Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This clause deals with claims of persons whose moneys have been misappropriated by attorneys from their trust accounts. Such claims will be against the Fidelity Fund, a fund which the attorneys themselves have voluntarily established and is assuming large proportions. As the Act stands at the moment, one has to give notice of one’s claim within three months after one has become aware of the misappropriation. The amendment proposes a further restriction on the right to claim from that fund, by stipulating that claims must be made within three months not only from the date on which one has become aware of the misappropriation, but also from the date on which one, by exercising reasonable care, could have become aware of the misappropriation. My amendment p"opo es the substitution of the word “could" for the word “should”. The reason for my amendment is that the difference between whether one “could" have become aware through the exercise of reasonable care and whether one “should" have become aware, is quite clear; these are, as a matter of fact, two different concepts.

The question of whether one “could" have become aware of any misappropriation is a matter for objective scrutiny; in other words, it is unrelated to whether one in one’s particular circumstances could have become aware or should have become aware. On the other hand, whether one “should" have become aware, is a matter for a subjective test, whether one in one’s own particular circumstances could have become aware. The Oxford English Dictionary, the recognized source of reference for the meaning of words in the English language when it comes to their interpretation in court, says that one “ought201D; to have known, means that it was one's duty to know, one should have known. In other words, the difference is not whether it was possible for one to have known as it would be with cognizancecould", but would be, if my amendment is accepted, that it is a case of whether one in fact ought to have known in the circumstances. There is a big difference. I have looked also at the law reports to see whether the word cognizancecould201D; has been judicially defined at any time.

I found in the case of Ireland v. Taylor, in the English Court of Appeal a definition of the word “could" in the context cognizancecould be let201D; in the English Rents Act. The judgment of Lord Tucker appears on page 453. volume 2, 1948. of the All England Reports. There cognizancecould be let" was interpreted as meaning that it includes all such persons who may in fact be in a position to let. If one takes this interpretation of the word cognizancecould201D;, it means that if by the exercise of reasonable care any person may in fact be in a position to become aware of this he would be deemed to have become aware, whether he took advantage of the fact that he was in a position to do so or not.

This is an important matter because it is a restriction upon the right of a person to claim from the Fidelity Fund in respect of a theft. One does not know of any other situation in our law or in Roman Dutch law where one’s right to claim redress in respect of a criminal act (which is what this is; the Bill refers to it as being a cognizancetheft201D;) is prescribed. But it has been found necessary to impose this further restriction upon the right of persons to claim and we feel that a further restriction should not operate in respect of what one might have done but rather in respect of what a reasonable man ought to have done. I hope that the hon. the Minister will agree and will accept the amendment.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of this Bill is to eliminate a few odd difficulties in the Administration of Estates Act.

Clause 1 flows from clause 3, and I shall deal with it after I have dealt with that clause.

The effect clause 2 has is to empower the Minister of Justice to delegate his powers of appointment in respect of masters, deputy masters, assistant masters and persons acting in their place, to an officer in the Department of Justice. At the moment I have to make every appointment personally. The section of the Master is not a large one, and consequently this does not impose a heavy burden on me, but nevertheless, my personal attention is not justified in all instances. Moreover, problems arise in urgent cases, for instance, when the unexpected absence (due to sudden indisposition, for example) of an encumbent necessitates an immediate temporary appointment. The Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, and the Supreme Court Act, 1959, contain comparable provisions in regard to the appointment of magistrates and registrars.

Clause 3 contains three separate amendments in respect of the handling of moneys in an estate. At present section 28 (1) (a) of the Administration of Estates Act requires an executor to deposit moneys in an estate with a commercial bank or any other banking institution which has been designated. In the Administration of Estates Act, and in other Acts as well, preference has probably been given to commercial banks over other banking institutions because of the fact that in the past commercial banks had to comply with stricter requirements. Now, in terms of the Banks Act of 1965, all banking institutions, except discount houses (which may be left out of account because of their specialized nature) have to comply with the same requirements. In order to place all banking institutions on an equal footing for the purposes of the Administration of Estates Act as well, and in order to eliminate the necessity of special designations having to be made, section 28 (1) (a) is now being amended in such a way that an account in the name of an estate may be opened at any banking institution. The second amendment comprises an extension of the provisions of section 28 (1) (b), which enables an executor to deposit moneys of an estate in a savings account. The object of this provision is to prevent cash from lying dormant unnecessarily to the detriment of the estate and of heirs. But now the Banks Act, 1965, and the Building Societies Act, 1965, limit the credit balances on savings accounts to R10 000. Executors who want to deposit larger amounts, are obliged at the moment to open savings accounts at different banking institutions or building societies. Sometimes, where large amounts of cash are on hand, and in towns in the rural areas, this expedient, too, is unpractical. In order to make provision for such cases, clause 3 authorizes lump sum investments by way of interest-bearing deposits, with the written permission of the Master. The last amendment effected by clause 3, does away with the requirement that executors have to notify the Master in writing within seven days of the bank at which they have opened an account. A work study investigation revealed that these notices were simply filed in the Masters' offices on receipt In the past Masters needed the information only in highly exceptional cases at a stage when the information had not yet come to their attention from another source. In any event, the receipt of a notice is no guarantee that a bank account has in fact been opened, and in addition to that, the executor is committing an offence if he does not open the prescribed bank account. The plus minus 20 000 notices which are received annually take up considerable storage space. In addition to that there is the manpower which is wasted in the offices of executors and Masters, Clause 3 substitutes for the direction that notice in writing has to be given in each case, an obligation on the executor to supply the information when the Master requires him to do so.

The amendments effected by clause 3, will have the effect that the expression cognizancebanking institution" will appear thrice and the expression cognizancebuilding society201D; twice in section 28. At present each expression appears only once. Consequently it has become practicable to insert definitions of cognizancebanking institution201D; and cognizancebuilding society201D; in section 1 of the Act. This is being done by clause 1. The definitions themselves involve only one other change. It will no longer be possible to deposit moneys of an estate at provisionally registered banking institutions and building societies. The Registrar of Banks pointed out that such institutions had not yet proved their viability. In view of the fact that this Bill is widening the possibilities of investment, I am of the opinion that this restriction is a desirable one. In order to protect existing rights, however, a provisionally registered banking institution or building society which has been registered as such prior to the coming into operation of this Bill may receive deposits of moneys of an estate.

Only clause 4 remains. At present subsection 93 (3) (b) of the Administration of Estates Act requires unclaimed moneys which are due to Bantu to be deposited in the South African Bantu Trust Fund to the credit of the rightful owners. This means that such moneys have to be deposited in a credit account for a particular owner and that it may not be utilized for the normal purposes of the Fund, A second problem arises from the fact that there is no provision for the eventual disposal of such moneys which remain unclaimed. The result is that such moneys will lie dormant ad infinitum to the credit of a particular owner. Therefore subsection 93 (3) (b) is being amended by clause 4 so as to provide for any deposit of such moneys in the Bantu Trust Fund to be utilized for the normal purposes of that Fund, with the proviso that the rightful owners may reclaim such moneys from the Fund within 30 years.

The hon. the Minister has said everything that can be said about this Bill. I merely rise to say that we support the Bill at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The main object of this Bill is to apply the Marketing Act, 1968, to South-West Africa.

In terms of the amended administrative arrangements which have been in force in respect of South-West Africa since 1st April, 1969, matters relating to the agricultural industry of South-West Africa now fall under the Minister of Agriculture.

In the Republic the marketing of agricultural products is regulated mainly under the Marketing Act, 1968, whereas in South-West Africa several ordinances have been passed for this purpose by the Legislative Assembly, namely the Control of Grain and Grain Products Ordinance, 1957, the Meat Trade Control Ordinance, 1962. and the Dairy Industry Control Ordinance, 1962. Apart from the quantity control applied in the case of slaughter stock consigned from South-West Africa to the controlled markets in the Republic, there is free movement of agricultural products between the Republic and South-West Africa. Although the marketing arrangements for agricultural products in the Republic and those of South-West Africa correspond to a large extent, the differences in the enabling legislation of the Republic and that of South-West Africa tend to complicate control.

If the provisions of the Marketing Act could be applied in the marketing of agricultural products in South-West Africa, it would be possible to bring about more uniformity in the control measures. It would be possible to surmount more easily the marketing problems experienced from time to time. In recent times certain developments have strongly brought to the fore once again the desirability of having uniform legislation in the sphere of the marketing of agricultural products in the Republic and South-West Africa. For instance, at present the National Marketing Council, which was established in terms of the Marketing Act, does not have the statutory power to institute investigations in South-West Africa. Such investigations have at present become essential with a view to greater efficiency in the implementation of control measures relating to the marketing of agricultural products.

Similarly, the Deciduous Fruit Board, which, in terms of the Marketing Act, has to exercise control over the consignment of deciduous fruit to inter alia South-West Africa and other territories on the West Coast of Africa—for instance, Angola— may not exercise any control over exports from South-West, which in recent times presented Quite a number of problems in regard to the effective development of our markets in the adjoining territories.

Furthermore, the Bill also provides that, as is the case in the Republic, co-operative societies in South-West Africa may be appointed as agents for boards of control.

Clauses 5 and 7 do not have any direct bearing on the application of the Act to South-West Africa, and merely seek to include wine—which, by Proclamation No. R.290 of 1970, was declared to be a product for the purposes of the Marketing Act—in the list of other such products contained in Schedule I to the Act.

Mr. Speaker, the relations between South Africa and the territory of South-West Africa have always been particularly close as far as agriculture is concerned. Therefore, it could be accepted as a matter of course that the Marketing Act would in course of time have been applied to that territory. For that reason we on this side of the House have no fundamental objection to the Second Reading of this Bill being passed.

However, there are a few questions I want to put to the hon. the Minister. In the first place, he mentioned the ordinances relating to grain and the dairy industry, as well as other ordinances, in terms of which control has been exercised over agricultural products in that territory. Now the hon. the Minister says that the Marketing Act will in due course be applied to that territory. But nowhere in the Bill do I find any provision to the effect that those old ordinances are going to be repealed. It just seems strange to me that the Marketing Act will be applied there whilst those ordinances will still be in force. The hon. the Minister did not explain this matter, and I should like to know what the reason is. The hon. the Minister also mentioned an investigation which the Marketing Council would carry out in that territory in due course. It is being envisaged that the Marketing Council will carry out an investigation in order to decide whether their own grain board and dairy board in South-West Africa will remain in existence, or whether they will be granted representation on, for instance, our own Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board in the Republic of South Africa? The Deputy Minister did not explain these few points properly. In fact, I expected him to do so, for it is obvious that shortcomings do exist in this Bill.

In the second place, I want to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to the English text of clause 1 (a) of this Bill, in which an amendment is proposed to section 1 (1) (c) of the principal Act. The new paragraph (c) reads as follows—

There are hon. members on this side of the House who are of the opinion that the interpretation that may be attached to that phrase, is not correct. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister why it is being phrased in that way.

In the third place, I also want to refer the hon. the Minister to the English text of clause 5 of this Bill, in which it is proposed that the following subsection be inserted in section 87 (1)—

It seems to me that the word cognizanceeither201D; is not quite correct. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an explanation for this; otherwise it seems to me as though that word will have to be deleted at the Committee Stage, for three alternatives are stated there. That word is therefore not quite appropriate there.

With these words we wish to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we support this legislation and trust that it will be for the good of the agricultural industry in South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the representatives of South-West Africa in this House, I should also like to say a few words. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that our farmers in South-West Africa wholeheartedly welcome this legislation which is before the House today. We welcome it, specially because in recent years several significant bottlenecks have developed in the marketing of some of our agricultural products, bottlenecks which one will only be able to eliminate within the framework of the marketing system of the Republic. I do not mean to say that after this legislation has been passed, our marketing problems in South-West will be solved overnight and simply belong to the past. But we have every confidence that through this legislation we have at least, at long last, started working in the direction of finding a solution. Instead of struggling along in an attempt to meet the marketing problem in South-West on a temporary basis, i.e. as the need develops and changes from day to day, this legislation will now enable us to start right at the beginning for once and to try to find a permanent solution within the broad framework of the whole marketing system of South Africa.

Indeed, this legislation also holds certain benefits to the farmers of the Republic, who have actually never known beforehand precisely how the marketing organization of South-West Africa has been affecting their own system here in the Republic, with all the surpluses and shortages experienced from time to time, and how South-West Africa could have benefited or harmed them from time to time. The karakul industry has the advantage of having already been included under the existing Act, Act No. 59 of 1968. For that reason I do not want to refer to it at all.

I just want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister a few problems in regard to our marketing in South-West, since I feel that it will be possible for the Marketing Council to take upon it specific tasks in respect of South-West Africa. In particular I want to make a few important references to the marketing problems in respect of meat in South-West Africa. I think I can speak with a reasonable amount of authority in this sphere, for half of the approximately 2 million head of cattle in South-West Africa, are found in my constituency. In the Gobabis District alone there are more than 250 000 head of cattle. Furthermore, my constituency extends over the major part of Otjiwarongo, Okahandja and Windhoek. This part and Gobabis taken together, accommodates a stock of animals amounting to approximately one million. That means that virtually half the livestock of South-West Africa are found in my constituency, i.e. Middelland. For that reason I can rightly say that Middelland is the largest stock production constituency in the entire Republic of South Africa and South-West Africa.

Especially during the past few years we have been experiencing a number of problems in regard to the production and marketing of our cattle. In the first instance, it is of course because of the nature of the geography and the climate of South-West Africa that only 49,85 per cent of our total surface area in South-West Africa is agricultural land. The part in which agricultural land is in fact to be found, has such a tremendous difference in rainfall that the rainfall varies from a few millimetres to 600 mm. I should like to state these problems to the hon. the Minister because I believe that we cannot simply apply this Marketing Act to South-West Africa without the hon. the Minister also being aware of our problems. The rainfall in that area is tremendously precarious, and in the main these central parts are dependent on cattle fanning. In fact, the central part of South-West Africa has some of the best cattle country not only in South Africa, but, indeed, also in the world. In respect of marketing we have been experiencing certain problems ever since the twenties. I can remember very well how, as a child, I saw large draught-oxen, which would fetch far more than R200 today, being sold for a meagre amount of R4 apiece. 1 saw that with my own eyes. In 1928 the Agricultural Products Export Ordinance was piloted through for the first time. That was an important beginning, and in 1935 the Meat Trade Control Board of South-West Africa was established. Actually, that was only the beginning of our problems, for railway transport and the tremendous distances complicated our marketing problems tremendously. These factors have complicated our problems to such an extent that at present we still have limited quotas in respect of livestock which we may supply to the markets in the Republic. I want to give hon. members an example of the tremendous problems with which we have to contend. In 1964, when there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, 150 000 head of cattle died, not of foot-and-mouth disease, but because of drought conditions. They died because we could not market them.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that we are engaged here in applying the marketing legislation of the Republic to South-West Africa whilst the circumstances of the two territories are indeed different. For that reason I should like to indicate what particular problems we are experiencing in this case. Prior to this legislation being prepared, the Executive Committee of South-West Africa tried to take various measures for coping with this situation. At times we paid premiums on meat, merely for the purpose of helping the farmers. We have virtually been struggling from day to day to find a solution, and in respect of this month alone we are in the situation that we have received applications for 100 000 head of cattle to be loaded. Of that number we can only load 20 000. The result is that those remaining 80 000 which cannot be sold, represent money which the farmers of South-West need urgently for settling their debts. At the moment they have to pay interest on those debts. If one takes into account the interest on those 80 000 head of cattle alone, it means that owing to the lack of marketing facilities, the farmers of South-West Africa are losing R3,2 million in interest alone. Then I am not even referring to the fact that these cattle which could have been marketed, must necessarily be kept on the farms for longer periods now and are trampling the pasture lands, with all the economic implications involved. Whereas this legislation is now being applied to South-West Africa, I think that this is such an important problem that, if the hon. the Minister would also ask the Marketing Council to pay specific attention to this marketing problem in respect of the meat question, the farmers of South-West Africa would welcome it.

*Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park put a few questions, to which I should like to reply. He asked for the ordinances, as they exist in South-West Africa, to be substituted. In the debate on the South-West Africa Affairs Act, which was passed by this Parliament in 1969, the hon. member can read the following (translation)—

As the need arises, these measures will be reviewed. The hon. member rightly asked how they were going to be administered. This is not going to be done in a precipitate manner. The hon. member for Middelland also knows why the Marketing Council is going to investigate certain matters. In terms of the principal Act the Marketing Council does not have the right at the moment to investigate the meat situation in South-West; in terms of this legislation the Marketing Council may in fact carry out such an investigation and make recommendations to us.

The hon. member referred to clause 1 and to the insertion of the words cognizanceexcluding the territory, or into the territory201D;. These words only relate to the class of a product and to the control over the export of certain goods, such as the size of an orange. The intention of this section is to make these regulations applicable. Since the hon. member has now asked a question in regard to the words “into the Republic, excluding the territory201D;, I want to tell him that, according to the legal draftsmen, this insertion enables one to impose a levy on the product which enters the country and which has to compete with the local product. This is a question of placing such products on the same level, but I think that we may discuss the other word, i.e. the one the hon. member wants to be inserted, more fully during the Committee Stage. The hon. member also put the same question in regard to clause 5. This is a prohibition on imports, and it can also be applied gradually to South-West Africa. If I had to reply to everything that was said by the hon. member for Middelland, this discussion would become a debate on agriculture. I may just tell the hon. member that the Meat Control Board and the Marketing Council are aware of the marketing pressure in respect of meat in South-West Africa. At the moment there are facilities for 30 000 per month, but we are engaged in creating additional facilities. However. I am pleased that the hon. member brought the matter to our attention.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, before the discussion of this Vote was interrupted yesterday, the hon. member for Heidelberg furnished us here with some interesting data, promising to continue with it next year. I therefore do not want to follow him up in what he said.

However, there are a few matters which I consider to be really important and which I should like to discuss briefly.

In the first place I have an area in mind which is very well known to the hon. the Minister, i.e. the valley of the Lower Riet River and the Lower Vaal River. I also want to say at the outset that I do not believe there is any fear that the hon. the Minister and I will not feel the same way about this matter. When I speak of the Lower Riet River and Lower Vaal River areas it can immediately be understood that we are now speaking about areas where, if one may express it in these terms, water is being scooped out after everyone else has already done so. The hon. the Minister and I have also spoken about that on several occasions. That is an area —I refer particularly to the Lower Vaal River area—where restrictions have already been applied to the use of water according to a fixed formula. Knowing full well what the circumstances connected with water and the supplying of water are, I feel that I do not want to exceed my rights, as it were; but I should just like to bring a few facts to the hon. the Minister’s attention.

Recently, for other reasons, I tried to glean some information from an authoritative source there about the agriculture in the area. It appeared that at only one agricultural co-operative had the wheat production—wheat is a commodity we have had the utmost need for throughout the years—increased over the past 10 years, since the advent of the Republic, at the amazing rate of 375 per cent. Next to that the Riet River and the Lower Vaal River areas are. I believe, known throughout the country for the production of seed potatoes. The scope of the industry there has increased considerably tn recent years. It even went so far that local cold storage facilities were erected for the storage of that seed, which is of the utmost importance to us throughout the country, because this obviates the need for us to import whatever amount we can have there in cold storage. I am then not speaking of any other commodities. I could just mention that wine cellars have already been erected. So much for that. I should just like to conclude by asking the hon. the Minister and the department please not to be too frugal with the allocation of water to these areas, We have already discussed it, a great deal. I should also like to tell the hon. the Minister that I have the greatest appreciation for the fact that he has always been so indulgent and accommodating. We speak continually of growth points. In doing so, we mostly think of industrial growth points. Here, in another sphere, is a small growth point which I foresee as being able to expand into something big.

Then there is another matter. Actually, I do not believe it is anything new, but I am mentioning it because I see a danger looming. As far as water conservation is concerned, we realize everywhere that siltation is one of our big problems. However, apart from ordinary siltation, I believe that there is a similar problem which is perhaps going to create bigger problems for us. This is a problem involving the tremendous intrusion of common reed into our dam basin areas. As soon as the normal flow of water is checked in the dam basin area, there is a tendency for all kinds of objects to lose their momentum and take up stationary positions. Everything then collects around those clumps of reed, and within a few years such an area is unrecognizable. I very definitely believe that if something is not done about this in good time, we shall find that our dam basins become increasingly smaller as a result of this problem. What is also involved in this problem, of course, and this we may not forget, is that in combating that problem, pollution could also possibly take place. We shall have to guard against that. I specifically just want to mention it again in respect of these two valleys that I have just been discussing. The Riet River probably got its name from the fact that there are so many reeds growing there, and it is worthy of note that at this river’s confluence with the Vaal River, this problem begins, and it then develops. If I may mention an example: a person who grew up there and is now about 40 years old, confirms that when he was a child he could stand at certain spots on the bank and dive into the river, but today he must walk 20 to 25 foot further into the river before he gets to the water. This shows how tremendous the increase is.

Then there is another small matter. Along the banks, where irrigation takes place, brackishness is, of course, a problem that causes a great deal of trouble, and combating it creates tremendous problems for us. In the irrigation districts there is a great deal of brackishness occurring, and the common method applied, which is perhaps not so very scientific, is to make drainage channels and to divert that water.

It must go somewhere, and it is then diverted into the river bed. With the increase in the number of weirs in the rivers, the flow in the rainy seasons decreases because we dam up that water, and the possibility of those riverbeds being washed clean ceases to exist. Consequently we are saddled with this, I almost want to say poisonous water, which is inherently dangerous for irrigation purposes. Everything flows into the riverbed, and eventually, as at present, only enough water is provided along that bed to meet the needs lower down. All the brackish deposits dissolved in it, and which we specifically divert into it, are taken up into that water which is used again lower down. I ask the hon. the Minister to please give very serious attention to these few matters.

The hon. member for De Aar, I find, can be supported by this side of the House today, because all that he has said (asking the hon. the Minister for water for those sections of his constituency) was said in this Chamber last year by the hon. member for Kensington. But what happened at that time? We had the hon. member for De Aar and the hon. the Minister attacking him for that, for the plea he made then. But today we have the hon. member for De Aar coming with exactly the same plea. Nevertheless I hope the hon. the Minister will now pay attention to the hon. member for De Aar, because it will be for the good of those people up there that his plea will be now answered and that they get their water.

But I want to come back to the hon. the Minister, and particularly to the reprehensible attack that this Minister launched against the Controller and Auditor-General last night. This was the most shocking attack, completely unwarranted, unfounded and untrue, and as far as I am concerned. the most reprehensible conduct I have seen from a Minister in this Chamber. Sir. we have in this country a democracy and the whole basis of democracy is control of public finance. Democracy was not born in England until the control of the purse-strings was given to Parliament and in this country, too, the control of the purse-strings was given to Parliament. The watchdog of this Parliament is the Controller and Auditor-General, who in good faith, having had extreme difficulty with this Minister’s department, placed before this Parliament a report. Sir, this hon. Minister has the audacity to attack that report. He has not got the courage to attack it directly, frontally; he attacks it through attacking newspaper reports which were published as a result of the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, and I want to say that we on this side of the House entirely deplore the conduct of that hon. Minister last night in launching such an attack on the Controller and Auditor-General. Sir, I want to say that the answer to the hon. the Minister, especially when he quoted from a confidential document in this Committee last night—and I say that he quoted only those sections which suited him and that he had the audacity at that time to say that he felt that the other side of the picture must be put—is that at that time there had already been tabled in this House a report by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, proving that everything said by him was entirely false, a report which was adopted unanimously by this House only this afternoon. Sir, I want to read out what this House adopted this afternoon—

What did the hon. the Minister say last night. Sir? He said, not once but three times, that no expenditure by that department was unauthorized. That appears not once but three times in his Hansard.

He said that not a penny had been wasted.

I ask that hon. member to read his Hansard. Sir, the question is not whether this money was wasted; the question is whether this money was authorized for expenditure or not. If the hon. member wants to talk about whether the money was wasted or not, let us deal with the section of this confidential report with which the hon. the Minister did not deal last night; let us deal with the section headed cognizanceIncreases on fixed price items201D;, which appears in the Controller and Auditor-General's report in paragraph 6 (1) (b) on page 427. Sir, there was a fixed contract for the provision of houses; every item was detailed and a fixed price was arranged for the delivery of the houses. But what do we find happened? Unauthorized alterations to the extent of R17 309 were put forward by the officials of the department. Sir, I want to say that I deplore the arrogant attitude of this hon. Minister towards what he considers to be the interference of the Controller and Auditor-General. the Controller and Auditor-General poking his nose into the affairs of this department. At the same time I want to say that it is apparent that that arrogance has rubbed off from that hon. Minister on to his department and that we have the same arrogant attitude within the department itself. But, Sir, what do we find with regard to this R17 309? We find that alterations were made to specifications, which had been approved and accepted, cognizanceto provide and fix a 10 ft. x 1 ft. 9 in. double-bowl sink201D;. Sir, who in a private home wants a 10 ft. double-bowl stainless steel sink in a kitchen? Then we have another item: The provision of hardwood treads and risers to steps in lieu of granolithic, including hardwood skirting, involving an additional amount of R82. Under Miscellaneous Alterations and Extras we find this item: To prepare and to apply two coats of Bourne-gleame to woodblock floors. R2 702. These are unauthorized alterations made by officials of the department to houses which they will occupy, and this hon. Minister has the audacity to attack the Controller and Auditor-General when he queries these amounts.

What is Bourne-gleame?

Bourne-gleame is a preparation which makes it unnecessary for the housewife or for the servant to polish the floor every day; it is a luxury; it is not something which is essential. Sir, I do not want to give the impression that we do not want to give the officials luxurious buildings; I do not want to create that impression for a moment. I believe that officials are entitled to what they ought to get. But, Sir, when specifications are laid down in a contract, there is a particular course which must be taken by the department if they want to change it, and this department has not taken those steps. If one looks at the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, one finds pages and pages of queries, queries which, it is interesting to note, do not arise from a full audit but from something like a 10 per cent audit only. So, what may be the position if a 100 per cent audit is conducted?

Another aspect which the hon. the Minister hammered last night in dealing with the supply of water to Venterstad, was the fact that this matter was one of extreme urgency; in fact, he used the word cognizancecrisis201D;. But what are the facts of the situation? From the time this cognizancecrisis201D; arose to the time the department undertook the provision of water three years elapsed. In other words, there was adequate time to go through the normal channels and to call for tenders. Consequently the assertion of the hon. the Minister that this action of the department saved the country money is pure speculation because there is no proof whatsoever that money was in fact saved by giving the tender to the party that was on the site at the time.

But I want to come back to the Minister and his department and this committee’s report. The Minister last night quoted the following from this committee’s report—

What I would like to know is why the hon. the Minister did not read the preceding paragraph as well. This reads as follows—

Why did the Minister not read this? Why, when he said he wanted both sides of the question put, did he not give us a fair resumé of what was in this report? It is apparent that the department was at loggerheads with the Controller and Auditor-General; that the department had assumed the attitude which the Minister also assumed, that here was somebody poking his nose into their affairs while they wanted to be left alone to get on with their work. The Minister told us about the tremendous increase in the amounts voted for this department. Recently the Minister announced that he was not going to call for tenders for the construction of the new dam on the Orange River, that he and his department were going to undertake it themselves. But is he satisfied that he can cope with it? Is he satisfied that his department can cope with it? Judging from the report of the Controller and Auditor-General it appears that the department will not be able to cope with this work. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District tried to launch a serious attack on the hon. the Minister here But it was an attack without foundation Yesterday the Minister put all his cards on the table and told us what the true position is Moreover, this matter was also investigated by the Select Committee, which found that there was no misspending or wastage. The Select Committee also found that all these matters were subsequently approved by the Tender Board. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District nevertheless comes along here and says it is cognizanceentirely false201D;. That is surely very far from the truth. The hon. the Minister told us very clearly that this expenditure was incurred in order to save the country money. I am willing to take the hon. the Minister’s word that there was, in actual fact, a very great saving. In a project as large as the Orange River scheme, the overspending has formed only a very small percentage of the total amount, if one takes note of what big amounts are being spent, of the fact that the work must be done at speed and of the fact that there was a staff shortage. I think that this hon. member is trying to put this department in a very bad light. The Department of Water Affairs has a very big job. Our farmers and our whole country have the utmost confidence in the department.

I should like to speak about another matter. Last year we became very conscious of our water scarcity and of the great future water shortage we are going to have. The city dweller, the farmer and everyone have begun to realize this. Today I should particularly like to speak about what our farmers can do to save water. If we look at the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Water Matters which, incidentally, is a very comprehensive report, we see that there are various matters that are touched upon. There they also report on what can be done by the farmer to save water. They found that only 45 per cent of the irrigation water abstracted from a dam is utilized on the land. I therefore want to give our farmers the watchword of better water utilization. The Viljoen Commission said (translation)—

The commission then supplied figures and pointed out that the use of water on farms would increase over the next 30 years from 3 million morgen feet to 4,9 million morgen feet. On the other hand the commission also said that if we utilized our water efficiently we could have a saving of at least 25 per cent on the use of our water.

How can we effect the better utilization of our water on the farms? The commission states that we must abandon the old slogan of the maximum yield per morgen and accept a new one, i.e. the highest yield per unit of water. In the future this is what is going to be necessary. How can we obtain this highest yield per unit of water? We must use our water frugally. We find that there is a limit which we cannot exceed. One can obtain the maximum yield per unit of water at quite a bit less than the maximum amount applied. They found, for example, that with wheat a water reduction of 29 per cent only results in a 15 per cent reduction in the yield. They found, moreover that more land could be cultivated with the same amount of water. In other words, our units must not be too small. With a 10 per cent increase in surface area there is an increase of 25 per cent per unit of water used. That is why it is very important for us to look at the size of our units. It is also important for us to look at the kind of product we grow in each scheme. In that connection I should like to ask that there always be proper guidance, particularly as far as new schemes are concerned. It is, therefore, very important that the farmer does everything in his power to ensure that water is not wasted.

I actually want to come to my next point, i.e. what can the State do to ensure that farmers utilize their water correctly. The first thing I should like to mention here is that a sliding scale of taxation is a very good way of saving water. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to make use of such a sliding scale in all State schemes. Mr. Chairman, the old system of rotation, as we know it, is probably the most wasteful manner of using water on a farm. If there is a sliding scale, and one can buy the water if and when one needs it, one has full utilization. I am aware of the fact that the department has already begun with this sliding scale system. I should like to request that it be implemented to a much larger extend.

Then I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to make a very thorough investigation into the possibilities of also having our irrigation boards functioning on a sliding scale basis. I know that it is a very difficult matter. Irrigation boards have negotiated their Loans, and they must pay off those loans. They also have other obligations and there are consequent problems. But I regard this matter as being of such importance that I want to ask the hon. the Minister to institute a special investigation to see if it is not possible to have the irrigation boards function on a sliding scale basis. What the department could do, moreover, with a view to saving water, is to investigate new methods and to have them subsidized. Here I am thinking, for example, of drip and sub-surface irrigation. As far as we are concerned, there is a great saving of water inherent in these methods. I realize that it has not yet been fully proved that drop irrigation is the best method There are still problems. I know that the department will do its best to investigate drin irrigation. But I nevertheless want to ask that drop irrigation also be subsidized as soon as it is possible to do so in practice.

Then there is a third matter I want to mention with which I think the department could lend a hand. This matter concerns research on irrigation methods and the utilization of water. Last year we passed an Act in which a levy is imposed on all users of water. Irrigation boards will also have to make their contribution as far as that levy is concerned. I therefore think it only right and fair to ask that that levy, which will come from the farmers, be used to institute an investigation into this very difficult problem that our farmers have. We must therefore give a great deal more attention to water utilization on the farm. I hope that this money which is obtained from the levy on the use of water will also be applied for this purpose.

I should very much like to welcome the establishment of the irrigation institute at the University of Stellenbosch. I believe that this is one way in which we shall be able to use our water more frugally. But I would very much like to express the hope that there will be very close co-ordination between this institute, the universities, the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and private undertakings. It would be dangerous if such an institute were to do work which is possibly not necessary at all. I have wondered whether the time has not come for us to call into being an irrigation advisory board to co-ordinate these various water research bodies. Such an irrigation advisory board will have a very big task. It will have to co-ordinate the various pieces of information already collected. It will also have to determine research priorities. One of the most important tasks of such a board will be to ensure that the necessary labour forces are found for this important matter.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that we had disposed of the matter which I referred to when I rose yesterday evening. But now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, because he did not listen very carefully yesterday evening to what I said, has made an attack on me and on the Department which is completely off the point. In spite of the hon. member's unbridled and unpleasant language. I shall now try to state this matter as objectively as possible to the House. If the hon. member did not understand it yesterday evening, I hope he will understand it now.

I made the point that the Auditor-General had in his report for the 1969-’70 financial year indicated that he was not satisfied with certain explanations and that he therefore recommended the appointment of a Treasury Committee which could go into the matter. In addition I just want to tell the hon. member that I did not attack him or his party. Nor did I attack the Auditor-General. What I did in fact say was that after the Auditor-General’s report had appeared, newspapers created the impression outside that a scandal had taken place in my Department and that in handling the Orange River project my officials were engaged in scandalous things. I am not going to read out everything to him again, but I want to say inter alia that the following headline appeared: cognizanceOrange River Plan Spending Scandal.201D; I stated very clearly to the hon. member that I was obliged to rise to me feet and to quote from the report of the Committee which the Controller and Auditor-General himself had asked for.

I said that I wanted to dispel this cloud —I did not call it a cloud then—and the impression which had been created, because my Department and its officials had over the years been working day and night on this project and on other undertakings. I think that was an unfair reflection on the integrity of my people. That is why I tried to be as objective as possible, and I tried not to attack the Controller and Auditor-General. I tried to indicate that in spite of what was being alleged there had been no scandalous overspending, but that there had in fact been a saving of almost R20 million. I indicated that certain of the items which were being mentioned as if they were items in regard to which there had allegedly been overspending, were in fact items in regard to which there bad been a saving when an overall calculation had been made. I am now going to mention examples. On the one hand there was perhaps an additional spending of R5 000. but on the other hand there was perhaps in the same item a saving of almost R135 000. In such a case the total amount represents a saving.

Since the hon. member has probably not read them very carefully and has put his foot in it now, I can refer him to the fixed price items. Has the hon. member read what is stated here? In any case, I am returning to the case of the fixed price items. What is at issue here is a lay-out at the H. F. Verwoerd Dam and one at the P. K. le Roux Dam. This relates to the construction of buildings. In the one case it includes something like 32 buildings and these buildings consist of houses and a few other additional buildings which are required for these people. The contract price was R725 455. The changes which occurred in regard to this item entailed that on the one hand there were increases of RJ7 309, in which quite a number of items are included, but the savings on that item in general amounted to R64 000 after everything had been taken into account. The contract price amounted to R725 455, as I have already said, while the price on completion only amounted to R661 000. What I am trying to indicate is that the main charge which I referred to yesterday, was the charge that there had been wastage and that there had in fact been a spending scandal.

The next charge was the main charge …

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Would he consider the newspaper report based on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General as justified?

But of course not. That is the whole point. They were just as unfair as the hon. member is being now. They ran away … [Interjections.] It makes no difference which newspaper it was. They let fly with a lot of accusations without having any facts to support them. I am returning to the hon. member, because I have not finished with him yet. I return to the second case. I am referring to this because he mentioned it first.

The second relates to the P. K. le Roux Dam. The contract price in this case was R891 111. The hon. member had the temerity to rise to his feet in this House and to complain inter alia about a single wash hand-basin in a project involving hundreds of millions of rands. Is he not ashamed of himself? In any case, in this overall item the contract price, as I have already said, amounted to R891 111. On the one hand there was an overspending of R571 on various items as a result of minor changes here and there. Within the same overall item, however, there was a saving of R135 000. In this connection I just want to say that the amount involved in the small group of items, where there was a deviation to the one side, comprised only 0,7 per cent of the expenditure on the overall item.

That is not the point.

The point that was made was that the Department bad in this connection been engaged in a cognizancespending scandal201D;. The hon. member was as unfair as the newspapers by spotting the slightly greater spending, but not giving credit to a Department which is working hard and loyally to save us millions. I want to tell the hon. member that there is a Bible stricture which could be applied very fittingly to him, i.e. that of the mote and the beam. The hon. member also used an ugly word when referring to me, but we accept it like that; we know the hon. member and know that he cannot use decent words.

Since the hon. member went into the motivation of this Committee, I want to read out to him what the gist of the Committee’s finding was, as set out in paragraph 64 on page 71 of the interim report. It reads as follows—

I am saying this against the background of the fact that senior officials, who are sitting here today, were not at that stage in a position to take the necessary steps. I have already explained to the House, and we regret this, that not all the senior persons involved in this matter at the time are still there today. We have lost three of them. In the meantime the obligations of the Department have in three to four years’ time jumped from R48 million to more than R100 million. This amount must be dealt with and an account given of it, with little time at their disposal and with the same number of people. That is why I said that in all fairness to my Department I am obliged to state the matter in this light. No matter who it is that does so, I shall not allow unjustified reflections to be made on the officials of my Department, and that is why I rose to reply.

Yesterday evening the hon. member attacked me; he used ugly words. I want to reiterate that when I rose to reply yesterday evening, the gist of my standpoint was that although there had been so-called unauthorized expenditure of more than R1 million, there was a saving of almost 20 times as much. Included in all this there was also expenditure for which I was responsible. There is only one case of unauthorized expenditure for which I and the present Secretary accept co-responsibility and that was to abandon costs to the amount of slightly more than R700 000 to gain R17,2 million for South Africa. If such an opportunity presents itself again, I shall do so again. There were articles in the newspapers about the so-called unauthorized expenditure; headlines like cognizanceOrange River Plan Spending Scandal201D;. I told the House that this was by no means the case. Since the hon. member used the words cognizanceuntrue" and cognizanceunfounded", which do not befit him or this House, I want to challenge him to refute, before the end of the discussion of this Vote, all the assertions I made yesterday evening, on the one hand in regard to the savings and on the other in regard to the expenditure. I hope for all of our sakes that this matter will be left at that, because I do not want to attack the Auditor-General. That is also why I quoted the report of the Committee he asked for—no one else asked for it, and the country knows that he asked for it. That is why I quoted from the report, or does the hon. member think that I do not have the right to use what is stated in that Committee’s report?

Last night the hon. member for South Coast, as he is inclined to do, asked for the half hour. We are all used to that, but now the hon. member will allow me to tell him that he was being a little ridiculous when he said that the Department and the Government did not have a policy as far as water affairs was concerned, but that he did. I can say this because last year the hon. member also made a speech. Last year he mentioned a few points which he called his policy, and this year he mentioned those same few points again.

†The hon. member advanced a few points as being the policy of the United Party or the policy of the hon. member himself, and the hon. member stated that the safeguard for existing communities would then be the policy of the United Party. In all schemes which the Department of Water Affairs plans and constructs, this is not a policy with us; it is plain commonsense, because in no scheme do we disregard the interests of existing communities. I would mention to the hon. member that in the case of the Magol Dam, which we announced last year, there was an allocation made of the water to the whole community. We stated the percentage of water to be allocated to the farming community and the percentage to the mines and for future development. The same applies to the Orange River project. That is the basis of the allocation of the water of the Orange River project. Even in the Vaal, and even in the Spioenkop area, we earmark a certain portion of the water for the Tugela basin and a certain portion of the water to be pumped to the Vaal River. This is being done by the department.

The hon. member went on to say that the grid system was one of the points of policy of the United Party. Last year I at length explained what we considered to be a more convenient word to use to convey what the hon. member means by a grid system. That is the variable draft system of water allotment and the allocation of water and water management. I explained to the House last year how it worked in the case of the Tugela-Vaal system. It is the linkage of two water systems and their management so as to get the maximum advantage of the water in the whole system. But we prefer not to speak of a grid system because that is the word used by the people handling electricity and power. The Orange River system, Sir, you will agree, is the best example in South Africa of this development whereby you take water from the one basin to the next basin and lead water to the furthest point and try to satisfy the needs of more people, more towns and more areas. I cannot see how that could be a policy. All over the world engineers work according to a planning system, and that is the system according to which this department has been working for many years.

The hon. member mentioned another point; he said that we should develop our own water resources. Sir, where else do we develop water resources in South Africa except our own? Do I understand that the hon. gentleman means that should the occasion arise, we should not get water in from outside the South African borders? Is that the hon. member’s policy or is it not his policy? As far as we are concerned, we feel that at the moment it is not necessary to bring in water from outside our borders. The necessity to do so may arise, and at that stage we will decide what to do in the best interests of South Africa.

What are you going to do about the Oxbow Scheme?

I say that if that time comes, then at that stage we will plan the whole situation and make the best deal in the best interests of South Africa.

How can you decide if you do not know anything about the Oxbow Scheme?

Nothing has been decided about the Oxbow Scheme. It is not necessary at this stage.

Why do you ask us to decide now?

Because the hon. member put it forward as his policy. He said that it was the policy of the United Party that we should develop our own water schemes, and I take it that the hon. member means that we will develop our own water schemes only. If that is not so, I should like to hear it from the hon. member.

Do not try to make debating points. I am still waiting to hear what your policy is.

No, it is the so-called policy of the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member knows very well what our policy is. He has been listening very carefully to my speeches here in an attempt to put forward a policy himself.

*The hon. member also mentioned a few other points. Inter alia, he spoke about the policy of apportionment. I do not know what the hon. member meant by that. If he meant the allocation in South Africa of water among various areas, then I want to tell him that it is nonsense. One cannot say that one should make certain allocations of water to various areas. Our policy and principle—and this is what the Water Plan Commission based its standpoint on, and on which our own planning is based —is that one uses water where it is to the greatest benefit of South Africa, and because that is the standpoint, it is possible for us to take water from Natal well and bring it to the Vaal area, and because that is the standpoint, it is also possible to take water from the Orange River scheme down to Port Elizabeth, which is going to be done. It could happen that a certain area does not need water, and if it were to receive a share of the water, which it does need, then it means that it is going to be utilized inefficiently in that area; in other words, it is wrong.

But who says we are wrong?

That is the hon. member’s standpoint. He explained it more comprehensively last year than this year, when he spoke about apportionment, and if the hon. member, when he speaks of apportionment, means the allocation of water among various sectors, then I ask the hon. member to mention to me a single scheme which we have constructed during the past few years where this was not the standpoint and where it was not said in this House, and where the hon. member did not know that proper distribution was taking place. I shall mention a few examples to him. I want to mention the example which I mentioned a moment ago as well, of the Magol. When we announced that scheme, we told each sector what percentage of the water it would receive. I want to mention the example of the Vaal area, where we have allocated a certain portion of the water to agriculture, and a certain portion to the industries. I want to mention to him the case of the Spioenkop Dam, in regard to which it is set out in the White Paper what portion of the water in the river will be released for the people downstream and what portion can be abstracted. I am also mentioning to him the Orange River scheme, where we are trying to allocate the water. I cannot understand what the hon. member means when he says that their policy is a policy of apportionment. This is perfectly ordinary, proper planning, which we have been doing all the time.

The hon. member then spoke about scientific research. Sir, it is really a tragedy that the hon. member should try to create the impression in this House that we have done nothing for research. Does the hon. member really not know what is being done? He has been here for a long time. Does he not read the various reports? He need not go back a long way. All he need to do is take the trouble at home this evening to page through the present annual report from the beginning and then he will see what is being done. I can tell him that during the past 15 years research has been done on a large scale. Does the hon. member not know about the expansion of the Water Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. after 1957? Does he not know about the Hydrological Division of the Department, with an institute, which is now getting its own building and which has virtually been completed? We have been working on the Hydrological Division since 1953. Does the hon. member not know that we had an Act before Parliament the other day to coordinate all research in regard to water by appointing a water research commission of our own? Does the hon. member realize that in not one of these cases was there a proposal or a contribution from that side? If there is one area in which we have made progress, it is in fact research, as part of the policy of this Government. Places like Windhoek are already plucking the fruits of this policy, which is known in the world today as one of the first places to derive benefits from proper research in a specific direction. Pretoria is another example. We are now engaged in laying the foundations in Cane Town in order to tackle the entire situation in the Western Cape as well on a research basis. We are doing research at various universities. The other day, I informed this House that we are also going to expand in the direction of geo-hydrological research, in conjunction with the University of the Orange Free State. Then the hon. member now claims that research is their policy, as if this is the first time the House has heard of it.

I also want to mention something to the hon. member in regard to pollution. The hon. member spoke about pollution as if we were unaware of it. But he was a member of a Select Committee which investigated a Act which incorporated quite a good deal in regard to pollution. The hon. member knows as well as I do that as far as pollution is concerned, we are in many respects leading the rest of the world with our legislation. I will concede that we do not yet have enough scientists in Africa to go into every point in regard to the rate of industrial development in South Africa, with all its possible problems, consistently. But surely he knows as well as I do how we have done everything possible these last few years to lay the foundation on which the whole question of pollution control in South Africa can be tackled. I want to tell the hon. member that this is no new policy. If it is his policy now, he must listen very carefully next time. If he listens to me, he can include a few of the aspects we are now mentioning next time and say that these are also their policy now. This is what he has just done. There was not a single original proposal. In fact, what he said there is not only being done—we are already plucking the fruits of what the hon. member claimed has now become their policy.

The hon. member also referred to irrigation schemes. He asked us to reconsider the payment of interests and redemption by the various irrigation schemes. The hon. member implied—I take it that this is what he meant, and I also think he meant well —that we should reconsider the entire situation from the beginning to see whether we cannot simply write everything off, or put it on a better basis. I want to inform the hon. member that I do not think that we can do what he proposed. But what we can in fact do, is to continue doing what we have been doing for a long time now, which is, where various irrigation areas or boards find themselves in financial difficulties, to encourage them to come to Parliament and obtain a write-off. In those cases where they were unable to cope with their own affairs, we intervened. We then take over the entire scheme and place it on a sliding scale rate basis. We take over the administration, and then things run much more smoothly. But we cannot do so all at once throughout the entire country. This is a major undertaking requiring much administration. We are in this way trying to deal with the problem cases as they occur. I think this is the best way of doing it. The hon. member will also concede that if we were to do this overnight we would immediately find ourselves with an administrative tangle which could be of tremendous dimensions. That is why we must do the sensible thing and administer them when it becomes necessary.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to the procedure with subsidy considerations. In this connection I may just inform the hon. member that we have done a great deal to improve this recently. Of course there is the difficulty of disposing of a scheme which somebody wants approved rapidly. That is why the powers have now been delegated to the section officers in order to dispose of it in loco. This has already resulted in the matter being expedited. We went further and consented to persons applying for subsidies and laons—as far as the subsidy is concerned, this is our business—to make use of the services of private engineers, so that the matter may be expedited. The department itself has streamlined its own organization. We are now training technicians and we hope to be able to train them rapidly enough so that we can deal with the matter at the rate at which the problems are coming in. In periods of droughts the rate of applications can easily increase tenfold overnight. Our impression is that everyone is satisfied that although we have not yet been able to increase the rate at which matters are disposed of to the extent to which we should like to do, there has nevertheless been a considerable expedition of the rate at which matters are being disposed of. However, the impression must not arise that it is an easy matter to obtain a subsidy or a loan. We have had an extremely hard time of it. On the one hand there are people who build without taking proper standards into consideration, with the result that the dams wash away with the very first rains, hon. members would be astonished if they knew how many dams are washed away every year. On the other hand we cannot merely give our approval without our own engineers having had a look at it. There are schemes which cost five times more because they had the schemes drawn up by people who draw up very expensive schemes. We must therefore have supervision for we are dealing with public money.

Yesterday evening the hon. member for Piketberg discussed the economic utilization of water for agriculture and referred to drip irrigation. Today the hon. member for Humansdorp also referred to it. I agree with the hon. member that it is essential that we take cognizance as soon as possible of everything which is happening in the sphere of water utilization for agriculture. Drip irrigation is one of these aspects. However, this form of irrigation is a new one, and we still have a great deal to learn about it. As with all new things its practical application could give rise to improvements. But our Department and the Department of Agriculture is investigating the apparatus and if things go according to plan we shall send people overseas this year to examine the process where drip irrigation is being successfully applied. As far as I can see, there are still two problems attached to this system. The first aspect is whether the material which is being used today is the best available and whether improvements cannot be made. Another problem to which our agricultural experts have not yet been able to give a reply is in regard to the long term effect of drip irrigation on the soil, particularly when the alkaline content of the soil is high. We are extremely pleased that the University of Stellenbosch is now going to establish a chair in irrigation engineering, I hope therefore that as a result of this it will also be possible to give attention to this type of problem, problems to which we have not, up to now, been able to give the necessary attention, at least not as much as the Department wanted to. In any case here is a direction we can concentrate on and that is in fact what we are going to do.

The hon. member for Kensington referred to the Orange River scheme and to the White Paper published in connection with that in 1968. I have no objection to an hon. member putting questions across the floor of the House. Ever since the hon. member began to take an interest, or gave out that he was interested in water affairs, he has given us the impression that he is doing so with an ulterior motive. There is always a sting in what he says, so much so that he actually had to restrain himself yesterday evening from using unparliamentary language. In spite of that he still made ugly insinuations. For example, he insituated that my Department had had certain information at its disposal before the time and that we deliberately misled Parliament. On my part I can say that since I have been dealing with the Department of Water Affairs the impression I have always had of the senior officials of the Department was one of absolutely unimpeachable honesty, and consequently I reject with contempt any insinuation that the officials of the Department who assist me would deliberately withhold information from this Parliament. As the hon. member knows, the estimate as it appeared in the 1968 Estimates, i.e. R240 million, has increased considerably. There has been a considerable increase of R145 million. It is a great deal of money; that I will concede. But the hon. member tried to create the impression here yesterday evening that when he put a question to me last year I ought to have known at that stage what the figure of the expenditure on the Verwoerd Dam and on the tunnels would be, and that I must therefore have been withholding something because I gave him a different reply in 1971 to the one I gave him in 1970. But the hon. member knows so little about this matter and particularly about the proportions it has assumed that he seems to have the idea that one can at any given moment press a button in the Department of Water Affairs and that a figure will then jump up giving a detailed and precise calculation of the entire field of R385 million. The reply to this insinuation is that the Department, quite a few years ago, set aside a number of its best officials to do recalculations and replanning in regard to the Orange River scheme, as appears in the White Paper which was laid upon the Table today; that this planning took not months but several years to complete; and that last year, even if I had asked them in November, the officials would not in any way have been able to furnish the information. The figure was delayed to such an extent because of the tremendous amount of work involved. I can inform the House that I should very much have liked to have seen this White Paper appear before the House in January, when Parliament began. But this was simply not physically possible. Our people worked day and night in any case to finish in time so that we did not produce the figure after the discussion of the Vote. The figure before me last year was the figure which the Secretary of the Department had at that stage. His planners produced the final figure a month afterwards. As far as the Orange River scheme is concerned, I want to say that it is an enormous scheme. The hon. House will recall that I was not Minister at the time the scheme was announced. However, I can still remember that I was interested, like everyone else, in hearing the announcement. At the time the amount totalled R85 million, but let me tell the hon. gentleman at once that it was absolutely impossible at that stage to present an amount for the total scope of the scheme, an amount which would in any way be a final one. Surely the hon. gentleman can appreciate that the scope of the scheme extends from one ocean to another and that even now the work has not yet been completed, while the people from my Department and other departments as well have for years now been living in the veld to survey thousands and thousands of square miles and make calculations. We can now inform the hon. House that we have finally worked out the first phase and that we now know how many morgen is involved, that we know what alterations we shall have to make in the meantime and why we have to make these alterations, and that we have in the meantime had to alter the scheme completely. This had to take place over a long period of time, and the Department was unable at that stage to give more clarity in regard to the final figure, even if it had wanted to. I do not think that it was the intention that this should happen. But the Department had to have enough information to be able to decide whether the scheme would be practicable so that this Parliament could decide whether to continue with it. In the meantime a lengthy, continued investigation has been instituted, which even now has not yet been completed, into the feasibility of the scheme and into the finalization of what has been accepted as being feasible.

What Parliament is in fact interested in at this stage, is, I think, the guidelines according to which the water will be allocated. I should like the hon. member for South Coast to listen to what these guidelines I am going to mention now are. Since he discussed the matter of a policy, I should like him to tell me what his opinion is of the guidelines or principles which we are now laying down for the allocation of that water. I should like to know whether in his opinion that allocation is correct or incorrect. It is very important that we know on what basis we are going to allocate water. An enormous quantity of water is involved, and this is an enormous development which has to take place. In the first instance it is in the interests of the country that there should always be an optimum utilization of the water and of the scheme. In other words, as the scheme progresses there will have to be continual planning, replanning and reconsideration in order to try, through the construction work which is to be carried out, to ensure the optimum consumption of water. Secondly, it is important that we, in assessing the situation and the distribution of water, should try to achieve the greatest practically obtainable consumption of water. In other words, when we have to decide on the allocation for certain land, we shall continually have to endeavour to ensure that every sector, inter alia the agricultural sector, the industrial sector and possibly, too, the mining development sector receives the greatest practically obtainable benefits. Thirdly, we must ensure that there will be a balanced allocation to the various sectors. If a balanced allocation is not given to the various sectors at the out set, a stage would eventually be reached, perhaps when we are no longer here, where it will be necessary to buy up water which is being stored by the one sector and allocate it to another sector, as is already happening in this country today. We must provide sufficient water, so that all the economic sectors which could develop as a result of the Orange River scheme will be able to do so, and so that there will be sufficient water for them. Fourthly, it is important in appraising lands that we should place only that land under water which has a maximum production capacity. In the allocation of water there must at least be a positive cost-benefit ratio. In other words, after the water has been paid for, there must be a profit left over. If that is not the case, we could perhaps allocate water to areas where the cost of allocation would be a liability instead of an asset to the country. Fifthly, it is important that the entire area be declared a Government water control area. With the allocation of water it should also be ensured that land speculation is as far as possible eliminated. Lastly, it is important that water rates for irrigation under the Orange River project should be levied in such a way that it will be possible for the scheme itself to bear at least the operating costs plus a portion of the interest and redemption. This is the principle which is found in the White Paper, and which we must use as a guide when we allocate water under the Orange River scheme.

As far as the works themselves are concerned. Hon. members will also note in the White Paper that considerable changes have to take place. I now want to make an attempt to indicate the most important changes. In the first instance I want to deal with the water which will be taken through the tunnel to the Orange-Fish River area. Here we will have to provide that a considerably greater portion of the water is earmarked for the future developments in Port Elizabeth. Secondly, we shall have to proceed judiciously in regard to the leading of water in various directions. It seems to us that the canal which would have been constructed to the Conway area, with a tunnel through the Wapadsberg, does not have a positive benefit-cost ratio, and that the entire section of the protect in the Fish River and Sundays River Valleys should be abandoned. We cannot continue with it. All these investigations took up a great deal of time and cost a great deal of money. This was a vast area which had to be investigated, and that is why we say that it took a very long time to arrive at the final decision. Thirdly, it is clear that it will not be possible to lead the water from the P. K. le Roux Dam along the left bank much further than to Kraankuil in the vicinity of Hopetown, and that it will not be possible to take water to the Carnarvon Flats, the Sak River area, the Beervlei area, the Brak River area and as far as the Koa Valley, because it would be too expensive. In the first White Paper the large canal contemplated for this purpose was at the time called cognizanceprobably the largest canal ever to be built in the history of South Africa201D;. The benefit-cost ratio of such a canal, to lead the water to that area, is completely negative. In addition the agricultural experts have also told us that the soil in that area has a very high saline content and that there could be a very great danger of salinization in that area. In other words, that part of the left bank project is being completely abandoned.

Fourthly, there is another area to which, as it was initially contemplated, water could also be taken, namely the White Sand area to the west of the Langeberg in the vicinity of Postmasburg. The cost of such a project would be enormous. It would be approximately R240 per hectare per annum. The water cannot be led to that area and this project, therefore, is also being completely abandoned.

But now it will be possible to ask me where we will find land if these areas are being omitted? It was initially thought that there were approximately 17 000 to 18 000 hectares available below the Riet River valley, in other words, the entire area west of the Riet River. This includes the entire area down to the lower Vaal River. Investigations showed that this was where some of the best land was situated. The present indication is however that approximately 119 000 hectares is available which could in fact be irrigated. But to construct larger canals to that area would require expensive construction work. That construction work will not be as easy as the work on the opposite side. But it will be possible to bring the water there.

Plus-minus 68 000 hectares of land have been approved, hon. members will see this in the White Paper too. It includes slightly more than 14 000 hectares in the Fish River and Lower Sundays River area, plus minus 28 000 hectares in the Lower Orange River area, plus a further approximately 22 000 hectares in the upper area below the P. K. le Roux Dam. Of the remaining land plus-minus 226 000 hectares have been approved for investigation. It will now be investigated and will be included in subsequent phases. This section approved for irrigation is larger than the section originally intended to be included in the first phase. I can inform the House at this early stage that it is inconceivable that it will be possible to place this entire area, even if it should be found to be suitable, under irrigation. As far as the allocation of the water from the Orange River is concerned, I want to say that 23 per cent of the water has now, in terms of the first phase, been allocated to the agricultural sector and that 25 per cent is now earmarked for industrial development and domestic use. Port Elizabeth’s requirements are included in this. This, therefore, leaves 52 per cent in regard to which further decisions have to be made. The costs will, as I have already said, amount to R385 million. Included in this is the cost of the construction of the Welbedacht scheme with the pipeline to Bloemfontein and all the southern Free State towns.

Hear, hear!

Since the hon. member for Bloemfontein District is now saying “hear, hear201D;, I can also inform him that this also includes the leading of water to the smallholdings west of Bloemfontein.

The question now is whether the scheme is still economic. I want to inform the hon. members at once that if we are dealing with a water situation in South Africa where we know that the surface water is limited, then we cannot ask in connection with a scheme like the Orange River scheme or the Tugela Scheme whether it is economic or uneconomic. Unless it is absurdly uneconomic, we shall have to use the water. In other words, we have no choice. We shall have to develop it as the largest remaining water resource; the quicker the better. But the fact that the Orange River scheme is being developed at this early stage, means that relief could be brought at a very early stage to a very large area extending over many districts, which have in the meantime been so seriously stricken by droughts that the economic future of those districts was really in the balance, as hon. members will know.

We are now grateful that the fruits are already being plucked in the Lower Orange area as a result of the construction of the Verwoerd Dam, which even at this early stage ensures control over the river. But apart from that, to return to the purely hard cash basis of the scheme, we think that it will be possible, as indicated in the White Paper, to recover R121 million in taxes and in power generation from the portion of the water at present allocated. There is another section the size of which I cannot at the moment inform hon. members of. We have not yet progressed that far with the calculation, even with the further development in future, to know which part of the remaining amount it will be possible to redeem from the remaining water. But I want to inform hon. members that in future we will always be able to sell water more expensively than a large portion of that water is being sold for industrial and domestic purposes, for you know that such water is rated much more highly than agricultural water.

But we must regard the Orange River scheme as a scheme of which one can never see the end of its development, just as one was unable, with the construction of the first dam across the Vaal River, to see where it would end. But one thing is very certain. As a result of the diminishing supply of water in South Africa, the diminishing availability of water, and as a result of the industrial development, water will subsequently become a deciding factor in determining where development will take place. It may not happen in our time, but the time will arrive when the Orange River and the availability of water there will serve as an inducement for decentralization to that area, and we cannot escape the fact that millions of people will in years to come make use of this scheme. That is why, at this stage, while we know that a portion thereof will be recovered, as we hope to do, we must also have that degree of confidence in the future to know that there will be a return in future for South Africa and for the people of South Africa.

But there is one misunderstanding I want to eliminate immediately, i.e. that it has also been implied that because the first phase is now going to cost R385 million, Phase III will cost three times as much. This is of course an absolute absurdity; it is not the case, because the major components of the scheme, the Verwoerd Dam, 43-a.h. vol. 3

the P. K. le Roux Dam, the tunnel and a large section of the canal, have already been included in the first phase. In other words, the expansion in future will for the most part be expansion of canals which will be built for the distribution of water. But hon. members may find all the particulars in the White Paper which is at present before the House. I also want to say this in all fairness and honesty, and I am saying this with great confidence and with the knowledge of the senior officials with whom I have discussed this matter: We have taken so much trouble in furnishing these figures today, that I feel myself quite at liberty to tell you that except for normal increases as a result of price increases over which we have no control, there are no increases included in this price which will result in future from major changes, as was the position in the past, where increases were for the most part attributable to major changes in the schemes. There will be no changes to this scheme. There can only be a normal five or ten per cent increase, or so much per cent per year, and no more. We hope that in future we shall return to this House year after year and report what progress is being made so that hon. members can know what progress is being made at the present prices.

Sir, I just want to refer to the hon. member for Fauresmith who is not at present in the House.

He is attending a meeting; he tendered an apology.

The hon. member congratulated my Department and the staff, and I want to thank him for his friendly words to them.

As far as the hon. member for Kensington is concerned, I just want to say in passing that he made a terrible blunder here yesterday evening. Sir, I just want to inform the hon. member that he should at least, before he tackles a Vote at such a headlong pace, first try to verify his facts. I do not know where the hon. member came by the figure of R8 million. No one knows where he came by that figure.

R8 million?

*The MINISTER; Yes, the hon. member might take a look at his Hansard. He spoke here yesterday evening of the P. K. le Roux scheme which would cost R8 million.

Did you read my Hansard?

The hon. member spoke of R8 million; hon. members all heard him. I made notes while the hon. member was speaking. He referred to a scheme which would cost R8 million and which had in the meantime become much more expensive.

I never mentioned a figure of R8 million.

The hon. member for Somerset East expressed the idea here that we should maintain the interest of the public in water affairs which was aroused in the Water Year. I want to tell the hon. member that I, too, hope that we will be able to keep the public interested.

The hon. member for Albany put certain questions to me yesterday evening, and he referred derogatorily to the Department as employer and said that he wondered what the working conditions in the Department were like. I want to ask him what he meant. Did he mean that the Department’s officials are not working under good working conditions?

I referred to the shortage of staff.

No, the hon. member spoke about working conditions.

*Mr. W. H. D. DEACON; But if there is a shortage of staff then it affects the working conditions.

If the hon. member meant the working conditions, then I can reply to that. I just want to make certain whether he meant that they are living under poor conditions or whether he meant that there is a shortage. There is in fact a shortage of staff. The Department has in fact for a very long time been working under a strain because the scope of the work has increased to such an extent. We are moving in new directions and we still have the same officials, but I do want to add that there has recently been a supplementation, and that during the past two years the Department has lost almost no officials. I think that the officials are working under very favourable circumstances. We are grateful for that; if it were not so we would not have kept our officials.

Sir, the hon. member referred to the Doorn River scheme and asked whether we could not build a canal there, for he had been told that the dam without a canal was in fact a white elephant. The hon. member can argue in that way if he likes, but I want to tell him that it will only be possible to build the envisaged canal at a cost of R1 000 per morgen. That was the estimated cost when we made the calculation, and I wonder whether it can still be built at that cost today. There were 517 morgen below 50 feet above the river bed and there were approximately 347 morgen between 100 and 50 feet above the river bed. The cost of redemption, interest and maintenance would amount to approximately R80 to R100 per morgen if the water were conducted by means of a canal. The Department informed the hon. member at the time—and I am also telling him now—that it would be far cheaper to pump the water. I can also inform the hon. member that the persons farming there are in addition receiving from the department a subsidy of a third of the amount, if it does not exceed R3 000. If they would make their own calculations, they would find that it would be much cheaper to pump the water than to have to pay rates which would be considerably higher. Even if we were, in addition, to include part of the rates, in favour of the irrigator, with the other costs in order to make the amount a little lower, it would still be cheaper to pump the water.

The hon. member for Heidelberg asked me why only 143 persons were indicated in the annual report as persons who had availed themselves of advice from the Department. This figure is a little misleading. This number of persons is only those who pay when we render a service to them, in other words those who made a request to us and for whom we then had to work out a scheme Those who make use of the services of the sectional engineers and of the services of the staff in Pretoria total far more than a mere 143. During 1969-’70 777 applications for engineering advice from farmers were disposed of. Many of the persons who receive advice from the Department do not pay for it. For that reason the figure indicated in the annual report is a little misleading. However, I believe that we will in future have a great many more people coming to us than we have had so far, because people are becoming more aware of the importance of doing things correctly. I only hope that in the years which lie ahead it will be possible to expand the services to such an extent that we can keep pace with the demand which may arise.

In his speech the hon. member for De Aar approached me in regard to the Lower Vaal and the Riet River area, and said that we should not be too sparing with the water. The best advice I can give him is to read the White Paper. If he sees what is stated there and what we think about this, he will probably feel very pleased. My reply to him therefore is that he need only read the White Paper, because what he wants to know is stated there. I agree with the hon. member that there has been a tremendous increase in common reeds. This forms a kind of threat, and I think that the biological research, which could be improved, could perhaps look into this kind of phenomenon. We have to deal with many problems in our biological research. There is for example the different influences of plants on our streams and so on. The hon. member also referred to salinization. I want to agree with him and say that this is a serious threat. I can mention to the hon. member for example that the Kwaggaskloof Dam is not being built for the purpose of supplying water for human consumption, but that all its water is going to be used to wash the river clean. That shows hon. members how serious the problem in certain parts of the country is. I therefore want to agree with him that it requires a great deal of attention, particularly at this time. My Department is engaged in this type of research and is taking practical steps based on such research.

The hon. member for Humansdorp asked us to put the irrigation boards on a sliding scale, just as in the case of schemes. I must inform the hon. member, however, that it will not work out. If an irrigation board borrows money, then it can claim the money as it wishes. It can claim the money according to its own plan, all that it has to do is pay the interest and redemption. When we take over the responsibilities of irrigation boards, where we take over the scheme, we put it onto a sliding scale immediately. However, where it is their property we cannot prescribe to them what they must do. They can assess rates as they wish; it is their business. We are not going to prescribe to them what they should do. All they have to do is pay the interest and redemption. In that case I do not have any advice for the hon. member.

The hon. member also requested that we introduce the subsidization of drip irrigation. We are looking into that, but the hon. member will understand that we have to be very careful not to give drip irrigation the kind of recognition which could in the long run cause us trouble, in other words, before we know enough about it. The hon. member also discussed research in regard to irrigation matters. That is the reason why a chair is going to be established; so that a better study of irrigation in agriculture can be made than in the past. We are doing quite a good deal in this connection ourselves and our supervisory division is training technicians for that purpose. In other words, everything is in the melting pot and the entire question of handling irrigation in all its facets is receiving attention from the Department. I think the hon. member will see some expansion during the next few years.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has given us quite a long exposition of what is contained in the report which was tabled here this afternoon. I want to say at the outset that it is a great pity that this report could not have been made available to us at least last week.

We would have liked to do it as early as the beginning of the year, but it was not possible.

Yes. but if this report could have been with us even a couple of days ago we could at least have made a cursory study of it. I think we could have made a very interesting debate which the hon. the Minister has given us in regard to the Orange River scheme. The hon. the Minister set out the future prospects of the scheme. As I understood him, there will be about a 50 per cent overcapacity of water at the end of the first phase which will be held in reserve. Twenty-five per cent will be held in reserve for future urban domestic and industrial usage and another 23 per cent which is, at this stage, allocated for agricultural usage. This means that about 50 per cent of the total storage capacity will be held pending future development. The question immediately arises whether this can be described as an economic development and the hon. the Minister himself attempted to deal with the matter when he said that they were expecting a reimbursement of some R121 million as well as further prospects as development takes place. Surely it must be obvious that future development can only come from urban and industrial development and in this way a reimbursement of the expenses. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has thought of the implications of that for the pattern of deployment in South Africa. If 50 per cent of the supply is not apportioned or allocated at the moment, it is going to mean a massive relocation of the whole labour, industrial and production pattern of South Africa if industries are going to be drawn into this area. It is only on that basis that the scheme can become an economic proposition. I think what the hon. the Minister has told us is a very significant comment on the whole planning and development of the Orange River project. It is obviously something to which we and South Africa as a whole will have to give very serious consideration. I believe that what has happened is that the hon. the Minister and his department are finding themselves caught in one of the classic cases of what happens when people go in for a sort of Keynesian pump priming which this Orange River scheme was originally intended to be when it was first announced by the then Minister of Water Affairs in 1962. I took the trouble of reading the speech the hon. the Minister made on that occasion, when he introduced this scheme with a great fanfare. He made out that this scheme was going to be the solution to so many of the problems of South Africa, that we were going to produce so many million rands of agricultural produce. There was no mention at that time that there might be an oversupply of water or that all the water might not be allocated in the immediate future. This scheme was undertaken at a time when the South African economy was going right down to the bottom of the trough, when there was a serious lack of confidence in South Africa after Sharpeville. The Government, then under Dr. Verwoerd, made this great gesture of confidence, that they were prepared to spend this colossal amount of money, as it then was, of R85 million. The Minister said that the scheme would be undertaken immediately and that this money was going to be pumped into the scheme to get the economy of South Africa going again after the depression times of Sharpeville. I say this is Keynesian, but whether hon. members opposite know anything about the Keynesian principles of pumping money into the economy in times of a depression I do not know, I want to point out that one of the obstacles of this kind of thing was recognized by Lord Keynes himself. His sentiments were quite clearly expressed and I would like to quote from a book entitled cognizanceThe Age of Keynes’’. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs will be interested in this, because he is caught up in precisely the sort of position which Keynes sketched was likely to happen. He said—

I want to say again that I believe this is precisely what happened. At the time it was announced, the scheme was the big deal, the Nationalist Party’s gesture of confidence in South Africa to get us off the ground because we were at a very low ebb of economic development then. I quote further:

The larger the scale of the public work the more it displays the embarrassing tendency to reach maximum impact on national income and employment after the depression has vanished, when a prudent administration might prefer to curtail rather than enlarge its spending.

If ever there was an absolutely classic case of what was happening, it is the position in which we find ourselves today in regard to the Orange River project. The figures which the hon. the Minister has given us today are colossal amounts of money. According to the hon. the Minister’s own words, there can be no economic justification for the project as it is now at the present stage, when the first stage is fully developed. This is not to say that it should not be built. This side of the House has always claimed parentage of the Orange River scheme, and we are not attacking the fact that it is being built. But what we are saying, however, is that there are various reasons for which a scheme like this can be tackled. We have had all sorts of other sociological reasons which may in the end justify the scheme, rather than a purely economic approach, which the hon. the Minister adopted himself here this afternoon. I think the question of the economic justification of the scheme is something to which we will have to give a lot more attention. The Minister himself and the Minister of Planning are going to have to give their attention to the location of industries in an attempt to make more economic this tremendous scheme of development on which we have embarked in South Africa. I am glad the hon. the Minister of Planning is here, because it is going to become incumbent on him to investigate and to go into what is becoming obviously a tremendous relocation of the whole investment emphasis here in South Africa. The water is there. There are many opportunities for development. The hon. the Minister was mentioning decentralization. Dr. Verwoerd regarded the Orange River Scheme as cognizancedie hartland van die Blanke”. I would be interested to hear— perhaps we will have a chance to discuss it under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Planning —just how this can be meshed in with the developments that have been undertaken by the hon. the Minister's department.

I wish to raise the matter of the non-acceptance of the contract for the building of the P.K. le Roux Dam, and the fact that the department itself is going to undertake that construction. I must say that, for a group of people who are contractors and who are tendering for Government schemes which involve considerable amounts of money, it is always a very salutary experience when the State refuses to accept their tenders on the ground that the tenders are too high. This is a great act of courage, I must say, on the part of the department to undertake a scheme of this magnitude on the understanding that they are going to save, at the least—this is the figure which I understand as the correct one—R8 million, and they might save as much as R13 million on the lowest contract tender that they received. I want to make an appeal to the Minister and to the department that when they are costing this scheme, they take every care that the scheme is costed accurately so that we will know whether there has in fact been a saving, and that it is not simply an opinion which was expressed at the time, and that no saving, in fact, took place by the time the whole scheme is completed. I would like to simply draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to one of the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission which dealt with this matter of costing. It says—

[Time expired.]

Most of the matters the hon. member for Mooi River raised, he laid at the door of the hon. the Minister himself, and I leave them at that. I nevertheless just want to say that the hon. member is quite wrong when he claims that the Orange River project was tackled to get South Africa’s economy off the ground. The project was tackled as part of South Africa’s policy and endeavour to develop South Africa, as a whole. Sir, with a view to being able to supply the needs of 40 million people by the year 2000 and at the same time ensuring a competitive place for South Africa, a powerful economy is an obvious prerequisite. Such an economy can only be developed on the basis of sufficient water. It is calculated, however, that by the year 2000 the demand of water will be 11 200 000 morgen feet per year, while the available sources can only deliver 8 450 000 morgen feet per year.

There will consequently be a shortage of about 33 per cent. We have, therefore, come to a point where it is generally realized—a realization which was brought to the fore that much more strongly by the Water Year—that water may no longer be regarded as a self-evident asset that can be drawn upon in an irresponsible manner, being the property of the nation. The realization has taken root that it has become necessary for water affairs should not follow in the footsteps of development, but rather go on ahead to spy out the field and prepare it for future development, the extent of which will chiefly depend on the way in which this relatively scarce resource is going to be exploited and conserved further and the judicious ness with which it is going to be applied. Progress in the economic sphere will far sooner be restricted by the way in which the Republic’s water potential is utilized than by its limited quantity. Apart from the fact that we must continue to improve well-tried conservation methods, we are consequently also compelled to make far greater use of science. The Water Research Act, passed recently by this House, is therefore an exceptional milestone and a timely instrument when it comes to tackling the problem of water scarcity.

Two questions immediately present themselves. Firstly, whether we have the people with the necessary ability to do the envisaged research; secondly, whether we shall be able to make sufficient funds available to support this endeavour.

We can answer the first question in the affirmative, thanks to the firm foundations already laid by the C.S.I.R., a body which in the past quarter of a century, in cooperation with our universities and other scientific institutions, has opened up almost every scientific field. They could only do this spadework because they had the services of people of quality, people with an inherent ability and with that indispensable practical sense, something for which our people have become known. If we turn back the pages for a moment and take an inventory of what our own people have thus far achieved, it makes us optimistic for the future. Repeatedly in the past, when our survival was at stake, or when growth and development required it, our own people came to the fore and we made a breakthrough, which not only placed us in better strategic positions, but quite frequently also enabled us to make important outgoing contributions.

Thus, for example, when livestock and plant diseases threatened to endanger the survival of agriculture as a source of food, our own scientists at Onderstepoort made a breakthrough which secured the position of agriculture and gained great renown for South Africa. Likewise do we have an equally proud record in the field of medicine. Just think of the successes in combating various diseases, the perfection of openheart operations and heart transplants. There are the successes in the field of chemistry, Sasol being a very good example. Think of the breakthroughs in the field of mining, where we developed methods of temperature and humidity control, shaft sinking and skip mechanisms which enabled us to mine gold at very great depths. Think also of the brilliant success with the enrichment of uranium, which is still fresh in our memories. Thus we could continue to mention examples. We can look at almost any scientific discipline and we shall find the names of South Africans who not only made discoveries, but who also made great contributions to allow South Africa to keep pace with the developing world. I mention these examples to indicate what we could achieve under our own steam, notwithstanding limited numbers. That is why I say that I am optimistic that, with the necessary effort and dedication, we shall also be able to solve this all-important question.

As far as the second question is concerned, it is clear that the factor determining the success of our full effort will lie in the provision of sufficient means for training and research facilities. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the ample amount made available by way of study bursaries for prospective students who want to study in this field, and I trust that we shall reap the benefit of this. As a young country we cannot, of course, compete with the older countries of the world, which are numerically larger and have greater financial sources at their disposal, and which are also able to distribute the costs of their research facilities over greater volumes of production.

That is why I agree with the principle of limited taxes and levies, as projected for the future. But specifically with a view to production volumes, which in our case are disproportionately small in relation to the extent of the problem that must be combated, a problem which is essentially a national problem, and in the light of the seriousness of the matter, I want to emphasize the necessity for tapping any possible additional sources, including even the Exchequer, if necessary, far sooner than curtailing the establishment not only of very necessary facilities, but also of the very best research facilities, because it is necessary for us to mobilize everything for the struggle. To use the words of Dr. Basil Schonland: cognizanceEither we do it the right way or we do not do it at all.201D; That is why I also want to say thank you very much for the ample amounts that have once more been voted by the Government in these Estimates for this department.

In conclusion I want to point out that, notwithstanding the fact that in many respects we are far ahead of countries abroad in our knowledge of hydrology and its application, it is nevertheless clear that the available knowledge is still largely inadequate for the proper future planning of the water potential of the Republic. In fact, it is specifically for that reason that the Water Research Act was called into being. There arc, however a large number of projects which must have immediate priority, with a view to thorough research and advance planning. Here I am chiefly thinking of two of them: The question of the improvement of irrigation techniques to curb the greed of this consumer, and the question of brackishness which has already been raised by the hon. member for De Aar. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winburg delivered a very informative speech. I more specifically want to confine myself to a matter of a local nature. There have been very extensive undertakings in my constituency just recently. There was, for example, the construction of the Jericho Dam and the Westoe Dam. The Kafferkraal Dam is at present under construction. In addition there are still other projects that have to be completed in this connection. I should briefly like to focus the hon. the Minister's attention on section 3 (2) of the Water Act, Act No. 54 of 1956.

This section deals with the appointment of temporary employees on projects of this nature. Subsection (2) provides that the Minister or his authorized representative may make certain appointments, limited to duties performed at the site where the department is engaged in actual constructional or investigational work. It is understandable that in such cases appointments are merely of a temporary nature, because the projects are usually of a temporary nature, and it is easier to recruit and employ people locally. It is sometimes difficult to bring people to the relative project from elsewhere. All of this is understandable, but thanks to the good efforts of the National Party, and the good work that is being done by the department, the position has developed to such an extent in recent years that there is now virtually no interruption in the construction and completion of such projects. These temporary employees are now actually transferred from the one project to the other.

In other words, they are in actual fact no longer temporary workers. They work continuously, year after year, on the various projects. The result of this is that some of these people have been working for the department for many years. Some of them have been in the employment of the department for as many as 10 to 15 years, but nevertheless they are only employed in a temporary capacity. In this connection I should like to lodge a plea with the Minister and the department. In terms of the provisions of section 3 of the Water Act the Minister has the power to make the necessary adjustments, after consultation with the Public Service Commission, and I want to ask that a measure of permanence be given to the service of these people, so that they can also obtain some of the benefits to which they would normally be entitled as permanent workers.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to return briefly to the question of the tender which was received for the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam, and the decision of the department to undertake the construction themselves. In this connection I want to refer once more to the report of the Franzsen Commission. The Franzsen Commission went so far as to recommend that all services rendered to a department by another department should be costed against that department in order to obtain a completely accurate assessment of the real costs involved. Only on that basis can we find out whether there has in fact been a saving. I think it is of vital importance for any other construction work that may be undertaken in the future that we should know that we have really accurate costs so that the decision as to whether work should be given out on contract or not can be based on real facts.

The recommendations of the Franzsen Commission go so far as to say that for the purpose of the recommendation they make, free services also include contributions made by the Central Government as the employer to pension funds and to the Civil Service Medical Benefit Association. This means that they go into absolutely the fullest detail to get the really accurate cost. Every single service rendered by any other department to the Department of Water Affairs has to be costed against the P. K. le Roux Dam in order to make sure that when the final figure is arrived at, which I imagine will be in two or three years’ time, while costs are escalating against the department all the time, we will then have a real figure to know how the contract price and the department’s final price on the work undertaken balance up.

I would just like to seek information from the Minister. I believe I am correct in saying that the contract for the Verwoerd Dam was signed with an overseas consortium, which provided a certain amount of the funding, the financing, of the dam itself. Am I correct in saying that? I believe that the first basis on which it was done was that the overseas consortium would either lend the money or do the work for South Africa on an extended payment basis. [Interjection.] I mention this merely because the point was made in the debate by the hon. member for Somerset East, who said that he was pleased that we should be doing this work ourselves. To my mind he seemed rather to cast something of a reflection on the fact that there was an overseas consortium taking part in the construction of the Orange River project, which I believe was totally unfounded. I think we can say that the consortium which has undertaken this work has given us good service and has given us good value for our money. There have been little differences, according to the Auditor-General's report, in regard to the department’s attitude towards the contractors, which at times I believe was a little prickly, but certainly I believe that the idea of going to a consortium for such a major scheme with its tremendous cost, and in view of the amount of expertize we had to get together to construct the Verwoerd Dam—was the right decision. I say it is a very brave decision indeed on the part of the Minister and the department to undertake the construction of this dam by themselves.

There is another point which arises, and I am sorry we did not have the White Paper before us earlier, but I would like to ask the Minister this question. In the contract price, which was advertised and for which tenders were received, there was included the cost of the excavations and the whole set-up of the underground Electricity Supply Commission’s generating station on the site of the P. K. le Roux Dam. Now I am not sure whether that is going to be included in the savings which the department is going to make, or whether the E.S.C. will have to contract outside for that work, or who is going to cover that particular point which was included, according to the report of the Minister’s department that we had last year, in the total price of the tender which was called for by the department. I would ask for clarification of that particular point so that we will know whether that is something which is either included in the work the department is going to do, or whether it will be contracted out to somebody else.

I wish to return to the point which was made by the hon. member for South Coast yesterday in relation to the irrigation schemes. The hon. the Minister has sketched some of the difficulties relating to the project, and to the attempt to rationalize throughout South Africa the whole approach of the department and of Parliament to people who are irrigators and who received financial aid from the department and from Parliament to set them up in business I think it is important for us to realize that these schemes were undertaken at different times for different purposes, and some of them are old schemes, which have existed for years. The reasons for their establishment in the beginning were that they were intended to rehabilitate and to give farmers and people in those areas a new chance in life by reason of the fact that the department or the Government was providing water for them to enable them to farm on a more economic basis. But the whole pattern of costs today has gone completely against the small irrigator. What the hon. member for South Coast was so rightly pointing out, I believe, and what I think the Minister would be well advised to give consideration to, even if it is done on a regional basis, is that schemes witin a certain region should be taken into consideration. One should attempt to get a reasonable water rate throughout a particular area, if necessary, and then move on to another area, so as to bring the cost and the whole economic structure of irrigators up to the modern position in which we find ourselves today. My experience in the few years I have been on the Select Committee showed me that time after time people are placed in an impossible position and they are simply being dragged down by debt to the point where they cannot recover. And I believe it is the action of a desperate man and a desperate community which will come to Parliament on petition asking for sums of money to be written off. Even when those sums are written off, I still believe that they are not going to be alt that much better off in that they are still required to pay certain amounts of money which in bad years, in drought years, might still be an impossible burden for them to bear.

They will still have to struggle.

Sir, I would go one step further. I believe that we can take the analogy of the private draft ordinances in a provincial council. Where a municipality is seeking authority to raise a loan, the loan request is referred to a select committee of the Provincial Council.

Only in Natal.

Of course, Sir, in Natal we are ahead of the rest of the Republic. That is the position in Natal. If a local authority requests a loan, the Select Committee of the provincial council investigates the whole situation, the rate income of the local authority, the obligations that they are undertaking, whether they are able to pay, and that kind of thing. It occurred to me that it might be an idea, where new requests come in to Parliament or to the department for new irrigation schemes, that the Select Committee of this House on Irrigation Matters might be called upon to fulfill exactly the same sort of function, that is to say, to investigate the matter and to give it something more than the approval of the department; in other words, that this Parliament should take an active part in vetting the proposals which come before Parliament for monetary assistance to set up irrigation schemes. Sir, I would ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for us to take a new look at schemes which are often raised on the hopes of farmers, who find themselves driven into an economic corner and who think that if they can raise a loan and that if they can get certain amounts of money for which they will get a subsidy from the department, they are going to benefit themselves, when so often they find in fact that they have hung a millstone around their necks because the department and the people themselves may not be in a position or may not have the time fully to investigate the implications to those people of the obligations that they are undertaking. I believe that this suggestion, if accepted, might relieve us in the future of the sort of problems that we are having today, and from which every irrigation scheme throughout South Africa today is suffering.

I merely want to say a few words in connection with what I have just learnt from the hon. the Minister about the new tunnel near Petrusville, where water will be channelled from the P. K. le Roux Dam, going only as far as Kraankuil, because the rest of the land, as the hon. the Minister has said here, is too brackish. I just want to tell the Minister that experiments have determined— and I have seen this many times myself— that one can protect that land from brackishness altogether by working certain chemicals into the soil and even by means of certain fertilizing processes. I am speaking here particularly as someone who comes from the Cape, where depopulation of the Platteland is taking place on a very large scale. We all thought that with the construction of the canal and the P. K. le Roux Dam quite a few thousand morgen could be brought under irrigation, and now I must find out this afternoon that the water can only go as far as Kraankuil. I know that part of the world very well. We shall then not be able to place much land under irrigation. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that one must not write that soil off altogether. There are probably many brackish areas, but with treatment that soil can be restored again. Where certain portions cannot be restored, I want to ask that the water be channelled lower down, because as the hon. the Minister himself said, it is cheaper to pump than to construct a longer canal. There I agree with him wholeheartedly, because lower down there is very rich and deep soil. We do not have fodder in this country. We hung our only hopes on the Orange River project. With the aid of this project we would have been able to build up a fodder bank in the country. Just look at what happened last year. We used any means at our disposal, even rotten maize cobs and maize leaves to feed the live-stock. Since we are now being placed in a position to build up a fodder bank in which proper fodder, such as lucern and other vegetation, can be stored, I want to ask that we make use of the opportunity.

The hon. the Minister also told us that only 23 per cent of the water would be applied for agricultural purposes. A further 25 per cent would be used for industrial purposes. I have nothing against the development of industries. I consider this a very good thing. But then another 52 per cent remains, and we cannot allow that water to remain in the dams merely to evaporate. It would be a crying shame if 52 per cent of the water must remain in the dams and evaporate. We cannot allow this. That is why I make this serious plea to the hon. the Minister that a thorough investigation be instituted into the quality of the soil. I recently visited the Grootfontein Agricultural School in Middelburg. There I spoke to the head of the school, Dr. Wouter Hugo. He assured me that brackish soil could be reclaimed. I do not have the knowledge, but our technical people do have the knowledge to reclaim that soil.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is not in the House at the moment, because it is not nice to speak about someone if he is not present. The hon. member made a tremendously harsh attack on the hon. the Minister about the wastage in connection with the Verwoerd dam and the P. K. le Roux dam. I wonder if the hon. member had ever set eyes on those two areas before a start was made with the building of houses. I doubt if the hon. member has ever been there. The houses that were built, in the case of the P. K. le Roux dam, for the Whites, non-Whites and Bantu, were built on a mountain. That mountain virtually had to be levelled. Tremendous initiative had to be displayed in levelling that ground. It is possible that a few thousand rand was lost here and there. But how can the hon. member now blame the hon. the Minister for wasting money after that work was commenced? If we read the report of the Department of Water Affairs, we see that these changes were made after further thorough study. We see that Mr. Hobbs suggested to the hon. the Minister that another shape be used for the P. K. le Roux dam. These changes will eventually save the State many millions of rand. According to calculations, it appears that eventually almost R25 million will be saved on that dam. This is a tremendous amount. Supposing there was a wastage of R1 million. But if, on the other hand, a saving of R25 million is affected, one is surely not in the red yet.

I referred earlier to industrial development. Wherever possible, I should also like our platteland towns to be supplied with water. I do not want to mention specific towns, but I have in mind those towns that are within reach of the P. K. le Roux and H. F. Verwoerd dams. So many people have already come along wanting to set up industries, and the first question they ask is whether there is water available. The second question they ask is whether there is power. In the future we shall not have the least difficulty as far as power is concerned. We have Escom power, and we shall also obtain hydro-electric power at some of these dams. Water is, however, our problem. I am not against water going to Port Elizabeth. On the contrary, I am glad of it, because Port Elizabeth is expanding very rapidly and must, therefore, obtain water for its industries. But I think that Port Elizabeth has sufficient water for domestic use. I hope the hon. the Minister will not allow us to make water available to a city for watering its lawns. We cannot afford it. We need fodder too badly in this country for that. The industries can continue with their activities, but we must, in addition, make fodder for our animals.

There is another important matter to which I want to refer. I do not know whether the Department of Water Affairs has already marked out the high-water mark at the P. K. le Roux dam. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me if this has been done or not.

Yes, we know where it is.

The hon. Minister says that they know where it is. My information is that an immediate start is going to be made in demolishing the houses. I have nothing against that. However, I do want to sound a warning in connection with the experience we had with another dam, where dwellings were demolished which eventually were not situated in the dam basin. When the State eventually wanted to give the land back to the farmers, only the walls remained standing. I hope that the same thing will not happen in the case of the P. K. le Roux dam. Someone telephoned me only yesterday to tell me that there were various good homes above the P. K. le Roux dam which are still being inhabited at the moment. I have nothing against the houses eventually being demolished, but the people living in the houses are not farmers, but retired individuals. They are offering to demolish the houses themselves when it becomes necessary, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give me a reply about that. They will also deliver the materials to wherever the Minister wants it. We know what things are like when houses are demolished. It is a hastily-done job, and many of the doors and windows are simply knocked out of the walls. Wastage can also take place there. Particularly in the case of the breaking off of wires. Above the Verwoerd dam we saw that iron poles were simply bent and then left there. I want proper supervision when buildings are demolished. This must be done, because the corrugated iron is particularly valuable. How many hundreds of farmers would not buy that second-hand corrugated iron? They can use the corrugated iron for the construction of their outbuildings and sheds in which they can keep their fodder. I am sure that there are hundreds, even thousands, of farmers who would like to have those sheets of corrugated iron. However, if the sheets of corrugated iron are bent and damaged, they are not worth selling. In that case the State will lose a great deal of money.

I want to ask the Minister to ensure that responsible persons are obtained to do that work. Even wire can be sold, because it is tremendously expensive. If one does not simply cut that wire down, but loosens it and rolls it up properly, one can place it on an auction sale, and it is then worth a great deal to the State. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I listened to the arguments advanced by hon. members on the opposite side of the House. I found it strange that they continued with these charges against the Government and against the Minister, and that they said certain things which, in my opinion, were untrue. They made a point of creating the impression that certain irregularities had taken place in the construction of the H. F. Verwoerd Dam. Anything could have happened, as it was explained by the hon. member for Colesberg, but I want to ask the United Party whether they do not recall that in 1914, at the time of the First World War, R28 million was cost owing to maladministration? After 57 years they are still unable to account for it.

Where was that?

The hon. gentlemen are, of course, keen to forget it. The United Party is the last party that can fling accusations. It should wash its own hands before it can accuse the National Party of certain forms of maladministration.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member.

No. The hon. member knows that it is true and he merely has to read his history. My constituency and I want to express our appreciation for the fact that the hon. the Minister and his department have decided to build the P. K. le Roux Dam themselves. At the next election the voters of my constituency will prove that they are appreciative of the fact that this Minister and the Government have taken the initiative to make use of the services of their competent heads of departments for this purpose. Furthermore, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the planning committee which he appointed in July, 1968, in pursuance of a request made by me as well as other hon. members. and also for the work that was done by them. I think the report is available at this stage, but I do not know what the contents of that report is. What I do know, however, is that that report will definitely be able to indicate what the productivity is of the land situated below the confluence of the Orange and Vaal Rivers. The productivity of that land cannot he equalled anywhere along the Orange River. It covers an area of approximately 28 000 morgen, the depth of which is between 24 feet and 28 feet. If I remember correctly, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services recently tested the soil in this area, and after 50 years of irrigation there is still no evidence of alkalization having taken place in this soil. I believe that with the next phase of the scheme this area should be taken into consideration. Even if the Torquay Dam is not constructed, the canal works can in fact be undertaken in order that water may be supplied to that area.

I am convinced that the construction of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam is already yielding benefits in the Lower Orange River area as well, benefits such as the provision of water to the iron ore mines at Postmasburg, to the town itself and to the iron ore mines at Prieska. I am convinced that if the water for this area had not been adequate, this development could not have taken place there. In fact, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the speed with which this area was supplied with water, as we really needed it. This scheme is also yielding benefits in the Lower Orange River area. During the past year one has been able to see that the security which the farmers have in respect of their water supply, has already contributed to financial benefits being afforded to these people.

However, I want to express my disappointment at the fact that, according to this supplementary report, there are certain areas which will not enjoy the benefits of this project. I want to express my disappointment in this regard because I know that in the Brilstown, Biervlei, Brakrivier, Vosburg, Prieska and Carnarvon- Witsona areas the people will be very disappointed. However, one must appreciate that the Government’s responsibilities are so extensive that it cannot do things which will harm the national economy, and for that we admire it. For this reason I want to acquiesce in this decision, but I want to express the hope that in the near future this matter will be considered once again. If we in those areas do not have a share in the development under the Orange River project, I foresee difficult times for the agricultural industry there. As the hon. member for Colesberg also said, I also believe that provision can be made for certain areas and that it is unnecessary to reject whole areas simply because certain parts of them are subject to alkalization. I trust that the hon. the Minister will review this matter in the future to see whether these areas cannot be served by this scheme. I trust that in years to come it will in fact be possible to supply water in that area for both agricultural and stock-watering purposes. As you know, Sir, there is a need for drinking-water for our livestock in the vicinity of Carnarvon. Van Wyksvlei and Kenhardt. I trust that the project will in any case be adapted in such a way that it will be possible for us in the future to supply water to those farmers. I want to express my sincere appreciation for what the hon. the Minister has done: I admire him. My voters admire him and his department for the attitude they adopt and the initiative they have been displaying.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prieska who has just sat down, made a vague, general statement. He took us back some 50 years. He did not specify what he was referring to. I think if he values the future of his political career, he should be more specific in what he says in future. He has raised pertinent problems in his area with which I have no quarrel. I do not know whether this Nationalist Government will solve his problems, I think he must look forward to an enlightened United Party Government for that.

I want to deal with the question of research. The hon. member for South Coast referred to the importance of research as regards the future of our water supplies. I want to deal with one particular aspect of research. In case hon. members think that I am speaking of a dream world, I just want to quote briefly from a report issued by the cognizanceKommissie van Ondersoek insake Wateraangeleenthede201D;. I want to refer to weather modification in South Africa. This report reads as follows on page 129—

The emphasis is on cognizancebehoort te word201D;—

This emphasizes the importance of exploring all possibilities of using the moisture that floats over our continent in the form of clouds. I want to quote another well-known authority on water matters. He says—

These are enlighted statements by people who understand the situation in South Africa. I understand, however, that representations were made to the Government by the Co-ordinating Committee for Hydrological Research, after a survey was done by the Weather Bureau, the Department of Water Affairs and the C.S.I.R., for a five-year plan for a rain-making project. Their request was turned down by the Treasury. I can find no item in the Vote where money is being specifically set aside for weather modification projects. I think that this is a pity when we consider what forward-looking steps are being taken by other countries in this particular regard.

In spite of all the steps that are being taken by this department and all the money that is being spent, statistical evidence clearly indicates that by the year 2000 the water requirements of this country will be somewhere in the region of 29 000 million cubic metres. If we merely develop our present water supplies, those supplies will total only something like 21 001) million cubic metres. In other words, we shall find a big gap in our Water Budget. It has been said in this debate that there are several methods by which the State will be able to balance its Water Budget. Firstly there is the saving, or the more efficient utilization, of water. Then a case can be made for the re-use of water. I think tremendous forward steps have been made in this regard. There is also the possibility of the desalination of seawater. These are all prospects which could be considered.

There is, however, a fourth source which is as yet untouched. I refer to the moisture circulating this continent in the form of clouds. It is interesting to note that only 5 per cent of this moisture that passes over the country actually falls to the earth in the form of rain, snow or hail. It is also interesting to reflect that of the rain that falls, only 9 per cent becomes riverflow water, and of that 9 per cent, only one-half is effectively used today. It is also interesting to note that science today is rapidly developing sophisticated techniques of modifying the behaviour of the cloud system over a particular area. Fog can, for instance, be dispersed over an aerodrome. Hailstorms can be prevented in order to protect crops. In fact, in certain areas of the world where lightning is a severe hazard, that too can be controlled. Fourthly, clouds can be activated to produce rain This is the aspect in which I am interested.

Bearing all this in mind, it is disappointing to find that we, a country with such a drastic shortage of water, are doing so little about this particular aspect of water research. The hon. member for Prieska mentioned the vast areas in which people are looking for irrigation water to make that ground fertile and productive. This is surely one of the ways in which we can help that hon. member. I know that there are those who believe that because other countries are spending huge sums of money on research projects, our attitude should be: Why should we in South Africa spend large sums of money when that information will eventually become readily available to us? Sir, I believe that research has already progressed so far that we have reached the stage where we in South Africa can begin to make practical use of what is already known. I do not want to suggest for one moment that we must try to modify the rainfall or the climatic characteristics of a vast area like the Karoo. What I suggest is that we should start investigating the possibility of increasing the rainfall in certain high-rainfall areas, because it is in the high-rainfall areas that it is easiest to modify the rainfall. Here I am thinking for example of the high rainfall area in the catchment area of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. I believe that with the information we have today, this is in fact a real possibility. I believe that this is an aspect which should receive the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister.

We have heard of the exorbitant and escalating costs involved in the building of dams today, but when these dams are empty, which is very often the case, or when they are only half full, their cost to the State is even greater. Anything we can do to keep those dams full, which will at the same time ensure that the capital that has already been invested in those projects is utilized with 100 per cent efficiency, must surely benefit the whole country. I think of the Orange River and the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. If that dam can be kept full, think of the vast areas which it can irrigate. The water from the Verwoerd Dam not only flows down the Fish River Valley to the sea, but if there was sufficient water it could also be made to flow down the Sundays River Valley and make water available to that area of the Karoo which includes the Graaff-Reinet, Willowmore and Uitenhage districts. I think the hon. the Minister must realize that one of the most urgent problems the Government has is to activate the economy of that vast area which today is in a very depressed state. One of the ways to do it is to see that the Verwoerd Dam is supplied with an optimum quantity of water. I honestly believe, having studied a tremendous amount of documentary evidence in regard to the research that has been done on weather modification, that it is a highly feasible proposition. I do not think it is necessary for me to outline to this House all the possibilities that exist. [Time expired.]

Since yesterday afternoon up to now we have been listening to the discussion of the Water Affairs Vote, one of the most important Votes which one can probably discuss in this House. I want to thank both the Minister and all the officials concerned with this great task for our people and our country, for their zeal and the good work they have done. [Interjections.] On the opposite side of the House remarks are now being passed about the word cognizancethank201D;. It is probably one of the greatest wonders and also one of the most pleasant acts to thank somebody for water. For I know that these persons find themselves in the political desert of drought and misery, and how pleasant it would be if one could moisten those dry lips of their political life with a drop of water.

I want to thank the Minister for that fine, grand scheme which has now been completed in the Mooi River, in the district of Potchefstroom. The Mooi River irrigation scheme is probably one of the oldest irrigations schemes in the country. A great deal has been written about the history of that scheme. At one stage there was a famous court case—the Jeppe judgment—in the history of the Mooi River Irrigation Board. Now, I am grateful too, and I want to express my thanks to both the Mooi River Irrigation Board and the boards in the distant past, which did their level best to serve that scheme. I want to express my sincere thanks to those members. What they did for the Mooi River Irrigation Board, was a great sacrifice. They devoted a great deal of time to it and received no remuneration for it. Now that that board has decided to dissolve and will in future fall under the Government’s Advisory Council, I hope and trust that, just as was the case in the past, there will also be fine co-operation in regard to that scheme. I want to say once again that we are grateful for all those water canals and for everything that was done in recent times. Sir, this is one of the most fortunate schemes in the country, because for three-quarters of the year the dam remains full all the time. This could perhaps be attributed to the fact that it is being fed by a subterranean river, and also to the fact that for the past two years it has been fed to a tremendous extent by the water pumped from the Bank compartment. That dam was built in the years 1956/59. I am referring here to the new dam, which is known as the Boskop Dam. It is one of the finest pieces of work done in that area. I want to tell the Minister that he should not pay any attention to the U.P. propaganda coming from members on that side. As my hon. friend said here, these people have always had objections to monuments which we built in this country. When the first steel factory was established, they said that it was a waste of money; when Sasol was established. they said that it was a waste of money, and now they say that we have wasted money with the Hendrik Verwoerd scheme. As long as they remain in opposition, they will go on saying that. They will also say that in regard to the P. K. le Roux Dam. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that they are engaged in a waste of time.

Talk about water, not about politics.

It is a pity that that hon. member introduced politics into this House. [Interjection.] If that hon. member kept quiet, he would give his brain a chance to work, for he has virtually nothing.

What brains have you got?

Sir, water is one of the most wonderful substances which there is on this earth, and it is a pity that this matter has been dragged into politics. for water is probably the most important substance on this planet. Absolutely nothing in life can exist without water. Approximately 65 to 80 per cent of the human body consists of water. Water is so essential for the human body that even if one starts losing only a small percentage of it, one becomes thirsty and then one has to supply that deficiency. Sometimes water is discussed in a flippant manner, because we accept that water just happens to be there. We do not know where it comes from and how it originates. This is one of the matters on which science can give us very little clarity, for there has simply been water here all the time; when the earth was created, we were given water. Water is a wonderful substance, and for that reason each of us, whether we are on the Opposition side or on the Government side, must regard this matter in a serious light and, for the benefit of every person who lives on this planet, we must keep it out of politics as far as possible.

I have said that we accept that water will come out if we merely open the tap. Water is often wasted, and I want to ask that drastic action be taken in this regard. Every year the State spends millions and millions of rands on the construction of large dams, and I want to ask that drastic action be taken, also against our major cities which are wasting water, and that laws be made for putting a stop, as far as possible, to the waste of water. In this regard we as members of the public must co-operate. Not only our large municipalities, the State and the major industries, but also we as members of the public must co-operate in order to put a stop to this waste of water.

We are also grateful for the fact that we could celebrate Water Year last year, and that our children, when they go to school, can also learn that they should love water. If one loves water, one will not waste it, but use it as it behoves one to use something which one loves. I am also grateful for those major industries which have had good results in reclaiming water and in using the same water over and over. But for the most part such reclamation is still done on a voluntary basis. I feel that in this respect legislation for saving water in all spheres should definitely be introduced. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal for a moment or two with a point the hon. the Minister raised this afternoon when he replied to the debate up to that point I think that the hon. the Minister was perhaps a bit unhappy under the criticism which we had levelled at him from this side of the House. I hope he will get used to that, since that is Parliament. We are here to criticize, if we deem it necessary, matters dealing with his Vote and the Estimates which are be fore us. The hon. the Minister must not get impatient because of criticism. When he is replying to criticism, he must be careful to lay at our door in the language we used precisely the criticism to which he takes exception. He must not lay at our door in language we did not use criticism which he claims we laid at his door. I want to deal with it for a moment from that angle.

The hon. the Minister does not expect me to elucidate and elaborate in respect of the five principles laid down in the policy of this side of the House. Surely it is sufficient for me to give them very briefly. I had half an hour to speak when I first got up. This report which we unfortunately only got this afternoon at 2.15 p.m. deals with all the matters associated with only one aspect of water affairs, namely the Orange River scheme. But let us look at the five principles, because I do not want to have any misunderstanding in this connection. As to the first, namely, to safeguard supplies to existing communities, the hon. the Minister agreed and said that that was common sense. The same applies to the next two concerning the grid system. Then he went on to say that I had said that we must develop our own water supply. I did not say that; I said we must develop it first. He then said that that was also common sense. He said that the first three principles were common sense. What he means is that the Government is following those principles today. That is fair enough, but they do not cease to be good principles because the Government is following them in its policy, or in its practice—I still say the Government has no policy. The fact that we laid down principles which are followed in practice does not mean that they cease to be good principles. The hon. the Minister must not condemn them because they are good principles which are being followed in practice.

Now we come to the next one, namely the question of apportionment. The hon. the Minister went to town in fairly strong language and told me that I was talking a lot of nonsense when I claimed that this was the time to deal properly and adequately with a view to the future with apportionment. When I look at the White Paper put in front of us this afternoon from which the hon. the Minister himself quoted, headed “Principles” —the principles of the Orange River scheme—what do I find under clause 3.3—not 3,3?—

The very word I used when I spoke last night, “apportionment”, is used. With regard to this word, the hon. the Minister said to me: “The hon. member is talking nonsense; fancy talking about apportionment. We cannot deal with apportionment at this stage. We have to provide water for people. Development is taking place. Development is changing; we cannot deal with apportionment” His own department's report deals with this very question of apportionment. It shows the percentage of water that is being kept for agriculture and how the needs of agriculture are changing. It is the very point that we made when we said that we had to be careful and come to apportionment now because the needs are changing. It indicates the percentage which is being kept for future urban development and future industrial development. We recognize that urban and industrial development is coming.

And now I want to come back to the point made by the hon. member for Mooi River when he was dealing with the whole of the socio-economic change in South Africa which will have to be based on the Orange River scheme. It is not only the establishment of industry. What goes with industry? Housing schemes; veritible towns will have to be built there. Schools hospitals and all the other organizations of our society will have to be established. This is all part and parcel of the big overall scheme which will be based on the water of the Orange River. When we speak about apportionment we find that in this report we have been backed up to the hilt. The hon. the Minister must not say that we are talking nonsense. His own department is putting that forward and they use the very word we used, namely “apportionment”.

Then the hon. the Minister referred to the question of scientific research. Scientific research is not the “besoedeling van water”, That is not the only aspect of scientific research. We cannot go into all the details during a debate like this as to what is meant by scientific research. My hon. friend the member for Walmer has indicated one field of scientific research. That is not what I said. Why did the hon. the Minister not quote me correctly? What I said was not that we needed for scientific research the basic facilities that we had. I know what has been established. I took part in the debate when the Institute was established. I know what the Government is doing. What I said was that we need vast sums of money. That is the point I made and not that the department is not doing any research. I did not say that there was no research being done. I said that what we needed was vast sums of money for research. It is cheaper to spend money today on scientific research than it is to spend far larger sums on trying to conserve water hereafter on schemes which may not have a scientific basis. It is the application of the principle of spending your money now advantageously on scientific research—even vast sums—instead of spending it perhaps to less profit and by way of far bigger sums in the future that lies ahead of us. The principle of scientific research, I say again, is a good one. It is a principle of the United Party which we adumbrated six years ago. We know that it is being put into effect today. We are very pleased. We go along with the hon. the Minister and we say to him: “Try and get more money; adequate money”.

If we are going to talk about the pollution of water and that sort of thing, then the answer is that because of the shortage of staff in the department today there is hardly a case of river pollution in Natal where we can get an official of the Department of Water Affairs to take active steps in the matter that may lead to a prosecution. Pollution is taking place repeatedly and over and over again. We cannot get steps taken towards a prosecution. I am not saying that the department can manufacture staff. I said in my speech that I knew the Minister was short of staff. I understood that he got more staff since then. When one looks at the Estimates it appears as if he did get more staff. But he is probably still inadequately staffed as far as the scientific side of the department is concerned. We need more and more scientists so as to be able to do this work of the control of pollution. Until we can say to the man who is polluting the rivers, seas, lakes, water supplies, the soil itself and the air, that we are going to charge him before the court and have him punished for doing so with a very severe punishment and we can make it stick, because we can produce the scientific evidence to get a conviction, we have no teeth in our legislation. The department is powerless; it can issue warnings and it can do what it likes, but it cannot make it stick because there is no ability to stick that charge against that particular institution or person and make him pay savagely for what he is doing to South Africa. He is not polluting my river; it is as much your river in South-West Africa, even if it runs into the Indian Ocean. It is South Africa’s water that we are concerned with; it is South Africa’s air, it is South Africa’s soil that is being poisoned. Unless we punish these people in regard to the pollution of air, land and water with exactly the same kind of thought in our minds as we put in the legislation dealing with oil pollution at sea which was passed the other day, we are not going to grapple adequately with this pollution problem. It is in its infancy in South Africa today. Let us learn from the other countries and realize that this is the time to grapple with this problem, that this is the time to take the necessary steps. If the hon. the Minister comes with fierce penalties, we will support him. But the hon. the Minister has to have the technical and professional officials so that charges brought against a person, will stick. It is no good taking such a person to court if he will be acquitted. That will not do. That only brings the whole matter into disrepute. We have to have cast-iron scientific evidence produced by scientists that will bring home charges and will get convictions. Only then will we be able to say that we are now really tackling the problem of pollution of our environment here in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, while the whole of South Africa is deeply impressed by the devotedness and competence with which this hon. Minister and his department have planned the water situation of South Africa, we find that the United Party is levelling inappropriate criticism. Furthermore, they have also given the hon. the Minister advice in respect of research, etc., whereas what they are proposing, was implemented by the Government a long time ago. That makes one think of delayed action in respect of the opposite side of the House. Perhaps that also illustrates the major difference which exists between this side and that side of the House.

The hon. member for South Coast also referred here to the pollution of our water resources, the sea, etc. During the previous session, if my memory serves me correctly, the hon. the Minister gave us a very detailed explanation of what he was doing to combat this problem in South Africa. Now I may just tell the hon. member for South Coast that he need not be concerned, for South Africa is one of the countries which has made most progress in combating the pollution of our water and water resources.

In the short time at my disposal, I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister a matter which applies in respect of my own constituency. It is also without any hesitation that I express this afternoon my thanks and appreciation to the Department of Water Affairs, and specifically to the hon. the Minister as well, for what has been done in respect of the Rhenoster River Government Water Scheme in my constituency. I am pleased at having been afforded the opportunity yesterday afternoon to fly over this area and to see those three dams, i.e. the Koppies Dam, the Cornelia Dam and the Weltevreden Dam, filled to capacity. That is a fine sight. Together those three dams form the Rhenoster River Government Water Scheme. The Koppies Dam has a capacity of 18 000 morgen feet. That enables us to irrigate approximately 4 000 morgen. The Cornelia Dam, with a capacity of 230 morgen feet, enables us to put approximately 70 morgen under irrigation. Out of the Weltevreden Dam, with a capacity of 340 morgen feet, approximately 100 morgen of land can be irrigated. With the water from these dams it is possible, therefore, to irrigate approximately 4 170 morgen of land. The total cost of raising the Koppies Dam amounts to just over R2 million. If this scheme were rounded off by adding cement canals, the total amount spent would amount to just over R4 million. In looking at the investment in water as far as this scheme is concerned, we find that it amounts to a little more than R1 000 per morgen. In looking at the quality of the soil that has to be irrigated there, as became evident from the soil survey that was made there, one arrives at the conclusion that one has to be very careful and that, when such major capital expenditure is incurred in respect of one morgen of land, the quality of the soil must be good. As a matter of fact, it is also the policy of the Department of Water Affairs at the moment that no changes will be effected to schemes unless it has been determined what the quality of the soil is and whether such expenditure will be justified. We believe that this soil is of poor quality. Furthermore, the soil survey indicated that we actually had a small area of land which was suitable for irrigation. If we went further, we would also see that we do not have enough land there for deriving the optimum utilization from that water. It is therefore very obvious to me that we shall have to take certain measures in that regard. A commission was appointed to inquire into the improvement of the scheme and to make a recommendation to the hon. the Minister, but this type of inquiry inevitably takes time. In the meantime there is also a waste of time. We believe that this commission will come forward with a positive recommendation, and that this scheme, once the commission has made its recommendation, will be corrected by the Minister and his department.

Then we have another problem as well, i.e. that these schemes are reasonably old ones. Actually, the Roodepoort settlement below the Cornelia Dam dates back to the days of Gen. De Wet. when two morgen was allocated per settler. There are 70 farmers under the Koppies Scheme, more or less 40 farmers under the Roodepoort Scheme, and more or less 45 farmers under the Weltevrede Scheme. An added problem is that these lands are uneconomically small. Consequently, consolidation will have to take place in respect of these lands, even if it is effected on an interim basis until such time as we have determined that new land is available and has been bought out for the purposes of the new settlement. For that reason I want to make the plea this afternoon that the hon. the Minister should do his best to expedite this matter. I believe that it would amount to sound policy on the part of the Minister if he bought out the lands of some of these owners of small pieces of land in order that land might be made available for consolidation purposes. If that were done, such land could possibly be put out to lease so that the remaining owners might in that way be enabled to make a better living.

Then I should like to ask that we continue with the planning of a canal scheme on the left bank of the river. By doing that we would be able to see how much land we could bring under irrigation. Furthermore, I should like to ask the Minister to agree to negotiating with the owners of that land so that we may acquire land which is suitable for irrigation. This also applies to the area on the left bank of the river lower down. If the land is made available and if the quality of the soil is such, a new and more densely populated settlement may be established there. In that case it would be possible for this settlement to bring about the optimum use of the water of the Koppies Dam. When this scheme is worked out in that way—and I believe that these recommendations of mine will be accepted I want to make the plea that the department should in the allocation of plots, give preference, firstly, to those people who make land available and, secondly to established inhabitants of these irrigation schemes so that they may also be settled on an economic piece of land. I should like to make the plea that the Minister will, in spite of major issues to which attention must be paid and major problems with which the department has to contend, see to it that by way of thorough planning and thorough inquiry this project will be placed on an economic basis within the shortest time possible. This must be done in the interests of these farmers who have small pieces of land, as they do have the water and as we have incurred major expenditure in getting the water there,

Mr. Chairman, at the start I just want to say that I am just as sorry as the hon. member for Mooi River, and, to tell the truth, I think my department is sorry, too, that we were not able to have the important White Paper ready earlier. I think this is the time when I have to inform this House that in future we shall try to progress with our planning to such an extent that the work will have reached such a stage of completion so well ahead of time that we shall be able to table the White Paper at the beginning of the session. I do not want to suggest or promise that this will happen next year, but we shall try to do so. This is an enormous task, and if the hon. member consults the White Paper he will see that it is a very thorough job of work. In recent times we have been trying to provide much more information in the White Papers than we did in the past, and therefore the hon. member will understand that this involves a great deal of work for the department. I do hope, however, that we shall reach a stage when it will no longer be necessary to wait for White Papers but when all White Papers will be ready at the beginning of a session.

†The hon. member for Mooi River discussed the question of the use of the water from the Orange River scheme. I do not want to argue at length about the case he stated here based on the Keynesian principle, but I do want to say that no water scheme which is properly planned can hope for full consumption on the day of completion. The hon. member will know that it was contemplated from the beginning that the consumption of water will take place in stages over many years as the different phases of these schemes are completed. It is virtually impossible to plan a large water scheme and to have the whole scheme in operation on the day of completion. The same will happen here.

*The hon. member also put an interesting question in regard to the P. K. le Roux Dam, one which I think is of importance. But before I reply to the question of the hon. member, I want to say now that after careful consideration the department has come forward with the necessary figures and details which have made it possible for the Government to take the decision to build the P. K. le Roux Dam itself. Much has been said about this matter and it has been discussed extensively, but if there is any further doubt about this matter at this stage, I should like to clear it up. The lowest tender for the construction of this dam from the private sector, was one which the department could consider. After the due date for tenders, however, the persons who bad submitted the lowest tender put additional conditions which ruled out any possibility of the Government accepting that tender. Consequent the tender which had to be considered was the second lowest one. i.e. for R56 million. This amount was so much higher than what the department had thought it would have cost that the department seriously investigated the matter in order to ascertain at what price it could undertake the construction itself.

I believe the Department of Water Affairs will be able to construct the P. K. le Roux Dam at an amount not exceeding R45 million. When I say the construction will not exceed R45 million, I want to add that unforeseen circumstances of which this House is unaware today—now I am referring to normal circumstances—may change the figure, but we hope that the amount will come to R45 million or less. Therefore the figure of R45 million is R11 million less than that submitted to the department for consideration. This however, would have been the position only if the tenderer would in fact have completed the construction for R56 million. In our dealings with syndicates up to now, construction has never been completed at the tender price.

For example, the tender price for the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam was R34 million, whereas the actual costs will amount to approximately R48 million. At this stage I do not want to hazard a prediction in regard to the cost of the tunnel seeing that we shall probably receive the figure from the tenderer only next year. They first proceed with the construction to an advanced stage and then submit the figures. At that stage we shall have an indication of the amount at which the construction of those tunnels will be completed. I cannot inform this House of the precise amount today, but I do not believe it will be constructed at that figure. Therefore I want to say that everything in excess of the figure of R56 million, should be added to the R11 million. The hon. member went on to ask whether in calculating the costs, we had taken into account the factors which normally did not come to mind, but which did in fact give the State an advantage when it built, for example, factors like duty free petrol, low railway tariffs, etc. They will naturally be taken into account.

But J want to go further and tell this House that in the case of the P. K. le Roux Dam I shall report to this House every year what stage of development has been reached and what the costs are at that particular stage as compared to what the costs would have been in terms of the tender, taking into account the volume, the material and the price which has been paid; in other words, taking into account the work completed up to that stage and the costs of the material. In other words, in the case of the P. K. le Roux Dam, I want to give the undertaking to this House that during the six years we shall be building, the House will always be in a portion to keep up with developments and to know exactly what the position is; for example, whether there is any deviation. In that case, there need be no argument in future whether or not the department is capable of doing the work. However, I have the confidence to say this now, because in the development of its planning and design section, the Department of Water Affairs has laid a foundation in which I have so much confidence, as it is organized at present, that I am able to commit my department to this.

The hon. member for Mooi River went on to ask whether the excavations covered by the previous contract, had been included in this calculation. No, we are able to give this House a very realistic comparison. I am referring to the excavations for the electrical works, for the generation of power. This will be done by a contractor. But it will be taken into account, of course, otherwise the comparison will not be a fair one.

On this occasion I also want to refer to the private engineers. I want to state very clearly to this House that the fact that the Department of Water Affairs is undertaking this scheme itself, does not mean that the Department of Water Affairs will not have work be done by the private sector in future. This must be stated very clearly. I believe that the Department of Water Affairs can put out to contract a certain type of work particularly easily, as we are in fact doing at present. It is particularly easy to put out to contract work concerning pipelines, for the very reason that it is easier to have this work done by the people who manufacture the pipes themselves. This is the type of work we very easily give out on tender; moreover, this is specialized work. But apart from that, the volume of work is of such a nature that the department will not always be able to do everything and as a result of the work it has accepted in regard to the P. K. le Roux Dam, it will probably be obliged to have certain other work, which it would have done itself, carried out by the private sector.

Consequently, in order to reassure the private sector, I want to say that although we are doing this, we are doing it, firstly because it is so much cheaper, and, secondly, because we want to give many of our engineers the opportunity of working on large construction works. For this reason this has indirect advantages for the department as well. I want to add that in future we shall always have to make use of private entrepreneurs as well, and we shall in fact do so.

With reference to the speech made by the hon. member for South Coast last night, I just want to say that I have since received the necessary information in regard to the matter he raised. I am able to inform the hon. member that in the past 23 years, from 1st April, 1948. to 31st March, 1971, a total amount of R859 829 in respect of loans to 31 irrigation boards, was written off, i.e. only 5,6 per cent of the total amount of R15 165000 of the loans which were made to 99 boards in the same period. I am mentioning these figures so that the hon. member may see that the percentage involved here, is not so large that we may come to the conclusion that the irrigation boards which have loans, are in great trouble. The position is in fact more favourable than the hon. member and I initially thought. Nevertheless, I shall bear the hon. member’s suggestion in mind in future. In the meantime I give him these figures.

Sir, I also want to react to what was said here by the hon. member for Winburg. He made a fine contribution. He, too. mentioned the research and bursary facilities made available by the department. I want to agree with the hon. member that we are all grateful for the fact that we are able to provide these facilities to so many students and scientists in order to help them to qualify for employment in the Department of Water Affairs. Hon. members will also be interested to learn that we are receiving wonderful co-operation from the private sector, and in this respect I should like to mention the names of two private firms which are making an exceptional contribution to the training of our people. In the first place I should like to mention the name of a firm which has made a considerable amount available to our department for bursaries, the firm of Blackwood Hodge, which has made R20 000 available for the use of the department, particularly for sending engineers and scientists overseas so as to further their studies in specialized directions. I appreciate the fact that they have come forward and made such a contribution. Then I must mention the name of Imperial Cold Storage, which is making available an amount of R2 000 per year, also for specialized study, more particularly for postgraduate study by persons at present in the service of the department.

The hon. member for Ermelo referred to the section 3 workers working on our schemes. The hon. member mentioned the three schemes, namely Westoe, Kafferskraal and Jericho where we are building at present. I want to tell the hon. member that the circumstances, as well as the remuneration of the section 3 workers, i.e. the casual workers, are not quite the same as the circumstances and remuneration of the department’s permanent workers. The hon. member should understand that most of the people working on the schemes, were recruited in the vicinity, and although a large percentage of these people move from scheme to scheme, there is also another percentage of people who are working in the vicinity on a casual basis because they need to do so. In recent times, especially in the conditions of drought which have been prevailing we have found that many people apply for positions with the department in order to supplement their incomes. Many of these people do a certain type of work which may be of such a specialized nature that they work on the scheme only for a few months and then leave. It is in fact a nomadic community. As far as their personal circumstances are concerned, we try to be as accommodating as possible in our treatment of this community.

For that reason we have introduced the system that those who have rendered faithful service and indicate that they want to remain with the department, receive special concessions from the department, which also give them the feeling of receiving better treatment. In speaking of better treatment, I am not inferring that there is bad treatment; but hon. members will be able to understand that the kind of benefit a man in permanent service has is different from that of the man who works for a while and then leaves. The special kind of concession we grant to such people who indicate that they want to remain with the department, includes, inter alia, good housing a housing allowance, free medical services, membership of the employees’ provident fund after a period of two years, etc. I want to assure the hon. member of the fact that last year we made special adjustments and that in future, for the very reason that we shall need the people in the execution of our major works, we shall continue to treat them sympathetically. He may rest assured that my door and that of my department will remain wide open to any suggestions which may come from that side. It is our intention to treat these employees as well as possible in order to retain their interest in the service of the department.

The hon. member for Colesberg has apologized for his inability to be present. He in fact expressed his disappointment about the fact that the department was not going to proceed with the construction of the long, big canal which was to be built below the P. K. le Roux Dam and which would have run into the North-West almost as far as Bushmansland. I can understand the hon. member’s disappointment. I must say, however, that we simply cannot do it. After an intensive investigation had been carried out, it became very clear that we would have been creating endless problems. Although people have told him it is a very easy matter to improve alkaline soil by means of the addition of chemicals, I must tell him all the same that in my opinion it would be the biggest blunder to construct an expensive scheme like that and to try to keep it going artificially. We simply cannot do this—not because we do not want to, but because we have been warned that we would experience great difficulty if we were to proceed with that scheme. I am just as sorry as the hon. member that this cannot happen, but I am afraid that we must take this sensible step in the interests of South Africa.

The hon. member for Prieska also referred to the Lower Orange River area. In this regard I share the hon. member’s disappointment. We should, of course, have liked to have taken the scheme as far as the area mentioned by the hon. member, but I am afraid this simply cannot be done.

The hon. member for Walmer spoke about research.

†The hon. member spoke about weather modification. Research on weather modification is being carried out by the C.S.I R. now for a long time and we are keeping pace with the research in other parts of the world. The department, the Weather Bureau and the C.S.I.R. are working together on a project at the moment where we are doing scientific research in the Mariepskop area in the Eastern Transvaal. However, apart from the research by the Department of Water Affairs in conjunction with the other bodies I mentioned, there are private bodies as well. There is also the research all over the world, as well as some research by our universities. So I think we can rest assured that the research in connection with weather modification will be carried on in South Africa. We will not be caught napping, because I feel and believe that, whether there is a break-through in South Africa or in some other part of the world, we will in any case enjoy the benefits of any research break-through as far as weather modification is concerned.

*The hon. member for Stilfontein expressed his gratitude in regard to a major problem people in his vicinity had and which had been solved. I know that those people, too, are very grateful for this. I just want to say I trust things will go better for them in future. But in regard to the point the hon. member made about wastage, I want to say I think we have reached the stage when we should take cognizance of the resounding success of the Water Year in creating a spirit of saving among the general public in South Africa. In this regard a very important break-through was made. I am able to say that throughout South Africa we have the feeling that our people, old and young and of all races, have realized the necessity of using water carefully and of devising ways and means of saving water in our everyday consumption. We have appointed a Water Research Commission, which is an important step, and we hope that in future this Commission will attain success. I think we are going to note with great appreciation and interest what is going to happen in connection with research.

I think hon. members will agree with me that there is one important, major shortcoming, and that is the millions of gallons of water going to waste in South Africa today because of the use of the wrong kind of apparatus at millions and millions of consumer points in South Africa. Examples of inferior or wrong apparatus are an inferior kind of washer which ought not to have been on the market, the use of a turning tap instead of a push tap, a windmill which should have been fitted with an apparatus for the quick application of the brake or a type of pump which should have worked more effectively. I could mention series of possible methods of saving water. Every hon. member will know what happens in large buildings, including Government buildings. Hon. members will know that in some toilets urinals are flushed automatically every five or ten minutes. This happens day and night, year in and year out. This kind of water usage should be examined. For that reason I have decided to appoint a committee to process all the information we have in this regard and the suggestions which were forthcoming in the Water Year. I may mention the fact that brilliant suggestions were made, ones which are of great value to US and which we are going to implement. Therefore the committee will be able to investigate all the possibilities of saving water and may act as a watchdog in future. I hope that bodies such as the Bureau of Standards, industrial institutions and bodies such as the Departments of Public Works and Community Development and even the Department of Bantu Affairs, which is concerned with Bantu housing schemes, will co-operate in preventing the wasting of South Africa’s water and in conserving it for the future by means of saving water. I cannot guess what quantity of water may be saved. I have no idea of how much may be saved, but it is not too far-fetched to think in terms of saving 20 per cent or 30 per cent or more of the total supply of water for domestic consumption.

There is a second aspect as well, namely the consumption by our industries. Although our industries work under a permit and have to be very careful in regard to their water consumption, and although there is a large measure of re-use, I think that if in future we shall be able to induce our industries in South Africa to re-examine their processes and to establish the machinery for assisting them in this regard, we may reach a stage when we shall be able to save a tremendous quantity of water. I want to mention the example of the water consumed in generating electricity. The technique has changed so much that today it is possible to generate electricity with dry cooling towers using only 15 per cent of the water needed previously. I am speaking of the generation of power. In future we shall probably have to make use of dry cooling towers which will use much less water. What holds good for that type of industry may just as well hold good in another type of industry. I want to refer to another industry. One day I paid a visit to a large factory. It interested me and also bothered me, that that factory was using such an enormous quantity of water. After all, I do have an idea of what one million gallons per day is. If one knows what the contents are of a dam one has to empty every second day, one should know what a million gallons is. I could not understand why that factory had to use so much water for its particular process. My curiosity was aroused and J went to take a look. I may tell hon. members that that factory can do its work just as well with one-twentieth of the quantity water it is using at present. But this is what is happening. When one knows one has sufficient water, one does not bother about ordering special apparatus for saving water.

I think the time has arrived for us to examine both aspects. The first is the obvious method in which the nation as a whole may participate. Everybody can assist in devising a plan. The second is that with the co-operation of the industries, the Water Planning Commission, the department and other institutions concerned in this matter, we may eventually have a large-scale attempt—even though we may think we have the best process—at re-examining those processes. I do not know what is contained in this in terms of saving water. I shall not be surprised if we find at the completion of the investigation that we are consuming twice as much water in South Africa as the quantity with which we shall be able to manage. This is an attempt in which the country as a whole may participate. Therefore, with reference to what the hon. member for Stilfontein said, I want to state that the committee will be announced in due course. Considerable discussions will have to take place before that time. I want to have the satisfaction, as I think you do too, that all the plans, recommendations and suggestions gathered in the course of the Water Year, will not be lost.

One of the newspapers ran a competition last year. The competition concerned five different items. One of the items concerned water saving apparatus and plans for saving water. Do hon. members know what the joint number of entries for all five was? There were 2½ million entries. I am not quite sure whether half a million entries for the one item alone were not received. Loads, piles of plans were received. Even if only one per cent of these were to have some substance, I believe that that one per cent would bring forward many practical suggestions. We shall be able to build on that in future.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to two matters, one of which was “apportionment”. I think the hon. member and I are beginning to understand each other better towards the end of this debate. At this stage I think I understand the hon. member better, and vice versa. I think I made it clear that we were in agreement if “apportionment” meant, as the hon. member indicated, that we should allocate the right quantity of water to sectors and consumer points. Therefore it seems to me that we are arriving at the same point.

Furthermore, I agree with the hon. member that people and money are extremely important as regards research. They are of very great importance to us. It would be of no avail if we had all the legislation and large-scale plans but no people and money to carry them out. We are absolutely going out of our way in order to interest people in various directions. I want to mention an example. We have persuaded the University of the Orange Free State to establish an Institute of Geo-hydrology. They will concern themselves exclusively with the subterranean water situation. This department will be attached to the University’s Department of Geology. If we are able to train these specialized people in South Africa, not only one, but dozens, we shall be able to perform a major function and make up a major backlog. Then we shall be able to start seeing to subterranean reserves. Up to now we have simply not been able to do so. I have mentioned this as an example of the need which exists and which we shall simply have to meet. Therefore there is the possibility of training students in this field as geo-hydrologists. Subsequently they may be employed in the department. But there are other universities, too, which are training students in other specialized directions. We are in fact trying to enlarge the division of hydrology by means of offering courses at universities. Two universities are already co-operating in this regard. They are offering special courses and when a student qualifies as an engineer or a scientist, he may complete this course and call himself a hydrologist. But it is not such an easy task to interest the people, because this is a new direction. We should all co-operate and tell people: “Horse, here is the water, drink it”. If the hon. member knows of young people in his vicinity who want to become technicians and who want to avail themselves of the department's bursaries, I want to appeal to him to refer them to us. I have addressed this appeal to hon. members before, and want to repeat it now. There are in fact hon. members who have reacted to this appeal I made two years ago. For example, there is one member who brought no fewer than 11 students to the department. We awarded bursaries to these students. The hon. member is not in this Chamber at present, otherwise I would have mentioned his name. One other hon. member, whom I do not see in this Chamber either, brought two needy, but competent, young students to the department at the beginning of the year and asked whether we would not offer them an opportunity, Today these two students are at university. I want to appeal to hon. members again to help us to advertise this bursary system. It does not help advertising in the newspapers. The Public Service is advertising all the professions. We should help one another so that we may train people in the specialized directions and in this way supplement the staff of the department. I agree with the hon. member that if this could happen we would be able to help one another make up the backlog. In that case we would be able to do what should be done. Otherwise we would have all the fine plans, but get nowhere in implementing them.

In conclusion I want to come to the speech made by the hon. member for Heilbron. The hon. member referred to the problems being experienced by small farmers in his vicinity. I have visited that area and I have every sympathy with the hon. member, because we are faced with a troublesome situation in that area. The farms are small and the people are suffering hardship. The hon. member requested us to accelerate the development of the canal on the left bank. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall do our best in this regard. The hon. member went on to make the plea that in the allotment of plots we should give preference to local people. I want to say to the hon. member that I agree with him on this matter on condition, of course, that the local people would normally qualify. In their own rights they should at least be competent enough as well. Rut this is not a matter for my department. It is, in fact, a matter for the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. However, I am inclined to think that a local man who knows the local circumstances and who is as competent as the next applicant, may be the obvious person to be allowed to start there. The hon. member also requested whether some of the better land could not be bought up so that the scheme could be extended in that way. Unfortunately I am unable to tell him off-hand what the exact water situation is at present and whether it would be easy to do. As far as the principle is concerned, however, I agree with him. We know that some of the land was simply not suitable and that we had to look for other land in its place. Therefore, if there is remaining land which is not suitable for irrigation either and for which better land has to be substituted if such land is available, I agree with him that the better land should be made available and that the more unsuitable land should be eliminated. I also agree with the principle that owners who have units which are too small, should be given the opportunity of consolidating. For that reason the policy is one which enables us to do so. For that reason the Department of Water Affairs, especially in recent times, has made a point of saying that it is better to assist people properly so that they may in fact make an economic livelihood than to cut things too fine. Hon. members will find an analogous case in the report on the Orange River project which will enable them to understand my argument. Therefore, as far as this matter is concerned, we also agree with the hon. member.

Now, as far as I am concerned, we have come to the end of this debate and I want to thank everyone who participated in it.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 37.—201C;Forestry”, R3 090 000, Loan Vote F.—201C;Forestry’’, R15 500 000. and S.W.A. Vote No. 21. —201C;Forestry”, R75 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Recently I have been living in an atmosphere of forestry away from Parliament. I mixed with foresters and people who are generally interested in forestry. I had to refurbish some of my own ideas. As a result of my own recent experience, I want to refer at once to the point I want to put to the hon. the Minister this evening. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we in the private sector of forestry are finding difficulties which I would like to put to him because we are going to seek his help. Firstly, I want to say that the private sector which goes into forestry does it in terms of a capitalist concept of our economy and of our society. They are there to make a profit. The private participant in forestry, whether he is a grower or whether he is in any other capacity, is in the business to make a profit. This distinguishes him from at least two other factors in this situation. I want to come to them in a moment. The man in forestry today can be a grower, a producer, a miller or a processor. For the sake of convenience, I am going to call the processors millers as well. If he is a grower, what he wants to grow is timber for whatever market it may be, at a price which will allow him a profit when he markets it. He wants to have as little trouble with his labour as is possible so that he gets an even flow of labour for his farming operations. He wants to have transport which, particularly if it is railways, can be relied upon to carry his product to the market. He will attend to the growing, he will attend to the business side of the marketing; he will do all that, but be wants an even inflow of labour which assists him straight through the growth of his product. The growing process of his product is a longterm process. At its best, one can say that it is going to take from seven to eight years for the earliest type of maturity amongst the eucalyptus trees which are used for pulpwood. Conifers take anything from 10 to 14 years to mature to such an extent that they can be processed. This is too long. A man wants to know that his labour is going to carry him through, even for such a long term, so that when the day comes that he has to market his produce he has the labour available, so that it is not left standing. He is working for a profit and that is the driving motive behind it all. He wants the railways, if it is railway traffic, to be available so that he can market and so that his crop does not have to be left in piles for months on end at the roadside or at the railway loading site.

Therefore labour and transport, and particularly railage, are two of the essential factors from the private grower’s point of view. I have said that he wants to grow at a profit. By and large the private grower somewhere or other within fairly wide limits—I do not want to be narrow in my approach to this matter—knows what it is costing him to produce his timber and to put it on the market. He may not have worked it out very carefully. He may not have taken into account interest on capital and the capital growth value of the land on which the timber is standing over the period it is growing, particularly if it is a long-term saw log crop he is growing and he has timber standing there for 25 to 30 years. The capital value of the land may have been considerably augmented in that period, because of the general uprise in the value of land in that neighbourhood, or generally speaking. He may not take that all adequately into account, but by and large he has one test, and that is the final test. It is a thing which you cannot shoulder out of the picture. If he does not make a profit he goes insolvent. This is the final test. He makes a profit and he makes a Jiving, or else he goes insolvent. He cannot go on farming timber and losing money. If his accounting system is wrong and he makes a mistake here or there and does not catch up on it, he goes out of business.

Now, having dealt with that private grower for the moment, I want to come to this point. I want to deal with three other factors, because we believe there are four factors in the situation which I am putting to the Minister tonight and which we are appealing to him to help us with. The four factors in the timber industry today are firstly the private growers, and in the private sector also the miller or processor. There is the State Department of Forestry, of which the Minister is the head, and we have an unknown quantity which has come into the picture now in the newly emergent Bantu states which have been created as the result of Government policy. I am not here to deal with Government policy in regard to the creation of Bantu states, I want to deal with those states as producers of timber, which is coming into our economy here in South Africa. In the case of the Transkei, which is already established, they have something in the neighbourhood of 130000 acres of timber under their Government in Umtata. In the case of Zululand I do not know what the figure is, but there has been a very wide planting of conifers by the Department of Forestry for the Department of Bantu Administration and that goes over to the Territorial Authority now; the area is about 80 000 or 90 000 acres of conifers. This is the new factor, but it is a factor of State ownership and State development. It is not the private individual grower, it is the Government of those areas. Whether it is a territorial authority or a legislative authority, or an independent Bantustan, makes no difference; it is a Government authority. It is only its status I am concerned with, and not the reasons for its being there. I am not interested in the politics, but in the facts.

What, then, is the position of the man who, as an individual grower, a private man in the private sector, under our capitalist system who is trying to make a profit? He is now producing his timber and it is going into a market into which is coming timber from the big miller-cum-processor, the big man who is growing limber for his mill. He is not growing it because he is going to market the timber which he grows, to be purchased by somebody else and used by somebody else. He grows it because he is a big miller and he wants to be certain that the supplies to his mill will be maintained. He gets that timber from three sources. He can get it from the private grower. He can get it from the Government forests and he can get it from his own plantations. To safeguard his own supply, he goes in for large-scale planting. He establishes large plantations of his own. He thinks, according to his thinning programme, and if he is only a sawyer, that goes into the market for pulpwood, which is another factory altogether. Another processor takes that pulpwood. When the thinning programme has been completed and those plantations have reached maturity as saw-logs, then that processor brings those saw-logs back into his own mill. You now have the position that three lots of timber come into that market, one from the private grower, one from the big processor, who is also a grower himself, and one from the Forestry Department. The Forestry Department has also got sawmills; it also produces sawn timber; it also takes its thinnings under its thinning programme and sends those through as pulpwood to mills which utilize pulpwood for treated poles or in other forms. I am not going to detail all of the various forms and I hope the hon. the Minister will not expect me to do so because our time is limited.

Sir, there are four factors in the timber industry here in South Africa. One of them is the individual planter who has to make a profit or go to the wall, and this is where I want to make an appeal to the Minister. If that individual planter does not make a profit on his timber—growing operations he goes insolvent or he gets out of timber and goes in for something else, but it is a long-term crop; he may not easily see it; it may be hard to get out when the time comes and to recover himself. But, Sir, he goes to the wall; he is out, but he is the only one of the four. If the Forestry Department makes a loss, Sir, it does not go to the wall: it does not become insolvent. The Minister does not throw in his hand and resign. No, Sir, the taxpayer pays up the difference and we get on with the job. If the newly-emergent governments, which are purely governments in their essence, are unable to make a profit it does not matter to them either, because them or our taxpayer in terms of subsidies, and I want to come to them in a moment. Then you have the big processor, who is also a planter. He is not really interested in the initial growing operations. He has to make a profit on his industrial processing, whether it is the sawing of timber or whether it is some endues. If it is wattle it may be the production of wattle extract and so forth, but whatever it is. his factory is his main concern. The factory owners, the processors, continually make it clear that they must make a profit out of their factory operations.

Sir, for the farmer, the private grower, costing should be an absolute basic requirement. Sir, one of the things in regard to which I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister is this: Today he has coming in all the various data requirements which are required by his department for processing—acreage, production and all that sort of thing. We supported the Minister in the past when the suggestion was that his department should not have the power to call for that information; we assisted him; we backed him. All that information now comes in. It was our feeling at the time and it is still our feeling, that the only place where that information, that vital data, can be brought together, summarized and examined with a view to getting the essential vital statistics, if I may put it that way, out of that data, is in the Department of Forestry. Sir, we do not know what it is costing the Department of Forestry to produce timber. I have said that it does matter if they run at a loss; it does not matter to them. With all due respect to the Minister, he does not have a sleepless night because his department has made a loss. The bookkeeping system which is adopted is based upon Parliamentary procedure. I raised this matter many years ago when the late Mr. Klasie Havenga was Minister of Finance. Minister Havenga had it for nearly three years here, as you will see from the Hansard of those days. Mr. Havenga eventually came to Parliament and said, “The position is this: The whole of the bookkeeping system is based upon Parliamentary procedure and Parliamentary estimates, and provided that the department keeps within its Parliamentary estimates and abides by the rules which are laid down by the Treasury for the running of their department, then that is all that can be expected and that is all that we do rightly expect of them they are doing all that is wanted”. But that is not the same kind of bookkeeping in which a man must engage if he is to determine the actual costs of operations in which he himself is engaged and which must produce a profit. It is a totally different kind of bookkeeping. In this kind of bookkeeping under Parliamentary procedure we do not even know what factors and what charges are brought to account. We do not know whether payment is made to other departments which assist in any way and, if so, what charges. We know nothing about that nor is it provided for. It is not something for which we can ask; it is not there. Basically the position is this: We want to know what the cost of production of timber is in South Africa. What does it cost? This is vital to the whole of the industry in the Republic. What are the costs of production of the various species of timber: We would then know what the costs are in regard to the different species and to site value I. site value II, and so on.

I now want to come back to the fourth estate, if one can call it that, namely the newly emergent Bantu Governments. They are already in competition with private enterprise here in the Republic. The Transkei is already in competition with old established businesses in the Republic. From their point of view, what they are doing is right, but they are not aiming at the same target as we arc. The people who are in business in the Republic are trying to make a profit and if they do not make a profit, they go insolvent. The Department of Forestry in the Transkei is not trying to make a profit, however. I have a letter in which they say straight out: “We are engaged in finding employment for our Bantu”. That is what they are after and not to make a profit on the operations of timber growing and processing. They are trying to find an operation associated with forestry which will give employment to their Bantu. I am told in a very frank manner and with a most engaging smile: “You must remember, Mr. Mitchell, that you are sending the so-called workless Bantu from your White areas back to us in the Transkei. You cannot blame us for trying to find employment for them in their own country, can you?” So here I sit with a letter showing that we are not aiming at the same target. They do not go insolvent when they suffer a loss, but the private grower in South Africa does.

How far does this competition go? The private grower, the private mill-owner, processor and the big company which has a processing factory and also vast plantations, the State Forestry Department under the Minister and at least two emergent Governments with vast plantations which they are prepared to develop and exploit, all produce timber, but where does it go? To what market and under what conditions does it go? What are the costs? How can we find out whether there is fair trading on the basis of equal opportunity for the production of timber all round? I have said that our people must have labour and proper transport, but they must also have the opportunity of fair trading. We feel that the only fair way now is for the department under the Minister to sit down at a table with someone representing that fourth estate, the newly emergent Bantu Governments, the big processors and growers, to find a system of orderly marketing for all timber produced in South Africa. Why is it so essential? It is essential that we do not start to bankrupt the private individual grower of timber in South Africa because he is being swamped by the big money, whether it is State owned forests under the Minister or by the fourth estate or by the big processor cum-growers. The private grower today owns a bigger acreage than the State in the Republic. The hon. the Minister was recently quoted as saying that our timber industry today was saving South Africa R400 million per annum. Is that correct?

No.

I shall have to show it to you,

It was wrongly quoted.

I accept that, Mr. Chairman. I certainly do not want to quote the Minister incorrectly. Sir, may I give the Minister an opportunity to correct that statement?

Mr. Chairman, I said it was important that, in the course of the next 10 years. South Africa will need exchange amounting to the equivalent of R4 000 million. This figure was determined according to retail prices and a growth rate of 5 per cent over that period of 10 years, and it applies only if no other products are produced in South Africa, and if freight and other factors are taken into account. However, in the first year it will be less than half of that.

Thank you, Sir. I accept that, but whichever way we look at it, this is a vast industry which is filling an essential gap in our economy. This gap existed until our own homegrown limber started being produced. As long as we had to import, we were in trouble because timber is such an important factor in the basic economy of this country. Until 30 or 35 years ago we had to import practically all our timber. Now the position is this: How are we going to create a system in which we can have orderly marketing? I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister, and here we want his help. The State is still the biggest single grower, but we have to view the State as though it were in fact just a large private grower. The State will have to confer with the other big growers and the representatives of the little growers, and someone in the Government will have to say that they are going to represent the fourth estate, the newly emergent Bantu states. I am speaking of the newly emergent nations that are already making inquiries in this regard and which are inviting entrepreneurs to open sawmills, treating plants and what have you in their areas to cope with the forests which have been established by our department in years gone by. This is going to be vital for the timber industry. It is no good our talking about wood lots and making loans available at low interest rates in order to build up the whole economy with regard to forestry here in South Africa if we are going to keep the private grower living on a shoe string. One of the basic requirements in this regard, I repeat, is a properly conducted survey to establish exactly what the costs of production are. We can do this in the case of maize and wheat, and it is done by the various boards to enable prices to be fixed for these products by the Minister concerned. It can be done here too. not only for the purpose of enabling the State Forestry Department to account to Parliament, but also as though it were a commercial undertaking entered into by a large company. We shall then be able to see what the actual costs are of the trees in their various forms, namely, pulpwood, treated poles, sawn timber and so on. Sir, this ought not to be a dark secret. Sometimes over the last few years I have had the feeling that this information is looked upon as being secret, but why is this so? Public money is being used for this purpose. If there is to be fair competition, there must be a fair disclosure of all costs and related matters. The private grower does not want to be taken advantage of, nor does he want to take advantage of anybody else.

We believe that the private grower has a part to play in the economy of South Africa, and he has to be helped in that regard. At the present time he is receiving no subsidy; his products are being sold openly in the markets of the world and here on our internal markets and he is receiving no particular help from anybody except himself. We feel that the basic need is for proper accounting methods which will give us the actual cost of production in all four sectors of the forestry economy in South Africa. I want to ask the Minister whether he will give this his fullest support. The small considerations and side issues may be left aside; they need play no part in this magnificent and very large industry. Let us give full credit to the Department of Forestry for the part it has played, and is still continuing to play. There is a vast field for them, such as the propagation of new species and so on, and this is very necessary. We are being hamstrung by too few varieties of too few species, and a disaster can hit us. That whole field is open to the department, but we now have to get down to tin-tacks and work on the basis of making a profit; otherwise we are going to force the small grower completely out of the picture; we are going to break him and we are going to change the whole of the forest economy of South Africa, and the timber-growing industry in this country.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.