago quite a number of people worked for years on the idea of introducing a fodder bank scheme, that they came forward with plans for the first fodder bank scheme, in which the State would have been involved to the tune of some millions of pounds in order to establish the initial fodder bank. The idea was that it would then continue as a rolling bank, from which the agriculturists would draw their supplies and pay for them. The State refused to make any financial contribution for the establishment of a fodder bank. The State said that it felt that this could be done on a co-operative or some other basis. The commission again began to work on this subsequently; they worked at it for a long time. We know that the attempt to establish it was a complete failure. It was worked out that if you wanted to carry 1,000,000 sheep for six months—this was not worked out by me—it would cost R3,000,000 to R4,000,000 to provide the necessary supplies. The question that we have to ask ourselves is this: In this big scheme that we visualize in connection with the Orange River—and I want to say at once that we all support that scheme; we all hope that it will be realized in the distant future; if it is not carried out step by step as presently planned, we still hope that it will become a great scheme for the utilization of the waters of what is our biggest river so that this water can be harnessed for agriculture and industry in our country …

Where are you going to switch to now?

Since we are prepared to tax the public over a period of so many years to the tune of R450,000,000 for the realization of that scheme, we must not overlook this other matter to which I have referred. I have indicated here that in order to keep 1,000,000 sheep alive for six months, it will cost the State anything from R3,000,000 to R4,000,000 initially to provide the necessary supplies. Mr. Chairman, I know that I am speaking on a different Vote now but this research must be undertaken in order to make this an economic proposition. If we take into account all the proposed expenditure, surely we can find the R10,000,000 that has to be provided initially for the initial fodder bank, based on proper research, so that we will then have a type of feed which is reasonably free from the risk of fire, which is reasonably free from the risk of moths, which needs the minimum storage space and which can be fed economically without any waste taking place? The initial amount must be provided in order to be able to establish it, and thereafter the farmer can buy his requirements there. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that we are not asking for subsidies at all. We are not asking for any financial assistance. But the farmer who got into difficulties during the drought and who has to feed maize and lucerne, which are practically unobtainable when they are needed—and who feeds lucerne in racks and who feeds maize by simply throwing it down on to the ground—is busy killing his stock and wasting money. That is why we ask that intensive research be undertaken in this connection. We do not merely want to be told, when that research has been undertaken, that one requires so much of this, that or the other type of feed to make an animal fat, or so that a cow will give the maximum quantity of milk. Those are problems that we face every day; we mix our own feeds. But it is not possible for the farmer to undertake research into drought rations, and I still want to see which company would be prepared to undertake this research in order to provide this cheap but effective feed, to press it into cubes and to accumulate supplies so as to see us through heavy droughts. When is the right time to accumulate these supplies? Is it not when we have surplus lucerne and other hays at our disposal and when we have a maize crop such as we have to-day? Surely that is the right time to establish the initial fodder bank. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that it is not for private companies to undertake this. What is needed in this connection is the support, the willingness and the drive of the State. The State should do it in the first instance, in the first place under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, and in the second place under the Vote of the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and by making available the necessary finances. It is difficult to discuss this matter without dealing with other Departments also because, after all, the research must be done in the first instance. We must ascertain what supplies we have in this country; how much hay we have every year, how much teff, etc., and then we should determine what is the most economic and the least dangerous way of preserving that fodder and what is the most economic way of feeding it. It is the duty of the State to undertake that research, and I want to make a special appeal to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, whom I know has this matter very much at heart, to take the initiative so that intensive research can be done in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that in the future further amounts be made available on the Estimates under item H, Animal Husbandry; that funds be made available for this type of research and that the Minister should give particular attention to this matter. It is essential to develop a drought ration in cooperation with the other Departments and to establish a fodder bank that will prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of our stock every year.

I really thought we were going to hear something surprising here to-day. We thought we were going to hear about the new policy we were going to get. But we see it is once again the old old Sap-story, and there is nothing in this. Certain complaints have been made in connection with wool research, and that truly interests me considerably. I remember the days when the hon. member over there and I came to the Government with our hats in our hands to ask for legislation to be passed by this House. Those were the days when the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) came along and said: We have to do research, we must have money in order to support this International Wool Secretariat, so that it may become the most marvellous wool organization in the world. At that time my hon. friend came along with me with his hat in his hand. I do not want to say he did nothing. I believe he did much, but he was not the founder of the International Wool Secretariat. He did in fact serve on it, and I should like to give him credit for the work he has done. But is he not also the same person who, when we came along with a proposal for a bigger amount for purposes of research, came with a counter-proposal that we should not do so? I should like to ask whether it was a matter of politics or whether it was common sense? The wool growers emphatically rejected his proposal with 160 against 8. That is why I think he is the last man in this House who should talk about research in connection with wool. I shall not pursue that point any further. We shall revert to it later.

Then I come to his story with reference to a fodder bank. That is as old as the Ark. We know that story already, but he did not tell us how it should be done. He did not tell us how he would get all the fodders such as lucerne, and how much it will cost. That is why I say that the best fodder bank that could be established in South Africa is the exploitation of the Orange River, the greatest project we have ever had. That is our fodder bank, and that will be our security against droughts in the future. The Government cannot establish a better fodder bank, unless the Government is going to spend a lot of extra money in order to purchase fodder. I hope that when we come to the Irrigation Vote, we shall go into this matter further. I should like to say only this. The hon. member came along here and referred to fibres. I think he is somewhat behind the times, for great experiments are already being conducted in the Northern Transvaal and other parts that are more suitable for the production of fibres than e.g. the parts near Grahamstown. There is another matter in which I have to differ from him. What right has he to ask that the research station at Grahamstown should be taken away? That research station has done a lot of good work and we hope it will do still better in future. But I need not go further into this matter. Other hon. members may discuss that matter further.

What I am indeed thankful for, is the wonderful establishment of Grootfontein. I notice that there is a very nice amount on the estimates for further research there. Here we are concerned with a part of the Karoo that is doing wonderful work, and I should like to give some credit to certain people who were responsible for the success at Grootfontein. I begin with a man such as Mr. Thornton, then Mr. Lamont, then Mr. Schuurman and others. These are people who have rendered wonderful services. We even found that by means of the Wool Research Institute there, people have been trained who continued their studies and have been absorbed in commerce all over the place. That research institute was given originally by the Wool Board, and I think we are very grateful to the Wool Board for having done so. But I am very pleased that the Minister then gave us what the students of the whole Karoo had asked for, namely a new research laboratory at Grootfontein. I think the whole Karoo is grateful for that. There is an amount of R280,000 on the Estimates for further research. There you can do research, especially with regard to the needs of the Karoo. I am pleased that there will be included in that research into the Karoo caterpillar. For if there is one thing that really does considerable harm, and in connection with which much research should be done, and which will help the Karoo farmer a lot, it is the Karoo caterpillar. Not only that, but there should also be a branch or sub-division of Onderstepoort to make investigations locally in connection with the cattle diseases that afflict the Karoo. It is much better that it should be done at the place where the diseases occur. There are many diseases in the Karoo in connection with which it is not proper that research should be done at Onderstepoort. You have to do it as near as possible to the place where the diseases occur, so that the people can extend the work. The research in connection with the art of breeding they have done there is also wonderful. I should like to tell the Minister also that we are very proud of the sheep they have there. The imported rams were not brought there in vain. To-day Grootfontein breeds those sheep, the finest sheep you can get. We are grateful that Grootfontein has done that research, and we are grateful also that Grootfontein could produce for us a product such as the Dorper Sheep. The Dorper is the product of Grootfontein. If then we wish to do research, do not let us do it at a place up there in the Transvaal or down here at Cape Town or in East London or as my hon. friend jumped about over there. Let us continue the research in connection with wool, disease etc. at the places where the conditions require it and where the facilities have been established. The Minister visited Grootfontein at the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of its existence. I am very proud that I was concerned with Grootfontein, and from its very origins. From the beginning it was such a small institution that we could not even get enough people even to come and give lectures, and I am very proud to be able to say that I was one of those who assisted in giving lectures. I am very pleased to see that something I helped to bring about, has become such a magnificent institution to-day. When the Japanese wool buyers were here recently, we took them there to look at the research that is being done. They were greatly pleased, and also to see the wool there. There was another discovery we also made there, and that was in regard to the fleeces of the white Dorpers. They saw those fleeces and expressed the hope that we would breed more of that wool, for they have to import it from Kashmir and other parts. They will be very glad to have that product from us. It is a product that Grootfontein gave us. I fervently hope that the fine spirit that exists, and the assistance the Government is giving in connection with research that is being done there, will help to let Grootfontein progress still more. But not only that, Grootfontein has the biggest shearing shed in the southern hemisphere. Now we should remember that those things were built in the good old days of the old National Party. Those extensions were made, for during the war my friends opposite closed those splendid institutions, and it was the National Party that once again opened them. It was the National Party that brought about all those developments. Grootfontein will never forget how shabbily it was treated at the time. But if we look at the magnificent research work that is being done there now, we should not forget that it was nobody else’s work than that of the National Party Government. I should like to pay tribute to the Wool Board here also. I should like to give credit to my hon. friend over there also for what he did. But now I am sorry that after all the good work he has done, and he did indeed do good work, he has come to the point where he is sitting over there. He was a member of the Ossewabrandwag until 1946, and in many matters he stood by my side. In 1946 he left the Ossewabrandwag.

Order! That has got nothing to do with this vote.

I only wished to say that I am very sorry that he has strayed so much. I wish he wants to return to us, for he will never fit in over there, particularly not in connection with agriculture.

Order! I should like to point out that there is no logical reason for a division between Votes 27 and 28, and I am prepared to permit hon. members to discuss both Votes under the Minister’s salary.

Before I go any further I just want to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with the purchase of a research station in the North West. Provision was already made for that in the Estimates last year. The Minister told us he would purchase it. I know some of his officials have in the meantime gone there to inspect various farms which have been offered. But it seems to me that no progress has been made. A year has passed and we should be very pleased if the Minister will tell us what further progress has been made and when we can expect that place to be purchased.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) said that he was very disappointed with the speech made by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) …

I too.

But I think we are also disappointed with the hon. member for Cradock because all he did was to tell us once again about Groofontein; the story which we get from him every year. What I find most peculiar, Sir, is that he asks what the United Party has done. But, Mr. Chairman, there was a time when the hon. member got up in this House and thanked the United Party Minister for the good work which he had done.

Where?

He thanked the United Party Minister for the excellent work he had done and he must therefore know what good work the United Party had done. Our research stations, Onderstepoort and our extension officers etc. are doing very valuable work and we appreciate the valuable work which they are doing. There is no doubt about it at all that as far as that is concerned, this country does not lag far behind other countries.

However, Mr. Chairman, every year we have to point out to the Minister that there is a shortage of officials and that enough is not being done for agriculture. Last year numerous hon. members opposite joined us in pleading that much more should be done. Numerous hon. members opposite said that not enough was being done at all in connection with research in our country. The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) has made a very interesting speech and we agree with him wholeheartily that we cannot afford to lose scientists as we have been doing hitherto. Last year one of the members, I think it was the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), even went so far as to say that our trained technicians, our wool and sheep experts, received salaries equivalent to that of a Coca-Cola lorry driver.

That is so.

Well, I agree. The point the hon. member wanted to make was that those people received far too little and that we could not keep them. I am prepared to accept that it is not such an easy thing to increase salaries appreciably, because you have to think of similar posts in the other Departments. But it is of no avail our paying these people salaries which do not enable us to keep them in our service. It is of fundamental importance that research, planning etc. in this country should take place on a much larger scale than is the case to-day. There are far too few students to-day. In these times in which we are living there should have already have been many more than the number we have. We were also told last year that of the 3,000 young farmers who went in for farming only 10 per cent had had any training. We simply cannot allow the present position to continue. Our agricultural industry is deteriorating and we dare not continue in this way. We sustain abnormal animal losses in this country. When we think of it that approximately 12,000,000 sheep and 1,000,000 cattle die annually, we have to agree that that is abnormal and too high. I am prepared to accept that there are farmers who do not avail themselves of the guidance which is available to them to save many of those animals. I am prepared to accept that. But I do think that very much can be done to save a great many of those cattle and sheep. The soil is losing its fertility. We were told last year that there has been a vast deterioration in soil fertility. One of the hon. members opposite also said that the Government should do much more in order to put a stop to that.

Foot-and-mouth disease is becoming more prevalent; that disease has become much more prevalent. More research should be undertaken in this respect. Last year we were told that a vaccine may be discovered to immunize cattle against foot-and-mouth disease. We should like to know what progress has been made and what research has been undertaken in that regard. We cannot afford to allow the position to continue as it is to-day. Mr. Chairman, farming in this country should be properly planned. We know ourselves that soil erosion is getting worse. We are reclaiming less land than we are losing. We have already reached a stage where the position has worsened as far as this is concerned. We simply have to make up that backlog. The position is as it is for the simple reason that we do not have sufficient people to do the work; we do not have the personnel to give the necessary training; we do not have enough officials to give the necessary guidance to the farmers. We have to bring down our production costs in this country, otherwise the farmer will not be able to make a living in this country. I believe that if something is not done in this respect, many of our smaller farmers will shortly go insolvent. I want to say frankly that this Government has neglected its duty as far as its agricultural technical service are concerned. The Government has not done enough. If we do not do much more than we are doing to-day, agriculture in general will deteriorate.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few items which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. The first one is under item K “Soil Conservation and Extension”. I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has made an amount of over R400,000 available for soil conservation and extension. In connection with this matter I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what policy he intends to apply. I refer to the Vlekpoort area where there has been very bad soil erosion. We know what has been done there. I want to refer to another area as well, namely, the Bulhoek area. That area has also suffered very bad flood damage. The flood damage is of such a nature that it is impossible for any individual to combat it. The Department of Soil Conservation has already undertaken and completed bigger works in that area. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he will issue instructions that further works which are absolutely necessary in order to reclaim that area, should immediately be undertaken. I am afraid that if the gangs which are working there at the moment are first moved somewhere else—and I think his officials will tell him that that will happen if further works do not have to be undertaken there—it will be a long time before they will return to that area in order to reclaim that catchment area of Bulhoek for our country. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that the gangs which are there at the moment are not first removed and only brought back at a later stage. I should very much like to have clarity in respect of this matter.

Before I go any further, there is one other matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister in connection with research. I should like to know what progress has been made in finding an antidote for animals which have grazed on green lucerne lands. Farmers sometimes lose many of their stock as a result of those animals becoming blown up. I once said to the Minister that if he discovered an antidote which would be a sure antidote, during the time that he was Minister, I would contribute to have the greatest monument erected to him in the Republic. That is a very serious matter, particularly when stud stock graze on lucerne lands. Unfortunately the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) is not present at the moment, but I do wish to say that where he criticized the Government and said that large fodder banks should be established where fodder could be stored so that in times of drought farmers would be able to save their stock, this Government has come forward with a policy other than the establishment of fodder banks, a policy which has been of very great benefit to the farmers, and that is the policy of water conservation, a policy which enables the farmers to establish their own fodder banks. It is much better for the farmer to establish his own fodder bank than for the Government to store fodder somewhere. Had that hon. member been present I have no doubt that he would have subscribed to that policy of the Government. There is perhaps one thing which we can plead for and it is this, that, if possible, you should not only be allowed to build a dam under soil conservation of only 25 morgen feet. If you could build a bigger dam, Sir, which would be the right thing to do in many cases, and so that it would not be necessary for you to go to another Department for assistance, it would greatly assist the farmers in building up their own fodder banks. I should like to know from that hon. member where he thinks the Government should store millions of rands’ worth of fodder to be used in times of drought and has he ever thought about it that if there is no drought, that the fodder will be lying there at the expense of the Government? I think that scheme is totally impracticable and I do not think the hon. member will carry that point any further if he considers it carefully.

I want to ask the hon. member how many individual farmers in South Africa does he think can build their own fodder banks.

There are thousands of farmers who, if they availed themselves of the facilities, and built dams and conserved water, would be able to look after themselves in times of drought. I have made a very careful study of the results of droughts. Something like a year ago I mentioned the figures in respect of the losses sustained and I pointed out at the time that if the Minister carried out research so as to ascertain whether the cattle feed which the settlements produced could be stored in a concentrated form, it would be a very good thing. But the big problem in the first instance is water, and once again water and if the Minister could see his way clear to allow a dam bigger than 25 morgen feet to be constructed, it would be a big step forward in the right direction to assist the farmers to look after themselves in times of drought.

I would like to compliment the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on this very full annual report, but I must say that I regret that this report is packed with all the old unsolved problems, the same uncertainties, no definite agricultural policies, surpluses of maize and lucerne, cattle and sheep dying of starvation, surplus milk and TB ravaging the herds, and the Government does not even try to concentrate on increased consumption. And why does he not, in view of the instability of the agricultural industry and the limits put on the farmers in regard to production? Why does he not submit a White Paper setting out his agricultural policy, the same as Gen. Smuts did in 1947?

For South West Africa, and for election propaganda.

I am sure the Minister has seen this report. If not, I will be pleased to lend it to him because he can learn much from it. The whole of the agriculture in South West is built on this report, which was carried out step by step, whereas this Government does not do anything. I regret that I am back in Parliament again this year pleading for our Wool Research Station in the Eastern Province. Last year there was a rumour that it would be transferred, and this year it is rumoured that it will be transferred to Onderstepoort, to come more directly under C.S.I.R. The Minister should remove these uncertainties and tell us what his policy is and what he is going to do. As regards this Wool Research Station, it is situated in the Cape Province and now the greedy eyes of the Transvaal are cast on it and they want to transfer it there. [Interjections.] The Transvaal wants to assimilate an industry, where it will be far removed from our productive areas, from the Karoo the home of the Merino sheep, one of the greatest sheep breeding areas in the world, and there we have an agricultural college, but I say that the right place for the Wool Research Station is in the Eastern Province.

Why not the Karoo?

Well, as long as it is in the Cape Province, we will not protest. As I said before, the Leather Research Station is established in Grahamstown, and if the Wool Research Station can advance to the same importance as the Leather Research Station, the whole of South Africa will be proud of our achievements in research in regard to wool. Our Leather Research Station in Grahamstown has not been found to be too far away from the factories, although there are no factories there, but it has the atmosphere and it has the means of supplementing its staff from the university there. It gives an inducement to students to do research in wool. But I did not want to plead the case of Grahamstown, but I just want to ask the Minister please to remove these uncertainties. This is a country of uncertain rainfall and production. Why does not the Government try to bring about some certainty as regards its policy, and take an example from South West Africa and appoint a commission to draw up a long-term agricultural policy for South Africa? Then the Minister would not have all the complaints and the grievances voiced by farmers’ organizations of to-day. In our farming journals there is nothing else but protests and difficulties. I would also like to ask the Minister about potatoes. We had a virus-free type of potato produced at Rietfontein, and I would like to know what progress has been made in the production of that potato, because now I see that 5,000 tons of seed potatoes are being imported from Scotland and Ireland. We have the citrus industry too, which shows great promise, but does the Government in any way supervise the bud-grafting at the nurseries to see that budding is only done from heavy-bearing stock? Does the Government have annual reports so that we can learn what progress has been made. We now have this “rusper” plague, which last year was the greatest in the history of South Africa, and the farmers know nothing about how to cope with it. Last year on the Midland line an engine got stuck because it slipped on the “ruspers,” and our roads in the Albany area was blackened with them and they ate everything that was green, but no research is being done and no extension officer can help the farmers. Then as regards the spread of diseases, the infection of cattle with TB for instance. I would like to ask the Minister whether any research is being done in regard to TB being carried by kudu? And there are many other problems. Why is there not a vigorous campaign against heart-water and red water and gall sickness? The country cannot afford the losses suffered from these diseases. I was told by a veterinarian in a certain area that he had kept a record over the years and found that 30 per cent of the calves died annually from heart-water. Apart from that, the Minister must know that the foundation stock of most breeds in this country, especially in the Transvaal, is Native stock, on account of its immunity to heart-water. These proud Transvalers are breeding cattle for our market on a foundation of Native stock. They are afraid to import better breeds. [Time limit.]

Before replying to the questions put by individual members, it will perhaps be necessary for me to begin with the most basic thing, and that is that when one has research and extension services in a highly scientific department such as mine, which is faced with all these problems and must find solutions for all of them, and which must then acquaint the farmers with the result of this research, I think it is generally accepted that one of the basic needs is that one should have sufficient staff. The first speaker on this side of the House, the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha), immediately began by putting his finger on the most essential matter, namely the staff position, and many other hon. members also did so. They pointed to what were perhaps weaknesses which exist, or existed, and which have to be remedied. Now I think I must just tell the hon. member what has been done and how much progress we have made, before replying to the other minor matters.

You cannot do so.

I say we can, but we do not consider it advisable. The hon. member for East London (City) asked why we do not link up wool and fibre research and appoint a Central Committee for it.

He did not.

In so far as fibre research for the making of bags falls within our sphere, we are devoting attention to it. In the past two years already R75,000 has been spent on research in this connection. Let us take one example, the “stokroos”. One of the problems in that connection is the area where it grows. One has to ascertain by way of research in what areas the stokroos grows best, what conditions suit it best, and what are the best varieties, because there are various varieties. This is a fibre which we think in future will be able to take its place amongst the fibre plants, and which to a large extent may contribute towards making the Republic of South Africa independent in respect of this particular article. Now one is first concerned with the type. Then one has to deal with its harvesting, and then with its debarking, and then with its decortication. It is necessary to make certain test in that regard, and we are making those tests on our experimental farm just outside Pretoria, Roodeplaat. We imported machinery from abroad costing several thousands of rand. That machinery was tested there. We started on a large scale and planted many morgen to fibre. There are over 100 varieties which we are testing out there. Before this we knew very little about this fibre and which varieties best suit our conditions. We are now reaping the seed only of the best varieties and we will of course continue the cultivation tests with which we are busy now. As I have said, we imported different machinery from abroad, from France and Italy, and even from the Rhodesias, where they had already made such tests. Hitherto we have not found a machine which is very suitable for the decortication of the fibre. I think we have discovered a good harvesting machine, but we have not yet come across an efficient decortication machine. But we are continuing this research. This year an additional amount of R20,000 has been placed on the Estimates for this purpose. The necessary research to find the right machine for the decortication of the fibre is still being continued.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether he has anything definite in mind with regard to pineapple fibre? What the Minister has told us so far is neither the one thing nor the other. Does the Minister think that the pineapple fibre can actually be introduced with a mixture of other fibres to be really useful?

From what I have heard from my Department and from the Department of Commerce and Industries, there is a world demand and a good market for pineapple fibre if we can just produce it economically. We must produce a fibre for the world market which is not soiled, a fibre which is clean enough for their needs. I honestly and truly believe that the pineapple fibre, from what I have learned from the Department and other experts, is much too fine and much too valuable even to think of using it, partially or not, with other fibres such as sisal and kenaf. I think it is more valuable than those fibres. I am told that the market value of pineapple fibre, according to samples which have been presented to buyers and interested people beyond our borders, is at least double the market value of these other fibres which I have mentioned. For that reason I feel that we should go all out to produce this fibre. It will be of very great assistance to the farmers who have had such a severe setback, especially in the Eastern Province, on account of the drop in the prices of fresh pineapples.

*The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) is not here at the moment but he has apologized to me for the fact that he will not be here. I told him that I would reply to his representations during the course of the evening. The hon. member asked me what progress had been made with the purchase of the experimental farm which we had said we intended buying in the North West. I just want to say this to the hon. member. We are naturally experiencing difficulty because the moment the Government wishes to purchase a farm the price soars sky high. We are, however, still negotiating and I am convinced that we will shortly, I hope during this year, effect the necessary purchase. The hon. member also said that our technical services and technical officials within the Department were still declining. As far as that is concerned I think he is wrong. The Department was divided into two in 1958 when the Departments of Agricultural Technical Services and Agricultural Economics and Marketing were established. Since the Department has been divided into two the number of our technical officials has increased from 1,263 to 1,487. That means there has been an increase over the past four years of 244 officials. There has, therefore, been progress.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) asked specific questions in connection with Bulhoek. As far as the soil conservations works which my Department is carrying out there are concerned I should like to tell him that I cannot promise him that a start will be made with the smaller works as soon as the major works have been completed. There is a big difference between that project and the work we did at Vlekpoort. Vlekpoort was the first big project undertaken by the Government. It was in the nature of an experiment in the first instance. In the second instance it must be regarded as a kind of research project. In the third place we expropriated land and purchased land on which to carry on with our activities. It is a costly but necessary process so as to guide the Department as to what should be done in this respect. The policy of the Department is that where there are places—and there are many such places—such as Bulhoek, for instance, where the circumstances are such that the work which ought to be done in combating soil erosion is of such a nature that it is beyond the ability of the individual farmer, the Government steps in and undertakes those major works. As far as minor works are concerned, we have the system of subsidies and that sort of thing …

These are major works.

Yes, but there are some works which the farmer himself can undertake. In connection with the request that we should allow a dam above 25 morgen feet to be constructed under soil conservation, I just wish to say that the hon. member for Kimberley (North) and I do not see eye to eye, as far as this matter is concerned. Soil conservation was not really introduced with the object of enabling farmers to establish numerous evaporation basins in the country and in that way interfere with our flow of water in such a way that we will no longer know what the future of our rivers, etc., will be. If I had to express an opinion I would rather say that it should be reduced from 25 morgen feet to 10 morgen feet or 15 morgen feet instead of increasing it. I think that all the other works which are concerned with irrigation should really come under the Department of Water Affairs and not under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. That is my personal humble opinion. Because there is overlapping and a kind of shuttle-servicing between the two Departments in respect of that matter. I may just say that in view of the fact that I have the privilege of being the Minister in charge of both Departments, and in view of the fact that they encroach on each other’s territory, and in view of the fact that this is really a problem which deserves our serious attention, I have already given instructions that an inter-departmental committee should be appointed to go into this matter.

As far as the caterpillar plague is concerned which has been mentioned by more than one hon. member, I want to say that the Department is conducting research into this aspect, but we are faced with this problem that the methods which are being used to-day, that is the insecticides which we have at our disposal, are uneconomic when it comes to the combating of a plague which assumes the large proportions which it does in the Karoo. It is of no avail saying that you have means of combating it if it is uneconomic to apply those means in practice. We are continuing with our research, however, and will do everything in our power to conquer this plague.

As far as the animals which become hoven are concerned, the solution is of course obvious. You simply keep them off your lucerne lands so that they will not become hoven. But apart from that, it is your choice to let your stock graze on those green lands where they run the risk of becoming hoven but we are also investigating that and trying to find a cure. I have not, however, reached the stage where the hon. member for Kimberley (North) will have to erect a monument to me, because I have not as yet found a solution. But the moment I have the hon. member will be the first person who will know it and the hon. member need not erect a big monument; it can only be a small one.

May I have the privilege of the second half an hour, Sir? I found the speech of the hon. the Minister interesting where he spoke about the new grades in his Department and where he spoke about the report of Dr. Rautenbach, and about the two directorates we will have in future, one in respect of field services and the other in respect of technical services. He went on to tell us about the division between the directorate of field services and research, etc. I found that interesting. But what I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister is this: He received the report towards the end of last year and to-day he tells us about all these new posts which are to be created.

They have already been created. The Public Service Commission have already approved of them and I have already made the appointments.

In that case I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister and tell him that that is a step in the right direction. I wish to add that that should have been done years ago, but where he spoke about the preliminary work which had to be done in connection with certain fibres, and how the pineapple fibre had to be bent and bruised, and where he told us about the attack which was made last year from the Free State, and last year from Natal and this year from the Cape Province, I must say that it was preliminary bruising which has ultimately made the Minister see the light and made him effect these improvements.

This year is a particularly important year to agriculture and I was particularly interested in the annual report and I read with special interest what appeared in that annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I want to congratulate the Department on this comprehensive report. It is a particularly interesting report. The report still refers to the tremendous staff shortage.

It is last year’s report.

Yes, but the report is damning as far as that is concerned and the Minister has not yet told us how many appointments he has already made. The impression I gained was that the posts had indeed been created but that the hon. the Minister had not as yet been able to get the staff to fill those posts. However, I repeat that I congratulate the Department on that report. It is an excellent report and it sets out all the various sections of agriculture. When you realize what they have to handle, Sir, you must admit that the Department is doing its work and that it is improving yearly. I do not wish to be scanty in my praise and I repeat that we realize that the Department is doing its work. I want to go further and say that the farmers appreciate what the Department is doing.

I have said that this is an important year for agriculture. It is also important with a view to the new relationship which exists between the Republic of South Africa and the Commonwealth countries and the new grouping of the European countries. We as farmers realize that we will have to adapt ourselves as far as production is concerned. When producing we will have to keep the changed circumstances in mind. The production figures of the farmers in South Africa are rising year after year. The record crops indicate that. I think of maize for example. Whereas 21,500,000 bags were produced ten years ago, we are expecting 60,000,000 bags this year.

A good National Government.

I want to tell that hon. member that the farmers are producing that under their own steam.

With the assistance of the good advice they get from the Department.

I was talking about maize, Sir.

The increased production is due to research and guidance.

Yes, as a result of research and guidance. I wish to refer to the increased butter and cheese and milk production. All that shows very definitely that the farmer of South Africa is willing to learn and to put into practice what he has learnt as a result of the guidance which he receives from the Department. It cannot be disputed that the application of scientific farming methods and the technological assistance given have contributed greatly to increasing our production and where we have surpluses in respect of various agricultural products with the accompanying difficult problems, it has become urgently necessary for farming to be conducted even more effectively and that farming operations should be planned in order to reduce the cost structure. That is the only solution. That demands daily technical and economic planning. In this regard I wish to say that whereas the hon. the Minister’s Department has always provided us with the technological guidance, I find that there is a gap between the Department of the hon. the Minister and the Department of the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. There ought to be better co-ordination between the two Departments because increased production is creating serious problems and those problems have to be solved by the other Department, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. We have increased our production but that may cause a decline in the fertility of our soil. We know that the increased production in the case of maize has exhausted our soil and I wish to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to watch that position. Last year we suffered severe droughts but in spite of that production of maize, butter, milk and cheese has increased. To what extent have we exhausted our soil? To what extent is the increased production due to improved farming methods? To what extent is it due to the guidance given to farmers by the Department? I say that in spite of those droughts, in spite of foot-and-mouth disease and the many other serious set-backs, the farmer has proved that he is progressing. I have to add, however, that the farmers find themselves in a very serious plight. I have this criticism to make that early this year the following appeared in an article published in “Landbounuus”, a publication of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing—

That appeared in a publication of the Department’s. I wish to continue by saying that there should be better co-ordination between the Department of the hon. the Minister’s and that of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, as I said at the outset. We find that the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing says that we will be doing a disservice to the country if we tried to keep the bad farmer on the land. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: He is charged with the responsibility of giving guidance to the farmers and I want to ask him who the bad farmers are. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: Is the difficulty not perhaps that the farmers who do not use the right fertilizer or that fertilizer is too expensive?

You must discuss that with the Minister of Agricultural Economics.

I will show in a minute how it should be the responsibility of his Department, with a view to the large surpluses, to give guidance to the farmer so that he will not find himself in this predicament. I have a long letter here written by the hon. the Minister’s colleague, in which his colleague says that it will be better for agriculture if other opportunities were created for those people who do not fit into agriculture. I ask this question (and this is a question which I am directing to this hon. Minister) what percentage of the farmers is not efficient; what percentage of the farmers must be taken off the land; what percentage of the farmers find themselves in financial difficulties to-day because of their own injudicious methods? Has the Department made a study of that and can the Department tell us how many farmers find themselves in that predicament? Can the hon. the Minister tell us what has caused it?

Economic surveys are made by the other Department.

That is true, but the Minister’s Department should be able to tell us how many farmers do not adopt the farming methods which are suggested to them. The hon. the Minister ought to be able to tell us what has given rise to this position. Because in my humble opinion there is not a farmer on the land to-day who is not there because of his love for the land. Where we have sufficient economic guidance and agricultural technical guidance, we find that the farmers have responded and that production has shot sky high. I say it is wrong for the agricultural economist to want to push them back and to want to place the economic difficulties back on to the shoulders of the farmer by telling him that he has been following injudicious farming methods. I have said that I want to make positive suggestions-to the hon. the Minister’s Department. I say that the hon. the Minister should not only give us technical guidance. He should give us economic guidance. There should be a flood of information about the actual marketing position in South Africa, and that information must come from the hon. the Minister.

No.

The hon. the Minister’s Department arranges the short courses which the farmers have to attend and where his Department gives technological guidance and tells the farmers what they should grow and where they should grow it and in which areas they should grow certain crops, the farmer should be given the additional information as to whether he will be able to sell that product.

We are giving that.

In that case the Minister should provide for economic short courses, shouldn’t he? If he gives that information to the farmers, he must tell them whether there will be a market for their products. It is in that respect that I say the farmer is not being given sufficient information. For example, if a farmer knows that if he grows kaffir corn he will not be able to dispose of it at a profit, he will not grow it. We are in this difficulty to-day, Sir. We have large surpluses and the information should come timeously from the Department so that the farmers may plan properly. Surely that is obvious. I have looked through the short courses and not in one of them has the theme anything to do with practical agricultural economics. Not one of those short courses has practical agricultural economics as the theme. The hon. the Minister should see to it that there is a stream of information flowing to the farmer, information based on the international demand which exists and the demand on the internal market. If we do not do that the farmer will find himself in difficulty. I want to read something to the hon. the Minister which has been published in this connection—

That in brief, Sir, is the difficulty which faces the farmer in South Africa to-day. The more we make use of the guidance given by the Department, the more efficient the farmer becomes, the greater his difficulties.

Portion of the hon. the Minister’s speech to-day was precisely the same as that of last year. He told us last year about pineapple fibre and hollyhock, I gained the impression that the Minister did not have the latest information from his Department because it is impossible that the Department has not made any progress during the year with the breaking down of the pineapple fibre, for example, and that what he told us to-day reflected the position as it is at the present moment.

I will give you more information later on.

I am sure the hon. the Minister’s Department is more capable than that. The hon. the Minister spoke about pineapple fibre, hollyhock fibre and other fibres, the fibre of the new variety of “garingboom” which is being planted instead of the old variety, and he gave us the information which he gave us two years ago. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to advise the pineapple farmers and I welcome it. They constitute only one of the sections of agriculture which finds itself in very grave difficulty. I think of the other farmers. I think of those farmers who have produced 60,000,000 bags of maize. They cannot produce anything else. I wish to emphasize that the farmers in the Highveld of the Transvaal and in the Free State are in a serious predicament. Those in the Free State can still sow wheat. You still stand a chance in the Free State of having a good crop every three or four years. It is not a well-paying proposition because you are not successful every year; if you sow wheat in the Free State you can reasonably expect to have one decent crop in every four years. But in large areas of the Transvaal and also in certain areas of the Free State you cannot sow anything but maize. As far as the Cape Province is concerned, I think the introduction of lupins has been the salvation of the winter rainfall area. Had lupins not been introduced in the winter rainfall areas here in the Cape I do not know what would have happened to its agricultural economy. The introduction of lupins has saved the winter rainfall area. Our difficulty is in respect of the summer rainfall area and in this respect I want to ask the Minister and his Department to recommend an alternative crop for those areas where the farmers cannot plant anything else to-day. In certain areas of the Transvaal the farmers have to sow maize even if they only receive R2 per bag. They cannot sow anything else.

Which areas?

There are large areas. Take Standerton for example.

They can plant sunflower, they can sow beans, they can produce potatoes.

It is all very well for the hon. member to talk. I do not think you can grow potatoes profitably there. As far as beans are concerned, everybody knows that it is such a delicate product that when it rains too much rust sets in and when it rains too little you have no crop. It is not a plant which survives in difficult circumstances; it lacks the resistance of maize. I believe that there is a future for pineapple fibre and I believe that there is a future for hollyhock and I believe that there is a future for sisal. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister that you can only grow these plants where there is no frost. Sisal, for example, is over the wall with the slightest sign of frost.

You are exaggerating.

No, frost kills it very easily. You can only grow it in the warmer areas where there is no heavy frost. You will never dream of planting it in the Highveld of the Transvaal or in the high veld of Natal or in the Free State.

Mr. Chairman, I have checked where there are agricultural stations and I want to mention them to the hon. the Minister. In Natal we have one at Estcourt, Tabamhlope, Springfontein, De Hoek and Overwacht. They are all together; they are all in the low veld. There isn’t one on the Highveld of Natal. I want to plead for more agricultural research stations on the Highveld so that they can tell us what to plant. We cannot simply continue to produce the way we are producing maize to-day. We cannot continue to do what we have been doing in the past. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, when he replies, to tell me what I should do with those areas which were formerly under wattle and where I have chopped the wattle down? Should I plant new wattle trees, or what should I plant there? You see, Sir, that is the guidance which we have to get from the hon. the Minister.

You are being very unreasonable.

No, there has to be co-operation between the hon. the Minister’s Department and the Department of his colleague. They should tell us what we must do where it is no longer profitable to plant wattle. As I have said there should be better co-ordination between the two Departments. In a small country like Rhodesia, for instance, when a farmer goes there and he inquires after land he is given all the necessary information. He is told how much water he can expect on that farm, if he has to drill they tell him how deep he will have to drill and the strength of the water he can expect; he is told what he should grow; he is told how many animals he should keep per acre or per morgen and what kind of animals he should keep; he is given all the details, as for example the price he can expect for a two year old ox; he is told what price to expect for tobacco and what price for maize. They give him all the information he requires and they tell him in respect of which product there is over-production and in respect of which there is not. [Time limit.]

I rise to speak about a disturbing spectacle which has raised its head in recent years as far as cattle farming is concerned. As a stock farmer who often attends public stock sales, I have been struck by the thousands of young breeding cattle which are sold at every stock sale. If you go into the position, Sir, you find that those breeding cattle—and they are not scrub or inferior animals—are bought exclusively by speculators and butchers. In other words, there is practically only one place where they go to and that is the abattoirs. It has been found in practice that young heifers grow far much quicker than oxen and that that is the reason why the speculator prefers to buy young heifers to young oxen. The practice has, however, developed first to have that young heifer covered. We know from experience that when such a young heifer has been covered it grows fatter much sooner and is much sooner ready to be marketed; especially when it has been covered and sold before the gestation period is too far advanced. The heifers are sold at that stage. In my opinion that is an unscrupulous method but I want to make it clear, Sir, that I do not blame the butchers and the speculators for buying those cattle. It is their work and it is the business of the butcher to do such things. We should, however, remember this fact that in the past 12 years there has been practically no increase in our cattle population. We had a cattle population of 11,600,000 12 years ago and that figure has practically remained stationary. If we continue in that way, we will not be producing any meat in this country within a few years’ time. We cannot produce enough because the Bantu people are eating more meat to-day on account of their higher wages; more immigrants are coming to this country. Within a few years we will definitely not have sufficient meat in this country. I think that is an evil which the hon. the Minister will have to combat, the evil of having our breeding cattle slaughtered. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, last session I put a question to the Department of Health as to zoonoses, that is the question of diseases which pass between men and animals and I was assured there was the greatest co-operation between the Department of Veterinary Services and the Department of Health, and I was further told that the information came from the C.C.T.A., so that we could rest assured that the health of the country was adequately safeguarded. I don’t think that we are so popular with the C.C.T.A. that we can rely upon them. Furthermore, I think it is important that the House should realize that over the years this country has for its health services and for its veterinary services had a great deal of protection and help from the countries to the north, countries like the Congo and the Federation and the Portuguese Territories. They were all suitably run and adequately protected and information could be obtained and could be relied upon. I think it must be obvious to most people that this phase is passing. We are unpopular with the C.C.T.A. and we can expect very little help from them, and the countries to the north are to some extent disintegrating, and it is quite on the cards, it is quite likely that there will be a paucity of reliable information and a great limit may be placed upon the help which we can expect from them in the future. In other words, we have a long unguarded land frontier for the first time in our history. That land frontier will have to be quarantined and carefully watched. I will not dwell for any length of time on the complete failure of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to co-operate during the recent outbreak of rabies in Natal, nor on its unreadiness to deal with the problem when it arose. With that I will deal later on the Health Vote. What I want to do now, however, is to point out that this country is standing still in this respect whilst the rest of the world is passing us by. Science is moving much to fast for veterinary services to remain under a department of agriculture. Veterinary services ought to be treated as a highly scientific department. It is, after all, the medical services of the animal. To think that a country with this population of animals like we have in South Africa probably the largest stock of wild animals, etc.—has only one small veterinary school and, as far as I can tell from the Vote, by about 125 veterinary surgeons, is a shocking state of affairs. This country is no more prepared to deal with a serious outbreak of an epidemic than it was in the days when the rinderpest came down from the North. This is proved by the fact particularly that when we were faced with outbreaks of two different diseases at the same time, we failed miserably. We were, namely, faced with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in South West Africa and, almost at the same time, with what it was expected would come and in respect of which we were warned, namely with an outbreak of rabies in Zululand we were warned about this five or six years ahead. We could not tackle both at the same time. The result was that Natal and Zululand especially, was left in a miserable state—with a reservoir of rabies which we will probably never succeed in eradicating. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with great problems. What this Department should have now, and should have had before, is a mobile team which should be ready to go in and tackle any outbreak. But what was done during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease? Practically every stock inspector in the country was moved to South West Africa; so that there was hardly a stock inspector left in Natal, a province which is most seriously afflicted with tick diseases. But I do not want to deal with stock diseases, but with the diseases which come to the human beings from those diseases, i.e. with the diseases which pass from man to animal and from animal to man. I do not want to name all these diseases; there are about 74 of them. In any event, they fall into classes. There are diseases coming from a common source, like the soil, and which affect both humans and animals. Under this category appears diphtheria, gas gangrene, tetanus, amoebiasis, actinomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, and many others. There are virus diseases like Rift Valley Fever, yellow fever, tick-bite fever in Natal, foot-and-mouth disease, influenza, psittacosis, rabies, etc. Then we have another category, namely rickettsial diseases, like murine typhus, spotted fever, etc. All these diseases are carried by animals. In the category of bacterial diseases we find anthrax of which we have had an outbreak recently, glanders, plauge, contagious abortion, tuberculosis—the greatest of them all. Why do we have the greatest trouble in this country in regard to the control of tuberculosis amongst the non-White? Because the reservoir of tuberculosis is in cattle. Then there is ringworm and under protozoal disease balantidiasis, etc. How much does it cost this country in measly beef and measly pork? How much effort has this Department put in to clear out the worms from the Natives? Science is uncovering more and more reservoirs of disease among the animals Difficulty is experienced every day in identifying these diseases. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down, has referred to Onderstepoort. I think we can be proud of the work which is done at Onderstepoort. He said that we had a long front to defend. That has always been the case. Most of our problems have so far always come from the protectorates and we have always had great difficulty in guarding against them. I do not think it will be much accentuated because of the new circumstances in which we find ourselves.

As far as the speech of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is concerned, I wish to point out that she was so friendly in the first part of her speech that I really do not want to allege that as far as the second part of her speech is concerned, she went over the head of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and addressed another Minister in this House.

South Africa is a country of extremes. We find that everywhere as far as our climatic conditions are concerned. Thus, for example, we have severe droughts at times and then again we have tremendous floods. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), who I hold in high regard, alleged that the position in respect of soil conservation in South Africa had rather deteriorated than improved. In this respect I want to say to the hon. member that I do not think he could have travelled through the Western Province and other areas of our country during the past 15 years, otherwise he would have noticed that there had been a great improvement. Sir, the Western Province used to remind me of somebody’s face which had been scratched by a cat. In other words, the Western Province was being washed away. As far as the North West is concerned, under the guidance of the extension officers of the Department, the farmers have made strenuous attempts to protect their land and their grazing. When the rains came we realized that we would have to make strenuous efforts to conserve our grazing and save our grass for the day when we would not have any grazing left. We are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for the guidance which we have received from his Department in this respect. We have reached a stage now, however, where we can no longer meet the problem by combating it. The farmers in that area realized that they should enter a new phase, namely that of storing the available fodder. That brings me to the allegation made by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) that the Government was very unsympathetic towards the farmers in drought-stricken areas. I am quite convinced of it that he no longer attends agricultural congresses, otherwise he would have known how grateful and thankful the farmers were for what the Government has done for those areas. I am convinced that had he been a member of our deputation he would have known how sympathetically inclined our Ministers were towards us. I too am a newcomer to this House but I should like to give him as a newcomer a little advice. When the farmers in my constituency came to me and told me that we would have to think of ways and means of storing the available fodder in the best possible manner I approached the Ministers concerned. I wish to state that I encountered the most wonderful spirit of cooperation on the part of the Ministers and their departments. As a matter of fact, it was so evident that the Ministers concerned called a conference with their most senior executive officials with the object of determining what could be done to assist us. They revealed a wonderful spirit of co-operation and courtesy. Officials were instructed to go and to visit the area and to discuss the matter further with the farmers. Had the hon. member for East London (City) done the same I am convinced he would have experienced the same spirit of co-operation and helpfulness. Instead of that he came here and launched a sharp attack on the Minister and said that the farmers in the north western area were very dissatisfied about the treatment they had received. As a farmer in that area, I can say that in my case, at least, that has not been the position. When he spoke about fodder banks and the fodder bank committees on which he had served, he should have told us what the real problem was which they were up against. He did not mention that and for that reason I am going to do so. The problem that they were up against was this, Mr. Chairman the farmers asked the Government to tackle the problem on a national basis. In other words, the Government had to initiate it; it had to be a national fodder bank. But the entire geography of the country is against us, Sir, because our country is very widespread. How can a central body buy up fodder? Where are you going to store it? What will that fodder cost when it ultimately reaches the place where it has to be stored? It presented an insurmountable problem. But there was a further problem, and it was this that no co-ordination could be established between the producer and the consumer. The one continually wanted to pass the problem on to the other. We, therefore, did not make much progress. Transport presented another problem. We have again experienced a drought and serious conditions have again arisen. Our farmers, for example, had to buy lucerne at a price as high as R2 per 100 lbs. After the drought we discovered that the farmers in the district of Vioolsdrift, in my constituency, had sold their lucerne for as little as 35 cents or even 25 cents. All these things have had this result that the farmers on their own accord came together in order to consider what should be done about the matter. The stock farmers and the lucerne farmers came together, they put their heads together and decided to send me with a deputation to Cape Town to interview the Ministers concerned. Those Ministers were SO kind as to grant us an interview. We are now approaching the problem from a different angle. We believe that the time has arrived that each farmer should be taught to build his own fodder bank—in the same way as he has been taught to look after his soil. I also think that our farmers are more than ready for this education. The two Ministers concerned and their departments also approach this matter from this point of view and they are investigating it from this point of view. When it comes to the storing of fodder certain problems present themselves. These problems are, however, being investigated. The first problem which presents itself is that of storage accommodation. That is one of our biggest problems. A second problem is that of the decreasing value of the fodder. A third problem is this that after a drought the farmers are simply not in a position to buy fodder with the result that the lucerne-producing farmer has no market for his product. He simply ploughs it under. We explained all these problems to the Ministers concerned and these are the problems which are to-day being investigated by their departments. The hon. member for Drakensberg complained about the poor co-ordination. As far as I am concerned, I can say that I have found wonderful co-ordination. For example, I spoke to the executive head of one department and within a few hours both departments had been roped in to discuss the problem. I regarded that as a praiseworthy action. We are now investigating the problem of what should be done during that period when the farmer who has been practically ruined by a drought is unable to buy lucerne from the lucerne-producing farmer. The direction in which we are moving and the direction which the hon. the Minister is having investigated, is the establishment of a local co-operative society which will collect the local production during that period, process it and turn out a product which can be stored. Investigations are being carried out along those lines. I am not a prophet but I make bold to say that if ever there was a chance of success, this is it. We continually hear the ridiculous cry that the Government should initiate everything. We again heard that this evening from that side of the House. As against that I say that our farmers have become independent. All we seek from the Government is guidance—the sympathetic guidance which we have had in the past. The Government should co-operate with us. The farmers have grown out of the toddler stage where they did not want to do anything for themselves and where they had to be spoon-fed the whole day. [Time limit.]

It was interesting to note how the hon. the Minister struggled to tell the House about “navorsing” which is such a wonderful Afrikaans word. The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) placed his finger on a lot of problems which the hon. the Minister is facing. If I understood what he said correctly, he said that over a period of six years there was a complete turnover of staff in the department. Other members have referred to the inadequate salaries and the fact that because the services of individuals were not recognized, the Minister lost their services. Last session, I raised a matter in which I was and still am intensely interested, namely fibre production. We have heard various versions. To-night we have heard it being said that the pineapple fibre was too fine; we have heard what the prospects are of developing the stokroos, etc. What we really want to know, however, is what steps the hon. the Minister is taking to expand the production of these commodities. The time has arrived that the country should be informed who is paying for all the delays in this development. It can certainly not be said that it is the Minister’s department who is paying for those delays. It is the producers themselves who have to pay for them—the farmers, the wool farmers and the grain farmers. It was indicated that about 75,000,000 grain bags were needed by farmers in this country as well as over 1,000,000 woolpacks. So when I put the question who is paying for all these experiments, I answer it by saying that it is the producers, the farmers. The hon. the Minister should have tackled this matter energetically years ago. Last year he told us during a discussion on his Vote that about 1,000 tons of stokroos had been produced. But we would now like to know whether the Minister is able to tell us whether or not it has been established that stokroos and the other allied fibres can be produced in this country and that we can manufacture woolpacks from them. If that is the position, why not accept it and say that in future free importation of woolpacks is permitted? Does the hon. the Minister know what woolpacks cost? I think there is lack of co-ordination in this field. We have to go to three Ministers when we have to deal with a vital problem like this. The time has arrived when we should stop passing the buck. In the meantime, the farmer is paying for the doubtful experiments. The time of experiments, I think, is over. The hon. Minister has gone far enough at this stage. He has had enough time and what has been produced? The time has arrived where we should really analyse the position. I do not want to upset anybody, but let us look at it honestly and sincerely. The producer in this country should be given a breathing space; he is being milched at the present time. The Government should realize that we cannot go on any longer with experiments. There has been 12 to 15 years of it. Is it not considered that the farmer should now be given a let-up? If I disclose to this House what really is taking place, the country, I think, will be shocked. I am not going to do it, however, because I do not think it is right for me to do so.

Tell us! I challenge you to tell us!

I will leave that to the hon. member; perhaps it is safer for him to do so. I have put the position to the hon. the Minister and I leave it there. I asked whether the hon. the Minister knew what the cost of imported woolpacks and grainbags was and at what cost they could be manufactured in this country from the fibres we were producing. Have we not reached such a stage where we can say that if the worst happens, we know how. We know how to to produce stokroos and all the other allied fibres; so let us, therefore, import our woolpacks and grainbags at the present prices at which we can get them from overseas. If we want to be quite safe, let us take in stocks. On the other hand, we can go on with this investigation and checking for a very long time. And the hon. the Minister is handicapped. He said that himself. He is handicapped because he has not the necessary staff. Once we have established the know-how, let us allow the stuff to come in because they can be obtained from overseas at a cost which is much lower than the price at which they can be produced in this country.

The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. H. R. H. du Plessis) has dealt with the probability of us facing a shortage of cattle in future. I should like to align myself with him in that regard. But when the hon. member will take the trouble of coming to the big centres, he will find cattle arriving in what we in the wooltrade will describe as half- and three-quarterpack—none of them is really full to the skin. If only we can get to the stage where we could use our tremendous amount of surpluses—which is not now under discussion—to fill those skins properly, there will never be any shortage.

The hon. member for Pori Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) has made certain allegations here, and now you must not rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, if I reply to them, because what the hon. member has raised here in fact does not fall under the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services but under the Minister of Economic Affairs, except in so far as the production of fibre is concerned. Apart from that, there are various matters in regard to which the hon. member was not very clear. He must now tell us whether he wants the State to allow jute to enter the country freely and be processed here, or whether we must buy the manufactured bags, or whether we ought to initiate our own manufacturing processes here with our own locally produced fibre in order to comply with our needs in regard to wool and grain-baas. I am sorry the hon. member did not indicate which of these three directions we were to follow.

I said that I considered that the time for experiments is now past and that we should allow the free importation of those commodities at the present market prices.

Therefore the hon. member wants us to allow free importation. Now I just want to say this: We only import from Pakistan. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) knows the political situation in the world as well as I do, or anybody else, and therefore he knows, or he ought to know, that we have already been boycotted before. He knows that in the years when he was still engaged in the wool trade, we were boycotted, with the result that we had to struggle along with second-hand bags. We were compelled to patch them with all kinds of material. Now the hon. member wants us to allow free importation because the time for experimentation is past. But now I want to ask him: If we adopt that course and allow free importation from Pakistan and become completely dependent on that, what will the position be if political situations again arise which militate against us when we are exclusively dependent on imports? The hon. member should not make such loose statements here; the farmers will never forgive him. Whether experiments are made or not, we want South Africa at some time or another to become self-sufficient in regard to its production of bags. In regard to the experiments, I just want to say this: It is so often stated that we oppress people here and pay them too little. Do you know, Sir, that fibre plants grow excellently in this country, but that we cannot compete with the imported bags because of the wages we pay? Our wages are much higher than theirs. Even with our cheap labour here, our wages are still higher than theirs. We are still told every day that we should increase our wage scales, even when we are unable to produce a bag here at the same price at which it is produced in Pakistan. But now in regard to this whole matter we have a three-fold approach, and not just the simple approach of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central). We say that we import jute and manufacture our bags ourselves; we also import manufactured bags; and we are busy producing our own fibre in the country which we can use for our own manufacturing process. Our own bag is more expensive than the one we can import—or it is so at times. The price of the imported bag also fluctuates tremendously. In 1960-61 the locally manufactured bag cost 177.5 cents as compared with 95 cents for the imported bag. Within a short time, however, the price of the imported bag rose from 95 to 250 cents. The price at which we can manufacture bags locally is more than the average price at which we can import them from Pakistan. We must, however, assist our own industry, and if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) wants to deny that I am prepared to debate the matter with him and to throw in the whole farming community against him. I am able to do so if it is his policy that we should allow free imports and pay the prices at which we can obtain bags in Pakistan. Our policy is now that for every manufactured bag a trader imports, he must also accept a bag manufactured in South Africa. That applies to grain as well as to wool bags. At the end of the year it is then calculated what the average price of the imported bag was, and also what it was in the case of the locally made bag, and the price for the next year is then fixed on that basis.

Order! The hon. member has now had sufficient opportunity to deal with this matter. It is not relevant under this Vote and I must now ask him to leave the subject.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) devoted his whole speech to it. I shall, however, obey your ruling and leave the subject. I will then leave the hon. member there, because he did not talk about anything else. I now come to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). I want to advise that hon. member rather to discuss health services. He may know something about that, but not about veterinary services. He mentioned a large number of diseases with which Onderstepoort should deal. There is a long list of diseases with which Onderstepoort in fact deals, including “bloednier”, brucellose.