as Chairman, brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the N’Jelele Irrigation District Adjustment Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 2-7th March.

I ask for leave to make a correction, by way of a statement, which I regard as necessary. In the debate which took place here yesterday in connection with the strike at Johannesburg, it was alleged by an hon. member, who did so under a misapprehension, that I interviewed the Prime Minister the previous day in connection with the strike; that I brought the situation to his notice, and that only in consequence of that did he take certain steps. I think it is not more than fair to say that the statement was made under a misapprehension. I had no such interview with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister or any other hon. Minister.

I took it that it was said under a misapprehension.

I am sorry I did not make the correction in replying. I intended to do so, but unfortunately it escaped my memory. I thought that since it might create a wrong impression, it was only fair to correct it on this occasion.

I move—

The Hon. Minister of Finance gave us his reasons yesterday why he has constantly had to come to the House to have his original Main Estimates amended and implemented. I would just like to say to the Minister today that we on this side of the House are by no means satisfied with the excuses which he laid before us. We have three accusations against the Minister. The first is that this year the Minister has amended his Main Estimates more frequently than ever before in the history of our Parliament, as far as I know. That is No. 1. The one set of estimates had scarcely been disposed of when the Minister came along with new estimates involving more expenditure. I am objecting to the way the Minister is wasting the time of this House and the unnecessary expense to the country. It costs money to ask the House and come along with another estimate of additional expenditure when the first has barely been disposed of and when it has to be considered from the start. It is an unnecessary waste of time and money. Our second reproach is that the amount he requires this year is unduly high. He started off with an estimate of £116,000,000; he has ended up with an estimate of £135,000,000. It is true that it represents savings, but the sum of money which the Minister has required in his estimates has increased from £116,000,000 to £135,000,000, i.e. by £19,000,000. That is unduly high. Our third reproach is that the Minister of Finance is asking for an appropriation in the Additional Estimates which should in the first instance have appeared on the Main Estimates. The Minister is sheltering behind the large amount in respect of UNRRA. He says that is the main reason why it is such a large amount. Does the Minister in all sincerity want to tell us that he did not know at the beginning of the year that UNRRA would require the total amount of the contribution this year? Can the Minister make anyone believe that? Everyone knew that UNRRA would be requiring the money during the first year after the end of the war, and yet the Minister did not incorporate it in the estimates. Instead of that it is submitted to Parliament for approval in instalments. I am sorry if the Minister takes it amiss but the impression we have is that the Minister is afraid to place his whole estimate of expenditure before Parliament; afraid that it will be a shock to the public. That is why he is submitting it to the public in instalments. At first his estimates were for £116 million; then for £122 million; then £125 million; then £130 million, and then £135 million. “The constant dripping that wears away the stone.” I do not want to go so far as to say that the Minister is doing so intentionally because that would amount to an admission that he wants to mislead the public and Parliament completely, but it is extraordinary that amounts are shown in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure which the Minister must verily have known last year would be expended; and why did those amounts not appear in the Main Estimates? In the olden days we knew that when the Main Estimates were submitted to us there may still have been unforeseen expenditure but that it was a sincere attempt to give the House an indication of the expenditure during the whole year. We no longer have that feeling since the Minister of Finance has come along with his new-fangled method. The Minister is over-doing the practice of having additional estimates. Our impression is that it is being done with a fixed purpose. I have mentioned the case of UNRRA. We all knew that UNRRA’s expenditure would be due during the first year, i.e. the levy of 1 per cent. of the national income, but the Minister preferred to obtain it in instalments. Take the Minister of Transport. An amount of £300,000 was appropriated in the Main Estimates and he has ended up with nearly £700,000. Does the Minister mean to tell us that he did not know ahead that he would be requiring motor cars and that he had to purchase them? That was a very bad calculation. He knew what the position was in regard to the garages and whether it would be necessary to purchase the cars or whether it was not so urgent and that it could wait. I want the Minister to give a clear reply to this question. The time is due for this House to lodge a strong protest against this manner of submitting estimates to Parliament and to the public. Unless we lodge a serious complaint things will go from bad to worse. As far as I can recall it has never come before us to this extent. It is a matter of degree. If it had been found necessary in the past to come with unforseen expenditure, that is no reason why the system should be abused. I want to lodge the strongest protest against that and I think the time is overdue for this House to tell the Minister of Finance that he should put a stop to this method which is undermining Parliamentary control. That is putting it mildly. It is an undermining of Parliamentary control over the volume of expenditure which the Government is allowed to make during the year. Had we known at the beginning of the year that the expenditure would be £135 million the House might have judged differently. I am not referring to the increase in the case of the Police; that is something which the Minister could not have foreseen and it is a good thing that an additional estimate was submitted in regard to that. But leaving that out of account I would like the Minister to tell us what there is in the Additional Estimates which he could not have foreseen last year. The Treasury finds it convenient to submit the country’s estimates of expenditure to the public in instalments. It is not fair towards the House, it is not fair towards the country. It undermines Parliamentary control, and I take the strongest exception to that.

I do not think that a single member of this House wishes to prolong the discussion on this question, because there is a very important matter which will come up for discussion later regarding the appropriation of Dongola. I know that everybody is anxious to get to it as soon as possible. When I look around, I see how interested everybody is in it. I see, for instance, the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) straining at the leash like a bloodhound. He is trying hard to reconcile his conscience with the interests of his constituents, and we know in what a difficult position he finds himself. While it is the desire of everyone to have this question dealt with as soon as possible, I do not want to dwell on it too long, but we cannot get away from the fact that it is a very important matter to vote £2 million, and that it is something which should have the serious attention of this House. It struck me recently how quickly and almost light-heartedly big sums of money are voted by this House. It is in the interest of the country that we should give much more attention to the money voted by the House of Assembly, and also to the details for which it is voted, than has been given in many cases up to now. I am certain that, despite the desire to come to the important matter which stands third on the agenda, we will be failing in our duty if we do not give our full attention to the details for which this £2 million is voted. For that reason I rise to make a small contribution to the discussion of this £2 million. I wish to heartily endorse everything said here by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), especially regarding the manner in which the Minister of Finance brings his Estimates before this House. We have now had the Estimates, then the first Additional Estimates, and now we have, the second Additional Estimates, and there is much more in these Additional Estimates than what we see at first glance. Parliament is inclined to compromise itself in one or another matter which comes before it, without knowing how much money will eventually be spent in connection with it, and when it once begins with expenditure, it is very difficult to avoid the expenditure which follows in its train. I would like to mention a few examples. A few years ago we were asked to vote money for a new post office for Cape Town. I speak under correction, but we were asked to vote about £400,000. Parliament decided that it would be justified in spending £400,000 on a new post office for Cape Town. But the following year the Minister of Public Works said that he had asked for too little money, and that he wanted another £300,000. Look at the position in which Parliament was placed. I do not know whether Parliament would have agreed in the first instance that Cape Town should have had a new post office that would have cost £700,000. I doubt it. But they went on and the Minister later asked for still more money, until the post office in Cape Town eventually cost nearly a million pounds, although Parliament had voted only £400,000 in the first place. After Parliament began with the expenditure, it was difficult to stop, but if the Minister had asked for a million pounds in the first place, it is doubtful whether Parliament would have said that the old post office should be sold, and that the new post office costing a million pounds should be built. When the £400,000 was asked for, it seemed reasonably cheap and it was agreed to. The foundations were laid and the walls were built for a little way, then £300,000 more was asked for; and later it happened again. Parliament was then compromised and the amount got bigger and bigger. It reminds me of the man who said that a carpet was a very expensive thing to buy. His wife told him that she could get a pretty carpet cheaply, with the result that he bought it for her. The result was that he had to build a room to suit the carpet, so that it cost him £800 or £1,000. I think that we in this House must insist that an end is made of that sort of procedure. Why not, before the department asks money for a building, draw up a suitable plan and make a proper estimate of the expenditure? In the past they submitted a plan, almost like the plans the people of Hermanus submitted to the building control. But that is a matter to which perhaps we will come later. At the moment the Department of Public Works not only draws up plans. They work out the scheme and they make an estimate before they come to the House. An enormous change has come about, and we can now say with a large degree of certainty that the estimates will not be exceeded. Perhaps here and there there is a small excess. One cannot foresee all the small things when one builds a house. We know for example that it was thought necessary to build the best office that any Minister occupies in the post office in Cape Town. But those are small matters. But why cannot this sound policy which the Department of Public Works now follows, also be applied to the finances of the land as a whole? But instead we have the Budget, and then the first and after that the second Additional Estimates. Where will it end? The trouble with the Government is that it does not know where it stands., That is another question; it does not know if it will stand outside this House or inside this House. We on this side know where we stand, but it is obvious that the Government does not know where it is going to sit. I do not want to play the part of a prophet, but it is obvious to any person who uses a minimum of common sense that the Government does not know where it stands, and also does not know where it will sit in the future. Why cannot the Minister of Finance tell us in the Budget how much money is needed for expenditure for the year? A portion of the expenditure is asked for, and if we put a halter round our necks it goes on and on and more money must be voted. The first Additional Estimate was £6 million; and the second is £2 million. That is very unsatisfactory. We want the Minister to know what he wants. The other Ministers must go to the Minister of Finance and say what they want. That must be the end of the matter, and then we know where we stand. Let me quote another example. Take the Provincial Administrations. We know that they are not the most efficient administrations in the country. Here at the end of the financial year they ask for another third of a million pounds. They know what they have to spend. They spend money on education especially, and surely an actuary is not necessary to determine how many children will attend school the following year. They have the particulars from year to year. They must spend money on hospitals.

They do that.

I hope the hon. member will make use of the opportunity to tell us more about that.

They do not spend enough.

They should know in advance what they are going to spend, and then it would not be necessary to be a third of a million short at the end of the financial year. Take Customs and Excise, for which an additional £43,000 is required. It is not a department which erects buildings and does similar work. It consists of a small number of officials who have to do with the collection of customs and excise. The Government knows how many of them are necessary, and it is inconceivable why an exact calculation cannot be made. The expenditure of the Department is not incalculable. It is a department which does routine work. They do the work very well, but it is quite inexplicable why they cannot estimate in advance exactly what the expenditure of the Department will be. In connection with Union Education there is an increase of £64,000. I understand that it is chiefly for a building for the medical faculty for the University of Pretoria. We will come to that later. For native education £252,000 more is asked. Last year there was a very interesting discussion over that. The Minister of Native Affairs was very annoyed with the members who represent the natives in Parliament, and it looked as if he agreed more with the members on this side than with the members of his own party. I was under the impression that we had reached a degree of finality in connection with the matter, that we knew what the school attendance would be, the number of teachers, and also what would he necessary for school feeding for the native children, and that the Department would know precisely what the expenditure would be for the following year. But this Department also trots to the Minister of Finance; together with the other Departments they gather round the Minister of Finance like a flock of eagles who all want something more. With his well known generosity, the Minister presents his first Additional Estimate, and he gives a surprising sum of money for native education; and now he is doing it again. Only two months later he allocated a colossal additional sum for native education, and now another £252,000. It is an enormous sum of money. The Minister of Finance is apparently surprised at it. May I remind him what the expenditure of the Union was in 1912? It was £16 million on Revenue Account and £3½ million on Loan Account, an amount of £19½ million for the whole year.

We are now four times older.

I have always heard that the older a man gets the less money he spends. I am quite willing to accept that we have developed, and that as a result it is necessary to spend more money. There has also been a depreciation of our currency. The £ has decreased in value. I accept that the expenditure of the Government is bigger today than it was then, but I want to say to the hon. member who usually sits there in the corner that if he thinks back on this matter—he probably thinks off and on— more off than on—he will realise that the increase in expenditure is an exceptional increase. Where we had expenditure of £16 million in 1912, and where it is now six times as much or more, I ask if it is in keeping with the increase in population. The population has only increased by 12 per cent. Is that in keeping with the depreciation of our currency, which is about 33⅓ per cent.?

The hon. member must come back to the reasons for the increase.

I am sorry because it is a very interesting matter which one would like to go into a little further. The Minister of the Interior misjudged, not for the first time, but for the second time, to the extent of the large amount of almost £160,000. For Public Health £88,000 more is asked. In connection with Public Health I must say that that is a fortunate mistake. We had hoped that the Minister of Public Health would have misjudged to the extent of a few million pounds, as it would then have been possible for him to carry out his own scheme.

The hon. member may only discuss the reasons for the increase.

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing the reasons for the increase, but at the same time I wish to express my disappointment that they are not bigger. Then we come to the Directorate of Demobilisation. Look, we must not take Parliament for a fool as this man does. His estimate is £3,533,042, more than £3,500,000, and do you know what he asks for? Only £97. Imagine, £97 more on an estimate of £3,500,000. This is just stupidity. I am now discussing reasons for the increases, and there is no reason for this increase. We are after all grown up people, and not a lot of children. Now, here is the vote for Labour, £42,000 out at the second attempt. Mines £57,900. Lands £43,000. Well, naturally no one expected Lands to be anywhere near correct. Regarding Superior Courts, at the second attempt they were £37,800 out. Are we now going to get a lot of judges? That would be understandable, because we know the position in the courts. There is an accumulation of work. If one has an ordinary civil case, it sometimes takes months and months before one can get a decision. So this £37,000 is justified if by it we are going to have a speeding up in legal proceedings. We do not want to have the position here of America. In America naturally there are other reasons why there is such an enormous delay in connection with cases. We know that there are all sorts of technical possibilities which can be brought up by parties to get extension, one extension after the other, which has almost brought their courts into discredit. That is naturally not what happens in South Africa, but the Bench is overworked in our country, even in the hours which they work they cannot deal with the work. If this £37,000 means that the people who prosecute will pay, and not their estates, which now happens often as a result of the delay, we will not have much objection to this vote. On “Prisons and Gaols” £33,000 more is required. That is naturally a very serious matter, because it is a reflection of the social conditions as they exist in South Africa today, and here £33,000 more is spent to make more provision for the offenders who are sentenced. It opens naturally a whole vista of other matters, as for example, are we dealing with the whole matter of crime as a criminal or legal matter, and should we not rather approach it from a social point of view. Because we do not approach the matter from a social viewpoint, but more from a legal viewpoint, there must be more gaols. Perhaps it would not be necessary to spend the £33,000 if the Minister of Native Affairs took the necessary steps to keep potential criminals from our big cities, and if we approached the whole matter of crime from a social viewpoint. After all, we are almost all potential criminals. The only question is whether circumstances are such that one goes from potentiality to reality. I do not want to go into the matter further. I want to come to the £150,000 extra which the Minister of Agriculture needs. We would like to know if it is to give us a little more meat. But that additional amount on a total of £2 million is a little too much. We would like to have more details. There are many other points on which I would like to speak, but I have not yet had time to study the whole book. I just open at any page. Here I find for instance under Vote No. 4 an additional amount of £5,000 for “Provision for maintenance of official premises and furniture in Switzerland, Italy, Holland Belgium, Germany and France.” First the amount was £2,000. Then we thought it was a lot, but now it is £5,000 more for furniture. It is not an increase of 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., but 350 per cent. If we had been asked last year to vote £7,000, I doubt whether the House would have accepted it. I’m getting along quickly now. We come now to Vote No. 13, K, “Refunds and Remissions of Grace or Favour.” The English text reads “Refunds and Remissions of Grace or Favour.” The first thing I want to draw attention to is that the Afrikaans and the English text are not the same.

What is the difference?

A lot. In the one case it says “uit grasie”; in the other case “of grace.” The first means out of generosity, but “of grace” sounds rather episcopalian. The £20,000 is the Minister’s degree of grace. I think we are all pleased to see that the Minister’s heart is suddenly becoming tender. His colleagues will also be pleased but I do not know if it is a very good thing. A Minister of Finance should be hard-hearted, he should be like Agab whose heart was of stone, and who later became tender and allowed the priests of Baal to be murdered.

Order, order. The hon. member must now come back to the reasons for the increase in the votes.

Yes, I will come away from the modem Agab. No one takes the Minister amiss when of favour and grace, he assists people who in ignorance have acted wrongly and have been fined. If anyone purposely transgresses the Customs Act, he is fined heavily, but if anyone does it innocently, the Minister could of grace repay the amount, or at least a portion. But why the sudden increase? Then we come to Vote No. 17 Q—“Grants for Capital Expenditure to the University of Pretoria for a new medical building”, £43,300. That is something which pleases us all. We know that the medical education of students in South Africa leaves much to be desired, that there is too big a shortage to serve the interests of the country. But I should like to know if enough provision has been made for education now, so that we will have more doctors. I hope that there are no hon. members who are opposed to this, because if there are, I should like to give a few arguments why they are, in my opinion, making a mistake. If one rides through the country of South Africa, one is surprised to see how many medical practitioners are leaving the country for the towns. The reason is that in the town you can make a better living, and one cannot blame them. As long as even the towns are not provided for sufficiently, you will have that position. [Time limit.]

I would just like to put a few questions in regard to Loan Vote D where additional amounts are being required for the Pongola Irrigation Settlement, for Vaal-Hartz and for Loskop. An additional £5,000 is being asked for Pongola. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance is aware of the fact that as far back as 1942 it was widely announced that no less than 200 holdings were being set aside for applicants in respect of populated settlements and that some 80 houses had already been constructed. As far as I have been able to ascertain not a single settler has been placed at Pongola. I therefore want to know what the object is of this £5,000 for a scheme for settlers which was completed years ago. It has been proved that the scheme has a great future, but those houses have been standing empty in spite of a large number of applications from returned soldiers. One is constantly hearing of applications by returned soldiers being turned down. Why then the £5,000 while there are nearly 100 houses which have been standing empty for years and when no applicants have been admitted there? Is the idea to build more houses which will also remain empty? Is the idea perhaps to lay the foundation for a sugar mill which should have been done long ago? Or is the amount being set aside for the purchase of more land for the settlement? I am very much interested in that settlement because I regard it as one of the best the Union has ever had or will ever have. At the same time I would like to know when applicants will be allowed to settle there. Then I come to the Vaal-Hartz Irrigation Settlement and I want to ask the same questions in regard to that. Originally Vaal-Hartz was intended for approximately 2,000 families. There, too, a number of applicants applied and their applications were turned down although the 2,000 mark has by no means been reached. Is the additional £20,000 being set aside for the purchase of more land or to have a larger number of holdings, or to make additional facilities available to existing settlers? Expectations were very high in South Africa in regard to that settlement. We should like to have the settlements developed, but in view of the fact that so many houses are standing empty while applications are being turned down we would like to know what is happening. Then I come to Loskop, where an additional amount of £4,000 is required. I have an idea it was originally intended to consist of 800 holdings and for the settlement of 800 various applicants. There we also find many applications being turned down and I would therefore like to know what the £4,000 is for. Then I would like to say something in regard to Social Welfare under Vote 28, i.e., the ordinary vote and not the Loan Vote. There an additional amount of £117,665 is being required. Will that money be used in connection with the department’s holdings, e.g. at Ganspan?

We have nothing here in connection with those holdings.

Then I leave it at that.

As regards the grant to the University of Pretoria under Vote 17 of an amount of £43,300 I would like to know what the position is at present.

I have already explained that. It simply means that we are now making provision on the Revenue Account instead of on the Loan Account.

I just want to say that we know, of course, how extremely important it is and I hope it will not remain at that, but that the Minister will go beyond that and that he will make provision for the necessary buildings and staff. The Minister is aware of the difficulties with which not only this university but also other universities have to cope, viz. that the classes are becoming too large to manage. At the University of the Witwatersrand 360 students are attending the second year medical course, 210 of whom are ordinary students and 150 returned soldiers. There is a chronic lack of space. Then as regards the Jan Kriel School Hostel for epileptics an additional amount of £20,000 is required for extension purposes. Is that the total amount of the grant or is it the first instalment?

That is the first instalment.

Then the work can be commenced with. We are grateful for the provision which has been made for the work. It forms part of all the social security work we intend to do for the public. We have always felt that we should make provision under Social Welfare for the partly unfit and semi-fit as an important sub-division of social security. We regard the employment and training of that part of the community who cannot look after themselves and who require assistance from the State, as part of social security. We are glad to notice that such an amount has been set aside. Of course, if we are of the opinion that social security is not to be established through charity or by means of pensions, we should equip the public, including the semi-fit and the unfit section of the public, to the utmost extent so as to allow them to contribute towards their own security. I do now want to allege that it is a cheap method. We notice in these estimates that steps in this direction are in fact being taken. Two large amounts are being appropriated in the case of epileptics and in the case of the unfit. We welcome the fact that we are now moving in that direction, but before the Minister again comes with estimates next year and with supplementary estimates such as these, we consider it would be better for the department to compile estimates at the beginning of the financial year to cover any possible expansion; i.e., that the department should decide at the beginning of the financial year in what direction the expansion is to take place. It is for that very reason that there is not enough planning, not only as regards the funds required, but also as regards the actual plans, that we constantly have these supplementary estimates coming before the House. We would like to have the Government once and for all compile a scheme of expansion in regard to semi-fit and unfit persons for whom provision is being made under Vote 29, which would naturally have to have a much wider scope than our present schemes, and if they do that, they should not have a five-year plan, but should at least have a one-year plan, and we can then have finality at the commencement of the year and know beforehand for the ensuing twelve months, in the first place, what we propose doing, and in the second place what the expenses would amount to. It would also mean that the department concerned can ask themselves: What is the object of our department; what is the object of the measures we are going to take? Unfortunately, we have too little continuity in our system of government. We have unfortunately got into the habit of trying to solve great problems in dribs and drabs, and I think the time has come for us to see that we envisage the entire scheme and then make the necessary provision. The problem of the settlement of physical semi-fits and unfits and of old persons is an extremely important question, and I consider that with the additional estimates we have here it is an indication that there is a very serious gap in our system. There is a lack of really carefully planned schemes. I realise that the salvation of that large section of our people— unfortunately, it is a large section of the people—who cannot look after themselves and for whom provision has to be made, is involved in this. I would like to have the department concerned take the matter into consideration; i.e., that having once made an estimate as to the number of persons in this country who have to be cared for, we should then, with a view to the future, with a view to our actual scheme in regard to these persons, see that we do not require to come here with small supplementary estimates in connection with the matter, but that we work out a comprehensive scheme once and for all which would enable us to have one comprehensive estimate in regard to the scheme. The work which is now being done with the £32,700 should include the important problem in regard to the management of the unfit, the semi-fit and old persons. We are training personnel—social personnel — and also personnel for the re-education of these people. Whether provision is in fact being made in the additional estimates, and whether a portion of this will have to be used for the training of that personnel cannot be deduced from the details supplied here. It is of the utmost importance that the department, in expending this money, should devote its attention to the fact that in many cases the personnel required for the training of these people is not available. These people require special training, and it entails specialised and difficult training. If provision has in fact been made in the £42,000 for the training of such personnel, we would lik to know how and where these people are being trained. We would like to know whether adequate provision is being made for the training of such personnel at our universities so that the money can be spent in the proper manner. When we spend more money on such an important matter on the medical side, we want to have the assurance that the department is looking for the necessary training staff, because if we do not make provision for that, i.e., if the increase is simply to be applied towards granting a little more here and a little more there, the work will end up in a failure, and we cannot afford or approve of increases of this nature unless we know that it is being used in the proper manner and that the staff required for the control and training and development of these persons consists of the proper sort of person and that they have had the proper training, because we do not want to have one single settlement of this nature ending in a failure. Too much depends upon that for us to allow any settlement or any institution of this nature to be a failure. I therefore say once again that we hope that the department will give us the assurance that the work will in all respects be performed in such a manner that our future plans in regard to semi-fit and unfit persons and even old persons will not be frustrated by weak organisation, by weak management and by having persons in control who have not had the proper training in the right spirit. If we can enable semi-fit persons in this country to receive a percentage of the earnings they would ordinarily have received, we could establish social security for our people on a much sounder basis in consequence of that percentage of earnings. I hope our discussion here will not have been in vain, and that the Minister of Finance will, in the absence of the Minister concerned, see that we set about this task in such a manner as to give the people the assurance that our work will not be frustrated by a system and through control which is not in every respect the proper one.

I just want to emphasise one aspect of this matter. I am very sorry that the Minister of Finance only is present and that the Prime Minister is not present.

He is in the Senate.

Yes, and I am not blaming him. I am simply saying that it is a pity that he is not present in view of what I want to say. We have just been listening to a very important speech by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) in connection with certain items of expenditure in these Estimates, but the Minister who should have been here to listen to it is not present. It has become a custom of late that when any financial measure is being dealt with practically the only Minister present is the Minister of Finance, and I want to protest against that. When any Estimates are being considered, be it an Additional Appropriation or a Part Appropriation or the Main Estimates, matters are discussed with which every Minister is concerned, and I consider it no more than reasonable as regards the House that when those matters are being considered the Ministers concerned should be present. The Minister of Finance obviously cannot reply to a speech such as the one which has just been made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, a speech which, although it concerned expenditure, has nothing to do with the Department of Finance. It has to do with the activities of the Department of Welfare, and the Minister of Welfare is not present. Neither is the Minister of Public Health present. I say that I hope the Government will appreciate the necessity—and this applies in the case of the Prime Minister who is in charge of his Cabinet—for every Minister to be in his place, if in any way possible, when the Estimates or second readings or third readings are dealt with, so as to be able to hear in person what is said on this or that side of the House in regard to matters which concern his department.

Surely you can discuss that in the Committee stage.

You know that the Other Place is also in session.

We are not dealing with the Committee now. A thousand and one matters are being raised here which cannot be discussed in the Committee stage, and the hon. member over there who has spent so many years in this House should know better.

You are simply repeating yourself.

That is a reflection against the Chair.

Order, order!

You will not take it amiss if I do not reply to those nonsensical interjections. The idea of the Minister of Finance sitting here and, having listened to the debate, going along and conveying to every Minister concerned what has been said in this House in regard to the department concerned is simply ridiculous. It cannot be done and it is not being done. I am very serious, and I hope the Minister of Finance will appreciate the reasonableness that Ministers should be in their places in order to be able to give their own replies to criticism expressed here; and if they do not reply, they can in any case pay attention to it. Even on the opposite side things are sometimes said of which the Ministers can take notice.

There was some talk on Pongola this afternoon, and the Minister knows nothing about that.

I do not want to take part in the debate further. I just want to express the wish that Ministers should in future be in their places when matters concerning their departments are discussed.

I am glad that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has managed to be present. I would like to discuss a matter with him which I regard as of the utmost importance. I am referring to Vote 45, G, “Subsidy in Respect of Railway Tariffs.” It comes under Vote Agriculture (General). I take it that the extra amount of £133,600 which is required here includes a portion of the original amount of £1¼ million provided for a subsidy and which also includes a subsidy on the railage of stock, i.e. cattle and other animals conveyed from drought-stricken districts to grazing areas. In view of that I trust that you will allow me to bring the seriousness of the position which has arisen to the notice of the House, and more particularly to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture.

The hon. member may only discuss the reasons for the increase and not the policy. The policy has already been approved of.

I want to say that the reason for the increase is to grant assistance to farmers who have conveyed stock from drought-stricken areas with the intention of having their stock returned after they have had rain. I want to say that in view of this fact it would be useless for the Minister to spend the amount which is now being asked for, the conditions in the country being what they are. I hope you will now give us an opportunity to raise the matter so as to enable the Minister to make a statement in regard to it. The Minister is aware of the fact that there has been an outbreak in certain parts of the country of that unknown disease known as lumpy skin disease. I want to discuss particularly the position in the Free State in general where this disease is rife, and in view of the fact that the Minister has now placed the whole of the Free State under quarantine so that cattle cannot be taken from one farm to another and cannot be returned even by rail to the farm from which they were originally sent on account of drought, I want to ask what can be the object of appropriating another £133,600 for a subsidy in respect of the conveyance of cattle.

It is not for that only.

No, originally an amount of £1,260,000 was required as a subsidy for the conveyance of agricultural products, and now an additional amount of £133,600 is required. I take it that a considerable portion of that will be utilised for the return of stock to the farms from which they were sent on account of the drought. I want to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that the farmers in the Free State and farmers all over the country and even agricultural organisations realise just as much as the Minister of Agriculture and the Government that we cannot lightly dispose of this matter of stock diseases and the lumpy skin disease.

Order, order. The hon. member is out of order.

I do not want to discuss the question of lumpy skin disease in detail but I just want to tell the Minister that it would be useless for him to ask for a subsidy for the conveyance of cattle to the farms from which they were originally sent.

The hon. member has already used that argument.

May I just say this then. The Hon. Minister will find that it will not be necessary for him to spend this money. The stock may not be sent back and they will die on the farms to which they have been sent. They will die during the winter months. The point I want to emphasise is that this House regards the appropriation of this amount as superfluous. That is my argument and I would like to hear whether the Minister of Agriculture will enable us to utilise the amount appropriated as a subsidy in respect of the conveyance of stock which have to be brought back from those farms to the original farms; whether he intends to grant relief in that respect. This is how he can do so: If the stock had trekked by road, he can now allow that stock to be sent back by rail. Will they not infect non-infected areas when they are conveyed by rail? I stood up to discuss this matter in view of the food shortage in this country and the serious situation with which we will have to cope during the winter months. Instead of merely eradicating stock diseases the Minister will altogether destroy our stock in applying these measures which he has adopted, and in view of that I would like to have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture as to whether he wants to apply the money he has at his disposal, i.e. the amount we are being asked to vote here, to assist the farmers under those difficult conditions in which they find themselves as a result of stock diseases; and whether he is going to assist us in some way or other while we are not in a position to have the stock moved one pace in either direction. I have raised this matter so as to give the Minister of Agriculture an opportunity to make a statement to the House in connection with this difficult question as the farmers are perturbed at the difficult situation in which they are placed.

I would like to say a few words on the Prisons Vote. I see that there is an increase of £33,000 on this Vote. We were all glad to see in this morning’s paper that so many persons have joined the police force, that the police force is once more on full strength. We feel that the police force should be maintained on full strength because crimes are being committed on a large scale today. One may walk nowhere at night nowadays without being attacked; but as far as prisons are concerned, I want to put a question to the Minister. The prisons staff have not received an increase of salary yet. The position is serious. These people are in the greatest danger every day whilst in the execution of their duties. We see how they are being assaulted.

Order, order. What vote is the hon. member discussing?

Vote 39, Prisons.

Under what item?

I will have a liik quickly. I notice under Item A (1) an increase is asked for, under salaries, wages and allowances. It is only £100, but in any case, a higher amount has been placed in the estimates, increasing salaries. The position in the Department is serious and it is most essential that this important matter should be deal with.

This £100 has nothing to do with that important matter.

But the whole Prisons Vote has something to do with it.

This £100 was only in respect of cost of living allowances.

There is also £2,400 here under salaries and wages, travelling expenses, etc., under B (1). There is an amount for wages and allowances. However small it may be, the important principle lies in the fact that today there is an acute shortage of prisons staff.

Order, order. The principle has already been approved of. The only matter that can be discussed here is the reasons for the increase of the vote.

There is an increase here under salaries. Have the salaries of the prisons staff been increased? The staff are looking forward to an increase in their salaries in view of the fact that the police have received salary increases and so far the prisons staff have not received anything yet. The result is that these people are resigning from the service and joining the police force. They are not remaining in the prisons service. I feel that it is essential to make the salaries of the prisons staff more attractive. These people deserve an increase in salary. If you grant this you will find that there will be a rush to join the staff. I understand that there is an acute shortage at present. I do not want to enlarge any further on this matter. I merely want to bring the fact to the attention of the Minister that there is a large measure of dissatisfaction amongst the staff because they have not received any salary increase as in the case of the police. Then I come to Vote No. 44. I see that an amount is provided here for experimental farms. There are also wages and salaries as in the case of the previous vote. There are experimental farms throughout the country, but there are certain parts of the country where the advancement of agriculture is handicapped by the fact that there are no experimental farms.

Order, order. The hon. member cannot discuss that point now.

I would just like to express the hope that we will get experimental farms in the areas represented by you and me. Now I come to Vote No. 45. I notice that an amount is asked for here in respect of a subsidy on butter. I do hope that you will allow me to say a few words on this. You know that during the great drought we had, we were not able to produce butter on as large a scale as previously. Why not? Because we had no food for our animals and consequently we could not produce the same quantity of butter. We suffered serious losses. We feel that the subsidy on butter and on any dairy product should be made as high as possible today in order to encourage production. Production must be encouraged and the Minister of Agriculture will meet with no difficulties if he does that. But the farmers are paralysed. Notwithstanding all their efforts to achieve larger production, they have had setbacks and they feel tired. What I want to recommend is that the Minister should pay a temporary subsidy to the farmers. I am not saying it should be permanent. We farmers do not believe in extremely high prices. What we want is compensation for the setbacks we experience during periods of drought, in order that we may be enabled to make up in the good times what we lose in the bad times. But the policy of the Department of Agriculture is this: As soon as there is larger production the prices fall. I am glad that this subsidy has been provided and it will naturally encourage the farmers to produce more butter. Now I come to N2, the subsidy on imported barley and oats. The price of oats has been fixed at 12s. 6d. The imported product will cost plus-minus 33s. I do not have the exact figure here but that is near enough.

36s.

The figure I have here is 33s.

Some are 30s. and some are 36s.

The average price thérefore is 33s. We all know what the position is. One cannot get oats. One cannot get seed. We feel that the farmers should be encouraged to produce, and then the price is fixed at this ridiculous figure of 12s. 6d. for oats. At that price one does not even risk sowing. Farming is the greatest gamble in South Africa. The farmer has to risk everything. Everything is a matter of chance. The drought caused crop failures on a large scale. I want to thank the Minister for sending twelve tractors to certain parts. The farmers have made use of these tractors very largely and they planted 500 bags of mealies in a very small area. The mealies grew well but there was no rain and now there will be no harvest, although they expected thousands of bags.

They can use it for ensilage.

Yes, but it costs them a lot and that is why I am asking for a higher subsidy on butter and cheese. I had to sign the I.O.U. myself for the £1 per morgen and I hope that the Minister will not claim this money because we cannot pay if we have no harvest. If oats is imported at 33s., how can we expect our own farmers to produce at 12s. 6d. and to pay 33s. for the seed? The imported oats costs 20s. more than the price our farmers get and could not the Minister only for this season grant a subsidy so that the price for the farmer could be 20s.? If the Minister will give his encouragement to the producer then in spite of all the difficulties and setbacks they will still make an effort to produce. Here in Cape Town I have a rest, but on the farm I do not work six hours per day, but it goes to 24 hours per day. That is what the farmer has to do and then he still meets with all these setbacks such as hail, frost, cold, droughts and so on. All these adversities strike at the farmer, and what does he get? I want to tell the Minister of Finance that in his Budget no relief has been given to the farmer.

Order, order.

I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will take these things into consideration and will increase the price for the farmers. If the farmer has to pay 33s. for seed oats, then he must get more for his product.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the increase of £6,000 on the Treasury Vote in respect of salaries, wages and allowances. On the other hand, there is an increase of almost 50 per cent. in respect of subsistence allowances, and then we come to the incidental expenses.

I have already dealt with that in the Committee stage. You were not here, apparently. It is in connection with the enquiry into gold mining taxation.

Thank you. Then I come to Vote No. 20. We find here that the Government has spent £26,000 instead of the estimated £20,000 for the purchase of tyres and tubes. The public has not received any concession yet as to the purchase of these articles, and I would like to know the reason why the Government bought so much more during the one year. The Vote for State diggings has been increased, from £211,000, by £50,000. In the Western Transvaal there are many people who have had crop failures and who cannot continue with their farming at present. They are pining for a digger’s certificate, but they cannot obtain it. Here we find, however, that an additional amount of £50,000 is being voted for digging to be carried on on a larger scale on the State diggings. I do not think that this is fair towards these poor people. Then I see that there is also an increase of £8,000 in connection with the dehydration of vegetables. I could understand that if there had been a surplus of fresh vegetables, but we know that, on account of the scarcity, housewives have not been able to get any fresh vegetables. Then I come to the importation of barley and Gats. There is no increase in the expenditure on this item, and I do not know whether I am allowed to talk on that.

It is a new Vote.

I am a maize farmer, but I have also sown oats. I took it to the Co-operative, and I discovered that I got 13s. 1d. for seed oats. That is an impossible position. I made enquiries, and I then discovered that the price of oats was fixed in relation to the price of maize. Apparently the Department could not fix any other price then, because the price of mealies had been fixed at 19s. Now oats is being imported at an average price of 33s. That is not fair treatment for the farmer, and the Minister of Agriculture should give his serious attention to this matter. If the relation should be maintained in respect of such a valuable product as mealies, then the price of mealies should be raised, because we know that at the moment it has been fixed at far too low a figure.

I wish to associate myself with what has been said here in connection with the import price of oats. We must approve of the fact that oats is being imported because we have not got it in the country. But is it a wise policy to fix the price for the oats farmer at such a low figure that it is not economical for them to sow oats? I know farmers whose sole means of existence is the production of oats, and I know that strong representations have been made to the Government for the price to be increased. This has not been done, and that is why there is a shortage of oats today. Oats is mostly produced in the Western Province and in other parts where the rainfall is high. The drought has not been such an important factor in the production of oats as the price which has been fixed at such a low figure that it has not been a paying proposition for the producer, and now we are importing oats at a price which is impossible for the consumer, with the result that the taxpayer has to contribute the difference. The difference between the price obtained by the farmer and the price at which it is imported is £1 per bag. I think that the Minister could really encourage the farmers by paying a better price for oats produced in South Africa. May I also in this connection discuss the difficulties experienced by consumers in obtaining oats?

No, the hon. member cannot discuss that in this connection.

Then I just want to say that it is almost impossible in view of all the forms which have to be completed. I want to appeal to the Minister to make it a paying proposition for farmers to sow oats by fixing a better price for them, and secondly, that he should make it easier for consumers to obtain oats. If the Minister does that, larger quantities of oats will be produced, and then it will not be necessary for him to import such large quantities.

I do not want to go into this question of oats, but I fear that evasion of the regulations is taking place. Somebody told me that he had to pay £1 6s. 9d. for a bag of seed-barley to a merchant. It was regarded as seed-barley, and for that reason he had to pay this high price instead of the fixed price of 13s. In another instance the person had to pay £1 per bag for seed-oats. He is complaining about this because the farmers in the Cradock Valley feel that it is impossible for them to pay that price for seed-oats. I want the Minister to make a statement in this connection and to say whether farmers have the right to take action against such people and to demand a refund of their money. In connection with Vote No. 43 I want to discuss the destruction of locusts. We must have more information about the destruction of red locusts. Why is provision only being made for red locusts and not for the grey locusts? Locusts breed in the Kalahari and in the western half of Africa, and we are always in danger of being threatened by these locust swarms from the North. I cannot help feeling that the authorities in the North are really weak in their efforts to exterminate the red locusts. Although they are paid certain amounts by way of assistance they are not carrying out the combating measures, and we have invasions from the North down the East coast. We feel that much more should be done in the northern parts and that we should see to it that the best methods are used to make the combating effective. It is no use spending money to exterminate the locusts here if there are no effective combating measures in the North. The Minister should go into this matter and make a statement to us with regard to the steps taken by those people, what methods they use and whether their methods are the same as ours. The Portuguese are the greatest culprits. Many locusts breed in the northern parts, and the combating measures taken there are not effective. If there is to be international co-operation then it should not only be the Union which fulfils its duties but the people in the North should do their share too. Then I come to animal husbandry and agriculture. Under animal husbandry the new scheme for milk registration will probably come. I want the Minister to make a statement on the new scheme. In the past registration has been very haphazard, and I trust that with this new committee there will be an improvement. I have had experience …

The hon. member is going too far now. He can only discuss the reasons for the increase.

I presume that the new milk registration scheme is one of the reasons for the increase.

The various items are specified.

This committee travels around in connection with the registration scheme.

I cannot make any statement until I have received their report.

But may I discuss it?

The hon. member may only discuss the reasons for the increase.

But this is one of the reasons for the increase.

No, it is not one of the reasons.

I merely wanted to help the Minister, but now I am not allowed to. Then I would like to say something about Commerce and Industries.

On which Vote does the hon. member wish to speak?

Vote No. 42, under which there is an increase of £1,500.

That has been explained by the Minister in the Committee stage.

I see it is in connection with salt which was imported. I would like to know why salt was imported.

The Minister explained it in the Committee stage. You were probably not here.

But then the Minister could repeat it to me. We really feel that salt should not be imported because we have some of the best salt in the world in the country. In my constituency we have salt pans where the salt is 95 per cent. pure, and I do not think that there is any better salt in the world, so why should salt be imported? I do not know whether under this Vote I will be allowed to discuss an irregularity which occurred in the Department of the Minister.

No, it only deals with salt.

Then I want to protest once more against the importation of salt. In my constituency there are magnificent salt pans, and we know that there is plenty of salt in the country.

Last year there was a shortage.

There is not a shortage now. Probably salt was exported for the manufacture of shells. We can produce all the salt we need in this country, and if these people are encouraged I assure you that we could produce more than we need. We are not in the unfortunate position of some other countries such as Australia, where they have to extract salt from seawater. We have the natural resources, and instead of the Minister paying an amount of £1,500 for the importation of salt, he should rather use that to encourage the production of the best types of salt in our own country.

I move—

Upon which the House divided:

I second.

Ayes—61:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson. R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—29:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Motion for the second reading of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, House to go into Committee on the Bill on 21st March.

I move—

I object.

The Committee has leave to insert a new clause to follow clause 6.

The Committee reverted to clause 4, standing over.

I move—

I hope that this motion will not be agreed to. We have prepared ourselves to discuss this important Bill. We have already discussed several aspects of this matter and if this Bill for which we have prepared ourselves has to stand over now, then we will be put in a most unsatisfactory position. Not much time will probably be given to the matter then. Let us rather dispose of it first and then deal with the next motion. I do hope, therefore, that the Minister of Finance will not insist on his motion.

I want to express the hope that the Minister of Lands who now proposes that this Bill should stand over, will give us an undertaking that the amendment of which he gave notice and which appears in the Order List, will still be considered by him.

I give no further undertaking.

I am sorry that the Minister is taking up that attitude. When this matter was under discussion a few days ago, he did ultimately after full consideration decide to depart from his original intention. But now the concession made by him in his amendment is not of very much use. I had hoped that when the Minister of Finance moved that this Bill now stand over, that it was the intention of the Minister of Lands to reconsider this matter. That is necessary. I wonder if hon. members realise what really is at issue in connection with this matter. The Minister comes along with certain proposals for subsidies to irrigators and he now wants to make a small concession. We asked him to take into consideration the granting of assistance also to the original irrigators, and the Bill was withdrawn and the Minister said he would consider that. Now the Minister comes along with an amendment to bring about a certain change, but the change is so small …

The hon. member may not discuss the amendment.

I merely want to discuss the motion of the Minister of Finance for this Bill to stand over. We had hoped that the Minister of Lands would reconsider the matter and that he would take into review the amendment of which he had given notice. If the Minister of Lands gives the undertaking that he would further consider the matter, I want to make an appeal to members here, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member for Pietersburg that hon. members have prepared themselves to discuss irrigation legislation, nevertheless to allow that the Bill stand over. But if the Minister does not want to give this undertaking I want to appeal to members on the Government side, particularly the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and other hon. members who have knowledge of irrigation and who know that it will be to the disadvantage of the irrigators, to exert pressure on the Minister, in withdrawing this Bill, now to consider making a different proposal from the one of which he has given notice. I hope they will help us in asking the Minister to consider another proposal. In that case we will have no objection to this Order of the Day standing over.

I want to appeal to the Minister not to postpone the consideration of this Bill. We have prepared ourselves to discuss it. I want to tell the Minister of Finance that if this Bill stands over, it will place me personally in a very difficult position. This Bill is of great importance to my constituency which is dependent upon irrigation and my constituency has the greatest interest in this Bill and in having it passed as soon as possible. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, but I do know whether I will be here later in the week. One makes one’s arrangements according to the time one has. I have other appointments.

Your primary duty is to be here.

I want to say this to the Minister that if all members of Parliament, including himself, would attend as faithfully as I do, there would never be any complaints. I know that the Minister has a majority enabling him to postpone the matter and to make it as inconvenient as possible for me. But the position is simply this: that I have no interest in the other subject which is coming up for discussion, apart from the fact that Dongola is a part of this country. But this matter of irrigation if of special importance to my constituency. Let us dispose of that. There is only one amendment. We could finish in an hour or one and a quarter hours. But even if it takes longer it is a most important matter. If I were to make political capital out of this motion, then the Minister had rather proceed with it. I will enjoy telling the public that the Minister of Lands who always professes such fondness for the farmers has discriminated against them. Any other person or company or any municipality can obtain a subsidy of £10,000 without having to come to Parliament but the poor farmer can only get £300.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion before the House.

I appeal to the Minister. If he does not want to, I must submit, but the position is simply that every dog has his day.

I am greatly disappointed with the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) for not supporting me. I know that he feels the same as I do. He also represents irrigators and knows that if the Bill were to be delayed and the Minister does not do what I asked him to do, there would be no opportunity to have an amendment adopted in Committee. If the hon. member does not put in a word for the irrigators now it means that he is leaving them in the lurch in the same way as the Minister is doing today. The Minister is in a hurry to come to the next motion. Why? Because it is a motion on the Dongola Reserve, and in that he makes no provision for settlers but for social security for baboons and snakes. He is more concerned with that than about the irrigators for whom we are pleading. The hon. member for Rustenburg and others say that they represent irrigators but they are leaving the irrigators in the lurch if they do not support us at this stage to get a promise from the Minister that he will reconsider the amendment. The amendment which the Minister has on the Order Paper does not satisfy us. I thought the Minister of Finance moved for the Order of the Day to stand over so as to allow the Minister of Irrigation, at the latter’s request, to reconsider the matter; but we now have to assume that the Minister of Lands is not prepared to do so, and therefore I can only appeal to the hon. member for Rustenburg and other hon. members who represent irrigators to support me.

I was not under the impression that the clause was being discussed now because we are not yet in Committee on the Bill. All the discussion which is taking place now is a sheer waste of time. It is really reprehensible for the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) to stir up suspicion against me. It is not justified.

Don’t you want to have the Bill disposed of?

The position is that the Bill is not under discussion.

Is it not of greater importance than to discuss Dongola?

The present discussion is a waste of time and the hon. member must appreciate that. When the Bill comes up for discussion I shall do my duty.

May I just tell the hon. member for Rustenburg that the position is that the Minister of Lands has given notice of an amendment on the Irrigation Bill, and if that amendment were to be discussed in Committee, an amendment such as the one we want to have will not be allowed, because what we want will involve increased expenditure, and as the hon. member knows, that cannot be allowed without the approval of the Governor-General. When, therefore, the Minister of Finance now asks for this Order of the Day to stand over until a later occasion, the opportunity is at hand to ask the Minister of Lands to reconsider the matter. Unless the hon. member for Rustenburg supports us now in our request to the Minister of Lands to reconsider the matter, it is simply going to mean that he will not have the chance later on to have an amendment adopted. I know that the hon. member for Rustenburg feels as we do, viz., that the amendment which the Minister has placed on the Order Paper will not satisfy the country. Now is the time to appeal to the Minister of Lands, and I am asking the hon. member for Rustenburg to give us his support, otherwise I shall accuse him of having left the irrigators in the lurch. I hope therefore that since the hon. member now understands the position, he will support me and will insist on such an undertaking from the Minister of Irrigation. I am now reverting to the Minister of Irrigation, and once more I am asking him to promise to reconsider the matter. The Minister knows well enough that if he were to leave the matter to an open vote in this House, not one farmer will say that the Minister’s proposal is adequate. It does not meet with the wishes and the requirements of the people. I would therefore ask him to reconsider the matter, and to see whether he cannot draft a better Bill, a new amendment, which will involve increased expenditure, but which will surely meet with the approval of the House. If the Minister withholds that promise I must also accuse him of leaving the irrigators in the lurch, and he will hear more about that later. The Minister prides himself on how much he wants to do for irrigation ….

The hon. member should confine himself to the motion.

I will have occasion later to expose the Minister and to show that he is simply priding himself and does nothing. But I still hope that if the motion is accepted for this Order of the Day to stand over, the Minister will reflect calmly on the matter tonight and that he will come to the conclusion that he owes it to the irrigators to meet them to a greater extent.

I am sorry about the Minister’s attitude. The Minister of Lands is a practical man, and up to now he has handled the Irrigation Bill in a reasonable manner. But why should it now suddenly stand over? The principles contained in the Bill, the ideas, are excellent.

The hon. member cannot discuss the merits of the case.

I want to point out that the Minister is missing a golden opportunity to have the Bill put through. There will be few amendments only, and he will have a good legislative measure adopted. I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side who are in favour of this measure why they want to postpone the matter. Had the Minister carried the matter through, his name would have been perpetuated, and many of his sins would have been forgotten. He is missing a golden opportunity, and I hope that the Minister will proceed with the Bill.

I want to address a final appeal to the Minister of Finance. He must realise that he is now doing something which will not reflect to his credit. The Minister of Finance is responsible for arranging the Order Paper, and he arranged the Orders, and we have prepared ourselves accordingly. If he wants to depart from it in such a frivolous manner, he should realise that he cannot expect us to have the confidence in him which we would have had if he had adhered to his own agenda. In the first place, the guillotine is being applied to the second reading of a Bill. Several members still wanted to deal with certain subjects for good reasons. Now the Minister comes along and wants to postpone the consideration of the second Order of the Day. We have prepared ourselves for its consideration. Had the Minister placed the motion in connection with Dongola first, we would have had to submit, but the Minister failed to do so, and now comes along and changes the sequence without consultation. The usual procedure is to consult the opposite side of the House whenever the Order Paper is altered. Now, all of a sudden, the Minister comes along and moves for the matter to stand over. Surely we all feel that the matter which now has to stand over is of greater importance than the next item on the Order Paper, which seeks to offer protection to baboons and wild animals. If the Minister insists on his motion it means that he is frivolously altering the Order Paper and is playing ducks and drakes with Parliament; that a matter of major importance to the country is being postponed for the sake of pleasure.

I am sorry that the Minister of Finance does not realise that he has made a mistake. As the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has rightly remarked, the Minister of Finance has acted in a frivolous manner. He has submitted no reason, or rather no serious reason, for altering the agenda. He treats it as a joke, but we do not regard it as a joke. Many members would have liked to have taken part in the discussion on the Bill which should have come first. They would like to have certain amendments incorporated to the advantage of the irrigators. In spite of the attitude of the Minister of Lands we are still hoping to convince him that certain changes are necessary in the interests of the irrigators. If the Minister would promise to consider the matter we would still vote for the motion bv the Minister of Finance for the matter to stand over, but the Minister of Lands does not want to give that promise. Under the circumstances, we can only deplore the attitude of the Minister of Finance. An important Bill, which is of great significance to the country, has to stand aside for something which is of no importance and the agenda has to be altered in a frivolous manner. I wonder how many citizens of our country have any interest in the Dongola scheme: those who have any interest in it and who live there are all opposed to the scheme. I feel sure that the Minister of Lands has not had one single representation made to him by the rest of the country in favour of the reserve and all the farmers in that area are against it. Important legislation now has to stand over and that is very unfair. It is to the disadvantage of the country and is being done for the sake of a measure which will only benefit baboons and wild animals. We are shocked at the attitude of the Minister and the Government. The Government allege that they realise their responsibility and this is the way they carry on. Well, these little things are nails in the coffin of the Government. The Government is ignoring the real interests of the country and is placing the interests of animals above those of the people. The Government is bringing about its own downfall. We welcome that but we have a duty towards our country and we have to consider the interests of the country and when such unreasonable proposals are made we are obliged to protest. I hope that if the Minister of Finance were to have his way, in spite of his frivolous action, and this motion for the second Order of the Day to stand over were to be adopted, the Minister will see that the Irrigation Bill will not stand over for such a length of time that hon. members who take an interest in it and who want to have an Irrigation Act passed, cannot be present. Members on the opposite side are apparently indifferent to irrigation matters. I have appealed to certain members on the opposite side. It is not necessary to mention their names because I doubt whether more than one or two of them take any interest in irrigation matters. Had they taken any interest in them they would have supported us. We can only deplore the relegation of irrigation matters in our country to the background to enable the Minister of Lands and his Government to continue with another matter. I hope that the Minister of Lands will make representations to the Minister of Finance to have this Bill again brought before the House, so that we can adopt it in an amended version in the manner we propose to improve on it, i.e. in the interests of irrigation in South Africa.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—60:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen. R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, Ó. J.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—30:

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

The motion that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again was then put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—29:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels. C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 21st March.

I move—

I second.

May I just remind hon. members that this motion consists of two parts and that I have to put it in two parts. The first part will be up to and including the words “last session”, and the second part will include the rest of the motion as it appears on the Order Paper.

I just want to understand the position clearly. If the first part of the motion is adopted and you put the second part, can we discuss the whole motion?

No, the hon. member can only discuss that part of the motion which is put. I put the first part of the motion—

Then I would like to object to the first part, viz. that leave be granted to the Minister to resume the proceedings on the Bill at the stage at which they were suspended last session. I am surprised to find that the Government has again brought this Bill before the House after the information they have acquired in the meantime. I can imagine that the Minister had certain information and data on which he acted when he first brought this measure before the House. I take it that he was bona fide under the impression that he was acting in the interests of the country, in the light of the information he had at his disposal; but with the information we now have and which all the members of the House now have, we most certainly cannot proceed with the Bill at this stage. I understand that I cannot go into the merits of the Bill.

No, the hon. member may not do so now.

Then I want to refrain from doing so; but let us go into the dangers underlying this Bill and see how the interests of the farmers will be endangered if we are to proceed with the Bill. It makes one feel that one really cannot continue with it. Take the evidence which we have had of an extremely important witness, the chief of the Veterinary Division at Onderstepoort, viz. Dr. P. J. du Toit. He clearly said that if we continue with the Dongola Reserve it will entail a real danger to stock farming in this country. He says he cannot see how we can continue with it. He points out that we are already spending thousands of pounds for destroying game reserves in Zululand because they constitute a danger to stock farming; and now we are coming forward with a motion in the House—while we are already spending tens of thousands of pounds on the destruction of game reserves —to do the same thing by establishing a game reserve which may endanger stock farming. Had we this information on the previous occasion I am convinced that the Minister would not have brought this Bill before the House, and having this information, which we did not have on the previous occasion, we cannot allow this Bill to be proceeded with. We have to protest against steps being taken to continue with the Bill. There are so many reasons one could mention. The Minister has explained here that the land in those regions cannot be used for anything. His information was not correct. I take it that he was acting in good faith. We have now acquired information, and we notice that according to the evidence of an irrigation engineer no less than 13,000 morgen can be irrigated. The Minister stated that there was no land suitable for irrigation purposes.

Is the hon. member not discussing the merits of the Bill now?

I do not want to discuss the merits but I want to state that the evidence clearly shows that the information we had before us on a previous occasion was wrong and that it is a dangerous thing for us to allow this Bill to proceed. A man like Dr. du Toit tells us that the Bill constitutes a danger and it is our duty to tell this House that if we allow the Bill to be proceeded with from the stage which it has reached, it would constitute a danger to our cattle farming; and we already have so many cattle diseases in this country. Then as regards the proposed committee I want to add that I intend to move an amendment.

I think the hon. member should wait with that until I put the second part of the motion.

Then we can do that later. As I say, my objection is simply that we are going to create a great danger in our country if we go on with this thing. We know how many stock diseases are threatening our country and we are going to establish a greater danger. That is why I am raising such a serious objection against the House granting leave for the Bill to be proceeded with, since we have the testimony of the highest veterinary officer in the country that as regards stock diseases this Bill constitutes a danger to us, and that is why we are raising a serious objection against it.

May I just make it quite clear to hon. members that this motion consists of two parts. The first part goes as far as line 4 ending with the words “last session.” If this is agreed to there will be a second part, namely, in regard to the nomination of the Select Committee on the Bill and the re-appointment of the members mentionéd. If the first part of the motion as it stands on the Order Paper is carried, I shall then put the second part, and members can then move any amendment to the second part.

Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your ruling. You told the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) that he could not go into the merits of the matter.

Yes.

But this motion introduced by the Minister asks us to proceed with the Bill. We must now be allowed to advance reasons why we should not proceed with the Bill.

In that case the hon. member will be compelled to go into the merits. The motion reads, “That, in accordance with the resolution of the House of Assembly of 11th June, 1945, the proceedings … be resumed”, so that the merits of the case cannot again be discussed on this motion.

If I want to object to the Bill being proceeded with, I must surely indicate my reasons, because how could I otherwise object?

It depends on the reasons advanced by the hon. member. He may proceed and I shall then decide in the course of his speech.

Yes, but I should like you to bear this in mind. We are going to oppose this motion and we want to have the fullest opportunity to state our reasons.

But the hon. member must not deal with the merits of the Bill.

As far as the contents of the Bill are concerned, that is a different matter. Last year the Minister of Lands convinced this House that it was essential to do what the Bill contemplates and on the strength of that a Select Committee was appointed. Now the Minister wants the Bill to be proceeded with as from the stage it reached last year. Last year the Minister advanced certain definite reasons and we want to refute those reasons.

This resolution is merely in pursuance of the resolution of last year.

The resolution of last year lapsed. Everything lapsed at the end of the sitting, and the Minister is now introducing a motion to proceed with it. This is a new sitting and everything which had been done in this connection lapsed last year. We cannot automatically go on. If the Minister wants the House to proceed with the Bill, he must advance reasons why the House should proceed with it, and then we have the fullest right to indicate why it is not necessary to proceed with it. In the first place I want to base my argument on the fact that last year the Minister made certain statements, and by means of those statements he convinced his side of the House that it was necessary to proceed with the Bill. But in the meantime certain facts have come to light which throw an altogether different light on the matter and which completely eliminate the necessity of proceeding with the Bill. I want to mention a few of those reasons and indicate that the facts which have come to light throw an altogether different light on the matter; and if hon. members on the other side also become convinced of these facts, which contradict what was said here by the Minister, it is quite possible that they will throw out the Minister’s Bill and agree that it is not necessary to proceed with it. The Minister stated here —and that statement convinced members on the other side—that he refused to meet a deputation which asked to be allowed to see him in regard to this matter because the secretary of the Farmers’ Association in Zoutpansberg, a certain Mr. Chamberlain, had written an offensive letter to him. That was the reason why he refused to interview the farmers of Zoutpansberg. My information is that the Minister, when he made that statement in the House, made a statement which is not in accordance with the facts, a statement which is not true. A letter of this kind was not written to him by Mr. Chamberlain. That is my information. What was sent to him and what he apparently objected to at the time, was a letter from Mr. Chamberlain as secretary of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union to the Transvaal Agricultural Union. The Transvaal Agricultural Union entered into correspondence with the Minister and forwarded this letter to him. I want to read this letter to the House, and I want members on the other side to judge whether the Minister was correct in saying that this letter was couched in such insulting terms that it justified him in refusing to interview the deputation.

In what way is the letter relevant to the motion which is before us?

By means of this letter the Minister of Lands influenced his side of the House to agree with him, because he described it as an offensive letter, and I want to read it to those members so that they can judge for themselves.

Are we then going to have the whole debate over again?

We must see whether we are entitled to comply with the request of the Minister of Lands to proceed with this Bill. As a result of the statements he made here, members on the other side were prepared to support the Minister, and we now want to indicate what the trué position is. This letter reads—

Dear Madam,—I regret delay over replying to your letter of the 21st ultimo regarding the so-called “Botanical Reserve” in the Messina area, but, owing to the petrol and tyre position, it has not been possible to send a committee to inspect the position. The following facts have, however, been given to us concerning the Reserve, and which are believed to be correct.

The Botanical Reserve is conducted by Dr. Pole Evans, assisted by a staff of nonEuropeans. The Reserve is being exténded and Europeans squeezed out. It is definitely stated that no botanical experiments of any value are being carried out, even at the headquarters, Dongola. On the other hand, there are nine boreholes with the requisite pumping plants, reservoirs and drinking troughs constructed at intervals for the convenience of lions, leopards, wild dogs and other vermin, and of course game; and presumably eventually to provide water for botanical specimens. In addition to the initial costs out of public funds, the upkeep of these water supplies, under the present regime, must be high.

It is stated that a special Botanical Reserve “drill” operates there, and it should be noted that this machine could be very profitably used by Zoutpansberg farmers, who, owing to the drought, are in immediate and urgent need of water for themselves and stock. It is stated that the general conduct of the administration is tyrannical. The native rangers see stock that encroach on the Reserve veld and trek them long distances to pounds; old roads are blocked, etc. The head ranger comes up at regular intervals from Pretoria by road to pay his natives and so forth, using petrol and rubber frequently denied the public.

By the way, that is Dr. Pole Evans—

(Signed) C. Chamberlain,

Secretary.

This letter was sent to the Minister, and it is this letter which was described as insulting.

That is untrue.

Subsequently, the following letter was written to him, this time by Mr. Chamberlain. This is the letter which Mr. Chamberlain then wrote to him.

The Minister is already in a bad mood.

This letter reads—

June 9th, 1943.

Sir,—

And just listen to this; the Minister stated a moment ago that this is untrue. Here we now have the Minister’s accusation that the letter was so insulting—

(Signed) Secretary,

C. Chamberlain.

These are letters which the Minister held out to his side of the House as so insulting that he was not prepared to receive a deputation of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Association. If by means of these letters he influenced members on that side of the House last year to vote for his motion, I hope they will take notice of this and that they will not vote for this motion. In this connection I come to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) who supported the Minister’s motion last year. At this particular meeting of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union, the hon. member was present, and do you know what happened? He introduced a motion in the following terms—

That hon. member who played no small part last year in persuading members on that side of the House to vote for the Minister’s motion, and that Dongola was such a poor area that Europeans could not make a living there, was so convinced in 1943 at a meeting of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union that Dongola should not be a reserve that he moved that it be proposed to the Minister that this area be exchanged for land on the eastern border of Portuguese East Africa.

At that time he had not yet been on safari.

Here it is specifically stated—

On a point of explanation …

Sit down.

May I just say a few words?

That depends on whether the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) will allow the hon. member to speak.

Very well, let him proceed. I shall sit down if at a later stage you will give me an opportunity to speak.

Now I come to a statement which was made by the Minister. The Minister informed the House last year— and by means of that statement he influenced members on his side of the House —that the land in that area was not worth anything, that one could hardly give it away as a present.

Is the hon. member not going into the merits of the case now?

No, I merely want to bring to light new facts which refute what the Minister told the House last year. I am now dealing with new facts which came to light since the Minister introduced this motion into the House last year. It is recorded in Hansard in column 4,685 of the English text that the Minister stated—

Do you know what happened in the meantime—to give one example only? Let us take land, for example, which practically borders on the Dongola area, land which is a short distance from the border. I refer to the farms of the Steyn brothers. I want to put this to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. Did he notice that that land, which is 43,000 morgen in extent, was sold a few days ago for £100,000?

I say definitely …

Sit down.

He thinks he is funny. I refuse to let him put words into my mouth.

I ask the hon. member for Zoutpansberg whether he noticed that those 43,000 morgen of land were sold a few days ago for £100,000?

How many head of cattle were included?

But surely there are no cattle; the Minister said that everything in that area died.

I am reading this letter as it stands.

Surely there can be no cattle on that land. You say they all die.

Let me read a report which appeared in "Die Burger” dated 19th March, 1946 [translation]—

This is the place which was described as a Kalahari desert—

It now comes to light that in close proximity to that area land is sold at £2 per morgen, or nearly £2 10s. per morgen, and then the Minister wants to convert that area into a reserve for monkeys and apes; but I am not allowed to go into the merits. I want to quote another example. The Minister stated here—and by means of that statement he influenced members on his side of the House to vote for his motion—that Maj. Hunt, the chairman of the Transvaal Agricultural Union which led a deputation to him, had made a statement which was absolutely without foundation. Let me rather quote the Minister’s own words from the Hansard report of last year, column 4681. He says—

And then the Minister makes the following statement in this regard—

By means of this statement he convinced members on his side of the House that cattle could not live in that area on leaves and that Maj. Hunt had made an absolutely false statement when he made that assertion. In the meantime I have discovered— I did not know it previously—that Maj. Hunt is a successful farmer behind the Zoutpansberg range in this area. But not only did those new facts come to light when I visited this area, but in the meantime a Select Committee sat and evidence was given before the Select Committee by one of the Government experts, a man who is certainly in the best position to know what the true state of affairs is. I refer to Mr. Bonsma, an official of the Department. He is in charge of the Government’s experimental farms in that area. He has experience of the veld and how cattle thrive in that area. When I have read to the House what Mr. Bonsma said in connection with that statement of Maj. Hunt and the reprehensible statement made by the Minister, I hope hon. members on that side will realise how much value they can attach to the Minister’s statement.

His evidence was available to all members before the introduction of the motion.

No, the Minister moved last year that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee and this evidence was given subsequently.

No.

Yes, this evidence came subsequently. Let me read it to the House.

What is the date of that evidence?

Mr. Bonsma’s evidence is the following. This question was put to him (page 891 of the Report of the Select Committee)—

Now we come to Mr. Bonsma’s reply, and it must be remembered that he is an expert. He is the manager of the Government’s stock breeding farm close to Messina.

On what date was that evidence given?

This evidence was given on 4th June. Mr. Bonsma replied in these terms—

And now I come to this important point—

The Minister stated in this House that Maj. Hunt, in saying that cattle eat leaves, made an absolutely untrue statement, and here we now have the evidence of an expert.

Why do they keep lucerne there?

Mr. Bonsma then goes on to say—

I think the hon. member is now going too deeply into the merits.

I want to say again that last year the Minister persuaded members in this House to accept his motion; he now wants them to accept this motion to proceed with the matter, and one of his arguments was that what Maj. Hunt had said was untrue, namely, that the cattle in that area eat leaves. We now have this evidence which came subsequently and which throws an altogether different light on the matter.

I hope the hon. member will not go too deeply into that.

Mr. Bonsma goes on to say—

Now comes the most important statement of all. The following question was put to him (No. 10724)—

Mr. Bonsma replies—

Now I should like the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) to listen to this—

He says that the cattle eat the leaves as soon as they fall off the trees so that they can never obtain sufficient leaves—

He goes on to state that for many years in that area he did not lose a single head of cattle as a result of drought. That is the further evidence of Mr. Bonsma, the Government official who manages that experimental farm.

But surely they feed the cattle there.

I am very sorry to hear the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) say that because he is one of the members of the Select Committee and it throws an unfavourable light on the Committee.

I am not a member of the Select Committee.

Did you go on safari perhaps?

Just give me a chance. Let me say to the hon. member for Rustenburg that Mr. Bonsma’s evidence is that during all the years he has been there he has never fed the cattle.

I personally saw them feeding the cattle. That is a little too thick. There are big barns filled with fodder.

Let me read to the hon. member what the evidence of Mr. Bonsma is—

He says one should keep in reserve one-tenth of one’s farm to meet drought conditions.

No, you should have big barns full of fodder.

That is not what Mr. Bonsma said.

What is the member for Rustenburg talking about now?

His knowledge is confined to lemons.

I suppose you were only there on the occasion of a cocktail party.

I was not there.

Order, order!

Let me quote what Mr. Bonsma said. Question number 10723 was the following—

I shall be glad if the hon. member for Zoutpansberg who always tries to throw a doubt on what I say, will listen to this. He is always ready to jump up when I speak. Mr. Bonsma says—

That is the precautionary measure that he suggests. Here we have the evidence of an expert. Here we have a man who can speak with authority, and he placed this information at the disposal of members after the Minister had persuaded members on his side of the House last year by means of his misrepresentation of the facts, to accept his motion. The Minister went on to say this last year. He stated that in those areas—and that is the reason why that area is not suitable for human occupation—there is not a single morgen of land which can be irrigated. And what are the facts which have now come to light?

[Inaudible],

Allow me to correct that poor member—and if he does not want to take my word he can ask any Transvaal farmer what the position is. There is the Marico district, the Rustenburg district, Waterberg, Zoutpansberg, Potgietersrust—and remember that Rustenburg is the biggest stock district in South Africa …

There is a good deal of grass too.

Every farmer in those parts can confirm the fact that for a great portion of the year hundreds of thousands of head of cattle in that area live on leaves exclusively.

That is true.

After that admission which has now come from the other side, I hope the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) will stop making frivolous interjections. I say that the Minister made the statement in this House that those parts should be expropriated, that they are not suitable for occupation because, inter alia, there is not sufficient water and because one cannot take precautionary measures against drought conditions since there is not a single morgen of land that is irrigable. What do we find? We find that before the Select Committee statements are made by experts, and that is of very great importance, because the opportunity which now presents itself to place this land under irrigation will be lost if this reserve is established. Mr. Kokot, an engineer of the Irrigation Department, gave evidence before the Select Committee. He admits that within twenty miles of the proposed dam in the Limpopo River, there is an area of 500,000 morgen of land which can be placed under irrigation.

Within 20 miles of what point?

Within 20 miles of the proposed place where a dam can be constructed. Mr. Kokot goes on to say that lower down there is another 3,000 morgen. That is 20 miles from the place where a dam can be built in the Limpopo River. But another engineer, Mr. Horwitz, a retired engineer of the Irrigation Department, gave evidence before the Select Committee and he stated that he had gone into the position and that no less than 13,000 morgen in that area can be irrigated if a dam is built in the Limpopo.

Ask the Minister whether he denies that.

Last year the Minister influenced members on his side of the House to vote for his motion by telling them. that one cannot irrigate a single morgen of land in that area.

On a point of order; the hon. member is reading certain passages to the House and he is not giving the true facts.

That is not a point of order.

I stated that there was not a morgen of land which could be irrigated within the reserve. I said that the land on the banks of the river is fertile and beautiful land but that it is subject to floods every year when the river comes down; that it will be necessary to destroy the big trees in order to be able to irrigate the land; that that land could only be irrigated by building a dam and that one could not build a dam there. Those are the facts.

The Minister made a very clear statement. I shall read it to him.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When business was suspended I was saying that last year the Minister of Lands misrepresented the position when he stated that not a single morgen could be irrigated in that area. The Minister then got up to say that I had misrepresented him.

Let me just say on a point of explanation that the hon. member spoke of the Steyns’ ranch which was sold for a large sum. I asked how many head of cattle were included in the sale. He stated that there were no cattle included and created the impression that the farm was sold for more than £2 per morgen. I have here an extract from the “Argus” in which it is stated that the purchase price includes more than 3,000 head of cattle. That is the value of the hon. member’s facts.

That is what I call abusing one’s civility.

It is not as bad as your incivility.

I gave the Minister an opportunity to deal with the untruthful statement he made in connection with the irrigation possibilities. Last year the Minister informed the House that not a single morgen could be irrigated.

From the river.

The Minister repeats that, he says from the river. Does this land not border on the river? Does the Dongola area not border on the Limpopo? Is it not part of this area? Do you notice in what way the Minister represents the facts in an attempt to get members on his side to vote for this motion?

The Minister has given the reason why it is not irrigable.

Let me read it as he put it. He spoke in English—

Precisely. I said; “By making a dam.”

The Minister’s attitude was that not a single morgen along the river could be irrigated.

You cannot build a dam there.

Let me read it again—

And then the Minister says that the reason is that it is a narrow strip of land. I hope hon. members now understand the position. I am quoting what the Minister said. And then he says it is a misrepresentation.

You are distorting my words.

I ask any member whether it is a misrepresentation. I am quoting the Minister’s own words. Now he says that it is not possible to build a dam there. First of all he stated that even if you construct a dam you cannot irrigate because the strip of land is too narrow. Now he says that you cannot build a dam there.

Because the river floods the land.

Yes, the Minister stated that the land becomes flooded.

You cannot construct a dam there.

But here we have the evidence of the Minister’s own irrigation engineer, Mr. Kokot. He stated [Translation]—

It is 20 miles below Ratho, as he stated in his evidence, and he went on to say that 5,000 morgen could be irrigated there and 2,000 morgen at another point. That is what the Minister’s own engineer says. Now I ask what value one can attach to any statement made by the Minister in this House.

Is it in this area?

Yes, it is in this area. Another engineer, a retired engineer, Mr. Horwitz, stated that 13,000 morgen could be irrigated. The one engineer is an engineer in the Minister’s own department. He also stated what the costs would be. [Time limit.]

When the Minister introduced the Bill dealing with the Dongola Reserve last year, I was one of those who appealed to him to withdraw it. I want to renew my appeal to-night that the Minister should withdraw the motion standing in his name. There are two principal reasons for my appeal. The first reason is implicit in the legislation which is to come before this House in connection with soil and veld conservation. The other reason is in connection with the present food position in the country. In regard to the first reason I believe that— and this is the basis of my plea to the Minister—that there is a very much better way of dealing with this matter, a better long-period plan than that which the Minister has in mind for dealing with the country, with the low veld to the north of the Zoutpansberg and the Waterberg. The Minister’s plan is simply to enlarge a game reserve area of 30 thousand acres to ½ million acres, and in the process to make farming impossible on a further 1 million acres. His plan, in effect, could briefly be described as expropriating civilisation; to revert the whole area to the primitive; to make a botanists’ paradise; to create a surplus game reserve in the Union. Mr. Speaker, it is a simple plan; but it is a defeatist plan. I want to suggest an alternative plan, and this is the reason why I think this measure should not be proceeded with, and should not be referred to the Select Committee. My idea is in keeping with a plan of the Division of Soil Conservation, a plan to restore the area, to renew its productive capacity, that plan can benefit not only the ranchers and the farmers in the Dogola area; but in the whole Union; for the problems of the farmers at Mara, and the problems of the town of Louis Trichardt are the problems of the whole bushveld area stretching for 300 miles from Pretoria to the Limpopo. It is a problem not merely related to the destruction of the surface on the mountains and in the valleys; it is fundamentally the problem of the falling level of the underground water. As far as I can ascertain it is estimated that in the area we are considering tonight, during the past 20 years the water table has fallen some ten feet. Further shrinkage in that direction and the whole bushveld area will be threatened with disaster.

Order, order! Is not the hon. member now rather going into the merits?

I was trying to indicate that there is an alternative plan for the Minister, and that the Minister should consider that plan. I shall however omit the descriptive part.

On a point of order, I should like to have clarity on this point, if you will permit me. Last year a Bill was brought before the House and the Minister moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. That was done. The Parliamentary session came to an end and with the termination of the session everything lapsed; nothing remains. This is a new sitting of Parliament with new members. The Minister now comes before the House with a new motion, and surely the House must have the right to discuss the motion.

The motion can be discussed.

But in order to be able to discuss it, it is necessary for us to go into the merits.

Not the merits of the Bill.

But the motion asks that the Bill be proceeded with.

I know it is a difficult matter. If anything new has come to light since that date, I am prepared to allow it.

My submission is that everything lapsed with the termination of the sitting. The Bill which was before us no longer exists. We are not bound. There is no Bill before the House. It has lapsed altogether. The Bill is not a part of this sitting’s record.

According to the Standing Rules and Orders of the House the Minis ter followed the correct procedure, namely, to restore the Bill at the stage which it had reached. The motion is to proceed as from that stage.

But surely we must have an opportunity to indicate why we do not wish to proceed.

I know it is difficult but it is in accordance with the Standing Rules and Orders of the House. The hon. member may proceed.

I was going to indicate a long period alternative plan, which I said was the plan of the Soil Conservation Department of this country. I was suggesting that it was a more rational plan than what can be truly called the atavistic plan of the Minister. That plan is to begin the reclamation of the soil at the highest point in the country, i.e., in the Zoutpansberg and Waterberg mountains, and to work downwards to the valleys and the farms. This plan means that much money and engineering planning will be required; but it will, I think, interest the country to know that there really is such an alternative plan, centred in protection of the mountain ranges of the Lowveld. It means restoring the forests on the mountains and in the gorges. It means building numerous weirs to collect the water supply it means insisting not on abandoning farming, but on better ranching methods, and particularly on scientific grazing. I emphasise this. It is unquestionably of importance in the Lowveld area to insist that the native population adopt civilised methods of farming. That in brief is the alternative suggestion which I want to suggest to the Minister. He should concentrate in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, in that direction. One who knows that area well has described it in these words, saying—

That brings me to the second reason for my plea to the Minister to withdraw this motion from the House, namely this, the hazardous position today with regard to the country’s food. A few weeks ago a trained observer who is acquainted with South Africa, and who has visited all points in the Union, also visited the area we are considering. He stated that he saw cattle there receiving no other food than they could get from the natural veld, but in better condition than any other cattle he saw in the Union. I understand that that area during an average season is able to send between 15 and 25 thousand head of cattle to the market; that it can grow excellent tropical fruit. I am giving the House the opinion of experts, of people who know the area, and who have experimented there. The area grows excellent tropical fruit at all times; but with irrigation there could be an enormous increase in food production. If the Minister gets his way, all the present production will cease. Well-established farmers will be expropriated, and the vast potential production will be sealed down forever. I want to tell the Minister quite frankly that he is now adding to the dangers facing the country’s food supplies, by persisting in this quixotic plan of his. His, Sir, is a negative “hands up” policy, a policy of surrender when it should be a policy of vigorous attack on that problem which is more responsible than any other factor for the near famine that exists in this country; I mean the problem resulting from the misuse of our soil and water sheds. The people must be told these things from this House. They must be told that Onderstepoort experts are against this proposition; that experts of the Agricultural Department are also against it; that it will negative the valuable experimental work that has been done at Mara and Messina in the interests of the ranching areas. At this moment in the Bechuanaland Protectorate there is vast planning in hand for great ranching projects in a similar area north of the Limpopo. Big plans in connection with water control, dam building and soil conservation are being carried out. I say that the people must be told these things frankly from this House. They must be told that although the land has been misused in the past—we are agreed upon that—it is still a rich and fruitful area, and that its productive capacity can be enormously increased by a scheme of conservation. Those who are investing in land apparently are not fighting shy of that area. In the “Cape Argus” tonight we are told that the Union Cold Storage of South Africa has purchased 43,000 morgen of ranching land in the Northern Transvaal for £100,000; the report goes on to say that the acquisition, which includes more than 3,000 head of cattle, will be incorporated, apparently for productive purposes, with the Company’s other ranching interests in Natal, Swaziland and Rhodesia. That, I think, brings us right up against the fact that this is a valuable and economic food production area. In conclusion I want to appeal to the Minister to withdraw this motion; and begin another policy by instituting a socio-economic survey of the Dongola area on the same lines as the research now conducted by Stellenbosch University in the areas in the vicinity of Worcester and Oudtshoorn. He must take the initiative in starting that survey, insisting at the same time that the survey shall include methods for the maintenance of the Lowveld and Highveld region, not as a game reserve but as a great food producing asset for our people.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to the motion introduced by the Minister, and I do so at the request of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union, who have written to me asking that a motion such as I wish now to read should be introduced. I move—

I have been requested in the following terms to move in the direction in which my amendment proposes. The writer of this letter is the Secretary of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union, Mr. Basil Chamberlain, and he says—

I cannot speak of the merits of those who gave evidence, but I want to emphasise what a cruel thing has happened in connection with the farmers who oppose the Bill. You have had a cost to the State already, as I have said, of £1,170 for the printing. The Afrikaans version cost £862. Now, Sir, in addition to that there has been an expenditure which has to be met, so far as one can see, by the opponents of the Bill, of £3,000 in legal expenses—£3,000 for legal expenses to be paid by unfortunate farmers who have been dragged into this House, just as one might drag unwilling defendants into the courts, and already the costs against them, which they have had to meet out of their own pockets, is £3,000. That, Sir, is independent of the amount which has to be met by the Government. According to the reply given by the Minister to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) the Government has already spent £1,034 in various incidental expenses, and, let me say, that as an old member of this House, I deprecate the readiness with which some hon. members are willing to form themselves into a sort of parliamentary jamboree to accompany the Minister to the ends of the earth, to support him in any wild cat scheme he may dash off on. I think it is a very deplorable development. It is one that members should hesitate to engage in in future. What right have we, as members of Parliament, to be galloping about the country to support the Minister in any scheme he may privately suggest to us? I should consider it beneath the dignity of a member of Parliament to go on such errands, and I hope we have heard the last of these wonderful select parties that take place with the purpose of propagating a doctrine that cannot stand on its own legs but must have the support of other people.

I hope the hon. member will not proceed any further.

No, Sir, I think I have gone far enough. I was going to say in addition to the £3,000 which the opponents of the Bill will be due to produce, one would like to know what sum the Government has spent in presenting the case to the Select Committee. They have had a much more expensive outfit to represent them legally in this House. They have had senior counsel as well as the parliamentary agent appearing before the Select Committee, and one may make a rough guess, from one’s experience of these matters I should imagine it will not be far off £6,000 when it comes to settling that small bill. If you add the £6,000 to what has already been incurred—supposing we estimate the Government costs at a smaller amount, £5,000—we shall have attained to the sum of £11,000 to ferret out this intricate case in which 11,000 questions have been asked, £1 a question would be a mild figure for the production of this valuable case.

What have you cost the House at £1 a question?

My questions are very much more to the point and they have been free of charge, free, gratis and all for nothing.

You never made anything from buying meat.

The hon. member makes some mystic statement about my not having been engaged in the buying of meat. I confirm his impression that I have been free from any sticky transactions of that kind. [Laughter.] I was engaged in pointing out that £11,000 would be a very reasonable estimate for the cost of this select committee alone. I think we are soaring to giddy heights when we attain to that huge sum of money in connection with a matter which, as the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) has pointed out, seems to be travelling in the wrong direction. We are not doing any good to the country by this sort of thing. It is a sort of competition between those who say it is and those who say it is not. We get no forrader at all as far as the good of the country is concerned and the Minister, I regret to say, seems to be pursuing this matter with a perversity that knows no end. I merely want to emphasise the unfortunate and unjustifiable expenditure that is being incurred in this matter. I cannot remember any proceedings in this House that have less justified the enormous expense that is involved. It is the worst possible example of extravagance when war taxation is being imposed. But for the incredible nature of the funds available to the Government I venture to say this expense would never have been engaged in. It is only because it has taken place in a time of plenty when revenue has been coming in abundantly, that this matter has ever been embarked upon, and I hope that now the Minister will reconsider it and, with the gentlemen who accompanied him on the parliamentary jamboree say: “We have gone as far as we can decently go in connection with this matter and we are not going any further”. As far as the farmers are concerned I am authorised to say by the Secretary of the Farmers’ Union that they do not want this Select Committee, and that they are exceedingly alarmed at the cost in which they have already been involved, and they maintain a halt should be called to any further expenditure in this connection.

I must say that I heartily agree that this legislation introduced by the Minister can only have one effect and that is a detrimental effect on farming in this area up north. I visited the Reserve in my own time and at my own expense. I visited the farmers and spoke to them, and I discovered that that area which the Ministers now seeks to convert into a game reserve can provide a means of livelihood to farmers and that there are no poor people to be found in that area.

Poor people cannot make a living there.

People who came there as poor men became rich, and they are quite happy there, just as happy as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is.

With his lemon trees.

One is astonished when travelling through that area to see the farms which the people have built up, which they built up out of nothing, and one is astounded, one is amazed, to think that the Minister is really seriously considering the conversion of that area into a game reserve. The Minister almost convinced me last year, because he told us of this dry desert country which is subject to wind erosion and I really believed it to be a desert country, but after having travelled through the area, and having looked for signs of erosion, I can tell you that I did not see ten square yards in the whole area which were subject to wind erosion. On the contrary, in the middle of winter I ate delicious fruit and vegetables which were cultivated in that area and I saw fat animals —cattle and sheep—and moreover I did not travel around the area. I travelled right through the area from farm to farm, and I spoke to every farmer. I would have been inclined to support the Minister in his effort to preserve our soil, and last year he almost convinced me, but after having personally travelled through the reserve I feel that it would be sinful.

Sinful to become converted.

No, it would be sinful for the Minister to proceed with that legislation. The Minister would really be committing a crime.

But he is a big sinner.

He would be committing a crime against the farming industry in this country if he expropriated this land from the farmers and converted it into a game reserve. As far as animals are concerned, I believe that this area offered only a meagre living for a very weak type of farmer—the type of man who goes in for poaching, who lives on biltong and who leads a sort of hunter’s life. But when one gets there and sees the initiative of these people and when one sees their cattle and sheep and when one sees their gardens, their trees and their vegetables in the middle of winter, and when one sees the fruit they grow, and one bears in mind the shortage of food in this country, one is astonished; one is amazed. I thought that after a thorough investigation and after having read this evidence the Minister would say: “No, I am going to accept the proposal which has been made rather to add a little to the Kruger Game Reserve on the Portuguese border and make available this whole area for farming”. He knows—and I think we all feel—that for very many years to come we are going to have a shortage of food, and the Minister, just as every right thinking person, should do everything in his power to encourage the production of food.

Those arguments have already been advanced by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan).

I just want to emphasise it from another aspect to bring it home to the Minister. Possibly the Minister did not grasp it fully.

He never grasps anything.

The production of food is a very serious matter, and I would like the Minister to consider that aspect seriously. Now I want to exchange a few thoughts as regards to the nature of the grazing, in regard to which a great deal has been said. We are told that the shrubs which grow in this area do not offer good grazing. I am familiar with large areas which are covered with shrubs, and let me say that the shrubs in those areas provide excellent cattle fodder. The statement which has been made that stock cannot exist on leaves or shrubs is one which is not based on facts. May I just invite the Minister to go to the drought-stricken parts in South-West Africa and also in the North-Western part. There he will see that animals had to subsist on leaves not for a matter of months but for a few years. There was no grass. In some areas there was no rain for two years. There is no grass to be found and the animals have to subsist on leaves and shrubs. But the shrubs in those areas provide particularly good feed for animals. Just look at the condition of the animals. Let the animal tell you what the place is worth; do not listen to the farmer; let the animal speak for itself. Look at its condition. When one looks at the condition of the animals in that area, I say that it will be difficult to produce and to rear better animals in any area of the country than in that particular area.

I think the hon. member is now going too deeply into the merits.

Then I want to make a very serious appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter and to withdraw this motion. During the last sitting he kept this House occupied with this measure for days. This afternoon and this evening the business of the House has again been delayed by the same measure, a measure which, it must be clear to him, no one has asked for and no one desires. One cannot understand what the motive is which motivates and impels and incites the Minister to come before the House with such an unpopular measure. Everyone condemns it; no one wants to hold the baby; no one wants to have anything to do with this matter; there is no public demand for it. Every member of the public who is directly concerned condemns it. I have tried to discover what the reason is why the Minister is so anxious to pass this measure, but I am unable to do so. No one wants this measure, but nevertheless he persists in bringing it before the House. I want to make a serious appeal to him to reconsider this matter and to withdraw this measure, or, at any rate, to withdraw his motion before the House. He must realise by this time that the struggle which was waged during the last sitting will not end there. The struggle will now assume a greater scope; the struggle will become intensified. This is a measure which will be contested not only in the Select Committee but in this House when it comes before the House, and since there are so many other important matters facing the country and since we find ourselves in such difficult circumstances, and since money is so urgently required to make provision for food and housing in this country, I hope the Minister will withdraw this motion. I trust the Minister will accept good advice when he is offered good advice.

I also want to make an appeal to the Minister. As a practical man Ī also want to admit that last year he almost convinced me and after hearing the Minister’s case I too started to feel that my hon. friends on this side were altogether unreasonable. But now that the Select Committee has been appointed and has heard evidence, I want to make an appeal to the Minister’s sense of justice. I want to ask him, in view of the great land hunger in our country, to reconsider this matter and to reflect carefully whether this step he is taking is justified, or is he merely being stubborn? After all, he is not that type of man. I know him.

You know him badly.

I know that he can be reasonable if he wants to and for that reason I am asking him in all civility to reconsider this matter and to withdraw this motion. That would be in the interests of the country; it would be in the interests of our nation; it would be in the interests of the progress of the people, and we therefore plead with him in fairness this evening to reconsider this matter and to withdraw his motion.

I want to make a different type of appeal to the House, and that is, not to render difficult the task of the Select Committee which deals with the Dongola Reserve Bill. It very seriously complicates our task if the evidence which was given before the Select Committee last year is now discussed in the House. We as a Committee will have to find a solution in connection with this matter, and if hon. members express their views at this stage as to what should be done and what should not be done, you will appreciate the difficult position in which we are placed. I think there is a way out of the difficulty. It has definitely been proved that there is a difference of opinion on this matter. We had evidence from experts who have scientific knowledge, and if I had to accept the scientific evidence in its entirety ….

Then you would be lost.

…. then I would prefer to commit suicide; I would definitely prefer to drown myself in the Limpopo before I do that. There is at least sufficient water in the Limpopo to drown oneself. I want to make an appeal to hon. members, in contradistinction to the other appeals which have been made to the Minister to withdraw this legislation, not to complicate our task on the Select Committee. I just want to say that like the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) I also visited that area in my own time and at my own expense during the recess and I also had the honour of meeting the hon. member for Vredefort there, and I must say I think the hon. member took a keener interest in the political aspect of the matter than in the farming affairs in that area.

Why did you go there?

I went in order to convince myself what can be done there and what cannot be done there, and as a result of the discussion which is taking place here this evening, the task of the Select Committee which may be appointed will be considerably complicated. Incidentally I hope that the same committee members will be re-appointed because they have a greater knowledge of the conditions there. I say that as a result of this discussion the task of the Select Committee may be rendered so difficult that it will be almost impossible for us to make any recommendation to this House and I want to ask hon. members not to create a position of this kind.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) did not come in by the entrance but while the division has been in progress he climbed over the rail.

If that is so then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must leave the Chamber.

Mr. TOTHILL thereupon left the Chamber.

Result of the division:

Ayes—48:

Abrahamson, H.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J, H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and S. J. Tighy.

Noes—32:

Acutt, F, H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Van Nierop, P. J. Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—53:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Gluckman. H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn C. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and S. J. Tighy.

Noes—32:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

I second.

I wish to move the following amendment—

I am moving this because it has transpired that during the nine months we have ceased to deal with this Bill, or since the Select Committee was dealing with the Bill, three important events have occurred. The first is the extraordinary rise in land values in those parts. The second is the evidence that has been furnished of the capacity of those areas to survive the severest drought that we have had for years in South Africa. The third is the telegram that was sent by the Minister of Lands to members of the Select Committee to visit the reserve. It is quite evident that the Minister himself felt how necessary it was that members of the Select Committee should themselves visit that reserve so that they could exercise an impartial judgment.

In the first place I wish to confine myself to the extraordinary rise in the price of land there. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has explained to the House that a certain piece of land 43,000 morgen in extent was sold for £100,000. The Minister of Lands rose on a point of order and said that this was wrong and that the deal included 3,000 cattle. I will assume that the “Cape Times” was correct in its statement that there were 3,000 cattle. But last year the Minister of Lands stated that on revaluation of the land at Dongola he found it so poor that he had brought down the price to 1s. 6d. a morgen. In the immediate vicinity of that land we now have the sale of land for £100,000 and I cannot imagine Mr. Norbert Erleigh paying £100,000 for 43,000 morgen and 3,000 cattle if the land is only worth 1s. 6d. a morgen. Does this mean that during the nine months that have elapsed since the Minister of Lands made his statement land in the immediate neighbourhood of Dongola has risen 2000 per cent. ? Then I take the stock, large, small and calves — at an average price of £10 per head.

That is too high.

Of course it is too high. Thirty thousand pounds is terribly high for 3,000 large and small stock. But let us put the price as high as that. This means that the 43,000 morgen was sold for £70,000. That is an increase of 2,000 per cent. on the price the Minister of Lands gave us here. Consequently it is clear to me that it is necessary that the Select Committee that was appointed should go there personally to find out the reason for the land having increased so enormously in value in nine months — by 2000 per cent.

Do you say that I sent a telegram to members to visit the place?

:

The Minister is being unnecessarily impatient. That is the third point I mentioned and I shall come to it. I cannot deal with the Bill of last year, and consequently I confine myself to the three new points I have mentioned here. The first is the extraordinary increase in the price of land. If the land is as bad as the Minister has intimated it is impossible for it to have increased 2,000 per cent. in value. There are other people as well who have bought land. I mention Mr. Gert Smit, of Bethal, one of our most enterprising farmers. Bethal is one of the leading districts in the Transvaal. Notwithstanding that Mr. Gert Smit has bought a farm at the Dongola reserve. He will not sell that farm because he is making a success of his farming there. Because the land has so greatly increased in price the Select Committee ought to go there personally to gain the necessary information.

I shall read your own evidence out to you.

The Minister must not now begin to squeal. He must try to keep a hold on himself, and if he cannot do that he should rather be quiet. He can read out my letter to the Secretary for Lands if he wants to. I stated that people there needed large lands. Then I come to the second point, namely the carrying power of those lands. I wish to speak about what I myself have seen. We have had a disastrous drought. Everyone knows what the position was. In Natal thousands of stock died because there was no food for them, and Natal is known as a good part of the Union. Thousands of stock have also died in the Transvaal and in the Free State, in the lower parts of the Transvaal such as Piet Retief even the game have perished in the drought, and in the Free State springbok have died. What did I find in the Dongola Reserve? I did not go into the reserve proper because I did not want to be in a position that the Minister would have to prosecute me. I was on the border of the reserve, and what did I find at the end of November? The stock was in a very good condition in the neighbourhood of Dongola, though in other parts of the country they were dying of starvation. It was not a barren wilderness as the Minister stated, nor had the game perished there. Impala, hartebees and other sorts of game were in evidence. The hon. member for Waterberg and I were there. The stock was reasonable. The people in those parts were still sending cattle to the market while cattle in other areas had died. When there is a part of the country that has such a good carrying capacity it would be criminal for this House to take the farmers off the land and to make it a home for lions, jackals and other vermin which makes farming almost impossible for stock farmers behind the Zoutpansberg. It will be a crime if this House deprives the farmers of their land there, for we have seen during this drought that that area has a carrying capacity superior to other parts of the country. The Minister of Lands stated here that the mopani trees remained small there because the animals chewed them.

The soil is so poor that the trees cannot grow.

They kept the stock alive and also the game. The Minister shakes his head. Can he tell us a single instance where game died there? There are many members in this House who can tell us that half the springbok on their farms in the Free State died, while there is still an abundance of game in that reserve. They have not died, nor have the stock belonging to the people living there. All this counts for nothing with the Minister of Lands, because he is determined to make those parts a gathering place for wild animals which will be a nuisance to the farmers at the Zoutpansberg. I repeat that in the Northern Transvaal more land is necessary for a farm than elsewhere, because the grass is sparse, but the carrying capacity has been proved during the present drought. It was not necessary for those people to trek with their cattle. They were able to remain there and to keep their cattle alive, and that is something the major portion of the country could not do. Then the Minister says we must look to the rainfall —it is from ten to fifteen inches. Are there not other parts of the country as, for instance, in the Cape Province, where it is even less? There are parts in the Northwestern Cape where it is from five to ten inches, and is the Minister going to expropriate that land and hand it over to the wild animals? I hope the Select Committee will be permitted to inspect Dongola themselves. They will then see one of the finest parts of South Africa where this year the grass stands better than most other places. The last week I met people from the Zoutpansberg, when I was in the Transvaal and they told me it was a pleasure to visit Dongola and to see the vegetation and the grass. If that area can recover so quickly after the drought with the showers of rain we had this year, then I say it will be a crime to allow that land to be taken from the farmers. People have gone there and paid high price for land. If this part is now converted into a reserve what is going to happen to those people who bought the land? Lions will drive out the cattle farmer. We have at present starvation and other difficulties in the country, and the Minister of Lands wishes to create further difficulties. Then the Minister says that if he creates a reserve there it will protect the country against all the diseases that can possibly be imported. But he forgets what Dr. Du Toit of the Department of Agriculture stated about the reserve. He stated that another dangerous area would be created for foot and mouth disease and other stock diseases. But in spite of the advice of one of our best experts the Minister sets his face against that and wishes to make this a reserve. We at present have foot and mouth disease in the Kruger Game Park and now he is creating an area in the northern part of the Transvaal for spreading foot and mouth disease in order to ruin the farmers there. The farmers of South Africa have never had a greater enemy than the Minister of Lands. He pretends to be the friend of the farmers but where he can oppress them he does so with every measure that he introduces here.

No farmer will believe you.

You will not venture to go and address a gathering of farmers in Dongola.

The Minister of Lands says that the farmers will not believe me. He has heard the resolutions read out here. These are not resolutions passed by Nationalists, they are resolutions passed by English-speaking people in the Northern Transvaal. They are resolutions of the agricultural unions who have written all their letters in English and who have also written to him. He was also afraid to let them come and see him in this matter so that they could lay their case before him. I turn to the third point I referred to. It is the necessity for the members of the Select Committee to go to the reserve, and this is appreciated indeed by the Minister of Lands. A moment ago he asked whether I had stated that he sent a telegram. He sent a telegram to members of last year’s Select Committee to look at the reserve. He invited them but he did not say that the Government would pay the expense. No, they had to go on their own initiative and at their own expense, and they did not know whether anyone would meet them in order to show them round the reserve. They had to visit the reserve themselves. I think that the Minister of Lands has himself been convinced of the necessity of the Select Committee holding a session in Dongola, so that they could thresh out and form a judgment on all the allegations made in this House about Dongola in order that they may produce an impartial report. The Minister will not deny that.

I shall explain.

He sent a telegram to the members wherein he stated that it was desirable for them to visit the reserve. I hope that the Minister is honest in regard to this matter. If he was straight and honest in regard to this telegram asking the members to inspect the reserve then he must be honest enough to accept my amendment, because it is in conformity with his invitation. I do not ask that the Minister of Lands should pay for that. The State pays for it. We have already heard today, and I do not want to repeat it, how it has cost the State thousands of pounds to examine this proposed legislation of the Minister’s and to publish the report of the Select Committee which runs to 1,009 pages. And the Select Committee is not yet finished. Apparently there will be another 1,009 pages. I have in mind now what it costs the poor farmers in the Northern Transvaal in train fares and board and lodgings in order that they may spend a month or more here waiting their turn to give evidence, as happened last year. Does the Minister not think it a terrible injustice towards these people that they have to come down here at their own expense from the Northern Transvaal to give evidence before the Select Committee? These are people from whom the State, through the Minister of Lands wishes to take away something, and now they must come here at their own cost and give evidence to defend their property. Has the Minister no sense of Justice. He takes their property away from these people. Is it not then common fairness that he should suggest that the Treasury should pay their expense? Now these people have to pay all the money out of their own pockets and sacrifice their time. They have to pay railway fares and hotel bills. Is that reasonable? There are still many people in the reserves and in Zoutpansberg who want to give evidence and who can give evidence. I would ask the Minister of Lands that he should at least this year when people come to Cape Town, in view of the abnormal circumstances owing to their not being able to obtain proper board and lodging, see that the State pays the expenses. I think it will be very unfair if the Minister does not accept my proposition. There are no doubt members on the Government side who have seen these parts. I do not know whether the Minister with his safari went through these parts, and whether the members who accompanied him saw them. In any case I wish to express the hope that the Minister will accept this reasonable motion of mine. Changes have taken place and the land has risen in value.

That land has nothing to do with Dongola.

Has it nothing to do with Dongola? The Minister is surely not so narrow-minded that he does not realise that if the prices of land in the immediate neighbourhood of Dongola rise it has everything to do with Dongola? Will the Minister secure the lions and wild animals and jackals at Dongola so that they cannot come on adjoining land? But the Minister does not care a jot about what becomes of the farmers so long as he has his way, so long as he can push through the thing he has at heart. Then he is perfectly happy. I am not going to make an appeal to the Minister because it seems to me that he has hardened his heart to push the matter through. I can give the Minister the assurance that we on this side of the House will fight the matter with all the power at our disposal, and we shall have recourse to all the facilities that this House gives us even after the Select Committee has reported. The Minister stated last year that there was talk of much land that could have been brought under water, but he stated that not a single morgen of land could be irrigated. And yet as the hon. member for Waterberg explained, the report of the engineers in the Minister’s own department is that 13,000 morgen of land on the river could be brought under water. But the Minister does not believe the report of his own experts when it is not in his own interests. I do not want to go into that further. I think the matter has been very clearly explained by me. In do not want to go into the Bill itself because that would be contrary to the rules of the House. But I maintain that the Minister’s sense of justice, if he possesses any, must influence him to agreeing to the Select Committee going to the Northern Transvaal in order to sit there so that these people can be spared thousands of pounds of expense that they will be put to should they have to come here. Let the members of the Select Committee see for themselves whether the Minister when he explained the Bill last year provided the true facts of the position there. We told him last year that he was setting up an impossible position. I will not go into that further, but I should like to say this, that it appears to me as if South Africa had gone completely off its head as for as game reserves are concerned. There is no other country in the world, neither Australia, nor America nor Canada that has so many game reserves in proportion to area as South Africa. We have 2½ times as many game reserves …

That is quite wrong.

The Minister says this is also wrong. I shall support and prove that it is the case that in proportion to the area of land we have 2½ times as much land taken up with game reserves as America.

What was the reason for the thing having started originally?

I do not think the hon. member should allow himself to be diverted.

No, but I should just like to reply because I am in a certain measure responsible for the reserve.

The hon. member may not go into the merits of the case.

I would only say that it was a research station. It was in connection with veld burning and the improvement of the veld.

So it was necessary to make an investigation.

The hon. member asks whether it was necessary to have research. There are hundreds of other things we are investigating. In Rustenburg, for instance, we have research in connection with tobacco growing and orange growing. Apparently the hon. member has not sufficient intelligence to know that even in his own district research is being conducted.

But not in connection with tramping out the veld.

I do not want the Deputy Speaker to call me to order again, and I will leave the hon. member there. I move my amendment.

I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment and I have pleasure in doing so because the motion how before the House concerns a Bill which definitely is one of the most important and most far-reaching measures which has come before Parliament for many years. I hope you will allow me to say that when people proceed to take away from other persons private rights which the latter have been enjoying for many years, it definitely is a matter of serious import, and it therefore becomes every member of the House of Assembly, on whatever side he is sitting, to consider the matter with an open mind and with a clear conscience before deciding whether he is going to support the motion to deprive these people of their rights. I want to appeal to hon. members on the other side to vote and decide on this matter according to their own conviction and conscience. That is the reason why this amendment is of so great importance, because the members of the Select Committee should have an opportunity to go personally to this area and hold sittings there, which will enable them to judge and inspect matters personally, and to convince themselves whether the facts which the Minister has put before this House are correct or otherwise. It is certainly not a secret that several members sitting on the other side and knowing the area concerned, did not conceal the fact that they consider the Minister’s actions to be most reprehensible. Unfortunately, however, they are bound hand and foot by party discipline. They certainly are not enemies of the Minister. On the contrary, they are in other respects staunch supporters of the Minister, but in this case, knowing what the actual position is, they do find fault with the Minister’s attitude. One of the reasons why the Select Committee should have the opportunity of holding its sittings there, so that they may observe matters at first hand, is the following: Anybody, including myself, who knows those areas and who has been there will immediately ask: “Why does the Minister select this particular group of farms?” That is a question which will also be asked by members of the Select Committee when they go there and visit the area. I want to give the House the assurance — I have recently been there again — that the farms in the proposed Dongola area, as far as the veld, the rainfall, the nature of the soil, the grass and the trees are concerned are for all practical purposes in no way different from the whole area behind the Zoutpansberg Mountains. Why should this particular spot be selected? If what the Minister says about this particular group of farms is true, then it is also true of the whole area beyond the Zoutpansberg Mountains. The members of the Select Committee should personally convince themselves whether it is true. In fact, the Minister admitted this himself. He did admit it. If we look up Hansard, we find that he admitted this by implication, and today he again admitted it by way of interjection. He said—I am reading from Hansard of last year—

You find these settlers not merely in the Dongola area. You will come across the same kind of settlement right through the Zoutpansberg district. He furthermore said—

I shall come back to that later on—

He said that he would not allot any land behind the Zoutpansberg Mountains. In other words, that land is worth nothing. In other words that land is of the same poor quality. Why then should this particular spot be selected?

That is a misrepresentation.

I shall read further—

I referred to Dongola.

The Minister referred to the area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains. If the Minister knows anything at all about conditions there, he should know that there are hundreds of farms in the area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains.

I referred to Dongola.

But here are the Minister’s own words that he will not allot a single farm behind the Zoutpansberg mountains. The Government owns many farms behind the Zoutpansberg mountains apart from Dongola. The Minister furthermore said—

He refers to Dongola.

If the hon. member is unable to understand it, I cannot explain it to him. It is clear as can be.

I know that.

I am glad to have made one convert. The members of the Select Committee should go there and be convinced. Why does the Minister select this group of farms in particular? Why does he not expropriate the whole area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains? But I go further. If the Select Committee would enquire somewhat further they would find that not only the area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains is the same, but that the whole of the northern part of Potgietersrust and other parts are of exactly the same type and texture. Why does he not expropriate those parts also? If hon. members were to investigate the matter for themselves, they would find that the nature of the land is exactly the same. The Minister comes along and maintains that nobody can make a living in the Dongola area. According to Hansard of last year he said that the settlers there were roaming with their few head of cattle in search of grazing. Reference has been made a few moments ago to the extensive cattle farm of the Steyn brothers which has been sold recently. The Minister made a great fuss about me having given the wrong information. I read out a news item which appeared in the daily Press and I read out the whole item, namely that the farm had been sold for £100,000 and that it was 43,000 morgen in extent. I did not leave out a single word, but it now appears from a later more complete report in the newspapers that cattle had been included in the purchase pirce. That’ however, had not been mentioned in the news item I read out here. In any case, it does not make a big difference. I do not know what the 3,000 head of cattle were valued at, but being a cattle farmer myself who has to value cattle and small stock every year, I know that I could under no circumstances value a lot of stock, large and small at an average of £10 each. Therefore the value of the stock taken over will have varied between £20,000 and £30,000 at the utmost. And in that case the cattle must have been excellent. That means that even then the land was still sold for £70,000 or £80,000, i.e., £1 12s. 6d. per morgen approximately. That farm is of exactly the same type and quality as Dongola. There is no difference whatsoever.

Nonsense.

I have been there and any hon. member who takes the trouble to investigate the matter will subscribe to my views. There is no difference as far as the quality of the veld, the vegetation, the trees and the nature of the soil is concerned between this farm and Dongola. It is exactly the same.

Were there any improvements on the land which has been sold?

Of course there were, but when you are dealing with such an extensive farm of 43,000 morgen, it is obvious that it cannot greatly influence the total price. The fact remains that the buyers paid £1 12s. 6d. and perhaps even more, per morgen, and did so after the Minister had spoken so disparagingly of the land. It clearly shows that the Minister has supplied the wrong information to the House. The Minister by way of interjection said that the soil was too poor and that mopani trees could not grow there. If there has ever been a misrepresentation, then it was that statement. I say so with all the responsibility that I possess.

On a point of order. I said that the mopani was stunted and I said that the reason therefor was that the soil is too poor. That is a fact. You will find only shrubs there but no trees.

That is not so. I am speaking from experience. I have travelled through the area. If the Minister says these are merely shrubs, then it is not true. It is a closely vegetated area. In parts the vegetation is so close that there can be no question of erosion, whatever anybody, even Dr. Pole Evans, may say. The area is not subject to soil erosion and the person who maintains that soil erosion is extensive there, tells a lie. If Dr. Pole Evans, the Minister’s adviser, says that this is the case, then he is misleading the Select Committee and this House.

Has there been no trampling out?

Of course, if you overstock a farm, there will be trampling out, just as you will have in Rustenburg. In Rustenburg there are also farms which have been trodden out. That happens in every area. In Brits I have also noticed it. If a farmer does not treat his farm properly, trampling out will take place. The most serious cases of trampling out I have seen in the North-eastern Cape, in Aberdeen, and in Natal. In the dry areas I have noticed much trampling out. Is that a sufficient reason to expropriate all the land in those areas? I visited this area, i.e. Dongola, in September. They had had no rain then and there was no grass. The parts where they had had rain, had grass. Elsewhere they only had the mopani trees with their leaves and I did not notice a single lean head of cattle. That was during the severe drought when in many districts cattle had died from starvation. If hon. members are going to visit that area themselves, they will find the position as I have seen it. In the area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains and in Dongola I did not see a single head of cattle which was lean. The animals were all in prime condition. Contrasting with this I want to refer to Hansard where the Minister said that in large parts you would only get the thornbushes which one finds in the deserts. That is not true. Mopani trees are to be found everywhere and they grow closely together. The Minister, however, tells us that the cattle are roaming and do not have any food. If the members of the Select Committee get the opportunity of paying a visit to the area, they will see what the position is. After all, one does experience periods of drought also in the Dongola area just as well as in other parts of the country. We are having a serious drought in the Waterberg district. I have noticed droughts from time to time in the Rustenberg area and in Potgietersrust and even in Britstown. I wonder how many times this selfsame Minister of Lands has already had to trek with his cattle from the Britstown and Hopetown areas and how many thousands of pounds he has spent during the past twelve months in order to feed his cattle and to keep them alive. Is that a sufficient reason to expropriate all that land? But I am coming back to Dongola. Who are the people whose land is to be expropriated? There is the farm “Congo” of which H. van der Walt is the owner. He has there 600 head of cattle and approximately a thousand sheep. Then there is Machette, belonging to J. P. van Wyk, who has 200 head of cattle and 300 head of small stock. The Minister says they are roaming about with a few head of cattle and that there are no mopani trees there.

I said that they were roaming with their cattle and did not stay on their farms. Why do you distort everything?

Let us see who is distorting. This is what the Minister said —

From a newspaper report we now notice that the Steyn brothers had 3,000 head of cattle on 43,000 morgen, on their own farm. Then there is Gerrit Smit. He farms on his own farm.

The Steyns had 200 miles of fencing and a large ranch.

I do not say that the other farmers should not fence their farms. If they can get wire they can make a fence.

But you said that they do stay on their own farms.

The Minister says that they are roaming in order to find some food and that in this way they are able to hang on. The Minister says that they cannot make a living there and that they are roaming. If a man cannot make a living he goes around begging for food.

You wouldn’t use such an argument in a court.

I hope never to appear in court before a person who has so much sense as the hon. member has. I hope that I will never have to plead a case for such a person. But please listen to the following—

That is a list of the possessions of farmers there, farmers of which the Minister says that they cannot make a living. It is of the utmost importance that the members of the Select Committee should go there personally to convince themselves of the actual position. There is a further reason for it too. The Minister told us that it is impossible to construct a dam there and one of the reasons given why no dam can be built is that the Limpopo brings down so much sand that a dam would silt up.

That is correct.

I should like the members of the Select Committee going there themselves to see what the Limpopo looks like there and whether it is bringing down so much sand that a dam would silt up. They should go there themselves and see what the river looks like. If there are still some people who believe that the Limpopo brings down so much sand, I would ask them to go and visit the Mabalel-hippopool near the boundary of Potgietersrust. That hippo pool is about eight or nine miles long and through the centuries it has remained a beautiful dark pool of water and has not silted up.

Where could a dam be constructed?

Near Ratho. The Minister’s engineers in giving evidence told the Committee where a dam could be constructed. The members of the Select Committee should go there to convince themselves whether this is so or not. Any practical farmer who sees the Limpopo will be able to judge whether the river carries so much silt or sand that a dam would silt up. The wonderful Mabalel pool is sufficient proof.

How deep is it?

Most probably from 15 to 16 foot deep.

But does not the sand come into the river below the Mabalel pool.

No, this is below the Mabalel and this is the test whether a dam in the river will silt up or not. My hon. friend is now referring to the Matlapas. The Matlapas enters the Limpopo hundreds of miles above Mabalel. Go and have a look at the Mabelel and see whether there are any dams silting up.

How much sand is there, where the dam has to be constructed?

The point where the dam has to be constructed is below the Mabalel and the Mabalel is the test whether a dam in the river will silt up or not. The Minister said that the people there could not make a living in view of the poor quality of the veld, the lack of grazing, etc. I have the evidence here given before the Select Committee and my hon. friends on the other side can convince themselves whether this is so or not. I have here the evidence of Mr. Bonsma. I want to repeat once more who Mr. Bonsma is. He is an officer of the Department of Lands in charge of the Government experimental stations in that area.

Are you finished now with the dam?

Yes.

Please read page 60.

I know what Mr. Kokot says, but I maintain that the test is the Mabalel. What Mr. Kokot says is what the Minister says but other people do not say so.

Surely it is reasonable when quoting the evidence of one expert, to quote also the evidence of the other expert.

I ask my hon. friends on the other side to pay a visit to the Mabalel, for there you have a natural dam.

I feel that it would only be fair to quote the evidence of Mr. Kokot, too, seeing that you quoted the other evidence.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is fully entitled to quote Mr. Kokot’s evidence and after he has quoted that, I still ask him to pay a visit to the Mabalel. No argument can upset the fact that the Mabalel, a natural dam, has been in existence for centuries and centuries and has not silted up. That is the test. I now come to the question of the veld.

Mr. Bonsma is not an official of the Department of Lands: I just want to correct that.

No, he is an officer of the Department of Agriculture and he is in control of the Government experimental farms in that area. He has been there for years and has gained much experience in regard to the veld. I just want to read to the House what his evidence amounts to. The following question was put to him (10717)—

His reply was—

In his further evidence Mr. Bonsma states that cattle sometimes stay in a first-class condition owing to mopani only, or rather they eat mainly mopani and then also the kruisbessie. He then was asked (10721)—

And this is the test. If Mr. Bonsma’s evidence is not correct, then the Department of Agriculture may say that the whole experiment there is a failure, but the experimental station there carries on and any farmer who has been there could convince himself that the experimental station there was a success.

I have seen much fodder there which they feed to the cattle.

Mr. Bonsma’s evidence gives information on the use of this fodder and the hon. member for Rustenburg can certainly read Mr. Bonsma’s evidence with much benefit to himself.

I have read it.

Mr. Bonsma was asked—

That is the question: Can you make a living there as a cattle farmer? The reply was—

That is quite in order.

Yes, that is quite in order. Here you have the best proof you can wish for. If hon. members go there now they can visit the farms of farmers who have been farming there for years. They can go and visit the farm of the late Major Hunt north of the Zoutpansberg mountains. Major Hunt was one of the first persons to start farming there and he did not farm there for two or three years only, but he farmed there for many years.

But I have seen very lean cattle there.

Of course during a drought the hon. member will be able to notice many lean cattle there, but does the hon. member for Rustenburg want to tell me that he has not seen lean cattle in the Rustenburg bushveld during a drought.

Not so lean.

I have seen them die there and not only there but I have seen them die in Waterberg during a period of drought. Even during the last drought they died in their thousands in the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal. But my point is that Major Hunt has for many years farmed successfully with cattle north of the Zoutpansberg mountains.

I should like to hear about his success as a farmer.

Does the hon. member doubt it? He can get up and deny this fact. Let him submit his evidence. Go and have a look at the farm of Mr. Gert Smit. See what it looks like. When you have seen that you cannot draw any other conclusion. I am convinced that if the hon. members who have served on the Select Committee were to go there and were to go there with an open mind and if they would not allow themselves to be influenced by party political motives, they would come back as convinced people, convinced of the fact that the Minister of Lands, when he submitted this statement to the House, made himself guilty of a misrepresentation which one can hardly forgive him, because it harmfully affects the rights of citizens of this country.

We will not so easily forgive you your misrepresentations in this House, either.

I have not made any misrepresentations. The Minister is at liberty to prove where I have made any misrepresentations. I did not fabricate these things. Everything I quoted I quoted from Hansard, and I leave it to the Minister to show where I made any misrepresentations.

All right, I will have my turn.

I know that the Minister will have his turn, but I also know that he will not be able to prove that I made one single misrepresentation. I repeat that the misrepresentation made by the Minister is a most serious one, because it may result in people being deprived of what is their own, and that is not to be laughed at. These are people who have invested their money in the land, and who are farming there successfully. It is their home. They have built up and developed that area; they are attached to it; they have worked there in the sweat of their brow. Probably they have spent the best years of their lives there. It is their love, and it is unpardonable that members such as the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) should come here with frivolous interjections.

Because I put a cross-examination question to you? By the way, you have not replied to it yet.

I say that this is a serious matter to deprive people of their rights. I just want to say that when I or you take away another man’s property, then it amounts to theft under our common law. You commit a theft when you take another person’s property, and if you do so by force it amounts to robbery, and that is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed. There is no moral difference between committing theft and committing robbery, and what I consider as legalised theft and legalised robbery. There is no moral difference between taking somebody’s property by force and taking it simply because you have the right to take it under an Act.

But they will be compensated.

The hon. member says that they are to be compensated. Imagine you having built up and developed a farm, and thereafter it is taken away from you and you get compensation. What say do you have in regard to compensation? You have to move off.

You should not call it theft, because they receive compensation.

I maintain that it is theft, for you deprive the man not only of the material value of his property, but also of the sentimental value attached to it. I assume that the hon. member for Rustenburg is today living on a farm which he has inherited from his father. Would he …

I have inherited nothing.

You are now exploiting sentiment.

I do not want to exploit sentiment, but I do hope that there are members sitting on the other side who are so uprighteous that they still love their land.

Sheep also love it.

I am not even talking of the hon. member over there. He is not susceptible to anything. I am now speaking to the hon. member for Rustenburg. He is susceptible to reason, and I say that if he had inherited a farm from his father he would surely have some love for his land. He says that he did not inherit his farm, but I suppose his son will one day inherit his farm:

Unfortunately, I have not got a son.

Well, the hon. member has not even got a son.

Then he should not be a member of Parliament.

If the hon. member is so incapable, then I do admit that it will not even help to appeal to him.

Yes, I am a poor man.

But still I do want to express the hope that even though he has not got a son, he will realise the fairness of my argument, and I do hope that even the Minister will ultimately realise the fairness of it, and I feel that if the members of the Select Committee were to go to the area concerned and would see these things with their own eyes and would thereafter act in accordance with their convictions, they would not let the Minister have his way.

Apparently the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) is under a misapprehension in regard to the origin of the telegrams to which he referred and I think I owe the House an explanation. As chairman of the Select Committee I made the suggestion that the Committee should visit the area. Unfortunately the procedure makes no provision for that. Consequently we proposed that during the recess the members of the Committee should visit the area in their private capacity.

But now it is we who are asking for that.

Just wait a moment. Then I approached the Department of Lands and asked that they should make arrangements for such a visit. The department went out of their way to make all the necessary arrangements but they clashed with the Treasury. There was no vote against which the costs of such a visit could be debited. They tried to debit them against the Assembly, but that could not be done.

Why could they not debit it against the Kalahari safari? There is money to gallivant around but there is no money to enable members of the Select Committee to make a proper investigation.

Unfortunately it could not be accounted for as against the Lands Vote. Then I suggested that an invitation should be sent to all members of the Select Committee that they should visit the area at their own expense, and at my request the telegram was sent to the various members. Every member was given the opportunity to view the area with us. Unfortunately in the end it was only the hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Henny) and I who turned up. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) was sick, and it was impossible for him to go. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) also sent his apologies. He is in medical practice, and his partner was indisposed. He also was unable to go. I do not know the circumstances that prevented the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) from going, but apparently they also could not accept the invitation. The hon. member for Swart-ruggens and I were the only two left, and when we arrived at Dongola we told the parties who opposed the Bill that we were’ at their disposal and that we were prepared to see anything they wished to show us, and that was done.

I do not want to take part in the debate as far as the merits of the case are concerned, because I am one of the members who sat on the Select Committee, and I believe that it is necessary to hear further evidence. In connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), however, I do want to ask the Minister whether this is not a reasonable request, namely, that when we are appointed by the House to investigate matters, we should be given an opportunity to conduct our investigations in such a way that we can satisfy ourselves about the actual position. We are sitting there as a court, and in all cases where a court of law has to decide certain matters and where they have an opportunity of making an inspection, they hold an inspection in loco and visit the place or spot in question. That is what we now want to propose. If the proposal is accepted it will be within our rights to visit the area concerned. When we came together and were meeting as a Select Committee, one of the first things about which we were unanimous was that the members of the Select Committee should themselves make an investigation at Dongola and should go there themselves to see what is happening. What do we find today? We find on the one side a group of people saying that the soil is as good as can be had anywhere in the world. Then on the other hand you get an official or some other person who says that the land is absolutely valueless. You get the one man who maintains that no soil erosion has taken place and then again somebody else comes along and says that the reason why the Government wants to expropriate the land is because of the terrible erosion which is taking place in those parts. There is only one way in which one can Come to the conclusion who is right and who is wrong, and that is by visiting the area personally, and I say again that the Select Committee when it met for the first time felt that we should go and visit the area ourselves, and nobody less than the chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson), broached the subject and went along to see What could be done about it. He, the same as all of us, felt that this was a reasonable request and that it should be granted. I presume that the request was refused by the Department of Finance or some other Department, and that it was said that we could not spend the money, but now the hon. member for Wolmaransstad wants to rectify the matter. He says that the investigation should continue. The Select Committee which was appointed last year should be re-appointed, but he adds that the Committee should be enabled to make an inspection in loco in order to see what is happening in that area and in order to satisfy themselves about the actual facts. I cannot understand why this request cannot be granted. The merits of the case are not concerned in this matter; it is not a question of expropriation or otherwise. The position is that in order to pronounce a fair verdict the members of the Select Committee should all be placed in a position of being able to investigate the matter and visit the area personally. I want to read to you a letter to show that even the Department of Lands was of the opinion that it would be absolutely necessary for us to see the area ourselves, for otherwise they would not have gone to the expense and trouble of writing letters and sending telegrams in order to ask us to visit the area, if they had not been convinced themselves that we should go there in the best interests of the case. On 23rd August of last year—that is the date of the letter in Pretoria — I received a letter from nobody else but the Secretary for Lands—not from the chairman or from one of the members, but from the Secretary for Lands, Mr. Steytler, and he writes as follows—

The Department of Lands itself referred the matter to the Clerk of the House.

At our request.

I admit that, but the point I want to make clear is that if all the other members of the Select Committee and the Department of Lands had considered it unnecessary for the Select Committee to go there, why then did they approach the Clerk of the House to ask him whether we could go there? If the members of the Select Committee and the Department of Lands were convinced that it would be a waste of money, why then did they approach the Clerk of the House to see whether a tour of the area could be arranged so that the members of the Select Committee might personally institute investigations on the spot? It only goes to show that the Department was of the opinion that we should go and the members of the Select Committee were unanimous in their opinion that we should go there ourselves to gain first-hand knowledge of the local conditions. That letter went on to say—

The Department of Lands says that this expenditure may be debited against its Vote, so convinced was the Department of Lands that we ought to go and visit the area concerned.

On a point of explanation, if the hon. member will allow me, I must in all fairness say that the Department did not express an opinion about the matter. Only because we addressed a request to the Department did they say that they would be prepared to grant our request and that they would assist us in making the necessary investigations. But the Department as such never expressed any opinion on the desirability or otherwise of us visiting the area in question.

No, but according to this letter which originates from the Department of Lands and has been signed by the Secretary for Lands, they say that the Department approached the Treasury and that the Department would be prepared that the expenditure would be debited against its Vote.

At our request.

I admit that it was done at our request, but now it is again our request, and why is that not being accepted? I admit that in the first instance it was done at the request of the Select Committee, but the Department of Lands identified itself with our request. If the Department had thought that it would mean an unnecessary chasing around and that it would be unnecessary for the members to view the area personally, they would have said: We are not prepared to do so, but here in this letter they say that after the Clerk of the House had informed them that it could not be done, they were prepared to take up the matter with the Treasury and to inform the latter that the expenditure might be debited against the Lands Vote—

My opinion in regard to the matter is as follows, and I want to make it plain to the House that all the members of the Select. Committee unanimously felt that they should pay a personal visit to the area. The Department of Lands endorsed this view, for after the Clerk of the House had said that it could not be done since the session of Parliament had come to an end, the Department of Lands took up the matter and stated that they would be prepared to have the costs debited against that Department’s Vote.

Seeing that they of course had nothing to hide.

It clearly shows that the Department of Lands reckoned that it was absolutely essential that we should go. I am not certain about the dates, but I think it was in any case after 23rd August and before 18th September. I then received a telegram from Boorlands—that is, of course, the Department of Lands—to the effect that the Department was still of the opinion that it would be desirable that we should visit the area personally.

Again at my request.

It does not matter at whose request. If I ask the Minister of Finance to send a telegram, surely he will not send a telegram unless he approves of my request. Will the Department simply send any telegram at my request when they do not agree with my views? I assume that the hon. member for Ermelo approached the Department of Lands. But my point is that the Department of Lands agreed with our opinion that we ought to go and visit that area. Here I receive a telegram from Boorlands which possibly cost quite a few shillings and which has been sent to all the members of the Select Committee. It reads—

One of the things with which I do not agree is the following: Why should members who have been appointed on a Select Committee pay their own expenses when they have to visit this area in order to enable them to come to a fair decision?

I offered to pay my own expenses.

This is a matter of principle. It is not the question whether it is going to cost me £3 or £4. When I am asked to spend £3 or £4 in order to visit the area, I can rightly ask why the Government should not pay it. What happened then is that I had to be in the Northern Transvaal more or less on 28th October. I then had to visit the area, as I believed at that moment, and I therefore let them know that if they could make the visit at about that time, I would go along, but the important point I want to make is this: Why should members of the Select Committee pay their own expenses? But on 18th September, about one month after the telegram—I cannot clearly make out the date stamp on the telegram—anyhow, on 18th September I received a further letter from the Department of Lands, this time signed by Mr. Penzhorn. I want to point out once more that these letters had not been written by the hon. member for Ermelo. They may most probably have been written in consequence of the request of the hon. member for Ermelo to the Department of Lands for permission for the Select Committee to visit the area and inspect the land. But the Department approved of it and from their office wrote me a letter dated 18th September of last year which reads—

What difference does that make to the motion?

I will tell you what difference it makes: The difference that the Department of Lands was most anxious that we should visit that area. And why?

Because I was so ready to help.

Then I ask you to be helpful once again, for we are again coming with a request. I have carefully avoided discussing the merits of the case. I want the Minister to enable us to see the area concerned, so that we may be able to come to a decision after having seen this area.

But now you have seen it.

I did not go there. I served for weeks and months on the Select Committee, and if I have to visit the area, and it will cost me £10 or £15 or £25, then I cannot see why I should pay that myself. I do not go into the question of the pros and cons of this matter now, but if the Select Committee wants to be in a position to come to a fair and sound decision, it must view the area. I ask the hon. Minister of Lands to admit that the proposal from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is a fair proposal. Give the Select Committee the right to visit Dongola. At a previous stage the Minister was willing to have the expenditure debited against the Lands Vote. The Department of Lands was prepared to do that, and I cannot see why the Minister should not be prepared at this stage to accept the proposal made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. If he does agree to it, we can come to a decision on our own observations. We are dealing here with the expropriation of private property. That is a serious matter, and the members of the Select Committee should be put in a position which will enable them to come to a sound and fair decision.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) is not in the House, because I should like to have learned from him what attitude he is going to adopt in connection with this matter. Last year he tried his best to get the Select Committee there. He said there were certain members who could not go, amongst others the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen), because his partner was on leave. I hope the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) will not go out now.

I am not afraid of you.

But the hon. member merely wants to go out, and we know that he ran away on a previous occasion. I hope he will not do so again. One of the other members of the Select Committee also could not go on account of unavoidable circumstances. The hon. member for Ermelo really made an honest attempt to get the members of the Select Committee there. On account of a combination of circumstances, it was not possible for them to go. I think he did absolutely the right thing in trying to get them there. He did this because he realised it was necessary to have an inspection in loco. Does he realise there is still a necessity for that? Possibly he has altered his opinion, or does he still think that the members should go? I see the hon. member has come in, and perhaps he can give an answer.

We all had the opportunity to go.

That is not the point. The hon. member in the past exerted every effort to get the members there, and he must have done so because of a realisation that it was necessary for the members to see the area for themselves. Does he not still think that it is necessary for them to go?

I say they had the opportunity to go.

That does not answer the question. My question is whether the hon. member still thinks it is necessary for the Select Committee to visit the spot.

There is nothing to prevent them going.

It is clear the hon. member will not answer my question.

I shall not stop them going.

Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen such shuffling? The hon. member either meant honestly that the members of the Select Committee should go there, or he is not now honest in his answer. Though the hon. member last year, as chairman of the Select Committee, did his utmost, and he was absolutely correct, to get the members there, it seems that this year he thinks they should not go. We now give the member the opportunity to take the members of the Select Committee there. We will honestly try to get them there.

I do not need any assistance. I have been there.

One can do something with a stupid person, but with a clever man who pretends he is stupid it is a different matter. The hon. member realises quite well what my question is, but he is trying to be evasive. Let the hon. member be honest, I assume he still wants the members of the Select Committee to visit the area so that they may inspect it themselves. We now want to give them that opportunity. But he is not going to support us. He will vote against the motion which will make it possible to get the Select Committee there. Was he honest last year in his effort to get them there? If he was honest the only honest thing he can do this year is to support this motion at once. He cannot have been honest last year about getting the members of the Select Committee there and be just as honest this year when he does not want them to go there.

What is there to prevent them going?

It makes one suspicious.

Yes, I am beginning to be suspicious there is a reason why the hon. member does not want the members of the Select Committee there. But I come to another point. The Minister of Finance has also done his share to ensure that these people did not visit Dongola. When an effort was made by the chairman of the Select Committee to get the members there because he thought it was the right thing and that they should see the place themselves, as they had to function in a judicial capacity and to pass judgment on these people’s right of occupation, and on their whole future, whether they should be uprooted from their homes—which is a very serious matter—he thought and he was quite right, that the members should visit the spot so that they would be in a position to pass judgment, and apparently the Department of Lands also thought likewise, because the Department approached the Treasury in order to approve the expenditure being debited against the Department of Lands. But no, the Treasury refused to pay the expenses of the Select Committee who had to go and decide over the future of these people and whether their property was to be expropriated. To these people this was a matter of tremendous importance.

And these people will have themselves to bear the expense of presenting their case to the Select Committee.

Yes, I am still coming to that. In order to safeguard their livelihood, in order to try to protect their property, these people will have to come to Cape Town, at a cost of something like £3,000, to submit their case to the Select Committee. This shows what a serious view they take of the matter. When we want to bring the mountain to Mohammed in order to reduce the costs the Treasury intervenes and says that the State will not pay. It will not authorise £1 for that, but when a Cabinet Minister and a number of members opposite apply to the Treasury for money for a hunting trip in the Kalahari there is no lack of funds. For this good cause, however, there is no money and these people will have to carry on at their own expense until their case collapses on account of shortage of funds. I resent very much that the Minister of Finance would not give money to the Department of Lands to allow this Select Committee to visit the spot. It would only have cost a couple of hundred pounds. But when a group of Parliamentary members chase round the Kalahari with the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Finance is able to find the funds to enable them to hunt there and to make biltong.

That is not so.

There was money enough for that, and for liquor as well.

As far as drink is concerned you are a greater sinner.

I produce liquor and I am glad that they took liquor with them. But when I take liquor with me I pay for my own, whether I go to the Kalahari or anywhere else. I also pay for my own food. I do not go on a hunting trip and on a jollification at the expense of the Treasury. That is what I am annoyed over with the Treasury. When the Select Committee wanted to make an investigation in connection with a very important matter the Treasury could not find the money, but there is heaps of money when they want to go and have their holiday in the Kalahari. That is why I say that the Minister of Finance must also be held to account by these people in the reserve.

Now I come to another aspect of the matter. I have only once gone beyond Messina, and apart from that I do not know that territory. They pointed a mopani tree out to me and said that the river was the Limpopo. I know nothing of those parts, but I have to decide, and the two members on that side who were serving on the Select Committee must be given the opportunity to decide and to advise us whether this Bill is in the interests of the country, and whether the conditions prevailing there are as described by the Minister of Lands or as described by other people. This is why we have appointed a Select Committee, and the members serving on that Select Committee must be accorded the opportunity to make an investigation so that they can tell us what is right; whether the hon. member for Zoutpansberg was right to come here and tell us that the northern part of his constituency was absolutely worthless.

That is false.

We want to know whether the hon. member is right when he is fouling his own nest. I do not want to read out the speech of that hon. member because it is comprised of retractions. Let us look at what the Minister himself said about Dongola. When we compare his speech with the evidence of other persons who came from those parts we are thoroughly confused, because the evidence is completely contradictory. I will therefore briefly mention a few things the Minister of Lands stated in his speech on the previous occasion, and then I will compare it with what other persons said, and it is the duty of the Select Committee to tell us who was right. Mr. Emery is one of the individuals interested in Dongola and he published a document in connection with Dongola regarding which the Minister stated—

Well, the Select Committee is still far from having completed its labours, but I have read part of this volume we already have. Individuals who were there and even officials of the Minister’s department support the contentions that Mr. Emery made. I do not say they supported all of them, but nevertheless there was quite a number, more than the 1 per cent. that the Minister said might be true. They supported, for instance, his contentions in connection with irrigation and also many of the other statements he made. Let us go further and see what the Minister said—

Now I have received through the post a copy of a magazine called “Libertas”. I understand the editor of it was an important person engaged in government business. He is a Mr. T. C. Robertson. In this magazine there appears an article about those parts and also a number of photographs. Here is a photograph of a house with luxuriant grass round about it, and the wording under the photograph is—

What is the name of the farm?

I do not know what the name is. This is what Mr. T. C. Robertson writes, and he was the leader of the Government’s Truth Legion. The Minister will, of course, not accuse the leader of the Truth Legion of untrustworthiness.

Is this in the reserve?

He says so.

Where is Mr. T. C. Robertson’s farm?

I did not say it was his farm. This is the farm he describes. I do not know what the position is. I do not know whether the Minister is wrong and I do not know whether Mr. T. C. Robertson is wrong. We want to know, and therefore we must allow an inspection to be made. Then the Minister comes along with the small rainfall. It is one of the reasons he advanced why this region is worthless. The rainfall is so small. Now I find in the report of the Commission a rainfall table is given. I should like to read out some of the items—

And is this the desert?

Yes, and this is the rainfall.

These are no doubt all oases in the desert.

If it is a question of rainfall there are many parts of the country where farming has been very beneficially carried on and that the Minister will also have to expropriate.

What is the rainfall at Hutchinson?

I am coming to that. My point is that if the rainfall is the consideration there are many parts with a much smaller rainfall the Minister will have to expropriate. The Minister says further—

In this connection there appears in “Libertas” another picture showing Dr. Pole Evans standing against elephant grass which is much higher than himself, and the wording under the picture is—

But now the Minister says that as soon as those lands are occupied the grass disappears. We only need to look at this picture. Who must we believe? The Minister says—

This is the one side of the picture. Now we get this article with the photographs. I will not refer to the pawpaws that grow there so profusely, but I have already mentioned the photograph of Dr. Pole Evans alongside a stand of elephant grass. I now come to a farm at Dongola. Here is a photograph of a splendid fat Afrikaner ox, and the wording under the photograph is—

At 10.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 21st March.