I move—

I wish at this stage to object to leave to introduce this Bill being granted to the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs. I know that it is not customary to oppose leave to introduce a Bill. The old principles of not knowing the contents of the Bill, audi alteram partem and so on, have often been employed in this House to prevent such opposition at the first reading. However, I wish to point out that there are precedents for opposition to amending Bills being introduced and read a first time in this House. Indeed there was such precedent last year when the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill was introduced. The Opposition on that occasion objected to leave to introduce and I supported the objection. I wish therefore to object at this stage to the introduction of this Bill.

Sir, it is perfectly true that nobody in this House is aware of the contents of the Bill on the Order Paper, but as I will point out there have been a great many statements made by hon. members on the other side of the House …

Order! That cannot be taken as the contents of the Bill.

No, Sir, I am simply saying that the intentions of what the hon. Minister …

We do not know what the Minister’s intentions are.

May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that your hon. predecessor, Mr. Speaker, gave a ruling in 1954, when the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill was introduced in this House in 1954, on 12 May. Mr. Speaker then, just as you have done today, stated that the contents of the Bill were unknown and that therefore a discussion could not take place on that Bill. The hon. Mr. Speaker then said—

He went on to say—

At that stage the then member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) introduced an amendment providing that such Bill would not result in certain things, and that was allowed by Mr. Speaker, and discussion then ensued on the motion proposed by Mr. Lawrence. Considerable discussion ensued. Now, Sir, unless the Rules of the House have been changed since then, may I then also introduce an amending motion and speak to that at this stage? The motion that I propose to move is very simple—

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the Bill then opposed was not purely an amending Bill.

Yes. Sir, it was—it was a consolidating and amending Bill.

It was the Industrial Conciliation Bill, not an amending measure only. I am sorry I cannot allow a discussion now.

Sir. may I just point out that if one reads the long Title of that Bill, it was that leave should be granted to introduce a Bill to consolidate and amend the law.

I have given my ruling.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move—

This Bill, which is very short, contains proposals in respect of two separate matters, both of which relate to the powers of the provinces. The provinces, as we all know, do not have unlimited powers in respect of the spending of funds out of the Provincial Revenue Fund and this House has been approached from time to time in the past with the request to grant authority to provincial councils to make available and to use funds for certain purposes. During the present Session, for example, approval has been granted for the provinces to make available funds for the Louis Trichardt Trek Monument in Lourenço Marques. Similar authority has been granted to the provinces in the past to spend moneys for the purpose of taking part in the Van Riebeeck Festival in 1952 and the Union Festival in 1960. This House has already approved in principle of the holding of the Republic Day Festival in 1966. The Cape Province has now asked for approval to spend moneys for the purposes of this Festival, for which the necessary machinery has already been set in motion. Since it is anticipated that all the provinces will participate in the festival, it is proposed that all the provincial councils be authorized to make available funds to be spent for this purpose.

The other matter deals with the performing arts. Hon. members will recall that the provincial councils were granted the power during 1963 to make contributions out of the provincial revenue funds to certain recognized bodies for the promotion of opera, music, the stage and ballet. The four Administrators have now jointly put forward the request that power be granted to the provincial councils to make available funds in order to enable the executive committees of the provinces to erect or to acquire buildings for formation of performing arts and to let buildings subject to the terms and conditions which the executive committees may consider expedient. I think it will be readily appreciated that the provinces will be able to make a great and indispensable contribution in this way to the promotion of the performing arts in order to meet what is a real need in our national life. I propose therefore that the proposed powers be granted to the provincial councils and that it be left to them to decide for themselves to what extent they are prepared to bind their respective provinces in respect of the matters to which I have referred here.

This side of the House supports this Bill. To us, although the two provisions in this Bill are quite wide apart, they both deserve support.

As regards Clause 1 where power is to be given to the Executive Committees of the Provincial Councils to provide halls or venues for certain performing arts groups, I think it was almost inevitable from the moment we passed the 1963 amendment which gave the provincial councils the right to support these groups in ballet and in the other arts, that provision would have to be made at some future date for the provision of venues for these performances to be held. We are all familiar with the reluctance of local authorities to provide such venues, because in most cases, as we all have experienced, the type of venue which is required for the use of these groups is usually not economic, and therefore local authorities tend to shy away from the provision of such venues. So we on this side of the House support this because we believe that these arts should be encouraged, otherwise there is definitely a danger in this country of having fewer and fewer opportunities to perform and gradually these arts might become lost to us.

Coming to Clause 2, which empowers provincial councils to make payments or contributions towards the celebration of our Republic Day in 1966, we on this side of the House support this wholeheartedly. No doubt, at a later stage, the opportunity will arise to go more into the details of the celebrations in which the whole of South Africa is, I am sure, going to join; we are all going to celebrate this national day together.

There are one or two things which I would like to put to the Minister whilst discussing this Bill at the second reading, and that is that we on this side are not happy with the provision of these funds only for the year 1966. You see, Sir, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) earlier in this Session, the hon. the Minister of the Interior said that the City of Johannesburg could have celebrations in Johannesburg if they wanted to. In other words, the City of Johannesburg, and other cities, have the right to enter into these celebrations and to provide funds for them should they so wish. But here we have the case of the Provincial Council which empowers the local authority to spend money on these functions having to be granted special permission from this House for entering into these celebrations on one occasion only. I would like to indicate to the hon. the Minister that when we come to the Committee Stage I want to move that the words “in 1966” be omitted from this clause, and that provincial councils be given the power to celebrate our national day whenever the occasion should arise. Why should it be restricted only to 1966? I want to give the hon. Minister an indication of our thinking at this stage, so that when we come to the Committee Stage, he will perhaps be able to agree with us and to accept an amendment along these lines.

The other point I want to raise is in the nature of a question, and this question arises out of the fact that when in 1959 a similar provision was made for provincial councils to provide moneys for the celebration of the jubilee festival in 1960, a special proviso was inserted, which reads—

Now, as the hon. Deputy Minister knows, Section 6 of the original Act of 1945, provides for the subsidization of the provinces from the Central Consolidated Revenue Fund. In other words, no such proviso is made in this particular clause to say that moneys expended on the celebrations in 1966 will not be subsidized from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In order to get clarity for the provinces as to whether that is in fact the intention that all moneys spent on the 1966 festival by the provinces will in fact be subsidized on a 50/50 basis. I am putting this question to the hon. the Minister.

To repeat: We support this Bill wholeheartedly. We believe that both the clauses are worthy of support. We have that one reservation as to the time factor in Clause 2.

This Bill is an innocent looking Bill, but if one studies it very carefully it would seem that apartheid is written very clearly, although not factually, in this Bill. I want the hon. Minister to tell me this afternoon whether the buildings which will be erected or acquired will be only for one section of the community, or whether they will be available for all the people in the province, White people and Coloureds, without permit? We are here giving this power to the provincial councils to acquire these buildings and to let them, but, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to say that we have already evidence in respect of the Provincial Council …

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask your guidance, because you will see at the bottom of paragraph 18quin, it says—

I would like to make it impossible by way of an amendment for an executive committee to determine that their halls and buildings shall be used by one section of the community only. I represent the Coloured people in this House, and I would like to see that in an Act of this nature their interests are protected. Therefore I would ask the hon. Minister to give me the assurance that there will be no question of halls being acquired for the exclusive use of one section only, unless I get the further assurance that there will be equal facilities for the Coloureds. In other words, if a hall is built in Cape Town for opera, then I think there should be a hall built for Coloureds. Not that I accept apartheid in connection with arts, with ballet or opera.

Order! The hon. member is drifting away from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have made my point, but I would also like to ask the hon. Minister what is meant by the word “without”, where it says “the Provincial Council may provide for the payment from provincial revenue funds of contributions to any person or any body of persons towards the costs of any function which is organized within or without the province”. Does it mean that the Cape Province can contribute to a function which is being held in the Free State, or in Natal? Is that the intention that each province can contribute to another province? I don’t think that that is right, unless the hon. Minister has a special explanation why the word “without” appears in this Bill.

I think that can best be discussed in Committee.

I put it to the Minister at this stage so that he will know what to say when I put the question in Committee.

It is very gratifying to see the support given to these two proposals by the Opposition. It is the sort of support which really encourages one as far as the future is concerned. The fact that things such as the Republic Day Festival and the question of the performing arts, in which we have a common interest, are no longer used as political footballs but are generally supported by the responsible sections in our country, is a sign that we have grown up.

With regard to the observations made by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) in connection with the performing arts, I can only say that the result of the passing of this provision will naturally be that the expansion which has taken place in this sphere over the past year or two will now continue at a faster rate. I think we are all conscious of the extent to which our entire national life has been enriched in the past few years as a result of the support given to the performing arts. With regard to the appeal in connection with the Republic Day Festival, I would support, and I think everybody would support the deletion of the year “1966”. A provision of this kind should really be available for all similar festivals. As I see the position at the moment, the problem is that this measure is being introduced at the request of the Administrators, who have confined their request to the forthcoming festival next year. It was not the intention in this measure to go further than the request put forward by the Administrators. But to my mind this is such a fine idea that I promise the hon. member that I will go into the matter to make sure whether or not we are bound by that request. We can go into this matter further in the Committee Stage. As far as the subsidy is concerned I can tell the hon. member that in terms of the new formula which was introduced at the beginning of this year, payments of this kind do not fall under the subsidy system.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is a person, of course, who looks for a ghost behind every door and it does not surprise me therefore that he sounded the discordant note that he did. It is a pity that the hon. member grasped this opportunity again to talk about separate halls and things of that kind. The question of the availability of halls for the respective population groups is a matter which now falls under the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Planning who will consider this matter at the appropriate time. I can only repeat that the idea is that all sections will take part in the Republic Day Festival. It will not only be for Whites but also for Coloureds, Bantu and Indians. That is why these committees have been established which will arrange festivals for these people. It goes without saying that such festivals will also be able to draw upon the funds which are made available for this purpose.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move as an amendment—

This amendment is being moved because the reference here to the “Minister” is redundant. It is felt that this Correspondence College Council is an autonomous body which does not receive a single cent from the State; it receives no State allowance by way of subsidy. It was therefore regarded as logical that the appointment of the Registrar should not be subject to approval of the Minister.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

During the second-reading stage, I mentioned that in Clause 4 these correspondence colleges were given varying rights in voting; that we could have a college having only one vote and other colleges having up to ten votes. Now we come to Clause 11 (5) (a) and (b). Naturally I cannot discuss Clause 4 again. It says here—

In other words, a college can have ten votes but will pay the same subscription fee as another college having only one vote. I suggested to the hon. Deputy Minister at the second-reading stage, that this was not equitable. and in an association of this kind equity, I think, is most important. Where one has an association and members are paying the same subscriptions, not only for registration, but as we shall see later, in Clause 27, also to the Guarantee Fund, it is quite obvious that they should have the same voting rights. I suggested to the hon. the Minister that he should give consideration to that. But he has not made any reference to that to-day when we came to Clause 4. I wonder whether the hon. Deputy Minister would deal with that objection, because I think it is a serious objection.

This links up with Clause 4 which we have already passed. Clause 4 provides that the number of votes to which colleges are entitled will differ according to the scope of their work, according to the size of their revenue, because the size of their revenue is really an indication also of the numbers of their students. We have certain colleges in this country which are very small. Reference has even been made here to one-man colleges, colleges which are controlled or owned by one single person who draws up all the lectures and who is responsible for everything connected with the college. It was felt that it would be unreasonable to give such a one-man correspondence college the same say in this body as a large college, the revenue of which shows that it enjoys the support of a large number of students in this country. That is the explanation for the difference in the number of votes to which colleges are entitled. We regard this arrangement as a fair one and indeed it is in conformity with the request made to us by the college authorities. As far as the annual registration fees are concerned, those fees will naturally be fixed by this council, and it is understandable that the Correspondence College Council will be very reasonable in fixing the fee to be paid by the respective colleges. With regard to the rights of the smaller colleges as against those of the larger colleges I just want to say that where a small college commits an offence, in principle the position is the same as it would be where a large college commits an offence, and I think in these circumstances there is no necessity to depart either from the voting arrangements to which we have already agreed or the annual registration fees which will certainly be fixed by the Council with very great discretion.

The hon. Deputy Minister has not dealt with my objection. My objection is that if the responsibilities of these colleges are to be the same, then they should have the same advantages. It is quite clear that that inconsistency appears in this Bill and that something should be done to remove it. If the hon. Minister is not prepared to accept my suggestion, then I suggest that instead of ten votes as a maximum he should perhaps say three as a maximum. Then it might be possible to discuss it. But to say that one college can have ten votes and another only one vote and that they are both liable to the same subscription and the same contribution to the Fund is to my mind grossly unfair. It is not equitable.

We have already disposed of the question of the vote, of course, in Clause 4, but I just want to say that the question of the jurisdiction that this college council will have has nothing to do with the representation given to certain colleges. Surely the question of jurisdiction is a matter which is entirely divorced from the number of representatives. The reason why there is a difference in the representation and why greater representation is being given to larger colleges than to smaller ones is that the scope of the activities of some of the larger colleges is ten or twenty times as great as that of the small colleges, and there was even a request that their votes should be determined accordingly. We eventually arrived at the happy medium of fixing the maximum at ten; this meets with the approval of the association and I hope it will also meet with the approval of this Committee.

Just one question: Are those smaller colleges satisfied with this provision? Are they all agreed?

All members of the association are satisfied with this. They have approved of this provision.

Are they all satisfied?

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has given consideration to this point I mentioned during the Second Reading. I do not want to move an amendment because to me the meaning is quite clear, but I understand it is not clear to the ordinary members of the public. It is from line 59 on page 10. It says that the man who appears before this council is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R50 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment. There is a misunderstanding in the minds of some members of the public, who seem to think that the council will find the man guilty and fine him, which is of course not intended. I assume— and I hope the Deputy Minister will give us this assurance—that the council will report the man to the public prosecutor, who will then institute proceedings. He will then be tried in the ordinary courts.

I devoted attention to the matter and got the opinion of the law advisers, and they assure me that this is the usual way of wording it, and that it is a case for the courts. They assure me that it is not necessary to state it so expressly in the Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

It is just to make quite clear what an accountant means.

May I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (3) Such copies and report shall be submitted to the Minister and shall within seven days after submission be laid upon the Table of the Senate and of the House of Assembly if Parliament is in ordinary session or if Parliament is not in ordinary session, within seven days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.

It provides for the procedural need to Table the report which is the subject of Clause 26. It speaks for itself.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) is concerned, I am informed that it is not necessary to insert such a description. As a matter of fact, it is regarded as redundant because in order to be able to fulfill the functions of accountant in terms of the Act, the person concerned must be registered in terms of the measure which is quoted here. It is quite unnecessary therefore to insert the proposed words in the Bill. As a matter of fact the Treasury expects the Department not to insert unnecessary provisions in legislation, as would be the case if this amendment were accepted.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is concerned, I am afraid it cannot be accepted because it is entirely unnecessary. The fact of the matter is that this council is not going to receive a single cent from the State for its administration, and since these colleges receive no assistance from the State this Parliament has no power to inspect their accounts. The colleges are autonomous bodies and it is their own affair how they spend their moneys. Just as little as this House has the right to ask the Chamber of Mines or any other private business to submit its accounts to us. so little do we have the right to ask these correspondence colleges for a similar report. Unfortunately therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

I am sorry the hon. Deputy Minister has not accepted my amendment. It seems to me quite clear from the wording of Clause 26 that anybody, irrespective of his qualifications, can be appointed as the accountant in terms of this clause. We have had this sort of thing several times during this Session and it seems to have been common cause that where an accountant is mentioned he should be a registered accountant in terms of the Act passed by this House. I do not understand why the Minister and his advisers resist this. Here we have an institution—it is true, a private institution—of which a lot of people are members, but surely you want to give them the protection of a professional accountant to handle their affairs. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Emdin, put and negatived (official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 38,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (2) The income of the Fund shall be exempt from the provisions of any law relating to the payment of income tax or any other tax or levy by the State.

It is being moved at the request of the Association, which appeared reasonable to us, namely that this income of theirs should be free of income tax.

Agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I wish to raise a point with the Minister. I should have liked to do so in the second reading, but I did not have the opportunity. This clause provides that the loss or theft or destruction of a firearm should be reported to the police within seven days. I put it to the Minister that a great number of the fire-arms lost are not lost through the actual negligence of the owner, through forgetting his firearm somewhere, but according to the reports in the Press many of these lost firearms result from burglaries, from actual theft on private property where the householders are temporarily absent during the evening, or have gone on holiday, having locked up their house. They do not immediately notice the loss of the firearms when making an inventory of the goods stolen. Numbers of people take the precaution, when they leave their homes for any length of time, of approaching the local police station and lodging their arms there for safekeeping. The point I am trying to make is that it is not generally realized by the public that they can in fact lodge their firearms with the police, who will accept responsibility for those fire-arms. I followed that practice in the past and my experience is that one actually has to argue with the constable in charge to get an adequate receipt for the firearms one lodges there. I wonder whether the Minister should not take steps to bring it more widely to the notice of the public that this facility is offered by the police and that people can lodge their fire-arms at the police station, and that an adequate receipt should be issued by the police. I have actually in my possession at present a receipt simply written out on a plain piece of paper, quoting the number of the arms I lodged at the police station, and stamped with the police stamp. I do not know if it is worth anything if I come to claim my arms back. I leave these suggestions with the Minister, because I think that if it is generally known it will go a long way towards ensuring that fire-arms are not so easily lost and it will relieve the load on the public mind. It is not every man who wants to take his fire-arms with him on holiday. If he is going to stay at an hotel he leaves them at home, and it is after all not his fault if his home is burgled in his absence and he does not discover the loss immediately on his return. But if it is known that he can lodge these fire-arms with the police it will make a big difference and it will have the result of fewer arms being lost in this way.

The hon. member must remember that no obligation rests on the police to look after firearms for people while they are on holiday, and I cannot place this obligation upon the police for a very simple, practical reason. Many of our police stations will simply not have the storage space to store fire-arms. Let us assume that 2,000 people suddenly go on holiday simultaneously and that they turn up at the police station with 2,000 fire-arms; it would be entirely impossible for the police to store them all. Moreover, I have no indemnity under the Act in connection with any harm that persons may suffer in this connection. The storage of fire-arms might lead to all sorts of disadvantages. I speak subject to correction but I have always been under the impression that this is a practice which, for practical reasons, is not encouraged by the police. However, I am not entirely sure of my facts. I will reply to the hon. member once I have made sure of my facts and I am prepared to make a clear policy statement with regard to this matter in the Other Place. But I do know that there have been insurmountable difficulties in this connection in the past. I have not had an opportunity to go into this again in recent years, but I will go into it and then reply to the hon. member.

I am glad the Minister says he will go further into the matter and possibly make a statement of policy later, but I can assure him that it is accepted as the general practice at at least two police stations I have contacted. After all, what is the object of these provisions? It is to ensure that there is less loss of firearms through theft. If the police station can look after these weapons for a short time, it will not be too much trouble for them, and 2,000 people will not all go there at the same time. Surely the Minister wants the public to look on the police station as the local security centre, and prevention of crime is better than cure.

I will go into the matter and make a statement later.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of this Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendments.

The Minister gave the House certain information yesterday in regard to the regulations covering cost-of-living allowances and he indicated quite clearly that certain C.O.L. allowances have not been consolidated with basic pay because of the advantage there is to the employer in respect of the payment of overtime. It affects overtime payments and also in some instances sick leave payments, and of course holiday payments. The point that arises here is that the remedy the Minister has in mind may take a little time to become effective. Wage board determinations are still in existence which do not include the C.O.L.A., and it will take time for these to be revised so that a consolidated wage can be laid down. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible in terms of the regulations for him so to amend the regulations, without having to come to Parliament, so as to provide that the C.O.L.A. paid under those regulations should be included in the calculation of overtime. I do not know of any real difficulty in this matter, but I am not a legal man. The Minister. I think, should apply his mind to the possibility of doing this because I believe it will act as an incentive as far as employers are concerned to get on with the consolidation of C.O.L.A. with basic pay where such consolidation has not yet taken place. I hope the Minister will give this matter his attention because it is an important issue to the employees.

The Minister will remember that yesterday, when we dealt with this matter, I asked him to intimate the extent to which consolidation had not yet taken place, in other words, the extent to which these emergency regulations are still being used for the purpose of paying C.O.L.A. I must admit that I was a little dismayed to hear of the extent to which this provision is still being made use of. It is for that reason that I have put forward this suggestion, in the hope that the Minister will be in a position to do something about it so that the overtime payments, at any rate, will be brought into line with that being paid in other industries where consolidation has already taken place, particularly in view of the fact that the manpower shortage has resulted in considerable overtime being worked, and in many instances this overtime is being paid for at very cheap rates.

I wish to take the point made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) one stage further. The Minister will remember that when he replied to the second reading, I asked him whether he takes any steps to see that where he gives authority for the publication of new industrial agreements, before the agreement is approved he indicates that the policy is that the new agreement must include consolidation of the C.O.L.A. with the basic wage. The Minister’s reply was that he merely indicates to the parties concerned that that is what he would like to see. Well, it does not only stop at industrial agreements; there are also wage board determinations. I think the Minister should be a little more emphatic. The Minister knows that all industrial agreements must in the end come to him for approval before the agreement is gazetted. I want to know from the Minister, if he merely intimates, if he merely tells the parties concerned that he wishes to see this consolidation taking place, and the parties do not consolidate the C.O.L.A. because they cannot arrive at any agreement, and they come to a gentlemen’s agreement between themselves that the employees will still accept the C.O.L.A. based on a slightly increased basic wage, as happens in some instances, what is the Minister’s policy then? Is he going to approve those agreements and continue to come year after year with a measure of this nature, or is it the Minister’s definite policy to say to the parties concerned: I will not approve your agreement unless it includes the consolidation of C.O.L.A. with basic wages? I think the Minister should be a little more specific. I see the Minister of Transport is getting a little concerned and he is shaking his head.

I am only surprised at you making a suggestion like that.

The Minister of Transport should not be surprised. He made that suggestion himself. He faced the same positive suggestion from the Staff Association on the Railways, and as an employer he could not resist.

I say I am surprised at your suggestion that the Minister should refuse to publish the agreement.

I say that in the interests of the workers C.O.L.A. should be consolidated with basic wages because it affects overtime and Sunday time. The Minister of Transport must surely realize that he as an employer was unable to resist the pressure of the Staff Association in their demands for consolidation of C.O.L.A. and basic wages.

You misunderstand me. If there is a negotiated agreement between the employers and the employees, you suggest that the Minister should refuse to publish the agreement.

The Minister is becoming confused between wage determinations and wage board determinations.

I am not.

Of course he is. The Minister also made the statement yesterday that he does not expect to come here year after year with a measure of this nature, because he sees the need for it will run out. How will it run out if the Minister merely intimates what his wishes are? I want to know whether the Minister of Labour has a policy in this regard; whether it is his policy to see that wherever possible C.O.L.A. is consolidated with the basic wage to the advantage of the employee. That is why I asked the Minister what his policy is, and I hope the Minister will give us a clear reply.

In regard to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), I am prepared to go into the matter and see whether some relief can be granted on the lines he has suggested. I think it is going to be very difficult, but I am prepared to investigate it.

In regard to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), I intimated yesterday in reply to an interjection he made that as far as I was concerned there was no definite policy of forcing the parties to an industrial agreement to include a provision for the consolidation of C.O.L.A. and wages; but I said I would welcome it if these industrial council agreements were brought up to date. I have no power of sanction. In other words, if an agreement is negotiated between the employers and the employees, and that agreement is submitted to me for approval, unless there is some good ground for refusing my approval, obviously I cannot refuse, and if I did refuse to approve it I would probably have a strike on my hands. When an agreement is submitted for approval one looks at all the basic conditions in that agreement. One looks at the rate of wages, the overtime, the hours of work, pension benefits, holiday benefits and so on. During the time that I have been Minister of Labour I have never had occasion not to approve of any industrial council agreement. I say it would be far-reaching for me to say that because there is no condition in an agreement that there will be a consolidation of basic wages and cost of living allowance I am going to refuse to approve of the agreement. I think the consequences would be disastrous for that particular industry and the workers. As far as my Department is concerned, we try to use the persuasive method and give advice and guidance. We are usually consulted about these agreements and my information is that in practically every agreement negotiated to-day there is a provision for the consolidation of wages and cost of living allowances. In fact, therefore, it has never been an issue since I have been Minister of Labour. It has rarely happened during my time that wages and cost of living allowances have not been consolidated in agreements that I have seen. I might say that the line which has consistently been followed by me and my predecessors in reply to representations for higher cost of living allowances in terms of this war measure, is that the cost of living allowance has over the years ceased to be a separate entity and has become an integral part of basic earnings; that is our attitude in the matter. Consolidation of the prescribed allowances contained in this measure with minimum wages has taken place not only in wage determinations under the Wage Act and in agreements under the Industrial Conciliation Act but also in a large number of undertakings not subject to wage regulations. In all these cases the exemption from the War Measure was granted to permit of consolidation, and obviously this has always been to the advantage of the workers inasmuch as overtime payments, pension fund contributions and similar benefits have become payable on the higher consolidated wages. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has asked me to have a look at this War Measure 43 to see whether it is possible by an amendment of the measure itself to achieve the object which he has in mind without further legislation. That is what I am prepared to do. It is obviously to the benefit of the workers that it should be done and I am prepared to see what can be done but I am not prepared to say that if an agreement is submitted to me for approval and there is no provision for consolidation, I will not approve of that agreement. I am afraid, as I have said that that would be going too far and I cannot do it.

I think the Minister will agree with me that his colleague, the former Minister of Labour who is now the Minister of Transport, when he was faced with this problem in another connection was very keen on encouraging the introduction of incentive bonus schemes. He indicated in advance that he would possibly not sign an industrial council agreement if it did not provide for an incentive bonus scheme within the agreement. All the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) was indicating was this, that if there are industrial council agreements still valid …

Order! The hon. member should confine himself to this particular clause.

The Minister could quite easily make it well known that he may find difficulty in signing an agreement which still provides for a cost-of-living allowance to be paid separately from the basic wage. That is all he will have to do.

That I am prepared to do.

That is what the hon. member for Turffontein had in mind and if that is done then the Minister will be going as far as he possibly can.

I am prepared to indicate to employers and employees when they are in the process of negotiating an agreement that I would prefer that there should be a consolidation of wages and cost of living allowances.

May I say that I appreciate the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister. I think he appreciates too that these agreements are negotiated agreements and quite often the employer …

Order!

I am talking about established agreements. An employer could easily come along and hold a sort of quid pro quo to the employees’ organization and say to them, “I will continue to pay you your cost-of-living allowance separately but I will not change the basic wages if you will accept something else.” I think the fact that the Minister has now stated publicly that he will find difficulty in approving of such agreements will no doubt assist, as far as many of these negotiations are concerning, in getting the position completely clarified. I thank the hon. the Minister for the attitude he has adopted.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Before the House adjourned last night I had pointed out that control over subterranean water was very important and very necessary, and that the amendment of Section 68 of the principal Act proposes to grant more powers to the Minister in order that he may apply control more effectively. This is a measure for the introduction of which I am very grateful. The amendments proposed in this Bill seek to effect better control over surface and subterranean water and also over water sports on our rivers, on inland reservoirs, lakes, etc. But I am interested in particular in the control of subterranean water, which is an important aid, particularly in agriculture. We all know that water is essential and that it is one of the most important natural resources available to man. That is why it is so important that water should receive more attention from the Government and in particular from the Minister and his Department. No community can settle and develop without adequate sources of water. Without water, the most fertile agricultural land becomes worthless and the most suitable settlement areas become useless. The social and economic structure of a country is entirely dependent upon water; the agricultural and industrial development of a country is based entirely on water, as one of our most essential natural resources. If this were not the case, there would have been no large deserts. Water consumption in South Africa has increased tremendously in all fields of its consumption—primary, secondary and tertiary.

Order! I should like to point out to the hon. member that we are not discussing the principal Act. We are only discussing an amendment to the principal Act.

I am merely trying to show that for certain basic reasons control over water, which is facilitated by this Bill, is very important. That is the basis of my argument …

The hon. member must not elaborate too much; we are only dealing with an amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Institute of Water Research has published a very illuminating report on the consumption of water; on how it should be used and controlled in various fields. I feel, therefore, that it is quite relevant to this debate. I shall give you the consumption of water in a few of our larger cities and towns. The figures represent gallons per person per day …

Order! The hon. member must accept my ruling.

Then I shall continue with the specific arguments I advanced yesterday. I indicated that in the area where I live, the control that will be exercised as a result of the appointment of the advisory committees will contribute to a large extent to the introduction of better control over the dolomitic springs which are threatened by extensive pumping. Yesterday I pointed out that it was not only droughts that threatened these springs but also the extensive development of irrigation projects, and I was quoting some figures from a report I had received from the Department of Water Affairs and which relates to a survey of 12 springs in the Marico district. The survey indicates the decrease in the yield of these springs over the course of a few years. As an example I mentioned the Vergenoegd spring, which is at present threatened by pumping. Its yield had remained consistent over a period of four years. It remained consistent up to a specific year, when extensive pumping was done and its yield decreased by more than a cusec, which represents some 22,000 gallons per hour. Where its yield had been constant at 1.5, 1.7, 1.3 and 1.1 cusecs from 1960 to 1963, its yield suddenly decreased to .74 and .61—that is, by more than a cusec—after an irrigation scheme had been developed higher up. There are several such springs which may be referred to as examples of this phenomenon.

Order! The hon. member made that quite clear yesterday. There is no need to go into it again.

I named a specific spring which was affected by pumping, and now I want to compare its position with that of a spring where pumping has not yet been done, otherwise my argument will be of no value.

I shall now refer to another spring, namely Buffelshoek, which lies within a few miles of Vergenoegd. In this case there has been no notable pumping above the spring, and the yield has remained constant. It has remained constant at 1.4, 1.5, 1.3 and 1.1, according to surveys over the same years, and it still stands at 1.1. This shows that drought has little effect on the continued yield of springs in the dolomitic water area. I want to ask the hon. Minister to make the regulations promulgated in terms of Proclamation 1324, under Act 54 of 1956, of application to the entire dolomitic area, and to proclaim the entire dolomitic area a control area in terms of these regulations, for what happens at present is the following: Some areas are proclaimed only when problems have already arisen, problems that assume such magnitude that they become unmanageable; as we heard yesterday, there are places where a few wealthy farmers have spent R250,000 on the development of irrigation projects. If all such projects, which are as yet in their initial stages, are fully developed, I can foresee the complete exhaustion of all these valuable, fine dolomitic springs; many are drying up already. I can foresee that towns like Zeerust and Mafeking will shortly have extensive problems to cope with; that the farms established by pioneer farmers who settled near those springs more than 100 years ago—springs fed by water which has accumulated in this dolomitic area over the centuries and are supplemented by rain—will be without water. These valuable small-holdings belonging to irrigation farmers are at present valued by the Land Bank at R400 and higher per morgen. I can foresee that those farms will become worthless, uneconomic units. These farmers do not have extensive dryland farms and stock farms. The units surrounding those springs are small.

As I said yesterday, these new developments constitute a complete inversion of the natural order. Farms that used to be stock farms, farms on which dryland cash-crop farming used to be practised, farms that were initially bought for R10 and R15 per morgen, have now appreciated in value to R 1,000 per morgen. Those cash-crop drylands which are now being irrigated on an extensive scale are going for R200, R300 and R400 per morgen, and if they are to have both butter and jam added to their bread and they develop those farms into intensive irrigation farms, with the resultant exploitation of water, then the value of those farms will of necessity appreciate still further, while the value of the spring farms will depreciate to next to nothing.

It would be of little use if the Minister and the Department took a hand only when those projects have attained vast proportions, for then those farmers will approach the Minister and say to him: “We have spent vast sums; what does the Government propose to do about it? We cannot simply abandon these developments.” If the entire dolomitic area were proclaimed a control area and if every man who wished to utilize subterranean water had to obtain a permit from the Minister, as provided for by the 1956 Act—it is only the regulations which are not of application to the whole area yet—then it would prevent the development of the state of affairs which is now arising in Marico and Lichtenburg and in the Northern Cape, near Mafeking. Then orderly distribution would become possible. Mr. Speaker, there is the striking example of a spring where the owners lower down obtained a loan from the Department of Water Affairs. There are seven owners. They built a cement canal and developed a fine irrigation scheme. A new land-owner in the area where the spring rises drilled a bore-hole next to the spring. The farmers have already requested that the loan be written off, as the spring has been pumped dry. There is a case in my neighbourhood where a man drilled a borehole only a few hundred yards above a spring and pumped it dry. I have mentioned a few examples; I regard this as a matter of the utmost importance. This is the last phase of the process of exhausting our subterranean water. The water table in the dolomitic region is in greater jeopardy than ever before. What will happen if no control is applied? May I mention another example? The spring on my own farm is subject to registered water rights held by other share-holders. But this spring rises on my farm; it is a dolomitic spring rising at a beautiful eye. As a child, I used to crawl up that eye for a hundred yards and more; it is a minor miracle. The question now arises whether or not I would be entitled to dig a furrow a hundred yards above the eye and to divert the water for my exclusive use. I could then simply tell the other owners: “I found the water on my land. So what?” Would they then have to take me to court? Theoretically such action on my part would be legal; but it would be immoral. Dolomitic water differs from other subterranean water in the way it accumulates. The water flows from one compartment to another via crevices, and thus forms a network of subterranean reservoirs and channels; it is regulated by obstructing reefs, and is guided into certain directions. Where the obstructing reefs sink, the water flows over them and then those beautiful natural wonders occur—those clear dolomitic springs. I acknowledge the right of every surface owner to his subterranean water, but I want control. I do not want a regulation depriving such an owner of the right to use the subterranean water, but the control should be exercised in such a way that all subterranean water, particularly dolomitic water, can be distributed so wisely that it can be used profitably for the purposes for which it is required. It should be controlled in such a way that each man will get his due share of the water, as provided for by the Act. Nobody should be allowed—merely because he has the capital—to pump all the water out of dolomitic springs; to take hundreds of morgen which used to be drylands and which have been developed as such, and to convert these morgen into irrigation land, for this would upset the natural order. I can foresee that if control is not introduced with regard to the entire dolomitic area within the immediate future, and if the regulations that have already been promulgated are not made of application, then Zeerust, a town which obtains its water from one of the threatened springs, will within a decade have inadequate water for primary purposes—not to mention tertiary purposes; the establishment of border industries. I can foresee that Mafeking, where extensive developments are taking place and which relies on Grootfontein for its water—a spring which has also become much weaker— will no longer have enough water for such developments. I can foresee that even a place such as Lichtenburg, which also gets its water from dolomitic sources and which is not situated on the banks of a major river where a large volume of rainwater can be conserved every year in order to supply such water requirements, may lack water for primary, secondary and tertiary purposes. I can foresee that the subterranean flow of the two most wonderful and most beautiful subterranean rivers, the Malamane and the Malopo, will be affected to such an extent that all the springs fed by them will dry up and vanish. The effect on agriculture as well as on expansion of towns will be severe. The Malopo flows westward and feeds subterranean springs which are used for stock purposes as far as the Vryburg district and even further. The Malamane flows to the east, subterranean as far as Zeerust, where it forms a final subterranean reservoir—a subterranean pool which for many years has supplied the town of Zeerust with sufficient water. It was pumped out, and Zeerust was forced to buy a dolomitic spring and to divert the water to the town. A financially strong farmer bought the farm immediately above the spring. By means of water from a number of boreholes, he is now developing an extensive irrigation scheme. The yield of the spring owned by the municipality of Zeerust has decreased to such an extent that the municipality is now compelled to buy its own water from the farmer at a high cost.

Order! The hon. member is going too far afield. The hon. member is ranging all over the whole of the Western Transvaal.

Mr. Speaker, the traditional water resources of the entire Western Transvaal are in danger. This Bill provides for control, and I am pleading for more extensive and more effective control to be applied without delay in order to prevent my forecast from being realized within the near future.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) in his prophecy of disaster because of lack of water. I want rather to try to help the hon: the Minister to make up his mind as soon as he possibly can so that he can save himself a good deal of trouble. I refer, Sir, to the delegation of powers to control water-sports. Once we humans interfere with nature we usually do so in the hope of benefiting ourselves. The hon. the Minister of course collects water in various spots in the hope that he will improve the living standards of the humans around there and in other respects with a view to supplying water for cattle or for irrigation in the hope that the country will be able to support a larger population and that that population will have a better standard of living. He now moves into a new sphere. He is providing methods of enjoying leisure, one of which is water-sports. Water-sports, of course, afford people pleasure, but they also involve numerous dangers. The hon. the Minister cannot himself control these water-sports unless he also considers what disadvantages are likely to arise and what he should do about them. Here I would like to point out to the Minister that while water supports the life of humans and cattle, it also supports the life of various parasites and insects. Most of the irrigation projects and water projects, especially in the lower altitudes of the land, that is to say, the land below the plateau and in the warmer areas, carry these parasites which are sources of illness not only to humans but even to animals, and the hon. the Minister must accept responsibility for that. I know that the hon. the Minister of Health does not accept the responsibility. He said earlier on this Session that he felt that it was not his responsibility to see that projects such as dams and other collections of water were constructed in as hygienic a method as possible. I feel that this Minister should therefore be warned that he travels this road alone; that he cannot expect anything more than odd pieces of advice from the Department of Health. I may say that the Minister himself is a unique Minister in this respect: He has a great advantage over nearly all, if not all, other Ministers because he runs his own Department of research. When the Smuts Government established the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research this Minister’s predecessor had the good sense to say: “Count us out”. I am sure it has been a great source of satisfaction and a great source of value to the Minister’s Department to feel that they have under their own hands the scientific projects which must be undertaken in the interests of that Department. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he turns his attention to the parasites like the malaria carrying mosquito. He will find that before long those parasites will collect in the pools of water he is going to form in the hotter parts of the country unless he takes the necessary precautionary measures. What is even worse—this will affect his own Department— he will find the snails which carry bilharzia. As far as water sport is concerned I think of the snails which carry the parasites harmful to the human being. But as the hon. the Minister himself knows there are snails which carry parasites which affect cattle. As long as the water is brackish it is not so bad but the Minister is constructing numerous dams in Zululand where the climate is hot and where snails will accumulate if he does not take the necessary precaution.

I want to encourage the hon. the Minister to pass the buck to the Department of Health or to the sub-departments of health whose responsibility it should be-—although they deny it—to protect the human being from this grave disease the prevalence of which is increasing. The snails are accumulating and this Minister is responsible for the multiplication and aggregation of those snails. He is fortunate that somebody else will carry the buck which he creates.

Water is so important to us in South Africa that one can hardly allow the opportunity to pass without talking on any legislation which amends our water laws. Particularly to me, who has been connected with the use of water for so long, it is extremely important.

I want to deal mainly with Clause 1. It deals with the expropriation of property. However important water may be, I am also very concerned that there should never be any derogation from the rights of landowners. I accept that where development is necessary, where it is necessary to provide for the storage of water, there should be the necessary machinery for expropriating the land required for those purposes. I have not the least objection to that. There are, however, a few aspects of Clause 1 which cause me some concern, and which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I think we must ask ourselves what the position is in our law in regard to the rights of people as the owners of land or the owners of servitudes on that land. We must ask ourselves further what the difference is between a registered right on land and an unregistered right. Before I deal with that I should just like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the most important amendment in Clause 1 concerns the provision which is made that over and above the notice which the Department must serve on the owner of the land or on the owner of the registered right, notice must also be given in the Government Gazette as well as in a local newspaper circulating in the area concerned. After the lapse of a certain time after the appearance of that notice, anybody who has unregistered rights over the land to be expropriated will lose those rights. In other words, over and above the ordinary notice to the registered owner of the right, this clause now also provides that the world in general shall be notified of the intentions of the Minister, thereby ensuring that everybody who perhaps has unregistered rights may take note of it and claim compensation for such rights. If such a person fails to do so, he will have no claim to compensation.

Mr. Speaker, we should not look only at Section 60 of the Water Act. Clause 1 of this Bill amends Section 60 of Act 54 of 1956. We should also take into consideration that Section 60, with the exception of sub-section (1), also applies to the expropriation of land and rights by irrigation boards. If one looks at Section 94 of Act 54 of 1956, one sees that sub-section (2)—sub-section (1) provides for the expropriation of land and rights by irrigation boards, with the consent of the Minister —reads as follows—

In other words, all the powers we now give the hon. the Minister in this proposed legislation are also given to irrigation boards. Hon. members should clearly understand that I have no objection at all to expropriation which is connected with development, but that I am just expressing my concern that people might perhaps suffer damage in so far as their rights are concerned.

The position to-day is that where people have a vested right in land, a servitude or a personal right like a usufruct or something of that nature, that right can be registered in the Deeds Office. When it is so registered there is no excuse for anybody in the world to say that he did not know of the existence of that right. In that respect provision is made in Section 60 (1) that the Department must send a notice to everybody who has such a registered right.

Now what is the position in regard to people who have unregistered rights or servitudes in connection with land? The position is this. Where I have a servitude over another man’s land, that servitude is enforceable on him. If I arrange with him to give me a servitude to use a road over his farm, or a servitude to build a dam on his farm, etc., that servitude is enforceable on him, even though it is not registered. That is, however, not quite the position where the land is transferred to other people, because the object of registration is to give notice to the whole world. Where a servitude is registered there is no excuse for anyone to say that he did not know about it, because he ought to know about it. It is available to him for inspection in the Deeds Office. Where it is not registered it is, in the first place, just as enforceable against the owner of the land. Where the owner of such land sells his property and the buyer is ignorant of the existence of such an agreement, or where there is nothing on the land which may lead the buyer, on inspection, to think that such a servitude or agreement exists, the buyer is not bound by that servitude. That is the reason why attorneys usually advise people that where they have a servitude over land they should have it registered because otherwise, if the property is sold later, the buyer may come along with the excuse that he did not know of the existence of the servitude and is consequently not bound by it.

I just want to read something from a book I consulted a little while ago. It is called “South African Law of Property: Family Relations and Succession”, by Lee, Honoré and Price. On page 31 they deal with unregistered servitudes as follows—

Then it is 100 per cent effective, as I said a moment ago. Then there is no excuse for any man to say that he did not know about it. Then they continue—

I read this to show hon. members, as I said a moment ago, that where an unregistered servitude exists and the purchaser is aware of its existence, he is bound by it. He can then be expected to register that servitude in the Deeds Office against his property.

This amending Bill now provides for an advertisement to be published. When the advertisement has been published and nobody has claimed compensation from the Government, the right to claim compensation is lost. You will now tell me, Sir, that in any case such a person did not have that right. That is so. If the Department expropriates property and the Department is not aware of an existing right, then it is in fact not bound by it. Now the Department goes further and advertises its intention to expropriate the property, but after having advertised it it is in a better position than the man in the street would have been, because now the Department can say: “I did not know of the servitude, and because I advertised in terms of the Act you lose the right to take me to court.” That is not a serious derogation of the rights of people, but we are particularly concerned with the rights we have in regard to land. Therefore I think that when we accept this amendment we should just be aware of the fact that to a slight extent there is a derogation from a right which a person would otherwise have had. Then we must ask ourselves whether it is essential to expropriate in such circumstances.

The Government Gazette in which the advertisement appears is read by very few people. They read the ordinary daily newspapers to a far greater extent, but it may be that the owner of a right is not in the vicinity at all. He may be overseas and not have the opportunity of coming into contact with the Department. As the result of that advertisement, of which he is perhaps ignorant, he then loses a right which he would otherwise have had.

I do not feel particularly strongly in regard to this point. I just wanted to bring it to the notice of the House. I think we should ask ourselves whether the efficiency we gain through it is of greater interest than the slight derogation of people’s rights which results from it.

I also want to express a few thoughts in regard to Clause 4. This clause provides that where a chairman of an irrigation board has served as the chairman for five years he can only be re-elected as chairman of that board if the Minister approves of it. I am aware that the Department has already had certain problems in this regard, otherwise this amendment would not have appeared before us. I am equally aware of the fact that there must have been certain problems which gave rise to the amendments in Clause 1. I just want to bring a few instances to the notice of the hon. the Minister, and I think he knows the people I am going to refer to now.

There are many irrigation boards in the Robertson Valley. I think I can rightly say that these are very responsible irrigation boards. I am thinking of the Breërivier Water Conservation Board. It is a board which provides water for more than 14,000 morgen, and it consists of 12 members. The chairman of that board is a very efficient person and a leading figure in that vicinity. I think he has now served on that board as chairman for the past 10 years. I am afraid that chairman will say: I already served on this board so long; I am not going to run the risk of asking for permission as to whether I may serve as chairman longer, and I would rather not be nominated. The Minister knows whom I am referring to. All the irrigators and the whole board have been very satisfied with the services of that chairman all these years. There is not the slightest doubt in regard to his efficiency, his experience and the good guidance he has given. I am just afraid that this clause will result in the loss of some of our most efficient people on these irrigation boards. There are other irrigation boards where the position is the same. I think, for example, of the Le Chasseux and Goree Irrigation Board, which serves more than 4,000 morgen. The chairman of that board has, I think, been chairman for more than 20 years. I have in mind the Angora Irrigation Board, where the chairman has served as such for at least ten years already. These are extremely valuable people. I am just a little concerned that they will now say: “I have been chairman for so long, and now I must obtain the consent of the Minister; I would rather not stand for nomination again”. It would be a great pity if we lost some of the best people as chairmen of the irrigation boards through the application of this clause.

Sir, if you look at Clause 3 you will see that the influence which the Minister can exercise there is expressed differently. The position today is that the chairman of an irrigation board serves as the electoral officer at the election of members. Clause 3 now provides that, unless the Minister otherwise provides, the Minister or the Secretary for Water Affairs may appoint somebody else as the electoral officer, because the chairman for some reason does not do the work efficiently. Now I just wonder whether we cannot word the power of the Minister to interfere in Clause 4 differently. Can we not rather say that the Minister has the right to determine where a chairman may not serve longer than five years? I realize that this proposal will also lead to difficulty, because the Minister or the Department must now say: You have now been chairman of the board for ten years; I now determine that you may not be elected again as chairman. That is also undesirable, but I do not think that in the case of the election of chairmen of boards sub-section (3) could be changed in this respect.

Then I just want to say a few things in regard to the new Chapter 6, which deals with the control of water sport areas. As the clause reads at present, there is no limitation at all on the area in respect of which the State President may issue proclamations. Personally, I have no serious objection to it, but it may be that objections will be raised to the fact that where a farmer has a large dam on his own farm the Minister is able to make regulations in regard to the control of sport in respect of that private dam. I do not think it is a practical problem, but it is definitely a theoretical problem. I ask myself whether it was the intention to make regulations in such circumstances also. I do not think it will happen, but it may happen theoretically.

I am delighted to follow the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) particularly as he has stressed the point that the rights of private individuals should be protected. I do not want to cover any particular section of this Bill except Clause 7, i.e. the water sport control area. The hon. member for Ceres has just indicated that this can also apply to private dams. What is more, my information is that it may even apply to private swimming pools and legally, it can. It would mean that even the fishing rights to a private dam, a dam which has been built and stocked by the owner at his own expense, would vest in the Minister. I know that the Minister will say he has no intention of touching those particular dams and swimming baths and so forth, but what is really the intention of the Minister? I am given to understand that all the Minister wants to do is to protect the lives of people partaking in water sport on dams, in rivers and in the sea. Let us first look at the sea side of the story. I know skiing boats have already injured people along the coasts of the peninsula and the Minister is quite right in trying to put a stop to this. But as far as the sea is concerned that power already vests in the Minister of Lands. If the hon. the Minister would look at the Sea-shore Act of 1957 he would see that the Minister of Lands …

I have nothing to do with the sea.

The Minister covers the area between the high-water mark right to the three-mile limit. That area is under the jurisdiction of the State. The only difference between this Minister assuming these powers and the Minister of Lands is this that whereas the Minister of Lands, under the Sea-shore Act, has to appoint a local authority to exercise the control of water sport or whatever it may be, this Minister is not bound by the law to delegate that power to a local authority. That is the only difference. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister would tell me whether that is correct.

As far as the Cape Peninsula is concerned the powers which vested in the Governor-General, as it is stated in the Act, have already been delegated to the Cape Town Municipality. If the Minister will consult with the Minister of Lands he will know that at this very moment the Cape Town Municipality is drawing up rules for regulating water sport along the coast. I am thinking in particular of Clifton which falls within my constituency.

What is happening at Milnerton?

Now I am getting worried, because the Minister asks what is happening at Milnerton. In the case of Milnerton too, the Minister of Lands can do all the things in terms of the Sea-shore Act this Minister now says he is going to do, with this exception, that the local authority does those things on behalf of the Minister of Lands.

I have in my possession a letter signed by a previous Minister of Lands in which the control over Zeekoevlei is passed on. If the hon. the Minister would look at Gazette No. 464 dated 29 March 1963 he would see that the Minister of Lands delegated his power to control the sea-shore to the Municipality of Cape Town. The regulations were drawn up by the Municipality and submitted to the Department of Lands. The Department of Lands made certain alterations and suggestions which were accepted by the Cape Town Municipality. But as far as Zeekoevlei is concerned, which is more or less on a par with Milnerton, the Minister will know that a Crown Grant No. 71 of 1941 was given over both Zeekoevlei West No. 1 and Zeekoevlei West No. 2. Due to the wisdom of the Minister of Lands at the time most of those difficulties have now been solved. As the Minister will know you had yachting, speed-boating, birdwatching and other conflicting interests at Zeekoevlei but as a result of the formation, of a committee, as a result of co-operation, that problem has now been solved and the people are quite happy. I wonder therefore why the Minister is now taking unto himself the power which previously vested in the Minister of Lands as far as the beaches are concerned and the power which the Minister of Lands had in the case of Zeekoevlei for instance. The power of the Minister of Lands is limited in the sense that he has to consult with the local authorities but this Minister is not obliged to delegate his power to local authorities.

I am informed that the Minister’s intention is only to make regulations to ensure the safety of the people participating in that particular sport but I do not think it is necessary for the Minister to take unnecessary powers as far as private dams are concerned. I have already eliminated the sea because the Minister of Lands has the power in that case. I do not for a moment think this Minister will claim that the Minister of Lands is not as efficient a Minister as the Minister of Water Affairs for instance. It is just a matter of taking the authority from the Minister of Lands and vesting it in the Minister of Water Affairs. The hon. member for Ceres has said that even private dams could fall under this. If that is not so why are they not specifically excluded in this Bill? Why does he include them?

If it should become necessary, I can take the necessary steps.

But what does the hon. Minister have in mind when he says “if it becomes necessary”? The Minister must not come and say: “Look you have got a big enough area on your farm where for instance you can have water-skiing.” If people are injured, then criminally the owner is responsible if an accident happens. Is the hon. Minister now going to accept the criminal responsibility and the civil responsibility should anything happen, the same as I have to carry that responsibility if I allow people at an admission price to come and misuse my rights on that dam? Is the Minister going to accept responsibility? If I am so stupid as to charge a man say a shilling for an afternoon, say for a Sunday afternoon, even, to come and fish, I am responsible. Is the Minister going to collect the shilling and take the responsibility, or is he going to prohibit me on a Sunday afternoon? You see, if only the Minister would be more explicit and tell us what it is all about, then I think we can argue this matter out properly. But I cannot see for the life of me that where the powers already exist, it is now necessary to come with a new Bill to pass these powers over from the Minister of Lands to the Minister of Water Affairs, with this exception only that so far as the sea is concerned, local authorities need not necessarily be consulted or need not necessarily be appointed agents to act on the Minister’s behalf. What is the position going to be if the hon. Minister now for instance proclaims the Cape Town area, and he takes control? Unless he publishes his new set of regulations, you will have a vacuum, a vacant period during which there is no control at all. Because at the moment the Minister of Lands has already given the Cape Town City Council certain powers and they have gone to great expense in publishing these regulations and drawing up these regulations. Now all for nothing! I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister in his wisdom will accept these new regulations drawn up by the Cape Town Municipality. He may do so, but he need not do so. I wish that the hon. Minister would explain all these things to us. As I said at the beginning, I do not think that the Minister has any ulterior motives, but I wish the Minister would in future when lie introduces a Bill put us at ease on these points.

We welcome this provision which is made in Clause 2 for the appointment of advisory committees with reference to subterranean water control areas. As a matter of fact, when this legislation was drafted initially, the appointment of advisory committees in areas which are declared to be water control areas was very strongly advocated by us and we are grateful for the fact that this provision has now been incorporated in the Bill. One would like to see, however, that more use is made of the services of these advisory committees where they have already been established and where they are going to be established in the future. One assumes that these advisory committees will consist of people with a good knowledge of local conditions, people with a good knowledge of farming conditions in the area, people with a good knowledge of the water requirements of the area and who will probably also have a good knowledge of the legal aspects. Excellent use can be made of the practical knowledge of those people by the Department and the Minister for the purpose of giving advice to supplement the knowledge and experience of the officials of the Department of Water Affairs. To a very large extent they will also be able to help the Minister to solve certain problems and to overcome opposition which is sometimes encountered where such a water control area is established. We know that where a water area is established, or where a subterranean water control area is established, the rights of people are curtailed as far as the use of water is concerned. The control is taken over to a large extent by the Minister and his Department. Where the rights of people are affected one very soon encounters opposition and, as I have said, the services of these advisory committees can be used very fruitfully with a view to removing difficulties, by means of discussions with the farmers concerned in the area and with the Department and with a view to obtaining co-operation where it is sometimes impossible to get cooperation. There is one matter in connection with which, in my opinion, the services of these advisory committees can be used very fruitfully and that is in a sphere which has not yet received a great deal of attention, namely the establishment of catchment control areas. Our experience, which is borne out by statistics, is that the level of the water which flows in our rivers is gradually dropping. There are various reasons for that. It is caused not only by a variable rainfall but also by an injudicious cultivation of land around our sponges and springs and by the injudicious planting of trees. These are all matters which influence the flow of water and which cause the level of the water in our rivers to drop. I think here we have a fruitful sphere in which useful work can be done by the advisory committees in advising the Minister also to establish catchment control areas and to exercise stringent control, particularly where land is cultivated in such a way that it is likely to affect our sponges and our springs detrimentally and where the planting of trees also detrimentally affects our sponges, with the result that the level of the water flowing in our rivers is likely to drop considerably.

As far as Clause 7 is concerned, one also welcomes the provision which is being made there for the establishment of water sports control areas. Accidents frequently take place on large dams, on rivers and even at the coast because of the lack of the necessary precautionary measures, and it is essential that precautionary measures be taken to protect the safety and the lives of people. I would go so far as to say that it is also essential that proper regulations be drawn up, even where it takes place on privately owned land, to protect the safety and the lives of people. In the first place I think that it is essential, particularly where there are large State water schemes, that the dams in those schemes be declared to be water sport control areas and that the necessary regulations be drawn up to ensure the safety of people. But I do want to suggest that the control should not be exercised by the Department of Water Affairs itself. The Department of Water Affairs, as a result of the huge projects which are being undertaken, is over-loaded with work at the present time, and I should not like to see a further burden placed on the Department when this responsibility can be taken over by other bodies. Since Section 164 provides that the Minister has the power to transfer control to Provincial Administrations or to local authorities I should very much like him to make use of that power and to transfer the control to the Provincial Administration or the local authority as the case may be. With the urbanization which has taken place and is taking place in this country there is a tremendous need for recreational resorts outside the cities for our city-dwellers, and these large dams and waterworks are the obvious places where provision should be made for recreational facilities for these people. I think it is the function of the provincial authorities and of the local authorities to exercise control over these recreational resorts; I feel therefore that the Department of Water Affairs should not be burdened with the control of these places. The control should be transferred to the Provincial Councils and the local authorities, who can then exercise the necessary control and remove a very great burden from the shoulders of the Department of Water Affairs.

I want to deal with Clause 2 and say that I agree 100 per cent with the hon. Minister’s intention to control subterranean water; to have subterranean water-controlled areas, and to appoint committees of an advisory kind to advise him in regard thereto. The wording of the original Act is—

Now. Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that throughout the length and breadth of the country, boreholes are drying up and water-tables are dropping. I wonder if the hon. Minister would consider an amendment, to introduce in line 42 “advise him on matters connected with the source or origin of water and the destination”. What I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that throughout the dolomitic areas there are springs, underground supplies of water which come to the surface, and in some cases, found underground and are running past, coming from some place and going to some place—there are a number of these in the country. I wonder whether the time has not come for the hon. Minister to systematically investigate the source of that water: Where does it come from and whence does it go? These committees will deal effectively with the use of the water by farmers and industrial people, but I would like to concern the House with the actual supply of the water. From whence it comes and where it goes. Mr. Speaker. I think those of us who are interested in water as such, must be alarmed at the large quantities of water, which are being pumped out in the gold-mining areas, on the Rand and in the Free State. Without any shadow of doubt, before the mining operations were taking place on such an enormous scale, that water must have been flowing to some place and some end-user, somebody in the Republic, must now be going short. I think the time is at hand, in view of the development in this country, that we might look into the matter of ensuring that underground water supplies get supplies and are well supplied from their original sources. There are cases on record where mining companies, in sinking shafts and drives, have come across water veins which, when the shaft is completed, or the drive is put in, find that the water is cut off completely, cemented up, and that the end to which it was going, the destination, is not only affected, but is cut off completely. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that in this modern age we must be aware, and I am sure the Minister is, that water is the one limiting factor in the development of this country. We intend proceeding with vast projects of the magnitude of the Orange River scheme and the damming up of the Vaal River and the Orange River at various places, but in my humble opinion, there are large numbers of farms whose under ground water supply in the shape of bore-holes and wells is disappearing. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) mentioned certain parts of the Western Transvaal. I do not propose to cover the same ground, except to say, that in certain parts of the Northern Cape the depth of bore-holes is becoming uneconomical, and there is little or no assurance of finding water. I wonder if this clause, as we are amending it, to include subterranean water, is sufficient? Has the time not come to take steps and give the hon. the Minister power to deal with the subterranean supplies along the lines I have indicated? It is a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that low weirs, there are one or two in the Northern Cape, along the Vaal River, six foot high, hold back miles and miles of water. The hon. Minister is familiar with them and I need not traverse that ground. I submit that that type of weir is more beneficial to underground water supplies than we will ever know, and I think that an investigation, which of necessity must be of a technical and scientific type, could well be pursued to ascertain where and at what places such weirs should be established, not for the sole purpose of irrigating agricultural land. I believe that the springs and the well-known “eyes”, with which we are familiar throughout the country, will, and can dry up unless we attack the problem, not on the basis of settling disputes on the surface, once the water does come to the surface, but to make absolutely certain that there is a plentiful supply at the original source. I therefore put it to the hon. the Minister and ask him. whether he will give consideration to the aspect of the effect of this particular Bill upon the conservation of water, where he is now extending the scope of committees to include subterranean water.

The only other point I wish to speak on is the one in connection with the control of water in regard to water sports. The clause which is before us says “the State President may, by proclamation in the Gazette declare …” I am referring to inland water, like the Vaal River, which on one bank is controlled by one divisional council and on the other bank by another divisional council in regard to water sports, and in many cases, by municipalities, whose citizens use these resorts on week-ends and public holidays. I am concerned about the machinery, the mechanics, the procedure that will be followed, to get the State President to issue the proclamation I believe that although this type of legislation is necessary, because of the activities of people on skis and in motor boats, speed-motors and the like, that that type of control should originate with the local authority. I think it is a mistake to vest it in the Minister, which is the case here, it says in Clause 2 “activities arising there from shall vest in the Minister”. I submit that we will be breaking down the whole concept of local government if a modicum of local option or of local choice cannot be exercised. I say quite frankly and I visualize that matters will be brought to the Minister, asking for control on certain stretches of water. It may not be in the interest of the community which uses that water for the pursuit of water sports. I think in fairness, I can ask the hon. Minister to explain what the mechanics and procedure will be before we get to the stage when the State President decides to issue a proclamation. It sounds simple enough but it is fraught with difficulties and there are many pitfalls. I am quite certain that unless the full co-operation of local authorities and other persons involved is obtained, disputes will follow, and there will be a great deal of hard feeling. I do ask the hon. Minister to give serious consideration to what I am saying, even to the point of amending this Bill and saying that without the application of local authorities or the controlling authority of the particular sport in a particular area, no control shall be instituted. I believe that the case of Zeekoevlei, here in the Flats has been cited as an example, where there is division of control, but I do not think that one example is any reason for controlling all water throughout the country, without the concurrence of and on the application by the local authorities concerned.

Clause 2 contains a new principle. This clause has been taken over from the existing Act but a new principle has been introduced in regard to a subterranean water control area. Various hon. members have already referred to this. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) has indicated how far-reaching it can be and how important it can be for urban areas and for industrial development and so forth. The hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) has welcomed it although he did say it could curtail the rights of people and that that might perhaps invite opposition.

I spoke about the advisory committee. The principle to control water areas is an old principle.

If the hon. member did not listen, I am not going to repeat what I said. The fact remains, of course, that the policy to control subterranean waters by means of an advisory committee is a new policy. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we know enough about subterranean water? I was not present when the hon. the Minister made his second-reading speech but I have spoken to a number of people and they told me that the reason he advanced was that the water level was dropping in South Africa. That is quite correct and true but what worries me is how those advisory committees are going to set about their work: on what are they going to base the advice they tender the hon. the Minister? Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Water Affairs has not got one geologist in its service? The Department has to avail itself of the services of geologists from the Department of Mines whenever a farmer seeks advice concerning the sinking of a borehole. We find that the industrial and mining development which has taken place in South Africa has led to the Department of Mines itself being short of geologists and that they can often not make geologist available to the hon. the Minister. My own experience—the Minister knows about it—has been, as many hon. members have said, that where boreholes have dried up in the area in which I live and where the level of the subterranean water has dropped further the Department of Water Affairs advises you not to sink a borehole deeper than 180 ft. But if you sink a 180 ft. borehole you do not get water. When we approach the Department of Water Affairs for geological advice as to where to sink a borehole we find that the hon. the Minister has no geologists available. Surely before those advisory committees are established people who can tell you where to drill for water must be available. There must be people who can study the formation of the soil and in that way be of service to the advisory committees. I would go further. Advisory committees will be established but we are not told who will be appointed to them. I regard it of the utmost importance that geologists serve on those advisory committees. Where the Minister is making this provision in the Bill I want to ask him whether he does not think we are anticipating matters. Because, as I have said, he has no geologists at his disposal. The Minister knows what my experience has been. More or less this time last year the water on one of my farms, even the drinking water, gave in completely. The existing boreholes gave in completely. As a last resort I approached the Department. I told them I had sunk many boreholes which had cost me a great deal of money and asked them to advise me as to what I should do. People were sent to me and to this day I do not know whether they were qualified geologists. Two of them came with a number of Natives and their equipment. Their report was to the effect that the farm on which I lived was one mass of dolomite and that I would not find water there, but that I should nevertheless sink a borehole at one particular spot on the farm. I drilled where they had indicated but found no water; I only found dolomite. We moved the boring machine to a place where they had said we would not find water and found water at a depth of 353 feet without coming across any dolomite. Those geologists on whom the Minister and I are dependent had said the whole farm was one mass of dolomite. I was most dissatisfied and here we have a Bill which is going to curtail the rights of people. Sir, no farmer can exist unless he has water on his farm. Where advisory committees are to be established I should like to know who will serve on them. What special knowledge will they have which a farmer has not got so that they can advise the Minister? Let me tell the Minister in the first place that I cannot understand how a Department of Water Affairs, a Department which is responsible for controlling subterranean waters, can operate without the services of geologists, a Department which has nobody to tell the people what the underground structure of their farms is. I trust the hon. the Minister will explain this matter to us when he replies to the second reading. It is no good his telling us that he gets geologists from the Department of Mines. That Department simply has not got them. I do not believe the people who were sent to me were geologists but ordinary technicians perhaps with a little experience. They were not qualified people. We are dealing with a far-reaching principle, namely, the control the Minister will exercise over subterranean water. It is necessary that that control be exercised but he must be careful how he sets about it. It is something which may have far-reaching repercussions. I do not know to what extent mining activities are responsible for the dropping of the water level. When visiting one of the mines I was surprised to learn that that mine alone pumped out 3,000,000 gallons of water per day from underground. They are of course pumping this water deep down, much deeper than I would drill, 20 and 30 times deeper. But the question I ask myself is what effect that pumping of water has on the general water level in South Africa. What are the effects of this continuous pumping. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) said a better study should be made of the sources and the flow of our waters. At the moment I do not know what the effect is of the tremendous amount of water which is being pumped out but what I do know is that we are dealing with a far-reaching principle and I think the hon. the Minister has come with this legislation without having taken into proper account the fact that he lacks the necessary staff to exercise control over subterranean water; that he has not got the people to serve on the committees which have to advise him.

Before I sum up the views expressed from this side of the House, I should like to associate myself with much of what was said by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller). I agree with the very levelheaded manner in which he approached some of the problems dealt with by the Bill. The Bill itself is clearly divided into two parts dealing with two different matters altogether. One deals with the control of water-sports and the other deals with what is probably one of the most vexed measures of control in the land, the ownership and control of the usage of water. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Ceres in the appeal he made for the utmost caution to be exercised in any interference with the existing water rights or legal servitudes possessed by individuals over land of which they are the owners or land from which they derive some benefit. I suppose there is little one can touch on that has more bearing on individuals and more bearing on security than interfering with the existing rights of any individual. In a country such as ours where water is so precious that right is even more important than any other in the country.

The hon. member referred to the question of information being conveyed through the Government Gazette. Here again I could not agree with him more, especially with the remark he made about how few people really ever have any idea at all of what appears in the Government Gazette. At the pace at which we are living to-day very few people have time to even know what appears in the ordinary newspapers. Readers can be divided into three classes. One reads the pictures, the other reads the headlines, and there are a very few who, as the result of their professions, are obliged to study the more serious or the legal side of what is printed. They read the legal notices. But the average individual has no knowledge at all of what is published in the Government Gazette, and although in law ignorance is no excuse, and that robs them of an opportunity of protest, I think that fact should be taken into account, particularly when we are dealing with the community affected by the first part of the Bill. People who are so largely scattered around the inland areas of the country that these documents are not readily accessible to them.

I want to come back mainly to the second part of the Bill, Chapter 9bis, the one dealing with the water sport control areas. There also I want to urge upon the Minister that whilst, as we have already said, we are in general support of the principle of the Bill, and we agree with the need for control which will protect life and limb and will regularize these sports and bring them, and all the things that flow from them, under adequate control, there again there must be the utmost need for caution both in the manner in which it is approached, the manner in which it is carried out, and the extent to which control is applied. It has already been said by previous speakers that this Bill has a very wide scope indeed. I completely endorse that view. It deals firstly with the control of water and secondly with water sport and its control, but as far as the Bill itself is concerned what is classed as water sport is not very clearly defined. It leaves too much to the imagination. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) mentioned the wide scope the Minister has with regard to control of certain aspects of control to which he received the standard reply that it is provided for in the Bill but that there is no intention at the moment to utilize the powers therein contained. Well, if that is the case then it is bad law because a law should only contain the provisions it is really intended to apply. We have had so many bits of legislation with the unknown tucked away in a corner which the Minister says he will not apply, but the Minister may be wafted off to some other portfolio and his successor may not have the same view, or circumstances change, and although the Minister genuinely may have had no original intention to utilize these powers he finds he is compelled to use them. I think the House is entitled to expect that when legislation of this type is put before it we should have a much fuller explanation from the Minister in his reply to the debate as to just how far the Bill is really intended to go and how far he intends to apply it.

Coming to the second part dealing with the control of water sport areas, the very term “water sport” itself is capable of the widest interpretation. I think there also we are entitled to know from the Minister in his reply what he himself interprets the scope of water sport control to be. What sport is actually being controlled? If you take water sport as it has grown up to-day and as it is fast developing under the impetus of modern improvements and modern science, with the higher standard of living of people and the urge to get out into the open and to take part in these sports —when one takes all these together one is forced to the opinion that although this piece of legislation is now necessary we are still only on the outskirts of the development of what we term “water sports”. When one visits overseas countries—last year I was particularly struck with it—one sees the terrific expansion which has taken place in a few years in regard to the things we call water sports, the tens of millions of pounds spent in the estuaries and rivers and lakes to provide for the demand of the public for access to water sports. If you go 200 miles inland you see the effects of water sports in the hundreds of motor-cars towing boats to go sailing—power boats and speed boats, all comprising part of the water sports we have to control. Therefore when we place legislation on the Statute Book to cover these things, we have to take into account the fact that with our coast line and with our interior areas where water is being conserved, or is still to be conserved, such attractions must come in a country like ours with our climate, and the legislation we pass must both encourage this sport, because it is a health-giving sport, and at the same time it must provide reasonable safeguards. I think the Minister in his reply might give us a lot more information in this regard, about the scope of his proposed control.

The hon. member for Karoo raised the point, and also the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), as to who is to apply this control, because quite obviously the Minister himself and his Department cannot deal with it. There again I think one has to ponder for a few minutes as to what is embraced in “water sports”. Take e.g. the beaches in the Cape. During the summer season they are the playgrounds of tens of thousands of people from all over the Republic, and those numbers are growing every year. Take water sports. There are surfing, aquaplaning, yachting and speed-boat racing. Associated with that there are tens of thousands of people who go into the water to swim and bathe. Where does water sport end and where does recreation begin, because there is no clear line of division between them; they overlap one another. Whatever control we apply must be so applied as not to damage or interfere with either section of it. They both give an opportunity for God-given health to people who can get out into the sunshine on to the beaches and at our inland waters to enjoy their leisure. Has the Minister given some thought to the problems that will be created? Because when you bring these tens of thousands of people to the beach, and they go there sometimes not only to bathe but to watch and to participate in water sports, aquaplaning and the annual swimming races and ski-boat competitions, there are 101 things which have to be provided on the beaches to cater for them, like sanitary arrangements, which is one of the most important things of all. I have seen in my own area, in a stretch of ly miles, after one of the holiday week-ends, that it took seven 3-ton truckloads of rubbish and about 20 workmen over four days to clean up the beaches of the debris left there by the visitors to the beaches. That goes on right along the beaches and we have to face it. In spite of what the local authorities do to cater for it, the public will leave broken bottles and empty tins and other rubbish littering the foreshore. It is part of the price we have to pay for the popularity of our beaches and water sports. Whoever controls water sport has to face that responsibility.

The Minister cannot divide the control of the sport on the water and give it to one person and then throw back the responsibility for preserving public health and the amenities on the beaches to another body. On the beaches you have the paddling and the bathing and the people just sitting in the sun. You have motor-cars by the thousands going on to the beaches where access is provided for them. All these things form one composite whole when we come to deal with water sport. The hon. member for Sea Point dealt with the control which could be exercised under the Seashore Act and I would say without any question that a lot of the difficulties we have got into with regard to the control of water sport, especially along the beaches, is due to the laxity and the delay on the part of the Government in implementing its own laws with regard to seashore control under the Seashore Act. I have one case in mind now where a municipality, in consultation with the Department of Lands, after countless interchanges of letters and discussions, has had its regulations for the control of the seashore under the Seashore Act lying with the Government for three years, and they have not received approval of them yet. What is the position of that local authority when it has to control these matters I am discussing? Anywhere below high-water mark they have no power at all. Between high-water and low-water marks the public has access. You can get abuses taking place above high-water mark, and if the land is under the control of the local authorities they can act, but the individual concerned only has to walk over the high-water mark into the area between that and the low-water mark and the local authorities are completely helpless because they have no authority there.

The Seashore Act provides for that type of control with regard to that area of the coastline; that is what it was designed for, and the powers granted there can be delegated by the Lands Department to the local authority. But whilst it is said that the mills of God grind exceedingly slow, they certainly move faster than some of our Government Departments. If the Minister is now going to switch over control to his Department, this is one of the things he will have to face. If you take water sports, you have your motor speed-boats and water skiing, and if the ski comes in on the crest of the wave, especially the new type heavy boards, it can break a man’s neck if he is bathing there. You have the speed-boats towing these skis, and they are getting bigger and better every day. You have racing at 50 to 60 miles per hour by the speed-boats, which is most spectacular and well liked by the public, and then you have the literally hundreds of people who go yachting and sailing, and who launch their boats in many cases from the beaches, and they have to have storage on the beaches when they come ashore.

I saw a place in Britain last year which in five years had grown from nothing at all to a place where there were over 5,000 sailing boats pulled up on the beaches, and we are developing that same sort of attraction here to-day. Only recently we had a competition on False Bay. The boats came in from far away as Brandvlei on the other side of Worcester and from half-a-dozen other inland areas. There were 120 craft on the bay and I suppose more than half of them were from inland centres. It is something that has caught on in the country and something we must encourage, but these are all part of the problems the Minister will have to deal with, and they will all have to be dealt with together otherwise chaos will result. I want to echo the suggestion which has already been made here that any delegation of power by the Minister, or any application of the law of control to an area should in the main be applied at the request of the local authority or some responsible body in that area which knows the needs of the area and also knows the capacity of the area. Otherwise one of the troubles will be what has already been experienced, that you get ten times the number of people trying to use a beach or area of water that cannot cope with a tenth of that number, and when you get overcrowding you find trouble.

I want to touch on two features in regard to the delegation of powers to any authority, particularly the local authority. To really effectively control some of these things you have to have the resources. You have to have the manpower, the officials, and you also have to have the equinment. Particularly in regard to water sport officials must be able to go on to the water and not just stand on the beach. One of the big difficulties occurred at Zeekoevlei, and it will occur again if care is not taken. It is that the usage of Zeekoevlei for many years lay between the bird sanctuary people, an excellent development, and the light yachting club, people who sailed Flying Dutchmen and Sprogs. Then the power boats came in and immediately there was a conflict of interest, because you had two entirely different types of craft which could not operate in the same water, and you get that in practically all inland waters where the space is restricted. There was dual control because the area at one time bordered on land controlled by the City Council as well as the Divisional Council. Then the State made certain arrangements under which the City Council took charge, and a line of markers was laid down, on one side of which presumably speed boats could remain and on the other side the yachts. But it just did not work because there was not sufficient staff to keep it under effective control and you had constant encroachment. A boat travelling at 50 miles an hour does not take long to slip around a buoy and injure someone in the water. Therefore I say that when one delegates power, care must be taken to see that the authority to whom the power is delegated is competent to exercise it, and I recommend that the Minister give that serious thought. I hope that whatever decision is finally reached in regard to Zeekoevlei, apart from its usage for water sport, the other usage for which portion of the area has long been set aside will be continued, and that is as the bird sanctuary.

In this country we are blessed with a vast area of water. Along our coastline there are sheltered bays, something which can be made one of our national assets and attractions. Inland we are steadily increasing the water acreage that can be used for sport. I believe that with wise judgment and control there is room for every phase of the sport, and the one branch of it can enjoy itself to the full without encroaching on the privileges of others, subject to the control being exercised being a wise control and one which appreciates that there are these different interests.

There is one other matter I wish to touch upon. I do not know whether it falls within the scope of the Minister’s definition of water sports, but it is itself certainly affected by water sports, and that is game fishing which is developing so fast in this country and which can prove another gold mine for this country, just like commercial fishing. I quote the area at Fish Hoek Bay, where the blue-fin tunney come in for several months each year. Last year over 150 fish weighing up to 700 lbs. apiece were caught, and it constituted world news. Those fish were caught in many cases within 200 yards of the beach, and people sat in motor cars along the beach watching the fish being caught. Amongst those boats, where it was essential for them to be protected while this game fishing was going on, you get the speed boats weaving in and out. You find the commercial fishermen coming in and casting their nets and removing the bait supply which attracts the big fish. These are all things which are of value to the country; they are part of the attractions of the country from a tourism point of view and they are all linked up with or affected by water sports. At Kalk Bay during the holiday season we have tens of thousands of non-Whites coming down to spend a day at the sea, and the big fishing craft take them on trips into the bay for a small fee. Those boats are packed from morning to night by people whose only opportunity it is to get a breath of God’s fresh air on the sea itself. Is that a water sport or a professional occupation, or is it just recreation? To my mind it impinges on all three, but it is one of the problems which will have to be faced when applying this legislation. I am not trying to paint a gloomy picture; I am merely trying to point out to the Minister from my own practical experience some of the headaches and problems which those in control will have to face. I am asking that in its final form the Bill will take into account all these factors. Fish Hoek Bay is one of the most popular bays in the Cape, from the point of view of bathing, and aquaplaning is also very popular there, but this sport has to be kept away from the bathing beach or otherwise someone will be killed. At Muizenberg, the pride of the country in regard to surfing, where the big surfboards are now becoming very popular, care has to be taken that the bathers are not hurt. A board coming in on the crest of a wave can easily kill a person. At present discussions are going on in regard to allocating various sections of the beach to different interests. There is room for all, but these are some of the problems the Minister will have to face. Over and above all that, after you have dealt with the water sports and have made regulations which in the long run will probably increase the number of people indulging in the sport, on the shore you will still have the job of cleaning up the beach and providing sanitation, and other necessary amenities which has to be done by the local authorities. These are factors which will have to weigh in the delegation of powers. I see no other course open but that where there is an established local authority, the Minister should delegate his powers to that authority to control its own area and to take charge both in and out of the water. But I would ask the Minister also, before he finally makes up his mind, to consider the legislation we already have on the Statute Book, the Seashore Act, where so much is duplicated in this Bill which is already provided for in that measure. The Minister should consider whether merging the two Acts will not be of benefit to all concerned.

Perhaps it is a very good thing that I did not go into detail in my introductory speech but that I was as brief as possible, not because I wanted to hide information, but my experience in this House is that whether one speaks at length in one’s introductory speech or not, hon. members do not allow themselves to be put off by what one says; they talk as long as they like. Sir, I want to thank hon. members wholeheartedly for the support that I have received for this legislation from both sides, and although certain opinions have been expressed here and there has perhaps been a certain amount of criticism and certain questions have been asked, I think the whole spirit of the debate has been to obtain greater clarity and to place on the Statute Book a measure which will be as effective as possible to achieve these important aims.

I want to start with the matter which was first raised here. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) and the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) were really the only two speakers who had certain misgivings with regard to the desirability or otherwise of incorporating a provision in the Bill to limit the period for which a chairman or a vice-chairman of an irrigation board may serve in that capacity. The provision is that they are elected every year, but they can only be elected for five successive years. They cannot be elected as chairman or vice-chairman for a period of longer than five successive years without the permission of the Minister. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has argued that this may be regarded perhaps as an encroachment upon the democratic rights of the members of irrigation boards. In my opinion that is not the position at all. Where a board has a very good chairman whom they want to retain in that capacity for a much longer period, for good reasons, they still have the right to submit the matter to the Minister and to convince him that it is necessary, and if it is necessary the Minister can accede to the request, or if he feels that it is not necessary he can refuse it. But even if he refuses the request—I do not nominate a chairman for them—then they still have the right to nominate another person as chairman. But I do want to say that there are two sides to this thing. On the one hand one would like, under certain circumstances, to retain a person’s services as chairman or as vice-chairman for as long as possible, and under other circumstances one may want to get rid of him because it is in the public interest to do so, and it is not always an easy thing to do, particularly where the person concerned has served in that capacity for a long time and is getting on in years. Let me take the example of Members of Parliament who do not always know when to retire either. And yet the work we do involves sacrifices on our part. Well, people who do that sort of work regard their work in the same light; they do it out of love and they do not know when to stop making this sacrifice. I do not want to mention specific examples, but I may say that we would not have found it necessary to make this provision if it had not been the experience of the Department over the years that it would be better to insert this provision and to re-appoint a very good person or an indispensable person rather than to appoint some other person, a person who may perhaps be capable, a person with means and with influence, t>ut who does not put the interests of the public first. Where people occupying these positions are not doing as well as they ought to do, one can then bring about a change in this way without giving offence to them, and such a change will not necessarily weaken the board; in most cases it will strengthen the board.

The hon. member for Zululand has asked me to go into the validity of Section 164bis (3) together with the law advisers. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the law advisers have expressed the opinion that Section 69 (1) (a) was in fact made applicable to water-sport control areas by Section 164bis (3). The hon. member need have no misgivings therefore about the validity of this section. I have been assured that it is perfectly clear, as the Act now reads, that this section does transfer the powers that we are seeking here.

Various hon. members want to know from me whether I will be able to use the powers contained in this Bill to forbid or to control Sunday sport, for example. This is not the first time that I am being given powers of control under the Water Act over certain water-works or over storage waters or dams. Under the existing Act the Department still has full control over State water-works; in other words, over State dams, not only over the works themselves but also over the activities carried on at such works—in other words, the same power which I propose to take here, where it appears to be necessary, in other spheres not involving State works. Where my Department and I felt in the past that it was in the interests of the public and that it would promote better control and greater convenience and add to the pleasure and entertainment of the general public we could delegate some of our powers to provincial or other authorities or to public bodies in terms of regulations promulgated by us, but there is no reference in those regulations to the question as to whether water sports may or may not be practised on a Sunday. I know that there is no uniform country-wide law at the present time in respect of sports or in respect of certain things that one may or may not do on a Sunday. But we do have provincial ordinances and, after all, those ordinances have the force of law. In taking the powers that we are taking here it is not the intention of my Department, as far as other spheres are concerned, to follow a line which differs from the line that we follow in the case of State waterworks on which the same sports and other games of entertainment may be practised.

Whatever is done will always be done with due regard to the laws of the country, where any exist, or with due regard to provincial ordinances in respect of Sunday sports. It is not my intention at all to introduce a new set-up in this respect. If it becomes necessary to take any steps, it will not be the responsibility of the Department of Water Affairs to take legal steps or to concern itself with this matter. I think that is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

Before I come to other arguments which have been advanced here, I should like to give the House a little more clarity in respect of the advisory committees for State subterranean water control areas. I gained the impression that certain hon. members were under the impression that this measure gives me two powers; that in the first instance it gives me the power or the right for the first time to declare certain subterranean water areas to be State subterranean water control areas. That is not the position. I have the power under the present Act to declare surface areas to be State surface water control areas, but at the same time I also have the power to declare subterranean areas to be State subterranean water control areas. But the existing Act gives me the right in exercising that control, if I choose to do so, to appoint advisory committees to advise me and my Department in respect of the exercise of that control over State surface water control areas and all I am asking for in this clause is for the same right, for which the old Act does not make provision, and that is to be able to appoint advisory committees as well for State subterranean water control areas. Such advisory committees could be of very great use, depending also on the size of the area, the number of people and the various interests which are affected within a State subterranean water control area or who exercise extraction rights or have the right to do so and whose future and interests are consequently involved, because, just as in the case of surface water control areas, one of our main functions will naturally be to see to it that that subterranean water which is in a declared area and which is available is used and extracted from the ground on a fair basis at a rate which, as far as one can determine, humanly speaking, is safe with a view to ensuring a permanent supply of that water as far as it is possible to do so. And where one has to come to a decision with regard to the extraction rights of various groups of interests—and many of those interests might well be conflicting interests because there may be irrigators who are dependent on that water, there may be urban consumers who may be dependent on it, there may be public bodies and industries dependent upon it—it is a good thing to constitute a committee which will at least be representative of the various interests. For the information of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) I want to say that the Act provides that one half of the members may be appointed from a panel of members elected by various interests. One can divide an area into regions and then say that every region must have one representative on the committee. Let us assume that there are five or six different groups of interests; the Act provides that one half of the members of the advisory committee must be members who are nominated and who are then appointed by me, and I can then use my discretion in appointing the remaining half. An official of the Department who is acquainted with water legislation is usually the chairman of such an advisory committee. He is in a position therefore to guide these people so that they do not go beyond the limits of the Act and the powers that they have under the Act. I just want to say that we are not taking power here simply to declare all subterranean waters throughout the country to be State subterranean water control areas. These powers have existed since 1956. The Act is simply being extended in this sense that we also want to appoint advisory committees for subterranean water areas which are declared to be State subterranean control areas. That is all we seek to do; for the rest we can extend the control areas under the 1956 Act as much as we consider practicable and necessary. But this is a thorny and very difficult matter, just as in the case of State surface water control areas. We have already declared a few such areas, and there the system of extraction under permit has already been put into operation. This is not something of which I am enamoured or of which my Department is enamoured; it is en extremely difficult matter; it causes a tremendous amount of work and it is work of a responsible nature because where a State water control area is declared, whether it be surface or subterranean water, the Department of Water Affairs becomes the body that has to accept the responsibility to divide the water between the various owners and to determine their extraction rights, whereas in the case of open areas, the water rights to which the person thinks he is entitled can be determined by the Water Court. But in the declared areas the Department of Water Affairs takes the place of the Water Court. As I have said already, we are not rash in the declaration of State water control areas or subterranean water control areas. During the whole of this period we have only declared three State subterranean water control areas. So far we have only declared the new dolomite area at Lichtenburg to be a water control area; we have declared one at Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth—an artesian water area-—and we have declared one at Rustenburg, Marikana, but that is all. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) and other members have pointed out how careful one has to be when one declares such areas and takes the responsibility to apply control, and what factors one should take into consideration. They also want to know what factors I propose to take into consideration. Sir, on this occasion I merely want to state the general policy and the basic principle that is followed. This is the only way in which one can exercise fair and effective control over surface as well as State subterranean water control areas, and that is to determine in the first instance what is the strength of the current, both in the case of surface water and in the case of subterranean water, which is available for distribution amongst the people concerned. One then has to determine how much irrigable land there is within that area and then determine, by dividing the one into the other, to what extraction rights each one would be entitled per morgen in theory; and having done that one may perhaps determine what would be an economic unit for that area, just as we do in the case of State water control areas where surface water is controlled. One may find that the persons concerned have spent large sums of money on the development of irrigation works and the laying out of irrigation lands which are irrigated from subterranean sources; one may find that they extracted and used much more than the maximum quantity of water to which they were entitled.

That has been the position for a long time already.

In the very same area there may perhaps be other people who for very good reasons have not yet made use of their extraction rights. But if they have not yet made use of their water rights, it does not mean that they have lost them. They still have those rights and they still have the right to ask the State or the Court to determine their rights. And when certain people use more water than the quantity to which they are entitled, with the result that there is insufficient water later on, according to sound basic principles and in terms of a formula which is designed to see that justice is done to everybody, then it means, if control is going to be applied—and it serves no purpose to declare an area to be a controlled area and then to decide that you are never going to apply control because then there would be no sense in declaring it a controlled area—that existing developmental works cannot be proceeded with because there will simply not be enough water to feed them and at the same time to do justice also to others who also have a right, perhaps a lesser right, to extract water from the same source.

Would that not be a different principle from the principle which is applied to surface water where the quantity of water made available to already existing developmental works is not curtailed?

The same thing is done in the case of surface water. Where there is insufficient water—and there are very few places where there is sufficient water—to give an irrigator a permit to extract the full quantity of water to which he is entitled in theory, then one simply cannot do it. Preference is given to existing developmental works according to certain basic principles. There was a case in Letaba—the hon. member for Zoutpansberg will know about it —where people went to the Water Court years ago and where the Water Court allocated certain quotas, but the Court did not have at its disposal the information which the State had after it had declared that area to be a State water control area. Those particular owners made full use of all the water allocated to them by the Court; they completed their developmental works and irrigated as much land as they could with the water that they were permitted to extract. When we declared the whole of this area to be a State water control area we found that the Water Court had given them extraction rights which did not take all the facts into account and which permitted them to withdraw a greater quantity than the quantity to which they were entitled. We then simply gave them the right under permit to extract from the normal flow of the river the quantity to which they were entitled, which was considerably less than the quantity that they needed for the land which they had developed, but fortunately we had built a State dam there where we had stored flood waters and we then decided to allow those irrigators to use the flood waters, which belonged to the State, and the water which they could extract from the dam together with the quantity which they were entitled to extract from the normal flow of the river was sufficient then to meet their requirements. But for the fact that we had this dam there, they would unfortunately have had to abandon that development. That is the hard, factual position.

Will this apply to water servitudes which are registered against the title deeds?

The significance or the value of a servitude, registered or unregistered, that a person acquires in any State water control area, really means no more than this: It serves as a notice that the holder of the servitude did not simply appropriate this right; that he acquired it, that he exercised it and that it must be taken into account when the water in that area is divided. But it does not necessarily follow that it will be possible to leave that right that he acquired intact and that it will be possible to give him his full extraction rights when that area is declared to be a State water control area, because the Act provides that no further extraction may take place, whether he did so in the past or not, other than in terms of a permit which he obtains from the State and which gives him the right to extract water. Our attitude, of course, in so far as it is possible to do so, and if it is not in conflict with our basic principle, is not to disturb existing rights. But unfortunately there are also cases where persons without servitudes—except in so far as one can perhaps say that they acquired servitudes through usage—have taken much more water than any Water Court would have allocated to them, but where they did not ask for an allocation of water. It has often happened that farmers have started to develop farms along our rivers and have simply extracted water without ascertaining what quantity they are allowed to extract. In deciding how much land to place under irrigation, one usually judges by the strength of the current and the permanency of the stream and the size of the good land that one has that it would pay one to place under irrigation.

Reference has been made here to the responsibility of the Department of Water Affairs and of the Minister in particular to see to it that our water in our State dams and State water-works do not become infested with insects; and bilharzia, amongst other things, has been referred to here. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) went so far as to say: “This Minister creates these dangers; he is responsible for them also but he is very wise; he passes the buck.” I just want to tell hon. members that there is the closest collaboration between the Department which is responsible for the health of human beings, namely the Department of Health, and the Department of Water Affairs. We have an inter-departmental committee, on which the Department of Water Affairs is represented, under the chairmanship of a representative of the Department of Health, and there is no lack of co-operation. But I want to emphasize clearly that it is not the responsibility of the Department of Water Affairs to keep bilharzia out of our waters in this country. As far as our State water-works are concerned, it is true that the canals, where water is dammed up, are very favourable breeding places for bilharzia, but our policy, as far as it is possible to do so, is to line the canals and our State water-works with cement which is a very great help, of course, in combating the bilharzia problem. It is a problem, but we are co-operating and we are always prepared to help to combat this danger as far as it is possible to do so within our financial means.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) says that he is afraid that the chairmen of irrigation boards—good people whose services one would like to retain—will take exception to this new provision. I hope that that will not be the case; it would be a great pity, but if they want to withdraw of their own volition because they do not want to apply to the Minister for permission to be reelected, then I hope that they will in any case stay on as members of these boards, if not as chairman; or if they are not even prepared to stay on as members, then I am convinced, good people that they are, that their advice and guidance and wisdom and the experience gained by them will continue to be at the disposal of the new boards.

Then I just want to say a few words with regard to the expropriation clause, in which we are now setting out the position perfectly clearly since there was some doubt in the past as far as unregistered rights were concerned. The Department of Lands, which has been acting as agent for the Department of Water Affairs in the expropriation of land, informs me that in the past, in practically all cases, they have only taken into account registered water rights and ownership rights, and that they have never had to deal with unregistered rights where they have expropriated land for the Department of Water Affairs, until very recently when there was a court case and the Supreme Court found that the Department of Lands was misinterpreting the Water Act and held that separate offers must also be made to the holders of unregistered rights, whether the Department was aware of them or not. We then decided to bring about these changes. We contested the judgment in the Appellate Division and the Appellate Division upheld the Supreme Court’s judgment. We then decided to amend the Act to bring about clarity and to safeguard the State to a greater extent against exploitation or abuses. This Bill provides quite rightly that where there is expropriation all registered rights should be taken into account. It does not provide, as I understood the hon. member for Ceres to interpret it, that after notice in the Gazette and after three consecutive weekly notices in a local newspaper advertising the proposed expropriation, it would not avail the bona fide owner of an unregistered right to approach the Department because we would not negotiate with him. The implication of this Bill is that the person who has an unregistered right must negotiate with the owner of the property. He must claim from the owner because we pay compensation to the owner for any inconvenience caused over and above the compensation he receives and which is based on the fair market value of his land. The owner of an unregistered right must therefore negotiate with the owner of the property in respect of any compensation. As this Bill has been explained to me by lawyers the State will, in the case of expropriation, only determine the value of the land, compensate the owner accordingly, and also compensate him in respect of any registered rights. If the registered owner of any rights, as in the case of a registered owner of land, is not satisfied with the compensation offered, he can go to the Water Court for a decision. I want to make it clear that this change has deliberately been made because we are of the opinion that circumstances may arise which will make it impossible for the Department to determine who is an unregistered owner of a right and who not and whether the person has just simply come forward because he had heard that the State was going to expropriate and pay compensation.

As far as the control of water sport areas is concerned the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) alleges that there is overlapping between this legislation and the Sea-shore Act. I can only tell him that this legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sea-shore Act. The two do not overlap; we do not want to have anything to do with sea-shore areas; we are not entering upon any sea-shore area when we say we are going to declare areas water-sport control areas where necessary. The term “shore” is used in one instance in this legislation but that is only because we want to control those areas of rivers which are subject to tides. Those tidal areas of rivers do not fall under the Seashore Act. The Sea-shore Act can only be applied to the area from the high water mark. Where the sea flows up rivers so that you get tides in those rivers the term “shore” is still used. For the rest we have nothing to do with any shores. I think that is also my reply to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I do not want to take over the responsibilities of the Department of Lands; I have far too much on my shoulders as it is.

In many cases they do not have sufficient power.

If they do not have sufficient power they must take more. If they control areas other than sea-shore areas where they want to provide facilities that is their own affair.

The hon. member has said that where we delegate power we must see to it that such power is delegated to responsible bodies and that the powers so delegated must be clearly circumscribed so that those bodies can exercise those powers in the most effective manner considering the importance and the increasing importance of water sport. Our object is only to declare an area a sport control area in order to ensure that the public is given the maximum protection. Hon. members must look at water sport, whether it be for amusement of for sport as such, in its entirety. That is also the reason why we do not want to define it in detail. I do not think you will find a definition which will exclude the one and not overlap the other. They are too closely connected. We want to organize and control the indulgence in sport and other amusement, which cannot perhaps be regarded as sport in the strict sense of the word, at such places in such a way that the person who only wants to swim or only wants to fish will not be exposed to any danger. If the place where the various water sports are indulged in is big enough I see no reason why the bodies to which we delegate the power to control them cannot properly divide that area into various areas where the different sports can be indulged in.

That can only be done in theory.

No. We have not a great deal of experience as yet but I am busy putting this idea into practice in co-operation, particularly, with the Natal, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State provincial authorities. Those authorities have acquired a great deal of experience in this connection. There are bodies whose specific object it is to exercise considerable control over recreational resorts at certain inland dams. I think for instance of the Erfenis Dam in the Free State and the Willem Pretorius Nature Reserve with all its facilities. I do not think it is the function of the Department of Water Affairs to establish an organization within the Department to exercise control over recreational facilities at State dams. The policy is therefore, that where we are asked to exercise control, where we are requested to provide facilities, to delegate the power to do so to certain public bodies. The best body in this respect is the provincial authority, of course; in some areas, like here in Cape Town, it can be the municipality or it can even be the divisional council. The idea is to do the same in this case. Where this legislation places the responsibility to take over the control in the case of an ordinary dam on a farm or an inland lake or an estuary, etc., on the shoulders of the Minister and the Department of Water Affairs, the Minister will not be so irresponsible as to proclaim every little dam or swimming pool a water-sport control area, just for the sake of declaring it such. We shall introduce control at those places where it is necessary to do so. Let me give an example. A private person may have a dam. It makes no difference how big the dam is; the size of the dam has nothing to do with the matter but only the activities which take place on that dam. That person may decide that he wants to try to make money out of that dam because there is a need for water-sport facilities in that area. He charges an entrance fee to the dam and he makes it available for water sport but for the rest he withdraws and exercises no control. Not only may there be chaos within a short period but that place may become a death trap because of the lack of control. In such a case this Bill gives me the power, without the owner asking for it, but in the interests of the public, to declare that private dam a water-sport control area. I shall then promulgate the regulations and get people to exercise the necessary control. I can compel him to do it or I can see to it that it is done. We have already received requests from various places. Take Port Alfred, for instance. No Department has the power to do anything there. It is not really a State water-sport area; it is really a water amusement area. The people sail in ordinary little boats; they are simply not well-acquainted with the sea. The sea pushes up the river, the people sail down it and land in the sea. When they want to return they find they cannot do so. A number of fatal accidents have already occurred there. The Department of Water Affairs has already been requested to do something about the position and to introduce some form of control. I merely mention that as an example. The intention is not to declare the whole world a State water control area. That will only be done where the position is beginning to get out of hand and where the people are being chased away instead of being attracted to the area. In that case we shall see to it that the proper control is exercised, also as far as the necessary accommodation and so forth is concerned. We shall declare the area a control area for those purposes. As in the case of State water works we think we should have the power to delegate certain powers and which powers are we going to delegate? Naturally we cannot delegate our main function. I shall not simply delegate all the power I am given under this legislation to introduce control because the Minister and the Department of Water Affairs remain responsible for the exercise of control. Where it is the responsibility of the Minister and the Department to exercise control I think they should retain that control and only delegate such power as they deem necessary at any specific time. If it appears necessary at a later stage to delegate more power it can be done. Because I know that if malpractices should arise at some place or other where power has been delegated to a oublie body by the Department, hon. members and the public will not hold that public body responsible. The Minister and his Department of Water Affairs will be attacked here in Parliament for having delegated the power to control to such inefficient bodies and for not having retained sufficient power to see to it that that control was properly exercised.

I think this is the only way in which these things can be done.

Do I understand the Minister correctly. Is it not his intention at all to act in respect of the area from the high water mark along the sea-shore?

No. That falls under the Department of Lands. This Bill only provides for those areas for which no other law makes provision at the moment. Because the Department of Water Affairs has to do with water and has to control State dams it was felt that it was the indicated Department, due to the experience it has already gained, to undertake this additional responsibility.

I do not think there are any points dealing with a principle, raised during this second-reading debate. I have not touched upon and explained. If it is not yet quite clear what is envisaged we can have a fruitful discussion at the Committee Stage and I shall therefore not say anything further at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The pharmaceutical industry has undergone tremendous changes since the Second World War. This has been due to the completely new scientific approach to this matter and also to new methods. The result is that a continuous stream of new drugs is being released, drugs which are far more effective than earlier medicines. These are drugs which are of great benefit but which can also cause great harm.

Accordingly, it has become necessary to take steps in order to retain the advantages of this new development but at the same time to protect the public. In the first place then this Bill is intended to protect the public without causing harm to any fair and honest pharmaceutical activities. As I have said, the country is to-day being flooded by new drugs, very effective drugs. According to the report of the Snyman Commission we already have about 25,000 well-known drugs in South Africa today and this number is increasing at the rate of about 200 per month. These new drugs are very effective in combating disease in certain of the human organs but they often have harmful effects on other organs of the body. These drugs are, for example, very effective in killing harmful bacteria in the human body but they are often just as effective in destroying bacteria which are necessary for human health. One can actually say that every drug does at the same time also have its harmful effects if it is used wrongly. I do not think it is wrong to say that there are few drugs which are not also poisonous.

Because of this stream of medicines it does happen from time to time that catastrophes occur. I think of the catastrophe in the case of thalidomide. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that thalidomide came on to the market a few years ago. It was advertised as a wonder drug for the prevention of morning sickness. The effect of this drug proved later to be catastrophic. It resulted in the birth of misformed babies. Babies were born without arms or legs; with their eyes completely covered by skin. We in South Africa were spared the dreadful results of this drug in England, but only by luck. Fortunately, the firms were so busily engaged in marketing this wonder drug in other countries that it was only marketed in South Africa at a later stage and then only to a small extent. When we heard what had happened in Europe, the Department took steps immediately to trace all the thalidomide on sale in South. Africa and, fortunately, most of it was traced. As far as we can ascertain this drug has had no ill effects in South Africa.

We find, for example, that hormone creams are marketed. This cream is advertised as being effective in giving young girls mature female figures at an earlier stage. It was, however, ascertained that this drug caused some of those poor girls to develop cancer. It has already been discovered in South Africa that there are certain hair lotions which have detrimental effects upon the hearing or upon the sight. This is the position not only in South Africa but in many countries. I should like to quote the following from a British periodical—

I shall not mention its name but it is a very well-known antibiotic—

One of the reasons for these unfortunate happenings is the fact that the primary aim of some large pharmaceutical industries is to make a profit, and for this reason they want to market the new products which they manufacture as soon as possible. The natural tendency is then to market these drugs without their being adequately tested. Most of these tests are performed on rats. It is true that the effect of a drug on a rat is probably in many cases an indication of what its effect will be, upon the human system, but this is not always the case. The effect on one animal is not always a proof that it will have the same effect upon another animal or upon a human being. The effect differs not only from human to human but also from animal to animal. I was informed recently that in the case of thalidomide it was tested very thoroughly on certain animals in Germany and had no harmful effects upon them. This same drug was then tested on the same type of animal in England where it did have harmful effects. It was only after those animals had been imported into Germany from England that it was ascertained that thalidomide had these harmful effects. It is therefore vitally necessary that before a dangerous drug can be marketed it must be tested, under strict control, on the human body. It often takes years before the effectiveness of such a drug can actually be proved. It takes years before one is able to judge what its actual effects are. The result of this is that there is the natural tendency on the part of large firms who are out to make large profits not to test a drug as thoroughly as they ought to test it.

In England the medical periodical The Lancet contends that only in the minority of cases are drugs properly tested. This is not what I say; it is what the medical periodical The Lancet says. A Professor Wilson of Sheffield in England says that of 56 new drugs which he investigated in 1961, only 25 had been tested properly. On the grounds of what the experts say, therefore, we come to the conclusion that a large number of the drugs which are allowed into a country are not tested properly. These drugs do not always affect only the patient; they sometimes have an effect upon the children of that patient. I think again in this connection of thalidomide. I cannot vouch for the experiments; I am simply mentioning details that have been mentioned in periodicals in this regard. Experiments with thalidomide were made on the male species of certain animals and it was proved that this drug also had an effect upon the progeny of these animals. In other words, these effects can to a certain extent and under certain circumstances become hereditary. All these facts make it important for us to ensure that the drugs which are used in South Africa are safe and effective.

We have certain legislation in our country which was in the past intended to make some provision in regard to this problem. In other words, we have legislation at present which is intended to control drugs and the marketing thereof but under our present legislation the position is unfortunately such that not every drug can be controlled immediately. The position in South Africa is that certain drugs may have been on the market for some years and it is only when they appear to have a harmful effect that control measures are applied; that is to say, only after they may have caused a considerable amount of harm. This is unfortunately the position under our present legislation. It sometimes takes years before we are able to ascertain that a drug is harmful, although that drug may already have had harmful effects upon many persons. This position prevails under our present legislation which consists mainly of two measures, firstly, our Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and secondly, our Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Act. The question arises immediately: If legislation already exists, why can we not simply introduce an amending Bill to make this legislation more effective? Let me explain to hon. members why we cannot do this. Section 83 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act establishes control over therapeutic materials but it defines therapeutic materials as a very limited group of drugs which are mainly of biological origin and which accordingly spoil fairly quickly, such as, for example, vaccines, toxins, insulin, salvarsan, and so forth, and it provides further that the Minister may by regulation determine the standard with which these therapeutic materials must comply. Sir, when one has to deal with individual drugs which are marketed from time to time, it may perhaps be possible for a Minister or a Department to set standards artificially. This will not always be satisfactory; it will to a large extent be arbitrary, but it may be possible. But when there is a large stream of drugs, as large as the stream I mentioned of 200 drugs per months which have to be tested, drugs whose effects have to be determined and in regard to which standards have to be fixed, it becomes impossible to make use of this machinery under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act in order to exercise at all effective control. It is precisely for this reason that we are establishing new machinery in this Bill, machinery which has been carefully worked out to ensure that a body of experts will decide what the standards are to be, when drugs can be passed, how effective they are, and so forth —a body which will act impartially and scientifically. But the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act has a second form of control over drugs and this is a form of control which is to-day to a large extent obsolete and does not fit in with modern circumstances. The method is as follows: It divides drugs into three groups in terms of three Schedules of the Act. The groups are poisons, habit-forming drugs and potentially harmful medicines. A large number of provisions are laid down in the Act and in the regulations in respect of these three groups; for example, provision is made for the way in which poisons must be packed, how they are to be stored, that registers have to be kept and so forth. It provides that habit-forming medicines or possibly harmful medicines may only be sold on a doctor’s prescription. These provisions may have been quite adequate in the past but it is not sufficient to-day simply to keep a register and to know who has bought these poisonous preparations. Nor is it adequate to provide that one may only purchase certain drugs on a doctor’s prescription. This affords no protection at all and is by no means adequate. As I have said, we can to some extent say that virtually every drug is poisonous. One may, quite rightly perhaps include every drug in the list of poisons, but to what avail? We need a very effective method of control, a method which has been suggested by the Snyman Commission.

As I have said, every drug has its good results but it also has its harmful results, and every drug may perhaps be very effective in combating certain ailments and certain diseases under certain circumstances. Let me mention an example. A good doctor may use a powerful antibiotic, for example, to combat a serious disease like gastric fever, but it would be an irresponsible doctor who would use a powerful antibiotic with all its possible side effects to combat a minor ailment like a boil. The drug must fit the disease. In these new drugs our doctors have a wonderful weapon if it is correctly used but it is really impossible for a doctor, no matter what his training and knowledge may be, also to remain acquainted with the capacities, advantages and disadvantages of this tremendous stream of drugs which are coming into the country at the rate of 200 per month. The chairman of a British committee dealing with the classification of drugs has said that most doctors receive their first and often their only information from the manufacturer of the drug. He says that the information they receive from the manufacturer is often biased and unreliable and even misleading and distorted. One can understand this because the large pharmaceutical organizations are there to make a profit. One can understand that it is only natural for them to enlarge upon the virtues of their own preparations and minimize the disadvantages and dangers thereof. But even if this is so, the position is still an undesirable one. The methods used by a manufacturer in marketing his preparations are advertisements in periodicals or newspapers or brochures, or otherwise, through the medium of his representatives, highly-paid people who go from chemist to chemist and from doctor to doctor to convince them of the worth of the specific preparation. In this process the manufacturer always uses one method in his advertising and that is an artificial name which he gives his new drug and which he advertises on such a large scale that he is able to bring the drug to the notice of the doctor. He usually makes use of artificial or arbitrary names. These are names which mean nothing and the doctor has to remember each name together with its separate characteristics and harmful effects. The doctor who uses that drug is not easily able to understand its pharmocological effect and he is not able to discriminate so easily. He is often led to use the most expensive drug, which is not always the best. The scientific method is to group everything into classes and to understand the characteristics of those classes. Once one knows the classes, it is easier for one to learn and to remember the meaning of each portion of that class, and to better understand every individual part of that group. That is why it is considered to be of the greatest importance to-day that doctors should be assisted to understand the drugs which they use through the medium of the name itself. During the past ten years all the important Western countries have made very great strides in the direction of having greater efficiency in the naming of drugs. The reasonableness in regard to the names depends upon various factors. I should perhaps in the first place say this.

The chemical industry and chemical science has developed to such an extent that when a chemist is planning a drug he is able to predict in advance what the characteristics of that drug will be if he changes the structure, the molecular structure of those drugs slightly by the addition of a small group here or a small group there. In other words, there is already a certain value in the chemical composition of the drug. But, more so, the practice of classifying drugs into groups having the same type of effect, having comparable characteristics, is also an important step forward as regards developing an understanding of the effect of those drugs. Let me mention a few examples. In the pharmaceutical world barbiturates, sulfanamides, androgenic steroids, penicillins and antibiotics of the tetracyclic group are already being grouped together. If a doctor receives a certain new drug and he knows that it belongs to one or other of those groups, he will immediately know to a very large extent what the effects and the results of that drug will be. He is then far better able to understand its effects and to prescribe that drug far more intelligently. When he approaches it on a more rational basis he is also able to judge between two drugs which belong to the same group and which may have the same effect, although one is expensive and the other less expensive. This also enables him to consider the economic position of his patient and so it is not always necessary for him to prescribe the most expensive medicines for his patient. The report of the Snyman Commission states that it was estimated in Canada in 1959 that if the generic names of a series of 32 preparations had been used instead of the trade names, 56 per cent of the expense in that connection could have been avoided; in other words, more than half. By using the names of these preparations effectively they would have been able to save more than half of the cost of those preparations. The British Pharmacopoeia Commission, in co-operation with other commissions in other countries and in consultation with the World Health Organization, has recommended that all drugs should have approved names. I say that the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, in co-operation with similar commissions of other large countries and in co-operation with the World Health Organization, recommends that all drugs should have approved names founded on a rational basis; for example, in dealing with a sedative of the barbiturate group, the Commission recommends that the name of the drug should include the word “barb” either in the middle or at the end of the name. One will then, for example, have drugs like amo-barbital, or buto-bartitone, both of which contain the word “barb”. This immediately tells the doctor that these are sedatives belonging to the barbiturate group. I should like to mention another example, the question of local anaesthetics. The Commission recommends that in the case of local anaesthetics, the name should always end with “caine”. One will then have new drugs such as tetra-caine, merpiva-caine and lidocaine. In the case of the antibiotic and penicillin family, they recommend that the word “cillin” should always appear at the end of the name, and so we have bi-cillin, phenithicillin, methi-cillin and so forth. The Snyman Commission also suggests that in the future, when the trade name of any new drug is used, the generic name, or rather, let me say, the approved name should be clearly indicated as the main name. That is why we are providing in this Bill, where practicable—it is not practicable in all cases—that the new drugs control council shall always register drugs under their approved names. That name will usually be the name given to it by the Pharmacopoeia Commission. The Bill also provides further that the approved name under which the drugs can be registered, shall always be prominently displayed in any advertisement and on the packaging. It will not always be possible to make use of these names because, in the case of patent medicines, for example, one finds that these medicines usually consist of a number of in gredients, and when there are a number of ingredients, it is impossible to determine that that medicine will have a name which is applicable to one or other of those ingredients. In such a case the council has the power to decide that the trade name shall be sufficient.

Briefly then, Mr. Speaker, these are the main characteristics and provisions of the Bill. There may perhaps be a few further provisions of the Bill to which I should draw the attention of hon. members—some of the more important provisions. The first is that a drugs control council is being brought into being in terms of this Bill, a council which will consist of not more than 11 prominent persons, chiefly doctors, pharmocologists and pharmacists. It is also being specifically provided in the Bill that it will be possible to appoint a few other persons. For example, it may be desirable for a lawyer to serve on the council. I have on various occasions heard the Medical Council express its appreciation of the fact that one of our leading lawyers has a seat on the Medical Council. It may in the future be of value to appoint a lawyer to this council and the Bill makes it possible for this to be done. It may also be desirable to have another chemist as a member of the council and the Bill also makes this possible.

It is the intention further that this council will be a completely independent body; it will not be a council which will be a subdivision of the Department but a body which will be able to make its own decisions, quite independently, without pressure from any interest whatsoever and without pressure from any department. This council will have to examine all drugs and ascertain whether they comply with the requirements, and in its determination in this regard the council will be guided largely by the provisions of the British Pharmacopoeia or other Pharmacopoeia. It may appear that the decision of the British Pharmacopoeia is not desirable and that is why it is being left to the council itself to decide in the event of its being able to arrive at a better description or determination than that of the Pharmacopoeia. In the second place, it will be the task of this council to register the drug and to indicate its use and the recommended dosage.

In the third place, it will be the task of the council regularly to inform the medical profession, dentists and pharmacists in regard to all new drugs together with their characteristics, their uses and their dangers. It is obvious that such council will not be able to examine all the drugs in South Africa at the same time, particularly when one remembers that there are already, as I have said, more than 25,000 drugs on the South African market at present. It will only be possible for the council to examine and do research into these drugs as groups. When the council decides not to allow a particular drug to be marketed, it will inform the undertaking which has applied for the registration of that drug of the reasons for its decision. The applicant will then have the right of reply in that regard. If then, notwithstanding the applicant’s reply, the drug is nevertheless rejected, the applicant can appeal. If it is an appeal in regard to the technical aspect of the matter, the pharmaceutical value of the drug or its effectiveness, an appeal can be lodged with a special appeal board. When it deals with other aspects, for example, the public interest, the appeal will be to the Minister because it will not be a technical decision but a decision affecting the public interest.

These in brief, Mr. Speaker, are the most important provisions of this Bill, a Bill which has become very necessary to-day, not only in the eyes of the Department but particularly from the point of view of many of our most important institutions which are interested in this matter. Before the Bill was introduced, it was published in draft form in the Government Gazette and comments were invited in regard to it. Comments were received from numbers of bodies. Certain objections were raised and were carefully considered. Where it was found reasonable to do so improvements were made to the Bill. It is very important to note that objections were only lodged in respect of certain provisions of the Bill and that nobody objected to its general principle. The following bodies welcome the Bill: The South African Medical and Dental Council, the South African Medical Association, the South African Pharmaceutical Commission, The Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa, the National Committee for the Drug Industry, the “Suid-Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut”, the Association of Retail Pharmacists, the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, and so forth.

I take the liberty, therefore, of recommending this Bill for favourable consideration by this House.

We have listened with very great interest to the words of the hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill. I have to congratulate him, a layman, on putting up as good a case as he has for his Bill. He has been very well coached and he shows a grasp of drugs which would do justice to an advocate of the highest standard who had been well briefed. He has not convinced me, however, that everything in his Drug Bill is admirable and desirable. We on this side of the House accept that there is a necessity for a Bill to control drugs. We feel that in many respects the drugs which have come on the market in this country have perhaps not been all they should have, that quality has at times been allowed to deteriorate and so forth. There was a case during the Second World War when one of the manufacturing chemists supplied drugs which were inferior in quality and found not to be acceptable on analysis. Hon. members will remember that the case was dealt with by a. Select Committee of this House. All that would not have been avoided, I am sure, even by this Bill.

The great thing we have to bear in mind in regard to drugs, particularly drugs for human beings, is that we trust the knowledge and the honesty of the doctors prescribing them, of the pharmacists dispensing them and of the pharmaceutical manufacturers who manufacture them. On the whole there is very little evidence to show that this faith and trust have been misplaced. All these things which the hon. the Minister suggested could happen have happened. We know they have happened but very seldom. Death has on some occasions taken place where the doctor has known that such a complication might arise. We know of these anti-biotics which cause blood disease. The medical profession is frequently faced with the choice between two evils: Shall we use this drug which is dangerous, and of which we know the danger, but which we hope will combat the disease or must we allow the patient to die unaided? That is the choice which faces us, Sir.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned until to-morrow.