Might I ask the Minister of Agriculture when we are going to get a copy of the Dairy Bill?

If the hon. member will take the trouble to turn up the Government Gazette he will see the Bill published there. As far as the Bill itself is concerned that is a matter for the House.

We are not concerned with the Government Gazette, and my impression is it is not the same Bill.

I must voice a protest against the first reading of this Bill.

The motion for leave to introduce the Bill has been agreed to.

I submit that there have been occasions in this House

No debate is allowed on the first reading. A debate could have taken place on the motion for leave to introduce, but the first reading cannot be debated.

I object to the Bill being read a first time. Surely I may give my reasons for objecting ?

Order.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

On the motion that the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday,

I think Wednesday next is early for the second reading. I would like to ask whether this Bill has been published. If so, it has escaped my notice. It is a Bill of great importance, and it is quite possible that by Wednesday next we shall not have been able to give it sufficient consideration to enable us to debate the motion for second reading.

I hope that the Minister will not rush this matter, because it has come as a surprise. It is only two weeks ago that we had the Governor-General’s speech, and the speech was understood to contain a reference to all measures of importance the introduction of which was contemplated by the Government. There was no mention there of a measure of this nature. The House does not know what has brought about the sudden change between two weeks ago and to-day. We have had many public speeches from Ministers, and not a whisper was uttered about such legislation. It is only right that if the Government has reconsidered its opinion as to what important legislation should be introduced this session it should give hon. members and the country ample notice of this legislation, and the second reading should be set down as far as possible from to-day, so as to give not only members but the public of South Africa an opportunity of knowing what the Government’s intentions are with regard to this matter. This Bill could not have been considered a matter of urgency a few weeks ago, or it would have been mentioned in the Governor-General’s speech.

I think that this day week does not give the country time to consider a Bill of this importance, a Bill which has not yet been published, and which certainly is going to raise a considerable amount of feeling, and to affect very considerably the interests of the country. I think a little more time than a week should be allowed before the second reading.

I hope the Minister will fall in with the wishes which have been expressed. It is quite impossible that all those who may be concerned can in a week from date have a sufficient opportunity of studying the Bill which, although I have not seen its terms, may be found to excite considerable opposition from citizens who are entitled to be heard and to have their views fully considered. I would suggest that the Minister fix a date three weeks from to-day which is even hardly enough.

I think the objections that have been raised are two-fold. In the first place members have objected that no timely notice has been given of the introduction of this Bill, and that nothing has been published in the Government Gazette or in the newspapers. If members will for a moment think they will see that it is impossible, when a Bill of such a nature affecting a special influx from overseas is to be introduced, to publish the Bill long beforehand. That meets the one objection. The other objection is that sufficient time has not been allowed between the first reading and the second reading. As far as that is concerned I would like to meet hon. members as far as I can, and I think it would be certainly not unjust if I put down the second reading of the Bill for Monday week. The Bill is a short one, and the principles involved in it are quite simple.

Second reading on 10th February.

I move—

This Bill proposes to amend the Stock Diseases Act of 1911. With the exception of a few clauses, the principles proposed are new, and I should like to say a few words about them. We depart from the Act of 1911 by providing that farmers in specific areas that are proclaimed by the Governor-General must see that the carcasses of stock are buried where they die. Experience shows that the sheep farmers are troubled with blow fly. We want to combat that plague and we must fight it at the source. The source is to bury the carcasses of the animals. We do not wish, however, to make this provision compulsory throughout the whole country, but only in parts where the sheep farmers ask for it, which will then be proclaimed. It is not, however, always sufficient to merely bury the animal. It must be done in a way which prevents the fly from continuing to breed. Hence the Bill provides that it must be done under supervision or in a specific manner. If the carcass is not poisoned then it can be buried four feet deep and yet the danger of the blue fly hatching out will remain. The Bill therefore provides that it must be done in a specific way to prevent the hatching out. The second principle is to make the Scab Act stricter by bringing scab under the Stock Diseases Act. In 1911 scab was dealt with separately, because it was still a strange disease to people, and they were frightened of making the relative provisions too strong. We practically have the country clean now. It only exists here and there at places which are not clean, and the department is now experiencing very great trouble in getting those places cleaned up. The places where we chiefly find it still are not with farmers who have farms, but with most people who have four, five or six sheep. The officials are usually sorry for those people, and they usually get off with a warning. The Agricultural Department, notwithstanding its utmost endeavours, cannot succeed in getting the country clean if we do not tighten up the law. We must make this amendment if we want to eradicate the disease completely. That is why we are now bringing scab under the Stock Diseases Act. The Free State has been free of scab for quite a little while, but during the past year it was twice introduced there. Hawkers of rams go there and sell sheep at sales. The disease then breaks out on the farm with the result that the farmer is unnecessarily punished by having to dip his sheep at an inconvenient time, e.g., when the wool is long. The law must be made stricter to get at such cases. I hope, therefore, that all members in the House will support me with this clause. I think hon. members will agree with me that we cannot keep on the large body of scab inspectors for ever. It must be our aim to put an end to the disease. Great progress has already been made. We have reduced the disease from five per cent, to a half per cent., but still I feel that the taxpayer must be relieved by a measure of this kind of the great burden of scab inspectors. Then there are other diseases named here, such as tuberculosis, and septic miscarriages by cows. They are both contagious diseases. Tuberculosis has always come under the Stock Diseases Act, and no trouble has ever been experienced. It is therefore unsound criticism about bringing tuberculosis under the Stock Diseases Act. Nor does the department intend to act harshly in this matter. Hon. members know that tuberculosis has spread through the country, and to-day various parts have been affected, especially the towns. It is widespread, and if we are going to tackle the matter drastically it will mean a few million pounds, and the whole industry will be interfered with for a time. It is our intention to try to eradicate the disease gradually. I am negotiating with the town councils about the matter. I entered into negotiations with a big town and we took steps to eradicate the disease there with the support of the local body and the Agricultural Department. If we succeed there, it is my intention to go to the other municipalities as well. I will say at once that those bodies are in a certain measure responsible for the health of their inhabitants in this connection, and it is therefore their duty, where the department is willing to assist them, to help in the eradication of the disease and I certainly expect that we shall have their co-operation. There are far fewer cases on the countryside. This matter came under the previous Stock Diseases Act, and I should like to see it removed. Of course there are cases where the stock must be destroyed. There is, of course, the provision that when it is proved that he has neglected his duty, a person can be fined. This provision need frighten no one because with this disease it is not the case that people can tell beforehand that the animals have the disease, and the department certainly will not prosecute a man when it knows that the person is not in a position to suspect beforehand that his animals have the disease. I therefore hope that hon. members will support this clause also. The other clauses of the Bill mainly amount to an amendment of the form, or of the words of the clause. Certain sections of the original Act were not drafted clearly. The department felt that we must have clarity, and that is why amendments have been introduced in the form of the section here. Regarding other clauses, we have again gone further than the original section. The alteration in clause 1 was necessary because the old section dealt strongly with the removal of animals by the owner of the land. Sub-clause (2) deals with the way reports have to be made. The old Act lays down that report must be made to the Minister of Agriculture. Just imagine a person living in Namaqualand, or in the Eastern Province having to report to the Minister. We now make it clear that it is not necessary to make the report direct to the Minister, because that was the ordinary practice. Sub-clause (3) lays down that the owner of the ground must be given notice of such infection, or of the disease. Clause 2 deals with the burial of the animals. Sub-clauses (7), (8) and (9) provide how stock, that have died along the road, must be doalt with. If the owners of stock that have died do not bury them then the landowner must see that it is done. If it is not done we run the danger of gallamsiekte breaking out. The eating of bones causes gallamsiekte, and what loss has that not caused in the past? The Western Transvaal and Bechuanaland have practically been turned into a desert through gallamsiekte. To-day those parts are about our best areas for cattle farming. We must therefore see to it that these animals are buried because otherwise we shall have gallamsiekte, and also possibly anthrax as well. The latter disease may also become a great danger to our export trade in skins. Sub-clauses (10), (12) and (13) deal with the manner of burying carcasses in areas proclaimed by the Governor-General, as I have just explained. Clause 3 deals with the removal of stock, or with lost or straying stock. Further, it gives the Minister the power to have such animals destroyed in specific circumstances. Clause 5 deals with scab, and contains the provisions I have explained. We amend the Scab Act by bringing the disease under this Act. The fighting of scab would thus be more intensive by its being brought under the ordinary Stock Diseases Act. The object of the Bill is specially to deal with diseases like east coast fever and anthrax, and to make provision for the lessening of a disease like tuberculosis, which is not so very serious but yet has to be eradicated. There are only a few things in the Bill that, as I have said, are new, Other clauses do not alter the provisions of the old Act, but only clarify them. It is a difficult matter to fight stock diseases when they break out, but I am glad that I have always had the support of the public and therefore I have no doubt that I shall also be supported by the House when I try to make the law more practical.

I wish to thank the Minister for the fuller explanation which he has given of the provisions of this Bill than he has thought fit to give of previous Bills introduced by him into this House. The present Bill, as I understand it, proposes to supplement the powers which are conferred upon the Minister by the Diseases of Stock Act of 1911 for the eradication of animal diseases. The Bill aims largely at facilitating the convictions of offenders, and rendering effective the penalties provided for in the Act. With those aspects of the Bill I do not propose to deal at this stage, but when we are engaged in amending the Act of 1911, I maintain that it is desirable that we should carefully consider the principles enshrined in the Act of 1911, and that the Minister should make clear to us the extent to which the interests of the public and of the stock farmers in this country are to be sub-served by the present Bill. One of the paramount questions, of equal importance alike to the public and to the stock farmer, is the question of tuberculosis and the Government’s policy towards that question. In the Act of 1911 the then Government followed a logical course. They laid down that wherever tuberculosis was discovered the infected animals should be destroyed and they provided a scale of compensation to be paid to the owner of the destroyed animals. Now, the present Minister of Agriculture, in successive pronouncements on this subject, has indicated that although tuberculosis is widespread in South Africa, he is not prepared to pursue a policy of endeavouring to eradicate it, because of the anticipated cost to the country by way of compensation which is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of six or seven million pounds. Now the Minister’s policy has been not to exercise vigilance in discovering tuberculosis, and even when a stock owner comes forward and asks that his herd be tested he is given no encouragement by the department. On the contrary, the department calls upon him to sign an undertaking that if any of his cattle are found to have the disease and are destroyed, he, on his part, will claim no compensation. I wish to point out that that policy neither protects the public nor the stock owner. The public are being exposed to the danger of tubercular infection while the disease of tuberculosis among cattle is being spread far and wide. The latest development of the Minister’s policy seems to be in the direction of allowing a municipality to deal with this question. I do not think there is a farmer in this House who will not strongly object to that. The interests of the farmers are in no way protected by the municipality. They are in no way considered by the municipality, or only as a secondary matter, and it is, therefore, of great importance that we should hear from the Minister in what respect he intends to co-operate with the municipality as mentioned by him this afternoon, in connection with this very important matter of tuberculosis. On August 15th last the Minister, replying to a question in another place asked by Senator Schofield, stated that tests for tuberculosis in cattle were being carried out on a small scale, but no definite conclusion had been so far arrived at; it was hoped, however, with the collaboration of the local authorities, to carry out a larger scheme in the near future. At a later stage the Minister, in reply to a further question by Senator Schofield, stated that tests were being made at Durban, but up to then the results had been inconclusive. The Minister promised to make a full statement on the subject in the following session. Unfortunately the statement the Minister has made this afternoon has not added to the information he gave to the Senate last August. When the Appropriation Act (1929-’30) was being discussed in the Senate, the Minister stated that in older countries tuberculosis was as bad, if not worse, than it was in South Africa. He added that the department had come to an arrangement with a certain municipality to find out the best way to deal with tuberculosis, and if they were not successful they would have to find other means of dealing with the position. I wish to emphasize that no farmer can rest quietly in his bed if he imagines that authority in connection with tuberculosis is to be relegated to any municipality. From the public health point of view the municipality of Durban is only doing its duty by seeing that only clean milk is sold in its area, but the Minister must do his duty and protect those, the farmers, who are likely to suffer by the praiseworthy efforts of any municipality to protect the health of people living within its boundaries. It is in that respect that we representatives of the farming community appeal to the Minister to protect the former. The scourge of tuberculosis is allowed to go on unchecked, and yet the Minister requires an indemnity from a farmer whose herd is tested for tuberculosis, the farmer undertaking to make no claim for compensation. That is an utterly wrong attitude for the Government to adopt. The Minister is looked upon as a friend of the farmer, but he must show his devotion to the farmer’s interests while in no way impeding Durban in its desire to protect the health of its residents. We should be doing wrong to add to the very wide powers enjoyed by the Minister unless he tells us that he intends to adhere to the principles of the Act of 1911, and to afford to stockbreeders the protection accorded to them in that Act, and not to surrender his position as protector of the formers to the municipality of Durban.

As a practical farmer, I should like to support the Minister’s Bill as strongly as possible. We farmers in Bechuanaland are convinced that the great spreading of stock diseases is caused by the carcasses that lay about, and we have learnt to make away with all stock that die, but our difficulty has always been with the speculators and the trekkers. It often happens that they trek through a farm and then the farmer has to go and see whether animals have not been left behind for him to bury, because it seldom happens that the trek farmer does so. We are sorry that the Bill has come a little bit late, it ought to have been introduced years ago. As this Bill makes the supervision over scab stricter, the farmers will certainly welcome it. I am convinced that we can eradicate scab in South Africa, and if we can, we must do so. I think this Bill will greatly contribute to that end. Some members will possibly say that the Bill is very harsh, and will get the farmers into trouble, but I cannot see that, inasmuch as we have a wise Minister, and because he says that it will not be applied to farmers who do not want it. But I hope that the Minister will, in the first place, put Bechuanaland under this Act. We badly need it, and it will be very welcome. It is true, as the previous speaker said, that when disease gets into a farmer’s stock it is possible that he may have to destroy it without compensation, but the Bill gives the Minister the right of saying whether he is to destroy his stock with or without compensation. To my mind, this entirely removes the dangers of this Bill. I am certain that any farmer who means well to the interests of farmers, will give his full support to the Bill.

I want to assure the Minister that I do not want to raise unnecessary objection to the proposed amendments. I want, however, to call his attention to some of the proposals which will drastically affect some of the farmers, viz., the trek farmers. The Minister of Agriculture is one of the few members opposite who know the position of the trek-boers as well as I do, especially in the Transvaal. The Minister will be aware that if the provisions are applied to trek-boers it will injure them very much. Such a farmer possibly treks a hundred miles, and he is possibly overtaken on the way by cold, which can cause the death of a hundred sheep in one night. The Minister knows the conditions, it would be very difficult in such a case for the trek farmer to stop to bury all the carcasses. I think the Minister should meet those people. Take again the case of sick sheep remaining at an outspan. Then the owner must report it to the farmer, and he must come back in a few days to see whether the sheep are dead or not. The Minister does, indeed, provide that the trek-boer can make an agreement with the farm owner, but perhaps the two are not on very good terms, and then they cannot agree. Then the trek-boer would prefer to go further on and come back from time to time. We want to assist the Minister in every way in his endeavour to eradicate stock diseases. On the whole I have no objection to the Bill, but as certain provisions press hard on certain members of the community, the Minister should meet them. Then there are certain circumstances when exceptions must be made, as in shearing time, when many sheep often die owing to cold or bail. What will be the position if the owner were obliged to make away with all dead sheep within twenty-four hours? The Minister himself knows that it happens that two hundred to three hundred sheep or more die in shearing time when such whether prevails. It would be very difficult for the farmer to make away with all within twenty-four hours. I also appeal to the Minister to make an exception in such cases.

I also wish to give my blessing to this Bill. When we see that we have certain areas that are properly fenced, and where stock is properly supervised, it is impossible to understand that there is any necessity in the country for legislation of this kind, and that more drastic steps are necessary. The Minister, and the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer), however, know the circumstances of the trek-boers in the parts which are still unfenced and where protection is necessary. I just want to bring a few points to the notice of the Minister, because I think that unnecessary trouble may be caused. In Clause 1 (3) it is provided that, when scab exists in sheep or goats, an official can immediately declare the area an infected one. We have not the least objection in the case of scab. On the contrary I think that the farmers are determined to get rid of scab in the good years. Unfortunately, however, there is still scab amongst goats in a part of my district. It has been eradicated among sheep, and there are young fellows of 25 and 30 years, who have never yet seen scab, but especially during the drought, scab increased among goats in a particular portion. The goat fanners now think that it is much more difficult to eradicate scab among goats than among sheep. We approve of the immediate proclamation of an area as infected by virtue of the Bill, but the Minister must make a few enquiries whether it is right that, inasmuch as scab has always been regarded as a separate disease, and treated as such, is should to-day be brought under this law. It will cause the man who owns stock infected by scab to be subject to all the other provisions of the Bill, even with regard to the destruction of stock. If stock is destroyed on account of scab, he will also be subject to the provisions. I do not say that such a step would ever be taken, but it is possible, and will cause trouble. Clause 2 (7) stipulates that if stock dies notice must be given to the magistrate, the veterinary surgeon, the stock inspecton, or at the police station. It occurs sometimes that I, e.g., have to trek with stock and the sheep die from gallsickness. I may be able to bury them, possibly, within 24 hours, but yet I have to report it to the magistrate or one of the officials. This seems to me to cause unnecessary trouble, and to be superfluous. I hope the Minister will make amendments in committee.

I wish to refer to the treatment meted out by the Minister to the Transkeian Territories. This Act was introduced in 1911 to meet the situation caused by the outbreak of east coast fever twenty years ago. Certain restrictions were placed upon export of cattle from the territories at that time, and quite rightly. Since that date we have not been allowed to export a single beast from the Transkei, except under the most drastic restrictions, notwithstanding that in some of the districts there has never been a case of east coast fever. The result is that we have a million and a half of cattle in those territories, practically half of the total number of cattle in the Cape Province. The natives are told that they must go in for a better class of cattle, and at the same time they are prevented from disposing of their beasts. The only time a beast is of any practical value is when it is dead, and the hide is saleable. The country is overstocked with cattle, and there is absolutely no outlet. In the farming area where I live we have not had a case for 12 years, and yet we are not allowed to export our cattle. Representations have been made to the Minister time after time. I have been five years in this House, and I have interviewed both him and his department repeatedly. The Native Affairs Department have also made representations. I have a petition signed by both the paramount chief of Pondoland and the paramount chief of Tembuland, by the president of the Native Agricultural Association, and also signed by all European bodies interested, the farmers’ associations and so forth, asking that this matter be considered. We recognize that east coast fever is a danger, and that it has spread in other parts of the country, but there they are allowed to send their cattle away to the markets without any restriction. The Minister recently appointed a committee to deal with the question of erosion of soil, and I understand that it attributes one of the chief reasons for erosion as over-stocking. Of course, the whole country is over stocked. The Transkei has been unfairly treated from the very outset. I defy the Minister to tell us of any area that is as clean. I would not mind saying that I would give him a sovereign for every beast that he finds a tick on, on condition that he gives me a sovereign for every beast on which he cannot find a tick. Go to Pretoria and to Hartebeestepoort, and the cattle are infected with ticks. Yet in the Transkei for 20 solid years we have been dipping regularly without benefit or advantage. The Minister is unfair. He says he must take the Transkei as a whole, because it is native territory, and when an outbreak of east coast fever occurs, possibly on the borders of Natal, 50 miles away, he penalizes the whole of the Transkei. I think it is time the Minister realized that if the native has to pay taxes—and heavy taxation is being imposed on the natives to-day—some outlet must be given to the natives for the stock they have for sale. If the Minister had spent the money he has expended on dipping in putting up a canning factory, the country would not be in the position it is in to-day. I see that the Minister is advising farmers to get rid of their tobacco because there is a surplus. We have a surplus of cattle. I wonder whether he will tell the natives how to get rid of their cattle when for 20 years he has been prohibiting them from selling them. Too much restrictive legislation is being introduced, and if this Bill said that every person may remove, instead of may not remove, cattle which are not tick-infested from one place to another, it would be a more reasonable measure. I am convinced that in the next few years Parliament will have to come together to pass laws saying what people may do instead of what they may not do. At any rate, unless the Minister is more sympathetic, the natives in the native territories will not be able to pay their taxes. The Native Affairs Department are doing their best to help the natives, and they have attempted to persuade the Minister to be a little more liberal. The Administration have created a great deal of dissatisfaction and unrest, and have given cause for unrest not only amongst Europeans, but amongst the natives. I hope the Minister will look into this matter, and co-operate with the Minister of Native Affairs. As far as the “blow-fly” is concerned, this Bill may be useful. The “blow-fly” is spreading through the country. Fortunately, in the Transkei we have got dogs, and they dispose of the dead sheep. I think the Minister should be a little more liberal in his views with regard to the natives, and remove these restrictions, and give us a right to sell wherever we can secure a market.

I also want to say that all who are well disposed towards stock-farming in South Africa will welcome this further Bill to eradicate stock diseases. We know that if it were not for the effective way in which stock diseases have already been fought by the Government, stock-farming would not only not have made the progress it has done, but that it would practically be impossible. If we think particularly of certain parts of our country, such as the Northern Transvaal with its rainfall, an area suited to stock-farming, and remember what progress could be made if stock diseases were not so prevalent, then we see the desirability of this Bill. A little more compulsion and restriction will be imposed, but with a view to the result we expect our farmers will be prepared to submit themselves a little more to compulsion. One sees how serious to stock-farming the stock diseases are when we compare our statistics with those of other countries. If, in the first place, we notice the diseases which are usually met with among stock, and, secondly, the extent of the diseases, we find that the figure for South Africa is 14, for the United States of America 9, for Australia 8. for Canada 6, and for New Zealand 4. It therefore appears that South Africa is tried much more severely than those other countries, which are also to a certain extent suited to stock raising. While we welcome the principles of the Bill, I want to call the Minister’s attention to a few absurdities which can possibly be removed. We find that in clause 1, if stock is, or is believed to be, infected, by some disease or other, the owner or persons having control thereof must report it to the Government veterinary surgeon, a scab inspector, a stock inspector, or assistant stock inspector. Now I want to ask the Minister to consider extended areas like Waterberg, where it will be very difficult always to give the notice, and I want to ask the Minister to permit the eventual report thereof to the magistrate, the police station, or a special justice of the peace. With us in the north there are people living possibly 50, 60 or 70 miles from the nearest stock inspector, but possibly within reasonable distance of the special justice of the peace, or police station. It would facilitate matters if the farmers could also report to such officials. It seems to me to be a purely technical mistake because clause 2 (7) is to the effect that where an animal dies at an outspan from some disease notice can be given to the magistrate or police station. I shall be glad if “special J.P.” can be inserted in this clause. It further seems strange that according to clause 3 when stock run away, and go to an affected area, or are transported through it, it must be reported to a special J.P. or magistrate, or to a stock inspector. If that is permitted here, then I think it is also reasonable for a report to be made to the magistrate, special J.P., or police in other instances. It is peculiar that in this clause “scab inspector” is omitted. Perhaps these are not important points, but the Minister will meet the farmers by making amendments. There is to my mind another ambiguity in clause 3. We find from it that where stock has strayed and has gone through an infected area before it is declared infected the Minister can have such stock destroyed. What now of the case where the stock has been expressly taken through such an area quite lawfully, before it was declared infected? Why is a difference made between stock that has run away and stock which is carried through the area? The danger is the same in both cases. It is provided that no compensation can be granted, except upon the Minister’s order. I do not know what the object is of leaving it to the Minister in one case, and not in the other, but I assume that there are good reasons and shall be glad of the Minister’s explanation. The clause further provides that in the case of east coast fever no compensation shall be paid. This is not clear to me. Why should a man whose stock is destroyed owing to tuberculosis have a chance of compensation, but none in the case of east coast fever? I also find from the second schedule that a distinction is made in the scale of compensation between one disease and another. I was unfortunately not in this House in 1911, and do not know the reason thereof, but possibly the Minister can explain. It does not matter to a farmer what the stock died of. If he loses a beast worth £20, it does not matter to him what the cause of death was. I hope the Minister will give his attention to these few points.

I have no serious objections to offer to the general principles of this Bill. I quite realize that it is merely supplementary to the Stock Diseases Act 1911, but there are one or two points that I would like to raise now in order that the Minister may have an opportunity now of explaining this standpoint in regard thereto and thus possibly obviating the necessity of taking amendments at a later stage. The first is in regard to clause 5, which provides—

I object to the words “if the Minister so determines.” I do not see why that duty should be a permissive one only; I think it should be obligatory. I think the Minister, in the interests of the general public, should proclaim and make known, far and wide, areas which become infected. I refer to sub-section (5) of Section 1. It should not be left optional for the Minister to proclaim an infected area; he should, I think, be obliged to do so in all cases. I think the Minister should, in all cases without exception, give notice in the Gazette and in newspapers which circulate in the district in which the area which he proposes to declare infected is situate, so that due notice may be given to everyone concerned. I know that this provision is taken from the principal Act, but it does not follow that it is sound law on that account. It was a flaw in the principal Act, and it is a flaw in this Bill, and it is one which I hope the Minister will agree to remedy. If he is not prepared to do so I hope he will make it clear to the House why he insists upon this provision remaining, that publication should only take place when it pleases him, and not when, possibly, it is in the interests of the public and the farmers that it should be done. The next provision is one to which, I think, the majority of farmers will take strong exception. That is the one in clause 8, providing for the disposal of carcases. The Minister provides, in this clause that where a stock-owner cannot agree with the owner of the farm or land as to the place of disposal and the manner of disposal of a carcase, there should be the right of appeal to a stock inspector or officer in charge of a police station. There may be no stock inspector within 50 or 100 miles of the farm in question or police officer available. The stock inspector or other officer would have to be brought there, and, in the meantime, this source of contamination and infection is left lying there not disposed of, and probably spreading the disease on this man’s farm. I do not know why the Minister wants this involved provision, which will be a perfect nuisance, and a hindrance to the farmer keeping his land free from disease. I think that the owner should have the exclusive right of saying where the carcase is to be disposed of, and bow it is to be disposed of, and I think the Minister might explain his view of the question, because I have it in my mind to table an amendment in regard to it if I regard the Minister’s explanation unsatisfactory. If it is elucidated satisfactorily, it will not be necessary to table an amendment. With regard to the other provisions of the Bill, I do not think there is anything else I have noticed that I have to take exception to.

I think we can be congratulated in the Union on the progress made in eradicating scab. But yet I think the time has come for us to take steps to completely eradicate it. I feel proud that the Free State is entirely clean. If the Free State can attain this, why cannot the other parts of the country also do so? As for me, and those in my neighbourhood, scab is an unknown thing. We do not know any more about it. I heartily hope that the measure we are now debating will lead to our shortly hearing no more about it in South Africa. I should like to say a few words about the fighting of blue fly. We know what annoyance we have from that plague. It is something which threatens us, and there are many farmers who are obliged to shear their sheep months before the proper time because the fly does so much damage. I fear that the solution of the difficulty will not be found in this Bill. The Bill is, however, a step in the right direction. The time will come for us to take other steps to compel the farmers to eradicate blue fly. If we farmers do not stand by the Minister in the matter, sheep farming in our country will be threatened very seriously. I want to thank the Minister for coming forward with this Bill in the interests of the farmers. I am glad he is receiving support on both sides. When we, as representatives of the people, have to deal with agricultural matters, we must not permit party considerations to divide us, but we must stand together to look after the farmers’ interests.

I have listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, and I think he put the case very fairly and cleanly from all points of view. He spoke at some length on the question of tuberculosis in cattle, and I should also like to touch upon that at a later stage. On the general principles of the Bill, I think they are entirely necessary in the interests of the farmers and of the community as a whole, and as such I intend to support the Bill. There are, however, several portions of the Bill that need amendment. Whilst I consider the principle is sound, I am against the introduction of new legislation when there are portions of the existing Act which could be brought into force, the very important Act of 1911 to which this is an Amending Bill. I think that stock diseases should be divided into two categories, namely, those which kill stock, and those which, through stock, kill human beings. Such diseases as scab as opposed to anthrax, pernicious abortion and tuberculosis. If there are any portions of the Act which are to be left in obeyance due to lack of funds, I think that those portions which do not affect human beings should be dropped first. Take tuberculosis, which the Minister enlarged upon. I wish to support the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in what he said. Section 10, sub-section (2) of the Act of 1911, gives powers to the Minister, but that law has become a dead letter, and the farmer is in this invidious position; although he is open to penalties of £50 or six months’ imprisonment, up to £250 or two years’ imprisonment, section 6 of the Bill prevents him using a plea of ignorance in mitigation, and I am glad to see that the Minister has stated that that provision will not be drastically enforced in a prosecution, because I am afraid many people would be prosecuted otherwise. The Government does not attempt to discover the presence of tubesculosis in cattle—either the Minister has not the money or has not a sufficient number of officials to carry out the tuberculine test. Therefore like brer fox he lies low. I have referred to the fox though not an indigenous animal in South Africa, I felt that I should be poaching on the preserves of the Hon. Prime Minister if I used the term jackal. A farmer can suspect that his cattle are affected, but that does not help him. The law is perfectly right in preventing a farmer making tests on his own, for otherwise by injecting tuberculine before the official tests are carried out the farmer could prevent the existence of the disease being discovered, due to the fact that cattle do not react to a second test unless an interval has intervened. As the law stands to-day a farmer cannot plead ignorance in mitigation and he has no means of ascertaining whether his cattle are affected. The department refuses to make the tests, and the farmer cannot make them himself. The position is very serious. We all realize the danger if stock disease is not controlled, and we welcome any Bill which seeks to limit the prevalence of stock disease. Tuberculosis is a dreadful disease, which is increasing rapidly. In 1921 there were 2,962 cases in the Union, in 1924/5, 4,634 cases, in 1926/7, 5,851 cases, or an increase of nearly 100 per cent, in six years. The important point is that the increase is mainly in glandular tuberculosis, which is caused by a child drinking infected milk or eating butter made from infected cream. The disease may lie dormant for years until many years after illness reduces a person’s resistance to tuberculosas and the disease flares up. In Edinburgh the percentage bovine tuberculosis was 90 per cent, and in London 70 per cent. I have not got the South African percentage as there are no central figures available, but it is high. That tuberculosis is on the increase there is no doubt. We all look upon the Karoo as God’s tuberculosis sanatorium, but the extraordinary thing it that more and more children are coming from the Karroo suffering from glandular tuberculosis, due entirely to infected milk. I am informed by Dr. Marais of Cape Town, who is an authority on the subject, that the loss in earning capacity, the cost of hospital treatment, and the loss caused by the death of sufferers from consumption in the Cape Province alone can be put down at £1,000,000 a year. Is it wise to save money through not destroying tuberculer cattle and at the same time to incur colossal losses by breeding a C.3 nation? Is it wise to refuse to pay compensation to farmers for the killing of their tuberculer cattle, and at the same time to breed children who will eventually become a liability to the State? The Minister should attack this important problem, and before anything else is done this portion of the Stock Act should be carried out. The great expert on tuberculosis, Sir Robert Phillip refers to children who have contracted the disease as “tuberculer seedlings”—the idea being that the seed lies dormant till some favourable occasion arises to cause it to germinate. This “tuberculer seedling” is created in the first instance through the medium of milk from an infected cow. This is borne out by Barton and Gresswell in their Standard book—“The Elements of the Practice of Comparative Medicine.” They state that—

There is a theory that it is good for children to be exposed to small doses of tuberculer bacilli as it tends to immunize them against further attacks. I sincerely trust that the Government will not advance that as a reason for treating Act 14 of 1911, Section 10 (2) as a dead letter, as I have sufficient evidence to show that this is a most fallacious theory. I will not waste the time of the House by putting up straw men to knock them down, so I will confine myself to one short comment thereon culled from Haslam’s “Recent advances in preventative Medicine.” Dr. Haslam, who is assistant director of the Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases, quotes Professor Lyle Cummins who indicated his personal belief in the partial immunity to pulmonary tubercle acquired as a result of ingestion of small numbers of bovine bacilli, but even so, he doubted whether such an immunity was an adequate recompense for the damage done to children under five years by the bovine bacillus. It is public knowledge that the large municipalities intend to control their own milk supply. The Minister has also stated this to be so. I do not know what form this will take, but we can presume that no infected milk will be allowed to be sold within the municipal areas concerned. What will be the result? Immediately an owner suspects that his cows have tuberculosis, he will send them out of that area and sell them in a district where the law is not being enforced. It is possible, therefore, that an infected herd may be split up and sold with the result that infection will be spread. Dr. D. G. Marais in a lecture delivered in 1922 on some present day aspects of the tuberculosis problem in South Africa, pointed out that the problem of dealing with the animal carriers of tuberculosis though theoretically simple is difficult of accomplishment, especially in a country like ours …. In illustration allow me to quote the following story—

The eldest daughter and the youngest baby who had not drunk the milk were found to be healthy, but all the rest were found to be infected; five of the seven were infected by tuberculosis. I think that speaks for itself. The same thing is going on all through the country. Let the Government face the position. Before I had my own cows tested, I had to promise not to claim compensation. I am not a dairy-farmer, and I was merely protecting my children, but the dairy-farmer is different and he cannot be expected not to claim compensation—he must be compensated for his cows. He cannot afford to have his herd destroyed without compensation. It is a large sum of money which is involved, but it is a question of considering the lesser of two evils— whether to spend money on the cows or on the children. Which is the greater expense— stamp out bovine tuberculosis and having to pay compensation or to maintain a large number of invalids? I do not propose to deal with the other clauses of the Bill, as I feel I have spoken at too great a length already, other than to urge the Minister to go gently with section 2 and especially sub-sections 12 and 13. Let him frame his regulations and impress on the people who are to carry them out the utmost importance of using their discretion when dealing with the farmers. The practical farmers of this House will no doubt put forward suggestions in committee, but I would urge the Minister to consult the stock-breeders before drawing up the regulations, or a farcical position may be arrived at. Cases will arise where it will be utterly impossible for the owner to comply with the regulations. If we farmers are forced to do things which we cannot really do, I shall have seriously to consider whether I should not join my hon. friends on the (cross-benches, and with true Socialistic fervour demand that immediately an animal dies it should become the property of the state. But seriously, to give a personal instance of how impossible it would be to obey sub-section 12 of Section 2, I may state that some years ago a flock of sheep on my farm got frightened by lightning, and a goat plunged into the swollen river. The flock of sheep, emulating the ways of my hon. friends opposite, in following their leaders, regardless of what misery it may cause, followed. The result was that hundreds of sheep were drowned, were carried away and were washed up as far as 30 miles away. Under the Bill as it stands now, I should be forced to patrol both banks of the river 30 miles as a modern Bo-peep, disguised as an undertakeress, or whatever the feminine of undertaker is, turning over every deceased sheep lying about to see if it was mine, and then, if so, to dispose of it as per regulation. Here you have the case of non-infectious animals which are not a danger to other animals, and it would seem hard to penalize a man who has just had a heavy loss running by making him spend a great deal more. At the same time, I see the necessity of buying all carcases whether the animals died of disease or misadventure, because it is obvious that the Minister, in this Bill, is now making his first attack on that great menace, the blow-fly. All good luck to him, and I congratulate him. He and his efficient staff will get all the support he requires from this side of the House in all reasonable regulations he might make to this end. But in framing the regulations, I would just like to remind the framers, they must be careful in dealing with sub-section 11 of Section 2, which lays down that every carcase shall be destroyed. I would support this being amended so that of the thousands of carcases that are being used as bait for the blow-fly do not come under the Bill. Under the Bill as it stands no one would have the right to keep a carcase for this purpose. I would suggest the Minister’s amending it to allow of lion-infectious carcases for bait purposes.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), complains about sortie of his electors, who have scab on their farms, being too severely hit by the provisions of this Bill. As one who knows something about sheep farming, I know that scab is a disaster for the people, for the country, and for the whole wool industry, and especially to the farmers who are compelled by drought to trek to other districts. It has happened in my district that a farmer of a clean district has trekked to another clean district and yet the sheep have got scab along the road. I hope the Department of Agriculture will take severe steps against farmers who farm with scabby stock. Let me at once say that I am not quite satisfied with certain provisions, which I hope the Minister will omit, or will alter, so that they do not press too severely on the farmers in the drought stricken areas, who are compelled to trek almost every year. I refer especially to the provision in clause 2 as to the destruction of animals that die, and which will particularly press heavily on the inhabitants of my constituency. I am glad to see that in paragraph (10) it is said—

I hope therefore that the Minister will not apply it to my district, because he is a very fair Minister. I hope he will only apply it to districts where the public almost unanimously ask for it, because I do not think my constituency will ever ask the Minister to apply such a drastic clause as clause 2 (11) to its full extent. It would be impossible to carry out this clause in my constituency, but we find in clause 2—

and then it goes further—

I hope that the Minister will not apply that provision to my constituency. It is impossible, because there are many people who are obliged every year by the drought to trek. They have small flocks of stock, and cannot have herds. It may happen that an animal gets sick, and the magistrate lives, possibly, 70 to 80 miles away, and what is the poor man to do? What would be the position of a farmer trekking with 200 to 300 small stock, if one of them got sick half way between Sutherland and Willowmore. The law says that he must report it as soon as possible to the magistrate, but it will possibly take him fourteen days to get to the nearest magistrate at Willowmore. I think these are provisions which cannot possibly be carried out in my constituency. Further, I have no objection to the Bill itself, and it seems that other hon. members also are satisfied. Therefore, I, with these few exceptions, am also satisfied, especially because the drastic provisions can only be applied by means of a proclamation, and I hope that the present, and other Ministers, will only apply them when the population of an area wishes it.

I want to say a few words in connection with this Bill on stock disease. In the first place, I am glad that I can congratulate the Minister on it. I am very glad to say that in the Western Transvaal, the farmers have been engaged during the last few years in burying dead stock, because they realise that dead animals cause stock diseases. There is, e.g., a terrible disease gallamziekte, which is due to dead animals lying on the veld. I can assure the Minister that the practical farmers in the Western Transvaal will heartily welcome this provision. One point is not quite clear to me, how the dead body of an animal must be removed and buried. Sub-clauses (11) and (12) deal with this. They do not say whether the dead animal must be buried at a certain depth below the surface. If they are not buried at a certain depth it simply means that blue fly will breed out of them. Blue fly is a terrible plague in the Western Transvaal, and the farmers are compelled to fight it. I want to ask the Minister to so draft this provision that it will be clear that the farmers shall not bury the dead animals at a small depth. It must be made clear how deep they are to be buried, so that blue fly shall not breed out. I also want to ask the Minister as he is now commencing the attack on the blue fly, and as it is such a pest in the Western Transvaal, whether he cannot insert a stipulation in this Bill, or introduce another measure, which will make the fighting of that plague compulsory. It has shown that the farmers, who have fought blue fly during the last two or three years, have had much less trouble with their sheep than those who did not do so, and I feel convinced that if certain methods which have been tried by the farmers, are followed, and if the application of those methods is made compulsory, we shall render a great service to the country. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has made a commencement in fighting blue fly. I want to express the hope that he will go further.

It is difficult to be sanguine that this Bill when it becomes law will achieve very much. This Act has been before this House for amendment no less than five times previously, so that this is the sixth appearance of this particular Act before this House for improvement. The only real good that I think this Bill will do may be in attracting attention to the parlous state of the cattle industry in this country. I think the Minister requires no argument or facts to get him to agree with me that the cattle industry is in a very bad state. If I recollect correctly, he himself pointed out a few months ago that this country is not on the whole suitable for cattle raising, and that on the whole it is not a very profitable business. The Minister must have been advised by his professional advisers that the modern way of dealing with disease is by prevention rather than cure, and it is well known that animals are more likely to attract whatever is going if they are in poor condition. We have in this country some 12,000,000 head of cattle, and of this 12,000,000 not one animal was found fit to be exported for slaughter purposes in the year 1928. It may be said that we export a good many of them in the form of meat. Nothing of the kind. The total meat export of that year was under £10,000, and I believe that practically all of this was exported for consumption on board the ships that took it. On the other hand we imported £357,000 worth of slaughter cattle from outside our borders, and in addition we imported £197,000 of slaughter sheep and goats, so that this great ranching country, with its 12,000,000 head of cattle and 40,000,000 head of sheep and goats, is not able to provide enough meat to feed itself. There must be something very wrong with the condition of things in this country. But why this Act? The Minister is not taking this very seriously.

Is the hon. member in order in debating the improvement of our cattle now ?

I should just like to follow the connection between the hon. member’s remarks and the Bill.

I have not quite caught the Minister’s objection. I am anxious to convey some information which I feel sure he will not despise, whatever quarter it comes from. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that I am perfectly in order, and the Minister must not go off at half cock. This is a Bill intended to deal with diseases amongst animals. I am trying to show the Minister the best way to do that, and this Bill will not do much in that direction by itself. The Bill is essentially one to prevent disease spreading amongst animals, and therefore I am in order in speaking to that point. Now I will address myself to the hon. the Minister again. Is the Minister satisfied that the cattle position is in a satisfactory state? Is he satisfied that putting penal measures on the statute book will carry out his immediate object to prevent the spread of disease and secure that the cattle industry in this country will be made profitable.

On a point of order, I think the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) will see that there is another Bill on the order paper dealing with the cattle position, and I think the hon. member is not in order in discussing a matter dealt with in another Bill on the order paper. I Would like Mr, Speaker’s ruling.

The two matters are closely related. It is difficult for me to tell beforehand whether the hon. member is in order or not, on the point raised. It seems to me that the hon. member is discussing something which is really relevant to both Bills. My difficulty is that I do not know what the hon. member is leading up to. I trust he will bear in mind the other Bill on the order paper.

I am dealing now with the prevention of disease. I am pointing out that animals, human animals included, are more likely to contract disease if their physical condition is poor. It is obviously the fact that in this country we are overstocked. A proof of that is the poor condition of the cattle. Out of our 12,000,000 we are unable to export any for slaughter purposes, so that my remarks are quite relevant to this Bill. I say that the incidence of disease is greater and more virulent owing to the poor condition of our animals. Well, the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) said it would be a good thing if east coast fever were allowed to spread through the country and kill off the stock. While I agree with the object, I cannot agree with the means. I think we should decrease the number of animals, but perhaps by other means, and this has already been referred to by the hon. member. There is no doubt that it is the poor condition of the animals which is large responsible for the undue prevalence of disease, and I think the Minister will agree that there is some relevance in what I have stated on this point. He must not expect too much from purely punitive measures. We can expect very little improvement in the condition of our stock until a more comprehensive survey of the whole position is made, and perhaps then more comprehensive measures will be available to put this matter on a more satisfactory footing.

Anyone who has seen the terrible condition of the sheep during the last year through the ravages of blue-fly will welcome this Bill. I hope the Minister will take still further precautions against blue-fly. Although I sincerely welcome the provisions of the Bill, I also want to point out that there are other methods of fighting blue-fly, and that they need the force of law to be effective. We are convinced that every sheep that is attacked by blue-fly becomes a further source of infection, and we accordingly feel that the methods which are now being successfully applied by the farmers are so good that the Minister ought to have them investigated. We find that experiments are being made right through the country, but the Department has not yet investigated them. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Major van der Byl) has thought fit to compare members on this side of the House with a flock of goats that have followed another goat into a stream, and so have been washed down the river. It is not necessary for him, after the last election, to go so far from his side of the House to make such a remark about goats which are now dead because they have lost their leader. We know that we followed a leader who led us on to the summit of the mountains, while they, on the other side, through bitter experience, look very much more like the goats of the hon. member for Bredasdorp. He pointed out the terrible results of tuberculosis, and I too feel that as soon as funds are available the Minister should take action in the matter. In this connection our hope is fixed on him and posterity will be grateful to him.

I have studied the Bill that is before the House at the present time, and I have listened very carefully to the statement of the Minister. That statement is satisfactory as far as it goes, but it certainly is most unsatisfactory so far as tuberculosis and other diseases are concerned. In an important Bill like this, I think it would have been advisable if the Minister had made a thorough statement in asking us favourably to consider the Bill and to pass it. We really require far more information than he gave us, and perhaps we should have had a little more information as to what is in his mind. I admit that this Bill is necessary, and in the interests of the farmers, and we on this side of the House are prepared to support the principle; but we hope that the Minister will accept constructive criticism in the way in which it is given, and that he will take notice of what we say to improve the Bill where it is possible to do so. We recognise that stringent and severe laws are necessary to prevent the spread of disease in this country, and also to deal with it and to eradicate it. We farmers are quite prepared to accept these laws if they are only effective, but with regard to some of the diseases that come into this list that the Bill applies to, we expect and insist that the Government will do their part too. We farmers will do it, but we must insist upon the Government doing their share as well. In saying this, I especially would like to deal with tuberculosis so far as it concerns the farmer. At the present time as the Minister has explained, tuberculosis is amongst the diseases in the old Act as a notifiable disease. Therefore, if our herds are infected with tuberculosis we must report it to the Government authorities and at once we are put into quarantine. Well, what happens after that? The Government, as we know, treat tuberculosis as a dead letter. They are not prepared to do anything whatever to eradicate, or to prevent it spreading. Some may be in quarantine as long as the cattle live. The Minister, in a question I asked last session, admitted that he knew that tuberculosis was very rife in this country and that it was spreading. I know for a fact that there are many herds in this country—breeding stud stock—which the Department know are infected. Still they do nothing to prevent animals from these herds being disposed of at public sales, and farmers who wish to improve their stock, innocently introduce tuberculosis into their stock at the present time by buying infected stock. In fact, we farmers have the greatest difficulty in inducing the Government to take any notice of tuberculosis. I have a friend who is a stud breeder and who wished to clean his herd of tuberculosis. He found that his herd was infected, and, as you have heard from other hon. members, the Government refused to do anything unless he signed an indemnity that he would hold the Goverment free of any cost in regard to the slaughter of animals infected after they had tested them. This particular friend of mine has been testing his herd. I think it is nearly two years ago since he started. Every time he has tested his herd he has found that the herd is more infected than it was on the occasion of the previous test The Minister had also got him to sign this indemnity form, so that after each test this gentleman had to send his reacting animals to the abattoirs, and they were sold at whatever price they fetched, which was next to nothing. The position to-day is that that gentleman’s herd is reduced from 200 to about 30. In trying to eradicate this disease he has practically eradicated his herd without any help from the Government towards the cost involved or the loss he has suffered. Now the Minister tells us that we need not worry; that tuberculosis came under the old Act and was administered without any trouble to the Department and without any trouble to us farmers, and that they would go on in the same old way as they did then. Now if they are going to administer this Act in that way, what on earth is the use of it? If they are not going to take any notice of tuberculosis, why include it in the list of notifiable diseases? Would it not be better to eliminate it from the list and let us go on without any laws which we are breaking from day to day? I suggest to the Minister that tuberculosis, and one or two other diseases which the Department has got to deal with at the present time, should be eliminated from the list of diseases that are notifiable, and that a select committee should be appointed to enquire into these diseases and see best how the Government should deal with them. This question of these diseases does not only affect the farmers themselves, as you know. They are a danger to the inhabitants of this country as a whole. The Minister has told us that he is going to try and come to some arrangement with the municipalities, and with their help make a start in that direction, but I feel that that is only another means of doing nothing. The Government should tackle this urgent proposition themselves and at once. I quite agree that there should be a thorough enquiry, and that something should be done before they know what is the best thing to be done. We know that, in order to tackle this proposition of eradicating tuberculosis, it will mean an increase in the veterinary staff in this country, and it will also possibly cost a great deal of money, because you cannot expect the farmers to test their cattle and have them slaughter— which is the only way to eradicate the disease —without some compensation being paid by the Government. We have been in communication with the Government on previous occasions on this point, and the farmers have indicated to the Government that they are willing to be most reasonable in this matter. They are willing that the cattle should be tested and that reasonable compensation—about a quarter of the value of the cattle—be paid them. The Minister will have the farmers of the country with him in this matter, but the longer we wait the worse the position will become. Unfortunately we have no exact information as to the prevalence of the disease. Not only is the disease liable to be contracted by all kinds of domestic animals, but there are cases of wild animals being badly affected. Tuberculosis, however, is not the only disease which should be dealt with, as there is another disease which is the source of enormous loss to stud-breeders. If farmers are allowed to dispose of infected animals, where will these diseases stop? Many young farmers have been ruined through purchasing infected animals. I hope the Minister will seriously consider sending the Bill to a select committee and that he will eliminate tuberculosis from the lists of notifiable diseases and deal with it separately. Many of the regulations although suitable for diseases which can be cured by dipping and inoculation, do not apply to bovine tuberculosis.

I support the suggestion of the last speaker that the Bill should be sent to a select committee as it is a highly technical and very far-reaching measure. Unfortunately the Bill holds out no hope whatever for the unfortunate farmer, and this should be grasped Is it the wish of the farming representatives that any cattle-farmer who, through no fault of his own, becomes the owner of infected animals must place them in quarantine, and remain there indefinitely, or slaughter them? What hope is there of a farmer under such circumstances obtaining a fair price for animals sent to the abbatoirs to-day, seeing that they are practically unsaleable? Last week as low as three-halfpence a pound were bid for mutton in one of the largest stock markets in the Union. The position threatens ruin to a large number of farmers. To give an illustration as how it will work, two years ago a breeder of Frieslands in Natal, doing an extensive dairy business, suspected that they were infected with tuberculosis. Tests were carried out by Government officials, and infection was proved, and the farmer had to slaughter the whole herd. His direct loss was £6,000, but he also had to give up cattle-breeding, and his big dairy business and his sheds and plant are standing useless. That will be the fate of any farmer whose cattle contract a notifiable disease, under the terms of this Bill. The most sensible suggestion is to discuss the Bill in select committee, where it may be possible to devise some means of offering a ray of hope to farmers whose animals contract tuberculosis. The Minister believes in the big stick policy of “kill or cure,” and whether it is an English-speaking official in his department, an outbreak of scab or a locust he always resorts to the same policy, but it is not the slightest use for the Minister to pass measures empowering him to destroy stock wholesale and ruin farmers who are the unfortunate owners of infectious animals and punish them severely for not notifying the Department, unless he is prepared to face the question of compensation. The matter is really a national one, and if the country is to be freed of tuberculosis, for the benefit of the consumer, it is only right that the country should take its share of the responsibility. How is a farmer to know that his cattle are infected with tuberculosis? He is not allowed to test them himself, and there are by no means sufficient vets to do it for him. And yet if he fails to report he is to be fined £30 for the first offence and £50 for the second, and I strongly urge that this Bill be sent to a select committee composed of men who understand and appreciate the situation in all its bearings with a view to the drafting of a really workable and practicable measure. The farmer is not allowed to do it himself, because it is an offence against the law, and he cannot get a veterinary surgeon to do so for him because there are not a sufficient number, yet if he is discovered to have this disease amongst his animals and if it is not notified, he is liable to a penalty of £30 for a first offence and £50 for a second. Is there any measure of reason or justice in a law of this nature? It is going to defeat its own ends, because if you are going to make the punishment so serious you are going to have diseases hidden. Is he going to start with animals which are actively diseased and discover all those animals so that they cannot be a danger to others? There is no indication in the Bill; it simply says that a certain number of diseases are notifiable, and that if you have those diseases you have to report them, and if you do not do so, we can fine and punish you. The Minister may laugh, but it is a serious matter. It is all right for him sitting there in his well-paid office, and not caring what happens to the farmers on the veld, but it is we who have to pay the piper. If there is a committee of 12 practical men, they will give some suggestions how the Bill may be carried out.

It gives me great pleasure to see the way this Bill has been debated on both sides of the House. It is a special honour to the officers of my department, who are engaged on such difficult problems as the administration of the Stock Diseases Act. It makes me think that the officials are not so black as they are sometimes painted. As both sides of the House concur in the Bill, with the exception of a few honourable members, I want very briefly to reply to the few objections which were made about tuberculosis. The hon. member for Il-lovo (Mr. Marwick) is under a wrong impression that we want to evade our responsibility for tuberculosis, and put it on the town councils. That is not so at all. What we are doing is this—we feel that the municipalities are to a certain extent responsible for the towns, and we also feel that the tuberculosis question has been, to a great extent, neglected, so that the municipalities must now assist us in the matter. The hon. member accuses us of the neglect of tuberculosis. The Stock Diseases Act was passed in 1911, and the hon. member asked what has been done since. Well, the Act was passed by hon. members opposite and what did they do? Did they take one practical step in connection with tuberculosis during the fourteen years they were in office? We are, in any case, doing something. The position is serious, and as I said in the Senate, I am negotiating with the municipalities. Those negotiations have already failed. We have, however, negotiated again and we now have high hopes. Hon. members forget that the law lays down that the Minister can order the destruction or isolation of cattle infected with a disease. I have already pointed out that it will cost millions of pounds if we are to pay compensation for the animals destroyed. I hope that hon. members are not in favour of the Minister of Agriculture giving an order under the Act of 1911 that all sick animals must be isolated. What would become of the owners of those animals? It is better to follow a sensible policy; to gradually clean up those parts of the country and then to prohibit infected cattle going there. I cannot, however, agree with the drastic steps here recommended viz., to destroy the animals and to compel the taxpayer to compensate. As I have said frequently, I am not prepared to do so. It would be far too drastic, and I prefer to follow my policy of gradually cleaning up the country.

What was your agreement at Durban ?

I am not prepared, during negotiations with that municipality, to publish what the agreement is. Now I come to a few other points. It must be plain regarding tuberculosis that I am not able to take steps that have been suggested here. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) argued that I refused to have tests made unless the farmer promised that he would not ask for compensation. If I do not do so, and I compensate in one area, then I must do so everywhere. Therefore, it is my practice to always ask the farmer whether he is prepared to have his animals destroyed without compensation, and I will continue in that way. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) is becoming sensible. He is taking up a better attitude than he did in the past towards the Agriculture Department. I appreciate it. He has raised the case of a sheep farmer who treks and loses quite a lot of sheep through cold, or of a farmer who treks with poor sheep. He points out that the farmer will then have to go back to see whether the weak sheep are dead, and he thinks it cannot be expected of the farmer to come and bury sheep that have died of cold. Is the owner of the farm then to do it? Are we to expect him to bury the sheep? No, we must be fair. I was a trek boer myself for years and know the difficulties. We must also bear the interests of the land-owner in mind. As it is the road goes through his farm and if he still has to see to the dead animals being buried, then he will, in time, not be able to stand it there when the wind blows. We cannot allow the animals to lie about, we must meet him as far as possible. If, however, they lie there too long then we may expect the owner of the land to assist. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) spoke about scab in goats. He said that we now wanted practically new provisions in protected areas. That is not the case. He knows that I have done my best to meet people in his district as far as possible. I am glad to say that those people are quite ready, where there still is scab, to take any steps to eradicate it by means of a simultaneous dipping. I greatly appreciate it, and I can assure him that we will not take extraordinary drastic measures, although we intend to eradicate the disease. He also spoke about the destruction of stock. The intention is not to kill scabby stock, but to shoot animals like horses which have glanders. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) complains that we did not permit stock coming into certain districts in his neighbourhood. He was reckless enough to suggest that we could allow the cattle to die, because then there would be a better market for those that were left. I do not think he is serious in this, and I should like to know whether hon. members agree with him. Nor am I prepared to throw open those areas, as long as there is east coast fever in the Transkei, because if I did so it would be impossible to keep control over that disease. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) brought a few points to our notice. He said that it might often happen that it would be very far for a person to go and report the deaths. He makes an appeal to me to allow in such cases a report to be made to the police or J.P. I hope I shall be able to meet him at least halfway in the matter. He says that when a man unlawfully removes stock we must treat him in the same way as the man who is acting lawfully. The person who lawfully removes stock has a permit, and if we had to treat both in the same way, we should get into rather a difficult position. He also asks why in certain cases, compensation is paid and not in others. Provision is made for compensation in the case of tuberculosis, but not in east coast fever. Well, if we are going to compensate everyone, especially in the case of a disease like east coast fever, then there is a danger of our having people without consciences, and east cost fever would break out all over the country.

It would be a good market.

Yes, but my hon. friend will support me. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) said that the Minister ought not to be entitled to use his own discretion when notice had to be given in the districts where stock diseases prevailed. He wants the Minister to be obliged to announce it in the Gazette. It may be that the outbreak is not a very important one, and then the Minister will be obliged to fill that issue with advertisements and to incur all the expenses. That is a suggestion which comes from hon. members opposite, who say that we must not spend so much money. Then he raised the question of the removal of dead bodies. I have given my attention to that. He said further that it would lead to great trouble if there was the right of an appeal when an owner and a trek boer could not agree. I realize there will be great difficulties, and I will consider his suggestion. I have already replied to the points raised by the hon. member for Bredasdorp with regard to tuberculosis. He further stated that he appreciated the fact that the Minister was now taking steps to fight blue fly, but he thinks it would be unfair and impossible to ask the farmers to go and search all over large farms for a dead lamb. He therefore asks the department not to act drastically. The department knows the difficult circumstances farmers are often in, and we always try to administer legislation in such a way as to bear the particular circumstances in mind, and not to take drastic action; although we see to it that the law does not become a dead letter. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) said that his difficulties were with regard to the burial of animals in his district. I think it will be very unfair of any Minister of Agriculture to order steps to be taken against persons trekking owing to drought. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Wentzel) raised the question about the way animals should be buried. I just want to refer him to sub-clause (14) page 5 of the Bill, which says the Minister can issue regulations on the subject. He further asks for legislation to make the eradication of blue-fly compulsory. I think there is much to be said for it, but if we introduce legislation, we have to carry it out, and it would press heavily on some farmers. At present farmers are beginning to co-operate nicely and we ought rather to encourage their co-operation. To pass legislation would be a very drastic step and may lead to difficulties. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) spoke of the poor condition of our cattle. I do not intend to enlarge on the matter at this stage. We shall have an opportunity when on Monday I move the second reading of a Bill connected with it. The hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Dr. Bremer) said that we needed further legislation with reference to the blue bottle because we need further investigation. My department is making such further investigation. Then there are a few other members, like the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), and the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase), who want me to send this Bill, on which we are practically all agreed, to a Select Committee. This will be merely playing with the matter, and a waste of time. The few small differences that exist can be removed in Committee. An hon. member spoke about the inoculation of cattle infected with tuberculosis. The danger, however, is that unscrupulous people will bring the inoculated cattle to the market, with the result that the disease will not only extend amongst stock, but it will also be a danger to human beings. I think it is better to continue as in the past. The hon. member for Weenen, also spoke about the cattle that are shot, but I have already answered this in my replies to other members. I am glad of the way in which this Bill has been discussed, and now move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 3rd February.

I move:

The Natives (Urban Areas) Act, 1923, has now been in operation for six years, and this Amending Bill is designed to effect certain amendments which experience has shown to be necessary. It may be interesting to the House to know some of the amounts which have been expended by Urban Authorities since the Act came into operation and fairly heavy burdens have been passed on to these local authorities in urban areas. On the whole I think that the conditions generally in locations in Urban Areas throughout the Union have been improved. Loans of £200,000 have been granted under the Housing Act, 1920. In addition, since the inception of the Act local authorities have spent amounts borrowed privately totalling a very large sum. The Johannesburg City Council has spent £658,000, the Pietermaritzburg Council has spent £200,000, Pietermaritzburg £32,000 and the Pretoria Municipality has spent a large amount, the exact figures of which are not available. Some 48 Urban Areas have been proclaimed under Section 1 of the Act, and in all these cases where proclamations have been issued it has been remembered that accommodation must be provided for the natives in the locations. I may say generally that Pretoria, Johannesburg and Bloemfontein have taken full advantage of the facilities afforded under the Act. In Pretoria the Act is in the fullest operation and natives who are not in employment are under the strictest control. Up to the end of last year a large hostel for the accommodation of natives has been provided by the Municipality. In Johannesburg there has been very great difficulty in carrying out the provisions of the Act, and the city council has been compelled to deal with the question piecemeal. Later I propose to deal more fully with the position there. In Durban also great difficulty has been experienced, especially because of the task the Corporation has had in finding a suitable place where a location can be established, and it is sought by Section 4 of the present Bill to give the Durban Corporation power to obtain a suitable site for a location within the area of other local authorities. I will also deal with that later on. With regard to those locations that have been established, a native advisory board has been established in each case, and these have worked very well. With regard to the provisions of the present Bill I may say that the Bill was first introduced in the first session last year. It was then sent to a select committee which reported the Bill to the House, but it was not proceeded with further. Last session the Bill was also introduced and the first reading taken, but there was no opportunity of proceeding with it. I think for the convenience of hon. members I should just indicate what new provisions have been imported into the Bill since it was before the House last session. Clause 3 of the Bill is the same as old Clause 2, but Sub-section 6 is new. It deals with the restriction of the influx of natives into urban areas. Clause 4, which is the section I referred to just now, is also new, clause 5 is the same as old clause 3. The wording is slightly altered, but the effect is the same. Then clause 6 is the same as old clause 4. The wording slightly different, but the effect is the same. Clause 9 is the same as old clause 7, although the wording is slightly altered, and sub-section (b) is new. Clause 11 (g) is the same as old clause 9 (g), with the addition of sub-section (s) which is new. Section 12 of the Bill is also new; so is clause 15. Clause 16 is the same as clause 10 in the old Bill, but it was considered better to make it a substantive clause which entailed some amendments in the wording. If hon. members will keep in mind the new portions of the Bill, it may be of assistance in dealing with them later on. I may say that these new parts of the Bill are based mainly on the recommendations of the Native Affairs Commission, which was specially instructed to visit the larger urban areas and take evidence and make recommendations. I do not propose to deal with every clause of the Bill. Each clause will be more conveniently dealt with when we are in Committee. I think, however, it is necessary that I should deal briefly with the main principles embodied in some of the clauses. The first one I wish to deal with is clause 3 of the Bill, especially sub-section (d). It was found, in Johannesburg especially, that where a proclamation was issued under section 5 of the Act, compelling natives after a certain date to leave the urban area and to dwell in locations, native villages or hostels, that the courts held that a person harbouring any of these natives could not be punished unless it was proved that in the location, native village or hostel, sufficient accommodation had been provided by the municipal authorities. The result was that it was impossible for the Johannesburg municipality to deal with the whole urban area at once. And they have been dealing piece-meal, as I have said, declaring certain portions of the urban area as proclaimed and removing the natives from the portions so proclaimed. The result of that has been that, on the one hand the municipality has suffered through loss of rent of the houses which had to be built and could not be used until certain portions of the municipal area had been proclaimed, and on the other hand, it facilitated the movement of natives from the proclaimed area to neighbouring areas not proclaimed, so negativing the effectiveness of the Act. It is now proposed in the amendment proposed in section 3, that when an urban area has been proclaimed, the municipality shall have the right to serve notice on individual natives that, within a month, they must move to the location where there will be accommodation for them. It is further provided that as far as the natives are concerned, who remain in the urban area, but outside the location, the landlords will have to be licensed. They will be under the control of the municipality and in that way the question of slums in the areas occupied by the natives in the urban areas, will be effectively dealt with. The result will be where there is very serious congestion, and where the slums are very bad, that the municipality will be able to decide how many natives can reasonably be retained and that the landlord will have to be licensed and everything will have to be under control. It is felt by these provisions that the position will be very much improved in the Johannesburg area, and generally, wherever the same conditions prevail. Section 4 provides that where an urban authority acquires land within the jurisdiction of another local authority for the purpose of establishing a location, that land will cease to be under the jurisdiction of the local authority where it is situated, and it will fall under the jurisdiction of the municipality which has established the location. I think that is a very reasonable provision and as far as Durban is concerned, it is a very necessary condition, because Durban has no available land for the purpose of the placing of a location. But all the surrounding areas are subject to local health committees, and other local authorities, and those local authorities are prepared to allow Durban to acquire the land, but they want to have the control of that land themselves. I think that where a municipality goes to the trouble and expense of acquiring land for the especial purpose of establishing a location, it is only fair that that local authority should have the control. Now Section 5 of the Act deals with the question of regulations, and authority is there given to the municipality to deal with the question, which is a very difficult one in many of the urban areas, especially in Johannesburg, namely, the question of the female. Generally, in the past, females have practically had free access to the urban areas and, in many instances, this has caused a very undesirable state of affairs. In this amendment which is proposed, we give authority for the prohibition of the entrance of females into urban areas unless they have a certificate that there is accommodation for them, and there is a further provision in the case of those females who accompany their husbands, or in the case of single females, who accompany their fathers who have lived for two years in urban areas. I think when we come to the committee stage we shall probably be able to discuss that section further. Section 6 makes provision for the same effective control of natives who are undesirable. It really makes provision for the better control and dealing with undesirable natives in urban areas. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 may be more profitably dealt with in committee. Section (10) repeals clause 22 of the principal Act, but makes similar provision in different wording. It provides that the local authorities may let sites within a location or native village for trading or business purposes. The difference between the old section and the new one is that on the direction of the Minister it will be compulsory for an urban local authority to grant a licence for trading in a location. I understand that the Free State has very strong objections to that, but I hope we shall be able to deal with the point in committee. On the other hand, in other portions of the country local authorities are very anxious that such trading in locations should take place. As to section (11) a new sub-section (a) empowers a municipality under certain circumstances to control, supervise or restrict meetings or assemblies of natives within its urban area, provided that no meeting or assembly may be prohibited except with the special approval of the Minister. Clauses 12, 13 an 14 we can deal with in committee. Clause 15 has been introduced to give a local urban authority power to destroy condemned houses or dwellings, and has been introduced mainly to meet a certain position in Cape Town. Clause 16 is the same as clause 10 in the existing Act, and provides for the re-introduction of the curfew into Natal. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal further with the Bill at this stage. In committee we can deal fully with any point which may there arise.

On the motion of Mr. Duncan, debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.

I move—

I do not think it is necessary for me to make a long speech on this Bill. Hon. members will see that it is merely a business agreement between the South African Railways and the Milnerton Estate Company. It became necessary by the construction of the line which runs from Woltemade along the coast to the docks, in terms of the Act of 1927. Consequently the new line cuts the railway from Craig’s crossing to Milnerton. It is now necessary for half a mile to be pulled up between the main line and the new line. We opened negotiations with the Milnerton Estate Company and the agreement entered into is attached as a schedule to the Bill. All that is asked is approval of the terms of the agreement, so that in future the passengers for Milnerton and Tygerberg will have to board their train half a mile further off. I hope there will be no objection to the Bill. The fact that the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is interested in the agreement ought to be sufficient guarantee to hon. members opposite that the agreement is a good one in every respect.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and referred to the S.C. on Railways and Harbours for consideration and report.