The first outbreak of east coast fever in the Komgha district occurred in September, 1926. There were 13 cases and the last one was reported on January 6th, 1928. The expenditure by the department in connection with the outbreak up to 30th June, 1929, was £5,000, a veterinary surgeon and eleven inspectors being engaged on the work. The procedure generally was that, as soon as an outbreak was discovered, not only the infected farm, but the whole district was placed in quarantine and very severe restrictions were imposed on the removal of cattle within and out of that district, although only a wire fence may form the boundary with the adjoining district. Up to the present, east coast fever in the Komgha district has cost the country about £7,000 at a very low estimate and the expenditure is still running on. The farmers in the Komgha area are not satisfied with the methods adopted by the department for the eradication of east coast fever. I notice on the estimates a sum of £1,500 has been placed under B.3 for compensation for loss of stock, viz., stock destroyed in terms of Stock Diseases Acts, an increase of £500 on last year’s estimates. I would suggest that the time has arrived, in view of the difficulties and the losses sustained by the farmers, when there should be an alteration in the Government’s policy and that the matter should be more effectively dealt with.

Will you explain how the losses occurred?

Most of the farmers in that area are cattle farmers. They have not been able to sell their stock and, as the restrictions on the removal of cattle have been very effective, their stock has accumulated. I know of the case of a young farmer who has actually lost everything and was seeking work as a result of the restrictions. If the restrictions are not relaxed a good many more farmers will become insolvent. In fact had the drastic restrictions on removal not taken place I am convinced ruin would have stared them all in the face. You could very easily have destroyed those cattle, which would have been an effective way of dealing with this; instead of this these people have been under restrictions for four years. I hope the Minister will see that more effective steps are taken. This is not carping criticism; I am just as anxious as he is to get rid of it, because I do realize the disabilities under which these people are suffering. Steps should be taken to see that this wasteful expenditure is obviated, and the Minister should give his personal attention to the hardships under which these men have been suffering. The whole farming industry is to-day experiencing very difficult times and any restrictions of the free sale of their stock must be avoided as far as possible.

There are a few points that I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice. In the first place I visited Carnarvon a few days ago, and by chance the demonstration train happened to be there. I can assure the Minister that the train is not only highly valued, but that the farmers make great use of it. My complaint, however, is that they receive little from the train. Last Friday there were farmers who had come not less than 75 miles to attend the lectures, but after their coming so far and making great sacrifices, although the officials also made great sacrifices in the interests of the people, the train only stopped there one day, and it was only possible for the farmers to attend the lectures. They did not have a sufficient opportunity of going through the train and getting into touch with the people on the train. There was, e.g., a display of wool and many farmers took great interest in it, but there was no opportunity of looking at the wool with the officials, and of getting advice. I think it would be a good thing if the trains travelled a little slower, and stopped a little longer at some of the important places, otherwise time and money is wasted, and it does not answer the purpose. Furthermore, there are many sheep inspectors in the northwest and the farmers are satisfied with them, i.e., with their work. There is one thing that causes a little dissatisfaction, viz., that there is hardly one inspector who comes from the north-western district. They come from the Free State, Transvaal and even Natal. But there are many excellent sheep farmers in our part, and they know more about the circumstances there than the sheep inspectors that come from elsewhere. They feel that it is a little unjust. That not one of the inspectors hails from the north-west. The sons of the north-west best understand the local conditions. Another point of great importance to the farmers concerns the arrear railway dues which affects the Department of Railways as well as the Department of Agriculture. The Minister knows the history of it. Last year a frightful amount was paid off, and I think that there is still £37,000 owing. Last year £110,000 was paid off. I made enquiry about the class of person that pay, and found that almost without one exception all the middle class people pay. That is a class which is afraid of debt, and in many cases they went to the banks, and borrowed money at 8 per cent, to pay off the debt. They realize that the railways assisted them, and they did their utmost to pay their debt.

The hon. member cannot debate that subject.

It is a matter for which the Department of Agriculture is responsible in conjunction with the Railway Department.

The matter is already disposed of.

I do not want to go into the merits, but just to suggest something for improving the position. I am not talking about the writing off, but about the getting in of the expenses.

If it affects the Minister of Agriculture the hon. member can proceed.

Yes, the Minister of Agriculture is responsible. As for the very poor people a section have not yet paid, that is the section who are so poor that nothing can be got from them. Then there is a group of people which cannot be considered otherwise than well off, and who are still in debt. The Minister said that the time had come when the people would be compelled to pay. I would suggest that in each of the districts where there are amounts still outstanding a small commission should be appointed with the magistrate as chairman, and two or three farmers acquainted with local conditions to deal with each case on its merits. I do not think the farmers will expect payment. The position now is that the magistrate is asked what the financial position is of the people who owe money. At Carnarvon we have an excellent magistrate who is sympathetic towards the farmers, but he has not been there long, and does not know the circumstances of the farmers so well yet. I therefore recommend that the magistrate in each of the districts should investigate matters along with a few farmers. The Railway Department and the Department of Agriculture will recover much more money and the farmers will be quite satisfied. I discussed the matter with the farmers, and they are quite satisfied with this proposal. They feel that if people who can pay do not pay it will be detrimental to the farmers if they have in future to get help to trek with their stock. They see that the department might then say that when they had got cheap rates before they did not pay their debts. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said that where 50 per cent, of an industry desired co-operation the other 50 per cent, should be compelled to fall into line with them. That is a most preposterous suggestion and especially in a country where the people pride themselves on their love of liberty and freedom. The Minister rebuked the hon. member for Albert on this attitude, and yet ever since Parliament opened the Minister himself has consistently urged the desirability of co-operation of this nature, and has brought in measure after measure the aim of which is not merely to secure voluntary cooperation, but to force unwilling men into cooperative concerns. We have had no less than nine Bills, most of which have dealt with cooperation, and the others, while not exactly co-operative in their essence, have contained the principle of Government control. When I heard the Minister rebuke the hon. member for going too far, I began to think that perhaps some of our speeches on this side of the House had converted him, and that the scales were falling from his eyes. I want to refer to the question of erosion. The sum of £1,000 set down seems very small for so important a matter, because I think the subject of erosion ranks even above irrigation in importance. I hope that the country has awakened to the necessity of combating this evil. It is suggested that we stop the big sluits and uniting generally by putting barricades across them, and I see a possibility along those lines of doing a great deal of good, but most of the evil is not on the plains, but along our mountain slopes. The lack of adequate fencing and paddocking is a prolific cause of trouble, overstocking is another, and through these causes the soil is drifting away. You find whole slopes of mountain absolutely corrugated. That is a point which deserves the closest attention of the Government. The only remedy is to paddock such lands, and give them absolute rest. There are many parts of the country where it is impossible to do this owing to the conditions, especially in the native territories, but I think that this is the sole way of combating evil. I would also like to refer to the question of scab, and to ask the Minister whether the country is absolutely free from it, or whether there is not still a considerable amount of scab in various parts of it. I have lately been advised that the district of King William’s Town is full of scab. Basutoland, too, I am informed has scab, and also Herschel. In Basutoland they have only applied scab regulations during comparatively recent years, and it is not to be expected that they will wipe it out in a very short time considering the millions of sheep they possess and lack of equipment. Our district, Barkly East, was proclaimed free from scab in 1924. The recent outbreaks there have been due to sheep straying in from Basutoland or Herschel. We have urged the Government to come to our assistance in regard to erecting proper fences along the border. The present Minister has consistently evaded that issue. We have had fences along that boundry since prior to 1903, and from the time of their erection up to the early part of 1924, the previous Governments used to contribute towards their maintenance and paid not only half the cost of maintaining them, but also of their original construction. The present Government refused to render that assistance, and farmers have had to do it off their own bat. So much for the false claim that the present Government is the only true friend of the farmer. [Time limit.]

Many reproaches have been cast at the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, e.g., that we have done nothing for the farmers, and other hon. members asked what he has done. An attitude like that reminds one very much of the proverb, “ingratitude is universal.” It appears to be necessary to freshen up the memories of hon. members a little. I represent a district of cattle farmers, and they are very thankful for the partial prohibition on cattle coming from Rhodesia. In 1924 when the previous Government was in office 64,690 cattle came into our country from Rhodesia, but in 1927 the figures had dropped to 25,139. Moreover the Minister of Agriculture has eradicated scab. During the administration of the previous Government there were more than 14,315 infected flocks in 1923, but during the present Government’s regime the figure dropped in 1927 to 6,667. In 1924 there were only 26 clean districts, but in 1927 there were 187 of them. In the same way the Government also assisted the fruit farmers by making the agreement with the Union-Castle Line which meant a saving to them of £134,000. Other farmers who have been assisted are, amongst others, the wool farmers, who by the ¾d. tax per lb. on scoured wool save £500,000. The tobacco, and wheat farmers also got assistance from the Government, but there is yet another kind of farmer whose interest no one has advocated, viz., the groundnut farmers. The northern Transvaal, and especially the district I represent is particularly suited to ground nuts, and the farmers have started to produce or, a large scale. Unfortunately an unhealthy competition has come from East Africa, and those farmers have been brought under the impression by the other side that that competition has come about owing to the Mocambique treaty. I am very glad that the Minister of Finance has made it clear that the Mocambique treaty has nothing to do with it. I have the treaty here, and the annexure says that everything can come in free except groundnuts. Groundnuts for industrial purposes can, however, come in free under the Act of 1925, but what prevents the trader importing groundnuts for industrial purposes and then selling them? We would have preferred the tax to have been 5s. instead of 3s. on groundnuts, and we hope that the Minister will see his way also to put a tax on the importation of ground nuts for use. I want again to express my hearty thanks or the Minister for what he has already done and to emphasise that the Mocambique treaty has nothing to do with the importation of groundnuts. It is said that the groundnuts are required for establishing our soap factories, but I hope that the Minister will avail himself of the first opportunity he gets to assist the groundnut farmers in this respect.

Of course, the Minister will realize that discussions on these matters must necessarily be somewhat disjointed. I want to congratulate the Minister upon the handling of his poultry division in the working of which he takes a keen interest. Of course he makes mistakes, but we can always forgive a man’s mistakes when he is earnest and keen.

What do you want?

I do not want anything. That is an honest and sincere tribute to the hon. Minister. I want to compliment him upon his poultry division and the very fine men he has there. The thanks of members such as myself are due to these men for the work they are doing and their capacity. I would like to mention his chief, Mr. Jordaan, and Mr. Theron, and the others are of equal status.

made an interjection.

I have had no personal contact with them so I cannot say whether it is due to the Minister or to his staff in particular, but there is no doubt our poultry in South Africa is going ahead by leaps and bounds —especially the egg side of it. I want to help the Minister if I can to strengthen and extend that division. I would suggest that it is just as well not to confine ourselves to the production and sale of eggs. I think the Minister has realized it, but I want to spur him on if I can. He will want more men and will have to appeal to the hon. Minister of Finance to support him, but it warrants a little more money being spent, and an increase in personnel. I would like particularly to direct his attention to table poultry. I understand—it may be an exaggeration but there is a good deal of truth in it—that the whole of the poultry industry of South Africa, so far as table poultry is concerned, is not yet sufficient to supply the Johannesburg market. With the small exports at the moment, the overseas markets take our poultry with the utmost avidity. Along these lines, lies a tremendous scope for development. I suggest that two or three experts on the subject be obtained to give advice to those anxious to produce table poultry as to the breeding strains and feeding, etc. Lots of private people and clubs are taking up this question but naturally their resources and opportunities of research are limited, and it is in this direction the Minister can help. There is another matter I would like to deal with, to which I was referring on another occasion when I was ruled out of order. I have been ruled out of order so often that I cannot remember the details, but whether or no I wish to have the sympathy of the Minister. I would suggest to the Minister that the Land Bank should adopt a more sympathetic attitude when dealing with those who have met with misfortune. I particularly refer to the East Rand Co-operative Society, a horticultural society which is producing fruit. It is composed entirely of working men, who, whilst carrying on their industry, are endeavouring to build up a reserve towards a home where they can hope to end their days in peace, and meanwhile, they formed a co-operative society and borrowed some money from the Land Bank to make that concern a flourishing institution. They have a packing shed; they bought lorries and all the necessary appurtanences for the distribution of fruit. All our products—tobacco, cotton, eggs, fowls, fruit, maize, everything— the problem is not so much that of production, but rather of distribution. They borrowed this money, and they were faced with three consecutive years, unfortunately, of hail. In the second year, the Land Bank called in their money. I personally made representations to the Land Bank, and they temporarily withdrew that demand. Then there intervened another hailstorm, which destroyed all their fruit and half their trees. Just at that moment, because they could not, by reason of the fact that nature was working against them, meet their commitments, the Land Bank foreclosed again. They actually foreclosed. Not only did the Land Bank insist upon the repayment of the full amount, but they collared all the machinery, and the lorries. They even took over the packing shed, and made it impossible for these men, even if they could produce the fruit, to pay back the loan. I hope the hon. Minister will look into this question. I say it is better for the state to abandon all that money and give these men an opportunity of getting on their feet again, than it is to squeeze this money out of them and make it impossible for them to establish themselves in the future. They are earnest men, and they are anxious to succeed. They are doing all they can. They are bringing scientific methods to bear on their work, but nature has robbed them of the fruits of their toil. I ask the Minister, as he is strong, to be merciful, and as he is equally strong, to bring that strength to bear upon the Minister of Finance who will, I hope, approach the Land Bank in this respect. I hope for another opportunity, later on, to bring up one or two other matters which will take a longer time to deal with.

I should like to ask whether the Minister knows that my constituency is chiefly dependent on tobacco culture and wheat. There are two experimental stations on which we depend for information, and I have received complaints—I hope they are groundless—that the farmers apply for information to those stations, but that they cannot get it, because the stations are not efficient. The farmers asked, e.g., what kind of wheat they should sow, and the reply from the officials was that they did not know. The farmers then have to follow their own ideas. I should like to know from the Minister whether those experimental stations are efficient, and whether experiments are made with wheat which is free from rust, and what we can plant in that neighbourhood. Many poor people will then have an opportunity of making a living. In connection with tobacco, we are much troubled with the pest which is known as wild fire. It sometimes destroys the whole harvest. I should like to know whether experiments are made to find out what the cause of it, and what remedies should be used against it because the farmers cannot find it out. I hope that the Minister will enlighten me on these points. I now also want to come to the question of maize. I do not represent a large maize district, but I am not quite satisfied with what has been said here about the matter. I do not agree with the opinion expressed here that co-operation ought to be made compulsory. Co-operation can only be effective if it is voluntary. Hon. members will possibly mention the case of the Co-operative Wine Farmers’ Association, and the Tobacco Co-operative Society. The latter is not a success, and the wine farmers are in a different position. They are a comparatively small group, and live close together. The maize farmers are however spread over the whole country, and you have all the natives planting mealies.

If it were not for compulsory tobacco co-operation you would not be able to sell your tobacco.

No, not so easily. But what is the position to-day? We, who cooperate, have to build warehouses for all. We have to do something because we cannot possibly produce maize and sell it at 7s. a bag, but I do not agree that we ought to come here and attack the Minister about the matter. It is the duty of the farmers to come together, and not to differ here amongst themselves about the matter. We must first decide what we want, and then we must go to the Government as one man. We must allow the maize all to go through one channel at a fixed price, but it is our duty to join hands, and we must not expect the Government to do it for us. We must have less party politics in connection with agricultural matters. We are indulging in party politics, and the interests of the farmers are neglected. Hon. members opposite, and hon. members on this side must join hands and decide what the interests of agriculture require. But if we cannot co-operate here how then can we expect people outside to co-operate? We must work together more here, and in connection with tobacco, maize, and all the various produce we must agree on what is to be done, and then we can go to the Minister concerned.

The only answer the Minister of Agriculture could give to the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) was that we must put on the brake. The object of the hon. member for Albert was to get better markets for our produce. I do not want to go into the merits of compulsory co-operation, but the Minister says that we must put on the brake and must go back to the ox in order to be able to produce maize cheaper. It is an astonishing answer for a Minister of Agriculture. Why then not advise us to go back to prehistoric times and to use the pick? That will be still cheaper. The Minister ought to urge us to produce on a larger scale Instead of that he advises us to go back to the pick. We are from time to time disappointed by the Minister when we discuss agricultural problems. Where we expected a lead from the Minister of Agriculture we have only found slackness. When we want enthusiasm from him we get nothing else but weakness. It is very deplorable. I want the Minister to tell me the reason why, when the director of agriculture and stock breeding was sent throughout the whole civilized world to study our cattle farming and the meat market, he was transferred on his return to the Department of Native Affairs? What was the benefit derived from his mission? It cost the country a few hundred pounds. I notice that there has been an amount of £99 for entertainment purposes. That was, of course, given him for going more fully into matters and getting information. All that is lost, and the Director of Agriculture and of Stock Breeding is the only one who benefited by it. Then I would like to ask the Minister what the result is of the experiment by the department in connection with the supply of sheep to farmers for cross-breeding purposes. Is this work that should be done by private persons, or that the department should undertake? Can we expect good results if it is done by private people? It is work in connection with which the department ought to specialize, but the Minister gives the sheep gratis to the farmers without any responsibility being taken, and he does it to have experiments made in connection with cross-breeding. I think that is wrong. Then I would like the Minister to say what he has done in connection with scab on the farm Trooilaps Pan. As the Minister knows, there is an awkward state of affairs there. The owner states that his sheep have already been dipped 11 or 12 times, but the scab still continues. Has the Minister taken steps against the inspector in connection with the position? Does it meet with his approval that the state of affairs should continue? Then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the agricultural unions feel that when they sometimes make recommendations to the Minister he Rejects them and takes the advice of private farmers’ associations, who do not speak through the agricultural union. They feel that the Minister should not rely so much on the recommendations of private farmers, recommendations which often conflict with the definite advice of the agricultural union. Then I should like to know under what regulations the inspectors are being appointed. An hon. member opposite complained that the inspector in his district did not come from that district. I would like to ask whether the regulation does not provide that when anyone is appointed as an inspector he cannot remain in his own district. If it is so, I should like to know why in the district of Piet Retief, where the Minister resides, the inspectors can remain on their farms. They are rich men.

How do you know that?

Does Mr. Piet Rabie happen to be a poor man? He is a sheep farmer and land owner. I state in this connection that the Minister ought to appoint poor people, and not the people who are independent. Then I want to ask the Minister a question in connection with the export of meat. What steps have been taken to prevent bad meat being exported? I put a question to the Minister in connection with meat which was sent to England, and which was condemned as bad on arrival. The Minister replied that there was one consignment that was rejected. According to our information, there were two consignments, one of liver and tongue and one of beef. I have here an extract from a correspondent in London—

I am glad that I have another opportunity of speaking. My friend, the hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts), did not attack the Minister of Agriculture, but me, in connection with compulsory co-operation. But at the end of his speech he also advocated compulsory co-operation. The hon. member said that the maize farmers must stand together, and must then tell the Government that this or the other must be done, and that they must fix the price. If that is not compulsory co-operation I do not know what is. In any event the hon. member for Magaliesberg and I stand on the same footing, but the hon. member merely misunderstood me. It is not my object to get the Government to provide by legislation that farmers must co-operate. I speak from my own experience when I speak on co-operation. Take the case of a group of farmers, say, 100 farmers establishing a cooperative society in a district, and selling their mealies in a co-operative way. 95 per cent, are loyal to the organization, but five of them are disloyal and undermine their co-operative society. I ask hon. members whether it is right to allow the five disloyal ones to make the work of the whole organization useless?

You spoke of 50 and not of 95.

I only gave it as an example. When the farmers establish a cooperative society then every member must be compelled to stand by it, and we must not allow a section of the farmers to try and make a success of the co-operative society, and the others to get the advantage of such an organization, but yet to pass their own society by. The existing Act says that as soon as there are farmers representing 75 per cent, of the production that want to form a co-operative society, they have the right to come to Parliament to compel the remaining 25 per cent, to join the society. All that I suggested was to make 50 per cent, instead of 25, but if hon. members think that that is too low we can, e.g., make it 55 per cent. When I oppose the hon. member for Magaliesberg I am not making a personal attack on him, and we do not want to make a party matter of this. I think we ought to encourage that compulsory co-operation, and if the Minister says that he is against it, then I, as a simple farmer, cannot agree with him. The Minister does a great deal for co-operation among farmers, and I want to appeal to him to encourage co-operation, and as soon as there are a certain number of farmers who co-operate, then he must make it compulsory in that district. I can understand that the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) saying that it is “preposterous” to say that if 50 per cent, of the farmers co-operate the other 50 per cent, should be compelled to co-operate. If I am not wrong the hon. member is a member of an organization which calls itself a cooperative society, viz., the F.C.U.

No, I am not a member.

Well, then, hon. members opposite, like the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) are members. That organization calls itself a co-operative society, but the members are allowed to sell their produce where they wish. It is, therefore, a speculative undertaking, and not like the boersamwerk, e.g., which is actually a co-operative society.

The hon. member cannot wander so far from the vote. He now making a second budget speech.

Well, then, I will not mention any names, and will speak about the principle of co-operation. There is a certain organization which calls itself a co-operative society which gives its members the liberty of selling to whom they wish. In my opinion such an organization ought not to be registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Say, e.g., that the hon. member for Aliwal North were a member of such an association and sold his wool to a speculator, and that speculator in turn sent the wool to his organization, then it makes a farce of co-operation. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to enquire what can be done to prevent that. At every show we see the advertisement, “co-operation without compulsion,” but they are organizations which, nevertheless, buy thousands of bales of wool from speculators.

What have you against us?

Yes, I can quite understand that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) is against compulsory co-operation because it would result in putting an end to his business. The Minister of Agriculture ought to see that the co-operative societies should not be allowed to carry on business with the wool of dealers. They ought only to do business with the shareholders, or with farmers. I do not agree with the Minister when he says that they also may not carry on business with farmers who are not members. A co-operative society must do propaganda work, and the best propaganda work is that a society should also handle the produce of non-members, and in that way convince the non-member of the benefits of co-operation. We had the example in the Western Province of compulsory co-operation among the wine farmers. Where would they have been to-day without that compulsory co-operation? It was their salvation, and in the same way we will make a success of maize, wheat and all the other produce when we introduce compulsory co-operation. [Time limit.]

I want to say a word or two to the Minister of Agriculture about our citrus export, and I hope he will give me credit for doing all I can to help the industry, and for having no desire to hinder him in his work. We all know that the last season was a disastrous one. All sorts of reasons are given for that. One reason given is that we irritated our best customer, and another is that we were not careful enough in the quality of the stuff we sent overseas. I think the latter reason is the real one. Our trade commissioner, Mr. Dimond, says in the Commercial and Industrial Gazette, a Government paper, issued monthly by the Board of Trade and Industries, that the prices realized in 1929 must have come as a severe shock. The reason for the low prices is given by him. He says it was the appearance on the market of large quantities of oranges from all quarters of a type and quality that would not be welcomed under any circumstances. It is not South Africa only who has reason to cogitate on the disastrous season, according to Mr. Dimond. Both California and Brazil have reason to do the same thing, as the Californian and Brazilian crops contained a large quantity of small oranges. There were juiceless and stringy oranges sent to London according to Mr. Dimond. These come from young trees, and, therefore, I hope that the Minister will see that more care is exercised by the inspectors. Then Mr. Dimond says that discrimination should be shown even in sending good fruit of the large size. We should avoid sending nothing less than eighties, but as few as possible of eighties and ninety-sixes. Mr. Dimond says he hopes to see steps taken before next season which will remove a good deal of the grounds for complaint. He says that the hands of the inspection staff should be strengthened. There is a good deal of room for research and experiment. Then he eulogizes the work of the empire marketing board. That, I think, we will all agree with. The empire marketing board have done all they could to facilitate the sale of South African oranges in London. He says further that visits were paid to various shops in England to find out the reasons why South African oranges were not used, and the reasons given were: “You are no friends of ours,” and also that the oranges were sour. Other complaints were that the fruit was dry, wasting, coarse skinned and of poor flavour. What I want to point out is that we are allowing oranges to go out of this country which should not be shipped. I also want to point out what is done in London. We know that all the people are not too well principled, and that when a man can buy oranges cheap and put a good man’s label on them, he will do it. On the costers’ barrows the following announcement was made with regard to their fruit: “Guaranteed all sweet; not mixed with sour South African oranges.” Is not that a terrible thing to have said of our produce, which I think is some of the best in the world? This is caused through our sending faulty fruit. I see that regulations have now been issued regarding these sour oranges, and I want to give the Minister credit for trying to do the next best thing in the circumstances, that is to insist that every orange shall be stamped “sour” with letters a quarter-of-an inch in height. That is different from what he stated in the House, that the packages and wrappers only be marked “sour.” But I want to point out to the Minister that another thing has occurred which I warned him about when we last discussed this subject. England and the continent contain a lot of ignorant people, and some of them will take the stamp “suur” as another brand of oranges. I hope they will not taste them, because if they do they will give us a very bad name. We know that each grower is levied to the extent of 5s. per ton, which amounts to 3½d. per case. Last year some of the growers did not get 1s. per box nett for their oranges. That makes it a serious matter for them.

I am very glad that the hon. member who has just sat down has found out how hostile their action was in the past towards the citrus farmers of the Union. They disapproved a week or so ago of regulations being issued by which sour oranges are being exported to overseas. Now that he has seen the regulations, the same member says that we were quite right to issue those regulations.

On a point of explanation, would the Minister mind putting that in English? I find his Afrikaans a little difficult to understand. What I said was that in putting the letters “suur” on these oranges, the Minister was doing his best to make his oranges unsaleable.

I say that the hon. member is now approving of the regulations which he recently disapproved of. Some weeks ago he disapproved of them, but now that the citrus exchange have disapproved of hon. members dragging this matter into the political arena, they draw back, and now they approve of the regulations. The hon. member need not be afraid that I will put the word “sour” on the oranges. We shall put the word “sour” on them for sale overseas. There will, therefore, be no danger that the oranges will be regarded as a particular mark. The hon. member further said that we had angered our best friends overseas, and that it was on that account that the orange market was so bad last year.

I did not exactly say that; what I said was, some people said so.

But why repeat it here that the market was bad because we had angered our best friends? It is a thing which is said every day on the countryside by members of the South African party, although they know that it is not true. In regard to this matter, I may say that England is satisfied with the produce we send, and receive and to sell. The hon. member rays that certain people say so, but why cannot it be repeated here so that other countries should get to know it? Now he says that we must not send large oranges. We must first look for a market, but when we have the market then first we may not send sour oranges, and thereafter once more we may not send large oranges. What then are we eventually to send? I do not follow the hon. member’s argument and his motive. The orange market was bad last year because there was a big harvest in Brazil, but my information this year is that there will not be such a big harvest, and, therefore, the orange farmers can expect to get better prices. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) said here that the farmers in his district have been struggling for four years now under the east coast fever regulations. My district has been struggling for 27 years under them. It is not a disease which can so easily be eradicated, and it is not a disease we can play with. It is difficult and treacherous. To-day it breaks out here, and to-morrow at some other place. The hon. member admits that the regulations have been made easier and why does he now plead for them to be made still easier? No. I am not going to do it because it is a serious matter which we have to face. He complains of the high cost. It cannot be otherwise, because if we are to fight stock diseases and get rid of them, then we must incur expense. I do not want to go into the details of the matter here. He says, however, the people are going bankrupt. It is possible. If there is an extraordinary disease then special steps have to be taken, but I have never yet heard of people having gone bankrupt in consequence of the regulations. He says that there is £1,500 on the estimates for the payment of damages, and that it is too little. Are we then to compensate people for the low prices of stock, because there is east coast fever in a district? The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Sauer) complained that the demonstration train did not stop longer than one day at a place when people sometimes came more than 75 miles to attend the lectures. I have often visited the train, and I can assure the hon. member that one can easily go through the whole train, which is not very long, in one day, and also attend all the lectures. Our experience is that on the second day the people, for the most part, have left, and there is not much interest. Then such a train would stop there, and cause unnecessary expense. I will, however, make enquiries, and If there are places who so much love the train we shall possibly be able to arrange to let the train stop longer. Then the hon. member said that there were so many inspectors in the north-west. There are possibly many inspectors there now because the control staff is there. They are engaged in cleaning those areas. The hon. member also complains that no inspectors were appointed from the north-west. I can tell the hon. member that if we were to go through the appointments it will be found that out of every two appointments one was from the Cape Province. We must not show a provincial spirit.

I only spoke about those areas there.

Several inspectors have been appointed by the present Government who came from the northwest. Then the hon. member spoke about arrears of railways debts. He said exactly what I said a little while ago, viz., that the poor people and the middle classes paid their debts as far as ever possible, but that there were a number of rich people who did not pay. I will consider the suggestion he has made. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has once more brought up the old matter of the fence between the districts of Her3chel and Basutoland. I have already repeatedly said that if the Herschel farmers want to fence, Basutoland is prepared to pay half the expense. In the same way that I have to pay half, and my neighbours half, if we want to fence our farms the farmers will also have to pay half in that case.

We are prepared to do so.

Why then do you not do so? Then he complained about the small amount which is made available in connection with erosion. That is a matter to which the owners should themselves attend. This amount is merely for the necessary instruction of the farmers. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) spoke about the poultry industry. I appreciate the way in which he praised the officials for their work. If it is necessary to increase the staff we will consider it, but I hope we shall be able to continue with the staff I have at my disposal. He also spoke about the Land Bank. The difficulty, inter alia, is that certain co-operative societies have gone wrong. The hon. member knows that the Land Bank is conducted on a business footing, and it is very difficult for the Government to tell the Land Bank what to do. If we were to decide to make a Government institution of it, I fear that many difficulties would arise. The hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts) asked whether our experimental stations were answering their purpose. Yes. He further asked whether we were trying rustproof wheat in the various districts in the country. Yes. But nature in our country is often, or usually so unfriendly that after two or three years the climate affects the rustproof wheat, and rust, nevertheless, gets into the wheat. We are still looking out for a kind of wheat which will continue to be rustproof. If farmers get no satisfaction from the experimental stations they can write to the Secretary for Agriculture. The department is always prepared to send an official. Then the hon. member spoke about wildfire in tobacco; the department has made enquiries, and even purified the seed. Pamphlets have also been issued in connection with it. With regard to maize, hon. members say that we must do something, but they do not bring up concrete proposals. I have already said that I am not prepared to adopt compulsory co-operation. Now I come to the hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend). One might forgive him a little because he is still a little young, and he sometimes says irresponsible things. He spoke of two consignments of meat which were sent to Europe and rejected. I have already in answer to a question, told the hon. member that there was one consignment, with which I regret to say something apparently went wrong. I do not know whether it happened on the ship, in the cold storage, or before the meat was inspected. I have not yet received a final report. I can, however, say that I only know of one consignment, and that I have given instructions that the inspection should be very carefully conducted in future. Then the hon. member spoke about the appointment of sheep inspectors, and asked why some of them were appointed in the district where they resided. It is left entirely to the discretion of the Minister. He mentioned the name of Mr. Piet Rabie. He is a farmer’s son, and his father, I may say for the information of the hon. member, is a great supporter of the South African party. He is a very good inspector, and does his duty. If Mr. Rabie does not do his duty because he attends to his own farm too much I will certainly intervene. Then he mentioned the name of Mr. Piet Bannewater. He is no longer alive, and he was appointed under the previous Government. He lived on his farm. Then it was not wrong, but now in the case of Mr. Rabie it is a sin. Then the hon. member argued that I ought to pay more attention to the advice of the Natal Agricultural Union than to that of private farmers.

I spoke of the agricultural unions in general.

If I get better advice according to the view of my department, and according to my own ideas from private farmers than from the agricultural union, then I need not reject the advice of the farmers. If the advice of the agricultural unions is sound, we will attend to it, but then it must not be of such a dictatorial nature as the advice that the Natal Union wants to give us. In this connection I quoted a letter which I wrote to them, and in which I, in a very friendly way, called attention to this. I refuse absolutely to be dictated to in that way. Then he spoke about scab on the farm of Mr. Hayward in the north-west where sheep have already been dipped twelve times without eradicating scab. It is a very big farm, and scab recurred every time. Mr. Hayward has now come to see us, and said that he would give attention to the matter himself; and he would be able to eradicate scab himself. We approved of it provided he dipped all his sheep; thereafter further telegrams came that they only wanted to dip a portion of them. It will be no use, and we will see to it that all are dipped, so that scab will eventually be entirely eradicated there. Then the question of the crossing of sheep was discussed; with that object I tried to give a few farmers sheep, and I hope it will be a success, but that method is not quite satisfactory, and the department is now making the experiments chiefly on the agricultural schools. Then an hon. member attacked me because a high official of the Veterinary Department after a journey to the Argentine had been transferred to another department. The officer was transferred on account of the policy laid down by the chiefs of the department in 1926. The hon. member will know that the department consisted of about fourteen sub-departments, and we reduced the number to six. It was with reference to that alteration that we put the Veterinary Department under stock breeding where it belonged. The hon. member said that the advice of the official is now lost; that is not the case, and a proper report was made which the hon. member can see if he wishes. Then the hon. member complains about my saying that he went too far with his recommendations of motor tractors. I said that we must follow the old method of ploughing by oxen, and must be slow in making changes. The hon. member said that every farmer ought to buy a motor tractor. It may be a big thing for the farmer who has a very big farm and plenty of money, but I want to warn the farmers because a tractor costs much more, and it is much more profitable, especially to the small farmers, to use oxen. The farmer must beware against the cost of production becoming too high. I do not think that I need again reply to the speech of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) with reference to compulsory cooperation because I did so in my previous speech. Then there is the further question of the export of sheep. Let me say that I exported two lambs in cold storage accommodation to England. The result was satisfactory because we got a higher price than in Cape Town, viz., 5¾d. a 1b. net. We intended to send a further experimental consignment, but I received a cable from the High Commissioner saying that at the moment there was a surplus of mutton in England and that the market in, consequence was weak. Accordingly we will not send it now, but rather wait a few months until the market has improved.

I am sorry that the Minister objected to our discussing the question of citrus oranges in the House. The Minister knows that a very large capital is invested in citrus oranges, and we did not debate the question with any intention of making party capital out of it, but we only did so to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister and the House. We have the fullest right to do so. Where else can we discuss the interests of the farmers except under this heading? I know that the Minister is acting contrary to the view of the citrus exchange if he allows those sour oranges to be exported. We have been debating the position of the maize and grain farmers this afternoon, and I am sorry that the Minister was not able to give us a little comfort by saying that the Government will be able to assist those farmers. The Minister said that the position of the farmers in Australia was still worse and he advised the farmers to co-operate. Co-operation is a good thing, but at the moment we are in trouble, and, in my opinion, the Minister should devise a scheme by which we can get rid of the surplus of grain and mealies in as cheap a way as possible as regards transport. There is another matter which comes under the Minister’s estimates, and where in my opinion the Minister can assist the farmers. It is the yield of Government guano. The Government during the past year has sold 77,750 lbs. of guano, etc., and the cost of administration was £51,500; this shows a surplus of more than £22,000 a year. The farmers to-day pay £7 a ton for guano. I will frankly admit that the experts think that that is cheap, and that the guano is worth much more than £7 a ton. But I think that we have here to do with a product on which the State ought not to make a profit. If I remember rightly guano cost £5 years ago, and even if the Minister brought the price down to £5 he will still suffer no loss, because 9,000 tons a year is produced. In my opinion the Minister cannot assist the grain farmers in this respect only, but must also assist the horticulturists and other farmers. The Minister must his my opinion, try to get the consent of the Minister of Finance to bring the price of guano down to £5. I think this will be well received by the farmers, and it will be of great help to further development. This is an indirect form of assistance which the Minister can give to our farmers.

I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the necessity of establishing agricultural banks in the country. There is a surplus of lucerne and grain in the country and we must now bring the matter to the notice of the farmers. I mention it here in order that the public may think about it. I also want to congratulate the Minister on what he is doing in connection with the survey of land. Last year I brought the question of white labour in the agricultural schools to the notice of the Minister. It is a question of policy and so I mention it here. The Minister said that he was making experiments in the matter, and that he would go further if the experiments proved successful. I hope that he will be able to tell us that the experiments were successful, and that a more expended use of white labour will result at the agricultural schools. I also hope that the Minister will go further and will build small houses—as small as possible, and as cheap and effective as possible—for those white labourers, so that they can serve as a model for the cottages which will subsequently be required when those people are put on settlements. Further, I have here a telegram received from the Secretary of the Cape Agricultural Union to bring the position of the chicory farmers to the notice of the Minister. I have before me the report of two officials of the marketing and agricultural economy department on the chicory industry at Alexandria. The report was submitted to the Minister in 1929, and although it is clear that those chicory farmers have a monopoly they are absolutely exploited by the buyers and agents, and to such an extent that they can hardly make a living. The position was so serious that they were obliged to form a cooperative society. The number of farmers is about 140, and 100 of them have already become members of the society. If the number is 140 then it is just on the borders of the quantity which is required by law before they can apply for compulsion. The producers realize that they cannot go on as at present. They want compulsion and expect the department to assist them in the matter. There are already more than 100 of the farmers out of the 140 who are members of the co-operative society. Unfortunately we have already reached the stage in the session that we are prevented from proposing here that chicory should also be included as one of the agricultural products in the Act which provides for compulsion. I hope, however, that these farmers will have the sympathy of the Minister, and if he cannot do it this year then he must give assistance next year so that the society may get control over all the chicory. I have the report before me, and the recommendations amount to this that the farmers have to send their chicory roots for proper cooling to the association That they are there to be classified into three grades, and that advances must be given that the management must have a fixed policy in regard to prices, that the factories must be fairly treated, and that the association must do its best to improve the quality of the article. The conclusion of the matter is that if that is done the farmers will be better rewarded for their work. To a great extent I favour compulsory co-operation. I feel that we ought to observe that the professional planters protect themselves. They compel no one to join a definite profession, but when a person becomes an advocate or a doctor he must join up with the professional association concerned. I think the time has come when a farmer decides to become a chicory farmer, and that industry thinks that its interests demand that there should be a co-operative society to control the products, then he ought to be compelled to join that society. The same applies to the other branches of farming. We compel no one to become a farmer, and if a person has become a farmer then we do not prescribe what kind of farming he is to do, but when a person decides to apply himself to a specific branch of farming, then we must follow the example of the professions and make it compulsory for him to join the association which that branch of farming considers necessary for the protection of its interests. If we do that then we shall be able to make great progress. This presumes that the co-operative societies are already in existence there. When the Act speaks of 75 per cent, it presumes a co-operative society which is so strong as to be able to handle the products of the non-members. The Act does not say that the rest of the farmers who produce that specific article must become members of the society, but that they must allow their produce to be handled through the co-operative society. If the society is not allowed to handle those products then they are practically made a present of to the grocers. The co-operative society can only be a force if all the farmers belong to it. I therefore hope that the Minister will attend to the appeal which the chicory farmers have made to him. I also hope, and I may possibly be optimistic, that it will not stop at the chicory farmers, but that the farmers throughout the Union will follow the example of the wine and tobacco farmers, although in closely defined areas, and will see that the farmer will advance his own interests for the farmer and through the farmer. I also hope that the farmers wall learn themselves to look after the financial basis of the co-operative societies that they will collect funds with the assistance of the Government to be able to properly protect themselves. To the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) and other hon. members I want to point out that there is something wrong when a farmer gets 3d. a lb. for beef, and the consumer has to pay from 11d. to 13d. If that is the position then there must be a far-reaching exploitation of the farmer and of the consumer. [Time limit.]

The Minister of Agriculture is going through the salutary process of being told by the Opposition what they think of his administration of an important State department. What the Minister has endured in the nature of criticism to-night is a mere nothing to what he is to have at the hands of the farmers of the Union. They are beginning to find him out. The test of his efficiency is the state of the farmer to-day. If we want to determine whether the Minister has made a success of his job as the champion of the interests of the farmer, we must ask, what is the position of the farmer—is he satisfied, prosperous or content? Has his confidence in the Department of Agriculture been enhanced during the Minister’s period of office?

Certainly.

It has not been. Are the markets for the farmers’ produce adequate and satisfactory, and are they markets at which produce is sold at a margin of profit? Is agriculture pulsing with life and activity to-day? Are the farms improving, and are the farmers’ bank balances improving every year? Has there been a steady increase in the agricultural population of this country during the Minister’s period of office? What steps has he taken to see that there is such a desirable increase? One of the most important things in this country is to see that there is an increase in the agricultural population, and that the whole of that population is prosperous. Have the farmers a sense of security for the future? In other words, do they trust the Minister? The answer is, “No.” The Minister promised the farmers prosperity, and what have they got? Poverty. Let me point out how negligent he has been. I have received to-day from the Durban Chamber of Commerce, most appropriately, a statement respecting one matter that the Minister has neglected. For over two years the trade which deals in farmers’ implements and machinery and so on has pointed out to the Railway Administration that, in view of the saving in truck space, when these implements are consigned packed in cases, a lower rate should be charged. The Railway Administration has, however, increased the railage charges. This is the way the championship of the farmers is being carried out to-day, and this is done when the agricultural industry is experiencing great difficulties on account of the low prices obtainable for agricultural produce. It is unsound that the railage rates on agricultural implements should be increased at such a time as the present, and it would certainly appear desirable that an explanation from the Government should be called for. A table is given in the communication of the Chamber of Commerce, and in it there is an indication of the amount—

I do not think you can refer to that now.

But this is the very instance I want to demonstrate, how the Minister has failed to take care of the farmers’ interests. The increase in rates averages 46 per cent., notwithstanding that the railways have materially benefited by the smaller truck space used. This is the manner in which the farmers’ interests are being championed by the Minister. He is allowing his colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, to stab Him in the back. I want also to refer to the subject introduced by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson). It seems to me that if the Minister would give adequate attention to the question of a cattle market, and solve that problem, he would solve the key to the farmers’ difficulties to-day. If a good and secure market can be found for the cattle of this country, a long step is taken towards solving the problem of the lucerne farmer, and the maize farmer, and practically of all the farmers of the Union. What has the Minister done in the six years he has been in office to achieve this? What is his cattle policy? A nobler service he could not render than the solving of this question of an adequate market for the surplus cattle of this country. We hear a good deal about scrub. The scrub cattle only exist because there is no market for cattle. Scrub cattle are cattle which do not pay to feed, because there is no market. The Minister has given this question the attention it deserves. Let us take the problem of the maize farmers, and see how they would be helped by a solution of this cattle problem. Maize is fed to cows for milk, to cattle of all sorts for maintenance and beef, to pigs and fowls, and there is also a market for human consumption. [Time limit.]

In connection with the remark of the hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) I want to ask the Minister to pay more attention to the advice of co-operative societies than to that of ordinary bodies, and to that of the agricultural unions. In the Transvaal, e.g., there are large co-operative societies in various districts with hundreds of members, while the agricultural unions in certain districts only count twenty or thirty members. If we gradually pay more attention to the board of co-operative societies then we know in each case that we have to do with people who take an interest in the industry concerned. The agricultural unions are only too frequently composed of members who in many respects only want to make political capital out of it, or who want to make a name as members of the board or some such thing. Where cooperative societies exist agricultural unions have also gradually become superfluous. The agricultural unions have preached co-operation, and as soon as it exists agricultural unions are no longer required in such a district. We have in the past, e.g., had a congress of agricultural unions about the price of wheat. It would have been much more effective to invite the co-operative societies to such a congress. They are the people who are actually concerned with the matter, and are much better acquainted with the position, because they represent the wheat farmers in general. There is one point which I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is the provision on the estimates for the purchase of stock. It has already appeared for quite a number of years on the estimates, and I understand that the amount is only for the benefit of people in certain districts. I want to ask the Minister to extend it a little, and also assist other districts. Some districts are poorer than other districts, but does this mean that the individuals in the districts who are poorer cannot be considered simply because the district as a district is not so poor? Perhaps there are many cases in the districts that are less poor where people can be assisted and saved by getting a few oxen, but because the district is not very poor such people are not given an opportunity. There is a very serious test among the sheep in various parts of the country. We spend thousand’s of pounds for fighting scab, but there is a pest which causes much more damage to-day, viz., the bluebottles. We must thank the Government very much for the apparatus for fighting this plague which is recommended in “Boerdery in Suid-Afrika.” But unfortunately there are many people who do not read it, and I think it would be much better if an expert were to go round with the apparatus to show it to the farmers. The bluebottles are a pest that costs the country thousands and thousands a year, and the farmers will be very thankful if the Minister will give him the attention in fighting the plague.

In the commencement of January I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question with reference to hominy chop. Unfortunately the Minister did not reply to me. I will read out the question: “How much hominy chop was there exported in 1927, 1928, and 1929?” That information the Minister of Mines and Industries subsequently gave in answer to a question by the hon. member for Reitz (Mr. Conradie), but I asked in addition how much hominy chop was rejected by the buyers, because it did not comply with the conditions of the Departments. I understand that much of the hominy chop was rejected overseas because it did not comply with the certificates that the officials in Durban gave in respect of it. I would like to know from the Minister whether that is so. It is said that the officials did not make the usual inspection that ought to have taken place. The Minister shakes his head, but there was a falsifying of hominy chop and accordingly we lost the market. In 1928 the value of the hominy chop exported was £1,401,000. That was of the greatest importance to the maize farmers in South Africa, but on account of the officials not making proper investigation the hominy chop was impure by sawdust and it was rejected by buyers on the other side. It is a very serious matter because in that way we almost lost the whole market. The Minister gave as a reason for the market becoming so poor that it was the bad times, but I understand that it is not due to the bad times, but to frauds, that the export has so diminished. The department says that they are only obliged to see that there is not too much damp in the hominy chop, but that beyond that they have nothing to do with it. I should like the Minister to tell us if that is so. We expected that our export of hominy chop would much increase owing to the German Treaty because it was prophesied that we should be able to export millions of pounds worth to Germany, but that information was wrong because the exports have much decreased. In 1926 we exported £67,000 worth of hominy chop, in 1927 £336,000, and in 1928 £1,401,000. Last year the export decreased very much, and I understand that this year practically nothing has been exported. I should like to hear that the Minister will take action if the inspection by officials is not adequate. Hon. members will understand that if the Government gives a certificate that people overseas rely on that certificate, but when they find that a certificate is unreliable they will attach no further value to it, and will not want to buy any more. The result is that we lose the market, and it will be difficult and take a long time to regain the market. It is especially of importance to the maize farmers because the price of maize is so low, and they got an additional income out of the hominy chop.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase) criticised the Government from beginning to end for having done nothing for the farmers according to him. Hon. members will have to admit that the Government has done more for the farmers than any pervious one. Did not the Government protect the sugar farmers and the stock farmers, and has not the Government now once more protected the grain farmers? Hon. members now say that the bonus on beef has been stopped, but various members have already shown that that bonus did not go into the pockets of the farmers. Do hon. members now wish ns to continue benefiting the middleman, because that is the only object of their criticism? We are going through a depression, and the farmers are suffering, but in the opinion of experts the Government is not responsible for the bad state of affairs. In any case, the position in other parts of the world is much more unfavourable than in our country, but it is clear that the Opposition is trying to make capital even out of the depression. We feel that we can be thankful to the Government for what they have done. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) said that the present Government had increased the customs duty on implements. He must know that that is not true.

Yes, it is true.

Can the hon. member prove it?

The hon. member can not now discuss this matter.

I will go to another matter, viz., what the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. de Souza) said about the blue-fly. As a sheep farmer I feel that this plague is a threat to us. I know that if the farmers co-operate they can do a great deal to fight this fly, but I want the Government also to give attention to the matter. I represent a large maize producing district, and I know it is possible for South Africa largely to extend the production of mealies. At the same time I feel that we have to meet high costs of production.

The minimum wage.

One does, however, expect commonsense from a member of Parliament. The hon. member knows that he is talking nonsense. I hope the Government will do all it can for the maize farmer, because we often have to sell our maize under production costs. We have heard a great deal of criticism to-day from hon. members opposite, but there was not a single suggestion that the Government could accept. One member constantly contradicts the other. When the Minister of Agriculture introduces something into the House it is something constructive in the interests of the farmers, and the world outside, and also members of the S.A. party admit that this Government has done much for the farmers, and if they take an interest in the future of our farmers, then they ought to strengthen the hands of the Minister. If there is one thing that we must not debate on political lines it is agriculture, but from the speeches we have heard from the opposite side it has clearly appealed that they want to make party capital out of these things.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an item on the Estimates of £11,000 odd. I understand from the reply of the Minister given to members some time ago that about £8,000 was spent in the purchase of 124 sheep I do not know whether the Minister is satisfied with that state of affairs. I certainly am not. The position is this, that we have been spending for some considerable time a whole lot of money in buying sheep from Australia. They have been at the disposal of our experts, the best men in the land to advise the Minister on the breeding of these sheep. It seems to me that it would have been ten times better if we could have sold £8,000 worth of sheep instead of buying them. We were told that these had been bought because the department wanted a certain quality of wool. We are bringing stud sheep into this country costing a lot of money and I am not at all satisfied that we are getting adequate value. In years past, we had sheep, cattle, and horses sold at our agricultural colleges which would have been very helpful in assisting the farmers to get blood stock in the country. A deputation awaited on the Minister in order to get help for the goat farmers by putting a goat expert at their disposal. The Minister turned it down and said he had put a man at their disposal who was not used. The expert who was placed at the disposal of these men was put there at an unfortunate time of sever drought. The farmers in those days were not so well equipped with motor cars as they are to-day, with the result that they were not able to avail themselves fully of the services of this man. I think the goat farmers should receive more assistance than they have been given in the past, when much more attention has been paid to the needs of the sheep farmers. Now in regard to export, we should confine ourselves to the raising of pure-bred lambs, which we can produce in many thousands. We have a fixed type of lamb in the Persian which we can export. Why not find out the best time of the year to send these lambs overseas? But we must be persistent in our efforts to build up an export trade, and the department should not send over a consignment of lambs and then forget all about them. I now want to take exception to what the Minister said regarding the remarks of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser). The Minister evidently thought the hon. member had a political motive in bringing the matter of sour oranges up, but it is the duty of hon. members to point out when they do not agree with the Minister. If the Minister is so saturated with politics that he thinks there is a political motive at the back of everything members say, he should not imagine that everybody else thinks in the same way. It is our duty to point out when we think the Minister is wrong, and the Minister should appreciate that. If there is any member in this House without political bias, it is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North). I now wish to refer to the grievous injury which has been done to the orange industry. A greater harm could not be done to that industry than the permission which the Minister gave to allow the export overseas of sour oranges. What hope have we of ever building up a decent orange trade in view of the tremendous competition from other countries? We can see that during the coming season it will be a hard job for these men to make ends meet. In the face of his co-operative bodies and his technical experts and the good he should do to this country, he, the Minister, allows sour oranges to leave this country. It is an industry he should rather have fostered and encouraged.

I just want to reply about the export of the so-called sour oranges. I said that I regretted this matter had been brought up. No one possibly regrets it more than the producers of the fruit, themselves, the chairman of the citrus exchange expressed himself as follows, about the debate which took place here recently—

Why do hon. members constantly bring up this matter? I hear that the “Star” even sent a special reporter to White River because a vote of censure was to be moved on the Minister. There were only four votes in favour of it; the majority stood by what I had done. But what would the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) say if we laid down that only scoured wool should be exported and not coarse wool. Why should we, if sour oranges are properly packed and marked, prevent them being exported? Why should we only benefit one section of the population? We must find a market for all our produce. A deputation from the fruit exchange came to me and after I had explained the matter they went away satisfied. After what Capt Bartley said hon. members ought to be satisfied. They are certainly not speaking on behalf of the exchange. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) again represented that we should make guano cheaper, but at the same time he admitted that the commercial value was greater than what it was sold for. The value is about £15. I want to point out to the hon. member that if we reduce the price the demand will be so great that the guano will not remain only in the parts he is pleading for, because other parts will want it as well.

Why not? We want some of it too.

The hon. member wants to keep it here in the interests of the wheat farmers. If the hon. member for Caledon can induce the commercial world to find the £22,000 that the country makes out of it the Minister of Finance will certainly be prepared to consider the matter. We must have revenue. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. Bekker) advocated compulsory cooperation for the chicory farmers. I think they are more protected than any other class of farmers, and if he were to introduce a motion in the House compulsory co-operation in their case would certainly be defeated. Then he pleaded for white labour at the agricultural schools. We are trying it at Glen, and I hope to extend it gradually to other schools. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase) might make the speech he did at Durban possible, but I do not think the members of this House treat it seriously when he says that all branches of agriculture have been a failure. The number of sheep has increased in five years from 20 million to 42 million. That means nothing to him. The number of cattle has risen from 9 million to 11 million. The production of butter has increased to such an extent that instead of an importing, we have become an exporting country. The same thing applies to cheese. The poultry industry has tremendously increased. The reason the prices of produce are low is on account of world conditions. He spoke about high tariffs, but this Government has decreased them by £1,500,000. He says that we ought to find a market for our cattle. Is that not the duty of the farmers? He has presumably not read the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. After thorough investigation of cattle farming they have recommended that if the cattle farmers co-operate properly the Government ought to support them. The farmers, however, have not yet come to the front in this connection, and if the hon. member is so eager he should start an organization in Natal. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. de Souza) said that I should pay more attention to the co-operative societies than to the agricultural unions. I think that I will just use my commonsense, and carry out the work of the department as in the past. Then the hon. member once more dealt with the bluefly pest, we are still experimenting with an insect with attacks and destroys the bluefly, but it will still be necessary to continue the experiments. South Africa is very liable to insects and we must enquire carefully whether by letting the insect lose on to the bluefly we shall not possibly be producing a greater pest than the bluefly. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) spoke about hominy chop, and said that the department was negligent, and had issued erroneous certificates. That is not so. We have now consulted the merchants, and prepared regulations under which there are two kinds that are exported at present, the one is only exported as fodder for stock, and the other only as hominy chop. It is not true that we have lost the market through neglect. We have not lost the market.

The Minister has had a gruelling to-night from all sides. His only friend seems to be the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) who says he has done well in regard to poultry. I am glad this industry is growing, and that the egg-laying tests show a profit. I rise to draw the Minister’s attention to the serious expenditure he has incurred without showing a proportionate result. The Argentine farmers are rather astonished to see what a large amount a country like South Africa with a small population, expends on agriculture. The total agricultural vote is £1,250,000 and travelling and subsistence about £110,000. We are ready to give the Minister credit for all that he has done, but I question whether the large vote which we are asked to pass is justified.

What do you challenge in that Vote

Farmers are beginning to be nervous because expenditure is going up. They are being taxed and costs of production are so high so that they cannot compete on the world’s markets. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said once when I referred to this subject, that I knew nothing about it. Farmers are now realizing at last that we did know something about it because they are finding the taxation insupportable.

What taxation?

Everything which the farmers buy, use and wear. Everything from your head to your foot is taxed. Travelling and subsistence costs £110,000, telegrams and telephones £9,000, Division of Markets and Economics £39,000 and the farmer has to bear his share of it. What value are we getting for this? The number of stock inspectors has gone down, indicating that the country is being freed from scab, but the costs for less inspectors have gone up; I believe the Minister was told recently that a man reported scab and an inspector was asked for to come out to see the sheep. For telephoning instead of writing the man was fined £5. The man was so annoyed that he complained because other sheep in that district infected his stock, and he estimates 20,000 sheep are infected with scab. That was in the King Williams Town area under the late inspector.

Senator Ginsberg was the man who was fined. I know the facts.

I am glad he was fined. He was delighted to pay because it proved the Minister was not looking after his Scab Department properly. The Minister should go round sometimes and see that proper supervision is exercised. He tells us there is no scab in the country, but parts of the country are reeking with it. I am pleased with what the Minister has told us to-night about co-operation. I hope he will stand firm on this co-operation business, and not bring in compulsion. The hon. member wants to force the farmers to come in. That is the old Dutch idea of force, but it has never paid in any part of the world. What do the mealie advocates desire? They say. “Let us charge the consumer in South Africa a high price, and ship the surplus at a lower price.” But what happens? You send your produce, whatever it may be, overseas, and you will find that you would be competing unsuccessfully with livestock fed on our cheap mealies. Starch manufactured in Holland from imported maize is so cheap that South Africa imposes a 60 per cent, duty on it.

You have compulsory co-operation in your business.

We do not compel anybody. If a man is not happy in our business, we do not compel him to continue. Let me give the example of Rio. In Brazil they have had a valorization scheme for coffee for many years, and it is the cheapest producing country for coffee in the world. In Rio, with all its great advantages, it has been trying to bolster up the coffee market by Government enactment. But what has happened? At present the effect of control is the virtual elimination of Brazil as a competitor. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) is rather difficult to satisfy. He said the other day that the farmers were getting more and more lazy, and now he says that the farmers are having such a bad time that they cannot make a living. The hon. member is an authority on all matters, but I do not think we need give much attention to what he says. I am glad of what the Minister said in connection with the fighting of bluebottles, and I am certain that the farmers are also thankful for the help that the department is giving to eradicate or at any rate to diminish them. Then I want to point out to the Minister that the position in the districts of Van Wyksvlei and Carnarvon is very serious owing to the drought. Some farmers are already trekking, and if we do not get rains within a month the majority of the farmers will possibly have to trek later on. I hope and trust that the Minister, as in the past, will in conjunction with the Minister of Railways, give facilities for trekking with cattle by means of the railway. I do not know whether the Minister has already received an official notice, but the farmers are engaged in preparing a petition asking for these facilities. As for the regulations, the Minister knows that the farmer cannot trek if they do not say beforehand where they want to go to. That is right because the danger otherwise exists that there may be a sudden accumulation of sheep at places where there is only a little grazing. That is, however, only the case in a large general drought, but we have to do with a drought which is isolated, and there is therefore no danger of accumulation. Therefore I think the Minister can suspend this regulation, at any rate temporarily. That regulation is only necessary when many farmers are trekking. By this I only mean to refer to the cases where the farmers trek from one clean area to another, and not of course to areas where scab prevails.

As the representative of the King Williamstown division which has come into the limelight to-night, I would like to make an explanation regarding the presence of scab in that district. The difficulty regarding scab lies in the fact that there are relatively very few large European-owned flocks with a very large number of native-owned flocks varying in number from 15 to 20 per flock to 300 per flock. There have been a number of outbreaks of scab among native owned sheep. The need is not so much for tightening-up the inspection by outside officials, but increasing the number of ordinary inspectors working in the district. It is utterly impossible for the present staff of inspectors to examine the large number of flocks in the King Williamstown district. Owing to the fact that there is very little fencing in the native area of the division, the sheep intermingle, and while the natives do their best—for they appreciate the importance of keeping their flocks clean—it is impossible to free the district from scab unless there are more inspectors. All the same there are not 20,000 infected sheep in the district. Recently an officer of the Agricultural Department made a survey of the Border from East London to Cathcart That officer has submitted a report to indicate the lines upon which a cure for our troubles might be effected, and what investigations are required for the border districts. He refers to the farming community being keen, progressive and intelligent, and only too willing to co-operate with the department in making that one of the best of the wool areas. He goes on to state the urgent need of the coastal areas for a botanist, and for a botanical survey of the indigenous grasses. You have any amount of grass there, but it is lacking in nourishing quality. He suggests it should be in next September, and stresses the necessity for a detailed extension advisory campaign, all arrangements could be made through the Border Farmer’s League at Kei Road. The matter of liver disease in lambs requires investigation as well as a survey of indigenous poisonous grasses. The Minister’s officer agrees that the Border area is one of great importance as regards wool growing and dairying. I hope it will not be necessary for any other member of the border constituencies to ask the Minister to give some attention to the needs of these districts.

I have been wondering whether there was anything I could say which would have the slightest effect on the mind of the Minister to impress upon him the seriousness which exists in respect to the cattle farming industry. I find it is all the more difficult through what has fallen from the Minister of Finance, who has told us that the cattle farmer has nothing to complain of, and the Minister of Agriculture, who assures us that he is getting more from his cattle today than he did before he became a Minister. All I can say is that these two Ministers are living a sheltered existence, and their experience is not borne out by the farmers of South Africa as a whole. The cattle industry has never been in a worse position than to-day. It may possibly impress the Minister what the importance of the position is when he bears in mind that the surplus cattle of the Union is 600,000 per annum over the demand. Now what is to become of these animals? Again the farmers’ income in South Africa has fallen this year not far short of £25,000,000, which is easily proved by a reference to this year’s output and prices compared with those of last year. The farmers’ income is falling, and the public revenue will shortly begin to fall at the same rate. In the course of 12 months the position will be very much worse than it is to-day. But we have an unique opportunity of placing the farmer in such a position that in 12 or 18 months’ time things will be very much more comfortable for him than they are at present. We have this annual surplus of 600,000 head of cattle, we have also the fact that our local markets are saturated, and yet notwithstanding this there is a world shortage of beef, and with this condition of affairs in South Africa, and with the demand for beef on the other side of the world, we are doing nothing whatever to get into that market. Here is the world crying out for an article which we can supply, and we cannot get the Minister to take, I won’t say a sympathetic interest—we cannot even get him to take an intelligent interest in the matter. The Nationalist papers say that the speeches made by the Right Hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and myself on this subject are merely political speeches. What hope have we got when we treat a subject vital to the welfare of the farmers and our speeches are received in that way? What is the effect of this inaction? The farmers of South Africa, wherever they are in touch with the rail, or motor transport, are now getting rid of their beef cattle as fast as they can, and are going in for dairying, because it is the one thing in the cattle line for which they can find a market. But their market is confined practically to one firm, and that is Nestlès. Nestlès have stepped in at a critical time, and their factories afford an outlet; but the very fact that the farmers are paying the whole of their attention to the development of the milk side of their industry, to the neglect of beef, carries with it a grave danger. There cannot be an unlimited demand for condensed milk, and as soon as these factories reach the limit of their output and demand, we shall have the same re-action here as has been experienced in Australia. We have the cattle in South Africa to-day, a large number of which are ready for export. I should say if I were asked what are the difficulties in getting into the market that the sole difficulty is the Minister of Agriculture. I know of no other problem which cannot be overcome but the Minister’s determined obstinacy. The Minister should try and realize that he has a number of alternatives by which he could help. The first is the preservation of meat which he has done all he could to stop. Then there is the adoption once more of the bounty system. The Minister has been sneering at this now for the last six years, and while he has been sneering, the farmers have been suffering. [Time limit.]

I move—

I want to remind the Minister that some hon. members have been engaged since 9.30 this morning in committees or in this Committee. I do not think it has occurred in a single instance that the agriculture vote has been passed in one sitting day. Both sides of the committee have taken part in the debate, and I do not think it can be said that we have been guilty of obstruction. I therefore hope the Minister will accept the motion.

No, I cannot accept it. We have now been sitting the whole afternoon and the same thing is said over and over again in connection with cattle farming. I have repeatedly explained the matter, but hon. members, nevertheless, repeat it again. I do not think it necessary therefore to accept this motion.

I am going to ask the Minister to withdraw from the position he has taken up on the ground that this Parliament is rapidly becoming a farce. We have to remember that the membership of this House has increased, and if the Government think it is a fair thing to ask the House to pass one vote a day, I think they are sadly mistaken. I have no recollection in my experience of the estimates going through at such a rapid rate, and I say it is not fair. There are a lot of things members would like to discuss, things which cannot possibly be discussed, especially in view of the method of selection of members speaking. I say that mechanically it cuts out the discussion of various points in connection with this and other votes in regard to people who have a particular point of view. The Government has no right to ask members of this House to sit here night after night. This is legislation by exhaustion with a vengeance, and it is up to hon. members who may not be sitting on the Government side of the House to protest in the strongest possible manner. And we have a right to appeal to members sitting behind the Government to support that in insisting that a fair thing is a fair thing, and members have a right to have these things more seriously and completely discussed than can possibly be done under the time limit imposed.

I just want to remind the Prime Minister that when the suspension of the eleven o’clock rule was moved by him some time ago, he said that the object was not to keep members here until long after eleven o’clock, but that, if any matter was under discussion which might be ended by sitting a little longer, the House should sit a little longer. It was on that understanding and in that spirit that the motion was accepted by the House. I remind the Prime Minister that that was the spirit in which we accepted it, and in which we wish to act. There is no intention to delay the Estimates. The Estimates, in fact the business of the House and of this committee, have been going forward very expeditiously, more so than at any other time. It is the intention of hon. members on this side of the House and on the other side of the House, not to prolong the session unduly. We want to get to the end of this session within a reasonable time. I do not think any object is served by these late night sittings. Last night we were sitting until twelve o’clock, and we have been working the whole day, and we are continuing to sit until well after eleven o’clock to-night. Members are exhausted and their tempers get frayed and it really does not help the business of the House. In those circumstances, I ask the Prime Minister not to make us sit longer than we have already. It is well past eleven o’clock. I do not think we really expedite business in that way. I hope the Prime Minister will carry out the undertaking which was accepted by all of us at the time, that the House by suspending the eleven o’clock rule would not be asked to sit unduly late and prolong the discussion so late, which makes the work of the House impossible.

I should, of course, be very glad if I could meet hon. members opposite, but then they must show that they are really not dragging out the work of the House unnecessarily. It is true that I said that it was not the intention in the suspending the 11 o’clock rule to act unreasonably towards the House, but that I wanted to put the Government in the position that when some matter or other could be properly disposed of when we got to 11 o’clock, we ought not to postpone it to the following day, and start again from the commencement. We have now been debating this point since three o’clock. I have been here almost constantly, and have followed the debate, but what have we now found? Quite half of the criticism from the opposite side was all a rechauffé of stale food, things which have been repeatedly debated over and over again, and not merely once or a few times in the past. Half of it amounted to nothing which could be at all useful, and the criticism was only intended in the first place to find a kind of pleasure in the sort of criticism which they think is unpleasant to the Government, and I also say, without the least doubt, a great deal of time has been wasted. I now ask the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to show me one single point which has been raised during the last hour or two in connection with which further information is necessary. They cannot mention it. Then I say that we must put an end to the debate. If we adjourn now we shall only give another opportunity to-morrow further to waste the time of the House. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) states that he has had no opportunity of saying something he was anxious to say, but he has spoken over and over again. What is the new thing he wants to say now? If he has anything new to say then let him speak.

How far is it intended to go?

That is not the question now. After this vote is disposed of my hon. friend can put the question. Why should we know it beforehand? I am very sorry, but even if we sit here until 8 o’clock to-morow this vote must go through.

This vote covers many different subjects and, therefore, in the past it has frequently been suggested that the items in this vote should be taken seriatim. The Agricultural Vote has never hitherto passed through committee in one day. I do not agree that there has been a waste of time by endless repetitions from this side of the House. Some of the most important work of the country comes under the aegis of the Minister of Agriculture, and the Prime Minister does not seem to realise that there are quite as many speakers on this vote on the Government benches as there are on the Opposition side. When the hon. member for Ermelo rose to ask for the adjournment, several members on the Government benches jumped up to speak. It is really an outrageous charge to make, that obstruction has come from this side of the House. I do not know whether the comments from his side are upsetting him so much that he wishes to stifle discussion from the Government as well as from the Opposition benches. The request to defer the discussion of the vote until to-morrow is a perfectly reasonable one. The remarks of the Prime Minister that he will keep us here until 8 o’clock to-morrow morning are an invitation for us to obstruct. Five late night sittings a week and stifling discussion are making a farce of Parliament.

If I understand that the Prime Minister suggests there is general obstruction, and I am participating in it, then I say that that is an untrue statement. The Prime Minister accused me of speaking over and over again, but I have spoken less than ten minutes on this question. The Prime Minister, however, is never in a position to judge whether there is obstruction or not. He is generally outside and comes in on occasions like this. I strongly object to the Prime Minister accusing hon. members of obstructing, when he has not the slightest opportunity of discovering whether they are doing so or not. The agricultural vote is a most important one. I have never known in the whole of my experience of Parliament of any other Government which has made such a use of its deadweight majority as in this case to force through their measures.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman I draw your attention to Rule 62 (2)—

I ask you if the Prime Minister is in order in reading a book. We have submitted to this times without number; a debate arises in the House, the Prime Minister ignores everything that is said, leans back, and reads a book. I think I am correct in saying that the House is tired of this discourteous treatment.

It is quite clear that that is the rule, but it has been allowed very often to hon. members, and I may say to hon. members on both sides on the front benches, to make use of books during debates, and to read them which are in connection with the work before the House; it is very difficult for any person in the chair to know whether these books are in connection with the work before the House or not.

You might ask what book the Prime Minister is reading.

I leave that to the discretion of hon. members themselves.

How are you going to interpret the rule?

I have stated it very clearly.

Do I understand you have given your ruling?

Yes.

I want to ask the Minister some questions regarding soil survey. There has been a very big increase in that Vote and I would ask the Minister to give the House some information.

I have explained it already.

I am sorry, but I do not fully understand the position. It is perfectly clear that it must cause grave concern to everyone interested in the subject. It is now found necessary to employ another seven experts to give advice on this question. The staff has increased by eleven, and the vote has gone up some £3,000. The whole of the expenditure has increased under this particular head, and I would ask the Minister if he would state whether any of this soil survey has taken place in connection with the new irrigation works. A statement was made some years ago that a part of the time of the staff was devoted to land coming under irrigation works, and it was proposed to employ further officers under the proposed irrigation scheme. I would like the Minister to indicate what surveys have been made and whether they include these new irrigation schemes, and it would be interesting if, in view of the vast sums spent on these works, the Minister would give us some report as to the value of the land of which a survey has been made. This question is of great interest and must prove of great value to the country. In view’ of the large increase, I think the Minister should make a very full statement to the House.

I should like just to add a few words about erosion. The Minister must not blame me for talking on it again, but it is an important matter, and I see that there is only £1,000 down on the estimates for it. I do not now want the Minister to say how the money will be spent, but I do want to point out that £1,000 is only a drop in the bucket for the combating of so great a danger. Sometime ago I think I saw in the papers that the Minister intended to convene a congress to discuss that question. It would possibly be the correct thing that, e.g., the farmers of every district should send a delegate and that public attention should be called to this great problem. I can assure the Minister that my constituency Burghersdorp feels very strongly on the matter, and that the people there are doing everything they can to stop erosion. I want to invite the Minister to come and see what we are doing there, and I shall be very glad if he can send his officials to advise us. When he sees what is being done there the Minister will agree that we ought to encourage the people, and we shall possibly even have to go so far as to give them a subsidy. Then there is another matter, and I am sorry to have to speak about that as well, but I have received a special mandate from the farmers in my district to introduce a motion in connection with the matter. I will not move it now, because I know that it will not be passed. It is in connection with bluefly, which is one of the greatest plagues of the sheep farmers. I may say that I think it is a worse pest than scab ever was. On various occasions I have already received instructions to bring up the matter for debate, and to move that, the Minister or the Government should make it compulsory to eradicate the bluefly. I know that the Minister is against compulsion because his argument will be that there are certain parts which are not troubled with bluefly, and that it would be unreasonable to make them suffer owing to compulsion. I know that the Minister has made it compulsory to destroy carrion. That assists a great deal, but I want to urge that if there is no time this session then at any rate next session legislation should be introduced to attack the matter in the same way as has been done with jackal proof fencing. Where in the district the majority of the farmers ask for compulsion to fight the bluefly then let it be done. It amounts more to co-operation and is no longer compulsory, just as fencing amounts to co-operation. Let the Minister introduce a Bill of that sort so that the farmers can fight bluefly, because if at present one farmer fights it, possibly his neighbour does not, and then all his work is in vain.

After the speech of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) I now move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed: