This Department is unique among all the other Departments, because it retained under its own care its research section, when all the other Departments of State handed their research work over to the C.S.I.R. This Department alone kept control of its research and for a long time, and even now, I think they were at that time wise to do so. But since the late Prime Minister instituted an investigation into scientific organization in the country, a new form is developing, and I think this Department must now reconsider the position it holds, and which it has held well and truly. The scientific adviser of the Prime Minister, after touring the world, came to the conclusion that the present state of affairs was not the most suitable for the development of the research in the agricultural departments of this country. He states, and I quote—

He states that the only university where he found such a state of affairs was in Holland and he says that there the professors are left entirely free to do the research of their own choice. He goes on to say—

Sir, I have not heard anything which makes me feel that the hon. the Minister has undertaken to do this and I would be glad to hear from him what he intends to do. He has a most expensive research organization costing roughly between R3,000,000 and R4,000,000 every year. I would like just briefly to run over some of the items in which I am interested. I would like particularly to start by discussing the veterinary services at Onderstepoort. I see that some of the work is certainly being done in the university there; there is some association with the University of Pretoria, but the professors are on the pay-roll of the Department of Veterinary Services. In other words, they are civil servants, and as civil servants they are associated with the ordinary professors at the universities and as far as I can see they are remunerated according to the civil service scales of pay, not the scales of pay of clinical professors at the University of Pretoria and the other universities. There is no difference in this respect between the universities.

That is one of the matters on which I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s views. Secondly, I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister has any intention to establish a further faculty of veterinary science because there is an increasing demand for veterinary services in the private sector. It is much more lucrative for a veterinarian to practise privately than to work in the Department of Agriculture. There are, of course, men who like teaching and who prefer to work in the civil service, but on the whole you will find that unless you give them some other incentive the veterinary surgeons will more and more drift into the private sector and the already existing shortage of State veterinarians will increase still further.

There is another matter which I think the hon. the Minister should consider, a matter which I regard as being of great importance, and that is that a medical school, veterinary or human, also has other effects, apart from the question of producing veterinary surgeons or medical doctors. The presence of a school of medicine has an immense effect on the quality of the work in the neighbourhood; it increases the opportunities for practitioners in the area to do post-graduate studies; it gives prestige to the practitioners in that area and it leads to a great deal of research which is concentrated particularly on the problems of that particular area. It is of great benefit to the population as a whole if it is situated in a thickly populated area because it provides an opportunity for humble people, for people of moderate means, to send their children to these schools. The parents in every town or city which has in it a medical school, veterinary or otherwise, have an opportunity of sending their children to that school, which will draw students not only from the immediate neighbourhood but from other areas. It is a great handicap to a large city not to have a school of medicine, or even a university generally.

We have just passed the Rand Afrikaans University Bill and one of the main arguments there was that the people living in the area where the new university will be established, were handicapped by the fact that they were unable to send their children to university. If the hon. the Minister wants to derive the greatest benefit from his veterinary services he should look for an area where the conditions are different from those in Pretoria, and that is where he should establish his new veterinary faculty. Not only that particular area but the whole of the country will then derive the greatest benefit from the establishment of such a faculty. [Time limit.]

I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Central) that basic research is essential, but I think the hon. member has misplaced the emphasis. I think that what is needed at present is more practical research in respect of the practical problems experienced by the farmer on his farm. The hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow up that point; I should like to refer to the extremely sombre picture, actually a warped picture, which the hon. member for East London (City) painted last night as regards the sheep numbers and the future of the wool clip. Here in my hand I have the September issue of the monthly Georganiseerde Landbou, which presents the very opposite picture of the situation as regards sheep numbers and the wool industry (Translation)—

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not follow the argument advanced by the hon. member last night. If the hon. member looks at page 191 of the Estimates, he may be able, perhaps in collaboration with the hon. member for Durban (Point), to go and do some good work in Natal, because provision is made here for a contribution of R2,600 for the maintenance of the show of the Royal Agricultural Society of Natal. In my view the “Royal” does not sound quite “loyal”.

For understandable reasons the drought situation has so far dominated this debate. There is great concern about the adverse effect of the prolonged drought conditions on the food supplies of this fast-growing country of ours. There is concern about the plight of thousands of farmers and their families who are driven off the land as a result of the drought. There is great concern about the effect of the prolonged drought on the soil itself, the irreplaceable value of which has been emphasized repeatedly in this debate. One may agree in general with some of the statements made yesterday by the hon. member for Gardens when he opened the debate, but allow me to respond to the argument of the hon. member for Gardens by referring to some aspects in respect of which he blundered, particularly as regards his allegation that this Government was powerless to cope with the drought situation. Mr. Chairman, has the hon. member for Gardens compared the position of our farmers in the drought-stricken regions with that of farmers in the drought-stricken regions in the neighbouring countries? It is reported that in the neigbouring country of Botswana from 400,000 to 50,000,000 cattle died as a result of the drought last year, and 120,000 people are facing starvation, if one can attach any value to the relevant F.H.O. Report on drought conditions there.

We are experiencing hardships and we have cause for concern, but there is no question whatsoever of damage to that extent or of panic among our farming community. Has the hon. member perhaps considered the situation as regards soil erosion in our neighbouring country of Lesotho? If the hon. member wants to express concern, I think he should go and look at the extent of the uncontrollable soil erosion in Lesotho. I want to suggest that by means of the imaginative scheme for the reclamation of grazing, and also the intensification of soil and water conservation projects, and the rationalizing in respect of fodder production and fodder distribution, the era is dawning in which the claws of drought will be clipped once and for all in this country. South Africa’s farmers will most definitely be much better equipped for future droughts of this magnitude. Our farmers, in the Transvaal at any rate, are adapting their farms to drought conditions. There is abundant evidence of that. True to his nature, the farmer is once again devising a solution. Our farmers have become more fodder conscious than ever before, not only as regards growing fodder, but also as regards the economic use of fodder. They have become more soil and water conservation conscious than ever before, and furthermore—which is most important—the city dweller has also become soil and water conservation conscious, as the hon. member for Brentwood testified last night. With the assistance of the Government’s contributions and the good work done by our extension officers, and with the farmers’ insight and determination, they are beating the drought. Why, does the hon. member for Gardens think, is R74.850 more appropriated in respect of reclamation and conservation works in these Estimates than was appropriated last year, so that the total amount is now almost R500,000? Why is R510,000 more appropriated in respect of bonuses and subsidies for soil conservation works, so that it now totals more than R1,500,000? This reflects the increasing interest of the farmer himself in these works.

Mr. Chairman, some of the best news in years was the news that the hon. the Minister was giving favourable consideration to representations that trained farmers associated with soil conservation committees should in future be employed and remunerated for survey and other planning work carried out by them in connection with soil and water conservation. This is a decidedly positive break-through on which hon. members of the Opposition have not placed adequate emphasis. Another point in respect of which positive progress has been made is the increased amount appropriated for publicity services, i.e. R156,000 as against R144,900 last year. Our country is extensive and our manpower limited. We have relatively few extension officers, but periodicals and the radio nevertheless reach virtually every farmhouse, and the well-planned extension film, which may be shown by any executive member of any alert farmers’ association, will continue to be of great value.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to advocate the following matters as regards agricultural publicity with a view to lending even greater force to this machinery of the Department. I plead that in his extension work every extension officer should continually emphasize the contents of Farming in South Africa, the monthly periodical. In my view the departmental officials can do a great deal to bring this valuable periodical to the notice of farmers and to extend its circulation. Secondly, I plead that the brilliant little publication Agricultural News should be supplied free of charge to the secretaries of all farmers’ associations in the country, in order that the information contained in it may be transmitted to the individual farmer by way of the farmers’ association. This is the kind of information which does not easily reach the agricultural periodicals. I plead that the Department should make many more extension films and colour-slide series than at present, and make them available to farmers’ associations, particularly series and films in respect of successful farming methods during times of drought. Finally, I plead that Radio South Africa should allocate at least one night a week of special agricultural programmes to “Calling all Farmers”, which is perhaps the most successful publicity medium of the Department. This will also serve to give the thousands of city dwellers more insight into the problems of agriculture. Lack of timeous information has proved the death-blow to more than one farmer, and also to groups of farmers, particularly when disasters strike un-expectantly, as happened recently in the Transvaal with the outbreak of quick-sickness. With a little bit of extra attention and perhaps slightly more initiative and imaginative planning the Department can employ this powerful extension medium to the greater advantage of the farmer and therefore of the country. [Time limit.]

To conclude what I was saying a few minutes ago, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions about other matters in his Department and to draw his attention to the absence of laboratories throughout the country where diagnosis can be rapidly done. He has re-established the Allerton laboratory in Natal which is only a diagnostic laboratory but which is unable to diagnose rabies. There is no provision in this laboratory for the diagnosis of rabies. Rabies is to-day an endemic disease throughout Zululand, Natal and parts of Griqualand East with the result that every now and then—not frequently, I am pleased to say—there is a rabies scare and the delay in obtaining a positive diagnosis is a serious matter because it is serious to the human victims. The method of treatment that we have at our disposal in medicine for humans is very unpleasant and frequently fatal. It is difficult to say whether the patients die of the treatment or of the disease, because both are very grave, and the disease itself, as far as we know, has always produced fatal results. Sir, time is the important factor. No doctor wants to give patients anti-rabies treatment if he is not forced to do it, yet he knows perfectly well that if he delays the chances of giving the patient relief are very small. That is an unfair position in which to place our doctors and it is an unfair position in which to place the patients and the guardians of patients. The Minister should therefore as soon as possible make provision for the positive, early diagnosis of rabies in the affected areas. I am not making any complaints about the prophylactic treatment; it is satisfactory. I want also to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent there is co-operation with the laboratories in the large cities. As far as I know the Minister’s Department has no other laboratories. I refer to the pathological laboratories in cities like East London and Port Elizabeth. Does the Minister co-operate with the existing hospital laboratories?

Then I want to refer to the rather small amount of time and labour which is given to pest control. It is by no means adequate, nor, as far as one can judge, is one able to find much in the way of original research published. Every now and then journals like the Farmer’s Weekly contain excellent articles but little of it deals with original research. People’s time is taken up with trying to teach the farmer and trying to provide some means of controlling pests. Sir, the gravest problem that faces the world to-day is the control of pests. Man’s fight against the insect pest is one which it cannot win and never will win but he may lose it, and it would be a tragedy for us if we let the rest of the world down by developing some pest which in the end breaks through the control that we have been able to devise. Man has been able to deal with all other pests; we have been able to deal with wild animals, snakes, rats, etc. All these things we have succeeded in controlling, but man has never found an answer to the problem of the insect which develops and breeds at such a fast rate.

We in this country must take our place with the rest of the world in conducting investigations and we must be prepared to fight all pests. There has been some investigation, although not a great deal, into the care of the predators which live on the pests. There is a commission sitting at the present time in connection with pesticides. Pesticides, Sir, are a failure. There can be no doubt that the widespread use of insecticides is failing to control insects, and the longer an insecticide is used the less effective it becomes. We have not found an answer to the problem of the destruction of sorghum by birds. Although the bird which eats the sorghum is not an insect it is a pest. Sir, I could mention other fields in which this Department has fallen on its scientific work. In Australia they laid a pipeline of 150 miles. The department of soil research took advantage of this opportunity to obtain a profile of soil content over a stretch of 150 miles. We in this country have just laid a 400 mile pipeline and I would like to know whether our soil research department took advantage of this opportunity …

To which pipeline are you referring?

The oil pipeline from Durban to Johannesburg. Has the Minister’s Department not heard of it?

Yes, we have heard of it but we have nothing to do with it.

Sir, the pipeline was laid about four feet under the ground, and a ditch was cut over the whole of this distance. In some cases there were blasting operations. Sir, here we had an opportunity that may never occur again to get a profile of the soil from Durban to Johannesburg.

And the Free State.

And in the Free State. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban (Central) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument. Mr. Chairman, we have made very good progress with soil conservation and conservation farming. The 815 soil conservation committee districts to which the hon. the Minister has referred cover 112,700,0 morgen, and of the 119,725 farms within these districts, 37,587 have been planned, i.e. 31.5 per cent of the total. So much for the physical aspect of conservation farming. But this morning I should like to refer to some of the economic aspects of conservation farming and soil conservation. From the economic point of view, soil conservation should meet certain requirements.

One of the most important aspects is the period over which it extends. It should remain an economic investment because it stretches over a long period, and for that reason interest and capital redemption over that period is of the utmost importance. It should stimulate productivity in such a way that the increased yield will always maintain a sound balance between investment on the one hand and capital redemption on the other. This balance is of the utmost importance, and in the process we should not lose sight of the balance between investment and eventual farm production capacity. The fact of the matter is that every farm has an optimum production capacity at a given investment. We may perhaps increase the physical production by exceeding this limit in capital expenditure, but we can never extend the optimum economic production level beyond a certain limit merely by further capital expenditure.

The question that causes me concern is whether there are adequate economic extension and research results available to our farmers to enable them to see these two factors, which go hand in hand, in the correct perspective. If we extend the large-scale application of soil conservation beyond a certain limit, it may have economic disadvantages. I feel that the emphasis should be shifted more and more to the economic considerations that should apply in respect of conservation farming and planning of individual units. I feel that the Department should concentrate on making more research—seen from that point of view— available to the farmer. We may also approach our soil conservation from another angle, and that is that as a result of the inherent physical features of our country—I am thinking in particular of the existing and inherent topographical, geological and climatological problems—certain areas of our country are more prone to erosion and all its concomitant hazards. In the second place we have certain inherited malpractices that have been in sway for several generations in certain regions in our country and that impose a heavy burden on the present generation if those malpractices are to be eliminated.

The question occurs to one:

Is it fair that this generation should shoulder and correct all the malpractices of the past? I do not believe it is fair that the burden should rest entirely on this generation. On a country-wide basis we should have regard to the inherent differences, firstly in topography, and secondly in certain regions where malpractices have obtained over a long period. We should draw regional distinctions in the economic assistance to be rendered in respect of soil conservation in certain regions, instead of merely approaching it on a country-wide and uniform basis. We all agree that it is not a problem for the farmer or the agriculturist only. In my view we should begin to see it more and more as a national task. This means that if we approach it on a national basis, we cannot place the burden only on the shoulders of those who make a living from agriculture. It means that the State should shoulder a greater financial burden and that all the aspects of the implementation of a national soil conservation plan should be shifted more and more to the shoulders of the State.

There is another aspect which has a significant effect on the eventual success we may achieve, and that is the role of water in conservation farming. No grazing or camp system can be a success unless there is adequate water available. We all accept that. It should always be a prerequisite to planning. One cannot fence off a camp first and then look foi water. We shall have to do more and more research along those lines, and I wonder whether the Department is doing adqouate hydrological research in that field, particularly in respect of our subterranean water problem. Have we carried out adequate subterranean water surveys to serve as a basis for research of this nature? I believe that in this respect we should launch a research programme of wider scope than the present one. I would even suggest an alternative plan for the exploitation of subterranean water. Our water table shows a disconcerting fall. In this respect the farmer is not the only one to blame. Local authorities and mines are pumping up millions of gallans of subterranean water. By doing so we are creating certain problems. The farmer also faces the great economic risk involved in exploiting subterraean water. I believe that in the north-west alone the State has already spent approximately R60,000,000 on abortive and dry boreholes and on boreholes that became brackish.

The question arises whether we should not seek an alternative in this respect. I want to suggest that we should do research or inquire into the possibility of making more and more use of pipelines as a source of water for the farmer—here I am thinking in particular of our stock-farming regions—and that we should not rely on the borehole only. The risk involved in sinking boreholes is too high in the first instance. Pipelines will enable us to make a definite estimate. They would provide considerably more security. And even if their initial capital outlay is higher, I believe that the economic stability to be derived from them will be adequate as such to compensate for any possibly higher capital expenditure. We simply cannot continue sinking boreholes on the same scale as hitherto. The long-term effects on our country and our soil that arise from sinking boreholes and dehydrating our soil hold too many hazards for the State and the soil.

Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with certain of the remarks made by the hon. member for Middelburg. I do not intend to follow him down the borehole. I feel that is something that should be discussed under the Department of Water Affairs. But I feel that he has there a very strong point to make. I wish to revert to the question of the “soil crisis”, as it has been called in an editorial in the Natal Mercury some weeks ago, and I quote—

I think that that is a graphic description of the size of the physical problem which we have got to face in this country of ours. I agree with the hon. member for Middelburg that in the past this country has been farmed in a wrong fashion, and we have now got to get down to the task of reclaiming it. One of the things that worries me very much indeed about the present condition of our farmlands is the declining fertility of the soil. This point has been touched upon by many prominent people in agriculture, and I believe this is one of the most important things which we face.

Because, Sir, the physical problem of the depletion of our fertility is something which affects the whole future of South Africa and what the White man has done. I need hardly bring to the attention of hon. members the cases in history where whole civilizations have disappeared because of faulty agricultural practices. One which springs to mind immediately is the civilization of the Maya people in Central America where their system of slashing and burning the forests and moving on simply collapsed and the whole of their civilization collapsed with it. There was also the civilization of Mesopotamia which was built up on a system of the preservation of water which was destroyed by the Arabs in the invasion in 650. An area which was one of the cradles of civilization in the world has to-day become a desert. I feel that we face here a tremendous problem, one which has been referred to by the hon. member for Walmer as a war. I am inclined to agree.

In passing I often wonder whether we could not ask the hon. the Minister to prevail upon his colleague the Minister of Defence to make available to the soil conservation efforts some of the time of the trainees of our Citizens Force. There should be an organized effort to get down to the physical reclamation that is necessary in this country to make up the backlog. It is not a question of simply preserving the status quo. We are behind, Sir, and we have got to get ahead. I believe that during the time trainees are in the Citizen Force we would be able to use them to very great advantage. Moreover, we would be familiarizing them with the countryside where they will be fighting a war.

They will not be fighting a war in their camps—they will be fighting it in the countryside. We will also be bringing them into contact with the immense problem which we face and the immense size of this country of ours which I believe is something which is a source of fear to the average person living in a city. We would be bringing them into contact with the urgency of the position, and I believe that when they are disbanded and they go back to their homes, we would have interested them in a problem which may well lead to their recruitment into the Department of the hon. the Minister to be technical and extension officers who are so desperately needed in this country of ours. I make this as a suggestion. It may be impractical. I do not know. But I believe it is something which might be approached in this fashion, and it may well help us in this country.

The point has been made here that we have got to double our food production within the next 50 years to carry the estimated population which we will have by the year 2020. And not only that. I believe that we are going to be called upon in this country to feed our own population and also the population just immediately beyond our borders. In view of the fact that our soils are declining I want to pose the question whether in fact our policy of fertilizer subsidization is the right one. I ask that in view of the fact that we are subsidizing fertilizer to-day on the basis of production. We are subsidizing balanced mixtures which a farmer will use for production. He is investing his money for an immediate return. I wonder whether we would not be better advised to concentrate on the basic fertilizer, to subsidize massive fertilization particularly of rock phosphate, lime and potash in those areas where it is necessary.

I am putting this from the point of view of increasing the fertility of the soils of South Africa which goes hand in hand with the question of soil conservation. If we are able to have fertile soils, the farmer will be able to cope with the charges which are mentioned by the hon. member for Middelburg of meeting the physical cost of soil conservation. I believe that we can well look to a different system, and I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the results which have been obtained in Natal under the direction of his Department with one of the prize farms which I believe is one of the best farms in South Africa, a farm which won the soil conservation cup—the Umgeni Catchment Cup—over farms such as the one Beaulieu at Richmond, which is a nationally famous farm and which is known beyond our borders. It also won it over the farm belonging to the Kusel family in the area of the hon. member for Vryheid. This farm I refer to is the farm Loskop which is within three miles of my home near Howick. There a farm was taken over which some 20, 30 years ago was regarded as a sour farm. It was a hard farm. But by reasons of massive investment in basic rock phosphates and in lime a farm has been built up which has won the prize over some of the best farms in South Africa. It has been done, as I say, by this investment in basic fertility. Once you have got the level of your soil up to that level the farmer can then invest his money in nitrogen which brings an immediate return on his investment.

Some figures from this farm are very interesting indeed. On one of the farms a land was out of production for seven years after being continually cropped for 50 years. In 1957 a basic fertilizer treatment in the form of a ton of basic rock phosphate and a ton of lime was applied, and the following year, after this field had been out of production for seven years—production had been abandoned because it had been cropped continuously for 50 years—when a crop of white maize was planted, it yielded 13 bags to the acre. I think that is above the national average. I believe that in this way, by looking to the basic fertility, we will be able to restore the fertility of soils to the point where it makes it worthwhile for a farmer to go in for the very high yields which are going to solve the problem which we are going to have to face, namely the problem of providing food for a population which is rising and which threatens to engulf us and everything that we have achieved here in this country. I put it forward to the Minister. He has a very wide-awake research station and college at Cedara. Perhaps they could go further into this matter. To us in Natal this is a very real problem. Hon. members talk about droughts. In the particular part where I live we treat it as a joke and we say in summer that if it does not rain for three weeks we have a drought.

You will be punished.

That may well happen. But the problem is that in the high rainfall areas the leaching of the soil poses a problem which we believe can be solved by means such as this. I think that the hon. the Minister’s Department can help us very much indeed on lines such as these.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not take it amiss if I tell you how pleased I am that you have returned unscathed to our midst after your experience and your visit across the border. I found it a pleasure to listen to the argument of the hon. member for Mooi River, which in my view had a positive character and in part also coincides with the submission I should like to make this morning.

I should like to make a few observations as regards extension work among our farmers. The old adage “knowledge is strength” has always remained true for us. I should like to reiterate that it is at present even more important to farming than previously. If we consider that South Africa is a country with a large surface area but that only 13 per cent of it is actually arable, we have to acknowledge that South Africa is in actual fact a poor agricultural country. Although it is a poor agricultural country, it has nevertheless succeeded in the past—and I am speaking of our farmers—to feed this population of ours, to feed it well, even to provide it with luxuries and to give us a high standard of living. Agriculture has also succeeded in making large quantities of produce available for export. This country is in actual fact self-supporting. But it is also true that there are limits to the agricultural potential of this country, and I therefore feel that we should exploit every facet, every possible field in which we can stimulate and stabilize and assist our agriculture. It is my sincere conviction—as previous hon. members also said here—that the responsibility of keeping the larder of our people well-stocked does not rest on the present farming population only. There have been clear indications that we are moving in this direction and that the Government is giving active effect to this line of thinking by means of the great schemes which are being undertaken. I should like to mention the Orange River scheme, the Pongola scheme, and so forth.

But there is another aspect to which we should give attention, and that is the efficiency of agriculture in this country. An efficient agricultural industry in any country can be brought about only if the farmers, the people on the farms, are equipped for it to the maximum. We shall appreciate that the metal of the farmer, his initiative, the good fortune he experiences, the degree of prosperity he enjoys and also his knowledge of the specific industry in which he is engaged, are all most important if he is to be enabled to derive the maximum from the land entrusted to him. Let us put it in practical terms. It amounts to the education of the young farmers. Here I am thinking of university education, the agricultural colleges, the agricultural schools, and so forth. Extension should be provided for the older people who are already farming and who perhaps received their training in former years. I feel that we should all co-operate. Agriculture is so important that there is virtually no question of making a political issue of it. Agriculture is so important that we should bring everything to bear on deriving the maximum from it, and on ensuring that in the future, with regard to which we envisage the danger of a shortage, we shall be able to meet that shortage.

We are very grateful that the Departments of Agriculture have provided a well-organized agricultural extension service over the years. In essence this service has performed miracles. In former years it was actually intended to bring farming practices home to the farmer. We then had what we called extension officers. They were solely interested in getting across the practical aspects of the industry. But the modern concept of extension work is essentially something quite different. It actually means that we should view the person who will eventually farm, in his entirety and as a human being, that we should accept and train him as such in order to make him truly suitable for the task for which he is destined.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is not so easy. It is not so easy for the extension officer to achieve his object. Agriculture has the inherent conflict, particularly where we are dealing with conservation farming, of profit-making on the one hand and the conservation of the soil on the other. In actual fact, the two represent conflicting interests, and this is perhaps the greatest obstacle in the way of the extension officer. But we have to admit that the old idea that farming was “a way of life” has been replaced by the modern concept that farming is in actual fact a business undertaking. If we consider that at present any business of some magnitude is managed by people who are well-informed, and if we consider to what extent our farmers are well-equipped, one sometimes has cause for concern. I want to mention some figures arising from a survey which included about 1,500 farmers. This was a sample survey that was carried out over the entire country. 38 per cent of our farmers have no training higher than Std. VI. 27.1 per cent did go as far as between Stds. VII and VIII. 34 per cent reached St. IX and matric. Only 7.2 per cent received higher training, i.e. college and university training. I do not think these figures need amplification. Essentially, our farmers are therefore not as well-equipped as they should be. I have to hurry—unfortunately I do not have the time to go into this matter at length. I just want to bring it to your attention that according to the survey 83 per cent of our farming population claim that they received the major part of their training at the hands of their family or friends. Since we accept that scientific agriculture is essential at present, every farming community —and certainly this House as well—should endeavour to see to it that our farmers are better equipped and receive better training than at present.

I also want to add this observation. Although we are doing everything in our ability by means of organized agriculture and our Departments of Agriculture, we are simply not succeeding in bringing home to the farmer the available knowledge; the knowledge made available by research. Some years ago it took up to 20 years before knowledge established by research reached the farmer. At present, I believe, it has admittedly shrunk to approximately 15 years. In America they are contented if basic research which has been tried out in practice is brought home to the farmer after some 10 or 12 years. This is too long. At present we have well-equipped people on commerce. As an example, I think of all the agents who visit the farms nowadays. Many of those people are well-equipped. Some of them are well-trained agriculturists. I feel that all possible means should be employed to draw in these people, because they have good contact with the farmers for virtually 65 per cent. We should also exploit this aspect and try to co-ordinate everything in order to bring home to the farmer the knowledge of the scientist. I regret that my time has run out.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Central) seems to be very worried about scientific research in South Africa. I might mention that the Government is at this moment busy considering this whole question of scientific research, where it should rest, and with what institutions. But I want to mention that my Department is the biggest organisation for scientific research in the country. The hon. member said that we were spending R3,000,000 per year on scientific research. Actually we are spending R12,000,000 per year on scientific research. But I want to agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (District) who said that we do not only need basic research in South Africa but we need applied research.

You cannot have applied research without basic research.

In agriculture, at this moment, we really need applied research. We had the instance of gousiekte which appeared the other day and which caused terrific losses. I had to put a whole team on that. It is tremendously difficult to draw the line between applied research and basic research as such. But we are trying to get a solution to that very intricate problem.

The hon. member also stressed the point that it might be necessary to establish a new institution for training of veterinary surgeons. I acknowledge that there is much to be said for a new institution. But it is also a question of costs. We cannot get away from that. There are so many things that we need money for in South Africa, in a young progressing country like ours, also in the sphere of agriculture. At the present moment it will cost us much more to establish a new training centre while there is still scope to increase the training facilities at Onderstepoort. It is an institute which is world-known and which has given wonderful service to South Africa. There is still scope for expansion.

*The hon. member for Pretoria (District) brought a cool breeze, a breeze which I had not noticed since yesterday morning. He spoke of the actual advantages and of the progress made in South Africa. I want to thank him very much for that. The hon. member also mentioned the fact that over the past number of years our sheep numbers have increased by quite a few million. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that this took place during the years of the most severe drought South Africa has ever known. It is such a great achievement that we should take our hats off to the sheep farmers of South Africa. But we should also take our hats off to a government and the agricultural organizations that enabled them to sustain and even increase their herds of sheep through these difficult years. I mentioned that in this House on a previous occasion.

Two countries, i.e. Australia and South Africa, are at the moment suffering from severe droughts. We have all sympathy with the Australian farmers and their Government in the great drought. But whereas they have so far lost 15 per cent of their stock, we have not even lost 3 per cent in South Africa. We are grateful for the mercy of having lost so few. What I said just now, emphasizes the fact that here in South Africa we have agricultural organizations and also farmers and a government that co-operate to ameliorate as much as possible the shock of the greatest drought we have ever experienced in South Africa. May God give rain before long. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) anticipated me slightly. I know these clever people. They usually use your words to hold you to something. He said, namely, that we had made a tremendous breakthrough when I supposedly announced that we would remunerate members of soil conservation committees for the work performed by them. But I did not announce that. What I did say was that it was a good idea and that I would give attention to it. I also said that I had given instructions that we should give consideration to the possibility of employing our trained young farmers on a temporary basis for surveying smaller dams, for example. The hon. member, however, thanked me very sincerely, as though I had already announced it.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) in his second speech asked me whether there is co-operation between my Department and the Department of Health. He spoke about rabies, etc. Well, I can tell him that there is the closest co-operation. The hon. member said that we in South Africa should also do our share in fighting pests. Well, I think we are doing more than our share in this field, especially in Africa.

Yes, in Africa but not for the rest of the world.

When doing it for Africa, we are also doing to for the world because the way in which we are fighting pests in South Africa and the research we are doing in that regard must also be of benefit to other parts of the world where there are similar problems.

It could be done better in the universities.

That is a question of which I am not so sure.

*The hon. member for Middelburg asked that distinctions should be made as regards rendering assistance to farmers for repairing soil erosion. Another hon. member, I think it was the hon. member for Bethlehem, made more or less the same submission the other evening. The hon. member would suggest that the present generation of farmers cannot be held responsible for the iniquities of their fathers. Well, I am surprised that one coming from the Transvaal should speak in that vein, because surely he should know that the Book says that the iniquities of the fathers shall be visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. In any event, I may tell the hon. member that distinctions are indeed drawn according to the circumstances in which the conservation works are undertaken. Here I am thinking, for example, of the scheme which is now being undertaken in the vicinity of Lady Grey with a view to preventing siltation of the H. F. Verwoerd Dam. Under certain conditions as much as 95 per cent subsidies are paid. We are therefore drawing a distinction. I cannot agree, however, that we should accept it as a general principle that the State should bear the major part of the costs involved in repairing erosion. If we accept a principle like that, it becomes the task of the State to undertake veld conservation in the case of 99 per cent of our farmers. That would be a sad day. Once we reach the point where the farmers hold the State as such responsible for repairing damage done by erosion, we have already lost the struggle. If the State is to accept that task, it will have to go further and tell the farmer how, where and with what he should farm. The farmer of South Africa is by no means ripe for such radical interference with his activities. Surely hon. members can appreciate that if this work became the responsibility of the State only, the State would be compelled to interfere with farming activities to that extent, because it is obvious that the State cannot merely accept responsibility for erosion on my land while I simply continue abusing the reclaimed soil. As a farmer I would also have to accept restrictions, something which our farmers are not yet prepared to do.

The hon. member also pleaded for hydrological research. This is a matter that comes under the Department of Water Affairs, but I think they are devoting serious attention to it. Furthermore the hon. member advocated a matter which offers a great deal of hazard. He pleaded, namely, for pipelines to supply water to dry regions where borehole water is scarce. He submitted that such a system would be cheaper in the first place, and secondly that it would prevent the exhaustion of our subterranean water. If we have subterranean water in South Africa which the Lord God has made available to us, while having little water on the surface, I can see no reason why we should not use our subterranean water, as long as we use it judiciously. That will be one of the most important tasks of the Water Planning Commission. Personally, I believe that if we use our subterranean water sources for primary purposes, we shall still be able to use them in future generations. If, however, we proceed to establish large irrigation schemes with subterranean water and to pump it continually, it will become extremely hazardous.

Since I became Minister of a Department of Agriculture, I have noticed various problems. One of the problems is making adequate water available to regions which are bound to be changed into desert regions by farming. Another problem of equal magnitude is this new method of licks. I am deeply concerned about this. If we were to go in for the system of pumping water through pipelines to regions where there is a shortage of water, we would create a tremendous hazard. Water is scarce in the very regions that are subject to continual droughts. If we were to provide a permanent supply of water to those regions, I would like to see the Government that could combat excessive exploitation of those semi-desert regions. Take these new licks, which make it possible for our stock to eat and digest dry grasses. If this system is not handled with the utmost caution, what are we going to make of South Africa? In one of the grazing camps on my farm there is a level piece of ground, almost like a pan. My stock never grazed there when they were put in that grazing camp during the winter months. Last year I fenced off this particular stretch of land in a separate camp. When I arrived back on my farm in December, I decided to go and look at that camp to see whether there was perhaps some grass left. But when I got there, I found it had been grazed bare, as bare as this floor.

By the ants!

No, by the stock. I am one of those people who are still farming without ants because I protected my crows. The fact that that camp had been grazed bare, was due to these new licks. If we are going to use these new licks here in South Africa to have the covering of our soil grazed off altogether, we are surely going to create a desert here in our country. Nothing will be able to prevent that. I am in favour of these licks because they keep our stock in good condition, particularly during the winter months. This new method represents the greatest advance made in agriculture in the last year. Unless it is used correctly, however, it is going to destroy us. Now that we have these new licks, it is absolutely essential that we should see to it that our farm planning and grazing systems are carried out strictly as prescribed. Unless we take care, for example, to provide for rest periods for our camps, periods in which the grazing can germinate, we shall destroy South Africa’s soil, and that within one decade. I therefore want to assure the hon. members that as soon as it has rained and other circumstances are favourable, we shall proceed to see to it that farm planning is carried out properly.

The hon. member for Mooi River also stressed the importance of soil conservation. I hope he does not expect of me to reply on this subject again in view of the fact that I did so last night. He also pleaded for an investigation into the value of fertilizers. Of course, we all realize the importance of fertilizers. It must, however, be done on an economic basis in so far as the individual farmer is concerned. The hon. member referred to a particular farm and recounted what had been done there. As far as I can remember that particular farm was taken out of production for a period of seven years.

Only certain lands were taken out of production.

At this moment it is impossible to withdraw more farms from production than we are doing at the present moment. I can tell you this that I was trembling all over when I had to go to the Cabinet to ask them for approval of a scheme for the drought stricken areas. But they fell in with the idea with the result that we have a very big scheme going at the moment. If I can prove that we can make a success of this new scheme on which we have ventured I am sure we will be able to extend that scheme also to other areas of our country.

The hon. member for Swellendam emphasized the value of extension work. I agree with him that extension work is absolutely essential, because if we cannot get the results of our research across to our farmers, we shall achieve nothing. Unless someone applies the knowledge derived from research, nothing will come of it. The other day, when I had to address a lot of clever people and I started running out of words, I told them that I knew that science pursued truth, but, I added, what were we to do with truth once we had it, unless we could use it? The facts discovered by science must therefore be conveyed to farming population by means of extension work. I therefore agree that extension work is essential. We shall therefore endeavour to make our extension service as efficient as possible. In fact, my Department is at the moment giving attention to various methods of getting that knowledge across to the farmer. The hon. member also said that at present farming was a conflict between profit-making on the one hand and the conservation of the soil on the other. I do not think his statement is entirely correct. In fact, I believe that investments in soil conservation can yield larger profits to a farmer than any other investments. It is frequently said that the farmer has to sacrifice income in order to conserve the soil. This is not correct either. And I know that a progressive and trained agriculturist like the hon. member for Swellendam will agree with me. It is of course possible that in the initial stages a farmer will have to sacrifice a small portion of his income, but within a year or two investments in soil conservation will bring him greater benefits. If a farmer therefore wants to profit by his farming, there is only one course for him, namely conservation farming. Then the hon. member mentioned the fact that many of our farmers received poor academic training. This is true, of course. In this regard it should be remembered that in the ’thirties the rural areas formed the source of our poor-White section, when almost 70 per cent of our White population owned 10 per cent of the country’s wealth. This simply had to give rise to a poor-White section. That is why many of our older farmers have a poor academic background. The hon. member said that a large percentage of farmers had passed only Std. VI. I am not fully conversant with the education laws in the other Provinces, but as far as the Free State is concerned, people of that kind may no longer produce there. There compulsory education extends to Std. VIII. I therefore think that this state of affairs will change within one generation. As for the future, I have no doubt that our farmers will no longer be a section of our population with a poor academic background. Nowadays farmers realize that they should have their children educated. The extension work referred to by the hon. member for Swellendam is fully accepted and applied by our farmers. My farm manager is a most capable man, although he is most certainly not a learned man. I can hardly think of a year in which he did not produce some new scientific plan or other. If I ask him where he gets it, he replies that he gets it from his farmers’ association, where an extension officer lectures to them. He is now producing the most practical plans. This year he again came to me with one of the most practical plans. It would have cost me something in the initial stages, but I nevertheless told him at once to proceed with it. Our farmers have now reached the stage where they are accepting and applying the information they receive.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not speak of matters relating to my Department again during this debate. I therefore want to conclude this debate by saying that we do have cause for concern but, thank God, we also have reason to be filled with hope for the future.

I must admit that while listening to the hon. the Minister I felt a flutter of hope in my breast for the farming community in South Africa. It seems that at last we have a practical man, a man with ideas of his own and a man who is going to do something for the agricultural industry in South Africa. I wish him well and I sincerely hope that his influence in the Cabinet is going to be such that his enthusiasm and his ideas will not be stifled.

A lot has been said about the establishment of another veterinary institute and in this connection I should like to advance the claims of Pietermaritzburg. It has a university and all those assets mentioned by hon. members in this House as assets required for such an institute. I should therefore like to ask him not to leave Pietermaritzburg out when considering where to establish such an institute.

You do not need veterinary surgeons for the cultivation of bananas?

No, not for bananas. In this matter I am concerned particularly with the dairy industry where we do need veterinary surgeons. This is an aspect of farming which has not been mentioned in this debate. The hon. the Minister, in referring to his own farm, mentioned stock-licks and, thereby, he got very close to the subject which I should like to discuss with him. Dairy farmers to-day are complaining that the price they get for their products is too close to their production costs. These costs can be lowered by improving and increasing productivity which, in turn, is only possible through an improvement in technical services. The hon. the Minister’s department has admitted that in certain respects it cannot assist the dairy farmer, aspects such as information in regard to new feeding methods and on what would happen if these new fangled licks were introduced. Dairy farmers are complaining that they cannot get any information from the department on these modern methods which have been developed overseas.

How did I then get hold of them?

I think the hon. the Minister must have experimented on his own. This is also what the dairy farmers are being compelled to do, very often to their own detriment as well as to the detriment of the industry and thereby of the country as a whole. The reply of the department is usually that either they have not yet made any experiments with these particular products, or that they have conducted experiments, but are precluded from giving the findings because they are branded lines. This is the aspect I should like to discuss with the Minister. If we could have proper experiments conducted in regard to these things and if the information could be made available to the farmers, they would be able to improve their efficiency; improving their efficiency would lower their production costs. Thereby the dairy industry can be placed on a sound footing. I have been given a commission by a milk producing union to come here and appeal to the hon. the Minister to allow the dairy industry to establish their own technical services. They want to be allowed to do that by a majority decision of their members. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the mechanics of it now because it is merely the principle I want to establish. Will he not allow the milk producing unions, the farmers’ organizations, to establish their own technical services? We have had it in the sugar industry and in the wattle industry as well. I am only advancing this as a principle for the Minister to exercise his mind on it. If necessary, it can always be discussed in detail on another occasion. What I should like the hon. the Minister to do is at least to give an indication that he is prepared to consider it. I have also been instructed by the milk producing unions to discuss with the hon. the Minister the question of labour; more particularly the training of labour. This surely is a matter falling within the confines of technical services. Dairy farmers are complaining that they are forced to employ too many labourers. They know that they have to employ too many labourers and that they are inefficient. The calibre of the labour is such that it has to be that way. It is necessary to remember that labour employed by a dairy farmer often has to handle valuable equipment and valuable animals. Consequently it is necessary that the dairy farmer should be able to employ a higher grade of labour, labourers with at least a sense of responsibility and with a certain amount of technical knowledge of the animal and of the machine. I, therefore, appeal to the hon. the Minister that we do something to train labourers for farmers in general and for the dairy industry in particular. Once again I have in this matter a commission from a fresh milk producing union to request this Minister to assist in the establishment of some form of training school. This particular milk producing union did approach the Government at one stage about the establishment of a training school for Bantu labourers. They were, however, informed that the Government would train Bantu labourers only in the homelands. But I am not aware of any such training taking place. In the meantime our dairy industry is getting worse and worse. As a matter of fact, it is virtually on the rocks to-day. It is necessary that something be done to revitalize it and in this connection the most important points are, firstly, technical assistance and, secondly, training of labour. I should therefore like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give us some sort of indication to-day that he will at least consider these two points on behalf of the dairy industry.

I cannot train Bantu.

I think your department can, Sir. Surely it falls within the scope of technical services to farmers? But if the hon. the Minister cannot do it can I appeal to him to use his influence with the responsible Minister to assist the dairy farmer in this respect?

At this stage this debate is just about as exhausted as our pastures, but I promise not to exhaust it any further because I want to deal with another topic. But before I do that, I want to associate myself with the statement made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) in regard to our new Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. In the Free State, too, it really excited a feeling of optimism and satisfaction when the farmers heard that “Oom” Jim had become the new Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. The statement made by the hon. member in regard to dairy farming was somewhat exaggerated when he referred to the prices, nor does it fall under this Vote, but I can tell him that prices have never been as high as they are at present, and there he was in the wrong, but I shall leave it at that. He spoke about insufficient guidance. I really think that it is far-fetched to ask here for more guidance in regard to the dairy industry, since there is quite sufficient at present. Near him is a place called Cedara, where I took a course, and if the hon. member pays it another visit, he will also know better. In connection with the training of Bantu labour, I just want to say that if farmers are already beginning to ask that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and other departments should traino ur Bantu, I do not know what the farmers themselves will do later. Can we not trani our Bantu, I do not know what the in daily contact with them and we do have the facilities, but now the hon. member asks that a school should in fact be established to teach them to operate milking machines. The farmer himself can teach the Bantu the basic principles in regard to the dairy industry, because the Department has many more important tasks to perform. It is really not the duty of the Department, much less that of the Minister, to shoulder that task.

I said that I wanted to deal with a new topic. I want to speak about the research which is being carried out in regard to the product of sheep. Indirectly a few things were said here about sheep-farming, but I think that the crux of the problem was not discussed in this debate. It is known to all of us that sheep-farming in the Republic is a source of considerable income to the farmers, not only because of the wool they produce and about which I shall have more to say presently, but also because of the fact that 5,000,000 sheep are slaughtered annually, and then we also have in the Northern Cape and in South West Africa the tremendous karakul industry, which is expanding constantly and earning more and more for the Republic. It is a tremendous industry. In this report brief reference is made to what the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is doing. It states briefly that investigations were initiated into the factors influencing the substances and handling qualities of wool and the contribution made by certain fleece and fibre properties, and so forth. I do not want to say more in that regard, but we have the testimony of various manufacturers in regard to the importance of the wool fibre. Just think of the splendid fine wool which is grown in the Republic of South Africa, which can also be used for making material from which our national flag can be made so that we may have a flag made from pure virgin wool. We have the mark which was introduced recently and which guarantees the quality of such a product. We have here the testimony of someone who visited South Africa, a certain Mr. Derek V. Damereil, regional director for North America of the International Wool Secretariat, which has its head office in London. Mr. Damereil ordered a light-weight pure virgin wool suit of clothes made from cloth manufactured in the Republic. A Cape Town textile manufacturer was the person who manufactured this cloth, and he said (translation)—

A year or two ago permission was granted under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that a variety of wool which had a spinning count of under 60, could be classified as a merino-type of wool, an A.S.S.-type with a spinning count of approximately 58. I want to state bluntly that that is one of the things which will destroy the good name of the product of the South African sheep, this permission that foreign fibres may be baled and sold along with merino wool, in spite of the regulations. With the cross-breeding one finds in the country at present, the problem has cropped up that the han of slaughter sheep of the cross-bred type are to be found in the wool fibre, and one cannot separate such hair from the wool. The good name of the South African clip can be attributed to the high quality of fine wool produced by the farmers, hence my reference at the beginning to the research which is being carried out here. I want to make a strong plea to the Minister that he should as soon as possible prohibit wool with a spinning count of under 60 from being marketed as a merino type of wool. If we persist in allowing these 58’s to qualify for the A.S.S.-symbol and to be sold as merino wool, we shall not retain the good name of our clips. In the future we shall then be producing the type of wool which is being produced in Russia or in South America.

That problem does not only occur through breeding, but also through grazing methods.

I am in complete agreement with the Minister, and that is why steps must be taken. It is not only the cross-breeding, but also the fact that the animals share the same pastures which is the cause of hairy strands of wool being found in merino wool. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Harrismith was astonished when it was suggested from this side of the House that the Minister should also give attention to the training of farm labourers. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) mentioned the example of Bantu labourers. I think that it is a regular occurrence that short courses are held for farm labourers, for instance, to train them to look after tractors and machinery, to prune trees and to shear sheep, etc. The only thing the hon. member had in mind was that attention should be given to the further training of farm labourers in order to improve the standard of labour.

However, I want to come back to what the hon. the Minister said and in particular I want to associate myself with the plea the hon. member for Bethlehem made here yesterday when he pleaded that we should give consideration to the State granting a 100 per cent subsidy for soil conservation works in cases where farmers could not afford such works. The hon. the Minister informed us to-day that the State could not take a heavier burden on itself when it came to soil conservation.

No, I said the State could not take the entire burden on itself.

Let me put it as follows to the Minister. There are many farms in South Africa where soil erosion has assumed such proportions and where soil has been washed away to such an extent that unless the State assumes full responsibility I cannot see, because of the financial position of the farmers, how we shall be able to remedy the position. Wonderful pleas were made during this debate that we should encourage the youth to become more soil conservation conscious. It is quite right that we should encourage a love for the soil amongst our youth and that they should assist when attending a land service camp to stack a few rows of stones and to fill in a few dongas.

The idea is that prevention is better than cure.

That is quite correct. I do not disagree with the hon. member but I maintain that if we want to make up the leeway in connection with soil erosion the State will have to play a much bigger role. On 13th May of this year the Minister said when addressing the Africander Cattle Breeders Association (translation)—

The hon. the Minister said that he would be able to obtain the money required for doing so from the Cabinet.

I adhere to that, but within limits.

I am glad to hear that the Minister adheres to that and that he will obtain the money from the Cabinet for doing so. However, in the Estimates for this year the amount for soil conservation has been increased by R600,000 only. [Interjection.] The Minister maintains that he is complying with all requests made in connection with soil conservation. Loans are available and subsidies have been increased from 33¾ per cent to 50 per cent, but let me tell the Minister that in spite of the fact that he has made an air trip and has seen all the wonderful works, soil conservation in extensive parts of the country has virtually been at a standstill during the past five or six years. I am not saying that it is the Minister’s fault but I do want to bring it to his notice that it is essential for the State itself to take a hand in these matters to prevent the position from deteriorating. I myself have a farm and the State is welcome to take a hand in it even if it would mean that the State would prescribe to me how I should farm. However, the State should take a heavier burden on itself to counteract the erosion which has taken place, not as a result of the inefficiency of the farmer but as a result of circumstances, because the farmer is not in a position financially to remedy those things. They did so ten years ago. They did wonderful work but what is the ordinary farmer doing at present? He has a tractor and a scraper and he does the minor works which it is possible for him to do. He tries to repair the tracks trodden out in the veld and he builds small retaining walls, but he is not in a position to undertake the major concrete works costing thousands of rands. I read recently that the Minister had said that he was dreaming of the wonderful green farm-lands which we would have in the Karoo when we were able to desalinate sea water. I want to dream with him about those wonderful visions but we should do some more dreaming. We should dream of dozens of bulldozers engaged in soil conservation works in extensive parts of our country during the next number of years. Unless we do so we shall not be able to make up the leeway in connection with soil erosion. I am making this plea and we on this side will support the Minister. We shall not blame him if he has to spend more money on it but we shall tell him that it is right to do so because we must conserve the soil of South Africa; we must save it before it is too late.

Now, soil erosion is bound up with the question of extension. I want to tell the Minister that we are pleased that an institute of agricultural extension has been created by his Department and certain agricultural companies. This is a step in the right direction. It will assist in co-ordinating agricultural extension in South Africa but I still regret to say that the wonderful results of research achieved at our experimental stations and our laboratories apparently do not reach the farmers readily. Even the Verbeeck Committee said that the gap between the availability of the results of research and their practical application was too wide and it recommended that active steps should be taken for streamlining extension services in order to overcome this problem. It was said in this debate that our young farmers with degrees should be asked to take over some of these tasks. These are all very fine ideas but one will still need a technical officer to make the drawings and the surveys and to draw up the specifications if a dam is to be constructed and that man will have to be there permanently. One may do without an extension officer in the case of a local farmer with a B.Sc. degree in agriculture but one will not be able to do without that technical officer. However, I want to make a further recommendation to the Minister for the improvement of agricultural extension, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) mentioned the question of films. These films should not only be made available to farmers’ associations. I think we can make available to individual farmers films dealing with soil conservation, sound farming practices, breeding and the cultivation of farm-lands. There are many farmers who have their own 8 mm. projectors at present. These films may also be made available to them if they want to buy them. I believe that in this way we shall be able to give better instruction to these people and to inform them of what others are doing for improving their farms. These films will even be useful for soil conservation purposes. [Time limit.]

At this stage I just want to thank hon. members for suggestions made by them and for the enthusiasm displayed by them in regard to agricultural affairs. I shall go into their suggestions.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 34,—“Water Affairs,

R9,672,000,” and Loan Vote E,—“Water Affairs, R56,268,000’’:

This is one of the Departments of State which has suddenly in the last couple of years sprung into the limelight. For many years this Department went about its business of running irrigation settlements and building dams without public attention being focused on it to the extent it has been lately as the result of the drought and as the result of the colossal Orange River Scheme which has been undertaken and which has served to bring the Department of Water Affairs to the attention of the public as never before. It is of such an important nature that I want to ask the hon. the Minister certain questions about the running of the Department, and therefore I should like to ask for the privilege of the half-hour in order to do so.

The hon. member should have asked before he started talking, but I will grant it.

One of the factors which is putting pressure on the Department of Water Affairs is the expansion of industry which is taking place in this country. During the Session we have already had the advantage of a very well thought out speech by the hon. member for Orange Grove, who dealt with the provision of water for the Rand Triangle. I do not wish to traverse too much of the same ground again, because it was raised very briefly the other day under the Planning Vote, but I do want to ask the Minister certain questions in regard to the whole problem of the location of industry and how his Department, which has to provide the water, sees this problem and how it intends to cope with it. But before I do so I wish to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister.

I believe that water and Water Affairs is something which to-day is taking on an international significance. We in this country with our many problems have a chance of playing a part in the world-wide approach to the problems of water. I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister a programme initiated by Pres. Johnson, a global Water for Peace programme. We know the Americans have great programmes they go in for, like Atoms for Peace and Food for Peace, and now we have this one, Water for Peace, initiated by Pres. Johnson on 1st September.

It is high time we had some common sense for peace.

Then I hope the hon. the Minister will play his part in it, and may I say that we wish the Minister well in this Department he has just taken over. We regard him as eminently a person of common sense and we hope that his common sense, applied to the problems of South Africa and of his Department, will be of tremendous benefit to our country.

Pres. Johnson, in opening this Water for Peace programme, said—

The Water for Peace programme announced by the President included an international conference in Washington next year and continued efforts to find cheaper and better ways of converting sea water and brackish water for irrigation and human use. On this point the hon. member for Middelburg will support me when he comes back—

Then there is also reference to the need for uniting with other nations. That is very pertinent to us. Pres. Johnson said we must encourage the international development of whole river basins for flood control and water conservation, and this kind of development offers mankind unique opportunities for international co-operation and the reduction of tensions between nations. I say again that this is something of very great importance to us. I think we in our country can play a very great part in providing knowledge and guidance to the developing countries who have a tremendous need from every single aspect at which you can look at it, from the health point of view, to begin with, from the irrigation point of view and from the point of view of providing elementary services in city areas, etc. I am wondering whether the Minister knows anything about this conference on Water for Peace and whether our Government has been invited to take part, and whether he will ask our representatives in Washington to inquire about it and to find out whether we will be asked to attend, and whether we will be entitled to play some part in this conference and to be accepted there as a country which has a lot to offer, because I believe that we in South Africa have a great deal to offer Africa.

If I may return to the point about the importance of planning in regard to industrial location, Cambridge University undertook a survey in Britain in regard to the optimum size of urban industrial development, the size of towns. It is something which I think is of great importance to us here. In Britain the report has led to the establishment of five or six satellite towns, of which Newtown was the first to be begun, based specifically on industrialization and which are tending to be limited to an optimum number in regard to the population and the industrial potential in that area. I believe this is something which could be followed up by our Government and I put this to the Minister of Water Affairs because water is to-day one of the limiting factors in the development of industry in this country. I think this is something which might be investigated by the Commission of Inquiry which is inquiring into water affairs now, whether there is not some formula they could find which would give us some indication and lay down a guide line as to what the optimum size of an industrial development should be, and as to when it is time to show the red light in regard to further industrialization in certain areas and when it is time to look for new areas for such development. This can have the most profound effect on the whole development of South Africa and on the industrial pattern of the country. It is of the utmost importance. I believe that we are all agreed that there should be no major new industrial complexes founded on the Rand. I think we can accept that the Rand industrial complex is self-generating. It will grow and it will be serving its own needs and it will continue to demand water merely because of the fact that there is a large population which needs services and therefore service industries must be established. I think that we on this side are quite agreed that major heavy industries should be removed to other areas where we can provide the water and where there will be fewer problems from the human point of view. But I say this is an area which will continue to develop by its own nature, and it will need more water. I am interested to know how the Department answers these problems, and how they see it, and where they are looking for a solution. I do not believe that the Tugela is the solution to the problems on the Rand. I believe you can take water from the Tugela as a very temporary measure, but you will of necessity have to take it from the head waters because the Tugela does not flow too far through White areas. It flows for a certain distance through White areas and then goes through the Bantu areas, and near the sea it flows through a very narrow White strip again. The Tugela is something which will develop in its own way, and I think it will become the foundation of a tremendous complex of its own. I think it is wrong to look to it now as the solution for the problem on the Rand. I think it is wrong in principle. I want to mention again that this gives us an opportunity of showing the world that we in South Africa are able to cope with and to meet the challenge of living together with a Bantu nation right next to us, and that we can co-operate in solving the many problems that flow from it, and that we can be of practical assistance to them as well as to ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other problem I wish to raise and that is one concerning the reuse of water. It has been touched upon here but I wonder whether hon. members realize to what extent this is a practice in overseas countries. The Ohio River in America is a major waterway. It has large ports and large ships which ply its waters. But it has been estimated that every single drop of water in the Ohio River is re-used six times before it flows into the Mississippi waterway where it again forms part of that great system of water and used again for human and industrial consumption. But there is a tremendous problem that this poses—the use of detergents as one of the modern aids of the housewife and in industrial practice. The research necessary under the conditions in our country, sunlight and the high incidence of heat and so on, what the practical results of that is going to be and what it is going to demand from us in the way of research, I believe should be faced now by the hon. the Minister and by his Department, even if it is something which has to be looked into from a long-term point of view. The re-use of water is going to be one of the most important things which this Department of Water Affairs can do research into, in other words the re-use and re-purification of water. Let us face it, our resources are not unlimited. We are going to have to re-use our water time and again.

We shall have to give our most serious attention to that matter.

I am very grateful indeed to hear that. The problem in countries like the United States was made so very apparent three years ago when they had a crippling drought. Vast areas of the North Eastern United States had the most tremendous difficulty. The population there is in excess of 100,000,000 people. They were rationed and limited to the absolute minimum in the water that was supplied to them. Re-use became something of the utmost importance to them. If they had not had this developed to a very high degree there could well have been a tremendous disaster within that area.

I wish to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister which concerns the administration of his Department. It was not while he was the hon. Minister of the Department but I have heard no statement from the previous Minister. I wonder therefore whether the hon. Minister might perhaps favour us with a statement as to why this thing happened. I read from the Natal Witness of the 2nd July an article which is titled:

Dynamite found at Hilton tunnel. It reads—

The Police made a statement in which it was said that it was not sabotage—that they did not suspect sabotage—but that they had found there an amount of dynamite in one hiding place of 2,400 lbs., that is to say, a ton and more dynamite. This was found within 100 vards of the exit of the tunnel, which this Department has built at considerable cost, from the farm Maidstone coming out at the Ferncliffe exit from which it is going to supply water to Pietermaritzburg. There was buried there, Mr. Chairman, 2,400 lbs. of dynamite and there were two other hiding places found inside the tunnel. 300 lbs. and 450 lbs. of dynamite were hidden away in the tunnel. I want to know what kind of control is exercised over dynamite in the Department of the hon. the Minister. Here we have material that had it got into the wrong hands could have blown up the whole of that tunnel. It could have destroyed or seriously damaged and seriously impeded a great deal of the work that was done by the hon. the Minister’s department. So much so that when it was decided by the South African Police to destroy it and to blow it up, they drew two lines round the source of the blast, of a mile and two miles. They went to the precaution of stopping the traffic on the national road—which is a mile and a half away —while the demolition experts exploded the dynamite in that particular place, which I may say for interest’s sake was a disused Bantu latrine. And when it was blown up it left a crater of 30 feet wide. And I am amazed that it is possible for an amount of dynamite such as that to be squirrelled away from the control of the department by the employees of the department. The case was tried and people were found guilty. But surely, Mr. Chairman, in the hon. the Minister’s Department there must be a specific provision for the actual amount of dynamite required for a specific amount of rock breaking.

I am not an expert, a blasting man or a miner, and perhaps somebody could tell me. But surely when you have a certain amount of distance to go in a tunnel you must use a certain amount of dynamite. It must be able to be calculated. And I believe that somewhere or other in this Department there has been a very serious breach of what I would call security regulations. Whether it is the inspectorate or where it comes from, I do not know. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that my people were profoundly disturbed and upset to find that that amount of stuff could disappear, and that it could come out of the hands of the controlling officer of the Department and be hidden away. The people who did it pleaded not guilty and said that they had put it there for some reason which the magistrate did not accept. The magistrate said this was a most serious offence. It was negligence of the highest degree. But somewhere or other in the control of that Department something is lacking whereby temptation was put in the way of those people who are very humble people and who saw an opportunity of doing something. I do not know what they were attempting to do. They did not want to sell it obviously. They buried it. But somewhere or other there was a lapse in the control of the Department of the hon. the Minister in respect of which I would welcome a statement from him to say how it happened and what steps have been taken to see that it can never happen again. Because, Mr. Chairman, I say this could have destroyed the work which the Department had done and could have seriously impeded the provision of water to the city of Pietermaritzburg. This is a project which this Department has been working on for a long time. It may well have damaged human life. There were not people living right close to it, but the Pietermaritzburg purification works, which was erected at considerable cost, was not very far away. It may well have blown that sky high.

Mr. Chairman, in the very short time that remains before the business of the House is suspended I wish to touch on the matter of water pollution. And it arises out of a telegram which we received from the Creighton Agricultural Society. I do not know whether anybody knows much about Creighton or where it is. It is a small area, a small town in the platteland of Natal situated on the border of the Transkei and the Umzimkulu River.

Is it royal?

It is not a “royal”. No, Mr. Chairman. This is Creighton Agricultural Society. It is an affiliate perhaps of the Royal Agricultural Society. But what is happening in that area is this. Land and farms are being bought for timber. And a company has taken an option which it has exercised on a farm for the erection of a paper and pulp mill. The strategic situation of Creighton is this. It is about halfway down the Umzimkulu River. The Umzimkulu River at Creighton flows clear. It is a very very nice stream of water. [Interjection.] It is not a trout stream. It is too hot for a trout stream. But you can understand how the people of the district feel and everybody lower down about the Umzimkulu River, should it be polluted by the effluent from a paper and pulp mill. And hon. members who have ever been anywhere near a paper and pulp mill will know that the effluent from such a mill is noxious in the extreme. I would welcome information from the Minister whether the firm has perhaps already approached him for a permit to extract water from the Umzimkulu River. They have exercised the option on the farm. Whether they have done so without approaching the hon. the Minister’s Department, I do not know. I do not know how they could do so. I believe this is important to Natal, the whole of Natal. The hon. the Minister’s Department should begin right now. Here is a case in point where it should be ensured that no permit is given for the extraction of water from one of the rivers of Natal without adequate care and precaution being taken to satisfy themselves as to the anti-pollution measures being taken by that particular firm.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I was dealing with the question of water pollution. I asked the hon. the Minister for a categorical assurance that the provisions of the Water Act would be applied. As I pointed out, this is a matter of the utmost concern in the area of Natal which is served by the Umzimkulu River. Section 23 (1) of the Act provides—

I wish to point out to the hon. the Minister again that that particular spot in the Umzimkulu River, if polluted, will affect one of the main areas of development in Natal. Sir, the hon. the Minister might not be very scared of me but I want to point out to him that when the water is polluted in my constituency, it goes down to the constituency of my hon. friend, the member for South Coast, and if that happens then he had better look out.

I am not afraid of him either.

Then I wish to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister in connection with water pollution and here I wish to ask for his personal interest as a person who is concerned and has always shown himself to be concerned with the preservation of natural life and fish life. Sir, I refer to something which is unique in Africa, something which is found in this particular portion of South Africa here in the Western Cape and nowhere else in Africa, and is found only in certain portions of the north western states of the United States of America and in one or two rivers in the eastern states, and that is the phenomenon which takes place in the Eerste River here in the Cape where the rainbow trout population are sea-going. This is something which is unique in Africa; it happens nowhere else in Africa. It happens in certain states only in the U.S.A. and is something which could be one of the major drawcards for the Western Cape.

People would be prepared to travel hundreds of miles to come and experience the thrill of catching a rainbow trout, which is the normal rainbow trout coming back from the sea They are a bright silver and they are in the pink of condition. Sir, these trout are being taken in nets by Coloured fishermen off the Simonstown and Muizenberg coasts but they are being destroyed by pollution of the Eerste River, by effluent from wineries. I want to ask the hon. the Minister therefore to take a personal interest in this matter, which has been engaging the attention of his Department for some time. Considerable strides have been made but there is still a considerable distance to go. If the hon. the Minister will see that adequate control measures are taken and enforced and maintained, I believe that this could be re-established to the considerable benefit of the whole of the Western Cape. As I said, this could be developed into a major tourist attraction. I regret that the hon. the Minister of Tourism is not here but perhaps I will get a chance to talk to him about it later.

He is on tour.

I do not know where he is, Sir, but I will find him and talk to him later. The problem here appears to be that the system of disposal of effluent is inefficient. The method of disposal is inadequate having regard to the new expansions which have taken place and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will see to it that his Department takes steps to enforce adequate disposal of effluent to prevent this pollution from taking place. Sir, the suggestion has been made to the Department of the Minister of Finance, through the Department of Water Affairs, that taxation concessions might perhaps be made to the companies concerned for additional disposal means such as dams, piping, concrete furrows and things of that kind which at present do not fall under the heading of disposal of effluents as defined in the Income Tax Act. Sir, I do make this appeal to the hon. the Minister to take a personal interest in this matter because I believe that it is something which is of the greatest importance. It may sound a trivial matter but it is a matter of principle, and if we are going to maintain the water supplies of our country and if we are going to take adequate steps now to prevent in this country what is happening in countries overseas where rivers flowing through industrial areas are nothing less than open sewers, then steps must be taken now. Sir, anybody who is a student of history can tell you, the condition of the rivers of England, particularly Old Father Thames in the 1860s, when the cartoons in “Punch” depicted the river as an old man with dead cats clinging all over him because he was a bearer of plague and cholera and all sorts of diseases of the slums of London. [Time limit.]

During agricultural debates this Session the United Party has really made us somewhat jealous—I do not want to say “suspicious”. In the past it has been our pleasure and our privilege to convey our thanks to the Ministers and the Opposition has taken it amiss of us for doing so. During agricultural debates this Session they have really surpassed us in their expressions of gratitude to the hon. the Ministers. They congratulated the Ministers on and thanked them for the sympathetic attitude they adopted towards agriculture. As far as we on this side are concerned we know the hon. the Minister; we know that he speaks the language of the farmer with the feeling of a farmer. I also want to add that the hon. the Minister and previous Ministers of Water Affairs have already performed a tremendous task. The hon. the Minister’s task is to carry on with the work which has been started and to adapt his policy in the light of problems arising from time to time.

As a matter of fact, in view of the amount of work tackled by the Department of Water Affairs in recent times, I am surprised that the Department is able to carry on this work if one considers the tremendous problem facing South Africa at present. Mr. Chairman, whatever one may say about other problems, the entire development of a country, with all its resources and riches, is dependent on the quantity of water which is available. The restricting factor as regards the development of any country is the quantity of fresh water which is at its disposal for human consumption and for industrial development. In this connection there are to my way of thinking three possibilities for supplementing the quantity of water at our disposal.

In the first instance I should like to express my confidence in the members of the commission appointed to investigate the question of water supplies and to make recommendations in this connection. I have complete confidence in the commission although I am fully aware of the difficulty of its task. To my mind there are three possibilities, the first being: To what extent is it possible to change the climatic conditions of South Africa? The second is the possibility of employing atomic energy and scientific knowledge for desalinating salt water and for distributing it, and the third possibility is to protect, to safeguard and to employ judiciously such water supplies as we have. According to scientists only 1 per cent of all the water is available for human consumption; 97 per cent consists of sea water. The rest is in the form of ice, etc. In other words, here we have a challenge to science to get water up from the sea and to distribute it on land. As regards the conditions in our own country a considerable number of plans has been suggested in the past to which attention has been given to a certain extent but not to a large extent, but with present developments there are great possibilities. An American expert said that if he could gradually melt the icebergs in the South Pole there would be sufficient water to keep all rivers in the world in flood for 830 years. With regard to our own climatic conditions and supplies of water various plans have been suggested in the past, as I have said, which will be investigated further by this commission.

I am not going to elaborate on that because time will not allow me to do so, but I believe that we shall have to make further use of our universities and that we shall have to make the necessary funds available for enabling them to appoint scientists to institute investigations so as to ascertain the possibilities of changing South Africa’s climatic conditions to such an extent that we shall, in fact, be able to have a better rainfall in the future. I think that there are possibilities in that direction in so far as it is within man’s power to effect such a change. Up to now science, although it has progressed a great deal, has often let us down. In this debate hon. members pointed out that in the past it was mostly the farming community which had to contend with droughts, but it is clear that our large cities in particular are going to experience tremendous problems in the future in connection with water supplies and that responsible people in our cities will also have sleepless nights about the supply of water to the urban population. It would be a crime to allow certain aspects of industrial development to continue in large cities such as Johannesburg unless provision is made for additional water supplies. The heightening of the wall of the Vaal Dam will probably bring relief to a certain extent, but it is clear that there are certain developments in Johannesburg and other large cities which ought not to be allowed unless arrangements can be made for larger supplies of water. It is not only a labour question; it is above all a water problem. There are many factories in the large cities which can be removed to other areas, industries such as sawmills, for instance. I repeat that it is not only a labour problem but above all a water problem as far as Johannesburg is concerned. And unless water from the Tugela can be utilized or unless sea water can be desalinated on a large scale by means of atomic energy and can be transferred to that area cheaply, we simply cannot allow the development of factories in Johannesburg and other large cities to continue without control.

The Government is often blamed that it has waited too long before tackling this problem but the State has to bide its time; it can only act when the necessary funds are available and when the population is ripe for such action. If one had told industrialists in Johannesburg ten years ago that they could not proceed with their industrial development one would have had a revolt. To-day they realize that there is a state of emergency and their disposition is completely different. With our low rainfall figure it is clear that we cannot rely on the possibility of conserving water in large quantities. We shall have to conserve and store water not only for a year or two but over a period of many years to be able to withstand drought conditions. It should be clear to every thinking person that South Africa’s major problem in the future will be one of water scarcity. Unless we can solve this problem South Africa will not be able to support a large population. It is already clear at this stage that various problems arise as a result of the shortage of water. Our country is dependent on our subterranean waters to an extent of 70 per cent and it is clear that we shall have to conserve such waters to the extreme. [Time limit.]

I am sure that the hon. member for Christiana will forgive me if I do not follow the line which he has been discussing. I want this afternoon to discuss two of the White Papers given to us recently by the hon. the Minister’s Department, dealing with the Umgeni Regional Water Supply Scheme and the other dealing with the Hammarsdale Water Supply Scheme. Let me say at the outset that this Umgeni Regional Water Supply Scheme will benefit a large section of my constituency. It can almost be considered as a scheme which was designed primarily for my constituency and we are very grateful for it. The people there have become greatly excited over it; they are looking forward to the prospect of accelerated economic growth, particularly in the line of industrial development. This water is going to help to expand the industrial development in Pietermaritzburg, at Cato Ridge and at Hammarsdale. Cato Ridge particularly will be glad when this water eventually gets through. In reply to a question on the 2nd September we were told that unfortunately this water would only get to Cato Ridge in the first quarter of 1968. This is a pity, because it has held up the industrial development of that area, which was going to be developed by private enterprise, in pursuance of the policy of the Government. It has been held up, on account of this water question, for a period of over five years, or it will be a total of five years by the time the water gets there. If private enterprise had been allowed, as was originally suggested and, I believe, approved, to withdraw water from the Umzimduzi, we believe that Cato Ridge would have gone a long way with its plans by now. It is also a pity that Pietermaritzburg, according to the White Papers, is going to have to pay an extra 33 per cent for water coming from the Midmar Dam.

We are told in White Paper S of 1966 that this increase has been occasioned by an excess of the tender price over the departmental estimates of something over R500,000; by unforeseen difficulties in crossing the Umgeni River, R60,000; by extra support measures at both ends of the tunnel, R500,000; and by increased material and labour costs, R120,000. This is now going to increase the total cost of the scheme, to get the water as far as Pietermaritzburg, from R2,600,000 to R3,800,000, an increase of nearly 50 per cent. This is rather disturbing, and what is disturbing about it is that it seems to show a lack of planning, a lack of co-ordination and a lack of investigation. Sir, this is the sort of thing that costs the country extra millions of rand every year, and I am wondering whether it could not be arranged in future that we have a certain amount of co-ordination. As far as this development at Howick is concerned, for instance, was there no co-operation or liaison between the Department and the township? Could the Department not have said to the township: “Look, we want our pipe line to go through this particular route; do not let your township develop there”? As far as investigations are concerned, what sort of investigation was carried out at both ends of the tunnel that only now do we find that we have to spend an extra R500,000 to support these two ends? Then I want to mention another incident which would seem to show a lack of coordination; I am not going to say “lack of planning”; I think it is lack of co-ordination because it is clear that there was planning by various departments, but there seems to be no co-ordination between the departments. It appears from White Paper I of 1966 that we now have to expend a certain amount of money, which is included in the total of R500,000, to provide a temporary supply of water from the Umgeni River for Hammarsdale, pending the completion of the pipe line from Midmar. Let me quote another instance. It appears from replies to questions that during 1965 this Department had to spend R13,000 on drilling operations to obtain sufficient water at Hammarsdale to keep the industries going. It also appears that this Department had to purchase water from a private concern in order to keep these industries going, and in each case the water has been sold to consumers at a loss. If the development had been kept within the limits of the services which this Department, as well as others, could supply, this extra expenditure would have been unnecessary.

Sir, there is also another aspect. As I have said we are very grateful for this water and we are looking forward to tremendous industrial development but what about the other people in the area; what about the residents in the townships, the farmers and the smallholders? What is the Department’s policy with regard to them? Will they get any of this water? In this respect there appears to be confusion, judging by the various statements made by this hon. Minister, statements by his predecessor and statements which appear in this White Paper. In reply to a question on the 23rd August we were told by the hon. the Minister that it was the policy of his Department to provide a take-off point to supply up to 2,000 gallons a day on every property traversed by the pipe line; that is, a supply of raw water. It further appears from the statement of policy that the policy of the Department was to supply only raw water in bulk. It was stated further that purification and local distribution was the function of local authorities and that it was the aim of the Department to supply large quantities of water to different places where it was urgently needed. However, in reply to a question on the 2nd September, I was told by the hon. the Minister that purification and reticulation systems are already in operation at Hammarsdale; that these are operated by the Department and that purified water is supplied to individual users. In reply to another question I was told that purified water will be delivered in bulk to Cato Ridge. This is in conflict with the statement made on the 23rd August when we were told that only raw water was to be supplied in bulk. We were told further, in reply to a question, that purification works at Cato Ridge were being constructed departmentally and that they would come into operation during 1968. It also appears from White Paper 1 of 1966 that a pipe line 4½ miles in length is to be constructed south-east of Hammarsdale “to supply purified water to consumers downstream of Hammarsdale”. The point on which I would like to have an answer from the hon. the Minister is this: Is this purified water going to individuals or to a local authority or to some industry or where is it going? We would like some clarification from the hon. the Minister. Sir, more confusion is caused by the maps which are annexures A in each case, from which it appears that only one pipe line runs from the purification plant, which is situated between Camperdown and a place called Thornville on this map, to Hammarsdale, but we are told that purified water will run somewhere along that line to Cato Ridge. Are there to be two pipe lines, or is purified water only to reach Hammarsdale, or is Hammarsdale to get raw water for purification? With regard to this place Thornville which appears on this map, it is shown on the map as being south-east of Pietermaritzburg; it is shown as a township on the side of the old main road. This appears to have led to a great deal of confusion in the minds of the people in my area, as the result of newspaper reports. Newspapers have taken this White Paper, looked at the map which was reproduced, and assumed that people in that area will get water. As I have said, this proposed purification works is situated between Thornville and Camperdown. We do have situated south of Pietermaritzburg a township known as Thornville Junction, and these people are now expecting water because they consider that this purification works is adjacent to their township. [Time limit.]

In the first place the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) conveyed his thanks for what they have received and then looked a gift horse in the mouth and came forward with the criticism that it was supposedly so expensive. I think there are parts of the country that would have been grateful if they could have had such a scheme. In any case, the hon. the Minister will be able to reply to him further in that regard. I should like to convey my thanks in particular to the hon. Minister and the Department of Water Affairs which are, under these very difficult circumstances, accomplishing a major task so successfully, and I should like to convey my thanks in advance to the hon. the Minister, since he has already received thanks for what he has done in the past, for the task which he is going to accomplish for us in future as far as water affairs are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, during the course of this debate reference was made to a speech which President Johnson of America made on 1st September at the inauguration of a large water scheme. On that occasion he pointed out that a shortage of fresh water was a problem throughout the world. I should like to associate myself with that, more specifically as far as South Africa is concerned. South Africa will have to accept that water is a restricting factor here. We must become thoroughly aware of that fact and we must plan and think how we can make the best use of the limited water supply in this country, because we not only have a limited supply, we have also reached a very low point in our rainfall and to a large extent that low point is going to determine our potential. That is why it is so necessary that we in this country should stipulate very carefully how we are going to use our water. It has been calculated that the total average flow in the Republic of South Africa is approximately 19,000,000 morgen feet per year. That is more or less equal to the flow of a river such as the Zambezi. But it is not the cardinal figure. The cardinal fact is this: It has also been calculated that of those 19,000,000 morgen feet of water, only 7,000,000 morgen feet can really be profitably utilized or applied. The rest of the picture is this: Of those 7,000,000 morgen feet we are already using approximately 50 per cent. We are using it in the following proportions: The agricultural sector, 2,900,000 morgen feet; the industries, mines, cities and towns, 600,000 morgen feet. That brings us up to approximately 50 per cent. I am mentioning these figures to indicate that it is necessary for us in future to plan very carefully and that it will also very definitely be necessary for the State to determine priorities and that those priorities should not be subject to political pressure. That is why I welcome this Commission of Inquiry into Water Affairs and I want to express the hope that that Commission will do valuable work for us and that people who know more than I do will come forward with constructive ideas in regard to the best way in which that limited water supply of ours can best be utilized.

Mr. Chairman, then I just want to take you to my own constituency to indicate to you how certain practices influence the drainage of water. It is very important that we take notice of this. I want to mention to you that in the constituency of Nelspruit there is an average annual flow of almost one fifteenth of all the water which runs out of the Republic of South Africa down to the sea. There is the Komati River with 600,000 morgen feet running through Komatipoort; there is the Crocodile River with 500,000 morgen feet, also at Komatipoort; and there is the Sabie River where it enters the Kruger Game Reserve at the border, with approximately 250,000 morgen feet. That is a total of 1,300,000 morgen feet. Those rivers have certain characteristics. In the first place the water in those rivers is relatively free of silt, chemicals and harmful materials. Those rivers are perennial. That means that if we were to draw up graphs of the average low-level flow and the average high-level flow, we would find that those graphs would not be so far removed from one another as would be the case in respect of the average river in this country. That has certain advantages. Another characteristic is also that not one of those rivers has a dam in the river which would make the water there beneficially utilizable. In other words, the State has not yet created major water storage facilities there. I am mentioning this, and now I want to indicate further what is happening on that Eastern Transvaal escarpment which is a very high rainfall area.

First of all I want to mention a small river, the White River. The flow in that river, where it flows into the Crocodile River, is only an average of 25,000 morgen feet annually. With this little river 5,000 morgen were irrigated and cultivated by a progressive farming community. In this valley there are some of the most productive citrus orchards in the whole world. They were there. But as a result of afforestation of the catchment area that farming community has practically been ruined. We had the rainfall, and we had planning. But we did not take the influence afforestation on the drainage of our water supplies sufficiently into account. Figures which I obtained and worked out myself indicate that afforestation, on the scale which it is being carried out there and under those circumstances, has resulted in the drainage of water being tremendously reduced. In those circumstances I calculated it at 30 per cent. Other bodies put it at 18 per cent. But the fact of the matter is— and on this we agree—that in times of low rainfall that loss of drainage water is in the region of 60 per cent. I want to state categorically here that the afforestation which is being carried out in that area should be examined very carefully, because my approach is that in times of low rainfall the loss of drainage water can be 1 per cent for each 1 per cent of the planned surface area. Those figures are very important and must be studied so that we can obtain the best utilization of our water supplies.

Sir, I just want to indicate to you briefly that in the Crocodile River valley where, as I have said, there is an average flow of 500,000 morgen feet annually, a sugar mill has been erected at Malelane which cost more than R10,000,000. That is apart from the investment in and the establishment of that sugar cane, and apart from the investment in citrus, sub-tropical fruit orchards and vegetable lands. This tremendous investment is dependent upon the water in that Crocodile River. It is approximately 40 miles east of Nelspruit. Forty miles west of Nelspruit a paper mill is being erected, and that paper mill is also dependent upon the forest in the catchment area of those rivers. I think it is necessary to realize that these are two incompatible undertakings. I realize only too well that forestry is a very important industry in this country. But I cannot see how we can allow one industry to develop without restriction while the water of the farmers in the Crocodile River valley is being rationed by a permit system by means of which certain allocations are made. If those farmers were to go and plant eucalyptus or other trees then they could harm the water supply to a far greater extent, and they would not be subject to any restriction. I am mentioning this approach because it is so necessary to plan, and that is why I also want to ask for proper planning in this important Eastern Transvaal catchment area which includes those rivers, as well as the Blyde River more to the north. Attention must be given to the speedy erection of a dam on the Crocodile River so that some of that water can also be taken to other areas such as the White River valley, the Kiepersol area, and so forth, where afforestation is influencing the water to such an extent that farmers are suffering tremendous damages and, as I have said, have been ruined. The position at the moment is such that the Crocodile River valley has a much more permanent and adequate water supply. Recently when I heard over the radio that the Vaal River had practically ceased flowing I went to the Crocodile River and saw that 8,000,000 gallons were still flowing away to the sea every day. I am just mentioning that to indicate that there is a large supply there, but that it must be planned and must be stored up.

Mr. Chairman, we know that under these circumstances the task which the hon. Minister of Water Affairs has of coping with our water problems is an almost super-human one. We know that our country is water conservation conscious. All the numerous large irrigation dams as well as the many farm dams which have been constructed testify to that. But if there is one aspect which we are not as yet really aware of, then I think it is the aspect of the economic utilization of water. In our country there is a great deal of water which is being utilized uneconomically. Now I do not want to elaborate very much on this point because we know that it is a matter which the Commission which has been appointed to investigate our water affairs will go into thoroughly and that it is a matter in regard to which it will make recommendations. I also expect that attention will probably be given to the re-utilization of water, as is being done in other parts of the world.

Some time ago I read with interest the speech which the Minister of Water Affairs made when he spoke about the desalination of our sea water. This matter aroused my interest quite a few years ago and I should like to-day to bring it to the attention of the hon. Minister again and also ask him what has become of the undertaking where experiments were being made in connection with the desalination of water. A few years ago there was a major project in progress at Welkom by means of which the water from the Free State gold-mines was being desalinated. As you know the water in the Free State gold-mines contains ordinary table salt in solution. As a result of co-operation between the Chamber of Mines and the C.S.I.R. an installation was erected and experiments were carried out over a period of a few years in regard to the desalination of salt water. It was the process which is known as electro-dialysis in which a stream of water is passed through electrified membranes. One then draws off condensed sea water at one outlet and purified water at the other and a weak solution of hydrochloric acid and caustic soda is drawn off from the other compartment. They were engaged in this experiment for a time and it appeared that the desalination of water on a large scale was practicable. But the economic practicability of this project began to look doubtful because it was then found that it would cost in the region of 30c per 1,000 gallons to desalinate the water as against the approximately 22c per 1,000 gallons at which water could be delivered from the Vaal River to Welkom. Where the calculation of the costs in regard to the desalination of water had to be made, there were two factors which influenced those costs. The first was the cost of power which influences the economic practicability of desalination, and the second was the membranes which are used to ionize the water and to separate it into different compartments. Now we know that through research the C.S.I.R. had succeeded in manufacturing a much cheaper type of membrane, and I should like to ask the Minister, since that installation has now ceased operations, whether it is not time, since we are now faced with a great shortage of water, we turned our attention to the recommencing of those experiments. In the first place I am thinking of that as a result of what has already been said in regard to the possibility that we will subsequently have cheaper nuclear power. But apart from that it may as a result of research be possible to manufacture considerably cheaper membranes which could place the project on an economic basis. I should like to refer to the fact that in the Free State goldfields no less than 40,000,000 gallons of water is being pumped out daily onto the ground to evaporate. If that water could be desalinated economically it would be a great asset to us because with 40,000,000 gallons of water per day three cities the size of Bloemfontein could be supplied with water. That is why I think we can to-day make out a case again to recommence this experiment in regard to the desalination of water on a large scale.

There is a second little matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister and that is that we are becoming very concerned about the potential of the Vaal River. It is a fact that certain areas in the Free State are also dependent upon the water from the Vaal River or the Vaal Dam, whichever the case may be. But to my way of thinking there is an anomaly in the policy as it has been applied up to now, an anomaly which was perhaps justified in the past. But since we are to-day experiencing a shortage of water throughout the country I think that attention should once more be given to this policy. As I have said, there are quite a few Free State towns, as well as the entire gold-field complex, which get their water from the Vaal River. I am really pleading for my constituency now and the hon. the Minister must please listen with a sympathetic ear. We have this anomaly that the Allemanskraal Canal flows through the municipal area of the town of Virginia. That water is being drained off for irrigation purposes. In times of drought large quantities of that water are let through in order to supply the Vaalharts scheme with water. However, the municipality is not entitled or is not allowed to draw off water for the municipal area out of that canal. Admittedly other towns are allowed to obtain water from that irrigation scheme. With a view to the fact that the quantity of water in the Vaal River is limited, and since a water canal goes right through the municipal area, I think we can consider changing the policy so that that municipal area will be able to draw off water and in that way also reduce the demand for water from the Vaal River. It can also lead to our being able to make more water available to the industrial triangle in the Republic which cannot exist without water.

I just wanted to bring these two matters to the attention of the hon. Minister and I should be very glad if he would give them his sympathetic attention.

Mr. Chairman, I wish that all hon. members present could paint such a beautiful picture of their part of South Africa as the hon. member for Nelspruit could. He is very privileged and honoured to be in that position. He made me see again the Crocodile Valley Citrus Estates with that lovely stream of water and the bees humming in the citrus trees. But the unfortunate thing is that the rest of the country cannot say that. As far as I am concerned, there are too many people running after too little water in South Africa. When I say people, I mean engineers, farmers, industrialists and politicians. When we discuss water here one of the hon. Ministers or one of his members will get up and tell us about all these wonderful dams built throughout South Africa costing millions of rand. I am not denying that fact. I think of this report that I have got here and I look at these beautiful dams that have been built all over South Africa; they would be a credit to engineers anywhere in this world. I think that they are wonderful. But what do the newspapers publish in contrast to this report? In the Argus on the 12th September, 1966, it says that seven of the country’s 48 major storage dams are bone-dry. Twelve more have less than 10 per cent full storage capacity. Thirty-two have less than 40 per cent of their full capacity. This is taken from the latest weekly report of the Department of Water Affairs. Then the report goes on to say where all these dams are situated. They are situated from Sibasa in the north to Tarkastad, Hankey and Oudtshoorn in the south.

What we want is rain. Hon. members opposite have actually mentioned it. They have said that the Almighty will send rain, especially if we pray. I believe in that myself, but it also requires a little help from the human being himself to make rain.

Take the Orange River scheme, of which I spoke the other day. We rushed into this scheme to build these dams. But while we are rushing in and building these dams, behind them further up the river there is a drought, the great thirst of the Witwatersrand or the Vaal triangle. So what happens? They have had to rush back to Oppermansdrift and before the plans are dry the bulldozers are busy in this “rooi, droë sandsloot” of the Vaal River as one of the hon. members on that side described the Vaal River.

We must go further back. Before the turn of the century all our big rivers were running streams. They say hippos sported themselves in the rivers of the Karoo. Where are these rivers, where is the water, and where are the hippos? You cannot blame my fellow-hunter, the hon. the Minister of Transport, and myself for having shot hippos. That was before our time.

I did not shoot any hippos.

But it is rather peculiar that our great rivers, the Malopo, the Auob, the Nossob, the Kuruman, all dried up. They dried up at the same time as the pans in that central complex dried up. It is no good denying the fact. History will tell you that. The two main culprits are the Zambezi and the Kunene. They are cutting deeper and deeper into the earthcrust. They are drawing away the water. There is the agreement referred to in the South West Africa Report—the Odendaal Commission Report—which has been drawn up between the Republic of South Africa and Angola to use the waters from the Kunene. It says there that it is an immemorial fact that the flood waters of the Kunene went down the oshanas as they call them, or the omarambas as I knew them, and flooded all that area. And to-day they are silted up. They have now made canals from the Kunene River through Ovamboland towards the Okavango swamps. That water there should have been spread out again over the oshanas to provide the staple food of the Ovambos, namely barbel fish. They used to collect millions of them in those waters. Where will the fish come from in the canals, I wonder? The Zambezi has drained all the rivers that flow into it such as the Chobe and the Linyati. All those have been drained away with the Zambezi running down to the Kariba. We are entitled to half of that water. If all the water in the Republic were channelled into one stream, the Zambezi contains double all our waters. We are entitled to half of that.

The other day the Government sent our Commissioner, the hon. the Minister of Roving Affairs, to attend the Botswana ceremony of independence. He was greeted there by the word “pula, pula, pula”—rain, rain, rain. A friendly greeting by a friendly people. The Botswanas have always been friendly. They are an industrious people. Surely they want that water as much as we do. I say that if we are going to assist a neighbour in a friendly way, let us help them to help themselves by bringing the water back to all those pans such as the Makarikari, the Ngami, and all the smaller pans around that complex. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down must please forgive me if I do not follow up his argument. I just want to tell him that I share his anxiety, but I think I leave him to the Minister. He has made some important points, and I think the hon. the Minister wishes to reply to him personally. Before speaking on the subject with a view to which I rose, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to extend a sincere welcome to the hon. the Minister as one of our two Ministers of Agriculture. It is a pleasure to do so on behalf of my constituency, and I think I may make bold to say also on behalf of all farmers’ representatives in this House. We have the greatest confidence in the Minister. We know that in the Department of Water Affairs he has one of the most difficult portfolios in the Cabinet, but we have confidence in his guardianship and we want to assure him that he can always rely on us whenever and wherever we are able to assist him.

I have two letters here from two most influential farmers’ associations in my constituency, namely the Transkaap and the Rooigrond Farmers Associations. I should have liked to read these letters to the House, but one of them covers six sheets and the other two sheets. It is therefore impossible to read them, because they would take up all my time. I want to begin by telling the Minister that these letters express dissatisfaction and anxiety from beginning to end. They deal with the dolomitic water in our region, which is partly a dolomitic area. For the information of the Minister, I want to say that the head of his Department, Mr. Jordaan, is very well informed of this position. I have headed deputations on this situation to the predecessor of the hon. the Minister here in Cape Town. I have also headed some deputations to Pretoria, to Mr. Jordaan, head of the Department. All of them were concerned with dissatisfaction, anxiety and uncertainty as far as our farming community was concerned. I should like to say that I associate myself with them. Mr. Jordaan knows very well how I feel about these conditions. I have tried everything in my ability to achieve satisfaction peacably, but instead of my succeeding in that, the tension is still mounting. The letters to which I have referred confirm that once again. For the information of the Minister I want to say that in my constituency there are some 100,000 morgen of dolomitic soil. We have old dolomitic springs there that have been utilized for irrigation purposes over the years. We are now experiencing drought conditions which have caused a drop in our water level. Farmers who have no interest in those sources began to complain to the Department. On one occasion I even invited Mr. Jordaan to attend a meeting of more than 100 farmers there. That is why I said that he was very well informed. There is dissatisfaction because farmers who have vested rights in the sources and boreholes they have sunk have full use of those boreholes and others cannot obtain permits to sink boreholes. I want to be quite objective, and I am not siding with any group. Right at the beginning the Department decided to proclaim certain regions, a certain number of farms. The position of the farmers on those farms was virtually frozen as regards their farming in general. What I mean by this is the lesson we learned in the dry years, that the more water we can provide on our farms, the more camps we can fence off, the more water we can provide for our animals, the less our animals move about, the more judiciously we graze, the stronger is our resistance to the afflictions of the drought. It now happens that many of the farmers want to sink boreholes on their farms, but the region has been placed under control—as far as I know the entire dolomitic area has been placed under control for the present. The farmers concerned must now apply to the Department of Water Affairs for permits to sink boreholes. I do not say that to place the Department of Water Affairs in an unfavourable light, but there are farmers who have been struggling for as much as a year to obtain a permit. Recently I had a case here in Cape Town in respect of which I had to go to Mr. Jordaan personally and inform him that I had assisted a certain farmer to obtain a Land Bank loan in order to add a tract of land to his small farm. One of the Land Bank terms was that there had to be adequate water on either the farm or the tract of land the farmer wanted to purchase. On the farm there is a borehole that yields strong water. There was no pump installation and after a year I brought the case to the attention of Mr. Jordaan …

Order! I want to ask the hon. member not to mention the names of officials across the floor of the House.

I beg your pardon, Sir. The Land Bank had already informed this farmer that if he did not utilize that loan, they would cancel it. On my representations a special permit was issued to enable the farmer to take up his loan. In general the position is that the farmers who want to sink boreholes and make camps, etc., cannot do so in terms of this retarded permit system. We all know that conditions in the country are disquieting as regards water, and we know that special measures will have to be taken which are not very convenient, but the present circumstances justify a thorough investigation or some other form of planning. That is actually why I rose, to make an appeal to the Minister. I cannot tell him everything in the ten minutes at my disposal, but I have no hesitation in pleading here on behalf of those farmers that some method or other should be employed to enable them to carry on with their farming.

The hon. member will have to amplify the point somewhat further, because I cannot quite follow him. Must we stop the farming or must we allow it?

I have given you part of the reply, but it is not the full reply to the question. I ask that it should not be necessary to wait so long for the permits granted to the farmers who apply for them. The Minister is a farmer himself and he can ask himself what an attitude will develop among the farmers under such circumstances.

Then there is something else which is also chafing. There are three cement factories. Their water consumption has not been placed under control. I have nothing against the factories, and I shall do everything possible to help them, but … [Time limit.]

I think that the Department of Water Affairs has, since the beginning of this year, probably experienced more problems than ever before, and naturally we can understand why. We can only hope that such circumstances will never again in future make matters difficult for the Department. It is on account of the protracted drought that our sources of water have been exhausted as never before. Now it is also understandable that in such times of water scarcity there will be many clever people, who for the most part turn out to be stupid, coming forward. We are hearing much criticism and many clever plans from people who want to supply the Department with advice. In this way somebody said to me recently: “You must tell the Minister that he must construct a roof over the Vaal Dam, and if he does not know how to do so he can come along and find out from me.” I believe that even the Department is satisfied to be criticized, and constructive criticism in particular is always welcome, but it appears, particularly in these difficult times, that some people become extra difficult. Experience has taught that there are many people who would like to live but who do not want to let other people live. The Department of the Minister is continually having to deal with things like that, and unfortunately so do I, because there are many of these waterworks in my constituency. But surely, under these circumstances, we can all, both as individuals and jointly, contribute towards making conditions more endurable.

I should like to mention something specific, and I am glad to see that the hon. member for Walmer is now present. You will allow me. Sir, to refer to two questions which the hon. member put to the hon. the Minister on 23rd September. He asked whether any work teams and machinery had been sent to the site of the Ongeluksdrift Dam during 1965 to start work on raising the dam wall, and if so, when the teams and the machinery arrived at the site, when they departed and why they departed; and secondly, whether the wall of this dam had at that stage been raised and, if so, by whom and at whose expense. He also put a second question, what the estimated and actual cost of the Koedoesberg Dam had been and what the estimated and actual capacity of the dam was, whether sluice openings had been built in that dam and whether any sluices had been provided, and if not, why not. I think it is a very good thing that hon. members put questions in this House and we make ready use of the privilege of being able to put questions here, particularly if it is aimed at obtaining information. But I honestly want to say that I am convinced that the hon. member does not have the vaguest notion of where Koedoesberg and Ongeluksdrift are. If his informants have not yet informed him then I want to tell him that they are in the heart of my constituency. I do not have much objection to the hon. member poking his nose into my constituency a little, but what Langenhoven said is very appropriate here, i.e. that a man who pokes his nose into another man’s business is sniffing out something which does not smell too pleasant. I just want to say that this matter has a whole sequel and I have already been obliged, with the assistance of the Department of Water Affairs, to explain the real facts of the whole matter in the Press. Fortunately I was well-informed. I know who the persons are who instigated this line of thought, and because I know with what disposition, and in what spirit and with what motives they did so, I feel it as an extreme disappointment in these difficult circumstances. But I feel lenient towards the hon. member and say that I believe he was acting in good faith when he put those questions. He was asked to put the questions and he did so in good faith. But I am mentioning this specific example to indicate that there are many people who, in these difficult times, are making matters even more difficult for us, and are doing so unnecessarily. All that I now have to do is to fill in the hon. the Minister in regard to the background to this whole matter when we have the opportunity of discussing it in private.

There are a few little matters which I should like to touch upon in the short time available to me. It seems to me I shall not get the opportunity to do so. This scarcity of water has also taught us lessons, and one of the first lessons is that in future we will not, as far as water consumption in respect of farming is concerned, be able to proceed as our fathers and their fathers before them did. We shall have to accept, and not only the farmers but the entire population will have to do so, that water will in future have to be controlled. I think it is the task of us as members of this House to make it known in our constituencies that the time of free consumption—and one can almost say free wastage—of water is gone forever in this country. But when I speak of control, I am actually thinking of control in a broader sense, and not only of how, if I may put it this way, we can prescribe to one another whose turn it is to lead water. I am also thinking of something which came specifically to my attention during the recent difficult time. I do not know how many hon. members are aware of where the Ghaap Plateau is situated. It is a little outside my constituency. A prominent farmer told me recently that not many years ago, when they bored for water on that plateau, they found it at depths varying between 30 and 40 feet, and that there was a strong flow of water and that the farmers then proceeded to bore a little deeper and installed turbines and that to-day the water-level was over 100 feet. I have in my own constituency—the Minister is aware of the fact because one of the municipalities recently consulted him in this regard—a place where they get the water from somewhere else and not from the immediate vicinity. It is an area with a plentiful supply of water and the water is pumped from there to one of our large towns in the Karoo. But that water level has dropped consistently and it would appear that that particular area is drying up. It is a very ominous sign and I believe that we shall have to do something about it.

One last thought. I do not know whether I should call it water-saving or water-wasting, but I should like to see water being used much more economically. We waste water and do not hesitate to shout it from the rooftops. Let us just consider our own domestic use and see what goes on there. I see it myself in this building every day. When somebody wants to wash his hands he turns the tap open and only closes it again when he thinks that his hands are clean enough. We are doing this in all fields. Just look at what happens with the farmers who undertake spraying. [Time limit.]

I think it is particularly fitting that the Minister of Water Affairs is also the Minister who deals with soil conservation, because the two things seem to run together so naturally. In your practical work on a farm the two things do run together. I think one can say that soil conservation and water conservation are inextricably bound up the one with the other. The first point I want to make this afternoon is in regard to the policy of the Minister’s predecessor as applied particularly to the South Coast of Natal, but I want to preface my remarks by saying that I think I am right in stating that the only free and uncommitted water we have of any volume now in any of our South African rivers in the whole of the Republic is in the rivers on the East Coast of Natal. When once that has been committed, that is the lot. We can conserve and make plans for re-use and we can desalinate and make plans in regard to subterranean water supplies, but we can create no new sources of river supplies when once those rivers on the East Coast of Natal have been committed. That is why I am so pleased to know that the hon. the Minister will in the recess pay us a visit to look at the area himself. It is so much easier to speak to an experienced man who sees things for himself.

The Minister’s predecessor laid down that he would not give a licence for the extraction of water for future industries along that coastal belt until the factory concerned had obtained from the C.S.I.R. a clean certificate that the processes to be employed in that factory would not result in an effluent detrimental to the purity of the water, which included the strip of sea water adjacent to our coast. I want to point out to the Minister that the 1956 Act dealt with discharge into the sea, as well as with the water in the rivers. In fact, one factory which was closed down by the Minister’s predecessor was closed down because of its discharge into the sea, and he refused to give a certificate for the abstraction of water from the adjacent river. I want to ask the Minister please to carry out the same policy and to stick to the same principle. It is no good us reaching the stage where factories are established and notwithstanding the assurances which have been given noxious effluents are discharged into the rivers or into the sea, and then we have to tell them to put it right. Putting it right can be an extremely costly business. From the point of view of our economy it can be a very expensive matter indeed for South Africa.

I can think of one factory which is producing about R9,000,000 a year in foreign currency for us, but now, to get rid of its effluent, despite all the assurances which were given at the time by the people who were erecting the factory, to comply with the demands of the Minister’s predecessor, it will cost them a further R1,500,000, because the assurances given were not carried out in practice. It seems to me that there is only one way of dealing with it and that is by getting a certificate from the C.S.I.R. giving an absolute assurance to the Minister that that effluent will not be noxious in any sense of the word. There was a suggestion made when I sat on the Select Committee which produced the 1956 Act which was viewed with some merriment by certain members of the Committee, but I see now that in another part of the world it has been taken up very seriously indeed. That was the suggestion that every factory which uses water from a river should be compelled by law to discharge its effluent through the intake pipe of that factory. That would be the test of its purity. There is a tremendous burden being imposed on the C.S.I.R. to work out standards of purity. It is a very difficult matter to be able to set standards of purity which will stand the test in a court of law if the Minister decides to take action against someone because their standards are not up to that standard which he demands. To get a conviction in a court of law in terms of the present law is extremely difficult. So while I do not actually advocate it, I say that what was looked upon as a joke 12 years ago is now becoming a matter almost of common sense if we are to deal with this question of effluents satisfactorily.

In dealing with this question of effluents, I want to ask the Minister whether, in terms of the Act, it is not possible to get the C.S.I.R., which is the enforcement agency provided for in the Act, to deal with this question of effluent from our towns. As long as you have a river or a sea coast handy, there is a great temptation, particularly where organic effluents are concerned, to give them partial treatment or very little treatment at all and then to discharge them into the sea or into a big river. But I think South Africa is throwing away a vast source of fertility for our soil because we do not deal adequately with the reuse not only of the liquids but also of the solids that come from effluents based on organic elements. I know that inorganic wastes have all sorts of difficulties in regard to purification, but that is a matter factories will have to deal with when they apply for permits to use water from our rivers. For the moment I leave the inorganic wastes aside entirely and I want to deal with the organic waste.

That is of such value to South Africa that it seems to me that we are losing in two ways by allowing it to be discharged into the sea or into a big river. I think South Africa will benefit very much indeed if that matter is dealt with properly, and in future it may have to be dealt with by way of statute, and it should no longer be a matter of choice for a town to decide on its method of discharge of effluent. It may not be a matter for these towns for very much longer to choose for themselves how they will dispose of organic waste. It may be that they will have to abide by the law, and it is in the long-term interest of South Africa that that should be done.

There is one last point. In the 1964 Select Committee we were concerned very much with what we called an enforcement agency. That was the term we used, an agency which would enforce the provisions of the law. We did not feel it was quite right and fair that an obligation should be placed on the Department of Water Affairs or even on the Minister until a certain stage had been reached. We took as an analogy the Public Health Act. If anyone feels that there is a threat to public health arising from certain conditions in an area, he goes to the public health officer or the local health authority and complains, and then the Public Health Department steps in and takes over. But the authority is there. The citizen or the organization complains and then the Public Health Department steps in, but we have no such enforcement agency in regard to water affairs. Complaints have to go back to the Department of Water Affairs and they have to find the trained personnel to investigate all the complaints. We thought at the time that this was not fair and we went so far as to prepare and draft something to put into that Act, but the law advisers held that we had put it into the wrong place and it was left out. I want to ask the Minister to see whether he cannot do something in regard to establishing an enforcement agency by statute. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member for South Coast will not take it amiss of me if my speech follows on his. In the first place I want to express my sympathy towards the Minister and his Department in these times we are experiencing at present. It is indeed an unenviable position which he is holding at present, in this drought which is the greatest we have known in living memory. At the same time I want to express my thanks towards the Minister and his Department for the service I at any rate have always received from them when I approached them with a matter of importance. Only recently, on a Monday, I brought a very serious matter to the notice of the Department. I was told at the time that they would investigate the matter immediately, and by Wednesday that investigation had already been made, after a great deal of expense and long distances which had to be covered. I cannot but express my sincere gratitude to the Minister and his Department for that service which we are getting under very difficult circumstances, because there is probably not a part of the country in which drought does not prevail at present. It is only human to be impatient in times such as these, because if drought prevails farmers only see the gloomy side, but I want to express the hope that relief is very near, and then I want to anticipate events by saying that a good 75 per cent of the difficulties with which the Minister and his Department have to cope at present will disappear. Then we shall have water once again, and perhaps the drought has taught us now to make better provision for the future than was the case in the past.

I should like to bring a small matter to the notice of the Minister. It concerns the riparian owners of the Harts River. There are probably few people in this House who know where that river lies. The Harts River has been a dry river for as long as I can remember. It might have had running water in bygone years, but it has been a dry river for as long as I can remember. But since the establishment of the Vaalharts settlement the Harts River has once more become a river with a perennial flow. Over the past 25 years the Harts River has virtually always had water, except now with the drought, and in that respect, too, I want to express my gratitude to the Minister and his Department for the water they have diverted into the Harts River in order that the people there might save their crops. At present the Harts River derives its water from two sources only, namely seepage and surplus water used at the Vaalharts settlement. Since the Harts River became a perennial stream once again, and that has been the case for the past 25 years, the riparian owners have erected expensive pumping installations and they have been going in for irrigation, some of them even on lands which are 100 to 150 morgen in extent. Those people are experiencing hard times at present. Let me just say that people who subsequently bought land there, were firmly under the impression that they had a river with a perennial flow and that they had a right to that water, but now, to their rude awakening, they find that they are not entitled to water, and that that water is nothing but a gift. Now, this is my plea. Those people produce a great deal of fodder in those parts, and we know what the fodder position is at present. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for those riparian owners to be granted the same privileges enjoyed by the other settlers, and to include the riparian owners as well under the Settlements Act, so that in future they may also know where they stand. Those people have invested enormous amounts in their lands, and if they are no longer permitted to depend on the water they can obtain there, it will be a terrible set-back to them.

Before I sit down I want to ask the Minister the following in a very polite and courteous manner. I know that the water has now been decreased to approximately 20 per cent. But at the Harts River we have a case where the wheat and peas of those people have just reached a stage where they will need a little more water to pull them through. I am not asking for extra water; I am merely asking that they should be permitted to use the water which is there at present and which may only be pumped out to the extent of 20 per cent, since otherwise it only evaporates and it is of no use to anybody. Allow them to use that water so that they may save their harvest, which is so important to our country. I am asking this in all courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to join the speaker who has just sat down in conveying our thanks on behalf of the agricultural industry, and in particular on behalf of the irrigation farmers of the Republic, to the hon. the Minister and to everyone in his Department from the Secretary to the most junior official, and to congratulate them on the efficient way in which they have been handling the critical situation we have been experiencing during the past number of years. We are aware that many of these officials go out of their way to make concessions and to bring relief where it is at all possible to do so. We are aware that there is a shortage of staff in various sections of that Department and we as farmers are fully aware when officials go beyond the call of duty to bring relief to those areas where things are black indeed.

However, I am on my feet to speak about another matter. It concerns the construction of Government water works. We are aware of the fact that more and more is being done in that direction lately. We are also aware of the fact that the taxpayer is becoming more prepared to pay higher taxes so as to make it possible for those works to be completed and established, because the construction of Government water works are, in fact, an investment made by the nation for future generations. In order to illustrate the truth contained in this statement—and I do not want to derive any political advantage from it—I shall quote certain figures from the Estimates dating back to 1910. The total amount of capital spent on Government water schemes between the years 1910 and 1948 was approximately R27,500,000. The total capital expenditure on irrigation board schemes during the said period slightly exceeded the amount of R11,500,000. Total expenditure on boring services amounted to nearly R10,000,000. During the period 1948 to 1966 nearly R184,000,000 was spent in respect of the first category. Total expenditure on irrigation boards amounted to nearly R21,000,000 and on boring services to nearly R40,000,000. This comes to total expenditure amounting to approximately R49,000,000 during the period from 1910 to 1948 and to R244,000,000 during the period from 1948-1966—i.e. 18 years. The funds provided by the Nationalist Government over the period of 18 years from 1948 to 1966, are more than five times that provided by all previous Governments over the period of 38 years up to 1948. This reflects the willingness of the taxpayer to provide in the irrigation needs of the agricultural industry.

Let us just examine what the tendency has been during the past six years when we were really bearing the brunt of these critical drought conditions. During this period of six years, from 1960-1 to 1965-6, R86,000,000 has been appropriated in respect of 43 Government water schemes. That was in respect of irrigation only. Of this amount R70,000,000 is not repayable. That means that irrigation farmers scored to the tune of R70,000,000 and that an amount of only R16,000,000 is repayable. We mention this as proof of the fact that that money invested by the State and by the taxpayer is not recoverable. As a matter of fact, we go as far as saying that the interest on that capital expenditure is not even collected.

The ideal set by the Government and quite rightly so, is that every separate irrigation scheme should at least be self-supporting as far as its current expenditure and its administrative expenses are concerned. However, it is essential that there should be a certain measure of protection for this enormous investment made on behalf of the taxpayers, and this protection we find in Act No. 54 of 1956 and more specific in sub-sections (8), (9) and (10) of Section 63. Sub-section (9) specifically deals with scheduled land acquired in terms of Act No. 12 of 1912, as amended. This relates to Crown land allotted to settlers under the old set-up. Please note that that section makes specific provision for Crown land only and not for private holdings on that Government water scheme. In practice the effect of this section is the following: One owner may not be included in any schedule under a Government water scheme in respect of more than one piece of land. In order to be included in any schedule in respect of more than one piece of land in very exceptional cases, he must obtain permission from the Minister. In practice this usually means that the Land Board, according to the old set-up, and now the new Land Tenure Board established in terms of new legislation passed this Session, investigates such an application and makes a recommendation to the hon. the Minister. It has been our experience that that recommendation was mainly based on the economic aspect in the past. In other words, if that owner had an economic piece of land and wanted to acquire another piece of land under the same or another Government water scheme he could not acquire it unless it was found that it was an uneconomic proposition.

We are in favour of the retention of that section because we see in it the protection of the taxpayer’s money in order to prevent moneyed companies and others from buying large pieces of land whereby the purpose of the scheme would be frustrated. It is also true that people who initially started on those schemes as settlers and who have made gradual economic progress eventually find themselves in a position where they have to make provision for extensions for various reasons on which I do not wish to dwell. Now, my plea is that when the hon. the Minister considers such applications and when the Land Tenure Board institutes an investigation on the instruction of the hon. the Minister, such investigation should not concern the economic aspect only. There often are many other factors which may be taken into account. However, we should like to see the discretionary powers of the hon. the Minister being properly entrenched and protected. The request is that the hon. the Minister in his wisdom should decide whether justification does in fact exist for that owner to buy two pieces of land or even three, in exceptional cases where there are sons who have reached the stage that they, too, should have land—he is able to buy it in any event—and for him to retain the water rights in respect of such land until such time as he is able to transfer such rights to his sons. Up to this stage it has been the policy that he may obtain water in respect of one holding only. The alternative, and this is the very evil we wish to combat, is that that owner may purchase a private holding under the same water scheme, because it is not prohibited by this Act. He may buy ten private holdings which were not Crown land originally. And for this reason we are saying that this section does not, in fact, serve its purpose. He may not buy the holding adjoining his which originally might have been allotted in terms of the Land Settlement Act. The policy of the hon. the Minister therefore is such that he cannot afford it proper protection. A differentiation is made between owners of private land and owners of Crown land. In order to circumvent the Act it is true that land is purchased in the name of the wife if a couple is married out of community of property. If they are married in community of property he and his wife form a company which constitutes a separate corporate body. The company is then able to obtain registration of that land with the retention of water rights. In order to prevent these evils we are pleading with the hon. the Minister to adopt a more flexible and realistic policy in regard to this matter. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Kuruman. I think it is no more than right to say that since I represent a constituency in the Vaal triangle we should like to express our thanks for the way in which the farmers in their areas have contributed their share in regard to this very vital question with which we have to contend. I hope the day will soon dawn when those water problems will be solved. At the same time we must express our thanks to and admiration for the citizens of that Vaal triangle, including Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand, for the patriotic way in which they have complied with the restrictions which have been imposed upon them. I am once again rising to speak about that Vaal triangle. I am standing up particularly because the hon. the Minister of Planning said to me a few days ago—

If, therefore, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs perhaps feels that I am placing an additional burden on his shoulders then I am afraid that the hon. the Minister of Planning is party to blame. We know that this Water Commission has been appointed. In my opinion it was appointed too late. In my opinion it ought to have been appointed two years ago and a report should already have been submitted. Since this burden is now being placed upon the shoulders of the hon. the Minister, and since he only recently became Minister of Water Affairs, we cannot hold him personally responsible for this disastrous state of affairs which is prevailing to-day in South Africa and particularly in the Vaal triangle. However, he is a responsible Minister of the Cabinet and of a Government which I do in fact hold responsible for a great deal of the danger and the unsatisfactory state of affairs which exists in South Africa to-day. There are literally hundreds of reports which have already been submitted in regard to the water shortage in South Africa. And those reports have never before been co-ordinated. There is a Planning Section in the Department of the hon. Minister of Water Affairs. Owing to a shortage of staff, and other reasons, that Department of Planning has, during the past year or two, been able to do very little in regard to the problem of the Vaal River. Warnings were issued years ago in regard to this shortage. The Natural Resources Development Council said more than ten years ago that it was urgently necessary for a dam wall to be built at Oppermansdrift, where it is being built to-day. All those warnings were issued previously but little was done about them. The wall of the Vaal Dam which has to be raised ten feet is a plan which should also have been tackled a long time ago. This year when I put questions in that regard I was furnished with the reply on 9th August that in the first place they did not know when a start would be made with the raising of the wall of the Vaal Dam and that they did not know what it would cost. Not a single cent is being requested for that purpose in the Estimates this year. One of the problems for which we must also hold the Department and the hon. the Minister partly responsible is the large shortage of engineers. We know that that shortage exists throughout the country, but I think that he is meeting the engineers of his own Department on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. Members know about that. They will then explain the problems and the hon. the Minister will find that amongst those problems there are quite a few in respect of which the blame must be laid upon his shoulders. Something must be wrong somewhere. There are 167 posts for engineers in the Department of Water Affairs, while there are 74 posts which are not filled. Look at the Estimates, look at the Loan Estimates. I see that only one tenth is being requested this year for the Vaal River area. The same applies to the Orange River scheme. Those are two important schemes but less is being requested for the Vaal River area than for the Usutu River scheme or for the Pongola Poort scheme. I shudder when I look at the small amount which is being requested for the development of the Vaal River, as compared with the major problem existing there and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are involved. Well now, what must be done? Of course the Oppermansdrift Dam must be tackled rapidly, as is being done. Of course the wall of the Vaal Dam must be raised. Of course the Schoemansdrift Dam must be tackled. Of course the other construction works must be tackled. However, all those things, all those building plans will not bring one extra drop of water into the Vaal Dam basin or the Vaal River area before two or three years have elapsed. In other words, the hon. Minister is saddled with this problem that within the next year steps will have to be taken to prevent a disaster in South Africa and in that Vaal River area. What is he going to do? The steps he will have to take will have to be limited ones. There are the negative steps of imposing further restrictions on the consumers in those parts, upon the industries and the farmers. That is something which I know the hon. the Minister, as well as all of us, would like to prevent. But the public of South Africa, one’s farming population as well as one’s urban population, will have to suffer as a result of these years and years during which practically nothing was done by this Government to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. [Interjections.]

There is a second aspect in regard to what can now be done. What can be done is to tackle the problem of the re-utilization of water. The reports have been submitted, methods have been worked out by the Institute for Water Research of the C.S.I.R. To a certain extent certain of those proposals can be applied rapidly in order to cope with this difficulty. Sir, do you know that Dr. Naude, the Chairman of the C.S.I.R., has said that if the sewerage water on the Rand can be reutilized the Rand would have sufficient water for its economic development until well into the next century? Just by means of that one method, states Dr. Meiring Naude, the Rand would already have sufficient water for all its economic requirements until well into the 21st century. I know the hon. the Minister is going to tackle that problem, but it must be done quickly. The other method which he has already applied is the use of alcohol wax, the spraying of water in dams. We should like to know from him to what extent the recent spraying was successful. I notice that the level in the Vaal Dam has not dropped, neither has it risen: it is remaining constant at that terrifying 32 per cent of its capacity in comparison with the 64 per cent at which it stood the same time last year.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is another method which I think the Government can tackle with a great deal more enthusiasm. We often hear from the other side of the House: “Do you expect us to make it rain? Do you expect us to make rain?” My reply is, “yes”. The hon. the Minister must make rain and he can make rain. I shall tell him how. [Interjections.] There is a scientifically proven method of rainmaking which has been tested in other countries of the world and which has not been tested sufficiently in South Africa. I mean the spraying of clouds or the firing of rockets at clouds. [Interjections.] It is a scientific concept. The scientific theory is that all the droplets of water form round a small nucleus of dust. It has been proved by scientists that, by spraying clouds with silver iodide, with sodium chloride or even with dry ice, it can in many cases cause it to rain. It can be successful. I have here an article to indicate what is being done in Australia. The Australian equivalent of the C.S.I.R. here is doing that work. They have a special Clouds Physics Department. [Interjections.] They have a special section of their C.S.I.R. there which is doing work in that connection and the following is what they said. The article was written by the head of their Division of Radio Physics. It reads—

A major advocate of this method of tackling the problem is the Dean of the Agricultural Faculty in Bloemfontein, i.e. Professor De Villiers. In this regard an article in the Landbou Weekblad reads, inter alia, as follows (translation)—

In Rhodesia it has been tested successfully. Thousands of rockets are being fired here in South Africa. We realize that, but I am convinced that the Department is not doing enough in that regard; that it does not want to institute adequate research and that, out of fear of certain bodies, it does not want to examine that important method. I am referring here to certain religious bodies in particular. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, if one listens to the fuss made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, one thanks the Lord that they, the United Party, are not in power in these drought conditions, so that they can give us rain. They would have shot down the clouds, they would have made all the dams that can be made, and they would have been just as negative as the hon. member in respect of the things that have already been done.

The old Conroy dams.

Mr. Chairman, you will forgive me if I do not tread the pasturage where the hon. member rushed in.

I actually want to confine myself to a more positive aspect, and I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that he has now joined us in the great struggle for water. We know that wherever Oom Jim appeared, large amounts of money were made available later. One wonders whether he will not eventually have to apply to the nation to obtain a few hundred million rand in order that the necessary provision may be made for our water requirements. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the imminent disaster in the Vaal Triangle. But in Natal we are in a fortunate position. If we say “in a fortunate position”, it is in respect of rain. There are only a few spots which are really drought-stricken areas. In my constituency the rainfall varies from 20 inches to 60 inches a year. As a result, we therefore have a good vegetation and no problems. The only problem is that our water flows away, but we realize that there is not adequate capital available to retain all that water within our working capacity. If I tell you that the problem of the Vaal Triangle will be ameliorated to a large extent if we couple it with the speech made by one of the hon. Deputy Ministers on the question of the establishment of labour-intensive industries, then we can tell him that if we utilize the water supplied to us by the Creator, it will be possible to relieve the pressure exerted on the Vaal Triangle to a large extent. In other words, what I am advocating is therefore that you should tell the industrialists not to continue exerting pressure on the Vaal Basin, but to come across the mountains to Natal, where there is abundant coal, labour and water. [Interjections.] Listening to the hon. member’s interjections, I have an idea that I am not so sure that a stimulating influence has not in fact been exercised to draw labour to those areas, so that it has become more difficult to turn the tide of labour from that complex of the Vaal Triangle back to the rural areas and to the homelands where we need it. In pleading for water, I want to mention a river in my immediate vicinity, i.e. the Pivaan River. If we can get a dam on the Pivaan River, we shall be able to supply Vryheid with the required water. By 1968 Vryheid’s water requirements —I will not say exactly how they are constituted—will amount to 6,500,000 gallons a day. At present Vryheid has available more than 233,0,000 gallons of water a year. It is therefore evident that we are running behind on our programme. If timeous action is taken— and that is what we are asking the Department of Water Affairs to do—and we get that water, we shall be able to establish those industries. As a result of limited water supplies, we are prevented from expanding Vryheid’s annual production of plus-minus 2,000,000 tons of coal, 1,700,000 tons of anthracite and 1,000,000 tons of coke, and from utilizing our reserves of 855,000,000 tons of bituminous coal, which is waiting to be exploited. This can be done only if we have the water. 233,000,000 tons of semi-anthracite is also awaiting exploitation if we can obtain the water. I do not want to say much about this, because the plans have already reached an advanced stage. That is the information I have received, and that is also stated in the report of the Department of Water Affairs, i.e. that the planning of the dam in the Pivaan River has reached an advanced stage. There is only one other aspect to which I should like to refer. It is something in which another constituency is also involved, but I mention it on the instructions of the Natal Agricultural Union. It relates to the transfer of control over the water in the dams in Natal that have been built so far. I am now speaking of transfer to the Natal Parks Board or to the Natal Administration. We would be grateful if that transfer could be effected as soon as possible, because in the interim period we find that we have to do there with races that usually like mixing. During this period there is no law or authority in terms of which we can charge them or whom we can ask that they should be prevented from mixing with us. Thus we find, for example, that at the Midmar Dam there are just as many Indians and non-Whites as Whites along the shores. It is a large-scale hotch-potch. The Department of Water Affairs has not yet transferred control to the Natal Parks Board. The latter is quite prepared to apply the Government’s policy also in respect of the shores of those dams. We ask that it should be expedited, because that is essential for orderly progress. I do not want to go any further, except to convey the sympathy of my constituency once again to the drought-stricken areas. In our constituency we took up as many as possible of the stock from regions where there was no longer any fodder. There are literally thousands of head of stock from the Northern Transvaal regions and even from the Free State that we were fortunate and blessed enough to be able to feed because our rainfall was fairly normal.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member for Vryheid that I am just as happy as he is that his particular area has not felt the very severe effects of this very drastic water crisis. Now, in an interview which the hon. the Minister for Water Affairs gave to Die Landstem on 10th August of this year, headed “Ons sal die water bring’, sê Oom Jim”, he said, referring to the public—

The hon. the Minister goes on to say—

The hon. the Minister goes further and says—

The hon. the Minister made this statement nearly two months ago. I am certain that he will agree with me when I say that the position has become very much worse since he made the statement. And I feel quite sincerely that the hon. the Minister will be doing the people of South Africa a very great service if he took this House fully into his confidence to-day and told us exactly what his plans are. I feel that firstly, the hon. the Minister should tell us exactly what plans have been made to meet the present very serious crisis. I feel that he should then tell us what plans are being made to ensure that we will not face a similar crisis should the same circumstances arise next year. I know, of course, that the Government has appointed a water planning commission and that it will in due course lay before the Government an extensive overall water plan for the whole of South Africa.

Not in due course. I hope to get a first report within a fortnight.

Let me assure the hon. the Minister that we welcome the appointment of this commission very much indeed. I feel this is a commission which should have been appointed years ago. It is a fact that many experts in the field have over a period of years warned the Government that unless something constructive was done South Africa would be heading for just this kind of water crisis. But I feel certain that this commission under the very able chairmanship of Dr. Viljoen will in time present a report which will ensure that South Africa will not have to face a crisis of such a dimension again. Unfortunately for the country, however, Mr. Chairman, these plans will take years to implement and will, therefore, not assist us in overcoming the very serious situation we have to face to-day. There is also another fact. It is unfortunate that because of this very serious water crisis an impression has arisen that people on the Witwatersrand would like to have more water and that at the expense of the Vaalhartz farmers. I want to say immediately that there has never been even the slightest suggestion from this side of the House that farmers on the Vaalhartz should give up of their water for the benefit of the Witwatersrand. What I should like to say, however, is that the people on the Witwatersrand would like to know whether the Minister himself is satisfied that the large quantity of water being released to the farmers on Vaalhartz is being used to the best effect and also whether the Minister is sure in his own mind that wastage there has been stopped. I say this because there can be no doubt that a large quantity of water is being wasted on the Vaalhartz.

What about Johannesburg itself? Is there no water wastage there?

Dr. Vorster, the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, has gone on record as saying that the way in which our irrigation schemes are being used is scandalous and that because of primitive flood irrigation methods large amounts of water are lost through run off and deep percolation. It is, therefore, not surprising that the people of the Witwatersrand do feel a bit upset because experts tell them that by introducing a sprinkler system on the Vaalhartz 84,000,000 gallons of water could be saved per day. This quantity will suffice to take care of all Johannesburg’s daily needs. I know the hon. the Minister is going to tell me that a sprinkler system is too expensive but surely the cost should not be taken into account at a time when we need water so badly as is the case to-day. I feel the hon. the Minister should give this question of introducing a sprinkler system on the Vaalharts his very serious consideration. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that I appreciate the very difficult task he has to-day. It is not his fault that we have not had sufficient rain. We know that the hon. the Minister is an efficient Minister. We have heard glowing remarks about the way in which he handled the Defence portfolio. So I want to make this earnest appeal to him on behalf of Johannesburg, an appeal that he should give his urgent attention to introducing a sprinkler system on the Vaalharts as soon as possible.

Various hon. members have made an urgent appeal to the Minister and the Department that plans should be devised. I have no objection to those appeals, but for my part I want to appeal to hon. members as well as to the public to give the Minister and his Department a chance to draw up those plans during the hours of daylight, so that they may get on with their work. I am aware of the fact that in these crisis times in particular the Department is inundated with well-meant applications for interviews with the object of bringing representations to its notice. It is most important, however, particularly in these times, that the Department should be enabled to give its full attention to the actual problem of the day.

It is true that the value of water has never been brought home to the entire country as pointedly as now. Never has the value of water been appreciated as much as now— much more valuable than the diamonds and the gold we produce. Water is the life stream of our country—that is, not only of our agriculture, but also of our industries and of our cities and towns. Many towns and cities are in difficulties at present as a result of the shortage of water. All these factors contribute to the fact that at present the attention of the public centres on this problem as never before. It is because our people realize this that the restrictions imposed on various concerns by the Minister are accepted in good spirit. Even those farmers who are directly affected by these restrictions and whose livelihood is jeopardized by them, accept the restrictions because they appreciate the gravity of the situation. They also accept it because the hon. the Minister has adopted such a sympathetic approach to the problem, and because these restrictions were imposed on them by the Minister in such a humane fashion. They therefore cannot fail to give their cooperation. We want to convey our gratitude to the Minister and his Department for this line of action, particularly under these difficult circumstances.

There is one request, however, that I want to make to the Minister on behalf of the irrigation farmers. They appreciate the necessity of these restrictions and they accept them. They will also do everything in their ability to help save water. They do that in a practical way. The only request they want to make now, is whether it is not possible to have their reduced quotas allocated on a different basis. They should like not to be subject to a monthly quota, but to have their quota for the year made available to them as soon as possible, or rather when they need it, in order that they may keep their standing crops growing until harvest time. This is a matter with regard to which I should like to hear the Minister’s opinion.

When we look at this report of the Department of Water Affairs, we come under the impression of the vast scope of the activities of the Department. Let us consider only the secondary fucntions of this Department. Let us merely consider the technical advice rendered by this Department to various concerns —to farmers, local authorities, and other Government Departments. In that regard the report shows that the eight sections of the Department had to advise and assist no fewer than 195 works. In the case of this number of works the Department had to supply professional advice. In addition, the Department had to advise the Departmental irrigation boards, local authorities and other departments, and also to carry out flood damage works. The Department also had to supervise works involving loans or subsidies. All these mean that a vast amount of secondary work is undertaken by the Department. Let us merely consider the supervision the Department had to carry out during the year under review over works in respect of which loans or subsidies had been granted. No fewer than 270 different works fall under this category. In addition, the Department is engaged in 35 great government schemes. Some of these schemes also have large sub-divisions, as in the case of the Orange River scheme. If we take these works separately, we find that during the year under review work was carried out on no fewer than 42 large works, works which involved a vast amount of capital, which demanded a large number of professional officers, and which absorbed a vast number of workers, White as well as non-White. If anybody alleges that this Department is not doing enough, I want to say for my part that this Department is exceeding its capacity—in actual fact it tackled too many works. If we look at this year’s Loan Estimates, we find that provision has been made for no fewer than 71 works at a cost of R350,000,000. True, all these works will not be commenced with at this stage. [Time limit.]

It is quite clear that our water resources are not being harnessed properly in South Africa. By saying this, I do not mean that we should dam up all the water that is available. What I mean is that we are not making the best use of the available water. There is too much water which, even to-day, runs away to the sea and is wasted. This is so because, as I see it, of a lack of foresight, possibly also on the part of our forebears. So if I blame anybody, I blame all. We have planned industrial developments despite warnings from different directions. Today we have very large concentrations of industries in Certain areas and we find that they are in difficulty on account of lack of sufficient water. People are now talking even in terms of diverting water. I have always maintained that if Mohammed does not want to go to the mountain, we must take the mountain to Mohammed—in other words, if we cannot get water to our large industrial areas because it is just not there in sufficient quantities, then we must think in terms of taking our industries to where the water is, and in that way to utilize and harness all the water that is available wherever that may be.

I am sure that when the findings of the commission which was appointed by the late Prime Minister become known, we will find that one of its recommendations will be that industry should be decentralized. I believe that this scheme is one of the answers to this question of water shortages. It is all very well for us to speak in terms of working sparingly with water. I do not think this is the real problem and that this is why we are short of water. I do not believe that too much is being wasted, but we are not making the best use of the water that is available. I have always maintained that water is a substance of which no one can estimate the value. Furthermore, it is a substance which cannot be substituted. However, we can provide water.

I was very interested to see a certain resolution which was passed unanimously at the annual congress of the Transvaal Agricultural Union which was held in Pretoria recently. Very often you hear people saying that it will rain the moment the wind comes from the right direction, or “dit sal reen wanneer dit wil reën”. I, however, have always maintained that our warm sea currents are running in the wrong direction. We do not have the sea currents to suit our climatic conditions to the extent it should be. New Zealand is lying much further south than South Africa and because it is on that account colder in New Zealand they should normally get less rain than us. But in actual fact their rainfall is much higher than ours. That is so simply because New Zealand, although it is a colder country, lying as it does more closer to the South Pole than South Africa, have warm currents along their shores. At the congress of the Transvaal Agricultural Union to which I have just referred, the resolution which was unanimosuly adopted, appealed to the Government to start research into our sea currents. We see that we have a fairly high rainfall from Cape Point eastwards—in other words, wherever the Mozambique current prevails, we have a high rainfall. When, however, we go westwards and enter the Benguella current we find that our rainfall drops considerably. The Benguella current is, of course, a cold current. This is the reason why we suffer periodically under droughts. If the Government could devise ways and means of starting research into our currents with the object of seeing whether parts of the Mozambique current could not be diverted to the west coast, this situation can to a certain extent be changed, because thereby we would be warming the Benguella current, causing moist air to move inland from the west coast.

My colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), spoke about diverting water from the large rivers to the north of us because these rivers were cutting deeper and deeper into our soil, in that way draining water away. No one will deny that our water table is lowering. Everywhere we have to lengthen pipes and deepen boreholes in order to keep contact with the dropping level of the water. I believe that if the Schwarz scheme had been implemented, when it was first suggested, we may have been spared the drought conditions which we are experiencing to-day.

But scientists did not agree.

At a certain time there were many scientists who did not believe that man would ever be capable of flying either. At least, we could not have lost through an implementation of the Schwarz scheme. This, however, was not done, and now it is necessary for us to be positive and to think in the direction of diverting our currents as I have suggested. If our friends in Natal find that they are getting less rain we can always re-divert a portion of the Mozambique current back to Natal—in other words, turn the tap on and off whenever we want to. Obviously the farmers in the Transvaal are desperate and are desperately looking about for methods to improve our rainfall. They are serious and realize that we have reached the stage where something must be done. The scheme I have suggested may sound farfetched and even certain scientists may be sceptical, as the hon. Minister has already intimated. There are unconfirmed reports that Russia has diverted an ocean current off Japan and succeeded in making Siberia arable. Consequently, I believe that this scheme of mine is worth investigating because it offers a possibility of improving our rainfall. [Time limit.]

To make a person Minister of Water Affairs in South Africa, is to entrust him with one of the most difficult tasks. If, in addition, that man has a soft heart for the farming population of South Africa, as is the case with the hon. the Minister, such a task becomes a virtually inhuman one. I for one do not want to handicap him any further in his task by coming with more requests in these difficult times. This afternoon I nevertheless want to express a few thoughts on the economic-financial aspect of water conservation. It is a matter of common knowledge that municipalities, industries and mines can pay a great deal more for water than agriculture can afford to pay. This afternoon the hon. member for Potgietersrust showed very strikingly how Government water schemes in agriculture could in most cases not afford any redemption or interest and could merely pay for the running costs of the scheme. A very good case can of course be made out for that. Agriculture must have its water, because who else will provide the people with food? It is in this regard that I would modestly bring the needs of the Berg River Valley to the notice of the Minister. Should hon. members drive through the Boland during this time of the year, they will immediately gain the impression that there is no scarcity of water in that region. Everything is green, everything thrives and it looks as though there is definitely no need for more water. But we should not lose sight of the fact that we have just had a good winter and that we also experienced a shortage of water during the four to five months of summer. Now, it is a fact that the Berg River Valley can make a very great financial contribution as regards water conservation. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that the Berg River Valley can virtually pay for itself. By that I do not only mean as regards running costs, but also as regards interest and redemption of capital. I want to substantiate that by referring to the Noord-Agter-Paarl scheme we have only just been granted. Under that scheme water rates amount to approximately R50 per morgen per year. That must be compared with the average R5 or R6 per morgen per year as regards the rest of the Republic. We see, therefore, that this region can bear a much higher water rate. In addition we must remember that this R50 per morgen per year is still not the highest rate paid for agricultural purposes. Within the Paarl municipal area there are approximately 50 farms making use of municipal water for which they are paying 18 cent per 1,000 gallons. This amount of R50 per morgen per year works out at only 10 cent per 1,000 gallons. I must also state that although those farms are paying 18 cent per 1,000 gallons, very profitable farming is carried out on them. Here we have proof that water provision for the Berg River Valley does in fact pay and that this area can be virtually self-sufficient. The first reason for that is that irrigation in this area is only necessary for four months of the year, namely from November to February. The second reason is that the products produced here, can bear very high rates. Products such as fruit, table-grapes and wine can bear very high rates. That is why I believe that the scheme in which the Department is engaged at present, namely the Sanddrift Kloof scheme which will supply the Hex Valley and the Over Hex with water, will be a paying one because the products produced there, are products which can bear a high water rate.

However, that area is situated in a low rainfall area which requires irrigation for eight months of the year. That is why I maintain that the Berg River Valley is one of the most paying areas as regards water provision. It is for that reason that it was such a great disappointment to us when we saw the White Papers on the proposed Assegaaibos Dam and the proposed Vogelvlei Dam. From these White Papers it became clear to us that this water provision was mainly intended for Cape Town, and not for the Berg River Valley. It will merely replace that water which comes from the Wemmershocek Dam at the moment Since Cape Towns will need that water soon, the water from the Assegaaibos Dam and the Vogelvlei Dam is intended to replace that water which Cape Town will then no longer release from the Wemmershoek Dam into the Berg River Valley. That is why I say that our disappointment was a very great one. At this stage I do not want to ask the hon. the Minister to construct a dam in the Berg River Valley within the course of the next year, because I realize his problems only too well. But I do in fact want to plead with him that, particularly with a view to the economic aspect of the scheme, it should not be placed at the bottom of his list.

This afternoon we once again came to realize the necessity of utilizing our water properly and using it judiciously. At this late hour I want to try to make a few suggestions as to how we can in fact use our water economically. In the first place it is essential that everybody—the industries, the community and the farmer—should use water sparingly. We have laws seeking to achieve that. We have laws to force our industries, for instance, to return used water to the river in such a condition that it can be purified. Mr. Chairman, the period of grace granted to municipalities and industries to conform to those legal requirements, has expired. For instance, I am thinking of the fact that Port Elizabeth is considering sewerage works. They have already entered into negotiations with the hon. the Minister. The fact of the matter is that if a city has proper sewerage works, 75 per cent of the drainage water can be reclaimed for use by somebody. It costs money to purify water, and that is why it is essential that the best use should me made of that water. It is not my intention that it should necessarily be assumed that such water should in fact be used for farming purposes, but I should like to suggest that where land is available and where there is such water, we should not allow that water to go to waste but see to it that it is in fact used. If there are such cases, the farming community concerned should be able to come together and to establish an irrigation board; then they should be able to approach the Government to ask for subsidies in respect of the capital works of that board and, where necessary, in respect of the running costs which will be involved in such a scheme. I should like to see the hon. the Minister giving consideration to subsidizing such capital works and pumping schemes for the re-use of water.

The farmer, too, must use water sparingly and there are many methods according to which he can use water sparingly. I do not want to go into those methods to-day. A great deal can also be done on the part of the State. For instance, I am thinking of the current method of levying rates. It varies from place to place and it is perhaps correct that it does, but should we not think of having a system in the future whereby the farmer will only pay for the water he uses? In the reports we read about over-irrigation and the necessity for drainage canals to combat flood conditions. Can we not avoid all those things if we introduce another system of levying rates? I do not expect the hon. the Minister to change the Water Act just like that, but I think that it is a matter to which we must give very serious consideration, namely that the farmer should only pay for the water he actually uses; he will then use that water sparingly and he will also see to it that every drop he uses, is used profitably. He will allow his land to rest where he has to do so, and he will be able to do much more with the available water. In the end we shall perhaps have less revenue accruing to the State, but we shall have better utilization of our water.

The hon. member for Humansdorp has raised an interesting point about the re-use of water, to which I shall refer in a minute, but before I do so there are one or two matters to which I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention and I hope he will give us further information on these points. Sir, the first is the position of the farmers on the Vaalhartz irrigation scheme who have had their irrigation water supply cut to 20 per cent of the normal supply from 1st October. The hon. member for Winburg, I think, referred to the question of restrictions and I think he made a plea for water supplies to be allocated in different ways. I want to deal with a slightly different aspect of that. I am not criticizing the decision to cut irrigation supplies; it is a crises situation and perhaps crisis measures can be justified. But the question of compensation for those farmers has been mooted and I merely want to ask the hon. the Minister what he has in mind as regards the compensation of the approximately 1,200 farmers on the Vaalhartz irrigation scheme; whether he is in a position to give us information as to the compensation that they are going to receive.

I think warnings have been issued to the farmers concerned that they should not incur expenditure on the planting of summer crops, on ploughing and so on, because that may not be considered when the question of compensation is considered. On the other hand many of those farmers have crops which are not annual crops; they are perennial crops which are in the ground—crops such as lucern—and I would like the hon. the Minister to give us some details as to what he intends to do in that regard.

The second question that I would like to refer to is the fact that in this excellent annual report of the Department of Water Affairs there is no mention made at all, as far as I can see, of any work being done on behalf of the Department by our universities. This question of research has been referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Christiana and also by the hon. member for Orange Grove in connection with the artificial making of rain. But quite apart from that there is a very wide field in which our universities could be of assistance to the Department. I find it difficult to believe that our universities are not doing any work for the Department, either directly or through the agency of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. If that is so, I feel that that is something which the Department should publicize in its annual report, and if that is not so, then I do feel that this is a field in which the universities, who have a large pool of trained scientists, plus post-graduate students who can do work on their theses, could be of assistance to the Department. I hope that the hon. the Minister will investigate this aspect of it to see whether in the present circumstances where there is a shortage of personnel the universities cannot be of greater assistance to the Department than they have been in the past.

The third question that I want to refer to is a question relating to the Orange River project. We see in the newspapers that it is anticipated that the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam will or should be completed by the end of June, 1971 and that the tunnel to divert water into the Fish River valley will be completed within a reasonable time after that. Sir, when the Orange River project was announced and the White Paper was published, the scheme as a whole was drawn in broad outline, and it has been said from time to time by responsible authorities that the scheme is flexible and that the details will be filled in from time to time. Sir, 1971 is not so very far ahead and I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some information as to how they intend filling in some of those details. According to the Minister of Planning something like 300,000 morgen of extra land was going to be put under irrigation under this scheme. In the valleys of the Fish and Little Fish alone some extra 25,000 morgen is going to be put under irrigation.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time must be very close when some announcement should be made as to what is going to happen with regard to expropriation in those areas. One assumes that there will be a certain amount of expropriation of land with the extension of the irrigation area, and one would like to know on what basis that is going to take place. Sir, I raise this with specific reference to the Fish River because the hon. the Minister will know that in the case of previous schemes in that river it was very difficult, even when there were reasonable supplies of water in the early years of the scheme, for those people to make a good living unless they had not merely an irrigation plot or plots but unless they had quite a reasonable amount of grazing attached to those plots. That indeed is the pattern that developed throughout the years; those irrigators who could not make a living on the irrigation plots alone have left the area and their place has been taken by others who also have some sort of stock-raising proposition to co-ordinate with their irrigation activities. If this is going to be the pattern of these new irrigable areas, namely irrigation plus veld, there is liable to be further expropriation because veld will be needed for the new irrigators who are put on those plots. I hope that the hon. the Minister has this problem in mind because I am sure that it is going to be an actual problem in those areas when the irrigation waters are diverted from the Orange River.

The fourth point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is the question of co-ordination between the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services when it comes to these big irrigation schemes, especially the whole Orange River project. I understand that there is a Cabinet Committee co-ordinating the whole Orange River project and I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister co-ordinates the activities of his two Departments, but Cabinet Ministers and the hon. the Minister are busy people and what I would like to ask the Minister is whether there is any standing, permanent co-ordination between the Departments as such on these matters. I put that question specifically because I know that there have been occasions in the past when one Department did not appear to be 100 per cent aware of what was happening in the other one. About three years ago, for example, there was a committee of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Botha Committee, which was investigating the research needs of the Orange River project and there was a time when the Department of Water Affairs did not seem to be entirely aware of the activities of that particular committee. Sir, I am not blaming either the Department of Water Affairs or the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for that fact, but it is another point which I hope the hon. the Minister will bear in mind.

After having listened to-day to all the requests addressed to me as Minister of Water Affairs, requests in which hon. members expected of me to have intimate knowledge of local affairs as well as requests for me to make rain, I want to join the poet in exclaiming “Sal daar ooit weer rus uit hierdie onrus kom”? (Will this unrest ever again give way to rest?) But it is only in moments when one is lacking in faith that one thinks like this; I hope that rest will be ours again.

I hope hon. members do not expect me to reply to all the points raised in the course of this debate. My officials made the most accurate notes of what had been said here and where I do not reply to hon. members, replies will be forwarded to them.

The hon. member for Mooi River, who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, asked for the privilege of the half hour. The hon. member raised quite a number of pertinent points.

†He ended by telling me about the pollution in the Eerste River. I might say that the Eerste River has been polluted in the past by effluents from wineries and from a certain tannery. Largely as the result of action taken by the Department the tannery has now been closed. Action against the offending wineries has resulted in increasingly effective control over the standard of effluents reaching the river. The Department is continually investigating the effluents from these wineries and will not hesitate to institute legal proceedings against firms who contravene the requirements of the Water Act and who dispose of sub-standard effluent into the Eerste River, or for that matter any of the other rivers.

The hon. member also complained about negligence which resulted in the theft of certain explosives from certain departmental works; that is correct. Certain irregularities did take place. These irregularities were investigated by the chief inspector of explosives and by the S.A. Police. Gross irregularities in which certain employees of the Department employed in the tunnel were involved, were uncovered. I am sorry about it and my Department is sorry about it. The result of the court actions and the full detailed reports of the chief inspector of explosives are still awaited. In the meantime further steps, including various staff dispositions on the construction site, have been taken to prevent a recurrence of irregularities and closer supervision has been instituted. I want to apologize for what happened and I hope it will not occur again. Sir, it is very difficult to prevent crime. We know what happened in here not so many days ago. It is just impossible to prevent crime altogether but we will do our best to see that this sort of thing does not happen again.

I was also asked whether we had been invited to the International Symposium on Water for Peace. Yes, we were invited and the Government is considering whether we should be represented or not, but we have been invited.

*Then the hon. member for Christiana made a speech in which he thanked me for what we had done and for the manner in which I was tackling the water question. As I understood him, he also said that in future we would have to see to it that consumption was adapted to the minimum potential of the country. It is a difficult matter to adapt water consumption to the minimum potential at all times. It we had to adapt the supply of water to the minimum potential it would, after all, mean that a tremendous quantity of water would be wasted because it would always have to be adapted to the minimum potential. However, I want to agree with the hon. member that we have to exercise great care that we do not adapt our supply of water to the maximum potential, because then we are most certainly going to promote frustration in this country. We have to see to it that we utilize our water in such a way that we do not overtax our dams, and it is also the policy of my Department that our awards must be made in such a manner that our dams will not be overtaxed. I assume that this is what the hon. member had in mind.

The hon. member for Virginia advanced an argument here in connection with the desalination of water which I found very interesting. It was somewhat too high-browed for me to understand but it was very interesting. What I found especially interesting was the hon. member’s statement that it was possible for them to desalinate water there at that time at a cost of 30 cents per 1,000 gallons. At the moment they pay 22 cents per 1,000 gallons for their water. If that is the case, it is worthwhile investigating whether it would not be a paying proposition to start that experiment all over. If people in the Boland can pay so much for their water, Virginia can pay much more.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) said that we rushed in to build dams but that what they really wanted me to do was to make rain.

No. I did not say that. I said there were too many people running after too little water.

If that was all the hon. member said then I cannot agree with him more. I thought that the hon. member went on to say that what they really want is rain. I take it that he also had in mind the old Schwarz scheme.

Indirectly, yes.

I must say that at the present moment I have so many things on my hands that I cannot entertain the idea of embarking on a scheme which was shelved long ago. The scientists did not agree on it at all and nobody would allow me to spend many millions of rand, which I could spend on the actual conservation of water in the Republic, on a wild scheme of that kind.

*The hon. member for Lichtenburg once again drew my attention to the problems existing in connection with dolomitic waters in his area. We experience those problems in connection with dolomitic waters throughout the country. The hon. member once led a deputation to me in Pretoria to discuss this question of dolomitic waters. What it really amounts to is the following: Beneath certain of the highlands in that area these dolomitic waters appeared as natural springs and even in the olden days people established irrigation schemes there. In subsequent years people on the highlands discovered that it was possible to sink boreholes there and their boreholes struck these dolomitic streams and for that reason they engaged in irrigation on an extremely large scale. At that time, in the days of my predecessor, my Department declared certain regions on the highlands to be controlled areas. It was not quite clear to me this afternoon what was expected of me, but if I rightly recall what the deputation, led by the hon. member for Lichtenburg, advanced to me at that time it was the following: They wanted protection for the people living along the old original streams by restricting the water pumped out on the highlands. This was exactly what my predecessor wanted to do by declaring those controlled areas. However, it is obvious that these people now living in the areas which have been declared controlled areas to some extent find themselves in an uncomfortable position. I realize that only too well. Wherever there is control people find themselves in an uncomfortable position. The question now is, as a result of requests made to me, to what extent we can interfere in the vested rights of people on the highlands at this stage? This entire question is being investigated by the water commission and I hope that the commission will throw more light on this problem of dolomitic waters.

The hon. member for De Aar complained about water being wasted, and another hon. member, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) asked me whether I was satisfied that water was not being wasted in the agricultural sectors. No, I am not at all satisfied or convinced that water is not being wasted. However, I am equally unconvinced that water is not being wasted in the cities. In these times an extremely difficult task is resting on my shoulders to regulate the country’s water. I am at present the water-bailiff for the entire South Africa. I even have to arrange turns for using water along our rivers. I am the water-bailiff, too, and where this task is resting on my shoulders, I want to make the accusation in public this afternoon that many of our people have let me down in these days. I have been let down by city-dwellers in particular. These people can save much more water; they ought to re-use more water. I know that the re-use of water is not something which can be instituted within a day, but much more water can be saved in the cities. While I had to stand by and see how farmers were being deprived of their livelihood as a result of their water being taken away from them; while I had to deprive cultured women, decent civilized people in that area of the privilege of having vegetable and flower gardens and of decorating their farmsteads, people in cities happily continued irrigating large portions of their gardens. What leg do I, as Minister, have to stand on when I tell farmers: “I am depriving you of your livelihood” while other people continue living in luxury on the same water to which these farmers are also entitled?

What about water restriction on the Witwatersrand?

I admit that we have to see to it that that industrial complex of ours is kept going for as long as it is humanly possible to do so but then, upon my word, they must help me; then it is not only one man’s task it is everyone’s task. Then we must work together as a team because I believe that we can still save much water. In the light of present circumstances I want to point out that if the consumption of water continues at the same rate as up to now and the dam does not get any water, there will be a supply of water for seven months only. I want to make an appeal to the people of South Africa in that area and I want to tell them that the situation is serious. We must take a serious view of the entire matter. The day before yesterday I asked the chairman of the water commission to come and see me here. He flew down and we had an interview. He said to me that he would present his interim report to me within two or three weeks’ time. I told him, however, that even three weeks was too long a period for me to wait. I asked him to take me into his confidence. I pointed out that certain schemes had to be tackled immediately and asked him whether he would make recommendations in that connection. He confirmed that those schemes were included in his recommendations. This week I shall commence negotiations with the Rand Water Board and other bodies and persons because we must now lose no time in supplying additional water to the Rand. We must supply that water. We are only human and we trust that for this summer at least we shall experience a reasonable supply.

An hon. member raised the point that we were not allowed to take water from Natal to the Transvaal. As far as rivers in South Africa are concerned, we have never accepted the principle that rivers flowing into one province belong to that province only. In this connection I want to mention the Pongola scheme as an example. This scheme which may be regarded as one of the largest schemes in South Africa is virtually a scheme for Natal only although the river concerned—the Wakkerstroom—has its origin in the Transvaal. Nevertheless, it has never been said that the river is a Transvaal river or that there are international complications because the river flows from Transvaal into Natal. Mr. Chairman, if ever we want to make a success of the supply of water in South Africa, we shall have to develop a system according to which we join our rivers with one another as far as it is humanly possible to do so. Just as electrical current goes to our cities by means of large circuit systems, so that if one fails it can be replaced by another, so we shall also have to plan our supply of water in the future as far as it is humanly possible to do so. If we have to drain water from the upper reaches of the Tugela River it would also be to the advantage of the farmer in Natal because in that case the flow of the Tugela River would be regulated considerably more than is the case at present. I have been told that according to the measured flow of this river it can support seven complexes the size of the Rand. If water is drained from the upper reaches of the river it would to a large extent be drained from the mountainous regions. It would, however, always be possible to supply the farmers from a dam while the rest of the water could be made available to the Rand. If the Rand complex should collapse to-day it would not only be the Rand that would suffer but the result of that would be that the entire economy of South Africa would collapse. If the economy there should collapse not only the Transvaal or the Rand complex or the Free State would be ruined but also Natal and the Cape Province. It would be the most irresponsible deed in the world for the Government to say that water may not be taken from a neighbouring province and, as a result of that, cause the entire economy of South Africa to collapse. I am not saying this afternoon that I am going to take water from the Tugela but I am saying that I jolly well feel like doing so. I cannot go any further than that this afternoon. I am still awaiting the report of the commission.

We will let you have a couple of streams for the Free State.

Thank you very much, but I do not know whether I would be satisfied with such a small quantity of water. I think I should take the surplus water for the Free State. It was not my intention to take this water for the Free State but then I was told that the water went to the South Coast and what does one do with water there after all? The accusation was also made that my Department had waited far too long with the planning of the Vaal River to supply the Rand area with water. It is possible for one to make a similar accusation in connection with any development in any country in the world. There is a time for commencing a certain development. T, for instance, can accuse my ancestors of not having moved to the Free State many years ago. Just think how much of a better man I would have been in that case! However, one starts a certain development at a certain stage. I want to point out that planning has been undertaken on a large scale for the development of the Vaal River scheme. The five stages of the development of the Vaal Dam have already been planned. The first stage is the Vaal Dam in its present form; the second stage is the construction of the Oppermansdrift Dam—the Department is now engaged in constructing this dam; the third stage is the heightening of the existing dam wall the fourth stage is the construction of an additional storage dam between the Vaal Dam and the Oppermansdrift Dam. A great deal of progress has been made with the planning of this dam; the fifth stage is the creation of additional storage to bring the total storage capacity of the Vaal River to 3,700,000 morgen feet. An hon. member spoke here to-day of the Oxbow scheme.

I have taken a personal interest in the Oxbow scheme for many years. When I was still Administrator of the Free State I was invited by the commissioner and was taken up in the mountains so that I might see the scheme for myself. As Minister of Water Affairs I cannot say anything about the Oxbow scheme at this stage. It is an international matter. At this stage I can go no further than the old Cockney who told me on board a ship: “I care no nothing, I just handle the bombs.” Similarly I do not know a great deal about these matters—“I just handle the bombs”. We saw what happened, if I am allowed to mention it, in connection with the chair which was presented to them in a friendly spirit. We know how the Opposition there said: “If we get into power we will use this to make a bonfire.” This is all I want to say at this stage. We must take care that a “bonfire” will not be made of our future interests. If I had anything to say at this stage—but now I do not—I would never want to be dependent on a foreign country’s water without having an alternative source where I can open the tap the day the other tap is closed.

How much of our water flows through the Bantustans?

A considerable quantity of water flows through the Bantustans. However, we do have people who will see to it that when the Bantustans achieve independence proper agreements will be drawn up in connection with these matters. However, I do not know of any water flowing from the Bantustans which is of much value to us. Today I have enjoyed speaking to you. The hon. member for Yeoville really is a politician to the core. He even tries to derive some political advantage from water. Now I want to tell the hon. member this. He will not be able to derive political advantage from the Bantustan policy. Our Bantustan policy has brought him to where he finds himself—in a miserable position. I really thought that the hon. member was a better politician than to try and derive political advantage from our Bantustan policy in this year of our Lord, 1966.

I hope that other hon. members will not take it amiss of me if I do not reply to their representations point by point. I just want to say that we shall see to it that water schemes will be developed in South Africa. It is a slow process; it is not a task which can be completed within a few years’ time. However, my Department and I shall do our best to see to it that there will not be a collapse on the Rand, even if for a short time we eventually will have to pump water from dams which are not situated far from there. As I have already said, however, this supply can simply and solely be supplementary. If people do not save water in every possible way now and if they exhaust the water supplies during the six months remaining, the best attempt of which we will be capable for supplying supplementary water will not succeed in keeping these people going, because the water we shall be able to supply will in itself be too little for meeting the needs of the Rand complex. For this reason I said that the water which we shall be able to supply will of necessity have to be supplementary and that as much water as possible must be saved from this stage onwards.

I wish to take this first opportunity of uttering the strongest possible protest about certain very unfortunate remarks the hon. the Minister made during his speech in which he accused urban dwellers of wasting water. He used the word “verkwisting”. He also accused us of living in luxury. That is an equally unfortunate term. I trust the hon. the Minister realizes that in the large Witwatersrand complex householders as patriotic citizens are making sacrifices every day in order to conserve water, that regulations have been placed on them compelling them to use a minimal amount of water and that gardens are drying up just as they are in the platteland areas. This canard that the urban areas are responsible for the wasting of water or that they are responsible for using most of the water should be refuted. Does the hon. the Minister not realize that every …

I did not say that they were using most of the water.

Let us repeat the fact that out of every ten gallons coming from the Vaal Dam only two gallons go to all the municipalities of the whole of the Witwatersrand, Pretoria and Vereeniging including all their private industries. Two gallons go to Escom, Sasol, Iscor and other areas served by the Rand Water Board and five gallons go to agriculture—mainly Vaalharts, or are lost in evaporation. Do you realize that the municipalities in that area use only one-fifth of the net draw-off of the water? Most of the water used by Johannesburg actually goes back to the rivers in the catchment area. I refer to the water used for bathing, cooling towers, and so on. Another area, Vaalharts, uses twice as much water as the whole of the Witwatersrand.

It is entirely wrong to say that the people of Johannesburg and the Reef are wasting their water on their gardens and swimming pools. I think we should thank these people for their public spirited attitude in what they are doing. One should take into account that 75 per cent of the water used by Johannesburg European homes is returned to the rivers via the purification works. It means that the European ratepayers and citizens of Johannesburg use less than 1 per cent of the daily draw-off from the Vaal River for their homes and gardens. I conclude with that: Less than 1 percent.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove kicked up a big fuss here and said with much gesticulation that he made the strongest protest against what I had said, namely that water was still being wasted in Johannesburg. I said that the other day to the deputation of industrialists who came here to have an interview with me. I believe that it is possible to save much more water. If at this stage I do not make a very strong appeal to the people to save water, it will, of course, never be done. Now the hon. member says“I make the strongest protest against what the hon. the Minister said, that the people of Pretoria and Johannesburg are wasting water.” I said that water was being wasted, and I still say that and I shall go and say it in their presence. I also said that water was being used for luxury purposes. That is what I said and still say. Water is being used for purposes for which it should not be allowed to be used at this time of emergency.

I do not apologize for having said that. I stand by what I said, namely that at this stage water is being used which should not be used in times of emergency. I do not want that water for the farmers. I have reduced the farmers’ water to 10 per cent. Can the hon. member for Orange Grove appreciate the fact that if you reduce a farmer’s water to 10 per cent you are interfering with his livelihood? I want to say this afternoon that I have the deepest sympathy with farmers whose livelihood I am interfering with. And when I interfere with the livelihood of those people, then I expect other people to do their very utmost to save as much water as possible. I think I have the right to expect that from them. I even have the right to expect the hon. member for Orange Grove to save every gallon of water that he possibly can.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 49,—Labour, R7,451,000.

Mr. Chairman. I shall not ask for the privilege of the half-hour to-night. It is rather late and one would prefer the major part of the discussion to stand over until a better opportunity presents itself I should just like to discuss one or two matters with the hon. the Minister in regard to his Department and his policy, in order, if possible, to get them out of the way. In the first place I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether his Department and his Government has any intention of protecting the ordinary worker, particularly the unorganized worker, against the wave of inflation which we are experiencing in South Africa to-day.

All of us who have heard the recent budgets of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Transport know that drastic steps have been taken to combat inflation and that our workers community has had to make considerable sacrifices in that campaign against inflation. However, it is not at all certain that these measures will be successful. The latest figures in regard to the cost-of-living condition in South Africa are disturbing. The latest figures indicate that, compared with only a few years ago, the index has risen by as many as 17 points in a 100. The question arises to what extent the Government, and particularly this Department, expects the low-paid workers in South Africa to make the sacrifices inflation demands from them without any immediate relief. We must remember that of the more than 1,000,000 White workers in South Africa only approximately 300,000 are organized into trade unions, that in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act the majority of the much larger number of non-Whites are not allowed to participate in collective bargaining as employees, and that approximately 80,000 Coloureds and Indians are organized into trade unions.

What is the position of the unorganized workers going to be? It takes the Wage Board years to adjust wages to changed circumstances. How long will the people have to bear the burden of rising costs of living and of inflation? I shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us what the policy of the Government and of his Department is in order to accommodate these people if inflation should continue. To expect such people to endure an increase of practically 17 per cent in a few years’ time is already asking a great deal. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that it cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. It is going to cause suffering and hardship. There are already people in the middle income group who are complaining. If the shoe is already beginning to pinch them how much worse must it not be amongst our less well-to-do workers who do not enjoy the benefits of trade union organizations but who are dependent upon a Government organization, such as the Wage Board, for the relief which they are able to receive against something which pinches, such as inflation? When I talk of people who are not organized into trade unions one thinks, of course, as I have said, of the fact that the Natives in South Africa had not been included in the definition of “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Years ago, in 1953, the present Minister of Transport who, at that time, was the Minister of Labour piloted the Native Labour Regulation (Settlement of Disputes) Act through this House. Hon. members will remember that we on this side of the House adopted the attitude that the Act should be afforded every opportunity of indicating in practice what could be expected of it. I think we shall all appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would at this stage report on the operation and the success, or otherwise, of this Act.

We have taken the trouble to look at the reports of the Department of Labour, but one cannot learn much from them except to gain the impression that while the Act is apparently working well where it is being applied, it is not being applied broadly enough to comply with the requirements for which it was created. We find for example that in 1959 it had been applied in respect of 61 disputes in which 10,130 workers were concerned. In 1960 the respective figures were 42 and 3,682. In 1961 a new figure was added and we see that 27 work committees were established and that they acted in 39 disputes in which 2,815 workers had been involved. In 1962 we once gain found that a new statistic had been added and we found that there were 40 work committees, ten regional committees—a new figure—which had acted in 39 disputes in which 4,000 workers had been concerned. So we can go on. The last figure which I had was for 1964 when there were 44 committees, ten regional committees, and 27 disputes in which 2,889 workers had been concerned. Now we have ascertained that in 1963-4 there were approximately 11,400 factories in South Africa and that approximately 699,000 non-Whites were employed there. 44 work committees does not seem to be a lot if one considers the number of factories and the number of employees and particularly if one bears in mind that there were 183 trade unions and 225 employers’ organizations at the end of 1964. In the light of the available figures we should like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress this Act is making, to what extent it is serving its purpose, and whether it is not time it was reconsidered in order to see whether one cannot find something more effective, something quicker and more general in order to cope with the problems …

What do you suggest?

I want to hear what the Minister says. He is responsible, not I.

I think we should also mention a few general problems to the Minister with a view to a possible discussion which we can hold during this particular debate. I think we must obtain a little more clarity in regard to the role which the Department of Labour is going to play in the general labour and race policy of this Government. We recall that in 1956, when the report of the Tomlinson Commission was being discussed in this House, the Government issued a White Paper on race attitudes and relationships in South Africa, particularly in regard to the question of integration, or otherwise, and the question of separation, including territorial separation. It is of the utmost importance to our workers in South Africa, because, as you know, this territorial separation has chiefly to be promoted by a policy of development of industries on the borders of the Native reserves, the future Bantu states. In the White Paper the Government said the following—

The point which the hon. the Minister must please take note of is the following, “It also welcomes the endorsement of the standpoint of the Government, maintained through the years, that sufficiently rapid progress will have been made …” Mr. Chairman, after a period of 50 years, provided an equal proportion of Bantu and Whites in the White territory had been achieved, the Government would feel that they had achieved their objective. That means round about the year 2000. We are still being given to understand that it is the policy to stem the flow of Native labour to our cities by 1978. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I take it that the hon. Minister will at the given time deal with the operation of the Native Labour Board and the Act. But I want to point out provisionally that this legislation and the Board have done much for our Bantu workers in South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville would like to know whether it is not possible for us to create other machinery.

I am asking whether is is entirely satisfactory.

I should like to indicate what the workers have obtained

over the past few years under this scheme. In 1964 7,132 Bantu workers were paid wage increases to the amount of R4,293,000.

Is that wage increases?

It is the total wage increase of R4,293,000 which was paid to 71,132 Bantu workers. In 1965, the year in which the greatest increase in the cost of living actually took place, an additional amount of R7,260,000 was granted to 191,006 Bantu workers.

More than 4,000,000 Natives are employed here.

Yes. I should also like to say that over the past five years wage increases of R42,000,000 have been granted to more than 1,000,000 Bantu. That was between 1960 and 1964. However, if the hon. member is not satisfied with that, then I want to point out to him the real income of our Bantu workers in South Africa. I want to mention the figures. Unfortunately I can only furnish the figures from 1948 up to the present day. I shall return later to the increase of the cost of living and the increase of wages in general. If we take the figures before 1948, we see that in the mines the average earnings of the non-Whites have increased by 120 per cent between 1948 and 1965. The average wage has increased from R128 to R281. The total amount for wages in the mining industry has increased from R50,000,000 to R158,000,000. The real increase in the average earnings is 30 per cent. In other words, at the end of 1965 the non-Whites in the mining industry were 30 per cent better off than they were in 1948. When we come to factories we see that the average earnings in 1948 were R248 as against an average earning of R552 in 1965. In regard to real wages there was an increase as far as factories were concerned of 27 per cent. In the field of construction the average wage has increased from R239 to R568. That is an increase of 138 per cent. The real wage has been increased by 36 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, for that reason we can say that this Native Labour Board has done our unorganized Bantu workers in the country a very great service. Taken as a whole I think we must say that it has been successful in its task. I also think that if one considers this increase in the real wages of the non-Whites we shall find that in reality the wages of the non-Whites has, on a percentage basis, increased more rapidly than the wages of Whites have in recent years. We know that the attempts which have been made to increase the wages of non-Whites have contributed to the difference between the wages of Whites and non-Whites actually becoming less. That is why I think that the Native Labour Board in South Africa has really performed a major task, and I also think that we can say that it has been successful and that the measure of industrial peace which we have in the country indicates what has in reality been done.

As far as the other matter is concerned, I do not want to go into it any further at this moment. I just want to tell the hon. member that the fact of the matter is that, if one compares the percentage of non-White workers to that of White workers there is no indication that there is to-day a greater percentage of non-White workers in our industries than there was 25 years ago for example. There is a very small difference in the percentage. There is a difference in the numbers, but the proportion between White and non-White workers has more or less remained constant. I ascribe that to the fact that we have maintained the traditional colour bar in the country, that we have been able to maintain the position of the Whites, and that we have also been able to afford the non-Whites an opportunity of making progress in an evolutionary way. In reality the non-Whites have made great progress in the country. If one thinks of the great progress which they have made under the policy of this Government, then one is grateful for the fact that our policy has actually succeeded in affording them much greater opportunities of making progress. I am thinking for example that in the field of education, nursing services, and others great progress has been made as far as the non-Whites are concerned. With the new universities which have been established they have made even further progress.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I cannot continue with the line taken by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). I have come here this afternoon to plead for a very small group of people forming the personnel of the sheltered employment factories. In doing so, I would at the outset like to thank the private sector and the persons that have served for many years on the committees throughout South Africa at these factories. These employees are all physically, and very many of them are mentally handicapped. I do not think that they want me to ask for charity. I think they are prepared to earn a livelihood, although many of them are short of a limb, eye-sight, and, as I told you, mentally defective. But they are not fit for the open market, and I think it is only right that they receive sympathetic assistance from their managers and supervisors in these factories. These people who supervise them must be people who are specially adapted to helping these unfortunate souls. As you know. Sir, many of them actually come from mental institutions. I think they are returned there every evening and fetched every morning and through this employment these committees endeavour to rehabilitate them.

In Pietermaritzburg our factory has done exceedingly well and I understand they have shown a substantial profit during the past few years. As you know, the factories were created and commenced at the close of the last war to give these unfortunate soldiers employment. The Government soon after appointed the famous Williamson Commission to try to determine a comparable Government salary scale for these supervisors. I understand that it was recommended that they be placed on a comparable notch with equivalent persons in Government garages. Yet the managers and staff at the Pietermaritzburg factory fall far short of the salary scales relating to Government garages. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister if it is not possible to consider that report and to place these people on the proper notches adjusted accordingly.

A cabinetmaker in Pietermaritzburg when a vacancy occurred was, I believe, the only applicant for the job. He was an immigrant from the Congo, I believe. He was Flemish. H“ is on a salary scale of R1,800 × 120—2,400. He is 56 years of age. I believe he was placed at the bottom notch and they were informed by the Department that it was not the Department’s policy to place him on a more appropriate notch. It is my opinion that if he went and looked for employment elsewhere he would probably get double that salary in the private sector.

Mr. Chairman, another thing I would ask is whether it is not possible to give these people, both the staff and the employees, an incentive bonus which no doubt will increase production. If these people were not so employed they would be a burden on the State and be entitled to a pension of between R30 to R38 per month.

Three-quarters of their wages.

I am dealing with sheltered employment at the moment and not with the Krugersdorp area. The staff is apparently entitled to accumulate leave but unfortunately for them the factories close over the Christmas period when they are forced to take leave which is far more than what they normally would take in the course of the year. The result is that they cannot accumulate long leave. Accordingly I ask that these people receive the sympathetic consideration of the hon. the Minister.

I do not intend responding to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said, because I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Yeoville. In the first place it is striking that the hon. member did not ask for the privilege of the half hour, and secondly, judging by the way in which the hon. member started off, one would have thought he would cover the labour position in the entire country. He was concerned about unorganized labour, which relates mainly to Bantu labourers.

There are also hundreds of thousands of Whites.

The task of the Department of Labour is to maintain labour peace and to create satisfaction among the workers. This task the Department and the hon. the Minister have fulfilled excellently over the past years. It is an excellent achievement if we consider the opportunities for work created for our Bantu, and compare them with opportunities for work in countries in the rest of Africa. At present there is a sense of contentment and security among the workers of our country. That is why they are prepared to produce to the maximum of their abilities. The Government has succeeded remarkably in stabilizing industrial peace in our country, something which the entire world envies us. I do not think it can be said of any group of labourers in South Africa that they are discontented, for if there are such among them, we would notice it in objections lodged or in strikes. This Government is mainly responsible for the labour peace and quiet in our country. The hon. member spoke of the rising cost of living. But let us consider the increase in salaries of the officials, say from 1948, and compare it with the increase in the cost of living, and we shall find that the increase in salaries is virtually twice as high as the increase in the cost of living. But it is true that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Nevertheless, our officials are generally contented, for apart from their salaries they have their security of employment and the certainty of a pension when they retire.

As regards organized labour, the trade unions, the Government has made it possible for them to negotiate with industrial councils and to submit their claims as the cost of living rises. It should be borne in mind that the wages which are fixed are minimum wages. In view of the tremendous development taking place in our country, this minimum wage is in actual fact the wage of the leadswinger, i.e. of the man who refuses to produce his best. In the private sector there are no artisans earning only the minimum wage. It should therefore not serve as a basis for our calculations, because we know that most of the workers earn up to twice the minimum wage. Because their earnings increase as they produce more, these labourers are prepared to work as productively as possible. In this way we derive the maximum benefit from our available manpower. Since this Government came into power, it has done a great deal to eliminate the shortage of manpower. In this regard one need merely consider the tightening-up of our legislation relating to apprentices. One may also consider the steps taken to train our unskilled Whites as operators and to enable them to do semi-skilled work. Consider the training of adults to enable them to do skilled work. Then there are also the technical colleges and technical high schools under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, institutions established to train our young people as technicians. Then there is also the vocational guidance given to our youth by the Department. Consider what the Government has done to augment our supply of manpower by means of immigration. Not only has the Department worked for the Whites, but also for the promotion of the interests of the other groups in our country. Let us merely consider what the Government has done to create opportunities for work for the Bantu in their own areas, where they can work as skilled workers. Consider how many of them have been trained to do work in the building industry which was previously done by Whites.

Then there is the system of job reservation, which comes in for so much criticism on the part of the United Party. There is no job reservation among our Whites. Some days ago our present Prime Minister said in simple terms that everything in the White areas belonged to the Whites, i.e. also the labour. In accordance with the traditions of our forefathers, we have now surrendered some of our labour to the other groups. When we therefore speak of job reservation in the White areas, we do not mean that there is job reservation as regards the Whites. All the opportunities for work belong to the Whites. All we are doing is to be so kind as to reserve loaned privileges for the other groups, to enable them perform parts of that work. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Yeoville has put certain important questions pertinently to the Minister, questions concerning the labour position of the country and we all look forward to what the hon. the Minister has to say in regard to his policy in this respect. I want to deal with vocational services and the importance of such services as a barometer of the availability of labour in South Africa. I know we have in this country the various juvenile affairs boards, some 18 of them, meeting from time to time. After having served on one of these boards in Durban for a number of years, I find that these boards meet only after disappointingly long intervals and that they meet very irregularly. I believe that the object of these boards is a good one in that it can render a great service to South Africa especially in the field of labour. At the same time I feel that these boards are not being sufficiently utilized. This country is suffering from a manpower shortage and I submit therefore that a greater use can be made of these boards, by, for instance, giving them more powers which will enable them to play a more constructive part in the field of vocational guidance, something which is so necessary for young people seeking employment. Greater use should, therefore, be made of these boards. The Department can also give more publicity to the fact that these boards exist so that commerce and industry can also make use of the services available at the various offices of these boards. In the 1965 session I asked a question relating to the number of vacancies then existing in the vocational services within the Department of Labour. The Minister then admitted that there were vacancies and that consideration was being given on the one hand to filling these vacancies and on the other hand to increasing the number of posts. Could the Minister tell us whether in the meantime anything has transpired in regard to the extension of these services? The question of the intake and the availability of suitable labour is one which is of vital importance, particularly in so far as the various trades are concerned. The modern trend seems to be that many young people going into employment are not keen to take up apprenticeships in the various fields. It is a problem in a growing economy where you find that the intake of apprentices is not keeping pace with the demand. I know there are reasons for a greater number of apprentices being qualified before their five-year apprenticeship period has been served and for terminating their period of apprenticeship after four instead of after five years. It is evident that the number of contracts in existence is falling. That means that the demand from our various trades for skilled labour cannot be met. As this demand increases, the position will further deteriorate. That is why I think it is so important that the Minister should increase the efficiency of the vocational guidance services rendered by his Department. According to the latest available figures, there were 24,324 apprenticeship contracts at the end of 1964 and 26,994 at the end of 1965. Despite this increase, however, it appears that in some trades there has been a decrease. It follows that these trades are going to have to face an acute problem in the years to come.

There are yet other aspects of the services of juvenile affairs boards and in respect of vocational guidance which I should like to mention. One of these was mentioned by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) and concerns people requiring sheltered employment. Great difficulty exists in finding employment for young boys and girls with a low I.Q. Many of these boys and girls cannot be placed on the open labour market. The only form of employment for which they can be considered is sheltered employment but here we find that the opportunities for such employment in a specific area are limited. It seems therefore as if the Minister should give some consideration to these unfortunate people who in many cases can only perform unskilled repetitive work, work which under our present set-up in South Africa is undertaken mainly by the Bantu. In other countries these people would probably have been absorbed by the open labour market. But here in South Africa the position is different. It is peculiar to South Africa. Here some form of sheltered employment has to be found for them. This is the position as far as our young people are concerned coming into the labour market and the role played by vocational guidance services to ensure that our young people are used in work where they can be of maximum benefit to our country’s economy and for their own personal advancement. At the other end of the scale we have a number of elderly workers. With the advances made by medicine we find that most of these men and women are in fact being prematurely retired, i.e. at an age where they can still continue to serve productively. Here I think there is a great waste. The Department can still make use of many of these people, and, what is more, they are anxious to continue in a productive capacity. A greater effort must be made to try and convince commerce and industry, as well as other Government Departments, to look upon these people as still being an asset who can still serve gainfully in employment. Commerce and industries and other avenues of employment should be made to realize that these people can still be of great service to the country and that they are very keen to continue in employment. On a previous occasion I have suggested steps which could be taken to encourage the employment of these older workers. The hon. the Minister of Labour could, for instance, take the matter up with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, to see whether it is not possible to grant some form of tax concession where firms employ a certain percentage of older workers on their staffs. As I have said, these people are keen to continue in employment and they are still capable of doing so. Many of these people are indignant when they are told that they cannot even claim their unemployment insurance benefits because they are no longer being considered as part of the labour market. For that reason any relief they want should come from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Many of these people are not interested in becoming an old age pensioner but wish to continue competing on the labour market. Consequently it comes as a shock to them when they find out that even the Department of Labour does not consider them to be on the labour market any longer. [Time limit.]

As regards vocational guidance and the work of youth councils, to which the hon. member for Umbilo referred, I may perhaps point out that the work of youth councils, i.e. whether they meet regularly and work according to a fixed schedule, is often dependent upon the persons serving on those particular councils. If those people are not inspired by the work they are doing, one can understand that that council will not make its maximum contribution. I therefore wonder whether the hon. member should not look for the fault in the persons who serve on the councils. The hon. member will forgive me, however, if I do not elaborate on this matter any further, because there is another question I want to raise.

Last year I referred to the important part women should play in the labour pattern of the modern and highly developed South Africa. I pointed out that in the first instance the woman had the important primary task of being a wife and a mother, and that the education of the child is actually her most important primary task. It has become practice, however, that the woman is called upon to play a part in various fields of our national economy, and the position is in fact that the woman is at present playing an important part in the professional and business sphere in our country. In fact, there is hardly a sphere in which the woman is not active, whether for her own benefit or for the promotion of the interests of the country in general. There is no getting away from the fact that many more women will be absorbed by our national economy. It is a trend that we shall not be able to check. In view of the fact that the modern woman has to act on two fronts, I made an appeal that the woman should not subject her primary task to the task of serving on the labour market. I also said that the woman of South Africa knew her vocation and that she knew where to place the emphasis. But I want to ask whether we cannot do more to help the working woman in South Africa. Can we not help her to lighten her task? I think we can, and in the following way. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to consider the suggestion I want to make. This something which may perhaps not rest with this Department only, because departments such as the Department of Public Welfare and Pensions and the Department of Planning will also have to be drawn in. What I have in mind is that a survey should be made with the object of ascertaining what the true needs of the working woman in South Africa are at present. For example, there is the question of looking after her children while she is occupied at her work during the day. Then there is the question of better training of women for executive posts. The National Scientific Research Centre in Paris carried out an inquiry into the “needs and aspirations of married women workers in France”. For the purposes of that inquiry a questionnaire was sent to 450 women in Paris and 100 in Bordeaux. The processing and analysis of the information obtained in that way revealed interesting and enlightening facts. For the purposes of the analysis the number of children in the family, income and standard of school training were taken into account. In this regard there is a high degree of correlation. According to the replies most women gave preference to (a) provision of adequate crèches and nursery schools; (b) better preparation for a job with a good income; (c) a shorter working week; and (d) easier access to the various labour spheres. Of course our circumstances differ from those in France and other European countries. I nevertheless wonder whether such an inquiry would not also provide us with valuable and useful information with regard to the needs of working women in South Africa. This matter has also enjoyed particular attention in the United States. The late President Kennedy, for example, appointed a commission, namely the President’s Commission on the Status of Women. It was found that provision should be made for more institutions where their children could be looked after.

You have to be very careful about asking women questions like those.

I do not think the working woman would object to answering reasonable questions, as long as she realizes that they may be to her own benefit. In Tegniek of April, 1965, Dr. Riekert wrote an article under the heading “Ekonomie en arbeidstekort”. In it he made a few observations with regard to the position of the working woman. He said—

I mention these things to indicate the basis on which such an inquiry could be carried out. I am convinced that such an inquiry could provide us with very valuable information, particularly as regards those aspects in which we could strengthen the hands of the working woman.

I now want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Krugersdorp said with reference to sheltered employment. The hon. member said rightly that a large portion of the wages of those people is provided by the Department of Labour, and that the Department of Labour is indeed doing its share for these people. Now there is another group of people to whom I want to refer, people who fall in virtually the same category. Here I am speaking of our subsidized labourers, or, as they are frequently also called, relief workers. I am not going to say which persons qualify for subsidized labour, but I want to convey a word of gratitude to the Minister and the Department for the improvement effected in the financial position of this small group of persons. I do not want to go into details, apart from saying that persons who are employed by municipalities and other non-profitmaking organizations will cost the State an extra R256,000 per year.