I wish to move the amendment as printed on page 764 of the Votes and Proceedings—

1. (b) by the omission, in Paragraph (g) of Sub-Section (1), of all the words after “are copyright” to the end of that Paragraph and the substitution therefor of the words, “in any country with the government of which the government of the Union has concluded a reciprocal agreement for the protection of copyright”.

I want to add a few remarks in explanation of the amendment. On a previous occasion I pointed out that the Bill as it now reads makes provision in regard to Section 21 (1) (g) of the Act for the prohibition into certain areas of the importation of printed matter on which the copyright has been reserved. Section 21 deals with the prohibition of importation into the Union of printed matter the copyright of which has been reserved and as the Clause now reads that prohibition only applies to printed matter originating from any part of the King’s dominiums or from any territory which is under the King’s protection or in respect of mandated territories under the King. As the provision in the Act now reads, apparently there is no reciprocal protection for South African authors and composers. Apparently there is no prohibition on the reproducing of such works within the areas mentioned in the sub-section. As everybody will admit it is a serious defect, if that is the case, and apparently this defect does exist as the Act now reads. Secondly, the status of the Union is being prejudiced by the Act as it now reads, because the Union undertakes to prohibit the reproduction of certain works whereas no reciprocal right is being given to the Union as such, and it is now the opportunemoment to remove this defect in the Act. The amendment to the Act as proposed by the Minister and appearing in Sub-Section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill means the acceptance of the sound proposals put forward last year. It incorporates all that is desired on the part of the State as well as on the part of authors and composers in the Union. It gives the State power to enter into agreements with other countries, and if a country enters into such an agreement with another country, then they are protected. As this is in principle a very sound proposal I suggest that the amendment of the Minister in fact replaces the sub-section in the Act and we then create a position which satisfies the status of the country and also the rights of authors and composers who are thus being protected. It seems to me that in principle there can be no objection and because it only affects the status of the Union and the rights of authors and composers, I want to move my amendment.

I second the amendment.

I have given consideration to the amendment and I have to discuss it with the law advisers. The position is slightly more complicated than the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) represented it here. There does exist a reciprocal arrangement with the various parts of the British Commonwealth as far as the protection of copyright is concerned. It is not based on an agreement but on legislation. In our case we passed in 1916 the Patents and Copyright Act—an Act which does not come under my department—in which the provisions of the British Act on Copyright were taken over and as a result our copyright is acknowledged in Great Britain and in the British Colonies on the basis of legislation. In consequence of legislation it is also acknowledged by other British Dominiums which, just as we did, took over the British Act on Copyright. Those who did not take it over acknowledged it by way of legislation of their own. At the moment therefore there is a reciprocal arrangement which is not based on an agreement but on legislation. In the second place I want to point out that if this amendment were agreed to it would mean that that existing reciprocal protection would fall away until such time as reciprocal agreements would be entered into, which might take some time. In the third place the acceptance of this amendment would have the effect that the Act of 1916, which deals with this question would in this regard be made ineffective. I want to point out that the Customs Act is, as far as this matter is concerned, only of a subsidiary nature. It only lays down the procedure which has to be followed in order to give effect to the existing legislation and I do not think it is right to change that position by means of the Customs Act. This is something which should be raised in connection with the Act on Copyright and Patents which falls under the Minister of Justice and I believe it would be wrong to put such an amendment in this Bill. For those reasons and because reciprocal protection does in fact exist I regret that I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—30.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—53.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Davis A.

De Kock P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gray, T. P.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp. L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van deh Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 1 (Afrikaans) and 17 (Afrikaans) put and agreed to, and the Bill as amended, adopted.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I find it necessary to make certain comments on this Bill, and to make certain suggestions which I hope the Minister will take into consideration during the recess. I was glad to see that the Minister has introduced certain safeguards for the protection of secondary industry in this Bill, and that is by allowing the importation of war stores, or what will be defined, as war stores by the Minister, under a permit only by the Board of Trade; and then, again that the Minister has removed the limitations under sub-paragraph (2) of Section 82 of the principal Act which only allowed him to impose dumping duties to the extent of half the value of the goods. Those are all to the good, but I think the Minister has not gone quite far enough in the amendments in the principal Act he has made in this Bill, and I should like to refer the House to Clause 82 of the principal Act, which contains a proviso that the Minister is not entitled to impose dumping duties on goods which have already been shipped or otherwise despatched to the Union. On no goods therefore which are actually in transit to the Union can the Minister impose dumping duties. If it were possible for me to have done so I would have moved an amendment accordingly to enable the Minister ‘to do so, that, however, is not possible as it affects taxation, but I hope the Minister will take the matter into consideration during the recess. I cannot conceive why that particular sub-section was retained when the Bill was amended in 1944. I understand it was retained on the recommendation of some committee which was appointed to investigate the position, but I would ask the Minister whether he could tell the House the grounds on which that provision was retained, because it is difficult for one to see what the reason was for the retention of that subsection in the principal Act. It is somewhat refreshing to find that the Minister will retain a provision in an Act which limits his powers. Under the new despotism a Minister usually takes the widest possible power. But this is an instance where I think the Minister should have it. May I explain to the House that under the present Act before dumping duties can be imposed the Minister has to publish a notice in the Government Gazette, and I believe in the ordinary course the Minister will not publish that notice until he has consulted the Board of Trade. I pointed out on a previous occasion that that machinery is most cumbersome and that in the interim after the publication of the notice large quantities of goods already in transit may come into South Africa on which no dumping duties can be imposed, and the dumping of which may very seriously jeopardize certain industries in this country, particularly new industries. It has happened in the past where dumping duties had to be imposed that large quantities of goods were actually in the country or in transit and certain industries were seriously affected. It is therefore a matter of surprise that that provision was retained in the Act. We must remember that the machinery is still much to cumbersome. In the old Act repealed last year the machinery for the imposition of dumping duties was in the ox-wagon stage, but I think we have only reached the Cape cart stage in the existing Act. We must remember that in the new world transport will be much faster. Goods will be sent to the Union by air as well as by much faster shipping lines and in the interim therefore before the publication of the necessary notice in the Gazette imposing dumping duties, vast quantities of goods may be transported to the Union from highly industrialised countries. We must also remember that it is generally those countries which control shipping too. We are therefore very much in the hands of large industrial countries which control shipping and we may find goods in transit from countries where sweated labour is employed, coming to the Union, and our industries jeopardised thereby. The Government has assured us that its policy is to do everything possible to protect secondary industry, and therefore this House will agree with me that we may look to the Government to remove every possibility of any disrupted influence which may upset our industries here. I make a strong appeal to the Minister during the recess to consider the matter which I have now put before the House. I have tried to find out why that particular sub-clause was retained, and I understand that it was for the protection of the importer, people who entered into contracts before they were aware that dumping duties would be imposed. Now, I say this, that the test here is whether it is in the national interest to protect secondary industry in this country, or to protect the importer who deliberately enters into contracts well realising when he enters into those contracts he is doing so with the intention of selling cheaper than the locally manufactured article can be sold for, the price of which is known to him. If he therefore chooses to enter into contracts to buy end-of-season and other goods cheaply in other countries or in countries where sweated labour is employed I say there can be no possible injustice to him if he finds that when these goods arrive here there is a dumping duty imposed. He requires neither sympathy nor protection, and I submit that the bona fide importer is already amply protected, because the Minister will not impose any dumping duties until he has consulted the Board of Trade and if the Minister is satisfied that there may be an injustice to anyone he will give that person such protection as is warranted in the circumstances. There may however be unfair discrimination between goods ordered under contract before the imposition of dumping duties in as much as the goods in transit will not be subject to dumping duties whilst those not in transit will be subject to such duties. I submit therefore that there can be no risk of any kind of injustice and I do not see why the proviso I have referred to should not be removed from the principal Act. It is accepted that industry will be expected in this brave new world of ours to make a very much lrager contribution tó the national income, and it is therefore up to the Government to see that there is no possibility of industry being disrupted in this country by dumping, which must dislocate production programmes of manufacturers thereby causing unemployment. It is imperative for the Government to do everything possible to safeguard industry from disruptive influences. I hope the Minister will take what I have said into careful consideration during the recess.

We do not want to keep up this Bill. I should like to see it disposed of at this stage of the Session. I just want to add to what I have said before that in general we welcome the amendments which are now being moved in the Bill because they mean improvements and a better safeguard for the improvement of the Act and to a certain extent also a better protection for our own industry. I deplore the fact that an amendment which I proposed was not accepted. I take it that in future we all will seriously consider these mattters. We have in view the equality of all nationalities in the Union, but the matter has now been disposed of and I do not want to go into it any further. But the matter raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Lt.-Col. Oosthuizen), the matter which he recommends to the attention of the Minister, demands consideration. In any case I must admit that to a certain extent I am co-responsible for the decision which now forms part of the Act and although we on this side sympathise with the recommendation of the hon. member, to obtain as far as possible protection for our own industries, there is also on the other hand the aspect of fair treatment. On the one hand, it is the Government’s duty to protect as far as possible our own industrialists, but owing to the shrinking of distances, the knowledge which is mutually obtained as far as trade is concerned, and the opportunities which are being created for the financing of imports, it is very difficult to imagine that any large-scale importation can… take place before the dumping duties have been proclaimed. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member already indicated, this exception, namely that no dumping duties are to be levied on goods which have already been shipped from the countries of origin, will only apply to three out of the six or seven dumping duties which can be levied. In view of the information which may be obtained in regard to transport and the channels through which the imports have to be financed, the Government or the department concerned will always be able to know in time when undesirable importations will take place. It is possible to know about it fairly well in advance and for that reason the Department can make timely recommendations and take steps. I therefore feel that the danger is not very great. On the contrary it seemed to us and it still seems to me that it will be most unfair towards importers who have imported in good faith to tax them now by making the duties of retrospective effect. I think the evil which will come out of that will be greater than the advantages which may be obtained from it. I felt that I should make clear my point of view as far as this matter is concerned, but for the rest we do not want to oppose the Bill at all.

The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has in effect replied to the point which was raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Lt.-Col. Oosthuizen). The point raised was the question of the present terms of the law, as a result of which certain types of dumping duty cannot be made applicable to goods which have been despatched to the Union prior to the date on which the proclamation is issued. This point has been considered very carefully for a very long time by the Government, as the hon. member pointed out. We must be fair to both sides and avoid doing an unfair act in relation to the importer who, without any knowledge of the dumping duty, has entered into a contract, and so doing an injustice to that importer and possibly also to the consumer. The matter has been fully considered. It was referred last year to a special committee appointed by the Minister of Economic Development and myself to go into the question of the adequacy of the anti-dumping legislation. The whole point at issue was to see whether the legislation was adequate or not and the committee specifically recommended that the present law must not be changed in this respect. I therefore fear that I cannot agree that a change should be made such as the hon. member advocates.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I have an amendment which appears on the Order Paper at page 670. I move—

If we refer to the principal Act which we are amending by this Bill, we shall be struck by the fact that this Bill sets out to deal with men who relinquished their appointments in the public service to go on active service and I think, viewed in that light, we should be careful not to impose any sort of penalty of victimisation on these men in consequence of offences which they may have committed under the Military Discipline Code, or absence on unpaid leave. I think those are among the matters in respect of which a deduction is proposed to be made from their pensionable service when they come back to the public service. I think that these proposals savour of carrying into a man’s public service life the penalties that he thought were behind him when he had finished with active service. It cannot be denied that the Military Discipline Code is a very severe code. It is necessarily severe and no one will in wartime complain of its severity, but if the man has expiated his offence under that code we surely do not want to carry into his civil life not only the recollection of this offence, but its perpetuation in a reduction of his pensionable service which up to now was due to be increased by the length of his active service. I feel that this is in the nature of visiting upon a man who is a returned soldier, with all the rights which we seek to confer upon him by the Act of 1944, these unexpected and unforeseen disabilities. The title to the 1944 Act made special provision for the re-appointment to the service of the Government of persons who resigned from or otherwise relinquished their service with the Government for the purpose of rendering military or other war service during the present war, for the appointment to the said service of such persons who have so rendered war service or military service, and in addition for the re-appointment of such persons. I hope that if the Minister has been led to embody this provision in the Act he will, on re-consideration, decide not to enshrine in this Act the punishments that in ordinary circumstances are regarded as things of the past. In the army these punishments are only brought up against a man when he is being charged with an offence and is convicted, and where previous convictions have to be proved. The wide range of the amending Bill, the scope which is embraced by the wording of this Bill, would make it a very severe punishment to be applied to every returned soldier who left his employment in the public service in the circumstances mentioned in the Act, namely: that the call to fight for his country was more compelling than his security in employment, and who, from that point of view, should surely be regarded as a man whose patriotism is of the very first order. He decided, although he could not be allowed togo in the ordinary way that the civil service authorities decided upon, to relinquish his service rather than be regarded as one who was unwilling to fight for his country in time of war. I feel we should be very lenient in regard to men whose actions were prompted by a spirit of that rare quality, and I have, considered this matter very carefully. I have taken counsel from other people interested in the matter, and I find that almost unanimously the view is held that to carry these punishments, to carry the period of a man’s unpaid leave into his public service record, and to deduct those periods from his pensionable service, would be an act of great unfairness. I appeal to the Minister to agree to the amendment.

I may say that we are all anxious to deal fairly and generously with the men who were on active service, but I do not see anything unreasonable in the proposal as set forth in this clause of the Bill. Let me in the first place make it clear that we are not dealing here with people who went on military service as public servants. We are dealing here, as in the principal Act, with people who are appointed for the first time in the public service or with those who resigned and who may be re-appointed, so that in effect we are dealing with the position of a man who takes up a new appointment. Now, the law as it stands deals with the recognition of military service in such cases for purposes of pension and increment and status. The law as it stands provides that military service should be recognised for this purpose. The law as it stands lays it down that the Public Service Commission should indicate in such cases on what terms and conditions the appointment should take place, and what this Bill contains is simply the procedure which the commission has in fact been following. Now, I do not think that anyone would for one moment suggest a lack of generosity on the part of the commission towards the ex-soldier. The commission has in fact been following this procedure, and we are not taking away anything which has hitherto been enjoyed. But there has been some question raised about the legal position,’ and to put that question beyond doubt this proposal is made in the law today. Let me give some instances of the kind of case which arises. There have been instances of people who have been out of military service for a long time. I am only giving cases of people who have already been appointed to the service after the completion of military service. I have a case of one man who had 907 days of military service, but only 581 of those 907 days were passed on military service. The others were days on which he had unpaid leave or days which would fall within the scope of the rest of this motion. I have another case where the military service was 404 days, of which only 100 were actually spent on military service. I have another case where 46 out of 106 days were spent on military service. I think the House will agree that it cannot be expected that periods of that kind should in the case of fresh appointments be regarded as counting for the purpose of pension or of status or for determination of remuneration.

Are not those exceptions?

No, there are quite a number of them. The hon. member must not forget that the Defence Department was very generous in giving unpaid leave for specific purposes, for example agricultural leave and leave for domestic purposes. There are many cases of that kind. These are not exceptions. Actually the number of people concerned falling within the scope of this law is not very great. We are only dealing here with fresh appointments; we are not dealing with the men who went on military service as public servants. I do think we would be going much too far if we accept this amendment the hon. member asked for, and I hope he will not press it.

I feel that this matter is one where the Government should be generous. The mere fact that the man is released for a time for agricultural work is just as much work for the promotion of the war as actual service in the front line. The man in the front line must be fed, and these men are also doing military service. And these periods should count for pension purposes. At one time I made a study of the Military Discipline Code and from my perusal of that Code it seemed to me that it was a code which aimed at punshing a man upon the slightest provocation, and what in civil life would be called a venal offence, under the military code would be described as a heinous offence. As the hon. member föl’ Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has stated, in cases where privileges and pensions are involved, the penalty has been paid, and I thnk that this House would be wise and generous to put all that behind the man when his military service is taken into his private life. In the case of those men who were released temporarily for agricultural or domestic reasons, I still feel that they are still enlisted soldiers. They are liable to be called up at any moment and they are so called back. I do feel that men who resigned from the public service to take up military service, with all its risks and danger, should be given the greatest consideration by the Government. I feel that the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown is a wise one and that this House and the Government should adopt it.

I am surprised to hear the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) following up this amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I feel confident that the hon. member for Pinetown was quite prepared to accept the withdrawal of that amendment after the explanation of the Minister, particularly seeing that it applies to new appointments, men and women, who are coming to join the service. The Minister has explained that it does not apply to those who joined up but who are still in the public service now. Particularly when the Minister gave the astounding figures of a man who had 907 days on military service of which 581 days were spent on leave, one can understand why the clause is drawn as it is. The ’Minister happened to mention some of these men were on agricultural leave and the hon. member for South Coast implied most of them are; it is ridiculous to say that. An examination of the crime sheet might show that the Minister had been very generous; it might be found that a man was absent without leave for that period. Are you going to treat that man in the same way as a soldier who has done his job properly and earned that extra promotion? I put this to the hon. member that if a man was allowed three months’ leave without pay to return to his farm he might have made £1,000 in that period and the profit would go into his own pocket. Are you going to penalise a man who was prepared to serve at a few shillings a day and continue serving while the other man was on agricultural leave? I do not think the hon. members over there are sincere when they plead on behalf of these men in order to penalise the man who had done a really good job of work.

My reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) when he speaks of a man who was absent without leave is that a man is adequately punished by the military authorities for his offence. Are you going to pursue him with this all his life? This is a case when the Government might be generous and when a man’s military service should be credited for pension purposes.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) has suggested that after the Minister’s explanation I might be prepared to withdraw my amendment. Far from that being the case the Minister’s explanation makes it all the more necessary that my amendment should be pressed. A point of great importance is that these people resigned from the service to serve their country, but let me refer to another type of person who was taken away from his duties in the service and interned. Was he interned for wishing to serve his country? Not by any means. Whatever offences he may have committed in the internment camp have not been resurrected to be debited against him under this Act or any other. There is no provision whatever for such penalties committed by an internee to be made continuing penalties and to reduce the period of his pensionable service. The hon. member spoke as if the active service men were to have money put into their hands, as though they were to be paid in respect of the shortage of their service at the front. But most of these cases are of men who were temporarily absent from their duties at the front with the concurrence or by order of the people set over them in the army. The cases are few. I am speaking of servicemen who resigned from ths service, who did all the things mentioned in the title to the 1944 Act in order to go to the front, I say those are not the men who disappeared and who are heaven knows where when they should be at their duty in the front line. I have had to deal with a considerable number of men in my widespread constituency who wished to get leave because of the situation on their own farm, and I must say the Adjutant-General has always been commendably considerate… in his attitude in these cases. These men owe a great deal to the attitude of the Adjutant-General. Are we to believe that these people who were absent under these conditions, or who were absent under any of the other conditions in the passage I seek to delete are now to have carried to their debit in respect of pensionable service every day on which they were absent. I wish to correct the impression that any money is being paid. It is that pensionable service which to the end of their days is to be taken into account.

It also affects their salaries.

And so their salaries should be increased by the period of their service at the front. The Minister has said because they resigned we must regard these as new appointments, that we must so regard these men who had not reported for duty when the war broke out and who were mobilised into their regiments. I have assured some of these entrants of the conditions under which they will start in the service. They have shown me their letters of appointment, and I made enquiries of the Public Service Commission, and the Public Service Commission gave them a clean bill of health at this stage, before any Act was put on the Statute Book, that men of that kind would come back and start level; that whatever service they rendered at the front would be accumulated in their favour and recorded as service in the public service. Now we find that promise is being whittled away. It is important that the public outside take a comparative view of these things. They say: Yes, what about the other men, the men who did no public service and whose whole effort was to sabotage military service who lived for that very purpose, and who probably suffered sentences of solitary confinement, or whatever other form of punishment the authorities in the internment camps may have imposed? Those penalties are not resurrected and debited to the internees’ pensionable service. I noticed during question time today the case of a man, a prominent public servant at Onderstepoort, who was put into the internment camp not once but twice. He was let out and had to be put back for a very good reason. But he suffers no penalty as a public servant. These young men who resigned their jobs and said: I am off to the front, I shall be misunderstood if I at my age do not answer the call to fight for my country. These men were young and patriotic. We accepted their resignations, and now we meet them with a Bill which is full of penalties and which is going to say: We cannot do anything else than take away a portion of your pensionable service. I consider this is completely wrong. I cannot think of anything more gratuitous than the portion of the Bill I have sought to delete.

I should like to appeal to the Minister on the ground that we should avoid even the appearance of evil. These men are all volunteers, that is the exceptional feature of our service, and I do not think it is wise lightly to penalise a volunteer. Had there been conscription there would of necessity have been hard and fast definitions as to who should go and who should not. But when you call on men to volunteer you create a response in the mind of the invididual and you challenge his sense of responsibility. When he has answered the call and given his services ungrudgingly to the country it is niggling for the State to say that little things will be held against him, some peccadillo that has caused a break in his service. I appeal to the Minister to take this into consideration. To say the least, the Government cannot afford to create the impression that after praising these men for what they have done it proceeds to pare away some little benefits that might have accrued to them.

In regard to what has been said by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) I consider this one of the most serious questions that has been put before the House during the present Session.

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

When we reached the midday interval I was in the course of explaining what privileges attached to men who had thrown up their appointment in the Service for the purpose of going to fight, and I want to read a paragraph that appears in the pamphlet “Back to Civilian Life” which is distributed by the office of the Director-General of Demobilisation, and that will show you what the intention of the 1944 Act was and how it has now been documented as an assurance of good faith towards those singularly good men and women who went because the call of duty appealed to them more than the seductive appeal of comfort. The pamphlet says—

Yes, “approved”.

I say that the “approved” purposes are such as were contemplated in the Act of 1944 which has a totally different content from the ungenerous terms of the present amendment. It goes on to say—

Now the present Bill, if it is passed today, will falsify that assurance. This Bill will introduce a provision under which the Government can say: Notwithstanding the assurances we conveyed to you in the Act of 1944, this is now 1945, and in this year of grace we have decided to pass an Act which contradicts and falsifies the assurances we gave you in 1944. We are now going to point to a number of offences and a number of absences, even absences which were approved of and granted by way of unpaid leave, which will be debited against you and taken off your pensionable service. Now, I maintain that is morally wrong. From my point of view it is an action which no Government should be associated with in regard to the men now returning. I know of men who are in Italy today to whom this new amendment will apply with all its severity, and we are by this amendment treating these men with greater severity than the men who were doing everything they could to sabotage the war effort, the men who were doing their best to sabotage every effort, blowing up buildings, cutting telegraph wires and derailing trains. Those men have been receiving not only the privileges which we propose to give to these men who put every effort into the war, but more. I maintain that my amendment should be accepted, so that the penalties imposed should be eliminated, as it is an amendment which every man associated with the Government should be prepared to vote for. I am not going to quarrel with those who believe that the voice of the Minister is the voice of God.

I hope his voice is not coming from the other end.

Those hon. members may have no option today but to support the Minister but I am bound by my promises. I stood at the General Eelection primarily for the war effort and will spare no effort to protect the returned soldier.

I think I should explain the position again for the benefit of those who were not here when I spoke this morning. Let me say at once that there can be no question of challenging the sincerity of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I merely say he has overstated the case.

Somehow I seem to be in agreement with you.

I am glad to hear that. That means that sometimes my hon. friend is right. We are merely concerned with what is a reasonable provision to make. We are dealing here with an amendment of an Act passed last year. That Act dealt primarily with new appointments to the Public Service of ex-volunteers, but also with certain people who have been in the Public Service and had resigned for military service but wanted to be appointed again. That Act provided for the recognition of then military service for purposes of pension, salary, grading and status in the Service. But primarily we are dealing with new appointees. Now, it is a question of taking into account their whole-time military service for the purposes I have mentioned, and it was made clear in that Act that what was to be taken into account was “approved” military service. The wording of the present law is that they may be taken back on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Treasury on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Treasury has in fact approved of the recommendations of the Commission, and the Commission has throughout been acting on the lines of this proposal, as now before the House. We do not propose any change. We are now purely putting it into the law so to avoid any possibility of the legality of the position being challenged. But we are riot taking away anything which has been given to these people. We are merely proposing to treat them in exactly the same way as they have have been treated all along. The basis on which they have been treated all along has been the same basis as applies in the case of gratuities. When gratuities are calculated these periods are not taken into account. No one has questioned that and it has been accepted as fair and reasonable. I do not see how we can accept for Public Service purposes periods which are not accepted for gratuity purposes. The proposal here is fully endorsed by the Difector general of Demobilisation who is naturally very much interested in these people. It is also endorsed by the Minister and it merely gives legal effect to the procedure followed all along. All we say here is that where there are substantial absences from duty or substantial offences — not just a peccadillo — punished by detention for more than 21 days, those periods shall not be brought into account for the purpose I have mentioned. I gave instances this morning of cases where men have more than half their period of military service accounted for by periods of absence of this kind, and I think that on consideration the House will realise that what we are doing here is simply the fair and reasonable thing, treating men in the same way as they are treated in respect of gratuities and as the Director-General of Demobilisation wishes them to be treated. We are not taking anything away.

At this stage I should like to ask the hon. Minister what has become of the point which I raised at the second reading stage and in connection with which the Minister promised to go into the matter and if necessary to have an amendment drafted. I spoke of the man who, for instance, took his discharge from the police force for health reasons but who, as soon as his health had been restored joined the army; he stayed in the army all the time. Now it is said that he cannot re-enlist in the police force. Can nothing be done in a case like that?

The Minister states that nothing has been taken away, but what we want is that the man has something more given to him. The man who resigned from the service to go on military service took his life in his hands and if he returns he will apply for reinstatement according to this law in the department he left. In this case I am afraid agricultural leave will not come into the picture, but I do envisage a case where a man has been guilty of some contravention of the Military Discipline Code—something which as I say would in civil life be trivial but in military life is looked upon as very serious—and I hope the Minister will take steps at some stage in the progress of this Bill to protect those men.

As far as the question of re-appointment is concerned, that is apparently a matter for the Minister of Justice and the Commissioner of Police. All we do in our legislation is to lay down the conditions in regard to re-appointment.

They maintain that they can do nothing about it.

The Act does not state that he should not be re-appointed. The principal Act only lays down the conditions for re-appointment and a case such as that mentioned by the hon. member does not come under the Act. That is all I can say. I cannot say that he should be re-appointed.

What can be done about it?

If the hon. member will come and see me in regard to this matter I may be able to discuss it with the Commissioner or the hon. member can raise it under the Justice Vote.

In a pamphlet issued by the Director of Demobilisation guarantees were given to these men. This pamphlet, an excellent publication, sets out to be a guide on demobilisation for the men. It gives a clear and concise statement of the law in relation to those men who broke their service for the express purpose of going to the front, not by any accident but who said that although they were not released by their departments they would go. In the eye of the Public Service Act they committed an offence and terminated their pension rights, but the restoration of those pension rights and the recognition of their increments were all recognised in the Act we passed last year. There was no indication that there was to follow a veritable calendar of offences which would serve to lessen their period of service, and I might say that this is a departure from the guarantees given these men when they were assured on this point by the Director-General of Demobilisation. The Director-General is a high ranking officer in the Defence Force and he had no knowledge of the intention on the part of the authorities to incorporate this provision in the present Bill.

Of course he had.

The Director-General was entitled to give the assurances embodied in his pamphlet in the full belief that he was recapitulating the state of the law, which it actually is if we do not pass this Bill. I maintain this will be regarded as hurtful to the good relations subsisting between the Government and these men who broke their service because they thought it was the right thing to do in that great crisis. On the other hand you have the appeals that were broadcast by the Prime Minister himself urging those who could to respond, and urging the employers as a whole to view their actions in a proper light and to do what was expected of them while their employees were away. To rake up every small offence at this stage when the men are coming home and to say that the penalties should be added together and deducted from a man’s pensionable service will really cause a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst these men and their dependants.

Question put: That the words, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause and a division was called.

As fewer than 10 members (viz., Messrs. Christopher, Goldberg, Marwick and Neate) voted against the Question, the Chairman declared it affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The remaining clauses and the title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

I move—

I object.

Bill to be read a third time on 23rd May.

I move—

The object of the amendment is to alter the constitution of the board of seven members it is contemplated setting up. Clause 3 states that one shall be appointed by the Minister from the public service; one shall be a dental mechanician (other than an employee of a dentist or of a dental mechanician), two shall be dental mechanicians appointed by the Minister and three shall be appointed by the Dental Association. That will give a predominance on the board to the dental surgeons because undoubtedly the three nominees of the Dental Association provided for in this clause will be three dentists. This Bill purports to be a charter for the dental mechanics, and unfortunately there are two associations, one of which is registered as the Dental Mechanicians, and the other I understand call themselves the Dental Technicians. The dental technicians represent by far the largest number of these people; they are dental mechanics who either practise on their own or employ other dental mechanics, while the others are employees of dentists and also do contract work for dentists at presumably a laid down tariff. If this is a dental mechanicians board then certainly dental mechanicians should have the preponderating influence on it; but that is not so. The member of the public service who will be chairman will probably be a medical man and these dental technicians are to have only one representative, although they outnumber the dental mechanicians by three to one. Although these are employees of dentists they have two representatives. I contend if this is a dental mechanicians board one dental surgeon on that board is enough to guide the board its deliberations and adjudications on matters coming before it. Undoubtedly the board has very great power. Under the Bill every mechanician has to register within a certain period and only those who have registered will be allowed to practise their craft after the Bill has come into force. The board indeed already has powers which allows them to strike a dental mechanic off the register, to deprive him of his livelihood, and I say therefore the representation on the board should be more in accord with the association formed to look after the interests of the men themselves. I ask the Minister to extend full consideration to this amendment and to allow the mechanicians this representation on the board.

I formality second that amendment

I have given very careful consideration to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Neate). I have had representations made in regard to this matter outside the House, but I regret I am unable to accept the amendment, and I shall try to state very shortly my reasons for coming to that conclusion. First of all it would appear that the hon. member is under a misapprehension in regard to the position of this dental mechanicians board. The clause lays down it shall consist of seven members; one, the chairman, to be appointed by the Minister; then there will be three members of the Dental Association of South Africa, and it is clear from the provisions of SubSection (1) (b) and (c) that the other three members of the board will be dental mechanicians. In other words, it will be a board comprised of three dental mechanicians, three dental surgeons and an independent chairman. The hon. member seems to think a distinction has been drawn in this connection between the members of the Dental Technicians Association and members of the Dental Mechanicians Association. That is not so. What has been attempted in this connection is to have three representatives of dental surgeons; and three representatives of dental mechanics, and in arriving at the number of three in respect of dental mechanics to make provision for the representation not only of dental mechanics who work always as employees but also those dental mechanics who work as employers; there are some dental mechanics who work not solely for one dental surgeon but who are, as it were, independent contractors. They are employers of other dental mechanics; they work themselves and employ other mechanics to assist them in their work. There are other dental mechanics who are entirely employees and who do not engage these services of other dental mechanics. It will be seen from 3 (1) (b) that the dental mechanic to be there elected is a person who may be employing other dental mechanics but who is not an employee of a dental surgeon. Under 3 (1) (c) the two persons to be appointed are dental mechanics who are employees only. Under 3 (1) (d) three dental surgeons are to be appointed by the Dental Association. It is incorrect, therefore, to say there is a preponderance of dental surgeons on this board; there will be three dental surgeons, three dental mechanics and an independent surgeon. In Clause 22 of the Bill provision is made for a dental mechanicians’ labour committee which will have the powers of an industrial council, and there the representation is such that the dental mechanics will have six representatives to two of the déntal surgeons. This is the board however which has to regulate the relationship between dental surgeons and dental mechanics, and in view of that fact and in view of the desirability of bringing the representatives together it seems wise and proper that equal representation under an independent chairman should be given. It must not be forgotten there are 700 dental surgeons and 300 dental mechanics and that the dentists have agreed to have a compulsory contribution levied on them in respect of the expenses of this board. In all the circumstances it seems to me there is no question of any preponderance or unfairness, but that this board has been based on principles of equality.

I am sorry the Minister has not seen fit to accept the amendment that has been put forward, and whilst appreciating that there is equal representation and an independent chairman, I do feel that the hon. member who moved the amendment was actuated by the very definite statement put forward by the technicians or mechanicians. According to their booklet headed “Dentistry and the Public” this is what they say—

Someone here asks “Why?” It is because we know that there are certain dentists connected with the public service doing a tremendous amount of lobbying in connection with this Bill. What assurance have we that one of these individuals will not be appointed as chairman? I continue to read—

I quite understand the force of the argument that the mechanicians will be influenced by the dentists. We have had evidence of that during the last few weeks from mechanics who have been victimised and threatened that unless the leave the Technicians’ Association they will have to look for employment elsewhere. If that sort of thing is taking place now, I ask you what will happen to these technicians, 152 of whom are against the Bill and four an favour of it, when this Bill becomes law. Only this afternoon every member of the House received a copy of a circular issued by an ex-soldier to show to this House how the dentists are treating these individuals, and yet most members are pleased to believe that the Bill is a charter for the technician. I say that unless the Minister agrees to the amendment, I am afraid they will be the only section of working people in South Africa who are not allowed to be the master of their own craft.

Amendments put and negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 13 and 16 put and agreed to.

In Clause 17,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

17. After the expiration of six months from the fixed date—

1. (a) no person shall conduct a dental laboratory except under the continuous personal supervision of a dentist or registered dental mechanician; and
2. (b) no person who is not a dentist or registered dental mechanician shall supervise any dental laboratory.

The purpose of this amendment is to safeguard these dental mechanicians who may at present be conducting a dental laboratory under the personal supervision of a dentist. Clause 17 as it stands, provides that no person shall conduct a dental laboratory except under the continuous personal supervision of a dentist or a registered dental mechanician: It may be that there are dental mechanicians carrying on this type of work at present, but there are no registered mechanicians at present. In terms of the Bill the board will not be appointed until a date is fixed by the Minister, and dental mechanicians have an opportunity six months thereafter to apply for registration. It is quite obvious therefore that once this Bill becomes law a considerable time will elapse before mechanics are in a position to apply for registration or in fact be registered. If therefore this clause is not amended in terms of the amendment on the Order Paper, it will mean that any mechanic will in the interim be precluded from carrying on his business by reason of the fact that he is not registered. It is in order to protect the dental mechanic and to enable him to carry on during this period that I move this amendment.

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 18,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The reasons are similar to those I have given under Clause 17.

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 18 put and agreed to.

In Clause 19,

I move—

19. After the expiration of six months from the fixed date—

1. (a) no person other than a dentist or a registered dental mechanician shall manufacture, import, buy or be in possession of any unmounted artificial teeth except under a permit issued in accordance with regulations; and
2. (b) no person shall supply any unmounted artificial teeth to any person who is not a dentist a registered dental mechanician or the holder of a permit issued under paragraph (a).

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 20,

I move—

This amendment is consequential upon the amendment on Clause 19.

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 22 put and agreed to.

In Clause 30,

I move the amendment to Clause 30 standing in my name on the Order Paper—

I move this amendment as the result of my attention being drawn by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) that the State may find itself in difficulties if this provision were not included. The amendment is necessary to enable the State to dispose of or use any unmounted artificial teeth which may be confiscated by an order of court. As the hon. member for South Coast pointed out in the Committee stage of the debate the amendment of another Act became necessary during this Session by reason of the fact that no such provision had been included, and I am indebted to the hon. member for drawing my attention to this.

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Bill, as amendded, adopted.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I understand that generally speaking when a Bill reaches the third reading it is allowed to pass into law without much discussion. I also understand that no objection can be raised if I make use of this opportunity to review shortly what has transpired during the passage of this extraordinary and unfair Bill. It is a very peculiar fact that only two men of the Opposition spoke on this Bill, and both were dentists. I do not believe that 5 per cent. of the Opposition read this Bill. They are a body of intelligent men and had they read the Bill they would not have been led like sheep to the slaughter. I want to tell our side of the House that if ever they were trapped in regard to a Bill, they have been trapped now, and the repercussions will fall on the United Party. We cannot get away from the fact that anyone who has the interest of the workers at heart could not possibly vote for this Bill. On our side of the House the member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer)—also a dentist—said in the beginning of the discussion “that if the Bill becomes law the dental mechanicians in South Africa will enjoy a charter of then own, a charter which is not enjoyed by mechanicians in any other part of the world.” There were never truer words spoken. I defy any dentist to find provisions in any workmen’s Bill which will take away their liberties as this oné does. Why did the hon. member for Durban (Point) make this statement? He said it because just before tips Bill was introduced members were served with a typed statement of the benefits which the mechanicians would receive from the proposed Bill. The first provision was a minimum wage of £35 a month. Just let us look at this for a moment. Today the mechanics get £2 10s. to £4 10s. for making a denture set and the dentist charges 16 to 25 guineas for the work the mechanics have done. In this Bill the mechanic will be paid £1 7s. to £1 10s. a day. The mechanic can make a dental set a day easily. He will get approximately £1 7s. from the dentist for doing this, and this Bill compels him to do this work through a dentist and the dentist will get anything from 16 to 25 guineas. For doing what? For taking an impression only. At that rate the dentist makes £540 a month for taking impressions only and the mechanic gets £35 a month for doing the work.

That is why they are all millionaires.

That is the wonderful charter which the hon. member for Durban (Point) speaks about. What we want to ask ourselves is who wanted this charter? The dentists were the only ones who wanted it. The dental mechanics voted on this matter and 152 voted against and four in favour of this Bill, yet the Minister has failed to bring forward a Bill presented to him by the technicians which details their point of view. A very peculiar thing has happened in regard to this Bill, something which certainly has not happened during my two sessions in this House. If ever there was a Bill which should have gone to a Select Committee this is it, and I will tell you why. The principal witness at the meeting which the Minister called for the purpose of placating those who were against the Bill—instead of having a Select Committee — was Professor Shaw, of Johannesburg. He used up almost all the time at that committee meeting and would not answer questions. I believe that if the Minister had had a Select Committee and the members of this House had read that man’s statement they would have voted against the Bill almost in a body. He made one statement, in explanation of a previous statement he made which I challenged at the second reading, to the effect that he said pre-cancerous cases and not three cases of cancer a week. I still challenge him to prove his latest statement and particularly that such cases arose through mechanics making dental sets. He knows full well that under this Bill the mechanics will still make the dentures. I have had a lot of experience in public life and I know that medical men, particularly Medical Officers of Health, when they want a reform in a city which Councils will not pass, they resort to a scare. On one occasion a medical officer of health said he had found a rat with bubonic plague. On that occasion the Council concerned had to spend £20,000 to clear up the place and businessmen had to instal special ratroofing on their premises. When that was done the medical officer was satisfied and thereafter found that the rat had not got bubonic plague. I say that Professor Shaw has been quite successful in scaring the members of this House.

Rats.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that the dentists today cannot do this mechanical work. They are too busy pulling teeth, but they want to control this work because it is the easiest way of making money. If the dentists had not entered into this field there would not be so many people with false teeth. The worst feature of this Bill is that the mechanic is allowed to repair teeth today, which work is to be taken from him. They do this mechanical work much better than any dentist can because their training is much longer and more severe. I say, therefore, that the Minister has been grossly unfair to the men who are fighting for our freedom by introducing a Bill which restricts their freedom. Here is a letter which just came to me today from an ex-sergeant from Durban. He sent it to the Minister also. It reads—

That is a very peculiar thing, the very fact that this man can do the work better and has served five years to become a criminal. He says—

He says further that they were victimised in the army by their superior officers, the dentists. He says that he fears what will happen later and he says that his livelihood has been taken away. That is a letter from a soldier who served five years for our freedom, and we are taking away his freedom. The dental technicians were so perturbed at the thought of the effect this Bill will have on their lives that they sent a cablegram to the Prime Minister in San Francisco. The cable is to this effect—

To whom?

To the Prime Minister. Yes, Mr. Speaker, £8,000 used by the dentists to push this iniquitous Dental Mechanicians Bill through Parliament …

Who got £8,000?

I am beginning to wonder now that you ask that. There are a number of people, and one of them is a civil servant, and he has been here for weeks and weeks to get this Bill through the House.

That is a dirty thing to say.

It is true as the member for Mossel Bay knows. The Bill creates a monopoly for dentists and is solidly opposed by the people of the country. The British Empire Service League, the Trades and Labour Council and other public bodies ask: Is this democracy? I want to know from the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), since he is so interested in this £8,000, just how he is going to vote this time. I want to issue a challenge to the Minister now.

That is the way. Take him outside on the steps.

I want the Minister to invite me down to his constituency. He and I to be the only two on the platform to debate this Bill, and let us abide by the decision of his own electorate, particularly the men from the Salt River workshops. I ask him whether he will be prepared to abide by the vote given by those workers.

Come on Harry, it is up to you now.

A number of people try to be facetious about this Bill, but there is nothing to be facetious about, and I tell you honestly that our party is going to lose considerably if this Bill is passed. The Labour Party will lose more, and the only party that will gain if this Bill is passed is the Nationalist Party. They are more clever than we think. There are thousands of people today who cannot buy dentures because of the enormous expense and all the Opposition have to do is to say to those people: The Government passed that Bill. Now I want to move ….

A vote of no confidence.

I move—

That will give the country time to consider all the matters that have been put before the members of this House and that have been made public. It may also give the Minister time to reconsider his position in regard to this Bill, and it will certainly give his constituents time to tell him exactly what they think of him. I suggest that, if the members of this House want to be fair to the people who have fought our battles, they will support this amendment. I suggest, Mr. Mayor …. [Laughter]. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you consider that unintentional remark an insult or a compliment. At any rate I move that the Bill be read this day six months.

In seconding this amendment, I want to add my appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment, and in doing so he would be acting in keeping with his assurance, oral and written, that he was not prepared to allow this Bill to come before the House unless it was an agreed measure. Admitted, and it is appreciated, that the Minister was somewhat compelled to dishonour that promise when a deputation of professional men, dentists and doctors, representing all parties in this House, met and gave him the assurance that it was an agreed measure, and that possibly one or two like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) and myself from the “kitchen” of this House, would be the only disgruntled individuals. I feel that if this amendment is accepted by the Minister it will enable the country and those of us who most strongly object, to have the Bill dealt with through the proper medium and that is a Select Committee, next Session. Listening to the hilarity, particularly from the benches opposite, I am more convinced than ever that certain dentists have told hon. members on that side that they must follow them blindly in supporting this Bill.

What rubbish.

It is not rubbish. I am going to bore you with the so-called rubbish in reading certain paragraphs from that important booklet which has been issued by the Dental Technicians’ Society and which I am certain has not been read by more than half a dozen members on that side of the House, otherwise they would not lightly deal with something that affects the very existence of the workers concerned. They treat this booklet as though it were a mere scrap of paper written by their late friend, Adolf Hitler. I feel, after a thorough study of this important booklet, one can only come to the conclusion that this Bill is merely an attempt still further to entrench the position of the moneyed, privileged classes, the dentists who have been fleecing the public and exploiting the labour of the technicians. If this booklet does not contain the truth and nothing but the naked truth, why did not the accused, the dentists, and particularly those of them and their professional friends in this House, put the technicians in the witness box for cross-examination, and the only way in which that would be possible is by means of a Select Committee. To me it is quite apparent that they are afraid to follow that course because in my humble opinion the wild fear, that has been expressed by certain representatives who have appeared before group committees about this cancer and its mythical consequences, cannot be substantiated. The technicians have been deprived of other channels to state their case. They have not been able to keep men in Cape Town continually lobbying, as the dentists have been doing. It has not been denied that the Dentists’ Society have a fighting fund of anything from £7,000 to £8,000 as against the certified credit bank balance of £112 of the Technicians’ Society. Whenever the technicians come down here to see that their case is properly understood by members of Parliament they have to lose their wages or close down their small laboratories. Since they ate unable to have an army of individuals at Cape Town to represent or lobby their case, I feel, Sir, that I must bore this House by quoting various important statements made in this pamphlet and which I am quite satisfied from the cursory enquiries I have made, that very lew members have read it. This booklet I regard as the case of the technicians.

Order, order. May I remind the hon. member that there is a rule which precludes members from reading their speeches? Members may read extracts and make quotations but they should not do so at any length. In view of the hon. member’s indication, I think I should warn him of the rule.

In that case I shall only read a few extracts. On page 4 it is stated—

The previous speaker referred to the undeniable fact that it is the dentist’s duty to look after and preserve teeth and not extract them for the purpose of giving the patient artifical dentures. I feel that that is the sole job of the dentist and not to deal with the question of dentures. It is exactly the same with the doctor who examines one’s eyes; he has no interest in the supply of the spectacles. He has no financial interest in it. Likewise the specialist who takes off a limb; he has no financial interest in the supply of artificial limbs. And the doctor who gives a prescription to a patient has no financial interest in the supply of the medicine or the pills. Why the dentist should be so keen to have a fnancial interest in the craft of the dental mechanician is beyond my comprehension excepting, as has been quoted previously, that the dental technician makes and supplies the dentures at anything from £2 10s. 0d. to £5 per set, according to this booklet, and the dentist charges the public eighteen to twenty-five guineas. The actual services rendered by the dentist in connection with the supply of such dentures is equivalent to the time it takes him to fill a tooth, for which he charges one guinea. That being so, in taking the bites or the impression his professional services are reckoned to be worth not more than one guinea in £ s. d. So the dentist gets the difference between one guinea and £2 10s. 0d., or £5, as the case may be, which he pays to the dental mechanic, and the sum of eighteen to twenyt-five guineas, the price which the public has to pay for dentures. It was stated during the previous discussion that it is possible that, if the dental technician is forced to give up his laboratory by virtue of the fact that the dentists will combine and establish their own laboratory, thereby forcing the dental technician who has his own laboratory, out of existence altogether, the public will have to pay still higher fees for their dentures in the future. The Minister indicated during the second reading debate that it is possible to lay down some tariff. I am afraid that that will be something new in the form of legislating for any section of the community in South Africa. I only hope that something like that will be done. I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not point out that the main objection on the part of the dentists and those who represent the Dental Association to the present position is that they are afraid that unless this Bill goes through, there will be a continuation of the alleged malpractices on the part of dental mechanicians taking impressions. But what I want to know is why the members of Parliament who represent that profession are not prepared to allow the dental mechanicians to retain their existing right to carry out repairs, because in the case of repairs, the question of taking impressions does not enter into the picture. If the dental mechanician were allowed to retain that right he would come as near as possible to being the master of his own craft, in that he is able to repair something he has made, and he would not be encroaching upon the preserves of the dentist. I say in all sincerity and without fear of contradiction that unless the Minister is prepared to allow the dental mechanicians the right to continue doing something that has been considered legal and legitimate all these years—and the Minister is even prepared in this Bill to extend the right of repairs for another six months or two years—the public will be called upon to pay as much as one guinea for a slight repair which today costs no more than 7s. 6d. If the Minister is prepared to extend this right for a certain period, what would be wrong in making it legal for all time? I wish to quote my experience having a denture repaired through a dentist in Cape Town recently. I never saw the dentist and my mouth was never examined by him. The denture was handed to the dentist by my wife in an envelope, and I was charged a guinea for a small repair. In view of your ruling, Sir, I merely want to quote to the House the following passage in the matter of the dentist wanting to encroach upon the preserves of the dental mechanicians—

In conclusion I want to refer to the fact that it has been stated by the dentists’ society that there is no need for dental mechanics to serve an apprenticeship in excess of two years, and one of the arguments used is that the material now used acrylics for making dentures is very much easier to work with and lends itself to the completion of the job in a much shorter space of time. Notwithstanding that fact, there is no suggestion that the prices charged for dentures, which are pretty extortionate should come down. Finally I want to tell the Minister not to treat what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) said as partly a joke, as the public outside are very much indeed against this Bill. The voice of the people in this House should be the members of Parliament, but I say regretfully that very few of them indeed have troubled to contact the people who count in this matter. As an ex-railway official I visited the Salt River workshops, where as the Minister knows only too well, there are thousands of workmen and many of them reside in his constituency, some actually asked me, as an ex-railway official, why I did not sponsor a petition and thereby open the eyes of the Minister as to the extent to which the public are against this Bill. I would not go so far as the member for Port Elizabeth (South) to say that I would like to appear on a platform with the Minister to state the case of the people, because I do not think it is right. If it were a member of the Opposition, I would be quite prepared to do so.

Why not face your own man?

For the simple reason that it would not bring me any further than I have got in this House and I would only be helping the Opposition who are 100 per cent. behind this Bill. I blame the two dentists on the Opposition side more than I blame the members on this side, and I say finally that this Bill is going through against the wishes of a big percentage of the public, because they know that when the Bill becomes law they will have to pay for their teeth, not through their mouths but through their necks, and pockets. I am sorry the Minister has not deemed it necessary to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. As I said on a previous occasion, if this Bill had gone to a Select Committee, I would have felt that both sides had had every opportunity of stating the truth and nothing but the truth and whatever recommendations had emerged from the Select Committee, I would have been prepared to support. But knowing as I do that it has been a one-sided affair, and that the Dental Technicians’ Society has not had a fairopportunity of stating its case, I am not prepared to support the Bill. The Minister made the best of a bad job in allowing these people to appear before him only after he had already committed himself to the passage of the Bill. I was not present, but as far as I could gather, it was a case of listening to Prof. Shaw and Prof. Shaw only, and the other members of the deputation could not get a word in edgeways.

This Bill has now passed through various stages until it has reached the third reading. May I say that I am no more enamoured of the Bill now than I was when I first read it. Unfortunately in my reading of the Bill the impression it made on me was that this Bill was designed by dentists to protect their own interests, and to place in a disadvantageous position those mechanics who unfortunately under the Bill they will have under their thumb. I think the attitude of the dentists is borne out by the request they made to the Secretary for Public Health that in this legislation a dental mechanic should be a dentist’s mechanic; it is the possessive—not a dental mechanic. Thereby they showed their desire that every dental mechanic should be the possession of the dentists as servants and nothing else. That is the attitude evidenced right through the Bill, in the composition of the board, in the duties of the board, and in the prohibitions. The fact that the dentists and not the dental mechanicians have sponsored the Bill is an argument against it. Actually the dental mechanicians would be glad of control. They want to be controlled, but controlled in a proper manner through a proper board, and this is no board which meets with their approval. They are agreeable to being controlled and to follow the ethics of the profession, that is to say no advertising and no canvassing for work, providing their affairs are controlled by dental mechanics and not by dental surgeons. Now if this Bill is passed into law the dental mechanic is certainly a servant of the dental surgeon. He can be nothing else. When this Bill is in full swing he will not be able to undertake any work unless he receives work from a dentist and returns it to the dentist. He will not be able to contact the public at all. At present he has the right. Certainly the Minister has made provision that the full implications of the Bill will not be felt for some two and a half years, but in the meantime the board is to be set up.

Let me say at the outset I fully appreciate the motives of the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) and Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) and the last minute appeals they have made in regard to this Bill. I appreciate the fact they feel strongly on this matter, but I should like to remind the House before we reached the stage of taking the passage of this Bill there was the fullest consultation not only with the dentists who were interested in this Bill but there was the fullest consultation with the dental technicians and the Dental Mechanics’ Association. I arranged discussions, lasting the whole day, with representatives of all sides of the House. There were other meetings with hon. members interested and with members of the Dental Mechanics’ Association. I hope the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) is prepared to bear me out in regard to that. I tried to give every opportunity for the fullest discussion and the fullest exploration of ways and means to deal with this matter. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has said nobody who had the interests of the worker at heart could vote for this Bill. I would remind the House that the main provisions of the Bill, including the abolition of the repairs clause, were contained in a Bill submitted to the Public Health Department in 1932 by the Dental Mechanics’ Association. The dental mechanics of South Africa unanimously agreed at this stage to ask the Government to put through a Bill with these provisions in it. The difficulty at this stage was that no agreement could be arrived at in respect of working conditions, in respect of wages, in respect of conditions, of employment as between the dentists and the dental mechanics. That matter has since been adjusted by the Department of Labour and the mechanics are given a charter. They will be able to sit round a table with the dentists and deal with the ramifications of wages and working conditions. For the first time in the history of dental mechanics in this country they will have a board which will register dental mechanics and will protect the rights of the man who is carrying on his trade and calling legitimately. In all the circumstances and in view of the long discussions which have taken place, I am sure hon. members will not expect me once again to go over the ground that has been covered so fully in the previous debates. But may I say just one word. It has been suggested there will be dental mechanics out of employment as a result of this Bill, that the dental mechanics will be in the hands entirely of the dentists and many will not be given employment. I do not believe that that is so, but if it were to be true hon. members know this, that it is part and parcel of present Government policy to establish health centres in the Union. It has been laid down that at our health centres apart from medical personnel we shall have dental mechanics if not at all of them, at any rate in a number of those in the more important strategic centres, and it seems that any fear the dental mechanics have that this Bill will oust them from employment may be dispelled immediately by the knowledge that the Government itself will be looking for qualified dental mechanics in future to perform those services at health centres.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. H. J. Cilliers, Hopf, Johnson and McLean) voted against the Question, Mr. Speaker declared it affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Bill read a third time.

In connection with irrigation schemes there is one aspect to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention and that is that on all the irrigation schemes without exception there is a danger of the soil becoming brackish, and mostly the best parts of the land, the lower-lying parte of the scheme are very much subject to brackishness. Unfortunately not sufficient attention was given to this matter in the past. These schemes are wonderful undetrakings. Our country needs irrigation and these schemes provide a living for many people but in spite of that we find that in the past insufficient care was taken to preserve and protect the best parts of the land. I do not know where we should put the blame but I want to ask the Minister what his policy is for the future. From one scheme after the other we receive complaints about the danger of the soil becoming brackish. These schemes cost the State a lot of money and I feel that it is not necessary that the soil should become entirely brackish; we can prevent losing our best land owing to brackishness. I am afraid that we only have in mind the storing up of water, the’ construction of canals right through the lands and the bringing of land under irrigation, but we give no thought to the danger of the land becoming subject to seepage because the water runs through uncemented furrows, and when it is too late we try to remedy the position. Only after one, two, three or four years we find out that the lower-lying land has been spoilt. Then we want to save it when it is too late. I want to suggest that the Minister hould take steps not to have any canals constructed in future unless they are cemented out.

That is what I am doing now.

I am glad that the Minister has laid down this fixed policy but then I want to ask him in the second place what his policy is in regard to canals which so far have not yet been lined and where brackishness has resulted. The Minister knows about the cases which I am now going to mention, namely, those along the Olifants River; those are State settlements. Take for instance Vaalkrans Koekenaap and others. There you find some of the best lands in this country; it is level but not high enough above sea level. Some of our best lands there are being completely destroyed by brackishness. Take for instance Koekenaap. There you have 72 plots under irrigation and of those 72 three were totally and 50 partially brackish last year. I can assure the Minister that those 50 are also beyond repair today. They have been lost. Then everything is tried to save the land and a large expenditure is incurred. Several thousands of pounds have been spent to construct “brakslote” and to lay pipes but unfortunately the land is situate two feet under the high water mark of the sea. That means that when the water recedes the brackish water runs off but when the sea rises—the sea usually rises as much as six feet—the seawater comes in.

One does not lay out plots on the sea level.

Then the seawater pours in again and the plots become spoilt. The combating of brackishness is all speculation, there is no fixed method. The Minister never got so far as to appoint staff or experts for that purpose. All the work is left to be done by the engineers there and we do not know whether they possess a sufficient knowledge of the best methods for combating brackishness. Thousands of pounds are lost in that way. Our best soil is being lost and the Minsiter does not know how to save the soil. I do not put the slightest blame on the Minister. He has his hands full already. The whole of the Union is looking to him for help and the Minister should not think that I am blaming him in the slightest but I do blame the former Director of Irrigation. I am glad that we now have a new Director of Irrigation and I believe the country is looking to him for finding the best method of combating brackishness and for taking precautionary measures before it is too late. I only mentioned the 53 plots which were lost at Koekenaap and I shall not mention the others. Do you know what was the cost of the State to level the land and to prepare it and to put the settlers there? Not less than £1,200 per plot. That means that £60,000 have been wasted in regard to those 53 plots. Apart from that the excellent soil there has been lost. The private owners have not the means to cement those canals. That is irrigation work. Our future depends on irrigation, and we encourage irrigation, but we should like the Minister to take steps so that when money is spent for the future of our people and for providing a living for our people, the money which is so spent will not be wasted as a result of insufficient care or wrong methods which make those wonderful undertakings quite useless. I am not only referring to the Olifants River settlements. There is no irrigation scheme in the country which is quite free of brackishness and those undertakings are still in their initial stages. It is essential that the utmost attention should be devoted to the future and that no reliance should be placed on the landowners under such a scheme. They do not have the means and they are too poor to combat brackishness properly in its early stages. I appeal to the Minister to consider the combating of brackishness in our country as a national problem and not to rely on the efforts of private owners. I ask the Minister to keep an eye on the position and to adopt protective measures also in regard to the land of private owners and to protect them, for, as I said before, irrigation in our country is not a matter of the private individual only but it is a national matter and our irrigation works are State assets. I shall be glad if the Minister as a first measure will send a commission to the Olifants River scheme with instructions to investigate how much of the private land there has already been destroyed by brackishness and how much land is still daily subject to that danger and what is the best method to combat it. Here and there steps have been taken to combat brackishness but in the few cases where drainage channels have been dug on the instructions of the Department and where pipes have been laid, the pipes have all been destroyed again in some way or another and that expenditure therefore was in vain.

First of all I should like to express my deep gratitude to the Minister and his Department that they went out of their way, when the water at a certain school in my district gave in to allow a boring machine of the department to be sent there. In the second place I want to express my thanks to the Minister for what he said yesterday. He did not commit a breach of faith towards the farmers behind the Zoutpansberge. He promised to send boring machines there as soon as possible and I can assure him that it will be highly appreciated because the water level there has fallen and there is not sufficient water for the cattle. I now want to ask the Minister something. He knows that a strong appeal was made to him in regard to the scheme in the district ….

Please raise this on the Loan Estimates.

Another request which I want to make to the Minister is to give attention to our mountain slopes. If you come to my district you will notice that the Drakensberge and the mountain slopes formerly supplied water to the farmers lower down but you will also find that the water has gradually diminished. Many of the farms higher up were purchased at the time by the Native Trust. Of course we cannot blame the natives that they cultivate the soil there, but the water supply is now becoming so poor that the farmers down in the plains no longer have any water. I want to appeal most earnestly to the Minister to see to it that the mountain slopes will not be used for sowing lands and that no vegetation shall be established there which reduces the water lower down to such an extent. Anoher matter which I want to stress in connection with the mountain slopes is that large tracts of lands are being planted with gum trees, and some of the springs in my constituency, large springs, have become entirely dry. Take for instance villages such as Duiwelskloof and Louis Trichardt. When those villages were established there were large springs there but today there is not even sufficient drinking water in that vicinity and I am convinced that this must be attributed to the enormous gum tree plantations. I just want to tell the Minister that indigenous trees can be planted there, which are suitable for water conservation, also along the mountain slopes, trees which do not absorb all the water but contribute to the conservation of the water and to the strengthening of the springs in the vicinity. I hope that the Minister will see to it that such a type of tree is planted to prevent the springs lower down drying up. Experiments have been undertaken in regard to those trees and I may tell the Minister that the wood of those trees can afterwards be used as boxwood and for other purposes; those trees will not merely be ornaments but will be of actual value. Where land has been bought by the Native Trust I want to ask the Minister, as far as the mountain slopes are concerned, to do his utmost to exchange in some way or another the land on the mountain slopes or to take steps, in co-operation with the Department of Native Affairs to have those farms fenced, so that nothing will be done which might result in our springs down there drying up entirely and the farmers down in the valleys receiving no water at all. The Minister should do everything in his power to increase the water supply. I want to urge the Minister to do so. The trouble is that not only do the springs become weaker but when there are heavy rains the soil washes away and where farmers have been pumping water all those years their pumps are now standing in mud holes. The position is very serious and I want to ask the Minister and his Department to investigate conditions there immediately and to save the farmers who are dependent on the mountain streams. The Minister told us that he is going to provide concrete dams and concrete cribs at the boreholes. I want to tell him that in certain parts the farmers are entirely dependent on boreholes for their irrigation. I know of quite a number of farmers who make between £2,000 and £3,000 a year as a result of irrigation from boreholes. I know that the Minister is better acquainted with turbines for irrigation and I want to appeal to him to see that the cattle farmers not only will obtain water but that he will even go so far as to assist the people who are dependent on boreholes for irrigation, if possible, not only with boreholes but also with the necessary machinery, turbines and engines, so that they can keep going. Yesterday the Minister mentioned something here in regard to the conservation of water in order to increase the water in the boreholes. I hope that he will not only go to the Northern parts of the country to conserve the water there but that he will take care that throughout the Union attempts will be made to conserve water so that our boreholes may become as efficient as in the past. I especially want to stress the fact that in my constituency there were streams which supplied running water to at least thirty people, but now those people can hardly obtain sufficient drinking water from those streams although a few years ago these were running continually. The Minister should if possible, assist people on a £ for £ basis to conserve water so that these people living along those streams and dependent on those streams for water, not only for the cattle, but also for irrigation purposes, may receive assistance.

Last year I drew the Minister’s attention to two districts in my constituency where the value of the land has decreased because the water is running away so quickly. The Minister was so kind as to act on my request. He sent the Irrigation Commission there to investigate conditions in certain parts of those districts and more in particular the possibilities of the Touws River and the Buffels River, and I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of my constituency, to express my appreciation for his kindness to have that investigation made. The Minister knows that in both areas there are possibilities for the conservation of water. The rainfall is of such a nature that the water cannot be used effectively without water conservation. The Irrigation Commission received a very favourable impression of the possibilities for the construction of storage dams. I should mention, however, that a conflict exists between the inhabitants of Laingsburg and those of Ladysmith. All I can do is to ask that consideration be given to the report of the Irrigation Commission and at this stage I do not want to… associate myself with one scheme or another. Before coming to a final decision I want to ask the Minister, however, to afford the inhabitants of Laingsburg an opportunity to submit their representations to the Irrigation Commission so as to try to remove as far as possible all doubts about the most suitable site for a weir.

I think that the hon. member should raise that matter on the Loan Estimates.

In that case I shall not go into this matter any further. I should like to say something in regard to the boring machines. In this connection we are faced with the difficulty that not sufficient boring has taken place to determine the depth of the solid earth. The Commission will report and I shall be glad if the Minister will be able to go into that aspect of the matter. Furthermore I want to ask a question about the meteorological division. During the war the work of that division was suspended. We all attach much value to the findings of that division and also to obtaining data from outside the Union. Such a division is in a positon to gather data about the southern hemisphere and I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is the intention to put that division again into full operation.

It is in full operation but it only has been placed under the Department of Defence.

But surely it belongs under Irrigation.

I know the Minister has had his boring equipment very depleted and his manpower reduced as a result of the war, but I feel under the circumstances, and in view of the severe climatic conditions which exist in certain parts of the country where there are many thousands of head of stock in danger of dying owing to the shortage of water but I must make an urgent appeal to the Minister to do all he possibly can to relieve that state of affairs in those parts of the country. Representations have been made from time to time for these drills but I want to assure the Minister that it is not a question of neglect on the part of those people that they did not apply for drills earlier. In my part of the country where you have a rainfall of anything from 25 to 30 inches, it is normally not necessary to do anything more than to make dams, but the last rain in that area fell somewhere in September last and there has been no rain since. Having dealt with that I want to congratulate the Minister and express my appreciation of the fact that he is going to investigate the Thirstland Redemption Scheme recommended by the late Professor Schwarz. Many regard that scheme as one which will be of no use at all to this country, but if it only impregnates with a little moisture these north and west winds which are drying up South Africa today and if it only raises the water tables from the low levels to which they have fallen in the last ten or 15 years, it will have made a big contribution to the replenishment of the water supplies of the southern hemisphere. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on the step he has taken and I sincerely hone something will eventuate in the next four or five years. I want to comment now on the scheme outlined by the hon. the Minister yesterday which it is proposed to make a start with in the near future and which will cost the country some £8,000,000: I just feel that our policy of irrigation in this country is designed today to relieve the position of men who already have uneconomic irrigation schemes in existence, and I feel that an expenditure of £8,000,000 on a new scheme, without the greatest amount of investigation into it, will, as I have worked it out, cost the taxpayer £320,000 odd per annum if the Minister levies £1 a morgen on those people with their 80,000 morgen for irrigation in that valley, and I feel that we should keep an eye on the fact that we want a reduction of the cost of food, and in this way the greatest attention should be given to these irrigation schemes. We are in danger of setting up something which will create a serious position for the consumers of this country, if the schemes are not economical. Finally, I want to deal with an item which affects my part of the country in respect of the run-off of water. I want to give the Minister examples of what has taken place. Many dams have been built in that part of the country and his engineers have told us that these dams are not likely to be filled in two years from the normal rainfall and runoff. On Gvoernment institutions three of these dams were built and the engineers stated quite openly that they would not fill up in two years. But these dams filled up with one rain and one run-off, so that I feel that in assessing the size of the dams to be built the engineers should investigate closer what amount of run-off there is in those parts of the country;

Do you get rain that fills a dam in one rain in one year?

Yes, I am dealing with an area where you have a certain amount of rainfall every year. It is never less than 25 inches but as much as 35 inches, but in no year is there not sufficient rain to fill these dams. Even in the present area where I am pleading for drills to be sent they had one rain in September which lasted them to April, but the normal run-off is very much higher than that assessed by the engineers.

The mere mentioning of the word “irrigation” gladdens the heart of the farmer, for he knows that irrigation is the salvation of the farmer. If a farmer can irrigate his farm he is able to withstand droughts. We had that experience during the drought of 1933. The man who had one morgen under irrigation was better off than the man who had five or six hundred morgen of dry land. The former could save his cattle. The rainfall in our country is not so very bad, but the difficulty is that it is so erratic. Sometimes we have a lot of rain within a very short period and then again we get nothing at all for a longtime. The result in the Free State was that we had three crop failures in succession. The farmer can do nothing against it. All he can do is to do his duty. We know that the position in the fertile parts of South Africa is that the farmer cannot rely on the rainfall. The result of that was that, as he could not rely on sowing crops only, he also had to go in for cattle farming in order to tide him over when his crops were a failure. In my constituency we have a good average rainfall but in spite of that we have crop failures because the rainfall is so erratic. On the other hand there is any amount of water running to waste in the sea. Last year the Minister of Lands already expressed the idea that an attempt should be made to afford every farmer in time to come the opportunity of establishing a fodder bank on his farm. That is a very good idea for stablising the position of the farmer. When a farmer has twenty or thirty morgen under irrigation, he will never become a burden to the State, for he will be able to help himself in times of drought because in the better periods he will be able to grow sufficient fodder for storage. I want to refer particularly to the high rainfall in the Drakensberge. The Caledon River carries enormous quantities of water to the sea. The Minister of Lands already has his eye on that river. If a dam can be constructed in that river, not only a large part of my constituency will be supplied with water, but it will even be possible to fill the proposed irrigation works on the Vet River and Sand River, when the Caledon is in flood. I only want to ask the Minister whether he is still considering the possibilities of the Caledon River and when we may expect a start to be made with the construction of that scheme.

I would like to ask the Minister to appoint a number of geophysicists to his Department. In the north-western areas where drilling is difficult, I think I can say that 80 per cent. of the holes drilled are unsuccessful. Recently the Minister sent a geophysicist to select sites for his Government drills and the improvement was most remarkable, probably about 60 per cent. of the holes drilled on these sites being successful. The Abyssinian campaign also proved the worth of these men, and the Rhodesian Government have used them now for a number of years, and they maintain that their percentage of successes increased from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. In view of the fact that the Minister said here that there are something like 3,000 applications for holes it will probably take a number of years before these can be completed, and I would like him to have these men available, also for private drills, as well as for Government drills.

During yesterday’s discussion on this Vote the Minister of Lands in reply to an interjection on my part said that it did not pay to let Government boring machines go deeper than 400 feet. We know that in the North-Western parts of the Cape Province along the Malopo the water is much deeper than 400 feet. In the past we went down as far as 250 feet but did not get any water. Then we sunk boreholes in the Malopo River bed and obtained water at 300 feet. Lately people have been boring in the hills where there are nice tracts of land and there they obtain the water between 400 and 500 feet. If the Minister is going to insist on the policy that Government boring machines are not to bore deeper than 400 feet, then he may just as well not send them to those parts of the country. The other day I talked to a person who has a private boring machine there and he told me that most of the boreholes are between 400 and 500 feet deep. I want the Minister to treat every part of the country on its own merits. In this district the water is deeper than 400 feet and where that is the case the Minister should allow the people to bore to a greater depth. Furthermore the Minister said that it is his intention to visit the Northern parts together with two engineers in order to find out whether they cannot get the Malopo and other rivers running again. The intention of course is to again make the water run down along those rivers so that the subterranean water supplies can be fed. If that is the case I would like to suggest to the Minister whether it is not possible to pay a visit also to Barberspan. A very large quantity of water is standing there but the situation of the pan is such that the water again flows back to the Hartz and Vaal Rivers. If we can arrange matters in such a way that this water can run in the direction of the Kalahari it will have a very beneficial effect. I therefore want to ask the Minister also to pay a visit to the Barberspan.

I have noticed the way in which the water flows there.

If you can prevent the water flowing back it will be an excellent thing.

I should like to discuss a matter of local interest. The Minister will remember that one of the first things he did in the House in 1940 when he became Minister of Irrigation was to have the Bospoort Irrigation District Act passed. I can give the Minister the assurance that that Act which he had passed at that time was of great benefit to the people concerned. He will be surprised to see the satisfaction there. The Act provides that the Minister can have the matter investigated again in five years’ time, to determine whether the water tax should be increased or decreased. I do not now plead for a reduction of taxation.

Do you want an increase in the taxation?

No, but I plead here that more money should be lent to those people to build a canal in order to bring new ground under irrigation. I wish to point out to the Minister that I am not speaking about extra ground but of new ground. The old lands have been exhausted through continuous cultivation of the same ground, so that things are becoming difficult. If a canal is built new ground can be put under irrigation, and then it can become one of the best schemes and be of inestimable value to the irrigators. Then there is also another matter, namely the Buffelspoort Irrigation Scheme. Last year there was a great deal of flood damage to the Eastern canal, and with much trouble it was repaired so that people could again sow wheat. The Minister agreed to have a new canal surveyed, and I understand that the survey has been completed. But due to the shortage of personnel the necessary report cannot be immediately drawn up, with the result that the farmers there lose much. I should like the Minister to speed up the work so that the work on the canal can be done as soon as possible, in order that the farmers may plant the next tobacco crop there. That will be very good. In this connection I also wish to bring to the Minister’s notice the question whether it is not possible, seeing the war is at an end, immediately to get his engineers and boring experts from the Department of Defence. A lot of work is accumulating owing to the shortage of personnel and in the meantime the farmers suffer.

I very much want to associate myself with the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) in connection with ground becoming brackish. I do not think we realise how much damage is caused to South Africa through ground becoming brackish. I hope that there can be co-operation between the Minister of Irrigation and the Minister of Agriculture as regards this matter, so that private irrigators can also get the benefit of their knowledge and experience, because we suffer a tremendous amount of damage. I do not think we have any idea of the amount of damage really suffered. I should like to thank the Minister very much because his engineers have now investigated the scheme at Zastron. The report is not as favourable as we would have liked to have it, but I hope that that will no be the end of the matter. The Minister knows what such a scheme will mean to the South-Eastern Free State and the North-Eastern portion of the Cape Province. I hope he will have further investigations made to find out whether there is no other suitable area for such a scheme. I feel happy after this two days’ discussion on irrigation to know that an attempt is being made to conserve water in the country. The Minister has told us of gigantic schemes. These are very nice schemes, but it seems to me that those schemes will need a long time to come into operation. The Minister yesterday told us that the survey of one scheme will take two years. On the other hand we know that there are thousands of people to be provided with work after this war and that the Government will have large quantities of machinery on hand which it can use for making dams, and I want to suggest that the Government should make available those implements and its engineers for the construction of smaller schemes, until such time as those great schemes on the Orange River have been completed. As I have already said, those schemes will take very long to complete if the survey alone will take two years, and I am of opinion that we should provide work for our people immediately and immediately assist those who urgently require water for irrigation. I think for example of the South-Eastern Free State and the North-Eastern Cape. Those parts are high-lying and the Irrigation Department has already said that we cannot use our great rivers there for irrigation because we lie so high. I however wish to point out that we have large valleys there and on the other side there are mountain ranges in which there are beautiful openings which can be dammed. Is it not possible that smaller schemes can be built there, which will be of great assistance to the farmers in those parts? I think that side by side with the great schemes these smaller schemes should be investigated, as at the moment, from the national point of view, they are the most essential. We have parts of the country where there is a high rainfall, but the rainfall comes in such a short period of the year that we cannot use it properly if you have no irrigation schemes. In the South-Eastern Free State and the North-Eastern Cape our difficulty is not really that the rainfall is too low, but the period in which it comes is so short that we cannot use that rain water economically without storing it. I know that there are many spots in that area where dams can be made to supply the grounds further down. Earthen walls can be made. Cement is not necessary. I have a fair amount of experience of making dams, and with the necessary machinery openings can be dammed in two constituencies there, which will enable the people there to accumulate fodder with a view to droughts. A few years ago a dam was built at Egmont. It was a small private dam. We have had a terrific drought in the Southern Free State this year, and I can say this, that if it were not for that scheme, if the farmers there did not have the opportunity to obtain fodder, we would have lost tens of thousands of head of cattle in that vicinity. They are still alive as the result of this one small scheme which was constructed in the past. I therefore want to plead with the Minister that as soon as he has got back his personnel he should send engineers there to investigate such schemes. The farmers in my area were sheep farmers. Unfortunately sheep farming deteriorated so much that investigation had to be made and the Department recommended that farmers should reduce their sheep farming and go in for cattle farming. Owing to the high price of ground they had to farm with cattle which have a high production value, like dairy cattle. The Minister will immediately realise that we must have a fodder reserve if we want to farm with that sort of cattle. If we build a few of these schemes which will enable stores of fodder to be built up in that vicinity, it will be a great help to the farmers. I want to plead very seriously that the Minister should send his engineers as soon as possible to investigate the possibility of damming up such openings in the Southern Free State and Northern Cape, and also in other areas where it is possible to do so. I imagine that at this stage the Government have much machinery which was used in the war and which after the war will have to be sold for a bagatelle, or at least at a great loss, and that machinery can be usefully employed in the construction of schemes of this nature. I hope that the hon. Minister will not let that opportunity go by.

In the first place I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the position at the Bronkhorstspruit River. Certain spots along the river were inspected years ago and the authorities at that time told me that there is an extremely suitable spot for a dam, although not a very big dam — I understand it falls under the category of small dams. The matter has been pending for years and I want to ask the Minister what will now be done. Along the river there are a large number of farmers, but these people cannot expand, and the result is that their sons and families are driven to the cities because they cannot earn a living on the platteland. If an irrigation scheme is built it will be a great acquisition and a large number of people can be permanently settled instead of, as today, going to the cities to try to earn a living there. The rainfall is particularly good and the catchment area in the vicinity excellent. I think it would be a very good undertaking. The second point I wish to bring to his attention is the position along the Pienaars River. That is in the immediate vicinity of Pretoria. That is an old matter. I believe it was surveyed in the past, and I understand that all along the river there are still marks showing where the surveys were made. There was even a boring machine in order to discover where the dam should be built. All these things were done and I am informed that later an ideal place was selected near the farm Zeekoegat. It is said that in the hills they found good rocks, a beautiful place to build a dam. We should now like to know what the position is. But it never got any further. Why was it stopped? I do not know whether it was due to the war or io something else. The farmers along the river went so far as to sign a document pooling their ground on the recommendation of the authorities. I think everybody signed except one owner. They now want to know, seeing that they have already pooled their ground and that there is a good rainfall, and the Pienaars River comes down in flood and washes away everything, and seeing that there is enough water to feed such a dam, when it will be built. I want to ask the Minister also to devote his attention to that area. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me that the two dams will be built. I wish to congratulate the Minister on his exposition last night. I think the whole country will joyfully welcome it, especially when he used the words “bores for boers”. I think all the farmers look forward to getting boring machines for sinking boreholes and making use of the subterranean water. But I was a little disappointed when the Minister later stated in which areas all the bores would be used and where the subsidy will be granted. I sit a little far away from him and perhaps I did not understand properly, but if I understand correctly, I want to ask the Minister not only to take into consideration that portion of the Transvaal situate behind the Zoutpansberg, In the vicinity of Pretoria and Johannesburg there are many small farms where the people do prosperous business, and they would also like to bore and that the subsidy should be given there. The last point I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister is this: The Minister knows that between the Rust-der-Winter scheme and the Loskop scheme there is an area of good valuable ground which does not fall under either of these schemes. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to build storage dams on the Elands River above the Rustder-Winter scheme, and in this way to extend the schemes and join them up. I myself, although I am only a farmer, have seen places above the Rust-der-Winter which can be dammed with small expense, thereby extending the scheme. The people there have made a success and that success can be extended.

I should like to speak in the contrary direction to that adopted by hon. members who have spoken up to now. We at Christiana speak about too much water. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is now 15 months ago that we had the serious floods there, and we should now like to have a statement about what the Minister will do in the near future. We are thankful for the temporary houses given there by the Department of Welfare, etc., but those houses are unbearably cold in winter and ovens in summer, and something will have to be done to provide other houses and to rehabilitate the people. I should like to point out that all these years we lived there peacefully and nicely. I myself lived there for 30 years. But ever since the dam was built there the difficulties began. Parys, Warrenton and Douglas suffered no damage from floods, but Christiana had a lot of damage. The Minister knows the contents of the report. For example 86 houses fell and a few hundreds were damaged. But until the present day nothing has been done. I should like the Minister to make a comprehensive statement. I will be going to my constituency over the week-end and should like to inform the people what the Minister’s intention is, because from that will depend what we are going to do. We cannot allow the matter to drag on longer. We are now practically living no longer along the river, but next to a dam. The water penetrates to our foundations and damp appears everywhere. The Underground water has been increased so much that one-third of the town is practically already uninhabitable. I therefore ask the Minister to state very clearly what he will do in that connection. At the same time I wish to point out to him, that, as in other places, the dam is completely silting up. The dam is already so shallow that at the slightest flood the water pushes out to the town, and it is time that we should be relieved of his threat. We have not the courage to build again where we have been living and where the houses have fallen. It is too wet and the underground water is too high. We wish to move to a dry area, but we cannot do so without assistance. The hon. Minister last year stated that he does not feel responsible for the damage, but that he feels a moral obligation to help. Well, a moral obligation presses much stronger on one than a legal obligation, and I hope the Minister will tell us precisely where we stand.

I just want to ask the Minister to give us a little information on one point. The Rand Water Board has a certain amount of authority over the water in the Vaal Dam. The inhabitants on the banks there are now anxious. They wish to erect pumps for irrigation on a small scale, and the same applies to settlers who will still be put on the ground, but now they do not know whether the Rand Water Board may perhaps have so much authority that they will be prohibited from doing that sort of thing. They would like to have the assurance that they can invest money in erecting pumps in order to irrigate on a small scale. The second matter I wish to refer to is in connection with the flood water which causes much damage to mealie lands. It was found that water pushes up during floods and inundates the mealie lands for days, with the result that the mealies are coated with slime and fall down. Before the dam was there, in former years, that did not happen there. As long as the water is allowed to flow it can come over the mealie lands for as long as two days without damaging the mealies, but since the dam is there the water at times of flood pushes up and enormous damage is suffered by the farmers on the banks. Now the argument is used that the water does not push up higher than the engineers measured. They put in markers, and the argument is that the water does not rise higher. The farmers doubt that. There are now people who receive servitude money for their ground on the banks. They are protected. They still cultivate their lands at their own risk. But there are others who did not receive servitude money for their ground, and they suffer tremendous damage. They begin to doubt whether the survey… was so accurate when the dam was built; they begin to believe that the water pushes up higher than the engineers said it would. It will therefore be right for the Minister to investigate why this happens. I know of cases where people have small pieces of ground and suffer damage. They did not buy the ground under the servitude system, and they suffer much damage. The water pushes up over their crops. I shall be glad if the Minister will give an explanation about the position with regard to the Rand Water Board and its rights to the water in the Vaal Dam, and if the Minister will investigate the position in regard to the other cases quoted by me.

I would like to take the opportunity of saying a few words in order to direct the Minister’s attention to the large number of small plots in my constituency whose occupants are in urgent need of boreholes. There are hundreds of such plots and small farms in my constituency where the people have built decent houses, people from the mines, etc., and they are living under difficult circumstances. I want to ask the Minister to make drills available for them, and give them the opportunity to make payment on easy terms. I have already discussed this matter with the hon. Minister. In the second place I should like to agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) that not only the people behind the Zoutpansberg should be assisted with boreholes. In the low veld there are large areas of very good land, and we should like the Minister also to bear them in mind. That is a very fine district for livestock, but for expansion water is needed.

I should like to put a question to the Minister. We as members of Parliament are glad when the permanent Irrigation Commission visits our constituencies. We are usually notified of its visit so that we may accompany the members on their investigations. But I am sorry to say they arrive during the Parliamentary Session, so that members of Parliament cannot be present.

They have been instructed to advise the members of Parliament.

I should prefer they did not visit our constituencies when Parliament is in Session, but during the recess so that we may be able to accompany them. The Minister has enlarged on irrigation schemes. I have no objection to offer to other schemes being constructed; I have no objection to a tunnel 49½ miles in length being constructed to provide people with water. I consider it the duty of every Minister of Irrigation to ensure that not a single drop of water flows to the sea if it can be prevented and if it can be utilised. Without doubt the future of our country is wrapped up in irrigation. The farms for grazing have already all been taken up and farms have already been so divided that they are becoming too small. Our only salvation lies in irrigation and it is the duty of the State to take every possible measure in this connection. While I have no objection to offer to other schemes being proceeded with I want to direct the Minister’s notice to a scheme that has for many years attracted attention. I believe when the Assouan Dam was built in Egypt the Cape Government selected a site for the dam I have in mind, and they picked on the spot at Gerwerspoort on the other side of Bain’s Kloof. The dam will not cost £1,000,000, but I understand that the scheme will entail an expenditure of about £500,000. It will give a tremendous impulse to our district, and from 15,000 to 20,000 morgen may be brought under irrigation as a result. The scheme has already been tested in the past. There will be no difficulty with silt. There is nothing of that sort; it is mountain water. We have the Brandvlei Dam, which was constructed as far back as 1924 and you can still distinguish the road that used to run along there. There is no silt. The climate too is ideal, and such a scheme would prove a great success. It is opportune that a commencement should be made with this scheme. Some ten to twenty thousand morgen can be brought under irrigation. I take no exception to other schemes being embarked on, but if schemes are going to be carried out on a big scale this part of the country that has proved that irrigation works are a success, ought to have a chance. Then I should like to direct the Minister’s attention to the difficulty in connection with the Kafferskuilrivier Irrigation Board. The Irrigation Board has been declared illegal. The result is that a big difficulty has arisen in connection with it. There are contracts with owners who are obtaining water without levies. Then there are others who do not get water but have to pay the rates. Since the war the Government has not collected rates from these people, but I should like the Minister to investigate in order to arrive at a solution of the difficulty. They contributed £260 a year for cleaning the pipes, etc., and if this work is not carried out, considerable damage will be sustained. I hope the Minister will be able to solve the problem.

I think that most of the points have now been mentioned and it appears to me that hon. members are now beginning to indulge in repetition and to stand up for a second time, and consequently I think I should prefer to reply now to the questions that have been put. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) referred to the great danger of and the damage caused by brak appearing on irrigation schemes. He is right. It is one of the most serious matters with which this Department has had to contend, the prevention and the combating of brak. It is a difficulty that has been experienced not on one settlement but on all the settlements. When I tell hon. members that for the past two years we have been occupied with a plan entailing an expenditure of £150,000 to prevent brak appearing at Vaal-Hartz alone, to provide drainage and to lead off water, hon. members will realise the magnitude of the problem. There are various reasons for the present position. One difficulty arises from over-irrigation. Hon. members should bear in mind that perhaps 75 per cent. of the settlers on an irrigation scheme are people who have never irrigated in their lives. They were farmers who perhaps farmed with sheep or cattle, and their idea of irrigation is usually that you should simply open the sluice gates and drench the lands. If the husband is out of sorts in the morning, or if his wife is in a bad mood, then he opens up the sluice gates. That all tends towards brak appearing in the lands, and one of the big difficulties is to restrict this excessive irrigation. There is another reason, and it is that in the past when irrigation schemes have been embarked on the canals have not been lined with cement. Especially along the Olifants River this is the cause of brak. The policy of the Government is that in the future no further canals would be constructed on our irrigation scheme or elsewhere unless they are lined with cement. In respect of the Olifants River regarding which the hon. member has made a complaint, money has been placed on the Estimates to build these canals gradually. We can only do it piecemeal and we must make a start where the need is greatest. It is not only with leakages we have to deal but at many places the canals have cracked and damage has been caused, and we shall continue to build the canals with cement so that it is to be hoped we shall be able to solve the difficulty. The hon. member has spoken about 72 erven at Koekenaap which has cost so much and which became brak. The first occasion on which I visited Koekenaap the scheme had already been some years in progress. I went to see the erven there. On the upper part the land is the most beautiful in the world, but these erven which were allotted are unfortunately at sea level, not 4 ft. above the sea level. It is near the river mouth and when the flood comes the water rises to a height of at least 8 ft. above the surface. Erven have been given out, and when I came there they were making canals no deeper than sea level. At the top end they have a pumping plant and now they are pumping the water into the river, but as soon as the river rises again the water returns. They carried on in this way year after year. I put a stop to that at once, and got other erven for these people. You cannot allocate erven that are on sea level. That is the great difficulty in connection with Koekenaap. But I want to tell the hon. member that we are trying to combat brak. Our engineers and experts are engaged in improving the canals and we hope that as soon as we can effect these improvements the hon. member will have no further complaints. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) mentioned the difficulty in regard to mountain slopes where natives have land under the Trust. It is unfortunately a fact that much of the land is separated at the sources of the rivers in the mountains, and there are natives there. I must, however, say this, that it falls under the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. It is a serious matter which is occupying their attention. It is not only that the natives plough the mountain slopes as far as they possibly can, but they chop down indigenous trees and bum out the rest, and so contaminate the water, and if we keep on like this the position, especially in the Transvaal, will be a very sombre one as far as our water sources are concerned.

Cannot you talk to the Minister of Native Affairs?

He knows about it, but it is the Department of Agriculture this is particularly charged with soil erosion and veld conservation, and they are taking up the matter seriously.

But it is the farmers who are sustaining the damage, because their springs are drying up.

Yes, the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. N. J. le Roux) put a question to me about the Cale-don-Vetrivier-Sandrivier scheme. Let me just tell him this that this is a huge scheme and in the course of time other schemes have cropped up that must be given priority over this huge scheme. There is, for example, the Fish River and the Sundays River scheme that must get preference. But in view of the development of gold mining in the Free State and in order to commence the scheme we have made a start with the Vetrivier-Sandrivier scheme, particularly as this will at the same time be able to provide water for mining development that must take place there shortly. Our plans have been laid and we shall begin with the Vetrivier and the Sandrivier. The Cabinet has, however, asked for a little more information before they approve the scheme, and when Parliament adjourns I shall appoint two engineers to institute further enquiries, and they will submit a report, so that I hope that during the following Session of Parliament a start may be made, especially with a view to providing water in connection with gold mining.

What does the Basutoland Government say?

Basutoland is not under our control.

But the Caledon River affects them.

We have worked out the scheme at the confluence of the two rivers; we shall begin with the Vetrivier and the Sandrivier. Later we shall tackle the upper end, that is when the time is appropriate.

What will Basutoland say?

We have not considered it necessary to discuss that further. We merely notified them that we intended to construct the dam, but there will be no difficulty. I do not think we shall have any difficulty in reaching agreement with the British Government to build the dam in the Caledon River, because the water in that part of the Caledon River in Basutoland will rise.

Then you will have difficulty.

Why should there be difficulty? The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Connan) asked whether we shall take precautions when we are initiating the scheme to appoint experts, geologists, to indicate the spots where we should drill. Yes, we shall do that. We are going to have people for those schemes—which we shall proclaim—and we shall endeavour to have at our disposal the experts who will be able to indicate sites for boreholes, more particularly the boreholes on which subsidies are paid. When in future we pay a subsidy we shall emphasise that the people must take our advice and that advice will be given gratis by our experts.

Will other farmers also be able to avail themselves of the services of these experts?

Yes, there are other farmers we are helping today, but particularly where we pay a subsidy for a borehole we shall emphasise that they should accept the advice of our experts. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has asked whether it will be possible to grant a loan to the irrigators at Bospoort to enable them to extend their canals and to acquire new land. Yes, I think these people, after the Bill has been put through, show that they could do well there and there will be no difficulty in granting them a loan to obtain new land. The hon. member for Smithfield also spoke about brak. He asked that we should appoint more engineers so that we could make smaller dams for our people throughout the country. As far as smaller dams are concerned, I am very much in favour of them, because there is nothing that tends more to prevent soil erosion than having a sufficient number of small dams for the farmers. I am now talking from experience as a practical farmer. They arrest the flood waters, and that in itself helps to prevent soil erosion. This is a question that will also rise under Agriculture. When the war is over the Government intends to tackle soil erosion on a large scale—it will naturally fall under the Department of Agriculture—and these small dams will then be taken in hand.

I meant smaller national schemes, not small dams.

We are also ready for that, once we have the money and the labour. We cannot go on spending millions and millions of pounds every year. We should have to set about things gradually, but as far as our resources permit we shall build irrigation schemes. I do not think the hon. member need fear about that. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) asked that we should not drill merely behind the Zoutpansberg but that we should also assist other people to obtain those facilities that we are extending in connection with these schemes. I always give the fullest information I can to the House because hon. members are entitled to it. This scheme that we are going to apply north to the Zoutpansberg, in the dry areas that have not the advantage of irrigation areas, and where the rainfall is small, and to the north-west parts of the Cape, we shall extend right through the Union a year or so after it has been in operation. We want to see whether it may not be possible to carry out this scheme right through the Union. We may perhaps vary the terms a little, but it will depend on the experience we acquire of the working of the scheme in that area where we are now applying it. Now I come to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Drink). He asked me what the Government’s policy is in connection with the flood damage sustained at Christiana during the floods of last year. Hon. members will recall that after that flood damage had been sustained throughout the Union, more particularly in those parts, we appointed a inter-departmental committee comprised of representatives of the Department of Irrigation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Social Welfare and the Deparement of Labour. The four Departments appointed a representative committee and they went right through all these districts that had suffered damage as a result of the floods, in order to assess the damage. The Government did not at any time state that they held themselves responsible for any damage or that the Government would pay compensation. The members of the committee traversed those areas and assisted the people in those areas. They did not pay compensation, but they provided food for the people and tried to arrange for accommodation, as we did at Christiana. In some cases they distributed tents to persons who had lost their houses. We gave them blankets and so on, and we even advanced money to assist them to restore their canals. That was all satisfactory, but then we came to the question of Christiana, and there we were confronted with this,’’that Christiana is situated above the diversion weir, above Vaal-Hartz and it is possible that the damage sustained there could have been occasioned through that dam. Then I appointed a departmental committee, a committee of the Irrigation Department alone, the object being to ascertain the Government’s responsibility in connection with the damage caused at Christiana. I should like to say that the dam we use for Vaal-Hartz lies 22 miles west from Christiana. Consequently, to prove that diversion dam caused the damage at Christiana 22 miles higher up is a very involved question, as hon. members will realise, expert advice and technical knowledge being necessary to prove it. The committee appointed produced a report which was not accepted by the Government.

Why not?

The hon. member must not put questions to me now. I say the Government did not accept it. We enquired into the whole position of Christiana. When we built that diversion wall 22 miles below Christiana we had already paid for servitudes in Christianaitself. I speak subject to correction, but I believe we paid £4,000 to Christiana for water servitudes. The water on this occasion did not reach the height that it reached on a previous occasion when we were not held responsible for compensation.

But oh a previous occasion houses did not collapse.

I am talking about the water. I say that previously there was a flood, and the water rose much higher than it rose on this occasion and we were not held responsible. We then sent all the data to the legal advisers and we asked them to give us an opinion in connection with the question as to how far the Government was responsible for the damage recently done by the flood. The advice we received from our law advisers is that the Government was not responsible for the damage. The question of moral responsibility I admit, I have always admitted it. These people sustained damage, and we may decide to meet them from a moral point of view, but regarded from a legal viewpoint we are not responsible. I gave that information to the hon. member for Christiana. He then stated that the people in Christiana were not satisfied with that, and he took the stand we were legally responsible. Then I took all the documents and referred them to a private advocate, and it is now in the hands of other advocates. We have not yet got the final report in that connection. As soon as I have the final report of these private advocates in connection with this matter, together with that of our own law advisers I shall again submit the matter to the Cabinet and I shall at once carry out the decision reached by the Cabinet, and then the hon. member will know what the attitude of the Government is in connection with the damage that has been sustained, and the claims for compensation. I do not think it is necessary at this juncture to add anything more on that point. Now I come to the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne). He has asked the question whether the Rand Water Board’s authority also infringes those rights possessed by riparian owners above the dam along the river to pump out water in order to start irrigation works there. The answer is no, the Water Board has no such rights. They have no say in connection with what occurs above the dam. I should merely like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that so far as my knowledge goes the Government has already paid the servitudes in respect of the damage he is referring to that was caused to the mealie lands. We have already paid the servitudes. I want to state this to the House, that the Government has paid out no less than £850,000 to those people for servitudes.

It was not all to farmers.

Yes, to farmers above the dam where the water rose and streamed in. I go so far as to say that in some cases we have paid for the servitudes, because the surveys were made. We have had the plan for a considerable period, and I have even stated during the present Session that we are going to increase the height of the Vaal dam by 18 ft. I believe that even in respect of land where the water will rise this 18 ft. we have in some cases paid for the servitudes. If the hon. member says we have not paid for the servitudes ….

No, I did not make that assertion. I said that the farmers doubted whether the surveys were correctly done.

If our surveys were wrong it appears to me that we shall have to pay, but that must be proved, and on proof being forthcoming we shall pay. I cannot imagine that the Government, when it builds a dam and when the water rises and damages farm lands will not be held responsible. I, too, am a farmer; although I might be paid out for the servitude I am still inclined to cling to those lands.

That is not the case there; it is the other case. I shall bring it to your notice.

If the hon. member will bring these instances to my notice I shall have them enquired into. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) enquired about boreholes for farmers on small plots. I am sorry we cannot do that. We have not a sufficient number of drills for municipalities and for the farmers on small plots. We can provide the farmers with drills, and although the hon. member may say that those small plots are also cultivated by farmers these are not people who can be regarded as farmers under the Act.

These are not really farmers.

Possibly some day we may have enough drills, and then we can go further into the question of assisting these people, but at the moment I regret to say we cannot do it. Then I come to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). He talked about Gerberspoort. I am quite prepared to have the matter investigated and as regards Kafferskuil I shall have that investigated also. I think I have now answered all the questions.

I have been standing up the whole afternoon. I am sorry that the Minister was so quick to get on his feet, otherwise he could have replied to me. He was obliging enough during the recess to send the Irrigation Commission to us to investigate a certain scheme on the Rhenosterrivier, and I think they reported very favourably on the scheme.

Is that at Koppies?

Yes. The Minister knows that the Koppies settlement is one of the most successful in the country. It is really a model settlement. The settlers have made a great success of it. It is because the ground is of such an exceptionally high standard. The ground is level, the water gathers there, the, rainfall is good, and the land is admirably adapted to a successful irrigation scheme. We thoroughly investigated the matter, and we found that with a relatively small expenditure 3,000 or 4,000 morgen can very profitably be placed under irrigation. I should like the Minister to tell us what the result of his consideration is. Then last year he said that one of the first schemes that will be undertaken after the war is the survey of the Vaal River in the neighbourhood of Parys, the third scheme in the neighbourhood of Parys. The war is now over and we should like to know when the intention is to make a start with that scheme. It is a very necessary scheme, especially in connection with gold mining in the Free State. These are two important schemes. The Minister has all the surveys ‘and it is only a question of when the first sod will be turned. Then we are grateful that an investigation has been instituted into the drainage ditch at Rooipoort. I am grateful that they have eventually arrived at a conclusion that after all we were right, and I only hope that the Minister will give instructions to his Department that they will take the digging of the ditch in hand as speedily as possible. The farmers have been waiting for years for that ditch, and it has been a contentious point over a period of years, and as the Department have finally been convinced that we were in the right we hope that no time will be lost in making the ditch. I should further like to say a few words about the manufacture of drilling plant. If there is one thing that will help the Minister to live down his unpopularity with the Opposition it is this matter of the manufacture of drilling plant. He can see how in the last few days things have been going better for him since he has been talking about boreholes for farmers. You can see how cunning the Saps are. They are seizing this slogan for themselves. They say it is their slogan. That is nonsense. For years now we have been saying “bore vir boere”, and now that we have allowed this thought to take root with the Minister we want him not merely to manufacture these drills at the rate of four or five a year. He has built ten in the last two years. Let special attention be given to the matter. There is nothing more important, and I am glad the Minister realises this. He knows that if there is one necessity in the country it is the provision of water and the enlargement of our water supplies. We expressed that view last year, and we shall mention it in the House every year. It is one of the most important things in the life of the country, water conservation and water augmentation. The supplementation of our water resources can only be achieved by drills, and if the Minister’s Department is not competent enough to make drills at a quicker rate than five a year can he not consult his colleague, the Minister of Transport, and ascertain whether the railways cannot assist in the manufacture of drills. As the Railway Administration has done a great amount of work in connection with the manufacture of armaments I am certain that they will help him out of this difficulty in regard to the manufacture of drills. And moreover they ought to do so, because there is no one who does more drilling in the country than the railways, they are continually falling back on private drills and Government drills, and if there is a department that ought to assist us it is the railways, in connection with the manufacture of drills, and I should like to see all the attention the Minister bestows on these matters rewarded, and the more attention he gives to these matters the more will it assist him to surmount his difficulty with the Opposition. We also want to talk about the idea voiced by the Minister in connection with conservation of borehole water merely for watering purposes. Farming as he does in the Karoo, he knows that every farmer there has a little garden and that he plants crops below his drill. He must do this for his weak stock and for his flocks and his breeding stock during the bad season of the year. If a man has the water and he has land at the water why should he not be permitted to grow a little lucerne for his stock for the bad seasons of the year? Why should he not be allowed to turn that water to the best account? Why should we have to adhere to conservatism on account of the idea that this is only water for watering animals, when there is more water than is necessary for watering purposes? Then there is the question that is mentioned every time in this House and in connection with which we sounded a warning last year. We must not rob the earth by taking out the water and not putting water back. In those regions where we are drilling we should focus the attention of the farmers at the same time to the necessity for the construction of farm dams or small dams in order that we may in any effective manner stop the flood water from flowing away. The water pressure from above will supplement our underground water supplies. I really believe the Minister will give proper attention to this, but I should like to emphasise this matter because it is exceptionally necessary, and as the Minister is now going to tackle or investigate the big scheme in the Kalahari we trust that he will give close attention to this matter. If there is one thing on which many people have fastened their hopes for the future and for the salvation of our country, from the point of view of water supplies, it is in connection with this huge scheme. And as the Minister is going there we should like them once and for all quickly to dispose of that matter. [Time limit.]

I should like to reply to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). The hon. member spoke about the settlement on the Rhenosterrivier. The Irrigation Commission was sent there and they nave furnished their report, but I have not yet had an opportunity to study it. Of course I will not allow it to be lost sight of. The hon. member mentioned about this side of the House being very tricky in making political capital out of certain things. I want to point out to that hon. member that they on their side of the House are always saying that the Minister of Lands is making promises but not carrying them out. I challenge them to point to a single promise that I have made and that I have not carried out. But now I would like to point out what a clever trick he has. He says that I stated last year— and he stated this in all seriousness—that the first scheme that I would build and that I would set going was the one at Parys.

I said one of the first.

And he says now that he hopes I will carry out this promise and that I will build this scheme now that the war is over. I only wanted to say this to the hon. member: If I do not immediately comment on his statement, when he returns to his constituency let him go round with Hansard and tell the people about the promises that Conroy broke. I never made any such promise. Let us understand each other thoroughly. What I said in connection with that scheme opposite Vredefort and not at Parys, is this: We talked about the difficulties of converting and utilising the water that is flowing to the sea. I said that at Vredefort there was a fine opportunity to dam up the water, to divert it and to transfer it to the southwestern parts of the Free State. There are situated there a large number of pans that are always full of water, that has brought the water level of the south-western parts of the Free State up high. Now these pans are dry the water level has fallen, and I said that if we could divert that water and fill the pans it would be of tremendous benefit to those parts of the Free State. That is what I said. Now the hon. member must not say that I promised this would be one of the first schemes to be constructed after the war is over. If he wants to read these things out to the people from Hansard he must also please give the reply I have just given.

It is a long time since I have been so disappointed as today in a reply by a Minister. The Minister says that the dam is 22 miles from Christiana.

Do not let us discuss that now. The matter is in the hands of the advocates.

When I go back I have to explain the position to my constituents. At the moment the water is dammed up to a height of 15 ft. In earlier years you could cross barefoot, and today there is a 15 ft. dam. It is understandable that the water should be now 15 ft. higher than formerly, and what seems very remarkable to me is this. A commission comprised of three persons visited that area for a few weeks. Subsequently they produced a report. It seems strange to me that then report was not adopted, and that people who were not on the scene made the decision. I want to point out to the Minister that the information that apparently was placed before the law advisers emanated from his Department, and that his Department is responsible for that construction. They did not take their servitudes far enough back, and now they do not want to admit their error. They are trying, of course, to work things in such a way that the law advisers will bring out a report that does not condemn them. This is the position. I am now definitely going to advise the people to take one of three steps. In the first place to go on with the matter ….

Why did you not give that information to the advocates?

I should like the House to have a clear understanding of the position. The Minister has now for 1½ years tried to gain legal advice, and still we have got nothing. It cannot go on like that. The Minister will pay nothing and is he going to take away those huts?

Yes, we lent them and we shall take them away.

Then these people will again be without homes and in the same position as they were after the flood. It is very disappointing to me that there should be such an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the Minister. The water was previously in high flood, but nevertheless it has never been so high at Christiana as it is now. The water level is well known. It was higher at Christiana than it ever was previously, but yet the water at other places was not as high as previously. If the Minister will come and Took for himself he can convince himself about it. We surveyed all of it before witnesses. It is very curious that the Government have not adopted the report of the commission that was on the spot. It is very likely because their report was that the Department was responsible. We shall ventilate the matter immediately. This is tantamount to the Minister plunging us into expense, and that is going to create difficulty. We have now dallied with the matter for 15 months, and we cannot do otherwise now. We shall have to refer the matter to the Water Court or take legal advice and carry on with it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 36.—“Justice”, £710,000, put.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 23rd May.