Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? I want to address myself to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services this afternoon and start with a speech he made before his own congress at Pietermaritzburg last year at which his colleague the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing also spoke. According to the headlines which appeared in the Burger of 20 August 1964 the hon. Minister said the following on that occasion: “Desirable to have rather a few but good farmers,” whereas his colleague said: “State cannot assist all farmers to remain on farms.” I fully agree with the hon. the Minister if his approach is to create good and better farmers in South Africa. But I want to say at once that I completely disagree with him if he thinks we ought to have fewer farmers in this country. I think the statement he made at the time is one of the reasons why the platteland is becoming depopulated. It seems to me that this Government is deliberately intent on reducing the number of farmers in South Africa as the following figures will show: During a period of 13 years, from 1950 to 1963, the number of White farmers on farms decreased from 473,000 to 409,000. In other words, there was a decrease of approximately 70,000.

I think we must put to the test how effectively this hon. Minister and his Department have succeeded in creating better and more efficient farmers in South Africa. I must say, of course, that I do not think he will find it a difficult task in view of what the farmers have achieved in South Africa during the past year. We find, for example, that agricultural production has increased by 70 per cent over a period of 13 years, agricultural products by 92 per cent, horticultural production by 70 per cent, while stock breeding has increased by 47 per cent. That gives you a general increase of 70 per cent, Sir. We have proof therefore that the farmers have already proved themselves to be extremely efficient and that they are prepared and in a position to produce more. But, as I have said, we ought to put to the test whether we can create better farmers in South Africa in the light of whether the hon. the Minister and his Department have also performed their duties more efficiently. We have to test it against the activities of his Department and the type of planning. We know that there is still a serious shortage of trained staff in the Department of the hon. the Minister and that that is not a state of affairs which has developed over the past year. The hon. the Minister and the Government have been aware of this shortage for a long time. He himself appointed the Rautenbach Commission a few years ago to assist him to find the necessary scientifically trained personnel, technicians, etc. This is nothing new; this problem has developed over a long period of time. I want to quote what Mr. Nortje said at an agricultural congress held in Paarl in 1959—

Dr. Le Clew expressed the same opinion at the time. People like Dr. Henning and Mr. Crous, agricultural leaders and civil servants of the day, had already drawn attention to that fact. As long ago as 1961 the Farmer’s Weekly had the following to say—

Then they ask what the reason is and the reply is that it is due to a shortage of trained personnel. I can read similar extracts from Organised Agriculture. As long ago as 1960 they said—

That was already the position years ago and the hon. the Minister is still faced with that problem to-day. What we want to emphasize again, as we have already done in the past, is that, as far as this problem is concerned, the hon. the Minister ought to embark on a crash programme in order to provide the necessary trained people. Because if you want better farmers you can be sure that those farmers will desire improved extension services. I may just say in passing, Mr. Chairman, that I personally do not care much for the Afrikaans word “voorligting” (information). That may be one of the reasons why some stigma attaches to the work done by “voorligtingsbeamptes” (information officers). I prefer to call them “extension officers” (uitbreidingsbeamptes); that also conveys a better idea of the role those people play in agriculture.

The fact of the matter is that we still only have one extension officer to every 900 farmers in this country and that state of affairs is very unsound. It is a position which must be rectified immediately if the hon. the Minister wants to create better farmers in South Africa. Some time ago the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that the farmers were exploiting their land in times of prosperity. He said that in times of prosperity they carried too large a number of stock with the result that soil erosion set in and the soil subsequently washed away. I immediately want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he was totally wrong when he made that statement because the report of his own Department says something totally different. As far as the reason is concerned, why not as much had been done as should have been done in regard to soil conservation works they say on page 1 of the report—

In other words, droughts and financial considerations were some of the most important reasons why soil conservation works were not embarked upon on a sufficiently large scale in South Africa while the hon. the Deputy Minister said the reason was that farmers exploited their land at times of economic prosperity in agriculture. The fact of the matter is that soil conservation works are hampered in South Africa because we do not have the necessary officials to do the necessary surveys and to give the necessary advice and guidance.

Let us see whether the hon. the Minister has succeeded in creating better farmers in South Africa. What encouragement has there been from the Minister and his Department to establish fodder banks? One can ask oneself whether the hon. the Minister is in a position to create better farmers while one knows that there has not been a sufficient increase in the number of veterinary surgeons in South Africa. Nor is that a new problem; that is a problem which has confronted the Minister for a long time. What are the facts as stated by Dr. Alexander as long ago as 1960—

I hope the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has taken that in. That was what was said at that congress. If the hon. the Minister looks at the report of his own Department he will be able to judge for himself whether he is succeeding in providing South Africa with the necessary veterinary surgeons. On page 117 they say there were 19 students in 1964 and 24 in 1963. That means that there was a decrease of five in the number of students who wanted to qualify in veterinary science. When you learn from the report how many Government veterinary surgeons there are in the country, Sir, you cannot believe that the hon. the Minister is creating better farmers. That is one of the most important services that ought to be at the disposal of the farmer and the Minister neglects to provide that service. Does the number of Government veterinary surgeons increase sufficiently to assist us to keep even the decreasing number of sheep and cattle alive?

The hon. the Minister says it is his policy to create good and better farmers in South Africa. What training do the farmers in this country receive and this is not a new problem either but it is a problem which this hon. Minister is not trying very hard to solve. The hon. the Minister knows that only 20 per cent of the farmers who enter the industry annually have had any formal agricultural training. I can quote to the hon. the Minister what Dr. Henning and his own Minister of Finance said about this matter as long ago as 1960—

But the hon. the Minister says it is his policy to create better farmers in South Africa!

Who closed the agricultural colleges?

The hon. member talks about agricultural colleges but I can tell him that as far as agricultural colleges are concerned, the position is no better either. If he looks at page 7 of this report he will see that in all the agricultural colleges together there were 328 first-year students in 1963 and that that number decreased to 317 in 1964. Then this Minister says it is his policy to create better farmers in South Africa!

I want to return to the fertility of our soil and soil conservation. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is succeeding in giving the necessary guidance while we know that thousands and thousands of tons of our top-soil gets washed to the sea annually. This is another problem which is as old as the hills and in respect of which we expect something new from the Minister. Years ago, when Dr. Ross was still head of the Soil Conservation Section, he said that 300,000 tons of fertile soil was washed to the sea annually and that 150,000 tillable morgen of soil was destroyed annually in the country. About 13 years ago, Dr. Neveling said the following in his report—

The potential yield and carrying capacity of the country is deteriorating slowly.

Mr. T. C. Robertson said—

Ex-Speaker Conradie said in 1951 —

And then the hon. the Minister tells us it is the policy of the Government to create better farmers in South Africa! What is the position in our country? The soil is being washed away and the fertility of the land deteriorates in consequence.

I again want to quote to the hon. the Minister from his own report. On page 18 they say the following—

That must still be done. What is the record of this Government as far as soil conservation is concerned? I want to quote to the hon. the Minister from the report of his own Soil Conservation Board. If the Minister wants to create better farmers he ought to see to it that strong measures are taken to protect the South African soil. On page 5 they give the number of approved works, namely, 351,788 valued at R51,000,000 but how many of those have been completed? Of those 351,788 approved works only 160,000 at a value of R27,000,000 have been completed. The backlog, as far as soil conservation is concerned, which this Government has to catch up with is getting bigger every year. Whereas they tell you how many works have been approved only half of those have been completed. Is that a record to be proud of? Is that the way to create better farmers in South Africa? This report is condemnatory and then the hon. the Minister talks about better farmers! No farmer can improve unless he is given the correct assistance and guidance.

I repeat that if you want to create better farmers the most important thing is to provide them with agricultural extension services. The number of extension officers available to the farmers to-day is inadequate. The Minister will never catch up with the backlog unless dramatic action is taken in this country.

What has the hon. the Minister achieved in the field of research? We know the Department has embarked on an imposing number of research projects. According to the report they are busy on 1,700 research projects but the results of how much of that research reach the important link, the farmer? I was surprised last night to read something in Landbou written by a person who can more or less be compared with Dawie of the Burger. He quotes from what was said by none other than Dr. van der Wath, the chairman of the South African Wool Board, to show how annoyed Dr. van der Wath was when he spoke to two prominent officials in the country. He compared them with great war generals and said they sat in their offices while the necessary extension services were not being rendered to the most important link, the farmer. We do not doubt that research is indeed being conducted; we congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department on what they are doing but we cannot congratulate them on seeing to it that the results of that research reach the farmer. What must the farmer do if he wants to know those results, Mr. Chairman? He has to buy the pamphlet. A large number of publications was made available to the farmers this year; the Department boasts about the fact that it has sold 46,000 pamphlets; 2,510 sets of Handbook for Farmers, which is an excellent publication, were sold. I myself have a set. However, the total value of publications sold was R27,000 as against R24,000 the previous year. My contention is that the farmer is a taxpayer and if we want the results of this research to reach the farmer then these publications ought to be available to every farmer free of charge. The South African farmer is entitled to it; it is his Department and it is the duty of the hon. the Minister, when research work is done, to see to it that the results of that work reaches the right link, the farmer.

I now come to planning. There are signs that there is planning but that planning only takes place in the Minister’s Department. We know he created various directorates a year or two ago but in spite of that, in spite of the fact that he created more posts, we find that the number of farmers in South Africa is getting fewer and fewer. The more new posts he creates, the more he re-arranges his Department, the fewer the number of farmers in South Africa become. I know he is engaged on planning in his Department. I know he still has a large number of vacant posts. In 1963 there were 474 vacant posts and on 30 June last year there were 692. I ask myself this question: In how strong a position would we not have been to-day had the hon. the Minister been able to prove that, due to all the changes, he had placed a greater number of farmers on the land? But the Minister is busy building a departmental castle for himself while the farmers of South Africa have to be satisfied with castles in the air. I say to the hon. the Minister that to have only a castle and a wonderful Department, a Department with wonderful officials and which does wonderful research, without narrowing the gap between them and the farmer who needs their advice and guidance, is harmful to South Africa and to our agricultural industry.

A farmer of a better quality in this country would not only have farmed with an animal of a better quality but by this time he would already have had an ever increasing quantity of animals. I want to discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister and show him how the position has deteriorated in respect of our sheep and cattle population. I mention this particularly with reference to a question put in this House in 1961. The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing was asked to predict what the meat position would be in the future. The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing then told us that the meat consumption would be more or less as follows in the year 1975: Approximately 2,000,000 large stock would be required; 7,500,000 sheep and no fewer than 1.000. 000 pigs whereas, at the time he replied to the question, only 1,500,000 large stock, a little over 6,000,000 sheep and about 760,000 pigs were required. He was then asked whether he envisaged a meat shortage in future and he said yes. What is the position? In 1911, for example, there were 30,000,000 sheep in the country; in 1930 that number had risen to 48,000,000. In 1957 it had dropped to 38.000. 000. To-day there are no more than between 33,000,000 and 34,000,000 sheep. What is the position in respect of our cattle population? In 1918 there were 6,800,000; in 1948 there were 12,000,000—an increase of nearly 50 per cent; in 1957 the figure still stood at 12,000,000 and we find that in 1965 the number is no more than 11,000,000. I want to know this from the hon. the Minister: If he wants to create better farmers in South Africa does he think they can carry on with the number of sheep and cattle we have at the moment taking into account the annual losses in the form of droughts, slaughtering etc? Is the planning in his Department geared to meet any meat shortage in future? I want to read what Mr. Wentzel, the chairman and managing director of the big Imperial Cold Storage, said. He said this as far back as 1963—

I can also quote to him what Dr. Leon Knoll, managing director of Massey Ferguson, said. He said the following—

Has the hon. the Minister listened to this warning they have given him? Has he listened to the warning which came from this side of the House during the past year? Do these figures I have given the hon. the Minister indicate that there has been any improvement? What planning has there been in respect of this problem? Is he going to take the people of South Africa, the farmers of the country, in his confidence, as well as the consumers, and tell them what his plans are for the future? [Time limit.]

I want to start by congratulating the hon. member for Port Elizabeth West (Mr. Streicher) on his promotion to the post of new shadow-Minister of Agriculture. but at the same time I should like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who has occupied this position for such a long time in the United Party. I should like to thank him for the manner in which he has filled that post. We have often argued across the floor of the House but he always acted in a reasonable and sober-minded manner. I want to add that I am convinced that the hon. member who has just spoken read repeatedly all the speeches made by the member for Gardens before he made his speech this afternoon. There was really nothing new in that speech, bearing in mind what the hon. member for Gardens said here over the years during which he was the main speaker on agricultural matters for the United Party.

The hon. member’s accusation against the National Government and particularly against the Ministers is that there is a shortage of staff. That was his whole argument—a shortage of staff, a staff which is required in order to fulfil the great task which rests upon the hon. the Minister. But was it not the hon. member who spoke the other day about the shortage of teachers when the Vote of Education was under discussion? Let us accept the fact that there is a shortage of staff throughout our country to-day and that we simply do not have these people—that we cannot administer 16,000,000 people by means of 3,000,000 Whites. There has to be a shortfall, particularly as a result of the tremendous development that is taking place in our country. We simply have to accept the fact that there will be a shortage. We know what the old accusation was and still is that we should have encouraged immigration so many years ago. Well, we shall not allow ourselves to be stampeded by means of that story because a country can only admit immigrants to the extent to which it can absorb them, and even now we have to be extremely careful. There is a tremendous development in motion as a result of the planning of this Government, and once the Bantu are in a position to develop their own areas, the Whites at present occupied with this work will return to the White areas. But, generally speaking, we have this difference between the present Government and the old capitalistic system—that under the capitalistic system the demand for employment exceeded the supply, while the position at the moment is that there is full employment. But I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. member; we may perhaps be able to reach agreement as far as this matter is concerned. There are 168 hours in a week. I should like to know whether the hon member will support me if I suggest that seven hours be added to a working week. At the moment, we have a working week of only 46 hours out of the 168. Will the hon member support me if I suggest that seven hours be added to our working week? It is easy to increase the number of working hours. Will the hon. member support me in the number of working hours. Will the hon. member support me in a proposal of this nature? We can make provision for the additional remuneration necessary, and in this way we shall be able to eliminate a considerable number of the shortages. I want to ask the hon. member again whether he will support us if we increase the number of working hours per week?

We have simply to accept the fact that this country has a shortage of manpower, particularly skilled artisans; no sooner does this Department train people then the private sector absorbs them, particularly agriculturists. The Report mentions the number of bursaries made available by the State for training, as well as the number of bursaries made available by the various boards. But no sooner is a man qualified then the private sector obtains his services. This is unavoidable. We are making no accusations. There is a shortage in the country and we simply have to accept the fact that the services which are being performed in all sectors to-day are having to be rendered by a depleted labour force. We have to supplement this manpower position as and when we can. One cannot therefore expect the best under such circumstances. This is an old accusation and it is one which the hon. member for Gardens used here year after year.

Let us for a moment consider the position of the farmer. I must say that the farmer in our country is acquitting himself very well indeed of his task as far as production is concerned and as far as the development of the country generally is concerned. Instead of making accusations we should take off our hats to the farmers for what they have achieved. The hon. member spoke about the farmers who left the land between 1950 and 1963. But what about production? The farmers have done really well over the past years with the assistance of Technical Services. I should just like to refer to the assistance given by Technical Services in respect of the increasing production in every sphere. We think of maize; we think of wheat. We think of the new varieties which are produced. We think of hybrid seed. Where did all these things come from? Just consider the development there has been at Onderstepoort. Did that development just come about or did Technical Services make a great contribution towards enabling the farming population to achieve what they have achieved? The hon. member mentioned figures in connection with the number of farmers who have left the land. Do those figures include Fisheries or do they refer exclusively to farmers? Where does he get those figures from?

Look at the Report.

The hon. member quoted the figures from 1950. Why did the hon. member not make use of more recent figures in connection with this matter? His figures for those earlier years include a large number of bywoners as well. They also include Fisheries.

I was speaking about the occupants of farms.

What was more, the hon. member excluded the amount of land withdrawn from the agricultural sector. Does the hon. member consider that the same number of farmers should support themselves on less land? The amount of agricultural land has already decreased by more than 1.246,498 morgen.

Arable land?

Yes, according to the census figures. In other words, those farmers will have to make a living on so much less land. Is that the attitude adopted by the Opposition? But let us compare the position of the farmers with the position of the people in the other sectors. I am not going to deny that, under the present circumstances, natural disasters have dealt our farming community a very heavy blow, but surely this is not the fault of the Government? On the contrary, assistance has been given to these people on a scale hitherto unknown. But these disasters will have their effect upon the farmers for many years yet; they have been hit very hard indeed. It will take them a very long time indeed to recover. [Time limit.]

I listened attentively to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). What is that hon. member doing, Sir? He is suggesting that we on this side of the House would not have kept the number of farmers on the land. He says there is less land available in the country but the hon. member ought to know that the available arable land in South Africa has increased considerably, in other words, the number of morgen which has been placed under irrigation, nor has the number of farmers only decreased by the figure I have given, namely, from 473,000 to 409,000. The hon. member knows the figure is much more serious when it comes to the farmers themselves. Does the hon. member know that from 1925, when there were approximately 148,000 farmers in South Africa, to 1948, when the National Party took over, the number had decreased to approximately 128,000? What has happened during the past 17 years of National Party regime? How many farmers are there to-day? Not even a complete 100,000. The hon. member can get the figures anywhere. If there is one thing which ought to be the concern of this Government it is the fact that not only have White people left the platteland but we have lost a number of farmers on the platteland. That is the main argument of this side of the House.

I asked the hon. the Minister whether he thought we had a sufficient number of cattle and sheep in South Africa to meet our future needs in view of the fact that he and the entire Government ought to know that, according to surveys made, because of increased standards of living, the public is eating more and more protein goods. The Minister’s lack of foresight is not only causing dissatisfaction amongst the agriculturists but is causing increasing anxiety amongst the consumers. The trouble with this Minister is that his entire planning has always been on the hit-and-miss basis. That is why he cannot provide in the needs of the country. It is unnecessary for me to give the example of the dairy industry or the example of the lucern industry. One can only come to one conclusion, Sir, and it is this: Why does he not cause a survey to be made of the future needs of man and beast in the country and plan accordingly? The Bureau of Economics of the University of Stellenbosch can project us into the future to-day and tell us what our needs will be. The Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister can do the same. Is it impossible for the hon. the Minister and his Department to determine what our future needs will be so that we can base our agricultural planning on those needs?

One can summarize the position as follows. Sir: His planning is completely inadequate to meet the needs of the progressing farmer who is to-day saddled with the burden of rising costs. More and more of those people will be forced off the land. Although the research work his Department does is important, and although wonderful results have been achieved, that work is still hampered by a serious shortage of scientifically trained staff. They are also hampered by a lack of funds, unnecessary red-tape and interference, as some of them have personally told me. One can come to the following conclusion that important results achieved in the last-mentioned field never reach the farmer, as I said at the beginning of my speech. One can come to the further conclusion that the soil of South Africa is still being washed away in a shameful manner every year while the Minister is withdrawing himself and leaving it more and more to district committees to see to it that soil conservation works are carried out. The farmer is fighting an ever-increasingly urgent battle while the hon. the Minister is busy building an empire for himself. His administration is getting bigger and bigger while he is moving further and further away from the farmer as far as his needs, his demands and his future are concerned. Because the hon. the Minister neglects to act and neglects to solve our problems the Government seeks the easiest way out by saying: “Let there be fewer farmers in South Africa.” The slogan of this Government ought to be: The fewer farmers, the fewer problems in this country. That is their attitude in any case.

The hon. member spoke about a slogan for the Government—the fewer farmers, the better. We should like the hon. member to put the position as it is; he must not take it out of its context.

There are many hon. members who wish to speak so I should just like to deal with two points to prove how the farmers have maintained themselves and how these figures are often taken out of context. The first figure I want to deal with is the contribution made by domestic production to the income of the Republic. In 1925-6, agriculture, forestry and fisheries produced 18.5 per cent, mines 17.9 per cent, factories 12.7 per cent and commerce 15.5 per cent. I do not want to deal with the intervening years but should just like to deal with the year 1963. In 1963, agriculture’s contribution amounted to 10.4 per cent. That figure is often used to show how agriculture has retrogressed. But have the mines retrogressed? In 1925-6 mines’ percentage was 17.9 per cent and now it is 13.10 per cent. It is obvious that each individual percentage will decrease as the other sectors develop. Factories’ percentage rose from 12.7 per cent to 25.5 per cent; commerce’s percentage increased and the remainder rose from 35 per cent to 38 per cent. It means therefore that agriculture maintained its contribution, more or less, while the production of the other sectors rose.

I should like to say something about the farming population as such and farming units. The latest census figures we have available are those for 1964. From these it appears that the number of holdings in 1958-9 was 106,220; that is to say, there were 106,220 farming units. If one man had two or three farms in the same district, these were reflected as one unit, but if they fell into two districts, they were reflected as two separate units. There were 105,859 farming units in 1959-60; in other words, there was a decrease of 361. Figures are often mentioned which have been taken out of thin air, figures which do not take account of various other circumstances. The figures I am mentioning are taken from official documents. As far as the withdrawal of land is concerned, in 1958-9 there were 118,411,000 morgen and this dropped to 107,165,000 morgen, a decrease of 1,246,000 morgen of land withdrawn from the agricultural sector. This is the latest census figure at our disposal. How the hon. member came by the figure of 400,000, I do not know. He based his argument on that figure without analysing it properly.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) on his speech and on the very capable way in which he pleaded the case of the farmers and pointed out the shortcomings of this Government. I should also like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) for what he said in connection with the period during which I was the chairman of the farming group of our party.

The hon. member for Christiana spoke about the shortage of staff which, in his view, is apparently the cause of all the trouble.

No, it was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) who said that and I replied to him.

I say that it is not only a question of a shortage of staff; it is also to a large extent due to the inefficient actions of the Government and the hon. the Minister. They do not plan properly; they do not take strong action in connection with this matter. The hon. member mentioned the question of immigration and said that we could not admit immigrants for a large number of years because the country could not absorb them. That is not correct. When the United Party was in Government it admitted immigrants to the country and the country absorbed them. The Nationalist Government put a stop to immigration completely, although the country was able to absorb immigrants, and it has only been over the past few years that the Government have admitted immigrants on a fairly large scale. If we had had immigration to our country at the rate at which we admitted immigrants to the country during our period of office, we would not be experiencing a manpower shortage to-day.

Agriculturists.

We should also not have had a shortage of agriculturists. It is to a large extent the private sector which is attracting our agriculturists to-day, but this would not have been the case if we had had the necessary immigrants earlier on. In any case, the hon. member said there was a shortage of skilled labour. This is true, but why is this so? The hon. the Prime Minister said at Bloemfontein that the training of technicians in this country is being neglected. I should like to say, together with the hon. member, that I take my hat off to the farmers in our country for the very capable way in which they have performed their task. It is a fact that the number of farmers has decreased, although there is land available for them. There are fewer farmers now than there were.

We are making space for them.

And yet the number of farmers is continually dwindling. If hon. members doubt the figures of 428,000 then I should like to point out that the hon. the Minister of Mines stated bluntly that the number would continue to decrease at the rate of about 2,500 per annum. Sir, this is greatly to the detriment of our country.

But the position of the farmers is improving all the time.

The hon. member really knows very little about the farmers. I say that the position of the farmers is becoming worse and worse.

Why are they producing more and more?

They are producing more and more because there is a certain amount of development. [Laughter.] We have never denied this. There is a certain amount of development because the price of the product is far higher than it was.

We have already said that there is a lack of action on the part of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) pointed out the lack of research in our country, the shortage of veterinary officers and the shortage of extension officers. Wherever farmers gather mention is made of the shortage of these officers. I want to say that those officers we have are men who are devoted to their task. I do not think there is any other country which has better men, but there are too few of them to do the work. They simply cannot cope with all the work. On page 110 of this Report we find that 1,070 appointments were made in 1962-3 and 1,245 in 1963-4; in other words, an increase of 228. But what was the loss in staff suffered by the Department? The loss in 1963 was 679 and in the next year, 1,032, less 130 staff members who were transferred, which meant a net loss of 903. The number of officials is not increasing. It is remaining static

What do you recommend?

In the first place, we should not have neglected the training of technicians.

We did not do so.

But the hon. the Prime Minister said that their training had been neglected. The number of posts filled in 1964 was 5,643, while the number of resignations in that year exceeded 900.

How are you going to avoid it?

In other words, more than 16 per cent of the staff resigned.

Losses. They were not all resignations.

Yes, but what was the percentage of the staff who died that year? I am talking about losses. We do not have enough people to do the work. I was in Kimberley with the hon. the Minister the other day and there I met a prominent farmer who told me that he had applied to have his farm planned and he had asked the extension officer when he could come out to his farm to attend to the necessary details. The extension officer had told him that he could only come out in about 2¾ years’ time. As it happened, a quarter of an hour later, we met the extension officer and he told us that he would not be able to go out to the farm to do the work within a period of 2| years.

Give us the solution.

The solution is a United Party Government. [Laughter.]

I should like to say a few words about soil conservation because this is a matter which is vitally important to our country. Two years ago I said that the annual soil loss amounted to 300 million tons, and hon. members opposite told me that that figure was 10 years old and that it was no longer so high. I read in Die Burger of 6 April that it is estimated that about 400 million tons of South Africa’s best soil is lost annually, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is 400 million tons now and 10 years ago it was 300 million tons, but hon. members opposite tell us that this figure is not rising. [Time limit.]

I am really not surprised, after having listened to the vague general statements, without any proof, made by the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) and Gardens (Mr. Connan), to the effect that they are now the so-called agricultural experts who had to seek political refuge in the cities. I know this is a sore point with the hon. member for Gardens, because he is a good farmer, and I could perhaps say the same of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West), but the fact is that if they had been so far-sighted and had served agriculture as well as they should have, the electorate would not have got rid of them in that way. Furthermore, there is not a sector of our national economy in which the United Party as the official Opposition has weaker representation than on the platteland. So it is not only the two of them who are concerned, but with all the fuss they make they cannot succeed in gaining a single rural seat, and they will be kicked out even further still. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) should not talk so loudly. I understand that she is already looking for an urban seat. We will watch to see whether she stands for election again in Drakensberg.

To sum up everything that has been said, what have we had? The first thing they say is that there is no planning. Any baboon can say that, but if one debates one should not simply say there is no planning; one should say there is no planning in this or that respect, and then one must analyse it and say what sort of planning there should have been. I am not saying that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is doing everything that should be done, but I do say that there is not a single sphere of agriculture in which there has not been planning which has already led to success. We did not wait until this moment. If there is a State Department of which it may justifiably be said that there was advance planning, it is certainly this Department. Tell me in what sphere there was no planning.

But I want to go further. In respect of research I want to say this. Mention a single thing you can think of in which research was not done and is not being done. That is a big challenge to make, because the country is big and we have numerous problems. But hon. members just say there is no planning. I do not want to go into details now to tell people who ought to know better what planning there is. We are also reproached for having a shortage of staff. What country in the world to-day has enough professional and technical staff available, and in what sector of our national economy do we have enough scientific staff? It is not the position in South Africa alone. To train a technologist takes at least from eight to twelve years. Since we came into power, and we have now been in power for almost 17 years, great progress has been made. We started with practically nothing because the Opposition was so shortsighted that they evidently believed the war would continue for ever and that in the meantime they could just break down everything and then start anew. And we had to start anew. In regard to personnel, I just want to mention the following figures.

In the sphere of research we had 718 research posts in 1947-8. In 1958 there were 1,212 and in 1964 it was still only 1,216. Take extension officers. There were 93 in 1947-8. There were 222 in 1958, and in 1964 there were 353. Take technical posts. There were 638 in 1947-8, 1,222 in 1958, and 1,277 in 1964. But now we come to the most important point in regard to all these posts which were so much fewer in 1947-8 than in 1958. and still fewer than in 1964. On 1 January 1948 20 per cent of these technical posts were vacant, while at the end of 1964 only 5 per cent of these vastly increased number of posts were vacant. If people do not have these data, why do they not make sure of their facts? One would say that the Department simply has no more technical officers. The fact is that we lost many people, but even in this House people die. There are losses through death and there are also resignations. Unfortunately I cannot say now what percentage was lost as the result of natural circumstances and what percentage as the result of resignations, but I shall obtain and give the figures later. But why does one resign? A man may resign for health reasons or because he can get a better post elsewhere. Now it may be said that I as Minister did nothing to improve the salary scales in my Department, but that can only be said by people who know nothing. The appointment of the Rautenbach Commission and its report also dealt with conditions of service, and the salaries of the professional and technical officers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services were appreciably improved as the result of the adoption of that report, and the same applied to our veterinarians. Their salaries were improved to such an extent that there was a complete change in the position. Instead of veterinarians leaving the Public Service in increasing numbers, a considerable number who were outside the Public Service returned to it.

But in regard to veterinarians, we also have a number of students. In 1947-8 there were 92, and in 1958 there were 102, and in 1964 we had 176. Whereas formerly we could take in only 30 per annum, the facilities were extended and to-day we take in 45. So the position there is not so bad either. If we think of the number of doses of vaccine prepared by Onderstepoort and how it has increased until it now runs into millions, all in a very short time, and that we no longer prepare vaccines for a few diseases only, but that instead of the 13 diseases for which we had vaccines in 1948, it has increased to 29 in 1964, one should laud it instead of criticizing.

Whilst I am talking about Onderstepoort and the services and the personnel, I should like to make this announcement for general information and to reassure hon. members in regard to the fire which broke out last night in the bacterial vaccine production section. The fire broke out at about 9 o’clock last night. Onderstepoort’s own fire brigade, with the assistance of that of Pretoria, extinguished the fire within two hours. The damage caused is limited to the ground floor of the building and not much apparatus was damaged. The fire did not cause any appreciable loss of vaccines. Only the production of vaccines against paratyphus and anthrax has been put out of action temporarily. Reserve supplies for approximately a month are, however, available. Measures have been taken to continue with the production of vaccines as soon as possible. Steps have already been taken for the immediate repair of the building. No shortage of vaccines is expected.

The third great complaint is that there is no planning in respect of soil conservation. I do not really want to say much about soil conservation, but in view of the fact that the impression is being created that we do not make much progress in that regard, I will leave it to the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Technical Services to deal with the matter in greater detail, because he is responsible for that section.

By what yardstick can one measure the progress, or lack of it, made in regard to soil conservation? One need not merely measure it by the number of extension officers or engineers, but even in that respect we have already adopted a method of extending it by making our farm planning much more streamlined than before so that it can take place faster. Whether progress has been made or not can be judged in the first place from the number of soil conservation districts proclaimed. In regard to soil conservation districts, practically all the land in the White area, except perhaps for municipal land and certain small outlying corners of the country, have been declared as soil conservation districts. I do not wish to mention the figures for the year 1947, because the Act was only proclaimed in 1946. I would rather take the figures for the year 1958. Then there were 658 soil conservation districts, and now there are 819. But what is important is the number of farm plans drawn up. In 1958 there were 13,704. Now there are 34,145 plans completed. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) also referred to Dr. van Wyk at Grootfontein, who is alleged to have said—I do not know whether he was referring to the whole country or only to a certain region— that only about 4 per cent of those farm plans had been implemented. But I know of certain areas in which 50 per cent of the farm plans have already been implemented. In general I just want to say that the implementation of farm plans is mainly the responsibility of the farmer. Surely he is the man who must apply them. I believe that our farmers realize the value and the necessity for it, and they do so as far as they are able to, if they are not hampered by droughts and other things. But it may be hampered tremendously by droughts, particularly where the farm units are small. I am, however, satisfied that there is a new spirit on the part of the farmers themselves of wanting to implement these farm plans which have already been drawn up as soon as possible. When I think of the subsidies for soil conservation, in 1958 R4,620,716 was paid, and in 1964 it was almost double that amount, R 8,060,920. That shows what progress has been made. Rebates on loans granted to farmers amounted to R98,698 in 1958, and in 1964 it was R 1,641,295. The loans granted show precisely the same thing. The loans granted up to 1958 amounted to R2,456,073, whilst in 1964 it was R 12,696,870. The subsidies for the planting of grass lays is also an indication. Up to 1958 R 12,262 was paid out in that respect, whereas during the past six years R231,294 was paid in subsidies for that purpose. Surely that is evidence of progress. It cannot indicate that there was regression. If hon. members had said it should have been faster, I would have been inclined to agree, but I think we can feel happy that a voluntary scheme received so much support by the people who are really responsible for implementing it.

Now it is said that although we have many research projects, that knowledge does not reach the farmers. That is quite wrong.

Is Dr. van der Wath also wrong?

Of course, if he says that, he may be just as wrong as that hon. member is. Since when has Dr. van der Wath been such an expert? There sits the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). He was the Chairman of the Wool Board, and how little he knew! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) should know that talks are broadcast over the radio every day. I know he does not have the time to listen in every day, but the farmers know that for a quarter of an hour every day they can listen in. We have our regular publication, Agriculture in South Africa, to which farmers may subscribe. Then he mentioned certain publications which are sold. I am sorry that the hon. member emphasized that we only sell pamphlets. Of course we sell pamphlets, but I just want to show how many pamphlets can be bought. In their time they also sold pamphlets, but I do not believe they distributed any gratis. In 1948 35,907 pamphlets were sold to farmers. In 1958 it was 47,000, and in 1964 it was 46,200. But the pamphlets which were distributed gratis in 1958 amounted to 350,000, whereas in 1964 it was 713,400. But the hon. member chooses, for the sake of party-political propaganda, to create the impression in the country that everything a farmer needs in the way of information must be bought by him. That is not so. These figures prove it. Now regional and institutional reports are being distributed gratis. That has never happened before. It is a new practice, and in recent years no fewer than 25,000 of those reports were distributed. Then the hon. member says that there are agricultural students who write theses for their degrees, and he complains that we do not distribute those theses to the farmers. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever read an agricultural thesis and whether he would be able to understand it? The ordinary farmer would not benefit by it. But that is what is being done. All those scientific and other publications are available to the farmers in our library and elsewhere, and then there are still the short courses we hold at the experimental stations right throughout the country, where of course mention is always made of the results obtained by research. That is conveyed to the farmers in a very tactful manner, to be applied on their farms. If one talks about adult education and one tells me that this information does not reach the farmers, it might apply to another Department but not to this one. I do not think the organization for performing this extremely important service, to convey the results of research to the farmers, can easily be improved upon. I want to say that this service in our country is as good as, if not better than, that in any of the modern Western countries.

Then hon. members ask what we are doing to improve the personnel position. Here I have in mind the bursaries granted to students. In 1947-8 we had the small amount of R 14,200 per annum available for that purpose under the United Party Government. Between 1947-8 and 1958 we made available R770,000 to 686 students in the form of bursaries. Over that period of nine years it amounted to an average of R77.000 per annum. From 1958 to 1964 we gave R 1,019,390 to 805 students, which works out to an average of R 145,627 per annum. The total between 1948 and 1964 was R 1,789,490, and that was given to 1,473 students. In view of the fact that these facilities have been provided for students, in order to train professional men, the wild allegation should not be made that this Department has done nothing and that the Minister and his Department just want to build up an empire for themselves.

In respect of our agricultural colleges and the expansion which took place there, I just want to mention the following figures, in 1947-8 there were altogether 304 students at five agricultural colleges; in 1948 there were 573, and in 1964 there were 662. We are busy— and we have already made great progress in regard to the planning—establishing a sixth agricultural college in Pretoria, where there will be accommodation for 150 students per annum. I admit that we should like to give many more prospective farmers or practising farmers training in agriculture. Last year I announced that we had abolished the two-year agricultural diploma course after a commission of inquiry had been appointed in 1963 to make recommendations. That commission recommended, and we accepted its recommendation, that those courses should be changed to a one-year course, but not a one-year course which would give the prospective farmer an inferior kind of training. In addition, we want to extend the special courses of three months as far as possible so that practical farmers particularly who want to specialize in certain directions may receive training in those directions. Furthermore, we are going to extend the courses much more than before. I therefore hope that within a year or two we will be able to prove that the number of people receiving agricultural training in this new form will be doubled.

Mention was made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) of the way in which the farmers performed their task and maintained agricultural production in the way they did. He praised them for it, and I also want to praise them. If the guidance and the research were so inferior, how have these farmers been able to do what they have done in recent years?

Then it is said that the relative contribution made by agriculture to our national income fell from a little more than 16 per cent to about 10 per cent. That is true, but the relative contribution may easily fall without its meaning that agricultural production has decreased. It may perhaps mean that other sectors of the economy have grown more rapidly, as is in fact the case.

Agricultural production has not decreased.

I said that it did not decrease, but that its relative contribution to our national income decreased.

That is a pity.

That hon. member surely has more brains than to say it is a pity. What have we done? In 1947-8 our contribution to the net national income was R272,300,000, and that was 15.9 per cent of the total national income, which at that stage stood at R 1,710,000,000, But then the Nationalist Government came into power and in 1958 the figure was no longer R272,300,000, but R449,000,000; in 1962-3 it was R538,000,000, and in 1963-4 R521,000,000. In 1963, notwithstanding the fact that the figure had more than doubled as compared with the figure for 1948, the contribution made by agriculture was only 9.8 per cent of our net national income, but the reason for it is that the other sectors of the economy developed so fast. That is the only reason for it. Agricultural production steadily increased, and in future it will of course increase still further, even though the land does not become more, because the application of scientific methods in agriculture must necessarily result in an increased production per unit of land, plant and animal. It must increase and it will increase.

That is elementary. We all know that.

No, it is not so elementary; it does not just take place automatically. In order for it to do so, the farmers must have the necessary knowledge, and that knowledge must be conveyed to them by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The figures I have just mentioned controvert the allegations of hon. members opposite, because if this Department failed to perform its task, this increase in production could simply not have taken place, particularly with fewer farmers. I do not want to say that we cannot do better or that there are not still many things to be done. There is always room for improvement, particularly in a young, developing country, and there must always be adaptations. But I want to give hon. members the assurance that the machiery has already been created to determine the priorities to be given to certain research projects. That machinery is as efficient as we can possibly make it under present conditions. In view of the fact that we as a State can never compete with private enterprise, which also needs the services of these same agricultural experts and which is able to offer them higher salaries than the State can do. I think that our agricultural experts in the Department have not only performed miracles, but the results of their work show that they are extremely efficient, and I want to take this opportunity heartily to thank these technical men, and in fact the whole personnel of the Department, for their devoted service.

The question was asked as to what percentage of the officers who left the service resigned. The position is that 76 per cent of the persons who left the service resigned.

I want to begin by saying how pleased this side of the House is— indeed, I think that I am speaking on behalf of the whole farming group—that the damage caused to the Onderstepoort Research Institute by last night’s fire was not more extensive. This is an institution which belongs to all of us and we are grateful that the damage caused was not more extensive.

The hon. the Minister started by saying that a number of accusations in regard to a lack of planning had been made against his Department and that nobody had actually given an instance of this lack of planning. In the short time at my disposal I want to try to indicate to the hon. the Minister as clearly as I can where this lack of planning has been experienced, but before doing so I should just like to say this: The hon. the Minister thought fit to say that hon. members on this side who discussed agricultural matters, represent urban constituencies.

But it is true.

It is true, but I want to challenge the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) to refute the allegation I want to make. By the way, when the hon. the Minister was referring to hon. members on this side, he had a jab at me personally by saying: “There is Jan Moolman who was chairman of the Wool Board for years, and look where he is sitting to-day”. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are hon. members on this side of the House who have been associated with organized agriculture for many years as members of agricultural executives, management committees and as members of the Agriculture Advisory Board. They have served in these capacities far longer than have hon. members on that side and I want to add that throughout the years that I have been associated with organized agriculture, these three Ministers of Agriculture have been notable by their absence. The hon. the Minister said: “Just look at the type of people appointed by organized agriculture, people like Dr. Van der Walt and Jan Moolman; this is the best that organized agriculture can do”. I in my turn would just like to say, when I look at the representatives of agriculture on that side of the House, that if this is the best that their voters can do, I feel sorry for them. Sir, when one attacks these Ministers of Agriculture, they always take refuge in the fact that there is a drought. We do not deny that the country has been plagued by very severe droughts. The Annual Report of the hon. the Minister’s Department starts off in this vein—

Mr. Chairman, is South Africa the only country in the world where droughts, cold weather and so forth are the order of the day? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has ever read the periodical of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, and, if he has not, whether he has ever taken the trouble to remain in contact with agriculture in the outside world; or does he simply prefer to remain a big fish in a small pool? Let me quote one item from the latest report of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers. They say—

In a country like the United States which also experiences floods—we have read about the Mississippi River overflowing its banks—a country which is also subject to cold weather, droughts and so forth, we find that in one year beef exports increased by two-thirds. Sir, what has this hon. Minister and his Department, which has to do the necessary research and planning, done to combat droughts and to combat the losses suffered as a result of droughts? [Interjection.] Sir, if the hon. member for Cradock will remain quiet, he and I will both be able to hear what is being said.

Order!

I want to ask the hon. the Minister pertinently to give me the results of his planning in connection with the coordinated and balanced production of primary products in our country. If there has been coordination in connection with production, how is it then that we find ourselves in the present position as far as dairy products are concerned? I want to ask him for the results of his planning in the combating of the greatest evil known in this country, drought, and I also want to ask him what planning has been done in regard to the preservation of our herds of stock and their increase. What has been done regarding the conservation of our breeding stock? What means have been suggested by the hon. the Minister and his Department, whether by way of controlled slaughtering or conservation or by means of State assistance to ensure that our best breeding stock are conserved for the purpose of increasing our herds? Has he ensured that only culls be slaughtered, if that many animals have to be slaughtered in order to supply our requirements? If it is necessary for more animals to be slaughtered then there are other methods which can be used without affecting our stud stock. Mr. Chairman, in discussing ways and means of combating drought conditions, I should like the hon. the Minister and his Departmental officials to tell us what they have done to overcome those difficulties by way of the establishment of fodder banks or the improvement of grazing so as to produce additional supplies of fodder to combat droughts. What has been done in the high rainfall areas—I am not speaking about the Western Cape, of Bredasdorp and Swellendam and similar places—miracles have already been performed by means of extension services and the enterprise of the farmer. When one goes further down from Humansdorp along the East coast, through the high rainfall area, one finds Döhne isolated with a stand of dryland lucerne which is too wonderful for words. I ask the hon. the Minister: Where are the extension services to encourage farmers to produce crops such as the one I described? Why cannot we do this? I am not going to discuss the question of a lack of staff and I am not going to discuss the question of droughts. Droughts are natural disasters which leave their mark on this country. But what do other countries do in this regard? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member the opportunity to make his own speech.

I should like to make another quotation from the Report of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers to indicate what other countries are doing in regard to the financing of agriculture and in regard to the combating of drought conditions. What is the position in France? I quote—

After all, the countries in which these steps are being taken are also affected by disasters such as cold winters, frost and snow from time to time, disasters which destroy their crops and deplete their herds. These countries take certain steps to combat these disasters. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister what steps he and his Department are taking to combat these conditions in this country. We know that there is a shortage of manpower. I would be the last one to say that we are not grateful to the officials of the hon. the Minister’s Department, but what planning has been done in order to combat these conditions?

Mr. Chairman, we complained bitterly last year in regard to the slaughtering of stud stock. Farmers are forced to send their stud animals to the markets, irrespective of the sex of the animal. What has the hon. the Minister and his Department done up to the present to find ways and means of protecting our herds of stock, to ensure that our herds are conserved for the good of the country, not for the good of individual farmers? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) mentioned statistics in regard to our herds of stock. I myself have mentioned these statistics on numerous occasions, but I want to repeat these figures: In 1932, the stock population of this country was 12,000,000 cattle and 42,000,000 sheep, and in 1956, slightly more than 12,000,000 cattle and 32,000,000 sheep. [Time limit].

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), who has just sat down, gave us a description of conditions in the United Kingdom, the United States and in France. One would really think that we were having a debate here on conditions in the outside world and not on conditions in South Africa. He began his speech by saying that there are hon. members on that side who have been associated with organized agriculture for many years. I accept the fact that they were associated with organized agriculture for many years, but they made such a hash of things that the most prominent champions of the farmers on that side to-day represent urban constituencies. They fled to urban constituencies because the farmers had lost confidence in them completely.

I am sorry that the hon. member for East London City sees fit to drag the question of the drought into the debate from time to time.

But the hon. the Minister himself refers to it in his Annual Report.

This is not a matter out of which we should try to make political capital. The hon. member ought to know better than to accuse the Government of an inadequate amount of planning in regard to the combating of these drought conditions. If ever there has been a Government which has planned thoroughly, it is this Government. Consider the number of large irrigation dams that have been built over the past years, dams which provide the farmers with water in order to enable them to produce fodder, with a view to the droughts which affect this country periodically. We know that droughts do occur from time to time but we do not try to make political capital out of this fact. Because hon. members no longer have the confidence of the farmers, they are trying to make political capital out of the question of the drought. I come now to one of the greatest projects that has ever been tackled in this country; I do not know whether the hon. member for East London City even knows about it. I am referring to the tunnel which will be built to lead water from the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam to that part of the world. There is also the Van Der Kloof Dam under which not simply hundreds but thousands of farmers will be re-settled.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) is unfortunately not in the House at the moment. He came along with the old, old story that there are fewer farmers on the land to-day. It is true that we have fewer farmers, but why should there not be fewer farmers? If production continues to rise with fewer farmers on the land, why should there be a number of farmers struggling to cultivate small pieces of land and almost dying of hunger in the attempt?

Because the farmers are the backbone of the country.

The hon. member knows that it is necessary to have an economic unit in order to farm properly, and if one does not have an economic unit, one becomes a burden on the State. If a farmer does not have an economic unit it is far better for him to dispose of that land and to seek a decent position with a reasonable future elsewhere. He should sell that land to a person who can work it properly.

You also say that the small farmer should be removed.

No, not at all. I am almost sure that the hon. member will distort my words to-morrow. I do not for one moment maintain that the small farmer should be removed, but I repeat that a farmer who has an uneconomic unit cannot make a living. Let us imagine for a moment that one can make a living on a thousand morgen in the Karoo. If a farmer in those parts has only 500 or so morgen, sooner or later he will fall away. It is better for that farmer to sell his land to his neighbour who can then add it to his farm and thus farm economically. It is true that the number of farmers has fallen by thousands, but our production has not fallen. Why has our production not fallen? The land which was previously an uneconomic unit is now better planned and better cultivated. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) spoke about soil conservation and the planning of farms. Sir, if one travels by car—and particularly if one travels by air—one is immediately struck by the amount of planning that has already been done. There is scarcely a farm today on which there is no dam. Everywhere in the Karoo one sees pools and pools of water. Where does that water come from? These are dams which have been built on a subsidy from the Government. One finds that practically every farm is fenced, that camps are made, that there are outside fences and that most farmers follow a system whereby only one-half or one-third of the farm is grazed at a time—in other words, according to a rest camp system.

Why is this not being done?

The hon. member has said that no information is given to the farmers. The hon. member spoke about extension officers and said that no information was given to farmers. What was the position under the United Party Government? The position was hopeless. We cannot manufacture extension officers, but we do have facilities for the training of these people. There is Onderstepoort and there are agricultural schools and agricultural colleges where prospective farmers can receive their training. Sir, I cannot but pay tribute to this Government for its great courage in the steps it has taken to conserve water in this country. One finds very few streams nowadays because the water which falls on the ground is kept on the ground, I think, for example, of a rivulet in my part of the world, the Seekoei River. When I first had my farm that rivulet used to flow from time to time but it no longer flows to-day. There is not a drop of water in it, unless there is a heavy downpour. All that water is collected and conserved.

I come now to the question of soil conservation. Let us consider for a moment the millions and millions of rand that have been spent on soil conservation. Our farms no longer drift away in the wind; our soil is being conserved and our water is being conserved on the farms. It is nonsensical to come along here and say that there is no planning in this country to-day in regard to the combating of drought conditions. Everything possible is being done to enable the farmers to build up a fodder bank, and this is being done with the assistance of the State.

The last speaker started by saying that it was a pity that the United Party had to drag the question of the drought into this debate; that it was a pity that we were trying to make political capital out of the drought. He ended by asking what had been done under the United Party Government and he said that nothing had been done by the United Party. Did he not himself bring politics into the debate? We on this side of the House are not discussing what was done by the United Party Government. When we talk of droughts we speak of a reality throughout the country. The hon. member said that a tunnel would be built under the Orange River scheme as a result of which, to use his own words, thousands of farmers could be “herbevestig”.

“Hervestig”.

I wrote down the hon. member’s words; he spoke about the “herbevestiging” of farmers. I agree with the hon. the Chief Whip that the hon. member’s Afrikaans is not very good. Mr. Chairman, our attitude on this side of the House is this: Why is it necessary first to remove a farmer from his farm and then to resettle him? When I look at those hon. members I do not know which of them will still be alive when the Orange River scheme is eventually completed. That hon. member was the third speaker on the other side. The first speaker was the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) and what did he try to prove? He tried to prove that although there are fewer farmers on the land, there are not fewer farming units. The hon. member for De Aaar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) and the hon. the Minister also said so. Apparently the new slogan of the Nationalist Party is that the uneconomic farmer must leave the land. This was said by the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg.

Now you say “apparently”.

I said “apparently” and now I shall tell the hon. member that this is their new policy. The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg asked whether it would not be better for the small farmer farming an uneconomic piece of land to sell that land and find a good position in the city. How can a man who has only been trained for farming find a good position in the city? What sort of good position is he going to find? I have asked in this House before what the Nationalist Party wants. Do they want our farmers to leave their farms and carry parcels on the stations or weed the grass around the Union Buildings? Or should they push barrows on the Pretoria or Cape Town station?

The hon. the Minister has said that we on this side of the House say that there is no planning. We accuse the hon. the Minister of having no planning. I want to repeat what has been said by every speaker on this side of the House—that we have only praise and appreciation for the work done by the staff of the hon. the Minister. I have always found them to be very helpful. I do not know how they are able to carry the burden which rests upon their shoulders. We accuse this hon. Minister of not looking after his own staff. He does not intercede for them with the Cabinet. He must advocate better working hours and better salaries for his staff, and increased staff.

The hon. the Minister is very clever. When we discussed veterinary services and the shortage of veterinary officers, he did not tell us how many veterinary officers there were in South Africa but he gave us the number of students studying veterinary science. He said that there were 92 in 1948 and 176 in 1964. The hon. the Minister must tell us how many of those 176 will join the Public Service when they have completed their studies. How many of them will go to private organizations? How many of them will go into private practice?

The hon. the Minister said that the first two speakers on this side were people who had fled the platteland; that the United Party did not have one platteland seat. In Natal alone we have Zululand, Pietermaritzburg (District), Pinetown and Drakensberg. In the Cape Province there is Albany and King William’s Town, and there are others as well. In spite of this, the hon. the Minister states categorically that the United Party does not have one platteland seat. He does not know any better. Whether our first two speakers represent rural constituencies or not makes no difference. The point is, what sort of farmers are they and what is their knowledge of farming? I challenge hon. members opposite to put up three of the farmers on that side against one farmer on this side; then we shall see who is the better farmer.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) advocated the better dissemination of information among farmers by the Department. The hon. the Minister said that this plea was a nonsensical one because, he said, there were daily radio talks to which the farmers could listen. Mr. Chairman, do you know when those talks are broadcast? They are broadcast at a quarter to two o’clock in the afternoon. Which farmer worth his salt is at home then? [Laughter.] I am sure that the hon. the Minister switches on his radio and then sleeps for a while. At his wit’s end, the hon. the Minister contended that farming production was increasing year by year. This is, of course, quite true. The hon. the Minister went on to say that there was a new spirit among the farmers. But that spirit has always been there. The farmers have always tried to advance, no matter how unfavourable climatic conditions have been. [Time limit.]

Before making a few remarks about what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) I should like heartily to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department and to thank them for the way in which they acted during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Swaziland and in the Transvaal. It was due to the swift and efficient action that was taken that this feared disease did not spread further in the Republic. I would like, however, to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come, because the situation is now so much under control, to relax these measures. The farmers are really struggling under the conditions which prevail at present, particularly in my constituency where there is a great drought and where the farmers are restricted in regard to the movement and marketing of their stock. I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister cannot now see his way clear to announce a certain amount of relief in this regard.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West), who is now the mouthpiece of the United Party in the agricultural sphere, accused this Government today of not doing sufficient as far as agricultural colleges are concerned in order to train more farmers and to accommodate more students. But what did the hon. member’s party do when it was in Government?

That was in 1947.

The United Party must stop trying to hide behind the war. I think that it is the most stupid thing that any Government can do to close its agricultural colleges in time of war, and that was what they did. As the hon. the Minister said, we had to start from scratch. When he said this there were cries from hon. members opposite that this statement was untrue. Can the hon. member deny that they closed the agricultural colleges? How much more staff would we not have had if those agricultural colleges had remained open? The hon. member does not even consider this point and then he accuses this Government, which is doing everything in its power to make the necessary facilities available for the training of the necessary staff, of doing nothing. That is not honest.

The complaint is now that all the pamphlets which are printed by the Department are not sent to the farmers free of charge. Does the hon. member not know the great variety of pamphlets that are printed? Should each and every farmer, whether he is a turkey farmer or a vegetable farmer or a sheep farmer, be sent a pamphlet on cattle diseases? What nonsense that is! The Department has to go and find out if Jan is a poultry farmer! Jan may be a poultry farmer to-day but he may change over to something else to-morrow. Should the Department have to ascertain what every farmer throughout the country is farming with year after year? If the hon. member knew anything at all he would know that farmers do to a large extent change over from one type of farming to another. My point is this, Sir: The farmer who is worth his salt will be willing to pay a few cents for a pamphlet which he requires. Why should the Department be saddled with a tremendous distribution organization for the purpose of sending every farmer a pamphlet on the type of farming in which he is interested, and, moreover, free of charge? How many of those farmers will read those pamphlets? The farmer who wants that pamphlet will order it.

The hon. member also referred to the static figures in regard to our cattle and sheep herds. Why did he not also give us the percentage increase in the number of slaughterings? Far more oxen are being slaughtered to-day than previously; the number has increased by more than 13 per cent. He also referred to the wool yield. Why did he not mention the percentage of the wool yield? He did not want to mention it, Sir. The hon. member has forgotten how they slaughtered stud stock in their time. He forgets that more than 1,000,000 lbs. of beef were stolen in Johannesburg over a period of three months. The invoices were lying about everywhere for anybody to pick up. This happened under the Government of the United Party. Hon. members should read the report of the select committee which sat at the time.

The United Party stole it.

Then he accuses us of not protecting our stud stock.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) allowed to say that it was the United Party which stole 1,000,000 lbs. of meat?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) should consider the record of his own party before he accuses this Government of laxity.

The hon. member for East London City (Dr. Moolman) also said that we want to force the small farmer off the farm. The hon. member knows that if a farmer is farming on an uneconomic unit, he can make application for expansion. We want to keep him on the land, but the Government cannot prevent anybody selling his farm of his own free will and seeking a position in a city or town. The Government cannot tell such person that he should remain on his farm.

You must make it so attractive for him that he will want to stay on his farm.

That is as stupid a remark as was made by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who said that if the prices are right, the farmer will stay on the land. I want to ask that hon. member whether a farmer can make a living on an uneconomic unit?

If the prices are right.

His own party is member expect excessive prices to be fixed for farm products? What will the consumer have to say about it? Does the hon. member not know the economic facts of agriculture? One can only sell one’s product at the price the consumer can pay. The hon. member for Gardens wants to fix excessive prices for products so that the consumer will not be able to pay those prices at all ! That is the agricultural policy of the United Party! Excessive prices which the consumer is not able to pay ! In other words, if the consumer is not able to pay those prices, that small farmer, who is farming an uneconomic unit, will not be able to sell his product.

His own party is opposed to that policy.

The Government must subsidize the product.

I am very pleased that the agricultural policy of the United Party has to-day been made clear to us by the hon. member for Gardens.

The objection was also forthcoming that the hon. the Minister has no influence on the Cabinet in regard to his staff. Are those hon. members members of the National Party Cabinet that they know what happens there? They do not know what happens at Cabinet meetings. Let me tell them this: From personal discussions that I have had with this hon. Minister it has been apparent that he has a generous heart and hand as far as his officials are concerned and that he treats them with the utmost consideration. To try now to drive a wedge between the officials and the hon. the Minister will simply be laughed to scorn by those same officials. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to waste much of my time on the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) except just to say that the hon. member is in the habit of standing up here and saying that he is quoting from a verbatim report. I take it that he was quoting from a verbatim report when he told us this story about the theft of 1,000,000 lbs. of beef. He then wanted to know how we knew that the hon. the Minister did not intercede for his officials with his colleagues. If the Minister does intercede for them and he has no influence with his colleagues, what sort of Minister is he?

Sir, soil conservation and the correct use of our soil is our only guarantee for the future. South Africa must see to it not only that she is able to support the present generation but she must also be able to feed, to house and to provide the necessary raw materials for future generations. It does not matter how many millions we spend on other things; it does not matter how many millions we spend on Bantu areas development. It does not matter how many millions we spend on community development, on pensions, on the building of railway lines; it does not matter how many millions of our surpluses we put away, if we do not properly care for and properly use the soil of our country, then all those things will be to no avail; then all our efforts will simply be in vain. The soil of our country is the basis of our lives. It is the basis of everything that we see in this House to-day; it is the basis of these buildings, of the clothes we wear and of the food we eat. Sir, I cannot emphasize too strongly what the mighty America said in this connection—

That is old news.

It may be old news but it still remains the truth. They then go on to talk about personal activities.

This relates, of course, to our feeding, our shelter, our clothing, our homes, our newspapers, etc. This is what an old country like America says, but when I come to a young country like Israel, and what does Israel say? This is what Israel says—

Sir, I wonder how many of our farmers have considered what this drought is going to do to our economic structure this year and what it is going to do to our balance of payments position? Last year we were able to export maize; we were able to increase our wool exports by something like R30,000,000 in value; we were able to export butter and cheese; we had meat to export; we had a good deal of sugar to export. But because of the drought, a circumstance for which nobody is to blame, we have been deprived of all these things this year and we are going to feel the effect of it. We in South Africa are going to be made aware of the truth of the statement made in Israel that “agriculture is the foundation of the country’s economic structure.” [Interjections.] The hon. member over there says that we cannot make rain. Sir, he must not try to treat this matter as a joke. What hurts me so bitterly is that when we talk about farming and the interests of farming, when we say that the farmers are the backbone of this country, when we quote what they say in America and Israel, hon. members on the other side play the fool and say that they cannot make rain and all that sort of thing. I hope the country will note the attitude adopted by hon. members opposite. Mr. Chairman, I have never tried to make political capital out of the drought, but I could do so; I could say that it is because we have such a rotten Government that we have a drought! If we had had a better Government we would have been blessed with more rain. Hon. members opposite have been asking for it and now they have got it!

Sir. we have been talking about planning and about the information that we can get from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and how that information is passed on to the farmers. I still say that in this respect there is one great shortcoming. The ordinary farmer who has not had the privilege of attending an agricultural college does not know how to get hold of those pamphlets. I want to give the hon. the Minister a practical example. The position is that in most cases the pamphlets are not available and I want to suggest that the Minister’s extension officers should keep a certain number of these pamphlets at their offices so that . . .

They have heaps of pamphlets . . .

That is not correct. The hon. member can go to the office of the extension officer at Utrecht and he will not find a single pamphlet there.

If you come to Somerset East we will give you stacks of pamphlets.

As usual, the hon. member is talking through his hat. The truth of the matter is that in the Cape Province 50 per cent of our land has to be protected against erosion and only 5 per cent is protected by way of contour works, etc. Until 1950 we obtained bigger crops by cultivating more land. The carrying capacity of the land has now been increased, thanks to the extension services of which the farmers have availed themselves. Mr. Chairman, we can have the best extension services in the world, but if the farmers of South Africa refuse to forge ahead then the position is simply hopeless. I resent the fact that the hon. the Minister tries to create the impression that he is the only person who has done anything. The fact remains that we must farm more efficiently.

Then I come to another matter and that is the influence that the hon. the Minister has in the Cabinet. Since we are called upon to-day to work with farm labour that does not know how to work with machinery or how to look after it, I think the time has come when the hon. the Minister should urge upon the Cabinet that farm labour be trained in the handling and the care of machinery. We all know that that is one of the greatest difficulties with which the farmer has to contend. Sir, our farmers are often told that they have over-capitalized and that they have too much machinery. The position, however, is that the farmer often has to keep more machinery on his farm than he actually needs because the one machine may break down and because he has no trained labour to look after it.

As I said a moment ago, of course, there is a very serious shortage of agricultural extension and research officers and veterinarians. The hon. Minister tells us how many students there are but he does not tell us how many of them are going to remain in his service once they have completed their training. In the Republic we have one extension officer for every 5,250 farmers; in Rhodesia there are 17 for every 4,000 farmers. In Rhodesia we have one veterinarian for every 41,000 head of cattle and in Denmark there is one for every 2,700. [Interjections.] Sir, listen to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing! No wonder the country and the farmers find themselves in the mess in which they are. His reply is that we have sickly cattle in South Africa.

I said that we had healthy cattle.

That is the attitude that the hon. the Minister adopts! [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) raised such a hullabaloo here that one cannot take much notice of her. It is a pity that the hon. member does not make use of her talents. The moment she started speaking seriously, everybody in the House took notice of what she was saying.

Hon. members of the Opposition have all come along with the same accusation and that is that the results of the research undertaken by the Department do not reach the farmers. Various members on the other side said that they wanted to pay tribute to the farmers of South Africa for what they had achieved during the past year. Sir, I also want to do so; that is quite correct. When one takes into account the fact that South Africa is actually a difficult country in which to farm, the farmers in all seven regions of our country have achieved wonders. In spite of the drought and other climatic conditions over which they have had no control, the farmers have made wonderful progress. I want to emphasize the fact that the farmers of South Africa would not have been able to make that progress without the benefits of the research undertaken by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services or without the benefit of the extension services provided by the Department. It is alleged by hon. members opposite that the results of that research do not reach the farmers. I say that if the results of this research do not reach a farmer then he does not deserve to be called a farmer, because if he has certain problems on his farm all he has to do is to ask, for example, why his mealies are turning yellow and the Department will tell him that it is due to lack of zinc in the soil. If he follows the Department’s advice and feeds his soil with zinc he will have a bumper crop. If he then comes along after two or three years and says that his mealies are again turning yellow the Department will tell him that this time it is due to lack of molybdenum and that he must add that particular trace element. The following year that farmer will find that his plants are blue. Sir, I want to give the hon. member for Drakensberg some good advice and that is not to incite the farmers so much, not against the National Party Government, because that she cannot do, but she is harming the farmers. She should be a little more constructive in dealing with the farmers. She should also be a little more constructive in this House.

Sir, not a single hon. member on the other side has made a contribution to this debate. They have done nothing but criticize and for the rest they have simply repeated the same old story that there is a shortage of manpower. We know that there is a shortage as a result of this tremendous economic upsurge for which the National Party Government is responsible. If we had not had this economic upsurge in our country, we would have had ample manpower. There would have been unemployment and we would have had more people in the Department than we needed. It is because of this wonderful economic progress in this country that we are faced with a shortage of manpower. What the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) said only amounted to this that the amount of land that we have in this country is not increasing, that it remains constant, and that as the numbers of consumers increase we will have to produce more on the same land to meet the growing requirements of the consumers. That is correct, of course, and we can only do that through more and more research as the Minister and the Department know perfectly well. That is the only way in which we can do so. Sir, I am a little perturbed. I have here a report by Dr. Mönich under the title “A study of the organization of science”. It is recommended in this study that all research should be undertaken by the agricultural faculties of the universities and that all basic research in agriculture should be placed under a biological council, under which not only agriculture will fall but also medicine, dentistry, fisheries, forestry, veterinary science, etc.

I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister this afternoon to study this report very thoroughly and to give us as farmers the assurance that if the recommendations contained in this report are accepted, it will not prejudicially affect research in connection with agriculture, with the result that eventually the close contact which is maintained with the practical farmer will be lost. We are perfectly satisfied with the research which is being done to-day by the agricultural faculties, by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, as well as at the agricultural research stations and at the agricultural colleges. Our farmers are perfectly satisfied. We know that we can get information immediately. The extension officers are in close touch with the research station and where problems present themselves immediate attention is given to them and research in that connection is undertaken as soon as possible. As I have already said, more and more research will have to be undertaken in the future to be able to supply food to the ever-increasing numbers of consumers in this country. There are many problems at the moment which give me cause for great concern. I am perturbed about our maize production. At the moment we have two very serious maize diseases which threaten the whole of the maize industry. The one is leaf scorch, which is a very serious problem, and unless we can find a solution through research I am afraid our maize industry is going to suffer tremendously. Then there is a second serious maize disease, and here I refer to root-rot which in certain years, particularly when it is dry and when the roots of the plant cannot extract the necessary moisture from the soil, simply causes huge patches of mealies to turn white and to yield nothing. With the increasing incidence of root diseases, the same thing applies to wheat. We know that this matter is engaging the Department’s attention and that the Department is trying to find a solution, but I want to make an appeal to the Minister to expedite matters and to do everything in his power to find a solution to ward off these serious threats.

I want to congratulate the Minister on the fact that once again provision is being made in these Estimates for large sums of money for research. When we look at the Estimates we find that there are various research institutes for which millions of rand are being voted and we believe that if we as farmers make the right use of all the knowledge which is already available to us as a result of research we will be able to double and treble our production in this country and that there will probably never be a shortage of food in this country.

Before I reply to the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Schlebusch) I just want to deal first with the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) who made the accusation against me and against other members on this side of the House that we always seek to exploit the drought. He then turned out to be such an expert on agriculture that he could not even talk for the full ten minutes. Sir, we resent the accusation that we are trying to exploit the drought when we act as the champions of the farmers who have been in the grip of a drought not only this year but for some years past. We have tried continually to put forward plans, a host of plans. The hon. member for Bethlehem says that we do not make constructive suggestions; that we merely criticize. Sir, I wish I had the time to tabulate the suggestions and proposals that we have put forward in the past in connection with this matter and also in connection with the drought. When I asked the hon. the Minister what research had been done, I specifically referred to certain points, but the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg comes along to-day for the umpteenth time with this story about uneconomic units and the story that people who are on uneconomic units should rather leave the land. Sir, the hon. member and other farmer members on the other side of the House ought to realize that what this country needs is many farmers and good farmers and a good Minister. The farmers are the backbone of this country. But ever since the hon. the Minister himself used the expression that “the small little farmers must quit the land”, an expression which he later tried to defend and which has now become popular, we have been hearing this continual talk about uneconomic units. It has become the favourite expression with the farmer members. I challenge the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg or any member on the other side of the House to tell me what an economic unit is and what an uneconomic unit is in farming. I suppose if a man has 25 cows in his dairy and the prices are so low that he cannot make a living and he sells those cows it will be said that that farm is an uneconomic unit. When a man has no money to develop his holding and he fails, then it is an uneconomic unit, but when a farmer with capital, like the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg perhaps, comes along and puts up a big dam and produces a lot of lucerne, then it is an economic unit. The hon. member over there must stop talking about uneconomic units and the reduction in the number of farmers in this country. He is doing a disservice to his Party and to the farming community by talking about the reduction in the number of farmers in this country.

The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter), who represents one of our good farming areas, then came along with a brand new thesis and a norm for determining the price that the farmer can be paid for his products. Sir, do you know what he says? His answer is this: “What the consumer can afford to pay.” This is an entirely new approach. The price that the consumer can afford to pay is to be the price paid to the farmer for his product. Is that agricultural economics? Sir, if means that under hire-purchase a man can enter into obligations by buying furniture, a house, a motor car, etc., which tie him up for a long period, and then suddenly has to cut down on the article which he can no longer afford, and that, Sir, is what you and I are producing, and he cannot pay more for it—well, that is supposed to be agricultural economics according to the hon. member! The prices are determined on the basis of what the consumer can afford to pay.

The hon. member for Vryheid then went further and made the accusation against the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) that he apparently did not know that many more cattle were being slaughtered to-day than during the years referred to by the hon. member. Of course more cattle are being slaughtered. But does the hon. member for Vryheid not know, does the Minister not know that if there are adequate extension services and adequate training of the farmers to ensure that cattle which are slaughtered weigh an average of 500 lbs. as against 360 lbs., which is the position to-day, nothing like the same number of head of cattle will be slaughtered? Surely that is elementary. Attention must be given not only to the different breeds and cross-breeds of cattle as far as research is concerned, but also to the question of feeding so that cattle will be marketed when they weigh 500 lbs. and not when they weigh 360 lbs.

The hon. member then dealt with the wool position. The 1,000,000 bales that we formerly produced will be reduced this year to about 900,000 bales, but we long ago exceeded 1,000,000 bales at a time when sheep were yielding less wool than they do to-day. This year the production has dropped by almost 10 per cent. So much with regard to the expert from Vryheid!

The hon. member for Bethlehem says that we put forward no positive suggestions of which the Minister can take any notice. Sir, we are continually putting forward positive suggestions, particularly also with reference to research and guidance for the farmers. I repeat for the umpteenth time that we can achieve a very great deal by means of a maximum effort in connection with research and guidance to farmers and by devising methods to combat droughts. Is it necessary for me to sum it all up again? I refer to the establishment of fodder banks, the methods that can be employed in establishing fodder banks, the better grazing that we can bring about, the large silos that we can build for ourselves, the improvement of the veld. The Minister and his Department have done a great deal already in connection with veld improvement. We are not ungrateful for what has been done. But these are the ways in which we can combat drought. Surely we are making constructive speeches when we discuss under this Vote the question of better research and how the study of these matters can be promoted. In this respect the position still leaves a great deal to be desired because we are suffering more and more damage as a result of drought. I wonder what the report of the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services will look like by June 1965 when they already have to say in June 1964 that this country suffered one of the most severe droughts and that it had one of the coldest seasons in its history, etc. What is the position going to be by the end of 1965? Apparently we have no solution for the problem of continuing droughts other than to give subsidies to the farmers and to assist them in connection with the transportation of their stock and to grant loans to them. It is high time we tried to find the answer, by means of research, to the question as to what sort of financing our agriculturists need to enable them to combat droughts. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members opposite are shouting, but it remains a fact that the agricultural industry is just as important to the population as a whole as it is to this side of the House and as it ought to be to the other wide of the House. It is daily becoming clearer to us—and this has been the tendency ever since the Minister made that statement in connection with the reduction in the number of farmers—that the small farmers simply have to clear out. I am not suggesting that an uneconomic unit can be converted into an economic unit simply by increasing the prices of agricultural produce, but there are countless ways in which an uneconomic unit, which is a borderline case, can be converted into an economic unit. There is the question of agricultural credit, the question of cheaper financing for the farmers; there are numbers of things that can be done that will be of assistance, but the Government’s attitude is becoming clearer to us from day to day and that is: “The fewer the farmers the happier we will be.” I have said before that the farmers put this Government into power and it will be the farmers who will bring this Government to a fall.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has spoken about many things, but before I deal with them, I should like to say the following as regards his statement that he has never seen our Ministers at organized agricultural unions: The hon. member could not have seen them there because he himself has not been there. I have sat there for many years, and I have never seen the hon. member there. That reflection on our Ministers is therefore undeserved.

I should like to dwell on some aspects of the debate which has taken place here this afternoon. A great hullabaloo has been raised here about the shortage of staff in the various Departments. I have said before, and I should like to repeat, that South Africa and our training centres can be proud of the fact that that is the position, because the South African training centres are supplying Africa with technicians. Where would they get technicians if not from us? And how are they to get them? They can only get them by offering them tremendous salaries and great benefits. That is the position. Time and again figures have been quoted in connection with a shortage of veterinary surgeons. But can any member on that side tell me how many veterinary surgeons have resigned from the Public Service and are at present practising as private practitioners? And where do they come from? Every single one of them comes from our own training centres. South Africa is at present better off in this regard than it was in the days of the United Party Government. The allegations that the present Minister and his Department are responsible for this position are so much rubbish. Let me substantiate this. Much has been made of the shortage of butter and of the fact that we now have to import butter and cheese. What was the position before the effects of the prolonged drought made themselves felt? In November, Pretoria alone had a surplus of 7,000 gallons of milk per day. If the drought had not occurred, we would to-day have had the greatest surplus of butter and cheese that this country has ever experienced. We would have had the greatest surplus of maize South Africa has ever seen. That is the position. It is most unreasonable to come here to-day and to lay all the blame at the door of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the fact that the country has been afflicted with a drought.

I should like to come back to research. Sir, we have made tremendous progress in South Africa since the establishment of this Department. Let us never under-estimate that. I should like to point out to the hon. members that there were parts of South Africa where it had become virtually impossible to rear a calf, due to the dreaded disase, paratyphoid. What is the present position? We are overcoming it. How? Research has made it possible. Some years ago lumpy-skin disease destroyed large dairy herds in South Africa. What is the present position? The vaccine is there and any farmer who wishes to take precautions can inoculate his cattle against this disease. That danger has passed. Take another case—the yellowing of maize. What is the position at present? Why is it that we now know exactly, as the hon. member for Bethlehem mentioned, that it is caused by a deficiency of zinc, a deficiency of molybdenum? Here again we owe this to research by the Department. There is nothing the Opposition can mention that does not receive the attention of this Department. One can name many other instances. Some 20 years ago organized agriculture and the farmers and also the Department feared that all dairy herds in the Transvaal would eventually have to be sold as a result of a dangerous infection by epivaginitis, which came to South Africa from Central Africa. To-day it is being overcome by drugs made available as a result of research, drugs that have been discovered in South Africa as a result of research carried out locally. Do not let us refer sneeringly therefore to what has already been achieved. South Africa has achieved a great deal in this field. As regards the agriculture industry about which the hon. member for Drakensberg waxed lyrical, I may mention that when we discuss our soil we speak of something that everybody in this country loves, be he a city-dweller or a farmer; everybody realizes that if one destroys agriculture, then South Africa will suffer because we would all be affected, as is the case at present. As a result of something for which this side of the House cannot be held responsible—the drought—we have suffered a set-back. To suggest that the farming members on this side are making light of this matter is nonsense. Let me put it this way: If fewer farmers are producing more in South Africa, what on earth is there to complain about? If fewer officials are doing more work then it is something to be proud of. If fewer farmers are producing more, whether it be maize, wool, meat or butter, we have reason to be proud and grateful. Why are they complaining? The complaints arise from the drought that hit South Africa. In Australia the farmers are also suffering as a result of a severe drought. The Government is taking a hand in matters. I challenge any member on the other side to get up and say that the present Government is doing less for farmers in drought-stricken areas then was done in the past. The opposite is true. Much more is being done in those parts than ever before. But let us dwell briefly on the past of the hon. members opposite. What is their past like? It is not very pleasant to look at. What did they do in connection with agricultural colleges? This afternoon they have a great deal to say about agricultural colleges, but they are the people who closed down the colleges. What is the position? Today the farmer himself manages marketing; his produce reaches the markets through cooperative societies; in this way his wool and his wheat and his meat reach the market. What was the position in the past?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak about marketing, but I should just like to point out that under the present Government and under the present Minister of Agriculture a structure has been built in South Africa which most definitely looks after the interests of the farmer—more effectively and more economically than ever happened in the days of the previous Government. To find faults in planning and research when such gigantic efforts are made to place South Africa on a sound economic footing as regards its agriculture, is ridiculous. I had the privilege, as did some other members, of visiting certain agricultural research stations. May I express my gratitude by saying that what I saw there made a tremendous impression on me, in Pretoria as well as at Stellenbosch-Elsenburg and elsewhere. This spells progress for South Africa, and I, as an agricultural producer, no longer have fears as I did in the past, for I know that there is a Department behind me that looks after my interests as never before in the past. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) has just told us that but for the drought we would have had an enormous surplus of cheese and butter. Does the hon. member realize that the juggling with the price of butter-fat not so long ago caused a shortage of butter long before the drought set in? How the hon. member will reconcile those facts, I do not know.

However, I want to talk about drought, distasteful as it might be; it is the topical subject and I think it should be discussed as far as possible in this debate, until the Government realizes that it has got to plan. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with possibly the worst confusion that we have had for many, many years as a result of the severity of this drought. But it is not the first one. We have had droughts for years and years. Almost every year we have had droughts in sections of the country. Sir, have we prepared for it? No, Sir. That is why I want to talk “drought” now in the hope that the Minister will realize that we have got to plan and prepare for such conditions as exist to-day. It is extremely important. We were faced in the past season with a serious drought and with little or no fodder, and what we had is not becoming available. It is being put into pellets and no rebate allowed on the pellets, even for drought-stricken areas, except for certain types of pellets.

Are you referring to chicken pellets?

I am not wanting any chicken pellets, I want pellets to save stock from loss during the drought periods. Even in this period we have almost a stampede to get stock to abattoirs, stock in many instances that should not be going to abattoirs because it is not in a fit condition to go there, and secondly, is breeding stock—should be maintained for breeding purposes. Dairy farmers are offering their top herds not only because they are faced with a severe drought, but their normal supplies had been completely cut off. This is May. Can the hon. Minister imagine what the position is going to be by the time we get to August and September, unless we are liberally supplied with snow and rain in the intervening period? The position looks ugly. However, I want to leave that there. But before I go any further, I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the words of a reverend gentleman at a prayer meeting in one of the severely stricken areas, words which, I think, many of us could take to heart—

How very true that is. However, we are losing thousands and thousands of head of cattle every year also as a result of external parasites. That I will deal with at a later stage. But here I want to deal with a case that affects the so-called uneconomic units and the individual that is leaving the land. Sir, it is accepted that some 60 to 70 per cent of our farmers are living below the breadline. It is estimated that the income is less than R2,000 a year. When we consider the risks and the enormous outlay in comparison with industry and commerce, can we wonder why people do not remain on the land? But I want to say something about that 20 per cent to 30 per cent of people. I believe it is nearer 20 per cent, and it may be less, who are affected by the inflated prices of lands to-day. Land values are going to cripple agriculture because it is on the foundation of that 20 per cent that we are able to carry on as we are. I would like to read to the Minister a little paragraph from the report of the Land Bank—

We are faced with that position, and I want to put it to the Minister that it is seriously affecting those farmers, and they are the farmers who make the least call on the Government. I am talking about the stable farmers who plan for conditions such as exist now, those who provide their own fodder banks. I happen to know the man whose case I want to cite. He saves his stock and he carries on.

I want to put it to the Minister that in the case of that individual his estate was originally bought by his father for R16,000. It is now valued, with the stock, at R204,000, on which that estate will have to pay R31,028. Where do they get it from? Land has a value, but it is only equal to its productive capacity based on the price of that product at the time. Let us take wool as an example. It is not so long ago that wool was 200 cents a lb. Now it is anything between 32 and 50 cents. How do you arrive at a value for the land? Take beef. At present it fluctuates above the floor price by anything up to R6. What value do you place on the land? Sir, what is worrying me is where these people go now. They are faced with two alternatives. They have to sell, or else they have to subdivide and the units become uneconomic. Is this Government encouraging that state of affairs? There are not many of those farms left. If the man wants to carry on farming, he must subdivide and farm on an uneconomic unit. But supposing they can get the money, what then? He is landed with a debt of R32,000 plus R200 a year, which adds to the production costs. How do they overcome the difficulty? They are having sufficient difficulty with the restricted credit to-day. They cannot go to the Land Bank, because the Land Bank says they do not qualify for a loan. I put it to the Minister. Is he doing anything about it? If not, he will drive that 20 per cent of people into the very category they are trying to avoid, of having uneconomic units.

Now I want to come to this question of the toll of disease. I know the Minister will agree with me wholeheartedly. We have lost countless millions of stock over the years, not only through drought but through disease, where they have become emaciated from disease and then died from the drought. But they might have survived had it not been for those external parasites. That is the case while we have to-day the best preparations that research has been able to give us and which are most effective in the complete destruction of those parasites. I am referring chiefly to the diseases transmitted by external parasites, for instance heartwater. The whole thing needs planning, but above all it needs courage. May I remind the Minister of what General Kemp did in the 1920’s? The wool farmers had been ravaged by “brandsiekte” for years and years, and what happened? General Kemp said he would put an end to it, and he ordered simultaneous dipping and he wiped scab out in two years. I see there is a little bit of an outbreak now. I think this Minister should take his courage in both hands. He knows full well that he can eliminate the ticks plus the disease they carry which are costing us countless millions.

I want to get back to the fodder bank system before my time is up. The research in the Minister’s department has indicated that an animal loses anything from 250 lbs. to 300 lbs. body weight in any bad time, particularly during winter and during a drought. [Time limit.]

We have been listening to the Opposition’s attack all afternoon—if indeed one can call it an attack. The most interesting speech to my mind was made by the mouthpiece of the United Party on this Vote, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher). The hon. member really behaved very badly this afternoon as far as the debate on this Vote is concerned. The theme of his argument was that the Minister had failed to recruit the staff we need. I listened attentively to his tirade. It all amounts to the suggestion that the Minister is supposed to take young men by the scruffs of their necks and force them to select that career. I have never listened to greater nonsense in this House. Surely it cannot be done —and yet that is exactly what the hon. member had in mind in his entire attack. He holds the Minister responsible for that, and yet he knows that the Minister has no power to dictate to young men what careers they should follow.

But what is the position in Holland?

Conditions are different over there. In this country young people choose various careers, and one cannot forbid them to do so. Unfortunately we have the position that not so many young men are interested in this career, but the Minister cannot be held responsible for that.

He also complained that the farmers were faring badly and he alleged that was so because we did not have an adequate number of officials. Many of the farmers in my part of the country—and I believe in his constituency as well—would have been most amused if they had been sitting here in the gallery. We are becoming bored with the story to which we have to listen here every year that farmers are faring badly and that they are farming badly We have some of the best farmers in the world. Judging by their farming results under the prevailing climatic conditions, we can justly claim to have some of the best farmers in the world. These are not people who have to call in scientists every week to tell them how to farm. We do have research stations and we make full use of their instructions, as well as of the veterinary services, and our farmers have achieved the maximum with their own research and farming methods. I regard it as an insult to the farmers that the two Ministers of Agriculture are attached here year after year and are held responsible for certain things which on some farms are not quite what they should be. That is neither a sound argument nor constructive criticism. It is easy first to make accusations, but it is a different matter to suggest alternatives. Unfortunately that is the type of criticism we hear year after year. The United Party has no alternatives to suggest. They want the Minister to take people by the scruffs of their necks and force them to follow certain careers, but that is no solution to the existing shortages. The criticism we have had from the United Party this afternoon was not even worth the time spent on it in the House.

If the Minister has no duty as suggested by us, what is his duty as Minister of Agricultural Technical Services?

I did not quite grasp what the hon. member meant. His question is ambiguous, but it implies that the Minister has no control of any kind. Our young men are free to choose their own careers, and the hon. member’s whole argument turned on that point.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) also said a few things that I did not like. He said the Government was responsible for the shortage of officials because of its immigration policy. How can the hon. member be sure that if we had opened the door of immigration wider we would have attracted that kind of official? As regards immigration, I cannot refrain from mentioning that the man who loves his country and his people is not the kind of man one attracts to a strange country very easily. There must be an incentive, and the only incentive one can offer him is a more attractive wage and better benefits, and it is a moot point whether our economy could bear that. [Time limit.]

In the first place I want to put right a few matters in connection with soil conservation. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) alleged that I had said that in times of prosperity the farmers overstocked and overtaxed their land and caused erosion to take place. I want to state very clearly in this House that if I consider it necessary to warn the farmers I shall do so in spite of the fact that the members of the United Party try to make political capital out of it, because the farmers of South Africa are of much more importance than the bit of political gain which they can derive. But since these words are being attributed to me—wrongly—I want to say that I stated that, although we were grateful for the soil conservation work which had been carried out in many parts of the country and the scrupulous way in which the farmers were looking after those works, in the course of my investigation I did come across cases in which, as a result of the high wool prices, the farmers had overstocked their land and had allowed it to become badly trampled, and I repeat that statement.

But seeing that the hon. member made such a fuss about soil conservation, let us examine the position. During the period from October 1946 to December 1964— and this Act only came into operation during that period; it was only positively applied from 1948-9 onwards, because nothing had been done before that time—we proclaimed 819 soil conservation districts and at least eight soil conservation areas. But it is of no significance to know only that. The area which we have already planned is more than 112.600,000 morgen in extent. That area has already been planned and dealt with. We have dealt with 35,957 farming units, which cover an area of 49,000,000 morgen. The physical planning in respect of 7,859 farming units, which cover an area of more than 14,000,000 morgen, has been completed. If we look at the value of the farming-works which have been approved and completed, we find that out of a total of 412,171 works the value of those which have been approved is R59,491,000, and that 191,786 of that total have been completed, with a value of R31,751,000. Those are the soil conservation works which have already been completed.

But there is another figure which it is also important for us to take into account. There are 907 Government works in respect of which the planning has been completed, and the amount in respect of those works is R3,609,000. Of those 907 works 802 have been completed, with a total value of R3,199,928. Since the hon. members are saying that nothing has been done in regard to soil conservation, I want to tell them that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services accepts that one of the foundation stones of agriculture is the knowledge which we make available to the farmer, knowledge which is gained from research. The hon. members say that that knowledge does not reach the farmers and that it is worthless. During the past four years this Department has spent an amount of R66,498,000 for the sole purpose of making available knowledge to agriculture. This amount is non-recoverable and does not have to be repaid by the farmers. It represents an annual amount of R14,624,000. That is what is being spent by the Department on its extension services and its research and on making available knowledge to agriculture, and we do not demand repayment of that amount. But the hon. members say that nothing is being done for the farmer in this regard. Can you show me any other economic sector in South Africa, industry or commerce or whatever, which on a proportionate basis provides the same service free of charge? There is none.

But it is important to consider another aspect in determining the value of this service. The hon. members say that nothing is being done in connection with soil conservation. I have made a survey and I have found that in the Karoo regions alone 22 Government soil conservation works were undertaken recently at an expenditure of R679,000. What is interesting is that these 22 works include a small group which was completed during the United Party period, but that we have had to go and repair them again. I want to tell this House that we do not just complete certain works and then leave the matter there. Those works are visited from time to time for maintenance purposes, and if they silt up the walls are raised. I am referring to Government works now. We also provide the necessary assistance as far as farmers’ works are concerned.

Let us consider another case that I want to mention to hon. members in order to show them what is being done. As a result of the fact that we have made the farmer in South Africa conscious of soil conservation and farm planning, 8,163 miles of contouring were done in the Swartland alone from 13 October 1952 to 13 October 1964. Not all of this contouring was done by the Department, because there are companies which also do contouring, but this contouring fits in with our soil conservation and farm planning projects. That work is not done if it is not approved by our soil conservation committees so that the people can qualify for the necessary subsidy. But that is what has been done in this area alone, and in some cases that work costs R18 per morgen. The hon. member himself has said that there was an increase of 70 per cent in agricultural production over this short period of 13 years. That happened as a result of these services, namely soil conservation, the building of contours, the combating of brack formation, and the provision of the necessary hybrid seed and technological know-how to the farmers. These services have enabled them to achieve increased production on a smaller area, because, as the hon. member for Christiana has said, a considerable area of land is being used for other puposes than agriculture. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) made the point that you cannot force people into any particular occupation. He was questioned by the hon. member on this side in regard to it, but he evaded the point. Surely the point at issue is not in regard to forcing people into an occupation, but so conducting your affairs that the economy does not force them out of their occupation, and that is the difficulty we have had with this Government in respect of the farmers, and that really depends on one’s point of view. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) asked what was wrong with less farmers producing more; he said that provided more is produced, the fact that it is done by fewer farmers really does not matter at all. Well, it is a question of one’s outlook, whether you accept that that is a desirable state of affairs or not. I think I should say immediately that we do not accept that as a desirable state of affairs. We believe that for social reasons it is desirable to have more and more farmers settling in the farming areas rather than less, and that more and more be produced by more and more farmers; because this situation as adumbrated by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) means that he likes to see greater production in the hands of an ever-decreasing number of larger farming magnates, which is not good for the economy and certainly is not good socially in regard to the settlement of the country. But I believe that this arises out of the adoption of a wrong principle, because of a wrong order of priorities in respect of the administration of this Department, and it is this. I believe that we are tending to approach our problems in South Africa by placing established farming areas in the background to some extent, and placing the emphasis on the development of new areas which at this time are not farming areas at all. One can see that if one looks at a number of instances; one can see it in the report of this Department, where we find that in this time of boom, when there are large surpluses, there is a drop in the amount to be spent on veterinary field services of R20,000. The amount to be spent on veterinary field services, one of the essentials for the development of a farming community, is reduced at the time when we have a big economic boom and at a time when we have a budget surplus greater than we have ever had before. I believe that illustrates the point. It is illustrated, too, by the example of the argument we have had in regard to uneconomic farming units. Let us take four farms in the thornveld of 1,500 acres each, inherited by young men whose fathers were not skilled in good field and pasture management, and who can probably run 300 head of cattle, under conditions of over-grazing. Those young men can only just make a living on that basis. They are not in a position to survive a drought. There comes a drought and because that land is over-grazed those men go out of business. They cannot reduce their herds because if they did they could not make a living. In order to bring that land back under proper management and productivity, they will have to reduce their herds, and that is where this Minister comes in. He should so manage his Department, together with his colleague, that those young men can survive and bring in proper management so that they can reduce the herds for the time being, and thereafter increase them again. One looks again at the Minister’s report. He has had farms planned in various districts and you will observe, Sir, that on comparatively small acreages, through the period of the drought, through proper management the herds have been increased sometimes two-fold. The veld has survived and has carried bigger herds even during a drought. Now, with all the will in the world, unless there is assistance from the Minister’s Department, people who have reached the stage where the land has become over-grazed and badly damaged cannot put it right unless they are given assistance. The way it happens is the way advocated by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee). A large farmer who has perhaps 3,000 or 5,000 acres and who has the capital to do it properly will buy those four farms. He will allow the veld to rest. He will paddock, he will provide water, and when that land has been restored to the condition in which it should be he will then be able to run double the number of stock that those four young men could do under the conditions in which they found themselves. What is presently regarded by so many hon. members as uneconomic units in their present hands, become economic units when that wealthy man has restored them. What we have to do is to enable the existing owners through advice and through assistance from the hon. the Minister’s Department and from the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, who plays a big part but whose Vote I cannot discuss now, to remain on that land without the land changing ownership and without those people having to leave the land and having to go and work in towns in an environment which they do not choose. They leave the land not because they wish to do so but because they have to do so, and the more they wish to see that land properly managed and administered, so much greater is the pressure on them to leave the land and go into a town, because if they love the land they cannot abide there watching the position daily deteriorating. It takes a drought such as we have at the present time to knock those people out, through no fault of their own.

Sir, I said at the beginning of my speech that I thought that we were placing the emphasis in the wrong position; that we did not have the correct order of priorities. I believe it is far more important to restore the situation of the four young men I have been speaking about and to spend your money on people like that who are in established farming areas . . .

That is exactly Government policy.

It is not done though.

Of course it is done.

All the figures are against it.

Read the Land Settlement Act.

I agree that it is done in isolated instances, but instead of spending millions on schemes like the Pongola Dam to develop a vast new area such as the Makatini Flats—and I agree that that area has to be developed eventually—and spending millions on the Orange River scheme, developing virtually a new area agriculturally—and I agree that that has to be done eventually—let us not place the emphasis virtually entirely on institutions of that kind; let us withdraw the emphasis. I do not say that those schemes should be abandoned or that they should not be investigated, but let us place equal emphasis on ensuring the survival of established farming areas, and once you have ensured that, Sir, then by all means let us proceed to place the emphasis on the development of new areas. I think that is where the emphasis of the administration of this Government is wrong, and I believe that that accounts to a large extent for the tremendous falling off in the population in the farming areas and the tremendous difficulties which are experienced in some quarters to encourage good farming methods. One does not want to have to enforce good farming methods; one wants to make it desirable for the farmers themselves to undertake it, because if you do it by force you can merely prevent the farmer from doing something; you cannot force him to build up what he already has; you can merely prevent his damaging it further, and I believe that that is the wrong approach. I think every farmer will agree with me that the correct approach is to make it worth his while, to make it desirable for him, to do it the proper way. But that requires the assistance of this hon. Minister and of the hon. the Minister’s Department. [Time limit.]

Before I resumed my seat I quoted figures to show what soil conservation works we had already completed. I wondered whether there was any criterion for determining what progress we have made, and I have now found a criterion for drawing a comparison. Certain hon. members referred to the quantity of soil being washed away. I have gone along and made an analysis of the silt content, of the percentage of silt carried by the Orange River. We find that rivers which originate outside the Republic of South Africa and flow into the Orange River, namely the Upper Orange, with tributaries outside the Republic, and the Caledon River, also with tributaries outside the Republic, which both arise in a catchment area of 11,700 square miles, carry a silt content of 44 per cent into the Orange River, while in the case of the rivers in the Republic, the Caledon, with its tributaries inside the Republic, the Kraai River, which flows through one of our main erosion areas, the Stormberg River, the Seekoei River and the Orange River itself within the Republic, we find that the silt content of the Orange River in the Republic is only 10 per cent and that of the Caledon River only 8 per cent. In other words, the total silt content of these rivers which I have mentioned, which have a catchment area of 23,900 square miles, is twice as high as in the case I have already mentioned. That shows that as a result of soil conversation works in the Republic we have already progressed to the stage where we do not have the same silt content in the Orange River. But we go even further; it is sometimes necessary for us to buy up land in the case of areas where erosion has reached an advanced stage—and I do not want to blame the United Party Government for that—partly because a laissez faire policy was followed until 1942, until we had an intensive investigation, until we woke up, and partly because after those investigations had been carried out, the United Party Government were so busy waging war that they did nothing. They placed an Act on the Statute Book in 1944, but still did nothing after that. The result was that by the year 1946 there was so much erosion in the Kraai River area and elsewhere that we had to buy up more than 29,500 morgen of land in order to withdraw that land completely and to carry out soil conservation work there under the auspices of the Government because the farmers were no longer in a position to undertake the work themselves. No, hon. members on that side must not try to make political capital out of the question of soil conservation; they know nothing about it. They did nothing in their time. We not only have to repair what has already been lost; we must also do reclamation work with a view to the future. The hon. member over there made the statement that a large measure of soil erosion is still due to the size of land units. He said that land was being overtaxed as a result of the application of incorrect farming methods, etc.

Not because of the size of the land.

Oh yes! I am going to give the hon. member an example. If we take the area referred to by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), namely Dordrecht, we find that the people who get into difficulties within the space of one year as a result of droughts are people the size of whose farms does not justify their keeping more than 1,000 sheep on those farms, and that they have to plant winter crops in order to enable them to feed those 1,000 sheep through the winter. If as a result of a drought such a farmer is unable to feed those sheep throughout the winter, he is faced with a problem which he cannot overcome, simply because those farms have been sub-divided into units which are too small.

Some hon. members on the other side want one to consolidate one’s land into economic units, while others want one to settle more farmers in the rural areas and to sub-divide the land. As usual they are blowing hot and cold. But since I am dealing with the hon. member for King William’s Town, I just want to say that it is not fair of him to make an accusation against the Minister that the necessary assistance has not been provided to the farmers during this drought. The hon. member mentioned pills, for example. Surely he knows that the pills which are used for rationing purposes and which are certified as a maintenance feed qualify for the rebates which we grant to farmers in drought-stricken areas? But we cannot include the cubes used for milk production and meat production for subsidy purposes under this scheme as well, because where would it end then?

Those regulations were issued after the people had placed their orders.

Sir, those pills have been manufactured and certified only now, and if those hon. members who are so very much concerned at the moment bought ordinary cubes before the time, surely we are not to blame for that? Surely that does not prove any lack of planning on our part?

Since the hon. member for Zululand referred to small farms I want to tell him very explicitly that that is specifically what is being done by this Government. When a farmer plans a farm, we provide him with the necessary assistance and advice and the necessary subsidy for fencing. We provide the necessary loan and the necessary guidance and we assist the farmer in getting over the difficult period. But where we find that a farm is too small and that one cannot make a living on it, the Government consolidates that land into economic units so that the land will not be overgrazed and ruined.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister aware of the fact that there is only one extension officer for the whole of the North Coast of Natal?

I am glad that the hon. member has asked that question, because another hon. member has said that there is one extension officer for every 900 farmers. It is in fact because that is the position that we have a system of study groups in our Department. The farmers gather at a meeting on a study day and all the necessary information is conveyed to them at that meeting. But we do more than that. We hold soil conservation committee conferences, and there are training courses which are attended not only by our extension officers but also by members of the soil conservation committees, so that they themselves can assist with the planning and can do that work themselves. Since the hon. member is so concerned about the necessary information not being made available to the farmers I just want to say that in the July 1964 issue of Farming in South Africa contains an article in which detailed information is given to farmers in regard to grazing and feeding in drought-stricken areas. We have had 100,000 copies of that article printed and we have distributed those copies free of charge in order to help those farmers and to make that information available to them. Do hon. members on that side really want to suggest that the farmers are a lot of beggars and that they are not prepared to pay 15 cents for this book? In cases where information is provided to people in other sectors of our economy, do they not pay for it, or do they except to get it free of charge? Are the farmers inferior to those other people? No, I think the farmers take pride in paying for this information, because it helps them to place their farming activities on a sound basis.

Hon. members of the Opposition have had much to say here, but so far they have actually said nothing about technical services. They did what should not be done; they grazed selectively; and in actual fact they are the wrong things, and I received the impression that they had not thoroughly digested what they had eaten. Hon. members on that side referred to the number of farmers leaving their land. That is of no significance. They argue that the number of stock has remained static over the years. What does that signify? What matters is the fact that our production has increased. That fact was mentioned by the hon. member who argued that the number of farmers had decreased and that the numbers of our stock had remained static. In the same breath he maintained that agricultural production had increased by some 70 per cent. It is indeed significant that agricultural production has increased; that the animal that should produce and the farmer who should produce are producing more effectively and at an increased rate; that the farmer is getting more out of the animal. How does he manage that? Surely that is important. He can do so only by proper technical research and the extension services which are available to him. The Government is reproached for the fact that our stock population has remained static. That was mentioned by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) and also by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher). They said that our stock population had remained static at 12,000,000 head of cattle and 32,000,000 sheep. What happened under their rule? Our cattle population has remained static since 1939, and despite the fact that we have an increased population and despite the increased consumption of beef the farmers of South Africa are still managing to feed the population. What happened under their rule? There were “meatless days”. With the same stock and a smaller population and more farmers they failed to meet their own needs. In those days there was simply no meat at all. Have hon. members ever experienced such days under this Government? Those hon. members argue ad nauseam that our livestock and the numbers of farmers have decreased. I think they should rather look at the production figures.

Hon. members on that side also reproached the Government for lack of proper research and planning. Do those hon. members know what is being done at our research stations and our experimental farms? Have they ever visited our research stations and our experimental farms? It is quite clear to me that very few of them have ever visited these research stations and that very few of them have any real knowledge of what is being done there. If it had not been for the Department’s annual report, very few of them would have been able to conduct a proper argument and to quote statistics. [Interjections.] I shall tell that hon. member what is being done in the technical field in connection with stock production. Can he perhaps tell me? Special schemes have been instituted to promote stock production, and I should like to name a few of them. There is the milk recording scheme; the State nominated bull scheme; the grade heifer identification scheme; the national cattle performance testing scheme; the mutton sheep performance scheme; the pork improvement scheme; the fleece tests for wool sheep; there is artificial insemination; there is the bull performance scheme at Irene. All these things are being carried out in the technical field. Are you aware of that?

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I should like to ask these hon. gentlemen whether they are aware of everything that is being done in this field. Many aspects of agriculture have been discussed to-day, but without any logical order; no single argument has been carried to its conclusion by the hon. members on that side. If they can tell the Minister precisely where improvements can be made, they will be doing this country a favour, but all they do is to complain about what is not being done, when in fact it is being done. Let us apply a test to the things about which they had so much to say; let us apply a norm. They do not apply any norm at all. Let them tell the hon. the Minister what they expect of him. The agricultural industry is a dynamic industry and it is therefore necessary to make continual adjustments to the demands made upon the Department as regards research services, extension and other services, with regard to the latest developments here and abroad. Knowledge attained by means of research, experimentation and observation has to be conveyed to the extension officers, and it is the duty of the extension officers to convey it to the farmers; in other words, it is extremely important that there should be a link between the agricultural research worker, the agricultural extension officer and the farmer. Let us use this as a criterion for Agricultural Technical Services. If this criterion is applied, hon. members on that side will have to agree that it is complied with in every respect, in every sense of the word. Agricultural research, locally and abroad, is being followed very closely. Hon. members of the Opposition have referred to what is being done in America and elsewhere. It seems to me that they know more about what is done elsewhere than about the work done in South Africa in the field of agricultural technical services at present. If they had been acquainted with the work done in the field of research and with what has been achieved, they would not have criticized it. In my view a fantastic amount of work is being done in the field of technical services and research. We have extremely capable scientists doing this research work and conveying the results of research to the farmers. Our extension service has expanded fantastically in all fields during the past 17 years, not only in the field of animal-husbandry, but also in the fields of soil conservation and agronomy. I should like to ask hon. members on that side whether they are prepared to deny that all this information has been made available to the farmers through our extension officers and by means of publications during the past 17 years. I do not think the Opposition can hurl any reproaches at the head of the hon. the Minister, nor at the heads of our agricultural research workers and extension officers, that they have not met the demands made upon them.

Allow me to mention a final matter that in my opinion calls for attention. We are aware that the question of meat production, particularly adequate meat production for the future, is regarded by all as a matter of great importance. The demand must necessarily increase in future.

What did we say?

Yes, the hon. members mentioned it. What did they say in connection with animal-husbandry? They over-emphasized the figures, but they made no positive contribution and they offered no suggestions as to how these demands can be met. Much is being done in the field of the technology of meat production. Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention one matter in which I see some danger to our stock and particularly our cattle, and that is the new idea of crossbreeding. I think we should be very careful in his field, and that we should encourage the breeding of pure stock. Nothing can come of it; matter is indestructible; nothing can arise out of the blue, and our pure bred herds hold this potential that to-day they yield valuable hybridization, but this is not the same as in the case of crops where the crop is harvested and consumed—we use these cross-bred animals in our herds, and we cannot promote the efficiency of our production unless we aim at the deliberate elimination of cross-breeding and at better selection within pure-bred races in order to obtain the excellent qualities that we seek.

The hon. the Minister and all farmer members on both sides of the House know that for a number of years I have taken up this question of jute supplies and their excessive cost on behalf of the producers.

You have been doing it every year.

I am just hoping that the new Deputy Minister will apply himself to this matter. He may be prepared to enter the debate later on and to criticize me. However, at this stage I am not going to go beyond the present Minister. I notice that he gives us a measure of encouragement in his report by saying that although the output of Kenaf (Stock Roos) in Natal has been reduced in quantity, during 1963-4 there has nevertheless been an improvement in the decortication and cortex drying methods, I think that was one of the great difficulties which the Minister once told me they had to overcome. It seems to me that in that direction there has been a measure of improvement. He goes further in his report and reports more favourably on Phormium Tenax. We have these two possible fibres which, under proper treatment, with the most modern treatment, may possibly take the place of jute and in some way or other meet the position. While I realize that in dealing with this Minister I have to deal with research chiefly, I want to say that the farmers’ position in this connection is very serious, although I am told that all these excessive charges are passed on to the consumer. When we go back further, we come to the argument that I have so often advanced in the past and that is, that our producers are subsidizing industry. I leave it at that, Sir; I will take up this matter with the other Minister in due course. We nevertheless have this position that unless we can make some progress, we will find ourselves in a position where if sanctions are imposed upon us, as the Government fears, that we will have mills here with practically no fibres with which to manufacture the requirements of our country. Various figures have been given to us from which it appears that during the last four years the total fibre product which has been produced and treated, ready for milling, has been under 4,000 tons, whereas in one year alone we require between 60,000 and 65,000 tons.

But are we not getting it here to-day?

Yes, we are very happy to say that it is coming in. I am not accusing the Minister of bad planning. My quarrel with him is that there has been planning on a small scale. Where are we going to end if we cannot produce over a period of four years what we require in one year? How can the Minister allow a continuation of this position? Is it not our desire that we in this country should be absolutely independent and self-sufficient? How can we attain that position? I am glad to see that the Minister of Economic Affairs is here; I know that he knows the problem. It is not for me to go into this matter in detail at this stage. I am only dealing with it at the moment from the point of view of production. As far as I know, you pay about R130 per ton, and the imported price is about R119. Surely if we can go in for mass production and if we have the most modern methods of decortization, we ought to be able to get to a price which should be very near to the price that we are paying to-day for the imported article. That is the angle that I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Cannot we explore the matter from that angle? Cannot we conduct further investigations? It seems to me that at this stage we are toying with this problem and that if we had tackled this problem properly we would by this time have made a great deal of progress. I am inclined to think at times that the Minister is handicapped by the members of the Cabinet, because I think he would go ahead if he had the chance. You see, Sir, what is being done is being done very slowly on a small scale. I think the Minister will agree when he looks back that the amount of money that has been spent on research has not been enough. Over a period of 14 to 16 years within which to do a job of this nature the Government could surely have spent a great deal more money and got industry to assist in the position.

Last year the Minister had very little time to reply to those of us who had addressed him. In winding up the debate he told us he was sorry that his time was limited but he would write to us. Well, we are still waiting for those letters. I did at least hear from him but I don’t think the other hon. members got any letters. In winding up the debate the Minister indicated that he was satisfied that he could produce bag fibres but that the question was whether that could be done economically when compared with prices of imported fibres. We all know that we are virtually paying through the neck for imported fibres. It strengthens my contention, therefore, that we should go ahead with the fibres we are producing in this country and make ourselves independent. If money is to be wasted let it be in our own country because we are wasting the money to-day by importing this expensive raw jute.

It is a very cheap fibre.

Mr. Chairman, I really don’t think the hon. Minister of Information should butt in because I don’t think he knows anything about this. It is a reasonable fibre if you can buy it on the right market but what are we paying for it? Does the Minister know? I don’t want to show him up but the price is ridiculous at the moment and the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs will tell him that. We are naturally being charged through the neck at this stage. It is a most desirable fibre, if that was what the Minister of Information wanted to imply, but we cannot remain in this uncertain position. We cannot always say: We must do so and so just in case. We have had this “in case” business for 14 years. I say with all honesty that if it does happen that our supplies are cut off we shall be in the unhappy position of having mills but no fibre. [Time limit.]

We have had one attack after another by the Opposition from the Minister and the Department to-day. They allege that the necessary research is not being done, that the necessary guidance is not being given and that the Department as such does not fulfil its functions. Earlier this year we also listened to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) saying that he had set a certain norm and that he judged our policy against that norm. I suppose that the hon. member will concede that we can also apply the same norm to the policy of the United Party. When we apply that norm to their policy, I want to point out specifically that we are dealing here with a completely impartial judgment. I want to quote it as it was reported in the Transvaler of 30 October 1947. I just want to remind hon. members that the United Party was at that stage practically at its peak.

You are going very far back now.

We must go back far to get to your misdeeds. At that time there were no obstacles in the way of agriculture. There was full production; the market was good and therefore it could only have been due to the policy of that party if things went wrong with the farmers. I want to quote what Mr. G. J. Roussouw, the Chairman of the S.A. Agricultural Union, said at the annual conference at Bloemfontein—

Then he continues—

He points to the necessity for preserving the soil and says—

We quite agree with that and it is also the policy of the National Party-

The Chairman of the S.A. Agricultural Union also referred further to soil conservation services. We concede that at that stage the Act had been in operation for only one year and that one could not have expected it to have a phenomenal effect, but he said the following—

This clearly proves that that judgment was already given against the United Party in 1947. It is therefore astonishing that hon. members of the United Party can criticize what has been done since. The achievements of the research sections of the Department have been dealt with fully here. The United Party is simply busy making political capital out of the whole matter and they are not really serious. We are aware that agriculture in South Africa is experiencing difficult times. There are various reasons for that. The first, and in my opinion the most important reason at this stage, is the unprecedented and destructive drought we have had in the Northern Transvaal in recent times. As a result of that drought the normal planning could not be continued as envisaged because emergency planning had to be done under emergency conditions. But that is not all. We are faced with the particular factor that agriculture in South Africa is only about 300 years old. In the Northern Provinces we can perhaps say it is only 100 years old, and in the meantime the South African farmer is expected to compete with his products in the international market. I think it speaks volumes for our farmers that in the short period of 100 to 300 years they have achieved as much as they have done. It speaks volumes for the research workers of the Department and I feel that we as farmers should be very grateful for those achievements. But instead of encouraging and helping those people, the United Party just voices destructive criticism.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the notice of hon. members, and that is in regard to the drought in the Northern Transvaal. We are aware that the Government has already made available generous financial assistance, for which we are grateful. It needs to be said that in these abnormal conditions and as the result of various other factors, some of the farmers have gone under. But it must immediately also be said that many farmers were kept on their farms as the result of the financial assistance which was made available. But, Sir, it is my conviction that we should not only render financial assistance to the farmers in those drought-stricken areas. In my opinion, it is necessary for us to do more long-term planning to enable those farmers, if such conditions perhaps again arise in future, to overcome their problems with less financial assistance from the Government. In this regard we are aware that the Department is at present developing experimental farming units in various places in the Republic, and in other places again they are establishing cooperative farming units, and in all cases they are being administered in the light of local conditions, and it is so much more useful if the farmer, together with all the pamphlets he obtains from the Department, can go and look at those experimental farms where the work is carried out under the same conditions as those that prevail on his farm. Therefore I think that in that way perhaps a demonstration can be given to the farmers in a more practical way in these difficult times as to how they can best use the material available to them.

Then there is another aspect. We believe that in this broad planning of our agriculture it will perhaps be advantageous if we add to it in the first place the better implementation of our Marketing Act, and secondly, the better utilization and implementation of our Soil Conservation Acts, and in the third place the development of the co-operative idea. We mention this only to indicate that the farmers are desirous of doing something for themselves and do not always like to ask the State for assistance. Therefore we say that along this road we believe that the farmers must be led to reveal a greater degree of independence. Because it is to the advantage of any Government if there is a prosperous farming community, and it is for that reason that the present Government has rendered assistance to the farmers in the drought-stricken areas with so much goodwill and care. I just want to mention what has recently been done by way of granting relief. During 1964 100,000 copies were sent gratis to those farmers in which that information could be obtained, and during the year ended 30 April 33 articles were published in this regard, and there were 72 radio talks. All this was done to relieve the burden resting on those people, a burden for which they were not responsible, and which did not arise from their failure to apply proper farming methods but as a result of their inability to fight against elements over which they and we have no control.

I am not getting up to reply to everything that has been said, but because I should to make a statement with reference to what the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) asked in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. You are aware, Mr. Chairman, that foot-and-mouth disease has broken out in Swaziland and that it has spread across the border in the Komati Bridge area into the Eastern Low Veld of the Transvaal, and has now also made its appearance within the Republic. I just want to say that the success of the campaign against foot-and-mouth disease both in the Republic and in Swaziland is due to the quick action taken by the Division of Veterinary Services, the strict control measures which have been applied and the fine co-operation which has been received from the farming community and the Swaziland authorities. At the request of the Swaziland authorities, and with the consent of the Bantu in Swaziland, we went to assist them in conducting the campaign in Swaziland itself, and did not wait until the disease had spread across the border into the Republic. Fifteen State veterinarians, 317 inspection officers and 1,220 Bantu assistants took part in the campaign. Within the short period of two months more than 80 miles of protective boundary fencing were erected in the districts of Piet Retief, Ermelo and Carolina. That section of fencing should really have been erected by the Swaziland authorities, because ours had already been completed. They have now provided the money, and we have erected the fence for them. Full details about the relief available to farmers are obtainable from all State veterinarians in the areas concerned. The main concessions now being granted are the following: As from Friday it will be permitted to transport slaughter stock from some part of the controlled areas to the Johannesburg quarantine abattoirs, provided very strict precautionary measures are complied with. As from Friday livestock on trek will be permitted to enter the western section of the Barberton district adjoining the Swaziland border (provided farmers undertake to keep away from the Swaziland border) as well as the seven-day inspection area in the district of Piet Retief. No assurance can be given that it will be permitted to remove stock from these areas at a later stage. That will depend on the continued success of the campaign, and we are quite optimistic in that regard. After 24 May further relief will also be granted to trek farmers in the district of Ermelo, with the exception of certain farms.

In cases of emergency it will be permitted to transport stock from the 28-day inspection area of Carolina to Ermelo and to the other parts of those districts, provided strict precautionary measures are complied with. It will be possible to allow further relaxations on 24 May as regards the movement of stock within the controlled area from Piet Retief and Wakkerstroom to Amersfoort and the uncontrolled part of the district of Wakkerstroom. Other relaxations which are now being made relate to the transport of animal products within the controlled areas. In the Komatipoort division of the district of Barberton no relaxations are being made at the moment, as there is still some danger of the disease being spread by game. The measling of animals on infected farms is still in progress here. Since the last vaccination on 24 April, however, no further spread of the disease has occurred, and it will be possible to consider making relaxations in a fortnight’s time. Apart from the slight restrictions applicable in the area immediately adjoining Swaziland, the normal control measures which were applicable before the outbreak will be reverted to in the districts of Paulpietersburg and Ngotshe.

In the districts of Ingwavuma and Ubombu the granting of complete relaxation cannot be considered as yet. Further relaxation of the restrictions will of course depend on the favourable progress of the campaign and will, as in the past, be considered on veterinary grounds.

I do not want to add much to what the Minister has said in the statement he has just made in regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Vryheid, but I think the Minister’s statement will be generally welcomed by the farmers of the Transvaal. I also know that there is a great deal of appreciation for the very quick manner in which the Department acted in regard to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth on the Swaziland border.

I want to come back to the question of planning and research, but I want to approach it from another angle. There has been an allegation by Government members that we are attacking the actual research projects of the Department. That is of course nonsense. I think that in many fields of research we have in the past paid tribute to the work undertaken by the Department, and in many specific fields we as a country are far ahead of others in regard to particular aspects of agricultural research, but what hon. members miss, and particularly the hon. member for Groblersdal, is that it is no use doing research just for the sake of research; it is a question of how the results of that research are applied to the general agricultural plan of South Africa as a whole, and our charge against the Minister is this. It is not a question of individual farm planning, but the fact that the Minister, as a matter of policy, has been unable to come forward with a general farm plan for South Africa as a whole based on the various aspects of the research carried out by his Department. It would appear, even when one listens to the reply the Minister gave a little while ago, that the only conception of a plan in the Minister’s Department is what farm plan can be allocated to an individual farmer. That is part of the job of ensuring an efficient economy, but what the farmers of South Africa want is guidance from the Department in regard to how the results of the research can be applied from season to season in regard to the farmer’s own operations on his farm. That we do not have at all. I would like to give a few examples. The Minister said we made these wild allegations in regard to lack of planning, but we cannot produce any proof. But the proof lies in the report of the Minister’s own Department. In only one single instance is reference made in the report to the planning projects of the Department. The report indicates quite clearly that it is necessary, if agriculture in South Africa is not to go backwards, especially as the result of the drought conditions, that effective counter-measures must be taken. But I ask the Minister whether he or his Department has come forward with any countermeasures to be placed before the farmers of South Africa? Have any counter-measures been placed before the drought-stricken farmers of the Transvaal or any suggestions? The hon. member for Waterberg has many drought-stricken farmers in his area. Does he know of any counter-measures that have been produced? There have been temporary relief measures, but there have been no countermeasures on the basis of farm planning in order to overcome the difficulties of recurring droughts. The report of the Department referring to production tendencies as far as agriculture is concerned—I think the hon. member for Brits knows something about it; I think he has had representations made to him with regard to this matter—states that the emphasis should be changed in farming in certain heartwater areas in the Transvaal and that the Department should embark on a scheme of producing mutton sheep; that it should develop a type of sheep that can exist and thrive in the heartwater areas. The hon. member for Brits knows about this. The report is quite clear; it says —

Another reason for embarking on this scheme was in order to get farmers away from the subsistence economy of one-crop production, namely tobacco, as the hon. member for Brits also well knows. Sir, what happens? The area is hit by severe drought; relief measures are made available by the Government; many farmers follow the advice of the Department and none of them can get any relief or drought assistance from the Government to maintain these mutton-producing sheep, because the schemes do not provide for assistance to maintain these flocks of sheep in the heartwater area. You have the Minister operating relief measures on the one hand and he does not know what his colleague does on the other hand. But there is no relief offered, so these flocks which have been developed on the advice of the Department are now being sold out. It will take years to establish these areas again as mutton-producing areas.

I know that the help given by the Government to farmers in that area does not apply to sheep.

Yes. but the Minister’s Department has embarked upon a scheme to introduce mutton-producing sheep in the heart-water areas of the Transvaal and the Minister says that he knows that the relief schemes do not apply to these farmers at all. What is to happen? Are these sheep to be practically sold out? Is no assistance going to be given at all? The Minister says that there is planning for the future but that planning is quite ineffective and the Minister has now discarded his plan to take the farmers in this area away from the subsistence economy of one-crop production, because that is what it is going to mean. But let us take a better example of lack of planning that we had here this afternoon from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He read out a 10-minute speech on the question of soil erosion, in which he pointed out that where a farmer maintains a thousand sheep on a piece of land he is ruined if he is hit by a drought. Sir, we got no overall plan from the Minister’s Department indicating balanced farming methods and advising farmers not to try to subsist on just one type of farming on these smaller units. No, the thinking of the Deputy Minister is like that of the Minister; these small farmers have to disappear and their places taken by one person who can farm on a larger unit to make it economic. Sir, the farming community wants guidance and it does not get it. The Minister thinks that if his Department send out a few small leaflets to the small farmer, that is as far as he has to go; he does not think along the broader line of giving advice to farmers in South Africa based on the market assessments made by his colleague so that he can tell the farmers in certain areas of the country, “It will pay you to produce this, that or the other crop.” Let the Minister look at his own report on cash-crop productions. Is there one word of guidance in this report to the farming community of South Africa as to whether certain of these dry-land crops are profitable, whether they should continue to be produced, whether there is over-production or under-production, whether there are oversea markets and whether they should produce certain crops in the coming season? The Minister should do what is done in other countries. Let me quote the example of the United States to him. There they give a crop programme to the farmers of the United States based on areas and seasons. The farmers there receive guidance from the United States Department of Agriculture as to what they can profitably plant in any one season. Why should our Department not be able to advise our farmers on similar broad lines? [Time limit.]

If the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) knows anything about agriculture, he will know that the task of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is to make an economic survey of a region, on the basis of which it is then determined what type of farming can be practised by farmers in that area, and then the matter can be followed up by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. That is my reply to the hon. member.

As hon. members on the other side have nothing to boast of other than their past, a past which they linked with the South African Agricultural Union at the time, I very willingly grant them the right to boast of that past. The reproach has been made here that the Minister has no solution for the drought problem. But the reply to that is the fact that only a very small number of stock died in the past eight or nine years during the long drought period which we have experienced. In the areas which have been severely stricken by droughts farmers not only have a full complement of sheep, but even have too many. Is that not proof of the thorough work which has been done by the hon. the Minister’s Department? Is the fact that we can feed 5,000,000 more people to-day with the same number of sheep and the same number of cattle, with more or less the same per capita consumption of meat, not further proof of the success achieved by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services? It is because the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has succeeded in placing an umbrella over the health of our farming stock that we have been able to feed more people with the same stock of cattle as that we had in 1938. In 1938 there were 38,000,000 sheep, but by 1946, after a period of United Party rule, there were only 31,000,000 sheep left. The United Party reduced our stock, but we have not done so.

Business interrupted to report progress.