Mr. Chairman, firstly I should like to extend on behalf of my constituency my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries as well as the Cabinet for the special appropriation of R2,5 million for the purpose of bringing water from the Orange River for a stock watering project in the Kalahari. This comes at a time when we farmers really need the water physically and it is also a considerable boost for the morale of our people as they are in difficulties because of the drought. I should like to refer to an observation the hon. member for Greytown made yesterday, when he referred to this scheme in the debate and said that it was an example of the poor planning of the Department of Environment Affairs to spend so much money on so small a number of people. However, I do not think this hon. member has any idea of the production potential of this area. I do not think he knows that, with enough water in this area, it can be developed into the largest beef larder in South Africa. Nor do I think the hon. member knows that this is a border area and that this area should be inhabited at all costs. The alternative to that would be that this area would be manned militarily and that, of course, is a total practical impossibility. The fact that the cost-benefit ratio for a small group of people did not count as the highest priority in this case, again proves that the department plans specifically in the national interest and not in the interest of small groups of people in the Republic of South Africa. The importance of irrigation in South Africa is reflected in the fact that of the 857 million hectares of farmland in the Republic, only 1 million hectares are under irrigation. Notwithstanding the fact that this amounts to less than 2% of our farmland area, it accounts for 20% of our agricultural production in the Republic. During 1877, planned water development began to take place in the Republic, but in actual fact it was in 1929 that, as a result of drought and depression, the Government started with irrigation development on large scale with a view to rehabilitating economically those farmers who had gone bankrupt. We should therefore like to express our thanks to the State on this occasion for the way in which our people were uplifted in those difficult years.

I should also like to refer briefly to the role the church played in this connection. I do not know whether it has ever been said in this House that, from the end of the Boer War to 1910, the church, too, stepped in and created opportunities for the people who were in economic difficulties as a result of these conditions. Another reason why the church concerned itself with this development was to help our people economically, educationally and in the spheres of religion and welfare. Today we should also like to express our appreciation to the church for its spadework in respect of the establishment of a healthy farmer class. I should like to refer in particular to the area of Kakamas where the church played a special role. In Kakamas itself today there is a cellar, one of five wine cellars of the largest wine co-operatives in South Africa. In a lighter vein I should just like to point out to hon. members that under the administration of the church there used to be a total ban on hotels, liquor stores and all that that involved. This gave rise to the inhabitants of that area developing the finest art of extracting this prized juice of the vine. During that time home-made wine was the order of the day and also the white spirit (“wittetjies”) distilled in the vicinity of Keimoes found its way into Kakamas. The white spirit which found its way there, was not always used for domestic purposes only, because small quantities found their way into the grey market, too. So it happened that during a church service on a certain Sunday one of the biggest “dealers” sat right in front of the pulpit. In his sermon the minister hit out at this evil. Noticing the person concerned sitting there, he pointed down at him with a crooked finger and said, “Here in Kakamas must (“mos”) is being made”. This he said to the great embarrassment of this dealer and to the great amusement of everybody in the church. Mr. Chairman, I have referred briefly to this to illustrate that along with irrigation development in South Africa, Africana has been created which must be preserved for posterity.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to express a few brief thoughts about the factors to be taken into account when water tariffs are determined, factors which should be studied with great care before we determine water tariffs. Today water is our most important aid to production as far as irrigation is concerned, and yet it comprises a relatively small percentage of our production costs. In the fight of the Viljoen report, which was adopted in Parliament as long ago as 1970, it would give rise to concern if the recommendations of the report were to be fully implemented. The State controls the fixing of water tariffs and therefore it is important that we should look at the following points. It is not necessarily the case that a distinction should be drawn between old and new irrigation schemes, but with the proviso that the farmers should not be burdened with the capital outlay. This is something that the hon. member for Wellington referred to yesterday. We should rather look at the return to be earned on our capital investment. Nor should it be impossible to apply differential tariffs within a particular scheme. As it is in the case of the Orange River we should look at the crop composition. An average crop composition for the Orange River would be, for example. 50% viticulture and 50% crop rotation. One could use this as a basis in determining a water tariff. We should look at the ability of the farmer to pay and we should look at the capital investment required to produce the product. Furthermore we should look at the production potential of the land and where the land is situated in relation to marketing facilities. We should also consider the price structure of the crops to see whether it is changeable or constant. Furthermore we cannot compare agricultural water and industrial water. To industries, water is of secondary importance, and production per unit in the case of industries is substantial and therefore it cannot be treated in the same way. We should also take cognizance of the importance of water in the production of food, which is of strategic importance to our country. There is also another point I should like to stress and that is the contribution of irrigation schemes to the State coffers, and I should like to refer to an example. In 90% of the cases wine production in South Africa takes place on irrigated land, and the greater part falls under irrigation schemes, which are subject to taxation. In the case of the Orange River the figure is almost 100%. During 1980 the excise contribution in respect of wine was R492,5 million. That was the contribution of excise to the State coffers as far as the wine industry is concerned. We should consider determining a fair minimum tariff, and charging for the water used in excess of that, at a price per cubic metre, because we should be cautious of a sliding scale, because in that way we could discourage the optimum use of water. This would only happen at the expense of the producer and would not promote efficient water consumption. Water tariffs must not be allowed to pose a threat to our irrigation. Low rainfall and fluctuating rainfall is one of the greatest risk factors in farming in this country, and is eliminated by means of irrigation. It is therefore essential that the State should make certain sacrifices in this regard. Our tariffs should be such that we do not discourage, but stimulate, the development of the 300 000 ha of potentially irrigable land that is still left. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as I promised yesterday I will now deal with the speeches of hon. members and I want to start with the speech of the hon. member for Constantia. Although this hon. member pledged his support to the Department—or let me rather call it constructive engagement—he could not withhold himself from becoming a little bitter on certain issues, especially in regard to the Natal water problem. Mr. Chairman, I will at a later stage reply fully to the criticism which he raised in regard to that problem. He used certain phrases and words which cannot be described as constructive criticism and, moreover, certain statements reflected very seriously on the Department and its officials. I said yesterday that I welcomed criticism and I invited all hon. members to criticize if they found it necessary. However, I deplore people who take the liberty to criticize without being constructive and without even trying to suggest a workable alternative. I have set myself many targets which I hope to achieve before I go into retirement and I have promised myself also to try to reform this hon. member. I am going to try to at least get him as far as getting rid of his bitterness where it is least needed. This hon. gentleman is a young man and he is someone who, to my mind, has a lot of potential. I firmly believe that he, as the chief spokesman of his party, can make a considerable contribution to this Department. I trust that the hon. member will co-operate fully with me in my endeavours.

The hon. member spoke about the report of the President’s Council on demographic tendencies in our country. I endorse and fully share the sentiments expressed by this hon. member. We, in this country, will have to realize that we only have water for about 70 million people and we will have to take cognisance of the recommendation in this report about the birthrate of all people in this country. After the report was submitted, a leading Black leader commented on the recommendation and he issued a statement in which he said that it is against the culture of the Black people to have fewer children. I find this statement highly irresponsible and I want to urge Black leaders to make a sound study of this report and to help the Government in its endeavour to curb the natural birthrate. I would also like to appeal to all hon. members to take this issue very seriously and to use their influence on Black leaders to obtain their co-operation.

The hon. member also raised certain points in the budget and the fact that we are building up a backlog. I agree fully with this hon. member and other hon. members that this can create a serious situation, especially in regard to the construction of new works. I can assure hon. members that I have issued warnings to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, and I know that he regards this issue as very serious. However, I must point out immediately that I also have full understanding of the problems of the hon. Minister, especially in view of the immense pressure on our country’s budget in regard to defence, housing, etc. which I know must have high priority.

*I should also like to refer to the hon. member’s statement in regard to the reduction of the department’s budget. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the operating account for Government water schemes was removed from the budget because that account has now become a type of revolving fund. It represents an amount of R60 million, which is a substantial sum. I am very pleased about this move and I should like to point out to hon. members that it is very important that we should have a rotating fund of some kind which could be of great value in future. Then hon. members should not come to me and say that we should continually reduce water tariffs, because increasing water tariffs will necessarily enable our budget to increase.

†The hon. member also asked me about the Lesotho Highland Scheme and I am glad to be able to announce today that the two Governments have come to an agreement in regard to certain problems which arose during discussions and it has been decided to commence with viability studies as soon as possible. I wish to assure hon. members who have expressed concern about this scheme that we will take every measure to avoid a second Cabora Bassa or a Ruacana scheme. The Lesotho Government accept this and have an understanding for our concern but they also realize the impetus which this scheme will afford the future development of their country.

The hon. member also spoke about the Water Research Commission and research in regard to dry cooling. May I assure the hon. member that research results have already been implemented in certain of Escom’s new schemes. However, further research is still being done because research never stops and new techniques will inevitably become available in due course. The few other matters raised by the hon. member will be answered later as other hon. members also raised the same matters.

*I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Ermelo, as chief spokesman on this side of the House, on an excellent and balanced speech in which he displayed great insight in these matters. The hon. member also succeeded in putting our budget, and the problems we are experiencing in that regard, into perspective to some extent and for that I should like to thank him. He went on to speak about the dispute in connection with determining the price of timber, and I want to point out to the hon. member that the procedure to be followed when a dispute arises concerning a certain category of timber in the round, is prescribed in the Forestry Act. The prescribed procedure is at present being investigated in depth, in consultation with the Forestry Board. The hon. member is aware that a dispute was declared last year and that it became apparent that the powers in the legislation and the regulations are inadequate and that a checkmate position has been reached. Hon. members are all aware that we are at present revising and rewriting the Forestry Act as a whole. I intend—and I should like to announce it here today—to make copies of the draft Bill available to chairmen of the study groups for their information and for study during the recess, so that they will have sufficient knowledge of it when it is tabled next year. Hon. members who have legal knowledge, like the hon. member for Ermelo, can definitely make a very valuable contribution in this regard.

The hon. member also spoke about a national afforestation target and in my previous speech I replied to that fairly comprehensively.

However, I just wish to tell hon. members that a very informative paper was published known as the Guide Plan for Forestry. I advise hon. members interested in forestry to obtain a copy of this because it is extremely informative and it presents an overall plan for South Africa’s future afforestation. This guide plan will, of course, have to be brought up to date from time to time.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Meyerton who made a very fine and praiseworthy speech, and also quoted a few extracts from the Bible. I believe that in this department, too, it is necessary that we turn from time to time to the Good Book, the source of all our strength. I too should like to quote to the hon. member a few verses which I believe are relevant. I want to mention Genesis 1, verses 26 to 28 to him, and I shall come back to that in a moment. I also wish to refer to Psalm 8, Hebrews 1, verse 2 and Hebrews 2, verse 8, which very clearly define man’s relationship to nature. I consider it very important that we should all read that. I have in my hand a brochure issued by the Instituut vir die Bevordering van Calvinisme. It is entitled “Is kultuurbeoefening nog sinvol?” It is written by a woman, Prof. Elaine Botha, and I urge the hon. member to read it too. I think it is extremely illuminating, because she writes about the ecological crisis in the world, and especially in our country. She, too, refers to Genesis 1, verses 26 to 28, in which a limited instruction is, in fact, being given to man. I find it extremely illuminating and, if the hon. member would take the trouble to obtain this brochure, I should like to refer him to page 13, where she gives a beautiful description of her view of man’s obligation to nature.

The hon. member also said that this department was not the task of the Minister and his officials alone, but the task of everybody, and this statement is very true. He said that the building of dams was everybody’s concern and not only the concern of the department, and this is just as true. This department is definitely a department we want to remove from politics so that it can become everybody’s task and so that need not score petty political points off one another in the course of debate. The hon. member also spoke about resignations and the fact that forestry was building up a backlog, and about the curtailment of funds, and I shall reply to some of these aspects at a later stage.

†I wish to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for the kind words expressed by him in regard to my Department and its officials. Unfortunately he is not here. Will he be coming back?

Unfortunately he is in Despatch.

I will deal with a few of the things the hon. member for Mooi Rivier said. He also spoke about the planning for Pietermaritzburg and the Durban area and Natal as a whole. I shall deal with that a bit later in my speech. He also spoke about staff problems which I will also deal with. He then also spoke about boreholes and the disparity that exists between the subsidy for private and Government drilling operations. Government boring tariffs are at present higher than those of private boring contractors as the owners of private drilling machines are often not prepared to undertake boring activities in remote parts of the country areas where drilling conditions are less favourable. In terms of the Treasury policy it is required of the Department to review the tariffs of its services to the public from time to time, for instance, the tariffs for rendering Government drilling services. As a result of the peculiarities inherent in the framework of the State it is not always possible to render services at the same or at a lower tariff than that of the private sector. This is a further reason why the Government boring tariffs are at present slightly higher than those in the private sector. The percentage subsidy on the boring costs is, however, exactly the same for private drills and Government drills.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Kimberley North most sincerely for his kind words about my so-called maiden speech. However I also wish to tell this hon. member that it is always a pleasure to listen to him. It gives one a warm feeling to listen to someone who speaks one’s language so fluently and beautifully. That hon. member really has the ability to give one that warm feeling by the way he uses our language.

The hon. member asked questions about the Spitskop Dam and the fencing-off of the dam. We agree that it is a matter which should be rectified and we shall bring it up as soon as possible by way of the Water Commission so that the matter may be discussed with Bophuthatswana. The hon. member also mentioned a very important point relating to the mechanization of irrigation systems. I referred to that in my previous speech when I spoke about the conservation of water, and other hon. members also referred to that when they spoke about the more efficient utilization of water. He spoke about subsidies on mechanized systems. I wish to say here and now that the department concedes and admits that the maximum subsidy, which at present is R7 500, is totally inadequate, and I believe that it is completely out of line—as the hon. member said—with the escalation in the cost of these systems. We had to consider—and I want to tell the hon. member that we gave it thorough consideration—to raise the subsidy to R10 000, but then, in view of the budget problems and the reduced amount of money available for this specific Vote, we had to decide whether we should do it now or whether we should wait until more funds were available. I decided to keep the subsidy as it is for the present, for one reason, which is that as soon as the subsidy is increased, far fewer people can be assisted. The hon. member should therefore understand why we decided to retain the figure of R7 500 for the time being. We are conducting a correspondence and also discussions with the Treasury in connection with this very scheme in an effort to negotiate more funds. In this regard too we are building up a considerable backlog, and that worries me a great deal. I really want to undertake today to do everything within my power to try to obtain more funds to achieve this important end in our irrigation system.

The hon. member for Sundays River spoke about the Glenconnor Plain stock watering scheme. I should like to tell the hon. member that the preliminary inquiry into subterranean water was completed in 1982. Sufficient water of suitable quality was found in the area north and also south of the Glenconnor Plain to meet the relatively small demand for water, and it was, moreover, identified. Several boreholes, distributed along a long line running in an east/west direction, along the mountains, will have to be drilled, the farms will have to be supplied with water by pipeline. It is all private water, and negotiations will have to be conducted with the owners to obtain the water. The best solution, in my opinion, would be to let the farmers concerned organize themselves into a water board to plan and execute the scheme. I could just mention to the hon. member—and he can also discuss it with the hon. member for Gordonia—that the Kalahari farmers organized themselves into a board and did all the work in relation to the organizing of their scheme. I should like to recommend strongly to the hon. member that this be conveyed to these particular farmers, whom I, of course, know very well because previously they were in my constituency.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also spoke about the Lower Sundays River. On a later occasion I shall reply to his speech in detail.

†The hon. member for Albany also spoke about long-term planning. I shall come to that in a moment. He also spoke about agriculture versus cities. At the moment agriculture still gets 70% of all the water in our country. Cities get 30%. I think he is quite right in stating that eventually this will break even. It will be a 50-50 situation. He also spoke about forestry and he is concerned about afforestation. I think I have replied fully to this yesterday. Then he said that he was concerned about the use of prime agricultural land for afforestation. I fully agree with him. The department also has a full understanding of this and will never afforestate prime agricultural land. It just cannot be done. We have too little prime agricultural land in this country. I also ask the hon. member to get hold of the guide plan for forestry. This will give him a concept of the afforestation of our country as a whole.

*The hon. member for Fauresmith referred to the Riet River canal. It is a pity that the hon. member for Greytown is not present at the moment, because he objected to our building the Riet River canal and neglecting Natal. What is the position? The Riet River farmers are totally without water. They have nothing. Can hon. members imagine a Government water scheme where 130 to 140 farmers are settled and where there is no water? They have no income. Hon. members really must not hold this against me, but one should get one’s priorities straight. I am extremely grateful that we could at least make a start as regards helping those people. It will take two to three years before the canal is there, but we can at least give those people the assurance that there will be water for them. I should really like to ask that we do not try to play off one area against another. When we decide to tackle a scheme, you should know that it is extremely necessary. I want to say something about the Riet River canal. The first and main purpose of the canal is to supply additional water to the Riet River Government water scheme. Irrigable land on farms along the route from the Orange River will play no role whatsoever—and I should like to repeat this with all the emphasis at my command—in the planning of the route. I find it reprehensible that stories are now being spread in the constituency of Fauresmith that this route crosses the land of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. I myself do not even know what route the canal will follow. It is as that hon. Minister said to me the other day: “If my grandfather bought land which is in the way of that canal, I am very sorry about it.” I really find it reprehensible that people are now starting gossip. There is also another person, former Senator Wimpie Gouws, of whom they are also saying that he kept visiting my office to persuade me to build the canal over his land. That is not true. It is a downright lie. I last saw Senator Wimpie Gouws when the Riet River scheme was announced. I do not plan canals nor do I plan the routes of canals. I employ experts for that. Nor do I make an input. If my department has planned a canal or a dam, I know it is technically justified and then I defend it. The route of the canal is determined with a view to how the problems of water supply to the river State water scheme can be solved, and on the basis of other economic considerations. The initial White Paper in regard to this canal indicated a high level. We have now decided on a lower level. There is a simple reason for that. The cost of pumping has risen to such an extent that the operating cost is getting out of hand. One has to try to do it as economically as is humanly possible. After the route has been planned and finalized—and I can tell the hon. member that that will, it is hoped, be at the end of next week—the utilization of irrigable land along the route will be looked into. The method of and conditions for utilization will be studied by an inter-departmental committee and then submitted to a Ministerial committee for approval. This Ministerial committee consists of the Ministries of Agriculture and of Environment Affairs. They will decide on the conditions for the utilization of the land along the route. It is the policy of the department that irrigators should at least pay the operating cost of water schemes. The hon. member expressed concern that speculation can perhaps begin as soon as people knew what the route of that canal was going to be. However, I just want to warn people that they are going to burn their fingers very badly. In the case of the Riet River canal the operating cost will be so high, due to the pumping level, that speculation cannot and will not be encouraged by the provision of water. We do not even know yet how much land we are going to make available. It will depend on many factors. People are really going to get hurt if they try to speculate. I want to ask the hon. member to warn them timeously in this regard. As far as the economic size of plots is concerned, I agree 100% with the hon. member. Yesterday in my speech I referred to the economic size of many plots in our country. The hon. member spoke about plots of approximately 60 ha. That is quite correct. The carrying capacity of canals must be sufficient to meet peak demands. I can assure the hon. member that this canal will be capable of meeting peak demands. Furthermore I want to say that as soon as this canal is completed, it will also be possible to stabilise the Lower Riet River and the Modder River areas using savings effected at other dams—the hon. member will know about these two dams. I shall say more about this later. The hon. member also spoke about the total capital expenditure of schemes and whether irrigators should be held responsible for that. The hon. member for Wellington also referred to that. I do not want to stick out my neck too far today. Certain people will be angry with me if I do that. I should, however, like to ask the question today: Should the Government be held responsible for the establishment of certain aspects of infrastructure? If one looks at roads, one finds that the road-user does not pay one-tenth of the road-building programmes in our country. If one looks at housing in the cities, one finds that the industries do not pay a fraction of what it costs the Government to provide housing. Now, I maintain that, if the Government is being held responsible for this type of establishment of infrastructure, we should consider whether it is not also the Government’s responsibility to provide dams and similar infrastructure. I shall say more about this later on. I feel very strongly about that. I shall discuss the matter with my colleagues. By establishing this type of infrastructure one necessarily increases viability, people’s income is automatically increased and with it, the State’s revenue from taxation.

Because it concerns this hon. member very closely, I should like to say a few words about the Orange River and the utilization of its water. At present the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the P.K. le Roux Dam are still approximately 60% full. That clearly shows that these dams are under-utilized in spite of the drought. Hon. members must understand when I say that we shall have to do everything in our power to develop the Orange River to its full potential. The State cannot establish schemes such as those without having them developed to the full. Therefore we announced a scheme last year in terms of which farmers can buy water for additional irrigation. Therefore we are now also allowing farmers to draw water privately from the river. We hope to announce the next scheme for the purchase of water in about October. There are many places where the water of the Orange River can still be applied. There is, for example, the Lower Sundays River, where the infrastructure already exists. I shall, however, have to be guided by the Institute for Socio-economic Research of the University of the Free State, which is currently carrying out surveys for us. I hope to receive their report shortly so that we can obtain an indication of how we can utilize the full potential of the water of the Orange River. I also have in mind the Lower Orange River areas where immense potential still exists, which we shall have to investigate as soon as possible. We cannot allow that water to lie there unused. I do not know whether the department will agree with me, but we cannot allow the dams to be kept so full. Especially in a time of drought like this, their water levels should have been much lower. I foresee—and I am no prophet—that this drought will inevitably be broken with floods. Such a high water level is very dangerous in the event of a flood.

The hon. member for Wellington spoke about water tariffs and the hon. member for Gordonia referred to what he said. I have already studied the report of the Claassen Committee and I should like to congratulate the committee and its chairman—who is present—on the beautiful piece of work they did for us. My department and I studied the report very closely and I have accepted almost all the recommendations made in the Claassen Committee’s report, with certain reservations here and there. I have already discussed the report in depth with the S.A. Agricultural Union. We spent almost an entire morning on that. The Agricultural Union, too, agrees with the recommendations we have accepted. Because there will have to be certain statutory amendments as a result of the report, the procedure will now be that I shall have to submit a memorandum to the Cabinet. There are certain drastic alterations in our policies. It is hoped that we shall be able to issue an information memorandum to hon. members this year and in it we shall furnish full particulars of the recommendations accepted by us and by the Cabinet. As soon as the opportunity arises I hope to amend the Act accordingly. In this report drastic amendments are proposed and I think these are good amendments which will put agricultural irrigation in this country on a sound footing.

The hon. member spoke about the banks of the Berg River and about nut production. I do not know exactly which area the member was speaking about, but I know it is in the vicinity of Wellington. I do not know whether it is in the area which is at present being incorporated. The hon. member is shaking his head, and I therefore suggest that the hon. member discuss it with me. Riparian farmers necessarily have certain rights and we can look into the matter. If the aim is the production of nuts, the hon. member can talk to me, because nuts are a sought-after product.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central as well as the hon. member for Sundays River—unfortunately he is not here now—spoke about the Wellington Grove pump station and about bringing more water to Lake Mentz for irrigation in the Lower Sundays River. Both of these hon. gentlemen gave very interesting figures as to production and job opportunities and I fully agree with them. As hon. members will know, the relevant area is situated in region D and this region has been classified by the Government as of the highest priority. I fully concede that the Wellington Grove weir has to be built as soon as possible. My biggest problem is to find the necessary funds. I firmly believe, however, that the regional development advisory committee of that area will put up a recommendation to the board and eventually to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning to give this project a high priority especially in view of its importance in regard to job creation. I cannot see how we can delay this scheme much longer than next year. I know this area very well, because I farm on the outskirts of it. Without trying to overstate my case: We are sitting on dynamite. The sooner this is realised, the better. I think I have expressed my sentiments very clearly on this issue.

The hon. member asked me four questions about the Wellington Grove weir. I should like to reply very briefly to them. How many cubic metres per second?—approximately 20 to 24 cubic metres per second. How many stages?—I would say, two or three. The first stage will be the weir itself, the second stage will be in regard to the area below the existing irrigation scheme and the third will be providing water for the Port Elizabeth metropolitan area by the end of this century. How much ground?—1 200 hectares under the existing canal system. The ground below the existing irrigation scheme will be between 6 000 and 8 000 hectares. Water will have to be given to Port Elizabeth by the end of this century. When the money will be available?—A big question mark. When each stage will be completed?—Big question mark. I cannot reply to the member now, but I think I have expressed my sentiments fully on this issue.

*Concerning the hon. member for Ceres, he actually spoke outside his constituency, but I realize that he has major interests in that area and I realize that the hon. member for Worcester has not been in this Committee for a long time and that it is perhaps as well that the hon. member for Ceres spoke about that area. The hon. member for Ceres and the hon. member Dr. Odendaal referred to the transfer of water from one area to another. I should like to be very clear on this matter today. The development of South Africa will be gravely hampered if the transfer of water among catchment areas does not take place. Take, for instance, the transfer among the Orange and the Fish and Sundays Rivers, the Wemmershoek and Steenbras project, the Theewaterskloof project for transfer from the Riviersonderend to the Berg River and the Eerste River and the Cape Peninsula, the Usutu-Vaal scheme, the Tugela-Vaal projects. If these schemes were not undertaken, we should not have had water for the Rand complex today. We should not have had water for our important Escom power generation. Water that is used for power generation in the Eastern Transvaal makes it possible for electricity to be supplied to the whole of South Africa. I must ask hon. members a question, and they must pardon me for doing so. If we want to abolish the principle of the transfer of water from one area to another, should we not deprive hon. members not living in the Eastern Transvaal, of the power generated in the Eastern Transvaal, and only supply the power to the Eastern Transvaal? It is the policy of my department to take into account as far as possible in the planning of transfer schemes—and now I come to the hon. member Dr. Odendaal—the potential economic development of river valleys from which water can be diverted and which may be needed in the near future. As far as the Breede River is concerned, the completion of the larger Brandvlei Dam reserve means that there is water which first has to be used before further storage schemes are undertaken. Additional storage on the tributaries is in fact being investigated and these schemes will be executed when necessary and as priorities allow. I assure the hon. member that I shall talk to those farmers. I can give hon. members the assurance that I will enjoy talking to them because I know them reasonably well. The hon. member Dr. Odendaal also spoke about over-concentration. I want to state this categorically today: I do not know whether we can afford to establish more Rand complexes, because it is simply becoming too expensive to convey water there. I think we shall have to implement our regional development strategy as fast as humanly possible. We shall only have to reach a stage—and I think we are very near to it—of simply not allowing further industries to become established in the Rand complex. I should prefer to take industries to where the water is. Natal has an abundance of water. I should prefer to take industries there. There also is a great deal of labour available. We really cannot afford to continue like this. The hon. member is quite right and I am glad that he mentioned the point.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen spoke about the extremes of our country. I agree with him. One moment there is drought, the next moment floods. He spoke about the Marico River and the release of water to alleviate the distress of farmers. He specifically mentioned the hospital and I should now like to give him a very comprehensive reply in that regard. About that hospital I want to tell him the following. The release of water from the Marico Bushveld Dam is not practical because losses are too great in these times of drought. The Marico is a river with a sandy bed. The result is that there are enormous water losses along the way if water is released. Just the other day I said to the hon. members for Waterberg and Lichtenburg that if the hospital should make representations to the department through the Transvaal Provincial Administration, the department would provide assistance in regard to the drilling of boreholes. As far as the building of weirs is concerned, the Marico River up to Derdepoort has not been proclaimed a Government water control area and farmers have to keep the provisions of section 9 (b) of the Water Act in mind, namely that any storage of more than 250 000 cubic metres and diverting of more than 110 litres per second cannot be effected without prior authorization by the Minister. I welcome it if a couple of farmers comes together and establishes a board to start such a scheme, but they have to obtain approval if it exceeds a certain size.

The hon. member for Queenstown spoke about the afforestation of the Upper Kubusi area. He pleaded for further afforestation there. Various small pieces of land in the Upper Kubusi area were offered to the department. These sites were investigated with a view to possible afforestation. As a result of the scattered nature of the properties and the present shortage of funds it was not possible at this stage to include the land concerned in the department’s programme of purchases. However, I can assure the hon. member that this matter is being given further attention. The hon. member also spoke about timber houses. Today I should like to break a lance for timber houses in our country. I do not know why such a stigma is attached to timber houses. We are able to produce the timber and you can go and have a look at some of the timber houses. They are beautiful. I should like to support the hon. member very strongly in his representations that we should promote timber houses and that we can even use them in State schemes.

The hon. member for Greytown—unfortunately he is not here, but in the House of Assembly—is a young member and he should not be so absurd in a debate like this one. I should like to ask hon. members to convey this to him. It is absurd to speak of “no political rights, no water rights”. That is the deduction he makes. If people have no political rights, they have no water rights either. I should like to tell the hon. member that when schemes are being planned—we spoke about two schemes yesterday, namely those in relation to Swaziland and Ciskei—these people are fully consulted. We are now dealing with kwaZulu. I shall say more about this later. The people who are affected by these schemes are fully consulted and they in fact furnish an input. The expertise of our department is also utilized to provide guidance to these people in connection with irrigation. I think it is an utterly irresponsible remark which this hon. member made It is very difficult to counter such an ill-considered statement. He talks about constitutional development and I really do not think it advisable to reply to that. He said one important thing, however. He said that as an engineer he realized that the department could not plan for a drought which occurred once in two hundred years. In saying that he contradicted the hon. member for Constantia. It is a total contradiction because he says, as an engineer, that we cannot plan for a drought which occurs once in two hundred years.

In regard to Natal I should first like to obtain clarity in this Committee about a principle. Should the department plan for a drought which occurs once in two hundred years or, as is normal, for one which occurs once every fifty or once every hundred years? I should say: No. It simply is not a practical possibility for a country to build structures for droughts which occur once in two hundred years. Our department evaluates this drought as being such a drought. The other day I saw some very interesting figures produced by one of our chief engineers in terms of which, according to him, we are now entering a once in two hundred and thirty years drought. Therefore it is physically impossible for a State to build for a once in two hundred years drought. I shall mention a few reasons. Number one: In normal years evaporation, especially in our climate, will be of such a nuture that the capital expenditure will not be justified. In the second place, we should be imposing a burden on the consumers. Domestic consumers and industrial consumers meet the full cost of the interest or and redemption of schemes. Can hon. members imagine what type of water tariffs consumers would have to pay if one wanted to build structures for a once in two hundred years drought? Surely the accounts would be astronomical. There is, however, a further very important point I should like to make in this regard. In no city have the restrictions had any effect on the economy. I really think it is a feather in the cap of this department.

†In regard to planning in Natal, I wish to indicate—not in detail—the planning as we see it. The hon. member for Greytown asked questions about the Inanda dam.

The construction of Inanda was planned to start in 1981. Because of the problems with the resettlement of the Zulu population in the basin, an alternative plan was made that is on the verge of being completed: the Umgeni Water Board’s pumping station at Clermont which enables the natural flow below Nagle dam to be diverted to the new Wiggins works. As a result water can be retained in Albert Falls, and the yield of the system can be increased to such extent that, in normal times, the construction of Inanda could be postponed for a while. KwaZulu’s agreement in principle on certain conditions has been obtained. These conditions are being studied by the Department of Co-operation and Development. Consideration is being given to completing the dam to its final height, which will then be the subject of a White Paper next year. This will satisfy the demand until well into the next century.

Before that time water supply to the higher parts will have to be extended i.e. Pietermaritzburg, Howick and parts of Pinetown. The ultimate scheme for the area is the diversion of the Umkomaas near Inpendle via a 35 km tunnel to Midmar, raised by Crest-gates. This scheme will cost more than R200 million. In order to postpone this major capital expenditure as long as possible, a pipeline from Albert Falls and temporary diversion of the Mooi River is being investigated.

Eventually the Lower Umkomaas together with the Illovo can be directed to the coastal region around Durban.

Even the Mzimkulu can easily be diverted into the system, so that it can be said with confidence that water supply to Durban—Pietermaritzburg can be assured for decades into the next century. Most of the other rivers in Natal are relatively perennial. Nevertheless, existing use approaches the yield of the unregulated rivers in most cases. Increased use will depend on storage constructed in phases such as done with the Umfolosi, where initially a smallish dam high in the catchment near Vryheid has just been completed. This will be followed by dams lower down. Other examples are Wagendrift and Craigie Burn. Dams in the Mkuzi and Mvoti are being investigated, as well as in the Pongola catchment. The Tugela has been regulated for all medium-turn uses by Spioenkopdam. The development plans for the Tugela basin—that is the Thorrington-Smith plan—will thus not be impeded by a lack of water. As far as the Buffalo River is concerned, various dam sites on the upper reaches have been investigated. The yield of Chelmsford Dam on one of its tributaries can be supplemented fairly easily by pumping run-off to the Ngagane purification works and to Iscor from the Buffalo River. This, together with the raised Chelmsford Dam, can then also supply Utrecht, Dundee, Glencoe and Nqutu. The large hydro-electric schemes in the Tugela are technically and economically possible, but will have to wait until justified by the electricity demand.

Mr. Chairman, may I just in conclusion refer to a leader in the Daily News of 20 May 1983. I quote—

I have only two remarks to make. Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise. Furthermore, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. This gentleman apparently knows absolutely nothing about water and water conservation.

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour? The debate now moves on to Environment and Fisheries. However, I would like to react very briefly to and welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement about the Lesotho-Highlands Scheme. I also welcome his comments about a greater effort in storing Natal’s waters. I further welcome his comment to the effect that the policy must be to bring people to the water and not take water to the people. I should also like to make a very brief comment about this “one-in-200-years” drought. I think that to some extent the “one-in-200-years” drought is letting the Department off the hook a bit. It is a form of excuse for the inadequate development funds expended on the storage of water. I do not wish to have a big fight with the hon. the Minister about it, but I think that he would agree with me that it does not explain why the Free State and the Cape are adequately provided for at this stage, whereas Natal and Transvaal are not. It does not excuse the non-implementation of the 1961 White Paper. It does not remove the obligation which faces the Government and the country to develop all our available water resources within the next 40 years if the President’s Council report is to be believed. We cannot wait for another 200 years. We have to develop all our resources quickly and the money must be made available.

I now want to turn to the Environment and Fisheries section of this Vote. That is an opportunity for me to extend the good wishes of this side of the House to the new hon. Deputy Minister, who seem to have the brief for Fisheries and a large measure of the brief for Environment Affairs. We wish him well in the post and we offer our constructive co-operation in the management of these affairs as well. I should like to commence my remarks on the subject of the Council for the Environment and certain environmental issues before touching on Fisheries. The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate of the measure which we passed recently, made a statement that he did not believe this body needed teeth to fulfil its advisory function. I want to take issue with the hon. the Minster on that. I was not able to do so in the Third Reading. Frankly I do not see how a voluntary body consisting of busy men, meeting three or four times a year, is going to fulfil a meaningful function in this field. It is a diverse, technical field, a very demanding wide field and these are busy people. Unless they are given adequate resources of men and money, they are simply not going to be able to make a meaningful contribution. In that sense they most certainly need teeth, otherwise they are going to be a paper tiger. One can consider the record: The legislation was passed in June last year and the body was appointed after some months. At this stage they have not completed any tasks that I am aware of. I think they have managed to set up three committees which have begun to start meeting, but nothing has been completed. Most environmentalists would agree that one could arrive at a priority list for this committee of at least a dozen high priority items. They are really only scratching the surface of the subject at this stage.

For the purposes of this Vote I should like to urge the adoption of four urgent supplementary priorities for this council in the immediate future. Firstly, I believe we must urgently investigate the rationalization of existing legislation. It is a nightmare of bits and pieces which are not being properly implemented at this stage and one must start pulling these threads together. Another supplementary priority I would suggest is that the Council and the Department consider the setting up of a body similar to the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States of America. The Environmental Protection Agency is able to carry out the laws of other Departments. That is the beauty of the concept. We could, without having to consolidate all the bits and pieces of relevant legislation under one Department, through an EPA type of body in this country apply other Department’s laws in certain cases.

[Inaudible.]

They can, but nothing is happening. If we could draw these threads together it would be a very useful thing. The third priority is to have a study committee on developing fiscal incentives of both the carrot and stick variety. The hon. the Minister yesterday mentioned the example of Durban where they are managing to keep the usage of water within limits because of a fiscal incentive. Beyond a certain consumption limit, the people are penalized financially. That is a most powerful means of implementing environmental policy. We must take it very seriously. I believe that this council should develop a programme in this regard.

Another issue is the urgent need for a National Parkland Guide Plan. The forestry guide plan is very useful in that it identifies those areas earmarked for future forestry usage. We should do the same for parkland. The final plea I wish to repeat is the call for an annual report from the Council for the Environment. The discipline that this would bring into the environment arena would be very valuable. I believe we should also plug in to the OECD Environment Ministers’ meetings which are held from time to time. I have had one copy of the proceedings of a recent meeting. I believe we could draw valuable inspiration from the policies adopted by this body.

The environmental field is hugely exciting and challenging and the Council to the Environment can play an invaluable role provided—and it is a big proviso—they are given the necessary financial and human support as well as dynamic leadership from the Department.

The second matter I should like to raise is the question of the proposed De Hoop missile testing range. The reasons for preservation of the De Hoop area are worth recording in Hansard. This is a stretch of coast-line which is a prime conservation area. It contains one of the richest and most unspoiled tracts of threatened coastal fynbos in South Africa and hence in the world. The fynbos in the De Hoop Reserve and in the immediate environs all the way to Cape Infanta represent some 3% of the only 10% that remains of the world’s threatened low-land fynbos. De Hoop itself contains no fewer than 57 of the rare endangered species of fynbos. The greater area of the proposed test range is estimated to contain at least 100 of these rare and endangered species. De Hoop vlei contains no less than 214 species of bird, 50% of the entire number of species in the Western Cape; 19 are on the red data list. There are notable dune systems in that area and a valuable marine and intertidal system, and various other ecosystems; from a mountain range down to the sea. Other considerations that should be borne in mind in considering the value of the area are that it has become a reserve for hiking trails for children’s environment education, as well as for amateur fishing and general recreation activities. There have been screeds written about this in the daily press—members will in all have seen the cuttings—which in many cases reflect highly authoritative comments on the matter. I believe it is fair to say that there is consensus among those who have taken an interest in the matter that this area is worth preserving for posterity. The Administrator of the Cape as recently as 19 February made this clear in a speech at De Hoop before Armscor’s proposals became public. I want to say to this Committee that I think it is deplorable that the public is being forced into what I would call a false choice in this matter. The whole debate has been generated on a false premise, a Sophie’s Choice situation, where one has to choose between two desirable things. We obviously support Armscor in this country and we wish them well. We also want to preserve this area. [Interjections.] The public is being pushed into a forced choice between two desirables, on the assumption that either one or the other must take place in that specific part of the country. I want to say that the first onus should be on Armscor to persuade the public that it is indeed only possible to locate its activities on that particular site and that the choice, the Sophie’s Choice, has to be made. The public is highly sceptical about this proposition. Let us look at the reasons that have been advanced. It has been said that, Armscor must have an area that is not close to the country’s borders. However, a sea by definition is a border of a country. It has been put to the public that the climatic conditions are important. Yet the climatic conditions at De Hoop and St. Lucia are totally different from each other, but missile testing has been adequate at St. Lucia! What is special about De Hoop’s climate, in view of the fact that it is different from St. Lucia that makes it so imperative to locate the test range there?

What is the big difference?

It is a tropical climate vs. a Mediterranean climate. The hon. member for Swellendam should know it. [Interjections.] It is an area where there can be rust of sensitive instruments. The visibility is often poor. There are strong winds in the Southern Cape which could blow a missile off course. There are many question marks about that particular proposition as far as the climatic conditions are concerned. There is also the question of infrastructure. Infrastructure is available at other places besides Bredasdorp and other places need an injection more. There is also the question of fires. Fire has been an issue recently in the papers. It was said that explosive devices will not be fired in the De Hoop area. Yet one does not have to have a explosive device to start a fire. If a great piece of iron falls from the sky and hits a sandstone rock, sparks will fly and fires can start. The overriding factor is that once one puts an Armscor type of operation into that area, the public will lose out. It is an essential element of environmental planning that the public must be involved and benefit. What has happened at Riet Bay at Langebaan? The public has lost access to an environmental area of special quality. We do not want the same to happen in the Southern Cape if it is remotely possible. It has also been said that the choice of the De Hoop area was made by means of a big investigation with computer projections, etc. I want to say that the old saying “Rubbish in, rubbish out” applies to a computer. What information went into that computer? Is it information from a person like a certain gentleman from Armscor who said that he did not even know what fynbos is? Was it information based on overseas sources? A recent newspaper cutting suggested that the French helped choose St. Lucia. Did overseas people who do not know about fynbos either come here and help choose this site? We welcome the environmental impact statement that has been proposed. We have confidence in the members of that body. It should have been a feather in the cap for this Department, but I am sorry to note that the committee was set up after the public outcry arose. [Interjections.]

You are taking the credit for the public outcry.

The dates are there. The first question was placed on the Question Paper on 16 March. The environment impact was announced on 31 March.

The statement was long before that.

It was said that no study had been done when my question was answered on 23 March.

Was an impact study done on St. Lucia?

The suspicion is there that if there had not been a public outcry there may not have been an environment impact study.

You are taking the credit for the public outcry.

Is that what worries the hon. member? There were many other people involved in the public outcry.

Where did the public get the information?

That is an interesting question, because it raises a very serious matter about what I would call a witchhunt that is going on at the moment. The hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. member for Ermelo had the temerity to cross-question me in the House on this matter. Did I see a certain Mr. Morsbach? I want to say to that hon. member that I think he has an infernal cheek. What does it matter to him which official I choose to see about any particular matter? He does not cross-examine the hon. the Minister as to who he sees or whether he talks to members of a particular committee. I think it is flagrant arrogance for him to cross-examine me. [Interjections.] Is it only the Opposition that must not speak to officials? The officials do not belong to the NP and hon. members on this side of the House will see anybody they choose to see about a public matter in pursuit of our duty. I want to say that I have had contact with this gentleman, Mr. Morsbach, for many years. I saw him on my initiative after this had become a public matter and after I had information about Armscor’s proposals. I think it is disgusting that hon. members of the NP should seek to point a finger at this gentleman as the source of a leak.

That is not true. I deny that.

The hon. the Minister of Defence used the words, and I can quote from his Hansard…

Order! I do not think that Vote is applicable now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is welcome to look in Hansard. He will see the words there. I want to say that if there should be any victimization of any official by any hon. member of the Government, it will have to be done in the full glare of the public eye. I can only say that this gentleman whom I had contact with was absolutely circumspect. When I saw him I was not even aware he was a member of the committee. He told me so in his office and he behaved absolutely correctly on the matter. I think it is shocking that there should be any kind of witchhunt.

I agree. I have the highest regard for him.

Thank you. I now want to come to Fisheries. My time is so short. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister for in many respects carrying out what seems to be his charter on Fisheries, which he set out in the Vote last year. Many of the things he mentioned he has tackled. On many of the things he mentioned we shall find points of agreement with from this side of the house. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Uitenhage who is the Chairman of the Fisheries group. We had dealings in the Cape Provincial Council and I am sure we can have pleasant dealings in this Committee as well. I should also like to thank the Fisheries officials who have been very constructive in the dealings I have had. They have given me friendly assistance.

I want to raise the issue of the hon. the Minister’s charter for his Ministry which he raised last year. I want to agree on certain things. I want to agree that the seas belong to the people. I think that is a principle which came through from what he said last year. All concessions are privileges and it is the Government’s duty to manage the fisheries in the public interest. The interests of the little man and thus of the broad public must be guarded. We must encourage little people to be involved in this industry. There are some points of disagreement which we have had with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We had a fairly heated debate in February on the question of the pelagic fishery. I want to take this opportunity of welcoming the establishment of the Alant Committee. For the record, we have confidence in the members who were appointed to that Committee. We think it is highly appropriate that the Committee was appointed and we congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister for doing so. We look forward with great interest to its findings. The brief of the Committee was to report by 31 May and therefore we shall hopefully hear more in this debate of what the Committee has decided.

However, I want to take the opportunity to record my own position in this matter. I still believe that over-fishing has caused the decline of the pelagic fisheries. It is the result of taking out capital and interest over a long period for which I believe Government policy was to blame. I am not referring to this particular Ministry. It is a good thing that it is now a preservation department that controls fisheries. However, over a ten year period consistently more quota was allowed than was recommended should have been allowed. The hon. the Deputy Minister said in the debate in February that the quota has been held level at 380 tons for the last three years. However, the composition of the catch has not remained constant. It has increasingly relied on anchovy which is a dangerous sign. There have been many warnings about the pattern that developed in other parts of the world where pelagic fisheries have collapsed. Although I disagreed with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s motivation in applying the restructured quota, it so happened that fortuitously it has been a blessing that the quota was cut to the degree it was cut. Certain environmental factors have occurred recently which the hon. the Deputy Minister does not control. The lack of South Easter, the lack of upwelling effect to bring food into the fishery, the warm water and the tide have all combined to make it a very poor catch season, as far as can be established. It has been a good thing that the quota was limited. However, it has not been a good thing that the quota was split between quota fish and non-quota fish in the way it has. I think the catch figures are a cause for concern. It has been established through questions in the house that the quota fish catches for this season totalled up to 5 May 105 919 tons and non-quota fish 72 529 tons. It is a ratio of 1,5:1 approximately of quota and non-quota fish. Last year it was 10:1. Already we have caught twice the amount of non-quota fish. There is a prima face case for concern and it raises the question: Has there been misidentification in the industry? This was a warning that I raised in February. It was the pattern in South West Africa when the quota was split between quota fish and non-quota fish. I have other reasons to believe that it has in fact happened in this current season despite the best efforts of the Department. I have had it from a senior source that he knows of instances where it has taken place. One cannot from a remark like that identify any scale, but it appears to have happened. That is something we must avoid in the future. I believe that for the new season there should be a reversion to the former status quo until we are absolutely certain, on the basis of experimental works which can be undertaken, what the pattern of spawning is. I believe that the global quota should be reintroduced and that the global quota which should be allocated, should be whatever the Fisheries Department and the scientific experts advise is necessary. The actual catch season should remain as it was until we are absolutely certain of the spawning position. Perhaps the Alant Committee is going to be able to throw light on that. I believe we should make much more use of the ship Africana than has been done recently and than appears to be proposed, in establishing just what the resources, limits and patterns are. Another thing which may be worth doing is to refer the final Alant report to independent experts to bring in even more scientific contributions to this matter.

A final matter I wish to raise is the subject of kreef.

Who do you suggest the report should be referred to?

I can give one example. In the United States they referred a study on the California anchovy to the International Institute for Environment and Development, based in London. That is a body of independent scientists. They may well be able to make a contribution. There may be other bodies too.

It is a pity the kreef season was closed on the basis of abuse by black marketeers. This has penalized the law abiding little man. I can understand the hon. the Minister’s motivation. I wish I had more time to comment on it. However, I do think that for the future we should try and run a concurrent season with commercial fishery and let the little people know well in advance when the season will end. The question of licensing individuals should be considered as a greater control measure. It is a great pity to let people think that they could go on catching fish until the end of June and then cut it off at short notice.

The question of a kreef route is the last item I should like to raise. Time does not permit others. It is a wonderful idea and I support the concept whole-heartedly. However, I believe that the approach adopted so far by the hon. the Minister is not correct. It is not going to work. One cannot persuade a businessman against his will to market something. It is difficult enough to make a success of any marketing project when a businessman is 100% committed to make it work. The whole question of the marketing mix, the promotion and packaging and having the product at the right place at the right time and at the right price all come into play. If one has a reluctant businessman, it is never going to work. There is also no particular merit in trying to sell a kreef or a perlemoen to a tourist who will have to take it back to his hotel where it is going to rot. I believe that one has to overcome two obstacles to get this concept under way. One has to have an independent promotion body with a brief to market locally and one has to have an adequate supply of kreef available to that promotion body to market. That means either granting a concession to take out a certain percentage of kreef and perlemoen to a public concessionary, a public body under the Department perhaps, or making a proportionate levy on those people who do have concessions. We should have a Cape Sea Food Marketing Board which would have access to a necessary percentage—not an arbitrary amount—in balance with the demand that can be created. These people should concentrate firstly on the on-site consumption of Cape Sea Food. Let them work with restauranteers and let them have some of their own restaurants to promote the consumption of these foods locally. One cannot set an arbitrary figure of supply, for example 25% of all kreef, and say that that must be sold locally. It is not going to work. One must start at the other end. One must start promoting the demand and make it available in desirable places at the right time and at the right price. Then we shall start to get somewhere. I think that a sea food marketing board or something along those lines could be discussed.

Are you suggesting another board?

Something which is oriented to business could work. I am afraid that time has run out on me. It is a pity, because there are many other fascinating issues under Fisheries we could talk about.

Mr. Chairman, I though I was hearing things for a moment. Before I deal with some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Constantia, may I also add my congratulations to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister for the perception and sensitivity that they show and have demonstrated so early in their term. The hon. the Minister has become knows as “Sarel Omgee”. That was very self-evident also from the way he spoke in this debate today. I want to talk very briefly about Robben Island. It is a conservation opportunity which I think is very important. It is well-known that the lease of the Prison authorities is expiring and that the Defence authorities are to take over Robben Island in the next few years. My appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister today is to enter into negotiations with the hon. the Minister of Defence on this issue with the view to returning Robben Island to the people of South Africa. Islands have an allure for people and this is the only easily accessible island with a developed infrastructure that is available to the people of the Cape and South Africa. Small-boat sailors—we know that the encouragement of their activities is in the national interest—have a great need for accessible harbours, little harbours they can visit. Robben Island is a perfect example, where we have the Murray harbour. The buildings on the Island are amongst the finest examples of Victorian architecture in our country and they relate to each other with an intimacy that perhaps we only find at places like Pilgrims Rest and Matjiesfontein in our country. The clock in many ways has stood still on Robben Island. The island village, including Irish Town, was never designed for or uniquely ever impacted upon by the internal combustion engine, by the motor car, as is the case with so many other villages. It thus exists on a human scale which is found almost nowhere in our country. It has a rich history which links all South Africans, dating back to 1488 when it provided the major source of food for the navigators that probed these waters and it served as a post office for them. It has a history that lends itself, I believe, to the establishment of a living museum which will be enormously rich and interesting. One thinks of the people who have voluntarily or otherwise found themselves upon the island or visited it through the years, such as Joris van Spilbergen in 1601, Cornelis Matelief, Jacob le Maire in 1611, Hendrik Brouwer, the former Governor-General of the Dutch East India Company, in 1636, Jan van Riebeeck, of course, in 1652, and Herman Schütte, who built the Groote Kerk and who was a stone dresser at the quarry on the island. The Prince of Ternate was banished from Dutch East India to the island and the Prince of Medura died there in 1754. John Murray established a whaling station there in 1806. The Xhosa prophet Makanna, who unsuccessfully led his people against Grahamstown in 1819, was drowned while trying to escape from there. Thomas Bowler lived, taught and painted many of his famous paintings there. Nonquase, the Xhosa visionary, was placed there in 1856. Interestingly enough, the first attempt to establish a settlement or colony here was made by the British East India who landed on the island in 1615. Nine convicts led by a certain Captain John Cross landed here and attempted to start a settlement, which was unsuccessful. Interestingly enough, in that year, 1615, they had contacted a man called Coree, a Hottentot who had been to England and who spoke English. Then there was Herry the Hottentot who escaped from the island during the time of Van Riebeeck. Adriaan van der Stel took partridges and pheasant to the island. Clive of India also overnighted on the island. And we know that the handsome Anglican Church there dates back to 1841, when it was built by Major Richard Wolfe.

The island had its own newspaper, the little Robben Island Times, which appeared in 1886. It jointed with the Cape Times and was from time to time rapped over the knuckles by that newspaper.

Jacob Africander, the Koranna Chief, was exiled there. In the last century a convict on the island named Warren discovered a new star, and Sir David Gill, the Cape astronomer, presented him with a telescope.

The island always has been and remains an important marine life and wildlife sanctuary. I believe the return of the now absent Cape Jackass Penguins to the island is an important conservation priority.

More than 4 000 tourists visited the island in 1886 to hunt rabbits and birds.

And that brings me to tourism, a vital priority in the Cape. In Robben Island, the emergent Table Mountain and south peninsula reserve, the False Bay marine reserve, Rietvlei and Langebaan, we have a uniquely varied package of natural and historical areas which separately are interesting but not major magnets but together are of enormous potential interest for the visitor to the Cape.

General Magnus Malan himself served on the island, I understand for two years, and is thus in a unique position to understand the unique potential and fascination of the island. If Robben Island cannot become a national park, then perhaps the military and the man in the street can share the island. Cannot there by a military presence with public access? The Defence authorities have married public and defence interests wonderfully at the Castle and at Simon’s Town where the small-boat fleet and the naval flotillas ride side by side. In fact, the Navy has done much to popularize small-boat sailing in South Africa and it is the custodian of important historical buildings with public access. Can that not perhaps also be done at Robben Island? Cannot the military with its enlightened attitude to conservation be the authority that after so long returns Robben Island to the people after its long sentence of isolation?

I want to state quite categorically that I have not now or in the past felt the need for or supported the idea of a casino on the island or felt that somehow we should turn it into a Coney Island or that it should become the playground for the rich. I think that would be quite inappropriate and in my view wrong-minded. It should be our Pilgrim’s Rest, not our Sun City.

The island is not forbidding, but a happy, temperate and pleasant place from where one has, looking back across the bay, the grandest view in all the world, namely of this great city and Table Mountain. Let us return it to the people before it again undergoes a long sentence of seclusion.

I said something about the enlightened attitude of the Defence authorities and I said that very sincerely. I did not think that the hon. member for Constantia would again raise this issue of the Southern Cape in this Committee. The reason why I say this is that I cannot understand how the Ministry of Defence has attracted the criticism of that hon. gentleman. I shall say why.

What do we have in the Southern Cape? We have national assets and national interests. We have things which are of national concern and we have things which are of local concern. We have national rights and local rights. He mentioned a few things which may be affected by the exploitation, use or the change of use of the area, but there are many others which he has not mentioned, such as the Potberg Vultures, the Right Whales, the Cape Jackass Penguins and a great many others. I agree with the hon. member that the populations which exist there are all fragile populations. But why do the fragile populations exist there? Do hon. members know why? They exist there because the area is relatively underpopulated and remote and because it has such a relatively low agricultural value that it has not been exploited for agriculture. Agriculture was the greatest destroyer of natural habitat. It is because of its relatively low potential that those fragile populations still exist there, and it is that very remoteness which has enabled those fragile populations to sustain themselves that has attracted Armscor into the area. There is a classic conflict of interests where there is a change of use of land.

There are plenty of remote places elsewhere.

All right. However, what do we have now? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip for his courtesy and for the opportunity.

I was party to those discussions in the hon. the Minister’s office. Before there was a public outcry the Defence authorities approached the Department of Environmental Affairs with a request, which demonstrates for a start that they required an environmental input—otherwise they would not have made the request. The fact that they were engaged in conversations with the conservation authorities of the province demonstrated their interest in conservation. Then a decision was taken. The Department’s immediate response was that there was no purpose in arguing about opinions, nothing being so futile. The Department thought that there was so much to be weighed and assessed and that an environmental impact study should be made.

I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence. I personally had conversations with them over this matter before the thing ever was in the Press. I want to say that I personally have experienced many environmental conflicts and arguments in my time. The hon. member knows that. I want to tell him that I have never in my experience come across such a sensitive and immediate response—and this before any public outcry on the question of conservation—as I received in my inquiries with this hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence. Hon. members will remember the arguments we had over roads that were going through parts of the Southern Cape and about Sandy Bay, and many other environmental conflicts which were intractable. If this kind of solution was sought then none of those arguments would have arisen. We would have been able to weigh the facts. In respect of some of those environmental conflicts we still have not been able to weigh the facts because these things still have not been done. The fact is that here we had an enlightened approach. Instead of that enlightened approach receiving the commendation and congratulations of the hon. member for Constantia and instead of him giving evidence before the gentlemen who are going to do that environmental influence study, if he was so concerned, he makes attack after attack upon Minister after Minister in Vote after Vote which has the effect of reducing the morale of the Defence Force.

Come on, you are letting yourself down.

Oh yes, Sir. That hon. member must know that it has the effect of reducing the morale and of lowering the standing of the Defence Force in the eyes of the public while he should have in fact been congratulating the hon. the Minister.

The Defence Force is not a sacred cow.

I agree. If they do something wrong, criticize them by all means, but when they do something right, give them the credit for it. Let them weigh the facts and if one does not agree with the facts and one has a different interpretation of the facts as they emerge, then it is time for argument. However, the time for argument is not now.

That is why we are doing this. This is the environmental affairs Vote.

No, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask that hon. member whether he has confidence in Prof. Richard Fuggle, Dr. Heydorn, Dr. Hey and Mr. Morsbach. All of these people are going to be giving evidence and going to be weighing the facts. They are part of this commission that is going to do the impact study. If he has confidence in them, then he must talk to them or say nothing at all. What is the purpose of shouting ad infinitum about an issue…

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the member whether he will agree to an appeal from me on this side of the Committee that the environment impact committee expand its brief to consider other possible areas for this testing range?

Then they must investigate the rest of South Africa.

They admirably chose to investigate the Cape.

That is not the function. The function is to weigh the impact of what is proposed to be done there as well as to weigh the facts to see whether they can marry the activities of what is proposed to be done with the conservation interests of our country. I want to say that as a conservationist I welcome it. I congratulate the hon. the Minister. I think it was the most sensitive handling of this kind of conflict we have ever seen in the history of our country. However, instead of gaining the plaudits of the Opposition, we hear their condemnation. Where do we go?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Maitland on his speech, particularly the part about Robben Island. It was a very interesting speech. I should also like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister on their first appearance in the discussion of this debate. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Ermelo, who actually succeeded me, on his election as chairman of the study group. Actually I welcomed Mr. van der Merwe last year already, from that side of the Committee, but I am doing so again this year from this side of the Committee. I want to congratulate him on his appointment.

I congratulated the hon. the Minister on his appointment shortly after he became Minister. It was in his office in Pretoria. On that same occasion I also met the hon. the Deputy Minister there and congratulated him. The behaviour and attitude of the hon. the Minister was different then from what it was yesterday during his first participation in this debate. However, I shall not pursue the matter because I welcome this changed attitude of the hon. the Minister. I accept his undertaking that he will not differentiate between a member of the Government and a member of the Opposition and that he will give complete attention to all our representations. He also said that he desired close cooperation with other hon. members.

I also hope that as is customary, the hon. the Minister will even consult members of the Opposition when he visits an hon. member’s constituency in his official capacity in connection with the activities of his department in the relevant member’s constituency.

This is the tenth year that I have been a member of this study group. I had the privilege of being the chairman of the NP’s study group and also the chairman of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters. During this period I took part in an important phase of the development of the Orange River project. I am thinking for example of the building of the Orange-Fish Tunnel and the completion of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. I also had the privilege of conveying the first driller, Mr. Pieterse, who undertook prospecting work in connection with the hardness of the rocks at the P. K. le Roux Dam to the area, after he got lost and could not find the place. The construction town Orania, whose people, inter alia, built the Rama canal on the Free State side, is also in my constituency. I suppose that over the years I have frequently been a nuisance by addressing representations for the retention of the construction towns, but we succeeded in causing Oviston at Venterstad and Vanderkloof at the P. K. le Roux Dam to be retained. Today I should like to express my thanks to the hon. Fanie Botha, the hon. Braam Raubenheimer and the hon. Dr. L. A. P. A. Munnik, the former Administrator, who, in conjunction with all the officials of the department and the province, made the continued existence of Oviston and Vanderkloof today as two beautiful recreational resorts possible. After all the work has been completed on the construction town Orania, which has again been put into use by the hon. Minister’s department, we may possibly discuss its continued existence again in future.

It seems to me that a major problem facing this department in past years was that the Cabinet did not really realize the essential functions of this department. I always got the impression that over the years the department’s Ministers virtually stood alone when it came to obtaining additional funds for the department. I can still remember that when we addressed urgent representations last year for the building of the north bank canal to provide the Rietrivier Scheme and the Lower Rietrivier area with water and the hon. Dr. Nak van der Merwe again approached the Cabinet to obtain further funds, there were other priorities and the money was simply not available.

On Wednesday, 2 February of this year. I put the following question to the hon. the Minister—

The reply the hon. the Minister gave me was as follows—

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am extremely glad that he was able to succeed in eliminating those financial constraints so quickly and that he was able to announce the construction of the canal. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for that canal, because I have also always asked for the canal and because, as the hon. the Minister knows, a portion of my constituency is served by that canal. I want to ask that in the planning of this canal provision be made for the canal to be large enough to supply these farmers lower down, viz. in the Lower Rietrivier area, with water. Just like other farmers, these farmers are also having a very bad time. I want to thank the hon. the Minister in advance on behalf of my voters who will also benefit from this project.

I trust that the settlement of farmers along the southern bank of the Orange River below the P. K. le Roux Dam will also be speeded up. The hon. the Minister referred to this and I am not going to elaborate on it any further.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I feel that the time is also ripe now to investigate again the possibility of supplying water to De Aar and possibly also to the Smartt Dam.

De Aar is a growth point and a rapidly growing town and I expect it to be heading for a water shortage in future. The Smartt irrigation scheme has a tremendous potential if water can be obtained from the Orange River. These farmers are also having a very hard time at the moment with this drought.

The hon. the Minister has seen the memorandum of the Douglas and Bucklands Farmer’s Union. Unfortunately I do not have the time, but I just want to refer to the tremendous mineralization in the lower part of the Vaal River at Douglas. It is now becoming virtually impossible to use that water for irrigation. I want to suggest that a pipeline or a canal, possible from the Orange River, which is nearby, could be built to assist those people as well. On the other hand, if sufficient water flows down through the new canal in the Riet River, the Riet River itself can be used as a canal where it flows into the Vaal River. In that way it can take water right down to the confluence of the river.

I want to make another suggestion which I have also discussed before, namely that consideration could be given to building a number of weirs, each with its own hydro-electric turbine, below the P. K. le Roux Dam in the Orange River. The weirs can stabilize the water, can make water available to more land and at the same time generate hydroelectric power. The idea is that the same water flowing through the turbines of the P. K. le Roux Dam can therefore be used repeatedly. It may also stabilize that area up to the confluence and beyond and at the same time supply power to the Escom network. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Aar will pardon me if I do not refer to his speech, except to say that he has the right to plead for matters in his constituency—and we hope he gets what he asked for.

I am the MP concerned of the area in which the widely discussed testing range is situated, about which so much has been said and written. I tried to consider the matter objectively because as an MP one represents more interests than just those of nature conservationists.

The course of the debacle in regard to the missile testing range along the Bredasdorp coast eventually took such an emotional turn in many respects that there was little likelihood of a well-balanced approach to the matter. One objector stated the situation as follows in a letter which he wrote to me—

He asked me—

The hon. member for Wynberg had the following to say in a debate on a previous Vote—

What is the true state of affairs? Armscor’s objective is to meet the Republic of South Africa’s fluctuating need for arms and ammunition. Armscor is doing this because the enemies of South Africa succeeded in having an arms embargo imposed upon us. How can we maintain ourselves without arms and ammunition in the present world situation?

The hon. member for Constantia said it was a “false choice people were forced to make”. But surely the hon. member admits that it is essential for Armscor to manufacture arms and ammunition in the situation in which South Africa finds itself today. I accept that Armscor needs a missile testing range in order to test, improve and perfect its products. I accept in the first place that they need a testing site—and I think the hon. member for Constantia will agree—and in the second place that Armscor, after a two-year-long investigation by experts, some of them from France, as the hon. member himself said, investigated many possibilities and that they decided on the best attainable site for their purposes. Does the hon. member not accept that? Does the hon. member not accept the decision of a group of scientists, some of whom were brought from overseas, because of their superior knowledge, to help look for a site for testing these specific projectiles? Does the hon. member not accept that?

No. Maybe they just thought it was a “lekker plek”.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the hon. believes only in himself. I am in no way prepared to go against the decision of people who are authorities in their field and tell them that they could have found another or a better place.

They do not know about the environment.

What we are concerned with now is not the environment but Armscor and the function it has to fulfil.

Those chaps do not know what fynbos is.

The practical implementation of such a site will cause problems in any case, and wherever it is located. Of course it will cause problems; wherever one chooses to locate it. The West Coast also has fynbos. In this case there are several fears. One fear is that nature conservation in the region will be obstructed. The second fear is that productive agricultural land will be withdrawn, an act which could lead to a national disaster because we have such a scarcity of agricultural land in South Africa, and the third fear is that residential rights and properties in the area will be alienated. For this very purpose a Committee was appointed to make an impact study. Once again the foremost experts in all spheres involved here, namely nature conservation, agriculture and residential area establishment, are to look into the matter. I now want to ask the hon. member for Constantia whether he will accept the decision of these people, for he does not accept the decision of Armscor’s scientists. Will he accept it?

I shall accept the impact study group.

Fine. But what are we quarrelling about then?

Is it going to be released to the public?

Will he only accept it “if it is released to the public”?

Yes.

If Richard Fuggle says it is okay, will he accept it?

If Dr. Hey says it is okay, then I shall accept it.

In other words, you want the public and not the Committee to decide?

You are merely playing a political game.

It seems to me that these people are really not in earnest, even as far as nature conservation is concerned. It seems to me that what we are concerned with here is scoring political points.

Let us consider the possibilities. The hon. the Minister of Defence has already said that the De Hoop complex is not involved in this matter at all. Potberg and De Hoop are not involved in this matter at all, in other words, the organization which is engaged in nature conservation today, is not affected.

No, come on!

But how is it being affected? If it is not involved, if the functions which were performed there in the past will continue in exactly the same way in future, how can the hon. member now say: “No, come on!” This matter is not involved. Nature conservation continues as it did in the past.

Mr. Chairman, in the second place there are very good reasons to believe that utilizable agricultural land can also be excluded from this project, in other words, the only persons or bodies that are actually going to suffer are those with “fishing sanctuaries”, as I should like to call them. These are pieces of land on which there is fynbos vegetation and which have a piece of coastline and are used primarily for fishing and vacation purposes. There are a number of such sites. These people are going to suffer and I commiserate with them; I feel sorry for them. It is not pleasant or easy to have to give up a holiday site, particularly not if it is such an excellent vacation site. The other people who will suffer are township developers, who are in fact only working on the first phase of development. Not much money has been spent so far, and at the time when this project was announced, no houses had as yet been built. The other is one small community, namely Skipskop, where seven White families and eight Coloured families are living. For them I also have the greatest commiseration, and they have my full sympathy, because they are people who retired there, and some of them make their livelihood there.

Mr. Chairman, I also have reason to believe, however, that Armscor will go out of its way to be of assistance to these people and will most probably resettle them in an area of their own choice. In other words. Armscor is leaning over backwards in order to accommodate all the problems. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to finish his speech.

I thank the hon. member for Constantia. From now on I shall not reprimand him too harshly!

Mr. Chairman, what right do we have to allege that Armscor is an ogre which always put its own interests first at the expense of other interests? It is unfair and unjust, and I think that hon. members should take cognisance of this.

There is another matter, however. I said that an MP had more interests to look after than merely the conservation of fynbos. Such a project in my constituency means a great deal to that community. I received letters from far and wide. I should just like to read this telegram, which was sent to the hon. the Minister of Defence and of which I received a copy, to the hon. members—

Mr. Chairman, this is the wish of the chambers of commerce. This is the wish of people who are aware of the problems in a small town which is subject to the constant gradual depopulation of the rural areas. These are people who know that the number of children attending schools there is diminishing and that, as a result, teachers are leaving and the choice of subjects is becoming smaller. These people who know these things, long and plead for the Armscor project to come to Bredasdorp.

There are many small towns.

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly in the national interests, too, that our small towns in the rural areas should become economically viable and should survive. Why, then, do we state the case so one-sidedly? A farmer recently stood up at a meeting and said: “Sir, but we cannot eat fynbos”. Fynbos is important. The conservation of this type of vegetation is extremely important. Fynbos is a national asset. On the other hand, Armscor and its functions are probably more important, because it is necessary for our national protection. Cannot we then find a solution by reconciling these two major issues? It seems to be possible.

Says who?

I am telling that hon. member that it is. I am saying that it seems to be possible that these two issues can be reconciled. I think it is possible for conservation to be continued. To tell the truth, I think that the organization that is going to be responsible for conservation is going to have more land and more fynbos to preserve when this project ultimately succeeds. I believe this because I was present at some of the discussions.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make an appeal to the hon. members of the official Opposition please to think in the interests of South Africa.

We always think in the interests of South Africa.

I concede that the conservation of fynbos is in the interests of South Africa, but I cannot concede that Armscor is less important, and I want to tell that hon. member that I firmly believe that there are good reasons for Armscor having chosen that locality. In fact, I know there are good reasons. Not all of these are reasons which can be disclosed. Please, let us consider the interests of South Africa. Let us await the outcome of this impact study committee, and let us abide by its decision. Then we are doing the right thing. I now ask hon. members of the official Opposition to stop whining and complaining about this matter.

They are nagging.

Yes, the word nagging is perhaps better than those I used.

Mr. Chairman, there is only one little matter which I wish to touch upon in order to rectify it for the record. The hon. member for Constantia, very cleverly and astutely, tried to turn a matter against us here. He said that it seemed to him as though we wished to cast suspicion on the Director of Environment Conservation of the Cape Provincial Administration. I want to give him the assurance that we have full confidence in Mr. Morsbach. I just want to tell him that that is probably the reason why I now wish to ask him whether it was not perhaps he who leaked information to the Press. Is that hon. member not perhaps hiding behind Mr. Morsbach because he perhaps made the blunder of leaking information to the Press?

You are going straight on with the witch-hunt.

If that is the case, I cannot associate myself at all with his way of doing things.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Swellendam had to say. To begin with, I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: At the beginning of his speech he said that he, as Minister, had certain objectives that he wanted to achieve. He said inter alia that in the course of his term of office he would like to reform the hon. member for Constantia. I am not underestimating the hon. the Minister’s abilities, but I do think he has set his sights a little high! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the speech by the hon. member for Swellendam, I want to say that it is perhaps easier for a member of Parliament like the hon. member for Constantia to speak about Armscor etc., because he is here in the south. However, if he had perhaps represented my constituency, which is 50 km from Maputo, he may have been more interested in whether the Impalas that fly eastward were properly and effectively armed. I want to say no more than that.

Earlier in this debate both the nominated member Dr. Odendaal and the hon. member for Ceres—they are not present here now, but that is not necessary—referred to this and made a plea in this regard—and the hon. the Minister has also referred to this—viz. that water may not be exported if it may be to the detriment of a specific region. I think the hon. the Minister has already replied to that. However, I should just like to associate myself with this. In our specific part of the world and in my constituency in particular, water is indeed exported to the rest of the country, in the form of water converted into electrical power. I would not like to be in the hon. the Minister’s shoes at this moment, and that goes for my constituency as well. The possible closure of power stations has to be considered because the water level of the two dams in the Komati River is dropping rapidly. At the same time the irrigation farmers of Barberton are probably experiencing the gravest crisis in their history. I had the experience that when, years ago, the Nooitgedacht Dam was built in the Komati River, my farmers, too, objected that that water was being exported to an adjacent district for power generation. However, we were able to convince the people that in the national interest water had to be utilized in the most economical and effective manner.

The hon. the Minister is acquainted with the problems, including those in my constituency, as he was when he was hon. Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. For some years now, and during the ministership of previous hon. Ministers, we have been faced with the problem of the two most important rivers in the South-Eastern Transvaal, namely the Komati River and the Crocodile River. What was perhaps overlooked in the past was the possibility of the storage of surplus water. This was because it was assumed—too readily assumed—that there would always be sufficient water for irrigation purposes for irrigation farmers in those two rivers. Already in the past few years irrigation farmers have regularly encountered the problem in the early summer—particularly in September, October and November—that the normal flow of those rivers was insufficient for normal irrigation purposes. In conjunction with that we must also bear in mind that the Komati River in particular must serve not only South Africa, but also Swaziland and, in particular, the Kangwane homeland. I should be grateful to hear from the hon. the Minister whether a final arrangement has now been reached with Swaziland about the utilization and possible stabilization of the flow of that river.

Mr. Chairman, it has been some time back since the White Paper was issued in connection with the construction of a dam at Mountain View near Barberton. At the time the cost was estimated at R30 million. I should also like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the department intends doing in this regard. Our people realize the need for the surplus water from the South-Eastern Transvaal to be used for industrial purposes in normal times. However, today’s crisis situation is not solely responsible for the problems that irrigation farmers in that area are faced with today. The problem has cropped up from time to time in recent years. I am fully aware that at the moment there are heavy demands—perhaps very heavy demands—on the funds available to the hon. the Minister to take emergency steps in regard to the present situation. We are realistic enough to realize that. However, I want to make an earnest plea that the final plan for the proper stabilization of the life-giving rivers in that region—it is not only a matter of my constituency; the eastern part of the South Eastern Transvaal bordering on Mozambique is at issue—to be finalized so that the stabilization of the necessary storage capacity of the surplus water, which, in a normal rainy season, is an enormous amount, should be tackled as soon as possible so as to achieve final stability in a very prosperous region.

Mr. Chairman, the Komati River is of such importance to that area that in the time of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek that part of the world was known as the Komati ward of the then Lydenburg district. When my constituency was redelimited in 1973 I recommended that the constituency be given the name Komati instead of Barberton. Unfortunately my request was not acceded to.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few more matters I want to raise in connection with water affairs. I want to refer to a few of the speeches that have been made in the meantime.

In the first instance I should just like to refer to the staff situation in the Department, a matter raised by various hon. members. I should like to say that the salaries of engineers and technicians and those of some of the other staff groups have been adjusted since 1981. The stream of resignations has been ended. I am gratified to be able to say that in certain instances the staff position has certainly improved, as far as numbers are concerned, during the past year. Moreover, a campaign has been launced to recruit staff in Austria and England. May I also say at this point that this campaign has been highly successful. I am very gratified to be able to say this. These people we have obtained from overseas have considerably improved our position, particularly as regards engineers and technicians.

However, there is also an acute shortage of professional manpower in the country, and on the basis of intakes at our universities, indications are that there will be a major shortage of civil engineers in the late eighties. This question of engineers, particularly civil engineers, is a source of profound concern to our country and I want to say here today that we shall have to give very serious consideration to this situation. I contend—and I know that I can be crucified for what I am going to say—that we do not have enough Whites in this country to perform these services. We shall have to see to it—and I shall strive to achieve this—that we train people of colour as engineers and technicians in the civil field. We shall simply have to do this; we have no alternative.

That is a scientific approach.

If we want our country to come to a standstill we must allow a shortage of staff, particularly with respect to civil engineers, to develop. That would be an evil day for South Africa. However, I am gratified to be able to say that as far as the department is concerned the staff position has improved considerably.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Gordonia made a very interesting speech about the culture of the vine. I am very grateful for the interesting piece of history that that hon. member spoke about here. I have already replied to his plea with regard to water tariffs and I think he is quite satisfied with that. I have also replied in regard to the Kalahari pipeline.

I now wish to turn to the hon. member for De Aar. He took me to task about my attitude when he came to congratulate me in my office in Pretoria. Incidentally, that day happened to be my birthday as well.

It was your wedding day too.

Yes, my wedding day too. Let me say at once that I greatly appreciated the fact that the hon. member came in and remembered my birthday, because it is true that that hon. member and I lived very close to one another. Indeed, we represented neighbouring constituencies. In the nature of the matter we lived close to one another. Therefore my first reaction, perhaps necessarily, was one of extreme disappointment. I cannot keep it from him. I must say this here. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I shall continue to deal with the representations made by all hon. members of the Opposition, as befits a Minister. I shall most certainly do so.

The hon. member for De Aar also discussed the Riet River. At this point I just wish to rectify one point: My staff tell me—it is such a good thing always to have staff here—that I spoke in terms of completing the canal within two to three years. That is definitely a mistake. One cannot complete a canal of a 100 kilometres within two to three years. It is not humanly possible. It will take at least five to six years to complete that canal. However, that in no way changes the attitude in which I said these things. The hon. member for De Aar also spoke about water for De Aar and for the Smartt Syndicate dam. As I have already said, we are at present considering the future development of water from the Orange River. As hon. members heard, I said that there was superfluous water in the Orange River scheme and that we would have to see to it that it was used. The question of water for the town of De Aar will most certainly also have to be given attention. I should like to see the day—and I say this here with great circumspection and the utmost responsibility—that we can build the south canal. I do believe that we may be in a position to build it one day. Then, too, the hon. member spoke about weirs below the P.K. Le Roux dam for the purposes of power generation. I could just say to him that this was in fact investigated with a view to achieving stabilization of water consumption. However, it was found that it would be totally uneconomical. However, I do want to say this to the hon. member, because I think it is important that he should know it: He is aware of the quantity of land available at Plooysburg. This is a fine piece of land comprising something like 88 000 hectares of irrigable land. Initially the idea was to take water there from the Riet River. There has now been a total alteration in the planning of the supply of water for those areas. One should perhaps consider building a weir at Douglas where, as the hon. member said, one could generate the necessary power to supply water to that area. This could also considerably improve the position with regard to Douglas itself. I believe that this is a possibility, and the planning division of the directorate of Water Affairs is at present investigating the matter for the purposes of future development.

You must not overlook the Lower Riet River.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised another point. It related to the lower Riet River and the Modder River. I have already said that when the Riet River canal has been completed, surplus water will be available in those two dams, viz. the Krugersdrif dam and the Kalkfontein dam. When that occurs we shall certainly be able to solve the problems of those people. The question of the mineralization of the Vaal River will be given the necessary attention at the same time. I can give him that absolute assurance.

The hon. member for Barberton spoke about Swaziland and wanted to know how far the negotiations had proceeded. I can tell him—and I am pleased to be able to say this—that the negotiations concerning the method of division of water between South Africa and Swaziland have almost been finalized. This is a very difficult matter. We are obliged by a convention to carry out the distribution of water to neighbouring States and this is not an easy matter. However, I want to give the assurance that these negotiations are at an advanced stage of completion. The hon. member for Barberton also spoke about Komatipoort. He knows that I have a very soft spot for Komatipoort because the people there live in an extremely sensitive areas. They are on the border of Mozambique. It is imperative—and I want to say this categorically today—that we should not only bring about greater density of population there, but should also stabilize the people who are living there now. Some of the best farmers in our country live in that area. I have no doubts on that score. I want to tell the hon. member that we envisage submitting a White Paper for the storage of water in the Lomati River or the Komati River in 1984. That is next year. Now, I just want to say to the hon. member that as I see it, and as I have studied the situation there, I think it is necessary that we should give the storage of water in the Komati River a higher priority than the dam at Mountain View, and I shall tell the hon. member why. It is because as far as I am concerned, the Komati River scheme is far more necessary at this stage than the Crocodile River scheme. This is for the simple reason that the Elandspruit dam, which I shall come back to in a moment, will stabilize the situation for the farmers along the Crocodile River to a far greater extent as far as their existing irrigation is concerned. Therefore I think the hon. member will agree with me that at this stage we must give the Komati River higher priority than the Mountain View. It is not that we are writing off the Mountain View certainly not—but I do think that we must give the Komati River higher priority, for the reasons I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps also the appropriate opportunity to announce—and it is with pleasure that I do so—that the Government has decided, with reference to representations from the area concerned, that the dam under construction in the upper reaches of the Crocodile River, which is at present known as the Elandspruit dam, has been named after one of my predecessors. It will from now on be known as the Braam Raubenheimer dam.

Hear, hear!

I think that this is a well-deserved tribute to a man who has come a long way with Water Affairs. I take great pleasure in making this announcement.

Mr. Chairman, I have one quotation from the Bible that I should like to put to the hon. member for Meyerton. The Bible tells us—

I submit that to the hon. member for his consideration.

Since I have now finished I just want to take the opportunity to thank hon. members sincerely for their debating. I contend that with one exception this debate has been of an exceptionally high standard. I should like to congratulate hon. members on that and thank them, because in fact it was easy for me to reply to a debate of this standard. I think we succeeded in outlining the most important bottlenecks, and we also succeeded in showing the department that we have considerable understanding for their problems but that we are also sincerely grateful for what they are doing.

At this point I want to hand over further proceedings to my friend and colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister. On this occasion I should just like to convey my sincere thanks to him for his very good co-operation. Both of us were very new to this work. At the outset we had to feel our way as regards one another and the department, but I want to give hon. members the assurance that I would not have delegated the two important components of this department, Environment Affairs and Fisheries, to him if I had not had confidence in him. I do not think there is anyone in this country who, politically speaking, knows more about fish than he does. It is an extremely difficult part of the department to handle. It is difficult because one is dealing with thousands of fishermen and one is dealing with an industry of tremendous importance for this country.

Mr. Chairman, I know that decisions are sometimes taken which are not popular and I am very grateful that the hon. member for Constantia today made mention of the fact that some of them were good decisions. I want to say that it is not easy to handle this part of the department and I have great appreciation for the way in which the hon. member does so. Fish is an important source of food and I repeat that the fishing industry is an important industry. On this occasion I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to the officials of the Department of Environment Affairs. In particular I also wish to thank the officials of the Department of Fisheries. I whish to extend my cordial thanks to Dr. Serfontein who, together with his officials—some of them are up there in the public gallery—are present here, for the outstanding work and the commendable task they are performing in the interests of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I now wish to conclude and, finally, I should also like to thank the Chair for the way in which the debate was handled. I also want to thank the officials who came down from Pretoria to assist me in handling the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, the course of the debate has been very nice and peaceful thus far. I shall try to keep it peaceful. To begin with, on behalf of all the hon. members, I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for all the fine promises he made with regard to all the dams, weirs and water he is going to build and provide. I only hope that when I finish speaking, he will, in due course, be able to promise or give me something too.

A fish in the dam.

Talking about fish, I catch fish and I eat fish, but apparently I may not discuss fish this afternoon. Therefore I shall say something about the environment and conservation.

Mr. Chairman, concern has been expressed this afternoon, and before today as well, about the conservation of the area in the vicinity of De Hoop. I feel that it is quite right that hon. members should express concern about that. We must make quite sure that we do not at this stage destroy or deal carelessly with the little we have conserved. In any event we must also ensure that we do not, like certain hon. members, see a confrontation in every issue or wish to boycott every undertaking. It need not be, as the hon. member for Constantia said, a terrible choice between the interests of Armscor and the interests of conservation in that area. Like other hon. members, I firmly believe that it is quite possible that we shall be able to reconcile the interests of the two groups to good effect. We in this country are inclined to talk a great deal about conservation, but in fact we do very little about it. South Africa is ahead of the world in many spheres, but when it comes to conservation, we are far behind most other countries. Percentage-wise we spend less of our revenue on conservation than any other civilized country that I know of. Because South Africa is so large and so richly endowed with plants and animals, we have carried on unthinkingly polluting, treading under foot and exterminating as if the resources were inexhaustible. Today, however, reality is fast catching up with us. Although we realize it, we appear to be powerless to do anything positive about it, as opposed to merely talking and writing about it.

I believe that one of the causes of our powerlessness is the divided control over our conservation programmes. There are too many departments, each of which performs a different function, or its own function in the same area. For example, in the case of Pot-berg—De Hoop has already been discussed—the Cape Provincial Administration exercise conservation control over the area, but only up to the high water mark. On the other side of that high water mark, on the beach and the rocks, the province has no control. I quote what the Administrator said at the opening of the Potberg reserve: “Ver-deelde en teenstrydige beheer deur die Staat en Provinsiale Administrasies oor natuurreservate het in sommige gevalle tot ’n absurditeit ontwikkel wat ’n vraagteken plaas oor die doeltreffendheid van natuurbewaring in Suid-Afrika.” I agree wholeheartedly with him, of course, and I hope that these issues will soon be resolved so that within a year or two these complaints can no longer be made.

In that case, a different department could issue permits and concessions at its discretion relating to that marine area belonging to the provincial nature reserve. They could issue permits and grant concessions for the taking of red bait, mussels, oysters, etc. They could then strip the coast there and the provincial authorities—although it is their reserve—have no say over that area. In fact, therefore, the province cannot protect the coast of its own nature reserve.

The control and supervisory functions of divisional councils over their coastal areas is another example. The Divisional Council of Kaffraria, viz. the divisional council for the East London region, was firmly convinced that the concession holder for the harvesting of seaweed was acting harmfully in their coastal area. Irresponsible workers of the concession holders were not cutting the seaweed, so that it could grow again, but simply ripping it out root and branch. In spite of the objections and appeals by Kaffraria against the renewal of the concession, a different department saw fit to renew the concession once again. All this divided control makes some people powerless and other people despondent. This also applies to our national parks.

The Kruger National Park and other parks in the north, due to their situation, can be subjected to security risks from beyond our borders. It may be that in the near future these parks could be entirely closed. If that were to happen, we would have only one park left which could serve the same purpose as those parks, viz. the Addo Elephant National Park in the Suurberg mountains near Port Elizabeth. It would be the only remaining park where people could view our attractive macromammals.

This jewel of the Eastern Cape, which is so popular among the people of the Eastern Cape and people from overseas, was founded in 1931 to save from extermination the 11 remaining Cape elephants, Addo elephants, and a few Cape buffalo. In this the Addo elephant park achieved outstanding success. The park succeeded in its aim to such an extent that the area of approximately 4 000 ha has now become too small. The elephant and buffalo population has increased to such an extent that the park has become too small, and the number of elephants, buffalo and other animals have had to be drastically reduced. The numbers have to be reduced due to over-population and the present critical drought. These animals must now either starve, be shot dead, be given away, be sold and taken away or else the area of the park must be considerably extended.

It is usually a very expensive process to purchase additional land for any park. However, the Addo park is in the fortunate position that it can be extended at minimal cost and with little trouble, to support more than twice the existing population of elephants and buffalo as well as, of course, the mountain quagga and other scarce species in that area. A major State forest, the Suurberg forest reserve, is very close and would fit in very well with the park. The land already belongs to the Government and need not, therefore, be bought. It is merely a question of transferring it from one department to another. The three bodies involved are the National Parks Board, the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Forestry. The National Parks Board, of course, very much wants the land. The Department of Water Affairs has no significant objection to the land being transferred. However, I understand that the Department of Forestry objects. They say that it is their wilderness area and that they want to preserve it intact. Once again, therefore, there is a conflict between the departments, which has a crippling effect on conservation. If the Suurberg forest reserve were transferred to the National Parks Board, and the eight farms between the two areas bought out, the Addo park would immediately gain tremendous viability, and the abovementioned scarce animal species preserved for posterity.

By way of co-operation and the expenditure of a relatively small amount a fine and extensive conservation area for flora and fauna could be created. In this way the wilderness aspect could be retained. The flora of the Addo park is such that it is capable of supporting more elephants per hectare—I think the figure is 0,2 elephants per hectare—than any other region in the southern hemisphere. To tell the truth, it could support eight times as many elephants. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is still in the House. Before he leaves us, I would just like to say to him that I listened to his remarks about the Orange River water and the surplus in the Orange River with great interest. I can assure him that, on behalf of the farmers of the lower Fish River, we will be standing first in the queue for this water!

One can never win!

Anyway, the hon. the Minister has indicated very kindly that he will be paying a visit to our region in the near future and I am sure that we will be able to discuss what to do with that surplus water very profitably.

The hon. member for East London North raised some interesting matters in his speech concerning the clashing of the different departments. Hon. members in these benches support him wholeheartedly in the plea which he made for rationalization in conservation administration.

The hon. member for Maitland made a plea for the preservation of Robben Island for conservation purposes. Again we on this side of the House support him wholeheartedly. It is a pity that he chose to attack the hon. member for Constantia for making a similar plea for the Potberg/Southern coast area. We like the idea of Robben Island being given back to the people, and support the idea that the military should retain control over as small a section as is absolutely necessary and that the national parks control the rest.

The hon. member for East London North raised a subject concerning the sea-shore which I should like to expand upon in my speech. The hon. the Deputy Minister has stated that the sea belongs to the people. I presume that, obviously, the shoreline is included in his reference. I would like to raise a matter which is of importance, not only to my constituency, but also to the entire south-eastern seaboard of this country. It concerns the harvesting of seaweed by commercial companies along this coastline. The coastline is divided into 16 sections between the Kei River and Saldanha Bay. Tenders are called for the harvesting of seaweed. Successful applicants are granted permits to harvest seaweed for periods of up to five years. In the case of the eastern section of the coastline between the Kei River and Cape Agulhas, a distance of some 1 000 kilometers, there are four sections. The current permit holder pays R1 000 per year for each of these concessions. For this amount he is entitled to harvest as much seaweed as he likes, in whatever way he likes and of whatever species he likes. The only provisions laid down by the Director of the Marine Development Branch are that firstly, the collectors wear identification badges, that toilet facilities be provided for them and that adequate supervision be provided for each batch of collectors.

I am aware that a case can be made out for the cropping of natural resources, but this is only justifiable if it is done on a sustained yield basis. Even the Kruger National Park, which is the holy of holies for conservationists in this country, must crop its game in order to prevent overstocking. However, this is done under the strictest control and is based on meticulous scientific research. What is happening along our coastline is akin to putting the culling of game in a nature reserve up for tender, and telling the applicants that provided they identify themselves and provide their own toilet facilities, they can move in and kill as many animals as they wish, of as many species as they wish and in whatever way they wish. What is of concern to me is that there is scientific opinion to the effect that the continuous interference with the sea pasture is harming the intertidal zone. Not only is harm apparently being done by the manner and extent of the harvesting, but there is also the allegation that the collectors are not properly supervised, and that they do a great deal of damage to the shellfish life on the rocks by large-scale collecting. I have had a number of representations from organizations as well as individuals requesting that something be done about this. The Kaffrarian Divisional Council, the Eastern Border Farmers’ Association and the Albany and Bathurst Farmers’ League are among those who have expressed alarm at the situation. As the hon. member for East London North mentioned, the Kaffrarian Divisional Council actually approached the Sea Fisheries Division before the current permits were renewed, with the request that no further harvesting be allowed because of the damage which is apparently being done. It must be remembered that what is at play here is the heritage of a thousand kilometer stretch of coastline. For a mere R4 000 in annual takings for this particular section of coastline, one wonders whether it is really worth it. The kelp beds from Cape Agulhas to Saldanha Bay are somewhat more profitable. They yield an income of some R124 000 annually. I am not in a position to comment on the manner in which kelp is being harvested, and therefore I will not include this area in my plea. The harvesting along the Kommetjie/Cape Point area does appear to be conducted in a rational and suitable way, with certain sections being harvested and other sections being left.

It is because they have a good MP for that coastline.

Perhaps that is so.

The situation on the south-eastern section of the coastline, however, is apparently very different. What I am asking for is, firstly, that a proper scientific study be conducted into the advisability of seaweed harvesting, provided that this harvesting can be done on a sustained yield basis; secondly, that all harvesting outside the kelpbeds should cease until such a study has been made; thirdly, that no further concessions be granted until the study has been completed; and, fourthly, that if it should not prove possible to cancel existing concessions, harvesting should only take place under the supervision of a properly appointed officer of the Division Sea Fisheries.

I believe that not enough research and thought has gone into the matter of seaweed harvesting. As a consequence, our unique and valuable coastline could be in jeopardy. Irreparable damage to our marine resources could be done and the Department would be failing in its duty if it ignored this plea.

I should line to make a further plea for the creation of more marine reserves. We are blessed with one of the most beautiful coast-lines in the world, but perhaps we have done less about protecting this coastline than any other country. The more beautiful a coastline the more it becomes the target of, for example, property developers. How much of our coastline has not already been spoilt by a rash of ugly housing development? There is barely a vista along our coastline that does not show in some way or other the ugly hand of man. The work of the National Trust in Great Britain in buying up vast areas of coastline in that country to protect it from the rapacious grasp of speculators and developers should serve as a model to us all. Even here in the Peninsula some of the last and loveliest stretches of coastline such as that at Sandy Bay are in danger. My appeal is for the hon. the Minister to give serious thought to making more and bigger marine reserves so that something of this particular section of our heritage can be passed on to our children.

Mr. Chairman, I have at this stage something that I feel it would be as well to deal with in the fight of some of the statements that have been made by some of the speakers to date. In the first place, I want to deal with the matters raised by the hon. member for Constantia as regards the Council for the Environment. He feels that the Council for the Environment does not have the requisite teeth. I want to point out to him, as I did in the Other Place in another debate, that the supporting staff in the department is rendering assistance to the embryo Council for the Environment and that this staff will be strengthened as the work of the council progresses. Secondly, I want to point out to him that the council advises on policy and that in actual fact the teeth are with the authorities that have to implement that advice, namely the Government departments, the provinces and the local authorities. Thirdly, I want to point out to him that the council members are not regarded by us as being work horses. They are there for their know-how. The work will actually be done in the working committees that will be established by the council and also by the department.

Another point that he made was in connection with the reporting by the council. In this regard I want to say that in terms of the Act the council is required to report annually on its activities.

Lastly he made the point that he feels that the council has not functioned as expeditiously or as quickly as he would have wished. In this regard I should like to tell him that the composition of the council was only announced in January and the first meeting took place at the beginning of March.

Since we are dealing with the Council for the Environment I should like to make two statements. The first relates to the workings of the council. The recently established Council of the Environment held its inaugural meeting on 8 March and a recognizance of the field of activity of the council has already been commenced by its members. It is evident that aspects such as coastal zone management, noise abatement, solid waste and littering and the built-up environment will be accorded a high priority by the council. There seems to us to be an increasing conservation awareness noticeable among the population at large. This is evidenced by the reaction of the public through the public media. This development to us is indeed encouraging where it is directed at ensuring a better quality of life for all the peoples in the country. It is, however, of paramount importance that a golden mean between conservation and development should always be sought. It is realized that environmental conservation can only succeed with the fullest support and involvement of each and every inhabitant of the country. A mammoth task which will be vigorously pursued lies ahead in this regard, a task in which the Council for the Environment will have to play a very prominent part.

Every South African, I am quite sure, must be most concerned at what appears to us to be untidiness, littering and filth in some of our towns, our cities, even our villages and along our national roads. I want to say that if cleanliness is supposed to be next to godliness, South Africans will certainly have to look to their laurels.

*We are becoming a nation of litterbugs and that makes a bad impression on visitors, our children and our grandchildren. It is also proof, however, of a terrible untidiness among South Africans which is most alarming.

†From the Prime Minister downwards there have been warnings issued about this state of affairs. Warning voices are frequently heard and we have to do something about this state of affairs. That brings me to the statement that I wish to make on behalf of the Government. It is in respect of keeping South Africa clean, of keeping South Africa tidy.

Earlier this year the Cabinet decided to launch a Keep South Africa Tidy campaign. Arrangements have been made to launch the campaign on 5 June, which is observed world-wide as World Environment Day. Details of the campaign are now being rounded off. The emphasis will be placed on keeping sportsfields, streets, parks and other public areas tidy. The programme will include education in order to promote a healthier attitude on the part of the public towards littering and other forms of environmental contamination and defilement.

*This programme will be arranged in close collaboration with and supplementary to the existing and well-known Keep South Africa Clean organization which, with the assistance of the department, is doing commendable work. It is the aim of this organization to encourage community involvement in keeping the cities and towns clean. The principles of “Clean Community System”, which has had so much success in the USA, are being adapted to local conditions. Notable success has already been achieved in various centres such as Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban and Soweto. The system is characterized by its educational element, which will also play a very important part in the campaign which is now being launched.

†The Keep South Africa Tidy campaign will not terminate at the end of the year. This effort will continue and should become a way of life in South Africa and I sincerely hope that public interest and active participation will gather momentum as time goes on. The necessary funds for this campaign have been made available by the Government.

I think that is all I wish to say on this matter at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Constantia concerning the hon. the Deputy Minister where this is the first time that he has to deal with this Vote. I also think it is common cause that our fishing resources in all its varied aspects are under terrific pressure, that it is the concern of everybody in South Africa and that this has been caused by over-exploitation. However, I think the hon. the Minister has shown that he is meeting is aspect headon. We can therefore expect that this will also be a matter of top priority. Other members on this side will deal with various aspects concerning exploitation. I also intend to dwell on this matter.

*During my visit to the USA last year, I had the opportunity of being told a great deal about their fishing industry as a whole, with its multiplicity of facets. I met scientists and policy-makers on both their east and west coasts. It is very pleasing to see that in California in particular, our fishing industry, as well as our policy in this regard are very well-known to their scientists. Those scientists hold our officials and scientists associates with this department in very high esteem. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into this now, but I have a considerable amount of evidence from their leading experts, who spoke very highly of our department.

Having said that, I want to add at the outset that everyone agrees that many improvements could be effected to the way in which we are exploiting our marine resources at present. Today I should like to make a few suggestions to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. I want to commence by discussing the composition and functions of the statutory Fisheries Council. In my opinion, the present council has too narrow a composition to handle adequately the entire spectrum of marine exploitation and to make recommendations. Commercial interests have the most say at present. As a direct result of this, in my opinion, the West Coast has priority over the South and East Coasts, as well as the Natal coastal regions. These regions are being neglected completely. The input of our highly esteemed scientists are also far too minor and indirect. It is this very deficiency that has given risen to the recent appointment of an ad hoc committee by the hon. the Deputy Minister under the chairmanship of a colleague of ours in this House, the hon. member for Pretoria East, Dr. Theo Alant. He was asked to advise the Government and the hon. the Minister with regard to certain aspects of the pelagic fishing industry.

Angling as a sport has a large following and is a popular activity in South Africa, since members of all population groups participate in it. They, too, have very little say in this advisory council. Only the chairman of the South African Angling Union has a seat on this council. He is completely powerless against the influence of the industry. In my opinion, provision ought to be made for the diversity of activities, and the present Fisheries Council should be divided in two so that there is one council for the West Coast and a second council for the Cape South and East Coasts and the Natal Coast. This geographic division also has the advantage that it happens to distinguish between the most important commercial interests on the one hand, and recreational fishing activities on the other. The importance of the latter is completely underestimated when we consider how many participate in this, as well as the secondary industries involved in this, for example, the boat building industry, the manufacturers of fishing tackle, etc. This large interest group must be given a proper say as soon as possible. Since a more purposeful and more co-ordinated policy is at issue here, I want to make a further appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give urgent attention to the consolidation of the laws applicable to this as well. At present we have fragmented legal control over our resources, which causes overlapping, omissions and anomalies. Apart from the Sea-shore Act, the Sea Birds and Seals Protection Act, Fishcor legislation, the Sea Fisheries Act and numerous regulations, the provinces also have their ordinances. This mass of legislation leads to many absurdities, and I want to mention only one. Elf have been protected with a great deal of success along the Natal Coast since 1981, but this same fish can be caught along the Cape Coast without any restrictions. I want to quote in this regard from a report in the Eastern Province Herald of 21 April 1983 under the heading “Slaughter Threatens Species”, as follows—

A well-known person in conservation circles, Mr. Bruce Truter, expressed himself in the August 1982 edition of Magnum on the same aspect as follows—

Unfortunately, practically without exception, the seriousness of the onslaught on our marine resources is not fully realized. The reasons for this is not quite clear, but I maintain that this is due mainly, in the first instance, to the primitive premise that the sea is inexhaustible as far as its treasures are concerned and is there for all to exploit unchecked, and secondly, to the lack of co-ordination between the various fishing activities. The fact that nature cannot be exploited unrestrainedly, becomes clearer to people when assets on land are at issue. When it comes to hunting, licences, hunting limits and hunting seasons are quite acceptable. Why on earth can similar measures not be made applicable to our marine resources? Surely there is no-one who would seriously suggest today that these resources are inexhaustible.

To achieve the right attitude as regards our natural assets, is an educational problem I do not want to deal with now. A second cause of the underestimation of the seriousness of the whole onslaught on our marine resources is a lack of co-ordination and failure to channel information to the decision-maker, viz. the Minister. Why else would we still be so ignorant if, without exception, every angler would tell one that almost year after year for the past 20 years he has caught fewer fish? The same is said about the bait resources which are recklessly exploited. The cause of this deterioration is clear. The number of anglers is increasing annually and, besides, their tackle has developed to such an extent that even a beginner can, without much effort, be a proficient angler. There has also been a virtual revolution in boat angling. A decade or so ago, an angler could only, in exceptional circumstances, afford to do deep-sea angling, but these days it is within everyone’s reach to own a powerful and safe ski-boat which, with the help of a four-wheel drive vehicle, can be taken to places which, until recently, have been inaccessible. Modern technology enables these boat anglers, even without a thorough knowledge of the sea, to do an efficient job of locating fish and then frequently wiping them out. Then people still wonder why small fish catches are decreasing!

I have no doubt that the hon. the Deputy Minister is on the right track in advocating the registration of ski-boats, daily catch limits, the licensing of anglers and the creation of marine reserves. Other aspects could also be looked at, for example seasons for certain fish species. As a result of the total lack of planning and control of recreational angling, malpractices have, in my opinion, set in. Earlier this year I gave an indication of the extent of the fish-sales by so-called amateur anglers, but the practice that bothers me most is that of angling competitions. Here we have people carrying out an organized activity that they call a “sport”. The primary object of most of these competitions is the catching and killing of the largest possible mass of fish. This objective reflects the mentality I referred to earlier, i.e. that the resources of the sea are limitless and cannot be exhausted. The fact that prizes are awarded gives this viewpoint a degree of social acceptability. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his friendly gesture.

In newspapers these competitions are widely publicized and large and expensive prizes are given to the winners. In one case it was a fully-equipped ski-boat. The people who definitely takes the cake, however, are those carrying out his slaughter in the Eastern Province. One whole week is devoted to this activity each year and is known as the Eastern Province Angling Week. Numerous prizes are available and the whole family, including the wife and children, are encouraged to take part.

At some time or other we shall have to ensure that these activities are carried out in a more civilized way so that they can be worthy of being called a sport. If these competitions were to aim at catching the heaviest fish of a particular species, and if stricter limits were placed on the tackle and a few other steps were taken, some of my objections to those competitions would fall away.

In conclusion I want to advocate that the same protection be afforded to our fish species and other sea-life as is afforded to our land animals. What I mean by this is that the protection measures should vary from one species to another, the criteria being the scarcity of the relevant species and the pressure anglers are putting on that species. The protection of particular fish species is not an uncommon practice at all. In the USA specific species have been protected for years now. Examples are the salmon, halibut, snoek, tarpon and a variety of other fish and other sea-life. That it is done there very easily and quickly, I can illustrate by referring to an article in the magazine Salt Water of February 1983, in which the following is said—

There it is thus common cause, and we ought to extend the protection given to shad in Natal on a planned basis.

Another species that is of great importance and extremely sought-after is the leer-vis, which probably has prior claim to such specific protection. This remarkable fish is exclusively a sports-fish with no value to the commercial fishermen. As a result of the depletion—I even want to say destruction—of bank-fish by ski-boats along the Cape and Natal coast, at present tremendous pressure is being placed on the species. A recent development in the artificial lure industry has greatly contributed to this. In this connection I should like to quote from a few sworn affidavits I obtained from a few well-known people in the angling world. Here I am referring to Mr. Eric de Villiers, Mr. Peter le Roux and Mr. Bruce Truter. Some of them are professional people, and Mr. Eric de Villiers is a Springbok angler. He has done ski-boat fishing and shore fishing throughout the world. He says, amongst other things—

He then recommends catch limits and the closing of certain areas.

Mr. Bruce Truter of Port Alfred, to whom I have already referred, is an angler who records what he and his friends catch annually. In 1975 they caught 51 of the leervis, in 1980 4, in 1981 23, and in 1982 also 23. He says: “I am especially concerned about the future of the leervis.” He also proposes that catch limits be introduced for this fish.

In the light of the absence of scientifically-based data, I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister himself has enough experience to greatly appreciate the proposals of these experienced anglers. Mr Rudie van der Els, a very well-known person in South Africa, who got the whole matter in connection with shad in Natal going, also advocated the protection of the leervis as a species in his recent book “A Guide to the Common Sea Fisheries of Southern Africa”.

In summing up, let me say that it is obvious that with little effort, and at virtually no cost, we could introduce a proper management structure which would lead to the more uniform and efficient utilization of our marine sources.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just completed his speech, obviously has great interest in and knowledge of the subject he addressed the Committee on. Being a good Eastern Province man like the hon. the Minister, he is somebody whom we listen to with interest.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Mooi River, to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department. I can still remember that the hon. the Minister and I attended a course at the Infantry School some 20 years ago. One evening we were doing a night patrol and we happened to have a gentleman in our patrol who had one of those gentle whispering voices, something like that of one of the National Party Whips. I think every time he whispers at home he wakes up the children. As a result of this enormous voice booming out across the veld we were nabbed by the enemy. The hon. the Minister put up quite a fight and was quite aggressive. I recall that, because I think that what the hon. the Minister has on his hands is a tremendous fight for his department in achieving the priority for this department it should achieve in the budget and in the extension of its activities in this vital period. We in the NRP believe that environment and mineral affairs, that is to say, energy, food production and matters of that nature, are going to be the politics of the future. We foresee that the hon. the Minister is going to have to launch an enormous drive to vastly extend the activities of his department, particularly with reference to environmental affairs. Other hon. members have covered the aspect of water adequately and the hon. the Minister has replied to this. I do not think anybody is in any doubt in this country as to how vital water is to us and that adequate plans will have to be made in this regard. However, in the environmental field we simply do not get anywhere near the sort of start we should have in motivating and getting local authorities and local communities involved in respect of the environmental aspect of things.

I think it would be true to say that young and dedicated degreed environmental officers do not have great career prospects. If one wants to be harsh, one can possibly say that it is a case of filling dead men’s shoes. We need to extend these services vastly and just as we have extension officers in relatively small areas, we should have environmental officers there going out and doing field work. We should harness the enthusiasm and the public spiritedness of all the people in this country. That is the vehicle that will have to be used to enable us to protect the environment and to bring about a desirable situation. We cannot see that this will happen without the educational process. Environment officers should have specific areas in respect of which they will be goal orientated to bring about certain situations. They should be able to establish priorities for a community in respect of their knowledge and their protection of drainage systems, the increase of forestation and matters pertaining to pollution, etc. We will not be able to even begin to tackle this matter unless we have a vast expansion and a totally new and imaginative outlook on what we should be doing in the environmental field. I personally would like to see them integrated to a degree with Agriculture to ensure a more holistic approach to conservation. People should become absolute experts in their own areas of exactly what it consists of in terms of drainage, plant life and the possibility of further conservation in those areas. I think that the South Africa public is certainly fertile ground in which to implant ideas and to get the public to go along with that sort of campaign.

The other subject I should like to discuss in the very short time available to me, is the question of inter-tidal zone protection. The local authorities, communities and people who live on the coast have great concern for and are aware of the changes that are taking place along our coasts. They are very concerned about the misuse that is sometimes made of these areas. These people can be extremely useful to the sort of environmental control officer I envisage working out in the field.

I would now like to cross swords a little with the hon. the Deputy Minister concerning the granting of concessions for the harvesting of seaweed along the coast from Kei Mouth to Chalumna River. The original concession was issued in 1977 by the then Minister of Economic Affairs without any consultation at all with the Kaffrarian Divisional Council. When the Divisional Council became aware of this concession it lodged its objections and despite the numerous objections by them during the currency of that permit concerning the company’s disregard for the conditions of the permit, the transgressions were not acted upon by the department. With that very poor background to the first five years and the council’s further representations against renewal, the department saw fit to renew this concession and has really ridden roughshod over the feelings of the local authority and of the local community. These people have in-depth knowledge of the circumstances surrounding these activities. The conditions laid down for the issue of this permit are virtually impossible to enforce by the department. It is just a lot of verbage and cannot be enforced. The information I obtained from the divisional council, which I will gladly pass on to the hon. the Minister, indicates that in 1978 the department instituted a preliminary investigation which found that Gelidum pristoides plants recovered within four months of being harvested. It also reported that any form of over-collection would be detrimental to the environment. It further found that if sensible conservation practices were followed, it would be possible for the seaweed to be harvested without too much damage. In fact, it is quite impossible for the department to control it. There is no organisation for controlling it. They do not only over-harvest the seaweed, but they completely strip the rocks—there is nobody there to really supervise them—in that area of any form of sea life they can possibly get their hands on. It is really a very serious situation. I would just like to say that in my opinion it is totally out of character for the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think that perhaps what happened here is that the original grant was not sufficiently investigated and that the hon. the Minister has been swept along by a situation in respect of which he was not fully aware of all the facts in order for him to make his own decision, having newly come into the department. I would ask the hon. the Minister to really go into this matter. The divisional council received a letter stating that the company concerned would be subject to the withdrawal of that permit should they not adhere to these conditions. However, it is such a vast area with so few departmental people involved and so few local people involved, that there is going to be nobody to observe the process until the damage is done. It requires a whole new rethink and a look at the possibility of acceding to the divisional council’s request. If they do feel that they should grant this concession and that the harvesting of the seaweed can be done, it must be done on a confined area basis, namely in certain areas at certain times with control by the local authority, and not just a blanket concession.

I have had several phone calls from local people. The company concerned has asked them whether they could put up camps on their farms and they have chased these people away. They do not want to have anything to do with the company. There is a long history of people harvesting seaweed in this area. It has never been controlled and it is with considerable disappointment that we learnt that this concession was regranted.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town will forgive me if I do not follow him in the subject he has just discussed.

At the outset I would like to put on record my congratulations and best wishes to the hon. the Deputy Minister on his appointment to this portfolio.

*I want to say that we in the Caledon constituency have a great deal of confidence in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s approach to the fishing industry. The people in my constituency who are involved in this industry, expect a great deal of him and have a great deal of confidence in his exceptional knowledge of and background in the fishing industry.

Earlier in the debate this afternoon the hon. member for Constantia congratulated the hon. the Deputy Minister on his appointment to the Alant Committee, and I want to associate myself with what was said in this regard. I want to go even further than the hon. member for Constantia by saying that with the appointment of this committee, the hon. the Deputy Minister has brought the approach to matters pertaining to fishing to a watershed. This is a new approach which is to be welcomed. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on this action. Like the hon member for Constantia, I am looking forward to the report of the Alant Committee.

I should like to raise a few matters in this regard and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to look into them. Firstly, I want to refer to the Fisheries Advisory Council. I want to refer to its composition and function. I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it seems as if the council, in its present form, is a clumsy and large body which is no longer able to exploit new developments. I am referring specifically to the fact that it seems that the Fisheries Advisory Council, in its present form, is no longer able to evaluate the results of complex mathematical and scientific techniques that have been developed over the past few years. It seem as though a new approach is needed as far as this council is concerned.

If one looks at the position over the past two or three decades, one sees that there have been three slumps, if one could call them that, with regard to pilchard catches. In some cases, catches were as low as 10% of previous catches. Firstly, there was a slump in pilchard catches in the Cape during the early sixties. After that, there was a slump in pilchard catches in South West Africa during the early seventies. In addition to a slump in anchovy catches, there was another slump as far as pilchard catches were concerned during the late seventies. It is striking that these slumps took place during periods either when no quotas were applicable, or when the quotas far exceeded the recommendations of scientists.

I just want to address one more request to the hon. the Deputy Minister, viz. that when he sees fit to alter the composition of the Sea Fisheries Advisory Council, to consider, too, incorporating mechanisms so that the various branches of our marine resources, for example, the pelagic fishing industry, the rock lobster industry, the abalone industry, etc., will have separate mechanisms according to which they can evaluate the position of their specific industry and make recommendations in that regard. I also want to request that such a new advisory council channel its findings and recommendation to the hon. the Deputy Minister via the Chief Director: Marine Development and the Director General of the department, but that the chairman of this new council should rather be an independent scientist so that, with the aid of scientific inputs and with a view to the interests of the industry, he can give a more independent opinion and make recommendations. I maintain that the streamlining of such a council would contribute to the pursuit of a more meaningful approach to the whole fishing set-up.

There is a second aspect that I should like to focus the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention on. This concerns the interests and the position of private boat owners and the people connected with private boat owners who are involved in the fishing industry. In my discussions with people in my constituency and elsewhere, it has become very clear that one of the major shortcomings relating to private boat owners and their people is the fact that there is such a tremendous lack of security. These people have no pension scheme and they have no medical fund benefits. In general, these people are lacking considerably in security. The question is how one should go about creating a greater degree of security. There are two possibilities I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider.

The one is that the concession to private boat owners be entrenched, in other words, that the quotas be granted on an individual basis, but that an entrenchment be linked to this. These people would then have greater security. There is also another aspect linked to this, since this does not necessarily increase such a person’s income. He obtains his income from catching fish, and it seems to me that in this respect there will have to be a global strategy in terms of which one would have to attempt to upgrade the quality of the product brought ashore. Ultimately, this is where the profit of the private boat owner lies, and from which he would naturally be deriving greater security. In my opinion, this upgrading would have to take place over a broad spectrum. I am thinking, for example, of the upgrading of boats and techniques, and even methods of marketing. One would also have to link this to, or see it in relation to the international position, the availability and prices of products. One would also have to look at the availability and price of fish meal. However, I think that the idea of a general upgrading of the product, as well as of the industry is an important component of the campaign to provide security for private boat owners and other private people involved in the industry.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about environmental affairs, but prior to that I would like to make one comment on a matter relating to water. I am referring to water storage.

I believe that 91% of South Africa’s rainwater is not stored. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to pass on the message to the hon. the Minister that he should consider asking the Department or the Water Research Commission to investigate the possibility of encouraging the public to install rainwater tanks at private homes for non-potable purposes. This is of course done on many farms. I do not know what this would amount to in terms of water collected if one got it going on a wide scale, but I think it is something what may well be worth having a look at, because it might help to slow down the general demand for urban household water in the future. I just leave that thought with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

On 7 October last year the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning announced that the Government was reserving three tracts of land at Noordhoek for possible future kaolin exploitation. This announcement came after years of controversy during which the activities of interested parties were characterized by secrecy, contradictions, withholding of information and the powerful vested interests of the company involved. The Government’s decision as announced has not stilled the fears of many people and organizations.

The Co-ordinating Council for Nature Conservation in the Cape has criticized the report commissioned by the hon. the Minister as not conforming to normal or acceptable scientific practices. The local Noordhoek District and Civic Association wanted the area declared a permanent nature reserve with legislation preventing mining. That did not happen. The Habitat Council, a national body, rejected any proposal for using existing technology for mining and transporting kaolin from the reserves in the Noordhoek amphitheatre. There is widespread concern about the possibility of mining taking place in the near of distant future. The control of the area now rests with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs who could at any time issue a permit to allow mining if he thought it suitable.

There is another source of dissatisfaction which I wish to mention this evening. I am referring to the involvement of the hon. the Deputy Minister in that area prior to him becoming Deputy Minister. As the member of Parliament for that area he chose not to inform the public at large or his constituents for a period of some fifteen months of his personal interest in the matter. I consider that to be shocking and unacceptable irrespective of whether he was for or against kaolin mining in the area. In fact, in July 1981, some three months after he had taken out an option, the hon. member, as he was then, told me to keep out of the controversy. He also had the audacity to refer to it as a “delicate issue which affects the property values and the life styles of Noordhoek residents.” I would agree with him. However, this was at a time when he had an option to buy 400 hectares. No wonder that he considered the issue delicate.

What are you insinuating?

I am not insinuating anything. I am suggesting…

What do you then mean by those questions?

For some seven months I had information which suggested that the hon. member as he was at that time did have an involvement. I made no public comment or suggestion on that information because I had no written proof. I thought the case against kaolin mining had nothing to do with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s involvement or otherwise in the area. I said nothing because I was not wanting to, and I still have no intention of, smearing anybody.

Now he is the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries and, bearing in mind this unhappy background of this kaolin affair in which contradictory statements, not from him personally, were forthcoming, protests and petitions were organized, a specially hastily called meeting of a Divisional Council Committee took place and so on, I must in all honesty point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there are still rumours that continue to fly around. I do this when he is present and is going to speak later on this evening. I do not know whether these rumours are well based or not. I am sure he will have heard some of them.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he has taken any trouble to ask these questions of the hon. the Deputy Minister in his private capacity before raising them in public knowing that he has made full public disclosure of his interests in the area?

Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is no. All I am doing this evening is appealing to the hon. the Deputy Minister in his own interests as well as everybody else’s and particularly in the interests of environmental conservation, to declare publicly any personal financial interest that he may have in other property within or adjacent to the proposed Table Mountain and Southern Peninsula Mountain Chain Nature Area. If he has no such interest I will be delighted to hear it and I will take his word.

To move back to the area as a whole, people are very concerned about the delays in proclaiming the Table Mountain and Southern Peninsula Mountain Chain a nature area. They have had problems with the kaolin issue, there have been problems about the Sandy Bay development and there have been disputes about changes in boundaries of that nature area. I call on the hon. the Minister to clear up certain matters.

I call on the hon. the Minister, firstly, to liaise with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to give an unequivocal undertaking that no mining permit will be issued without public comment first being called for; secondly, I ask him to release the controversial report prepared by Messrs. Farrell and Van Riet on the effect of mining kaolin in the Noordhoek area; thirdly, I ask him to inform us explicitly what the various recommendations of the Interim Management Committee on the Table Mountain and Southern Peninsula Mountain Chain have been with regard to the inclusion or otherwise of all or part of various areas including the Drummond Chaplin estate in the proposed nature area and at what stages those recommendations were made over time. I also ask him to undertake an urgent investigation to find a way to provide that no mining can take place in that area without specific Parliamentary approval. That obviously may require a bill or an amendment to some legislation. Finally, I ask him to declare officially the boundaries of the proposed nature area as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens will pardon me if I do not follow him now. I just want to say it is a great pity that a debate of high standard should now be reduced here to a gossip and smear campaign. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with him well and truly, but I do just want to express my regret at this turn the debate has taken. Earlier this evening the hon. the Minister referred to the high standard of this debate, and therefore it is a very great pity that the hon. member has thought it fit to drag in some gossip now.

What I actually intended to do was to associate myself with the hon. member for Constantia. There was a part of his speech with which I am in agreement. But now things have in my view turned rather sour on that side. In the course of my speech I will, however, refer to it.

I just want to make a single observation with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Caledon. The hon. member referred to a medical scheme and a pension scheme for fishermen. I should like to draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to the fact that very strong representations were made to him in this regard during his visit to Walvis Bay. I therefore want to associate myself with the hon. member for Caledon, and I trust that we shall soon get results in this regard, because this is really very necessary.

I want to hasten to thank the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Department for the very good work that is being done. I want to concentrate more specifically on the Department of Sea Fisheries. A favourite topic of discussion is the sea, the enormous larder given to us by the Creator for our use, a larder from which we often, as in the case of our larder at home, choose what we like best, over-exploit it and destroy it and leave the rest of the food in it. This is what this fishing industry of ours is busy doing. Earlier this year the hon. the Deputy Minister issued a statement to the effect that the season here in the Western Cape was being changed and, I would say, was in fact being put forward to some extent. The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that 95% of the anchovies caught in the previous year were immature and had attained about one-third of their mature weight, and that those fish could be much better utilized and would have attained sexual maturity had they been caught only six months later. If I understand it correctly—if it is not the case the hon. the Deputy Minister must correct me—this means in effect that there is a saving of 190 000 tons of fish for this season, because only 190 000 tons are allowed to be caught in the first half of the year and the rest later this year. I am referring to quota fish now. It is true that the quota to which we shall in future refer as the 1983-’84 quota commences on 1 November and that that quota will run uninterruptedly for 380 000 tons or such smaller quantity as the Department decides. If I understand it correctly, there has been a saving here on which we should congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister, because it means in effect that these fish are being left in the sea, that they remain in the larder, where they can breed and can be utilized later.

I wish to make a few other observations. If we look at the catches made this season, we notice a few trends. In the first place, it is not possible to form a clear picture, because the period is still too short. It was a difficult year. Mention has been made of the difficult weather conditions and all the other factors which have influenced catches of pelagic fish. As a result of the smaller quota the industry has applied other methods to catch more of the fish that they do not normally catch. I shall again refer to this later, because it is very interesting to note that the amount of red-eye caught so far is a record. The previous best catch of red-eye was 67 000 tons, while more than 68 000 tons have already been caught this season. This is very encouraging and it is attributable to the very measures announced by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

A further positive measure I should like to mention is the closing of False Bay, which has been the subject of much discussion. It was the subject of discussion for many years, but no one ever did anything about it. Now that the hon. the Deputy Minister has acted and has displayed the courage to close False Bay, there are already signs of improvement, I would say encouraging signs of improvement, but time will tell whether it will be lasting. As for me, however, I find it a pity that such a large amount of sardines was caught this year—this is the very species we want to protect—and that a far lesser amount of anchovies was caught than in other years. The break-down of these species is strange, and one would like to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has any explanation for this. I shall again refer to this later.

I also want to congratulate him on the action taken by him in regard to the rock lobster season. The closing of the rock lobster season is a conservation measure, and I really want to express the hope that the department will look at other measures by means of which to put a stop to these illegal catches. I also hope that the hon. the Minister will succeed, as in the case of aba-lone, which is now becoming more freely available to the consumer, in making rock lobster more readily and more cheaply available to the consumer. I also want to refer to the Alant Committee, because this is another positive step that was taken by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We are looking forward to the report of these experts, who, I believe, will again lay down new guidelines for us. Then I also want to refer specifically to the inspectorate of the marine Development Branch, these people who work day and night under extremely difficult circumstances. This inspectorate has achieved exceptional success, and we also want to thank them very much and wish them success in their task in the future. They have really succeeded in putting new life into the industry and in stimulating interest. I should like to appeal to the fishing industry to make a greater effort to diversify. One always has the feeling that the industry is unable or unwilling to diversify and also to look at the other resources available in the oceans around our coasts. They can make an enormous contribution in this regard. I should like to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that in the RSA, as far as quota fish are concerned, 15 500 tons have already been caught and, as far as non-quota fish are concerned, the figure is 75 000 tons, nearly 69 000 tons of which were red-eye. These figures cause one concern. We were upset when we heard of action against factories in Walvis Bay. I have used the word “upset” because this is the first time that representatives of factories will have to appear in court. I do not want to say anything more about that at this stage, because it would be unfair to anticipate court cases. There are, however, complaints of irregularities such as bribery. We who have been concerned with the fishing industry for many years know that there have always been suggestions that these irregularities are taking place. We are concerned, because we have to deal here with fish in respect of which a quota is calculated and fish in respect of which there is no quota. One just fears that the same thing can be repeated here, and I want to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to see to it that there will not again be such a divided quota for the next season, but that there will be one inclusive quota so that no abuse will occur.

I also want to draw hon. members’ attention to other users of these resources of the sea, namely the seals and the seabirds. It is a fact that there are approximately 1,3 million seals along our coasts, and a seal is estimated to eat about 5 kg of fish a day. Such a seal does not eat every day, however, because during the mating season, for example, they are on land for a month or longer and then they do not eat. If we make a very conservative estimate, however, a seal eats one ton of fish a year, which means that they eat 1,3 million tons of fish a year. The seabirds eat about 250 000 tons of fish a year, which is an enormous amount of fish. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to see to it that the seal population is reduced. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that Mr. Bruwer of Walvis Bay showed a film, and therefore it is not necessary for me to address him on this evil. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walvis Bay dealt with a subject he is very conversant with, and I want to congratulate him on the way in which he presented his case. Since the hon. the Deputy Minister is a person pre-eminently able to debate these matters, I am sure that he will give him a very good and well-considered reply.

I do, however, want to come back to the question of water. Now that the by-elections are over, and the political dust around those by-elections has settled, to a certain extent, I think that one can, in this calmer atmosphere, take another quick look at the points we raised, during the election campaign, in connection with the Njelele dam. I think there are a few aspects that we must deal with in this connection, aspects on which the hon. the Minister and I have not quite found each other yet. Firstly, during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote the hon. the Minister continually quoted from a report of the then Secretary for Water Affairs about the writing off of this debt of R1,1 million. I, on the other hand, was quoting from a document which was before the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters and which was signed by the then Minister of Water Affairs, the present hon. Minister of Manpower, a document dated 22 March 1972. It is possible that the content of the report presented by the Secretary to the Minister was identical with the Minister’s input to the Select Committee. The fact remains, however, that the memorandum before the Select Committee bore the signature of the Minister of Water Affairs and not that of the Department. That is the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to raise concerns that fact that we were conducting a debate about a Select Committee, with mention being made of the hydro-electric scheme and the equipment. That equipment was removed from the farm Hayoma and is no longer to be found there, because the experiment was unsuccessful. All we now want to know is what happened to that equipment. We want to know whether it is to be found somewhere in the Departmental stores and, if so, whether there is still a value attached to those assets, if they are assets, and what that value is.

Then we also come to the question of the writing off. I want to quote what the hon. the Minister said when he spoke about the question of writing off, because he explained what the arrangement was as far as writing off is concerned. I quote from Hansard, 21 April, 1983, col. 5268—

One would have expected that debt to have decreased. In the debate, when we asked for a Select Committee, I furnished certain figures to which neither the hon. the Minister nor the Leader of the NP in Transvaal reacted. We now have the report of the Department of Environment Affairs, and I should like to refer to page 164. According to the data on page 164, the operating cost for the year was R124,200, whilst the interest on outstanding capital was R152 000 and the revenue R123 900. The shortfall, which was regarded as irrecoverable for that year, was R152 300, whilst to date is R1 604 000. At this stage the total amount of that debt has been R1,9 million. If there had therefore been any intention of paying off this debt, one would have expected that debt to have decreased after a period of 12 years. That is not what happened, however, because this debt has virtually doubled during this period. The hon. the Minister said that the farmers would settle my hash, but that is not what it is all about. It is not a question of the merits involved in the writing-off of the debt. It was an hon. Minister who was, at that stage, a Minister of a department, but not only of a department, because it was the Minister who controlled and administered this department. Now, however, I come to the cherry on the top: In 1980 an hon. colleague wrote to the Minister of Water Affairs asking him about the rights of farmers in a certain district to buy water when the dam was overflowing. On 22 May 1980 the Minister of Water Affairs wrote to my hon. colleague saying that there was no overall policy in terms of which extra water could freely be sold when dams were overflowing. Applications for extra water to be sold under these circumstances had to receive the recommendation of the Advisory Committee of the relevant scheme, and if the department supported the application, it was submitted to him as Minister. He went on to state—

Mr. Chairman, do you know what these exceptions are? The one is the Njelele dam and in this connection he said the following—

That is a situation in which an hon. Minister, who benefits in terms of the scheme, declares this scheme and one other scheme to be exceptions in the sense that water can simply be purchased directly when the dam overflows. Now we have the following argument from the Government: Because an answer to a question put in 1968 indicated that a certain S. P. Botha was the owner of certain land, this was sufficient notification to the Select Committee on irrigation matters and to Parliament. One must also bear in mind that in 1970 a new Parliament was elected. Just to prove how absured such an argument is, it is further alleged that the documents of the Department of Water Affairs are also under the jurisdiction of Parliament, and therefore the Select Committee must also take note of those documents and of how much land had been scheduled in terms of the scheme. The situation is therefore that the facts on which a decision was to be reached, and on which a decision has to be reached, were made available by the NP. The NP is the advocate for the defence and also the judge. The South African electorate must take note of the fact that that is what clean administration in this country looks like. It was much less than that that took Mr. Jan Haak out of the Cabinet, and that also applies to Mr. Jim Kruger and Mr. Hennie Smit. That is why there is only one choice open to the hon. the Minister of Manpower, and that is for him to resign from the Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to lodge a protest. I rise to lodge the strongest possible protest. I think the silence in this Committee was enough of a reply to that hon. member. I think the fact that all the hon. members of this Committee listened to him in silence, making no comment, should be enough of a reply for him. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to be present throughout the debate, he would have been aware of the seriousness with which hon. members on this side and on that side regarded the debate and would have observed the high standard maintained throughout the debate.

Reply to my argument.

I shall reply to the hon. member when it suits me. I will not have the hon. member prescribing to me what I must do and how I must do it.

I want to ask the hon. member for De Aar, who is present here in this Committee, and the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, whether they agree with the hon. member for Brakpan that we should have all irrigation farmers in the country pay in full for the capital costs involved in the construction of dams and canals. Answer me! [Interjections.] I expect a “yes” or a “no”. There has been a debate about that here. The hon. members for Gordonia and Wellington, and other hon. members, spoke of the Claassen Committee that was to have investigated water tariffs in this country. I am talking about the history of water schemes and am asking the hon. member for De Aar, who uses the Orange River scheme for his irrigation, whether he wants members using the Orange River scheme, the P.K. le Roux dam scheme and the Hendrik Verwoerd dam scheme to pay in full for the construction of the Hendrik Verwoerd dam and the P.K. le Roux dam.

Here it is a Minister who is involved.

The hon. member must not duck my question. He must tell me whether he agrees with the hon. member for Brakpan this evening that we should have irrigators who make use of certain schemes, particularly the Orange River scheme, carry the capital costs of the channels and dams.

That is not what I said.

I am not talking to the hon. member for Brakpan.

That does not matter. Your supposition is wrong. Do not put erroneous questions to my colleague.

The hon. member for Brakpan has sullied this Committee. I shall leave the hon. member for De Aar at that. He can reply to me in due course. I do want an answer from him on this matter, however, because I want to go and tell his voters what the CP is propagating in this Committee.

It is a question of a Minister having benefited himself.

If we want to bring out the dirty washing, let us do so, but I want to go and tell the hon. member for De Aar’s voters what the CP’s attitude is towards the capital costs of schemes, dams, canals and so on. I invite the hon. members for Gordonia and Prieska to go and say as much in their constituencies.

It is a question of a Minister having benefited himself.

What had to be said about the Njelele irrigation scheme was said during two debates in the House. I have no intention whatsoever of reacting to anything the hon. member for Brakpan had to say.

Because you cannot.

I told the hon. member for Brakpan that I would speak to him again after he had apologized to me for the distorted image of me he created in the House the other day. Then I shall speak to him again. All I want to tell the hon. member this evening is that we are astounded at his cynicism. Even his smile reveals his cynicism, evidence of the intense hatred he carries about in his heart.

But you are not replying to my argument.

Hatred has completely blinded him and made him stone-deaf. Hatred—let me give the hon. member this to mull over—can eat away at the person who harbours such feelings; not destroy, but eat away or rot away.

When are you going to reply to my argument.

I want to conclude by telling the hon. member that he also had land under a certain scheme. He must take care that we do not begin dragging some dirty washing across the floor of this House.

You are welcome.

Let me extend an invitation to the hon. member I have not the slightest intention of discussing the Njelele scheme any further across the floor of the Committee. I have not the slightest intention of doing that. I can promise the hon. member that I am not prepared to discuss it any further.

We are not going to drop the matter.

I shall also be convincing the Cabinet that there should be no further discussion of the matter. If the hon. member’s facts are correct, let me invite him to take his courage in his hands and raise the matter with the Advocate-General so that the Advocate-General can launch a proper, objective investigation. I invite the hon. member to do so, and that concludes the matter.

Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of interest in the functions and progress made by the scientific committee on pelagic fish announced at the beginning of March. I should like to make a few remarks about it.

Firstly it is a great privilege for me to act as chairman of this committee and to work with the very competent committee members which the hon. the Deputy Minister appointed to serve on the committee with me.

Up to now this committee has held eight meetings. For the promotion of the scientific process, and to have discussions held in a relaxed, unrestricted atmosphere, we maintain confidentiality during discussions at our meetings and therefore do not allow any observers to be present.

I should also like to mention the fact that the committee could not hold its first meeting until 14 March, that we do not have a full-time secretary and that our two reporters, who are members of the committee, were abroad for two weeks, at which time we could not, of course, sit. Consequently, up to the end of April we could only manage to fit in one month’s work. I want to add that the committee members all hold down full-time jobs and that our terms of reference are, in addition, very comprehensive. The hon. the Deputy Minister has consequently agreed to give us one month’s extension, i.e. to the end of June, to round off our final report.

On 19 May we presented an interim report to the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is not a comprehensive, rounded-off piece of work and contains only provisional standpoints. We reserve the right to amend the standpoints and to round off the edges. We therefore want the hon. the Deputy Minister to regard this as a confidential document. We shall, however, be recommending that our final report be a public document, i.e. non-confidential, a document which will be available to all interested parties. It is, however, for the hon. the Deputy Minister himself to decide how he is going to deal with it.

The committee invited interested parties, by way of the Press, to furnish verbal and/or written evidence. We went out of our way to telephone people and to invite them to give evidence. To date the following persons have given evidence: 14 scientists, quite a few of whom came to give evidence on more than one occasion, and 16 industrialists, private boat-owners and fishermen.

I cannot, at this stage, anticipate the final conclusions and recommendations of this committee, but I just want to make a few general remarks about what we found.

We found, firstly, that environmental conditions constituted far and away the most important single parameter influencing pelagic fishing—and unfortunately one has no control over this aspect. To illustrate this, let me point out that the present El Nino phenomenon in Ecuador resulted in the shrimp industry there being wiped out and, what is more, in very few pilchards being left at all. There are many other such examples of the effect of the present unusual weather conditions. It is too early, however, for me to say what the effect of this year’s unusual climatic conditions on our own pelagic industry has been.

Secondly, the history of pelagic fishing resources elsewhere in the world—which we have analysed—has indicated that a pelagically mixed species-school fishing industry has never, as yet, been controlled with complete success anywhere in the world.

We found, thirdly, that in the past 20 years there have already been six instances of drastic declines in the pelagic fishing resources in the Republic and in South West Africa. One can describe four of these instances as a complete collapse of the fish population. These are instances of the catches having decreased to less than 10% of their previous volumes.

The committee’s work also dealt with the management mechanisms of such pelagic fishing. We found that the most important management mechanism was undoubtedly the control over the quantity of fish, i.e. the quota, that may be caught.

Other measures, not necessarily in order of importance, are the control of the fishing endeavour, i.e. the size of the fleet and the industrial capacity, the control over the mesh size for nets, the control over the fishing seasons, and also the control over the fishing areas.

Because I have little time at my disposal, and do not have any other occasion on which to bring this matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention, I should like to ask him to give attention to a few remarks about a matter I have been interested in since childhood. I am referring to the question of long-term weather forecasting in South Africa. I do not have enough time in which to develop my whole argument—one would perhaps need half and hour for that. I am going to send the hon. the Minister a memorandum containing recent recommendations and remarks about this matter, and I hope he will then be able to take it further.

As I understand Water Affairs’ terms of reference, they embody the provision of water, rather than its storage, as in the case of Escom, which does not store up its generating capacity, the object being to furnish power. I therefore feel that the Department of Environment Affairs has a very direct interest in meteorology and climatic research, not so much with a view to short-term weather forecasting, but rather with a view to expected general rainfall predictions for the Republic on a seasonal basis and the planning that must consequently be done.

Hon. members will have noticed, I am sure, that in our newspapers this year there have been numerous reports dealing specifically with such predictions. There were, amongst other things, reports on the observations of foreign and local scientists and various other bodies. One gets the impression—and this is very important—that all these predictions were spot-on.

I want to take hon. members in time to 20 September 1982—I have the data in my possession—when the Diagnostic Branch of the Centre for Climatic Analysis in Washington, D C, issued a special bulletin on the unusual weather conditions that were developing. In that bulletin they focused attention on climatic fluctuations that had begun to surface during the period between June and August, 1982. Several bulletins, of which I have copies, have subsequently been issued in which the development of this El Nino phenomenon is described in more detail.

In Die Burger of 17 March 1983 it was reported that a Dr. Rasmussen, attached to the same centre in Washington, had said that the extraordinary phenomena were in the process of disappearing, but that in South Africa, amongst other areas, the weather conditions would only start normalizing after the rainy season in the Highveld. What this amounted to was that we could not expect our autumn rainfall areas to have any appreciable rainfall during autumn. That was said as far back as March.

In the Volksblad of 22 March 1983 it was reported that Dr. Jopie van der Walt of the Geography Department of the University of the Free State had said that the winter in the central Orange Free State would be a dry one. I am interested in such generalizations, because they are of great importance in climatic research and predictions. I have said that he processed the data from as far back as 1874, enabling him to make the following statement with a margin of accuracy of 95 %—

This refers to the central OFS region—

In other words, an extraordinary dry pre-seasonal period is followed—with a margin of accuracy of 95%—by an extraordinarily dry post-seasonal period.

In the RSA the responsibility for weather forecasting rests, as we all know, with the Weather Bureau, which forms part of the Department of Transport. I now want to allege that the Department of Transport’s chief interest lies in short-term meteorological predictions for naval and aviational purposes.

The Department of Environment Affairs, on the other hand, has a very definitive interest in long-term climatic predictions, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give priority to this facet of what I regard as part of his Department’s task.

In South Africa there is a great deal of expertise in this field, and I want to conclude by just referring to this. As far back as 1981 the CSIR launched a co-operative research programme into meteorology and climatic research. In addition, several South African universities have done excellent work in this field. I can, for example, refer to the very well-known writers, Dyer and Tyson, of the University of the Witwatersrand’s Climatological Research Group.

I have corresponded with the Department of Transport, as I have with some other bodies, on this matter. They have informed me that they regard it as a matter of importance, but that owing to a staff shortage they have only been able to allocate one professional person to deal with that aspect at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East made a very interesting speech. He touched upon two or three subjects, particularly the question of weather forecasts, a subject he obviously knows a great deal about. I want to tell the hon. member that I can diagnose heart diseases, but not the weather. For that reason I cannot debate this very important task and matter with him.

†We on this side of the Committee of course believe in a clean government, clean politics and a clean South Africa. Although I could not attend most of this discussion today I would like to thank and congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister for this statement today about the “Keep South Africa Tidy” campaign. I find this very appropriate because the few minutes at my disposal I should like to talk about the same subject. I read with interest the hon. the Minister’s statement regarding the goals of this campaign, such as to keep parks, streets and playing fields clean, to educate the public, something on which great emphasis was put, and then also to work with the “Keep South Africa Tidy” organization and all those involved. I believe this is a very necessary statement and a very necessary campaign. Finally it was said that this campaign will not end this year but will continue. It is of course vital and can never end.

It has been my great privilege quite often to go the Kruger National Park and other national parks and let me say straightaway how I enjoyed it and what admiration I have for the people who keep those parks so tidy, clean and pleasant for South Africans to enjoy. However, the price that one is charged I personally think is ridiculous. I think it should be increased. By this I do not mean that it should be doubled. I think we do not know how cheap it costs us in this country to enjoy the privilege of that type of holiday and experience.

I could talk much longer about my experiences in these parks, to which I have been undertaking a kind of pilgrimage every now and then since I have for part of the year been living in that foreign country called the Transvaal. I find it actually worth living in Johannesburg so as to be able to visit the Kruger National Park and the other national parks. The thing that is remarkable—and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me—is how clean the Park is. Especially if one travels along the roads and one looks around, one sees no or hardly any solid waste. The question must be asked why South Africans will keep the park clean but not other places. If one leaves any of the gates and one travels along the roads one is shocked by the filth, dirt and solid waste all the way to Johannesburg. To me it is a peculiar thing that we South Africans will keep our parks clean, but not our roads. I was in Johannesburg today and on purpose I drove from central Johannesburg to the airport along the N1, N2 and N3 and the road to the Eastern Transvaal. Alongside the road it was dirty. I therefore think that a campaign like this is necessary. In comparing these two we must ask ourselves why this is so.

First of all I think education is very important. There are pamphlets requesting one to keep the parks clean. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell me how many signs they see along our main roads asking South Africa to keep South Africa clean. One hardly finds any. If one travels through other countries such as America and through Europe one sees constant reminders everywhere to the public to keep their country clean; and why not? One cannot stop at these rest stops in the Transvaal because they are so filthy. Who is removing this waste?

I think there is at present perhaps a lack of finances for manpower to remove this solid waste. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if somehow or other a better attempt cannot be made in this regard. A few months ago I visited a Black area, Soweto, near Port Elizabeth. This is a Coloured location that is controlled by the Government. I have never seen such filth in my life. Solid waste, rubbish, was lying a few inches deep and polluting the atmosphere and the river. I think the Government should look at it and try and clean it.

I have very little time left but I should just like to talk about dogs and the pollution of our streets caused by the loved pet. A few years ago I went to Poland and walked in the streets of old Warsaw. Do hon. members know what I saw there? There was a man leading a dog and the unfortunate happened. Immediately the man took out a plastic bag from his pocket and a brush and cleaned it himself. Why will the public of South Africa clean their gardens and their Persian carpets, but leave the streets filthy to me who have to use it? They will take their dog for a walk but they will not respect me, the public, by keeping these streets clean. A final plea, therefore, is not only that the people must be educated, but that provision should also be made for punishment. No education as regards this vital thing will succeed unless there is the deterrent of punishment. There must be adequate fines for people who make our country filthy. Nowhere do I see warnings along our roads to first of all tell the people that they are not allowed to do it and secondly that if they do it, they will be fined. I can see no reason why a person who pollutes our beautiful country, the roads, the parks, the playing fields, the streets and the beaches, should not pay a penalty for doing it. This is what I should like to ask the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Aar said by way of interjection: “The Minister acted in his own interest.” That suggests a totally different connotation and I want to say that that is a serious accusation that definitely belongs with the Advocate-General.

Mr. Chairman, kindly allow me the opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister, in the first instance, for the kind words he uttered this afternoon before dinner. I just want to say, concerning him and the Department, that I am privileged to act under such a Minister and in the service of such a Department. I also want to thank the various chairmen of the various groups, both on the Government and on the Opposition side, on their appointments and thank them for their messages of congratulation to me. I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to the new chairman of the NP’s subgroup on fisheries, the hon. member for Uitenhage, for his congratulations.

The hon. the Minister said yesterday that he was nervous. Well, he did not look nervous to me, and I want to say to him that he acquitted himself very well of his task in this debate yesterday and today. The hon. the Minister grew up in agriculture and I grew up next to the sea. Agriculture and the life of the sea have a great deal in common. We shall try to perform our duties as a team to the best of out ability.

†The hon. member for Parktown has supported the announcement that I made this evening about the “Keep South Africa Clean” campaign. I am glad to have his support and I agree with what he says about national roads and there being too few signs on those national roads. That is something that I think we as a department can take up with the relevant department concerned. I think it is a good suggestion. I am not so sure whether everybody would agree with him about his suggestion that the fees for admission to National Parks should be raised, but that is something that we will also look at. We will take his tip. I also want to join with him in praising our National Parks for their cleanliness and their very high hygienic and other standards. However, apart from the National Parks I would like to pay tribute also the Natal Parks Board. It has been my privilege recently to go to some Natal Parks and I must say that the standards that I have encountered, not only the standards of hygiene but also of every other kind maintained by the Natal Parks Board, are worthy of commendation. Natal people can be very proud indeed of that institution. They have a dedicated crowd of people running them who are a credit to their province.

I am not quite sure whether I heard the hon. member correctly but I think he said that part of the year he lives in a foreign country called the Transvaal. As far as I know his constituency is in the Transvaal and I think he must clear that out with his provincial chairman if he wishes to make remarks like that.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens raised as a first point the question of water and rain water tanks in private homes. That is a suggestion which I will refer to the hon. the Minister and to the Department and perhaps attention can be given to it.

He then moved on to another subject, namely the question of my interest in Noord-hoek. I am sorry that he did not take the opportunity of telling the hon. the Minister in advance that he was going to raise this matter, because I am on record as having said publicly that since taking office I have had nothing to do with any matters appertaining to Noordhoek, whether it is the South Peninsula Mountain Chain, kaolin or property investments. I think it is a pity that he did not raise that with the hon. the Minister as he would have had an adequate reply to all of his questions.

I accept your word on it.

You do not have to accept my word. I have had no part whatsoever in any Government decisions to do either with kaolin or with the mountain reserve in the Southern Peninsula. In fact, as soon as I took office I wrote a letter to the Director-General in which I said that if any of these matters come up for discussion and for decision within the Department I would recuse myself and would have nothing to do with it.

The hon. member referred to my personal and landed interests in the Southern Peninsula and then quoted one or two things that he said at a meeting at Fish Hoek and one or two things that I apparently said—and I think I did say them—in the newspapers about him. I just want to tell the Committee that the meeting at Fish Hoek was addressed by two gentlemen called Andrew. One of them was the hon. member concerned and the other one is a member of the Divisional Council. That gentleman’s tape-recorded speech has been very carefully analysed and as a result of the analysis, a Supreme Court summons has been issued against him for a substantial amount of damages for defamation. I might tell the hon. member that his tape-recording is also being examined, and if it is found to be in the same vein as his namesake’s then he too will receive a Supreme Court summons for what he said at that meeting.

You cannot threaten him.

Every member of Parliament is entitled to his business interests. I had business interests for years, before I came to Parliament and since I have been in Parliament. I am on record as having said that when I had business interests and I was appointed to the Cabinet or rather made a Minister, I had declared those interests publicly a couple of days before I assumed office.

The hon. member has said that he is aware of rumours that I have other property interests in the Southern Peninsula. Yes, I do. I live in a house there, for a start. Secondly, for the last 15 or 20 years, I should think, I have had a half share in a company—there is only one other shareholder besides myself—which owns a large portion of mountain top above Simon’s Town. We have never tried to develop it. What we have tried to do is to use it for recreation for ourselves and our families. We usually take a stroll along that mountain top on Sunday mornings.

He referred to delays in proclaiming the Table Mountain and the Southern Peninsula Mountain Chain area. I am given to understand that the boundaries of that particular mountain chain areas are to be proclaimed as soon as possible and that surveying of the boundaries of all the properties concerned—and there are hundreds of them—is taking place and will soon be concluded. I would say to him that the responsibility for the proclamation of the mountain chain is that of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. In addition, the Farrell Report that dealt with kaolin was commissioned by the hon. the Minister and I would suggest that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens take the matter up with the Minister concerned.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let us move on to something more interesting and pleasant. The hon. member for Constantia made a speech that was constructive in many ways. He raised some queries to which I would like to reply. First of all, he referred to the split quota in respect of the pelagic fishery this year. I do not like a split quota any more than he does. If he will read the Hansards of 1969 to 1972, he will see that I dealt with this sort of situation in South West Africa and also in the Republic on a number of occasions. However, the whole object of the exercise this year in creating a split quota, was to try and save the anchovy—as I saw it—from collapse and to try and give the pilchards an opportunity to rebuild. Therefore, the whole object of splitting the quota for this year, was to try and force or encourage—whichever you like—the industry to concentrate on non-quota species. I am pleased to say that that has had a very salutary effect. There has been an excellent response. For example, I have here the figures for red-eye, which is a non-quota fish. Last year, they caught 32 000 tons in a season that, I think, was about two months longer than the present season. To date, they have caught 68 340 tons this year. I have recently been out with the fishing fleet on one of the pilchard boats of Velddrif and I was told by the fishermen that the red-eye has in fact saved the industry this year. They said that if they had not concentrated on red-eye, they would not have caught the pilchard. Until very recently, it had not appeared. And they would not have caught the anchovy, because, until very recently, it had not appeared either. In fact, their concentration on red-eye during the first few months of the season, has kept the industry, if I may put it like that, afloat.

The other aspect of the decision, known as the “changing of the seasons decision”, was to cut the quota by half. All the warning signs were apparent in reports from the scientists that the anchovy could possibly collapse this year. I cut the quota for the pelagic fish, the anchovy and the pilchards, by half as a conservation measure. Besides that, I have given them the opportunity to recruit in the winter months and I have given them the opportunity to grow bigger. In effect, I have closed the season between the end of June and the beginning of November. I hope that this will result in a better pilchard and anchovy resource by the time they come to spawn. In my opinion, the spawning period takes place in the late spring and early summer. I am quite happy to agree with the hon. member if his informant tells him that the spawning continues throughout the summer season. I have no doubt that this is so. My argument has been to give the fish an opportunity to recruit in the winter months and then let them spawn—most of them in the spring, in my opinion—so that they can continue spawning as before.

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. member complained that irregularities had taken place with regard to the catches. He complained that there had been concealment of the various types of catches. I just want to say to him that all the catches are monitored at the landing points. If the fish is in such a condition that it cannot be recognized or identified, it is included as part of a quota species to prevent any abuse. Since the beginning of May there has been a substantial increase in the number of sardines and anchovies. Due to identification of the various species of fish and due to the split quota, we also have the best data yet this year on the composition of the pelagic catches. For many years we struggled to obtain correct data. Due to split quota, however, we have been able to obtain reasonably accurate data this year and the department is satisfied with the results achieved thus far in this regard.

I just want to give the hon. members a few figures in regard to the catches to date, viz. 22 May: The figure in respect of pilchards was 55 500 tons, anchovies, 99 470 tons and round herring, as already mentioned, 68 341 tons. The total catch up to 22 May was 230 355 tons. The catches for the equivalent period last year amounted to 375 798 tons.

Mr. Chairman, the Alant Commission provided me with certain data before the start of this debate and I want to refer to some of them.

†Some of the preliminary conclusions are as follows: The committee feels that the Fisheries Development Advisory Council no longer appears suited to evaluate the results of complex mathematical and scientific assessment techniques which have come into use during the last decade. The hon. member will remember that I said during a previous debate—I think last year—and also this year that I was unhappy about the constitution of that council and we are giving this our earnest attention. Secondly, the committee says that the advice of scientists from the Sea Fisheries Research Institute may be filtered or diluted by being routed to the hon. the Minister via the advisory council. That could be so; I am not in a position to say whether that is so or not. It is possible. Another important point that the committee makes, is that the capacity of the industry, both in plant and in fleet, exceeds the potential sustainable yield of the fish stocks. I think that this is a very important matter and this will certainly be given attention in the next few months.

Then the hon. member for Caledon referred to collapses of pelagic fish species that have taken place during the last 20 years. The hon. member for Pretoria East, Dr. Alant himself, has referred to the anomalous climatic conditions during the present season. However, I think the last sentence of the second last paragraph of this preliminary report which I have received, is important—

and they are talking about 18 May 1983—

Mr. Chairman, my argument has been that you could easily have a spawning failure among the anchovy. I live at the sea. For the last year or so, I have noticed strange climatic conditions. I was of the opinion that this would be a strange summer and this was one of the reasons that influenced me to take the decision which I took. It has resulted in the red-eye becoming more readily available, which happens when the warm water is close to the coast. It has resulted in the late appearance of the anchovy. Only in the last couple of weeks anchovy has started to come in on the west coast. However, I must say that the news that we have received so far that there appears to be very few young anchovy recruits in the shoals so far, is disturbing and lends credence to the possibility of there being a spawning failure this year.

The last point that they make, is as follows—

Mr. Chairman, those few remarks are paragraphs taken from the preliminary report given to me by Dr. Alant. The report will come out in final form before the end of June. I am told that the Committee is far advanced with its work, but for the reasons given by Dr. Alant namely that there have been certain delays which could not be avoided, I have given them an extension of time till the end of June.

*I want to pay tribute not only to Dr. Alant, who is chairman of the Committee, but also to all the scientists who are members of that Committee. They have made sacrifices and they have endured a great deal of inconvenience. I think they are doing valuable work and I look forward to the final report of that Committee.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman, I now come to the individual speeches. The hon member for East London North spoke about the question of divided control and nature conservation. It is true that there are already a few programmes in progress. In the first place the President’s Council is investigating the position of nature conservation and consideration is also being given to the aspect of divided control of the coastline. Secondly, the Commission for Administration is investigating rationalization, but it is holding its investigation back a little so that investigation by the President’s Council may be completed first. Thirdly, the Council for the Environment is investigating this aspect, among others, particularly with regard to the coastal environment. The hon. member also referred to the Addo Elephant National Park. In consultation with the National Parks Board, and investigation has been instituted into the extension of the park onto Forestry land. The investigation has almost been completed and we ought to have a reply in this regard shortly.

†Mr. Chairman, another point that was raised by several hon. members, is the question of coastal zone management. I have just received a note from someone who talked with Prof. Botha today and the news is encouraging. The report on coastal zone management, with recommendations, undertaken by the Council for the Environment, is almost completed and they expect to have it out within the next few weeks. They will report at the next meeting, which takes place next Friday. That is good news, because there are so many of us in this Committee who are concerned about the multiplicity of authorities looking after the coastal areas and a case has undoubtedly been made out for the simplification, not only of coastal management, but also of all the different laws that affect the sea and the sea shore. My friend, the hon. member for Uitenhage, made mention of some of these laws.

*He mentioned the Fishing Industry Development Act, the Sea Birds and Seals Protection Act, the Sea Fisheries Act and the Sea-shore Act. All these Act relate to the coast-line, and personally I think it is high time to consolidate them into one Act so that we may have one Act for the coast-line of South Africa.

I agree with the hon. member for Uitenhage about most of the matters he raised. He spoke about the Fisheries Development Advisory Council, the consolidation of laws, the licensing of ski boats and licences of anglers. We are dealing with both of the latter two aspects. Hon. members are aware that we have a limited number of officials at the disposal of the Department. We have a small infrastructure in the Department of Sea Fisheries. Matters are being attended to on the basis of a list of priorities. However, we shall get to that and I hope that it will be possible to do something about it before the beginning of next year. I, too, share the hon. member’s fears and concern about the question of fishing competitions and angling competitions.

†The idea of angling competitions being held, as a result of which the maximum number of fish of different species can be pulled out of the sea, is, shall we say, old-fashioned to me and it is certainly out of date when it comes to modern thoughts for conserving marine resources.

*We are investigating the practical implementation of all these points and we are also considering the composition and functioning of the Advisory Council. We are dealing with the consolidation of the laws, as has already been mentioned.

I now come to inspection services. It must be denied that any control measures that may be introduced mean that there must be inspectors to implement them. At the moment we do not have sufficient inspectors and for that reason the conditions of service of this group are being investigated with a view to their improvement. The training of the inspectors of the Department of Sea Fisheries is also being considered, and consideration is being given to the possible appointment of Coloureds and Blacks to implement the fishing conservation measures in their areas.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town agreed that we have a vast task ahead of us, which is essentially a task of educating people in the field of environmental conservation. Our attitude is that the community as such must be involved and this is where the clean community system, as introduced by the “Keep South African Clean” organization, has such possibilities. Therefore, I am glad that the hon. member supports with the hon. member for Parktown the campaign that we announced today.

*With regard to the hon. member for Albany, I want to say that the concession conditions that the concession holder has to comply with have been made considerably more stringent. He had to comply with various conditions, particularly relating to supervision, in order to obtain the permit. In the meantime the area has been visited by officials of the Marine Development Branch, and the matter has been discussed with, inter alia, officials of the Divisional Council of Kaffraria. Although initially there was dissatisfaction, it has been entirely eliminated by their discussions. That is the latest information at my disposal. The department and I are equally concerned about the situation along our east coast and the problems that the method of exploitation can cause. There is a clear agreement with the concession holder that if the conditions relating to supervision are not complied with, the permit will be summarily withdrawn.

†Mr. Chairman, I am just as concerned as the hon. member about the seaweed concessions. We have an immense coastline, but we have a limited number of inspectors. There are vast open areas where there cannot possibly be any inspections. Many of those areas are areas that are, shall we say, peopled by seaweed and that is where the concessionaires go. As the hon. member has said, those concessionaires do not only take seaweed, but they also take oysters and mussels. Anything that walks and talks on the rocks, they catch and take.

*I am just as aware as he of the difficulties with regard to these concessions along the coast-line.

My friend, the hon. member for Walvis Bay, once again made a very constructive contribution. He referred to irregularities. In the past, many years ago, we, too, crossed swords at a certain place regarding irregularities, and I am pleased that nowadays he supports my point of view. He also referred to the split quota. He is an authority in this field and in fact I rely on his advice. As I said earlier, I am not a champion of the split quota, but in the circumstances that prevailed this year it was essential to introduce a split quota. I also share the hon. member’s point of view on seals and sea birds. The Alant Committee has informed me that they are dealing with proposals in regard to these matters. I hope that when the report is submitted to me I shall be able to make a statement about my and the department’s attitude to the issue of seals and sea birds. Permit me just to say at this stage that in my opinion, there is an imbalance among, in particular, the number of seals, the number of sea birds and the marine resources.

†I think that what has happened, is that, as a result of a down-grading of the importance of a culling programme for a number of years now, the seal colonies have increased substantially in size and number. I believe that something will have to be done in the same way as, for example, the culling of animals. Hon. members have read in the newspapers over the last few days how it has been necessary to have a culling programme for 6 000 elephant in Rhodesia. Now at first sight, to cull 6 000 elephant is the most abhorrent thing. But when one reads of the damage that can be done to crops, to trees and to other vegetation by herds of elephants, it is obviously necessary to cull them. And so, of course, in the sphere of marine mammals, it is necessary to cull seals to have them under control.

There was a time when there was a flourishing market for seals. The pelts, especially those of the pups, could be exported. There was another part of the male seal that also enjoyed a good export price. However, those days are apparently over and I think we must regard the question of seals in the light of whether it is necessary to cull them, and not necessarily of whether they can be a commercial proposition.

*The last speaker was Dr. Alant himself, the hon. member for Pretoria East. I have already thanked him for the work he has done and I am looking forward to the publication of his report. I must say that at this stage I see no reason why the report should not be made freely available. On the contrary, I regard the work of this Committee as so important as a guide in respect of pelagic fish that the report ought to be a kind of standard textbook.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to give a brief survey of what has happened over the past few years, particularly with regard to the Marine Development Branch. On 2 August 1982 the Marine Development Branch was included in the Department of Environment Affairs as part of the Government’s programme for the rationalization of state functions. Over the years appeals have been made from many quarters for a greater emphasis on the aspect of conservation in the management of our marine resources. This latest step creates a favourable climate wherein to give effect to this philosophy and, moreover, various steps have already been taken in this regard. The Treurnicht Commission of Investigation into the Fishing Industry, of which I was a member, was of the opinion that the sea fisheries structure in Cape Town justified a far stronger top structure. Moreover, everyone agreed that there was an urgent need for the strengthening and development of the fisheries inspection service in particular so that constant and careful attention to the sea and all its resources as national assets would be ensured. The creation of the post of Chief Director in Cape Town, and the establishment of the marine economic investigation division, were important steps taken in the implementation of the recommendations of the Treurnicht Commission. I want to pay tribute here this evening to Dr. Serfontein and his officials for the outstanding work they are doing. Further investigations into the organization and establishment of the marine development branch have already been disposed of. This was done with special reference to the strengthening of the managerial level and a competitive dispensation for the Fisheries Inspectorate.

As far as the exploitation of marine resources is concerned, the state of various staples necessary for the survival of the coastal communities, which have no other source of livelihood, gives rise to concern. Therefore the state of these staples is of great importance to the community. Accordingly it has been decided to check the deterioration in the important resources by following a conservative—that is a fine word—conservation policy, linked to positive steps to build up the resources rather than cause them to deteriorate. In spite of opposition, such a policy is in the general interest and is the only way of ensuring that future generations will still be able to reap the fruits of the sea. As hon. members all know, the West Coast crayfish is one of the most important exploited species for which the demand in the Republic and overseas is very great. For that reason trends in the catches of crayfish have made the following drastic steps imperative: In the first place there is a delay in the opening of the season in the Cape Peninsula region. It is well-known that in the South, that is to say, around Cape Point and at Kommetjie, crayfish are in a poor condition early in the season and there are low yields. Secondly, there is a limitation on the movement of the crayfish fleet during the first two months of the season. In other words, a form of short-term zoning.

†What this means, is that the West Coast has been divided into eight sectors. Boats are registered in each one of those eight sectors and for the first two months after the opening of the kreef-season, boats that are registered in a sector, can only catch in that sector. That sector has a particular quota attached to it. So it is only after the two months have expired, and also assuming that the quota has been caught in the particular sector, that the boats can then move out to the other sectors. The reason why we have instituted this, is because some of the sectors along the West Coast, are badly overfished. Others are very productive areas and the tendency of the fishing fleet, mainly in the north, where it is very strong, has been to come rushing down to the south to Dassen Island, to Cape Point and to places like that to catch their quotas there as quickly as they can and not to catch in their own areas. Therefore, in this way we have forced the fleets to catch a particular laid-down quota in their own areas before they move out of that area. This has given the kreef in the other sectors an opportunity to grow bigger and, in the case of the southern kreef, around Cape Point, to get, shall we say, a thicker shell.

*A hard shell, and not a soft shell.

The third step we have taken is the prohibition on crayfish catches in False Bay using traps. This is due to the need for conservation in a sensitive area. Finally, there is the prohibition on crayfish catches by the industry at Kommetjie itself.

†What happens is that at a place like Kommetjie, the public use small bakkies. They also launch small fishing boats and their ski boats at Kommetjie. This is one of the few launching places outside of a reserve on the Peninsula Coast. Therefore they are entitled to protection. Recently, the industry have moved into that area and have put their traps just outside the coastal area where the public traditionally catch. We thought that was wrong and we have kept the industry away. I am told that those traps can land up to 500 kreef at a time. One can imagine the effect that this has on a productive kreef area if, also in competition with the public, the industry is allowed to catch at a small place like Kommetjie where the public is protected at the moment.

*The pelagic industry yields the largest tonnage of fish and the most important products of this industry are fish meal for balanced animal foods, fish oil and canned fish. Although this resource is still yielding stable catches, there are undoubtedly danger signs that must not be disregarded. The available management advice at the end of last year was conflicting. I therefore felt obliged to take steps which were not welcomed in all quarters but which, in my opinion, represented the only way of conserving the resource and allowing it to recover. In essence, they entail the shifting of the fishing season and encouragement of catches of fish like round herring and lantern-fish, which have thus far not been utilized.

†Mr. Chairman, the real value, as I have said earlier, lay in cutting the quota by half for the first half of the year and this was a very substantial conservation measure. Because of the public debate amongst scientists, I appointed the Alant Committee of prominent scientists and I have already indicated that their report should shortly be to hand.

*As far as white fish are concerned, I want to say that the expectations cherished by South Africans concerning the recovery of the stock fish resource after the announcement of our exclusive fishery zone of 200 sea miles in 1977 and the associated withdrawal of large foreign trawler fleets have thus far not been realized. Indeed, catch rates of our primary table fish are steadily dropping, despite the intensification of control measures. This has meant that a further cut in the quota in the region of 12 per cent has been announced for the present season. Whereas there is understanding of the fact that this step will have a severe effect on the industry at a time of economic recession, there is at present no alternative.

†However, I would like to say tonight that in view of what I believe to be the success that has been achieved in appointing a committee of scientists under the leadership of Dr. Alant, we are going to give very serious consideration to appointing a similar committee to go into the question of the white fish and possibly to go into the question of the kreef after that.

*The reason for this is that the two other resources that are most vulnerable, apart from the pelagic fish resource, are of course the white fish resource and the crayfish resource. As far as perlemoen are concerned I want to say that attention has also been given to the regulation of fishing activities such as perlemoen. In this regard I wish to state clearly that I shall continue to strive for the greater availability of perlemoen and crayfish on the local market. I shall see to it that the small-scale exploiter will retain or take his rightful place in the fishing industry. Moreover, steps have been taken and will be taken to entrench and perhaps to expand the traditional rights of the private boat owner and the perlemoen diver.

I also want to say a few words in regard to marine reserves.

†For a long time now there has been an agitation for the extending of the boundaries of some of the present reserves and creating other reserves. In the case of the Tsitsikamma Forest and Coastal National Park, we have passed legislation and we are in the process of expanding the seaward limits of that park.

*One of the biggest bones of contention in the Western Cape has undoubtedly been the activities of commercial purse seine trawlers in False Bay. This was a classic instance of conflicts between diverse interest groups, where everyone could not be satisfied. With conservation as the highest priority, this bay was closed to all purse seine boats with effect from 1 January this year. My standpoint is that there must be some places along the long South African coast from which commercial purse seine fishermen may be excluded, and in this way we are protecting the rights of the man in the street—the small man in South Africa.

I want to conclude with a few words about research. As far as research in connection with pelagic fish, demersal fish and crustaceans is concerned, I can say that this still enjoys the top priority. As far as pelagic fish are concerned I want to say that the staple estimate, and the estimate of sustainable yields, is a problem that is not unique to South Africa. Species with a short lifespan are particularly subject to considerable natural fluctuations due to natural mortality, scavengers and the influence of environmental factors, particularly during the egg and larva stages. As far as inspection services are concerned I want to say that one of the most important functions of the Marine Development Branch is the maintenance of a fisheries inspection service to exercise control along our coast and in the 200-mile sea fisheries zone over private and commercial exploitation of a large variety of fish and other marine life. It must be borne in mind that inspection services have to be provided at 26 points along the coast. I am sorry that I have not been able to reply to the questions asked by all members at this juncture, but my sore throat does not permit me to do so.

Vote agreed to.