I move—

I trust that this motion is one which will commend itself to the whole House. The motion has a twofold nature in that I have asked the Government to take control or ownership of all our mountain ranges in this country, and secondly also to assume control over our public rivers; and as my motion is prefaced with the words “all with a view to combating soil erosion”, I feel that when we are talking about soil erosion I am on a good wicket, because there is no doubt that during the last few years our country has become much more soil erosion conscious than they ever were before. We have come to realise the tremendous dangers to our country from the erosion which is taking place. We have had that matter touched upon at various times in, this House. In the Bill introduced by the Hon. the Minister of Lands for the amendment of the Irrigation Act there is also a slight touching on the subject, and I feel that something has to be done about it. We have had experts giving their opinions. We have had men like Mr. van Rensburg doing an inestimable amount of good work in this country and bringing home to the people the dangers of soil erosion, and we had the privilege of seeing his pictures in this House. But I do feel that in tackling this problem we should go to the root of the fault and start at the source.

I would urge that we should give attention to our mountains as they are practically the source of all our main rivers and watersheds; all these originate high up in the mountains. We know that water is brought down from the mountains through the kloofs to our main rivers, and we have witnessed these tremendous veld fires taking place year by year in the dry season, right throughout the country, but more particularly in the Western Province and south-western districts which have always been well watered and well wooded. There is this indiscriminate burning of the veld, particularly on the mountains, resulting in some of our finest flora being destroyed. The kloofs which were well wooded to give protection to the water courses are now denuded of growth with the result that erosion takes place, that fountains dry up and that the mountain sources of water have become weaker, all as a result of the kloofs being denuded of undergrowth as the result of fires. Thousands of tons of soil have been washed down to the sea. This soil erosion is a national problem, and even the Government with all its efforts will not succeed in bringing about the desired improvement, unless they have the sympathy and co-operation of all the people and particularly land owners; and unless the country becomes more conscious of this danger to their future, and the people are prepared to co-operate in any Government scheme, notwithstanding any Acts which may be passed by this House, the Government will fail in its efforts. Now, we who have witnessed some of these disastrous fires in our mountain ranges, have often been astonished by the fact that the fire seems to start very high up in the mountains and one wondered how that took place. The only conclusion is that they have been deliberately set alight by irresponsible people or vagrants, or by somebody who is doing it to attain some imagined personal benefit. It has often been said in the Western Province that these fires are started by wood gatherers, irresponsible people. There is still prevalent among land owners the idea which their fathers had of burning portion of the veld every year. To a certain extent they may be right, but if you have this veld burning indiscriminately, especially in mountain ranges, without any control, and that state of affairs goes on as it has for the last twenty years, desolation will result, and eventually the ’ population will suffer. That is why I suggest that the Government should take control, and perhaps, where necessary, should acquire ownership of our mountain ranges, because with very few exceptions the mountain ranges are not cultivated. They are practically of no use to the farmer. We know that in years gone by portions of our mountains have afforded grazing, especially in the Western Province, where farmers had to keep many cattle for the manure, but those days have passed. With the present state of development of artificial fertilisers, farmers do not find it necessary to keep so many cattle, and to have grazing for these animals. In asking the Government to take control of the mountains, I feel that there may be exceptions. On top of the Piketberg Mountain the soil has been cultivated for years, and there are very valuable farms, and I do not include such areas in my request, but unless we control these mountains and there is authority for the Government to prevent trespass and indiscriminate burning, further destruction will take place more and more. I submit that action should be taken. The position is very serious, and does not brook of any delay. We are opening up the country by building scenic roads. In the Paarl district we have the Du Toits Kloof road going over the mountain to Worcester and the north. That is high up in the mountain. Fine scenic roads are for the benefit of the country, but thousands of motor cars carrying holiday picnickers right to the top of these mountains, may be expected, and we know what the result will be. For every thinking and careful person there are six who are careless, and unless there is some method of prohibiting fires on mountain ranges, these picnickers will cause a tremendous number of fires. That is why I say the Government should take action. The whole idea is that we should protect the ranges, and see that indiscriminate burning of veld ceases so as to stop erosion and destruction of some of our most valuable areas, and if the Government does take control over and ownership of the mountains, naturally the Government can put vast mountain areas under afforestation. That is in regard to the mountain ranges.

The other point of my motion deals with our public rivers, and I feel the Government should assume the control of our public rivers. I have in mind particularly streams in the Western Province, such as the Berg River and the Breede River. In the winter, during the rainy season, these rivers get into flood with the result that there is a tremendous lot of washaways and silting; rubble and stones are brought down, forming islands in the river, and frequently the river changes its course, causing havoc to surrounding property and grave damage to valuable farming land. Riparian owners have spent hundreds and hundreds of pounds in their efforts to secure protection. They have tried time and again to prevent the washing away of the banks. Another factor making for these washaways is the palmiet and other flora in the river beds. But experience over many years has taught us that the protection of the river banks, the clearing of the river bed and the maintenance of the flow of the stream are tasks beyond the means and capacity of the private individual, and are indeed properly a matter for combined action, for united effort, and for Government control. The energetic farmer does his best. He observes what is occurring and reasons: Some of these obstructions must be taken away from here, this is what is impeding the flow of the river. Perhaps he removes part of an island causing the water to come down, but what happens? The water is thrown up against a neighbour’s property, causing him tremendous damage. It is the work of engineers; it is required that they should make a proper survey of the river, take a proper line and lay down a well-considered scheme for the strengthening of the banks and preventing these washaways. There are various ways of tackling the job. The Government should assume complete control and undertake the work of clearing the river bed.

What do you mean by taking control?

I shall try to explain what I mean by taking control. They must have the say as to what should be done. There should be a law to enable them to instruct a private owner along these lines. They will tell him: You are tackling in a patchwork way, you are doing this and that, you are not doing so; we will send an engineer along who will make an accurate survey and plan what should be done. Working through its experts the Government should evolve a combined scheme for action, not merely to cover a few hundred yards of river but a few miles, and the riparian owners must give their co-operation. Naturally the Government must present the plan and the work must be carried out under their experts. I am sure the farmers will welcome such a scheme. Let me mention the case of Wemmershoek, a tributary of the Berg River. Six years ago it overflowed its banks, causing the farmers irreparable damage. One farmer repaired the damage, as he thought, but next year his work was undone and the banks were washed away again. He tried again and again, but he cannot afford to continue with that work. It is beyond his means. But I do feel he went the wrong way about it. He tackled it like a layman. He saw an opening and thought that he must close it up at once, but when the Government engineer came down to make an inspection he found the cause of the trouble was lower down the river where it had become silted up and overgrown, and the moment that was cleared and opened up there was a great improvement. As I say, this is no longer work for individuals. To stop rivers being silted up requires concerted action by riparian owners with Government control and assistance.

Will this not be interfering with the rights of riparian owners?

The rights of riparian owners would be respected. They would never find their rights would be infringed or prejudiced for the reason that when the river banks are stabilised the flow is not diminished. Their rights are protected under the common law. I do not mean to imply that we have to override riparian rights.

You have to give the Government the power.

We give the Government the control and the power, but we do not give them the right to infringe or to take away the riparian rights.

What do you mean by riparian rights?

You know what it means; the right to take water out of the river. But where a water court has made an apportionment of water to the riparian owner giving him a certain user, that user must stand. I do not see how my motion will affect riparian rights. All we ask is that when the river is inclined to change its course it should be kept to its course.

A river board can be formed, the Government is now amending the law.

Yes, the Government Bill coincides with my bringing up this motion. When I put my motion on the Order Paper the Bill had not been laid on the Table of the House. What the Government is doing now is a step in the right direction. So I think my motion is not ill-founded. My motion refers to mountain fires which cause erosion and diminish the water supply of our land. The mountain streams, when they are exposed to the rays of the sun, are subject to heavy evaporation, and owing to their banks not being protected erosion occurs. Then the river silts up and when there is not proper clearing of the growth and deposits the river overflows the banks and again the result is very serious erosion.

I associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). I think his amendment practically flows from my motion, and the two are not antagonistic. The Government must realise the seriousness of the problem and, as the amendment indicates, funds must be provided as required. I do feel that the soil erosion question is a national question and we do not sufficiently realise the enormous losses our country has suffered and will suffer unless the matter is tackled at once. I hope, therefore, my motion will commend itself to the Government.

I should like to support the motion of the hon. member. I think the time has arrived that we should not only ask the Government, where necessary, to take possession of the mountain ranges, but we should decide that all mountain ranges should be taken possession of and that it should be prevented that mountain fires diminish the water supplies still further. But it is of no use taking a decision and passing legislation here if the Government does not go further. And when once we have decided that the mountain ranges should be acquired, or if necessary be expropriated, provision must also be made for proper supervision. My idea is that if the mountain ranges are in the possession of the State, there should be a European ranger every ten or fifteen miles with a few coloureds or natives under him to prevent the outbreak and spread of fires. One has the position that the rivers all originate high up in the mountains, and when one has these mountain fires the water dries up or gets weaker and I think one can say that in nine out of ten cases these fires are started intentionally. In many cases they are caused by picnickers. I think especially now of the Magaliesberg near Pretoria and the Rand. On Sundays one finds a stream of picnickers going to those mountains, and many of the fires are caused by their carelessness. I will go so far as to say that as far as veld fires are concerned, the penalties should be made so severe as to enable a guilty man to be sent to prison without the option of a fine. He must learn to help to protect his country. If there are rangers, they can prevent these things to a large extent. When once we have gone so far, it is essential to start water and veld conservation works at the origin of these rivers by making small dams to prevent these rivers from causing erosion. If we begin with the damming of public streams, I do not think we shall be depriving private riparian owners of any rights. The only object is to protect the erf itself. One would not be taking away any rights from the owners. When one starts at the top, and reclaims an area, it is essential that the Government should be able to have supervision by means of legislation and see to it that the private owners will not once more let the land be neglected. Today one has cases along the rivers where people are making increasing use of pumping plants to pump water for irrigation purposes, and where they cultivate the ground right to the bank of the river, with the result that when there is a flood, not only do they lose their crops, but also the soil. In five years it has happened twice in my district.

Is it your plan to prevent people from ploughing on the banks?

Yes, they must keep a certain distance away from the banks as regards cultivation, otherwise one cannot attain one’s object, unless one can exercise control by legislation. A man may say that he is the owner of his ground and that he will plough right up to the edge of the river, but then the floods come and wash away his ground, and he then applies to the Government for relief. I feel that when action is taken, it will not be a matter only for the Department of Lands and the Department of Irrigation and the Agricultural Department. We have two other Departments in the country who are perhaps the greatest sinners in connecton with soil erosion, namely, the Department of Railways and the National Roads Department. They make water furrows and loosen the soil and scrape it, thereby creating the opportunity for the water to run away on a large scale after the first rain. The co-operation of the two Departments is essential, and they should also be placed under the same stringent regulations applicable to the ordinary man who neglects his ground. Otherwise, there will be no end to the trouble. In the first place, we must protect our ground against veld fires, in the second place we should build small dams from the origin of the rivers and lower down to prevent the washing away of soil on the banks of the rivers. In conclusion, I wish to say that I find no fault with the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). His amendment is aimed at improving and speeding up the matter. I therefore hope that the amendment will also be adopted, so that we will be able to support the matter unanimously and to show the Government that the farmers to the last man are in favour of such methods.

I wish to express my regret that the Minister of Agriculture cannot be present owing to ill health. I understand that the Minister of Lands is acting on his behalf. Seeing that I wish to move an amendment, I should like to ask the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) whether he will not delete three words from his motion, namely, “and possession of”. For the rest, I have no objection to the motion as far as I can see the position. I move my amendment—

1. “ (3) to make available forthwith a liberal amount for combating soil erosion;
2. (4) to supply fencing material under the erosion subsidy schemes legislation where required for the division of farms into camps and to erect fences;
3. (5) to suspend the limitations on the amounts which may be spent on improvements on farms for the purpose of combating soil erosion; and
4. (6) to increase the amount of the subsidy to not less than 50 per cent. of the expenditure.”

The mountains in the Western Province and in the South-Western Districts, and perhaps also in the eastern parts of the Cape Province, have no grazing value, but the mountains in the interior have tremendous grazing value for cattle. I think of a district like Cradock, of the mountain ranges in the north-west, for example, the Kareeberge, which comprise the best ’ grazing obtainable in any part of the country. Therefore, if one takes control merely in order to prevent mountain fires, it sufficiently covers the aims of the hon. member. My amendment asks for four things. In the first place, it asks that the State should make available sufficient funds for the tackling of soil erosion. The position is disturbing, and one cannot just vote small amounts each year, and expect soil erosion to be combated in that manner. Soil erosion is a national problem. I think nobody, whether city dweller or country dweller, will deny that it is a national problem which should be tackled on a grand scale. We must regard soil erosion as a war against the economic prosperity of the nation, and the State should follow a policy of resisting this attack with all its strength. It is a cancer gnawing at our national existence, and sufficient funds should be made available. The second portion of my amendment asks that fencing material and the erection thereof should be included in the soil erosion scheme. I shall pause to expand upon that in a moment. The third thing asked for in my amendment, is that the limitation which there is today in regard to the subsidies for soil erosion works, namely £400 per farm, should be amended. Today the State can only give a subsidy of one-third in respect of an amount of £400 spent on a farm. One finds farms where £100 is enough to combat soil erosion, but on other farms, it cannot be done with £1,000. It is therefore inequitable. A man is confined to £400 as the maximum amount upon which he can receive a subsidy, and perhaps that amount is not half sufficient to complete the work. I therefore want to press for a larger subsidy, i.e. on a larger amount; and fourthly, I am pressing for a larger percentage of subsidy than 33⅓ per cent. There are people who through negligence allow their soil to be eroded, but there are also other people who acquire ground after erosion on a large scale has taken place. These people are perhaps not financially able to spend such a large amount of money that they can negative the evil by receiving a one-third subsidy from the State. I should like to refer to one of the best reports we have had in connection with soil erosion, namely the report of the Drought Investigation Commission of 1923-’24. That Commission at that time already warned us as to what the results would be of soil erosion. On page 13, in paragraph 109, they state—

Then they say in paragraph 117—

That is a clear and unequivocal statement by the Drought Commission. It was a Commission appointed to investigate the causes of drought and of losses of cattle, and as long as 23 years ago, the position was already so serious that they warned us that we would be faced with a problem which is today facing us. On page 6, paragraph 29, they state—

This report was published 23 years ago, and then they already stated what position was awaiting us and how a state of famine could exist and the impoverishment of the agricultural population as a result of the soil erosion problem. I also wish to refer to a speech I made on 16th April, 1934—

Then already I made the same plea I am making today, but at that time we had the difficulty that the Department of Agriculture did not recognise the seriousness of the matter as we did. Year after year agricultural congresses pleaded with the Government to include fencing under soil erosion schemes. We are glad to hear that the Department of Agriculture today is sharing the point of view which we held at that time. Dr. Fick, an official of the Forestry Department, at the congress of the North-Western Agricultural Union, the latest congress to be opened by him, devoted his whole speech to soil erosion and stated that the primary measure against soil erosion is jackal-proof fencing, camping and rotation. That, according to him, is the chief measure with which to combat soil erosion. The Committee for the Reconstruction of Agriculture in its report also unequivocally stated that the best means of combating soil erosion is the application of rotation and camps, dividing the grazing into camps. But I think that the most serious shock we received was when Dr. Bennett came here and submitted a report to show what dimensions soil erosion had already assumed. He stated that already 25 per cent. of our best soil had been washed away in many portions óf the country, and according to him we have been impoverished and that it will take many years to restore the havoc created by soil erosion, but after submitting his report in the beginning of 1945 Dr. Bennett stated further that he regrets that even now, while we know what the position is, we exhibit a measure of indifference in connection with combating soil erosion. According to a Sapa report Dr. Bennett made the following statement in Washington three weeks ago—

It is true that the situation is not unknown to us, but we make no use of our knowledge. I should like to return to the Drought Investigation Commission’s report and show how the commission time after time stated what losses were due to droughts. We find that on page 4 of the report. In parenthesis I may say that this commission was appointed especially to investigate the causes of drought and the losses of cattle. They had no mandate to report about soil erosion, but notwithstanding that they specifically devoted attention to soil erosion. They pointed out that in the drought of 1919 losses of cattle in South Africa amounted to no less than £16 million. I should like to know what the losses were in 1933 and what losses were suffered by the farmers from 1942 to 1945.

In 1933 the direct losses amounted to £21 million.

They state here—

Then the commission on page 12, amongst its recommendations, states—

But I should like to read the final conclusion to which the commission came. We find that in paragraphs 126 to 132, on pages 14 and 15, but I will only read paragraph 129—

Their influence will be felt for a long time. Then they come to page 21 and under paragraphs 202 and 203—

I am reading only a few extracts, but the whole of this report amounts to this, that in the cattle districts there is nothing else causing more soil erosion than the herding and kraaling of cattle. I am glad that the Minister of Lands is a practical farmer. He knows the circumstances. I go so far as to Say that soil erosion in the sheep districts has only been half tackled if those farms are not also divided into jackal-proof camps and inner camps. Now, it will be stated that a large portion of the farming population camped their farms without a sudsidy from the State. That is so, but these people camped at a time when fencing was cheap. They are people whose farms are not far distant from the railway, but especially in the north-western areas there are people who are 100 to 150 milés from the rail head, and the price of fencing is today double the prewar price if it is not more than 100 per cent. higher than it was before the war. But the costs of transport by rail and the costs of transport by the bus are tremendous and amount to a terrific expenditure for the farmer.

Fencing costs almost three times as much now as before the war.

I say that the State could never spend money better than by including the erection of fencing and of inner camps under the soil erosion laws. We should beware of taking up the point of view adopted by the Land Bank today, that fencing is too expensive and that one should not fence. I wish to ask my hon. friends who are acquainted with Graaff-Reinet to go to the farms of Mr. Murray and the Vermeulens. Ask them what jackal-proof fencing cost them. It cost them £130 per thousand yards. They fenced during the war years, in 1916, 1917 and 1918, and that saved them. Today they are prosperous farmers, and when one can fence at approximately £80 per thousand yards, I say that is economically better, not only for the farmer, but also for the State. I will go so far as to say that if in the north-western districts where we had enormous losses as the result of droughts, we had proper fencing and inner camps, the little rain which fell there would have soaked into the soil, and we could have prevented the cattle treading out paths., and our losses would have been much less than they are today. I regard this matter as being wholly a national one, and I want the Government also to regard it from a national point of view. Whether one is a city dweller or a town dweller, every one of us has an interest in the soil of South Africa, and its preservation, and for that reason I direct a very earnest appeal to the Government to make available ample funds for these people who are not able to fence, and also for the sake of combating of soil erosion to bring jackal-proof fencing and inner camps under the soil erosion scheme.

Like the other members, I do not wish to be very long, because I believe that as far as the House and the country as a whole are concerned, it is no longer necessary to plead that the Government should recognise that the combating of soil erosion is essential. I think the nation as a whole has now become conscious of the importance of combating soil erosion, because eventually the prosperity of everybody depends on whether South Africa will wash away to the sea or not. For that reason it is no longer necessary to deliver pleas in connection with soil erosion measures. The Department of Lands has made several attempts in this direction. For example, in 1929 already a conference was held, and in 1930, as a result of the conference, an advisory board as regards soil erosion was instituted under that Department. In 1933, however, that advisory board in regard to soil conservation became extinct, but in 1939 the Division of Soil and Veld Conservation was called into existence, the chief object of which was to prevent soil erosion. Between the year 1933 and the outbreak of war they continued with erosion schemes, but I wish to state this morning that although they continued with those schemes and had a certain measure of success, I do not believe that people who are interested in soil erosion are definitely of the opinion now that the way we tackled the problem from 1933 has given us the best results. If we want to be honest I do not think that we can be satisfied with it. We only touched the fringe of that great problem, and it is perhaps just as well for us to listen to what was said by Dr. Ross, who is chief of the Department of Soil and Veld Conservation. In 1945 in a speech he held before the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of South Africa, he confessed the following. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) spoke here about the findings of the Drought Investigation Commission, namely that South Africa is changing into desert. Already in 1922 it was stated that South Africa would become a desert if we did not tackle the problem. Now in 1945 Dr. Ross stated the following—

I stated that the attempts made by the Government, well-intentioned though they were, did not have the desired results. The head of that Department now tells us in 1945 that the position was much worse than when the Drought Investigation Commission reported, and already in the year 1922 we were faced by catastrophe. The present is an age of machinery, radio and all those things, and the farm has to pay for all that. I read with interest some time ago what was written in the “Farmers’ Weekly” by a certain Mr. McKenzie. He was dealing with this position, and said the following—

We can really put it that way. Already in 1933 we started building weirs, and just in passing, before I come to another important point with which I want to deal especially this morning, I just wish to say in connection with the building of dams that after the experience we have had, we have failed there also, and when the hon. member states here that he would like the subsidy increased from 33⅓ per cent. to 50 per cent. I agree with him completely. But we also know what experience has taught us. It has become a practical impossibility for the farmer on his farm with two or three or four spans of oxen to work at making a dam for two or three years. Most of the farmers have such high mortgages that it is a practical impossibility to keep three or four spans of oxen on the farm for a number of years. The oxen are used, and when drought comes, the farmer loses them. I am one of those people who attach much value to practical knowledge, and for that reason I also very often differ from the Agricultural Department, because I believe that the really good official is one who has had practical experience, who can then apply his theoretical knowledge. I believe that that is the man who can speak with authority. I received three letters this morning from my constituency, asking that I should bring it to the attention of the Department that to make dams with oxen and dam scrapers is something of the past. We know that in Burgersdorp there is now a certain system of having the scrapers drawn by tractors. I know of one farmer who worked for seven years to build a dam. He then acquired a tractor to draw the scrapers and finished the dam within three or four months. I know of another dam where the farmer estimated that with three or four teams of oxen he would work for approximately two or three years. He used that machinery and within three months had completed the dam costing £600. I now wish to bring it to the attention of the Department in the absence of the Minister that we think that provision should be made in the new Act which is being introduced that, for the country to be divided into certain areas, machinery should be made available, and that people will then be able to make use of that machinery. For the farmer it has become practically impossible to make larger dams if he cannot use machinery.

But I really wish to deal with something else this morning, namely the surface erosion of which the hon. member for Calvinia has spoken. And when I speak about surface erosion I wish to speak especially as one who was born in the north-western area and who has had experience of this evil and its results, and I think that in the new erosion Act which is to be introduced, the Department has not yet got it inside its head that it should provide cheaper fencing or else adopt measures to subsidise people to fence their farms to stop soil erosion by those means. In my younger days I had the privilege personally to herd sheep, and therefore I wish to talk this morning as one who has had practical experience of it, and if the House would exercise a little patience I should like to draw a picture here of what happens in the great north-west, which is one of the areas most suitable for grazing sheep in South Africa. One has a dam or a windmill on one’s farm. The person herding the sheep is compelled to be near the water with his flock, and it is self-evident that the sheep denude the veld of grazing in the immediate vicinity of the water. A time arises when the veld has been grazed off for a distance of two or three miles around the water. Now one must remember that at night the sheep stand still and in the day they must graze, and everyone who has herded sheep knows that in summer from about 10 in the morning until 3 p.m. sheep do not graze, but lie and sleep. And if the veld round the windmill or dam has been grazed off, one has to start early in the morning and trek with the sheep so that when day dawns they can graze, and by the time one reaches the grazing it is almost 10 o’clock, and the sheep no longer want to graze. In the north-west one then has to wait until three in the afternoon, when the wind comes up. Anyone who has any knowledge of sheep knows that when the wind comes up the sheep start grazing. Now one has to wait until the sheep have grazed a little, and late in the afternoon, towards night, one must drive those sheep back over this denuded veld for three miles, so that they can drink. Now, what are the evils of this system? I do not even speak about the bad effects it has on the sheep themselves. Hon. members can imagine how the veld for miles round the windmill is trodden out into footpaths. Now, the first rains come. When it rains in these parts, the wind blows, and the footpaths become sand dunes. But when the rain comes, and especially if there are thunderstorms, these footpaths become small sloots, and the soil is eroded. That is surface erosion; the best parts of the soil are washed away. The surface has been so impoverished that today one no longer sees the growth one saw in the past. It no longer grows so luxuriantly. The water no longer remains in the ground, because there is no vegetation to absorb it. One no longer today sees water oozing out of the ground as in the past. The soil is just moist when the water soaks in, as one saw in Aliwal North, where the water came out of the ground. Today one no longer sees it. The water rushes away to the sea. In these areas of which I have spoken, it is not only important that the ground is eroded near the windmill or dam, but you will now see a bush growing there which the animals do not want to eat. I refer to the yellow bush in the north-west. In the areas where the Minister of Lands lives, the yellow bush is not so bad.

The January bush; the “besembos”?

No, the “kraalbos”.

In any case, one now sees that type of bush growing. If one sits on a high point of the farm, one’s heart becomes sore when one sees how the good grazing is destroyed, and not only washed away, but is replaced by this bush which no animal wants to eat. And now I wish to put the question: Has the Department been warned Yes, as early as 1922 it was warned. I do not want to repeat here what the hon. member for Calvinia said about the kraaling system, but I can quote long reports wherein it is stated that surface erosion is the most dangerous form of erosion in South Africa, and that it is the duty of the State to make camps, to provide jackal-proof camps so that the sheep can graze at liberty, and not tread out footpaths, so that little groups of 20 or 30 sheep can come to water leisurely, and so that they can graze at night. In those reports we have a full description of this, and I want to tell the Department of Agriculture this: They are not the people to talk about surface erosion. Neither the Department nor the Minister can rise this morning and say that the Department moved a finger to arrest this dangerous form of erosion. What has the Land Bank, for example, done? There is the hon. member for Calvinia. Did the Land Bank in the years 1933, 1934 and 1935, when one could erect jackal-proof fencing for £35 a thousand yards, in any way encourage the farmers? In those days they said: No, you can only receive money for boundary fences. But they were difficult years. We had struggled through the depression, and at that time fencing was cheap. The mortgage burdens of the farmer rose higher the more farm was trodden out, and they did not give the least concession to the farmer. The only thing that became higher was the mortgages. Now, they come in war time and state that fencing is too expensive. It has become expensive. I personally am today fencing my farm at £80 per thousand yards, but I have to take my mortgage away from the Land Bank; they do not want to grant a fencing loan. If there are people who dare not talk about soil erosion, it is the Land Bank. They are the cause of many people losing their farms through this miserable system. Farmers have retrogressed very much. The hon. member for Calvinia will confirm it when I say that people who had 1,000 sheep, today have only 400, and have had to sell portion of their farms. When one asks the Land Bank to give more assistance to these people, they tell you that a drought is approaching, and they must be careful because they are afraid that they will lose their money. Every farmer with practical experience knows that it is a better investment for the Land Bank to give a farmer who already has a bond of £2,000 another £1,000 so that he will be enabled to erect jackal-proof fencing. I say every farmer will agree that it is a better investment to give such a man £1,000 extra to make inner camps so that his animals will not perish in the drought. Therefore, the Land Bank should not talk about soil erosion. They stand immovable like a stone and like a mule; you cannot move them; they just want to kick. As regards the economic aspect of the Land Bank, they have done much good for the farmer. They are very reasonable, but they follow a short-sighted policy. The whole difficulty is that the directors of the Land Bank are not practical farmers, The men in the key positions cannot understand these things when you talk to ‘ them, and in that lies the difficulty. I myself have spoken to officials of the Land Bank to ask whether loans cannot be granted to farmers to enable them to fence their farms, but the reply always is: No, they are terribly sorry, but fencing is too expensive. But the fencing is not as expensive as the sheep one loses every year. It is pure nonsense, but they refuse to grant a loan. When one wants to fence one’s farm, one must go to a private moneylender, because the unfortunate part of it is that when one deals with the Land Bank, they will flourish, but one will go under. I understand that a new erosion Bill will be submitted in future. I now want to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and his department especially to this recommendation made by the Drought Investigation Coinmission 24 years ago. It is a recommendation which bears greater force now than it did 24 years ago. In 1922 they referred to the kraaling system. They said that it was a catastrophic system. I do not wish to enter upon it now, but their conclusion is that they recommend the following principles, inter alia—

If these recommendations were of force in 1922, seeing that Dr. Ross now says that the present position is much worse than it was 24 years ago, they are even more applicable now. I hope that the Land Bank and the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Agriculture will assist the farmers, when we talk about conserving the soil of South Africa, and that they will make it possible for the farmer to fence his farm in order to prevent South Africa washing away to the sea.

Everyone realises the necessity of this motion, as already advocated by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) and the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). I do not want to cover the same ground, but I want to emphasise what those two members have already said. I think everyone on both sides of the House can endorse it most strongly. There is another necessity which I want to point out and which I want to urge, and that is to separate our water sources as well as catchment areas from Forestry and to transfer them to Irrigation. I think we all realise the value of the work which has already been done by Forestry, and we can say that up to the present they have very successfully coped with the planting of trees, but the fact remains that their first function is afforestation, the planting of trees, and since the greatest percentage—I might almost say at least 90 per cent.—of all our water sources and catchment areas today fall under the Department of Forestry, and since the first duty of that department is to plant trees, it stands to reason that they have concentrated largely on the planting of trees in those areas—trees which, I think, it has been sufficiently proved are water-absorbing. Well, I think there is sufficient land left for the Department of Forestry to expand their plantations and to do so for many years in the future. But if the catchment areas, with their natural vegetation, can be left in that condition and if no trees are planted in those catchment areas or in the immediate vicinity, if water-absorbing trees like pine trees and blue-gum types are not planted, I think we would protect our water sources much better. It is not an unknown fact today that our water sources are becoming much weaker. There are many factors which are responsible for making them weaker, but there is also abundant evidence to show that where the natural vegetation is removed from the ravines and replaced by other trees, it is one of the main reasons why many of our water sources are becoming so much weaker. This is not a very far-reaching measure as far as these two departments are concerned. I think administratively it is quite possible, and I feel that it will enable us—I do not want to say to protect our water sources better in the future because we must admit that the Department of Forestry has done everything in its power to protect the water sources—but I do think that this falls more appropriately under the Department of Irrigation; the areas could then be defined and it could be stipulated what distance the trees must be planted from the water-carrying ravines. That is all I ask, and I hope the Minister will give his serious attention to it and bring it to the notice of the Government.

I want to express my agreement with the point raised by the last speaker, namely, that soil erosion should be placed under the Minister of Irrigation. The Irrigation Act (No. 8 of 1912) makes provision for it, and the Irrigation Commission was actually appointed with an instruction to investigate what steps should be taken to prevent soil erosion. You find it in the Act, and I cannot understand why this matter was transferred to the Minister of Agriculture. It should resort under the Minister of Irrigation, and if he wants to make use of the Department of Forestry in connection with soil erosion or if he wants to take other steps, it does not matter to me, but I feel that it comes within his province and should be part of his work. As far as the mountains are concerned, it seems to me that the mover of this motion does not actually know what the motion contains. In 1941 an Act was passed which authorises the Government to expropriate land, and the procedure to be followed in such cases can also be found in the Act. I want to assume that the owner appoints an arbitrator, the people making the application do the same and the magistrate of the district acts as chairman, and they determine the price which the Government ought to pay. The difficulty, however, appears to be now that the Government waits for the persons affected by the erosion making a complaint before it takes steps. Take, for instance, the Langeberg Mountains which stretch as far as the Outeniqua Mountains. The one side of the mountain range is well covered by vegetation and is fairly moist. The people who are the owners of the land every year burn the veld to obtain young grasses, but the fire does not remain there, it simply spreads and afterwards moves over the mountain, and on the other side the mountain range is already in such a condition that one only finds rocks there and no vegetation. The people there really need the water, but their water sources in those dry areas have to all intents and purposes been destroyed. Now they have to ask the Government to buy up the land on the other side of the mountain. The farmers of Barrydale held a meeting and invited me to be present at that meeting. They also called a meeting to meet the farmers from the other side of the mountain in order to make an application to the Government to take over the mountain. Zuurbraak is situated on the other side of the mountain. But the owners on this side of the mountain simply declared that they burn their side of the mountain to obtain grass for their cattle. Only some farmers make a fire-break and burn the mountain in the proper way and at the right time, but for one of them there are half a dozen farmers who do not care. Every year the mountain is burnt completely, and every year the water supply becomes less. The result is that the dry side of the mountain will ultimately become a desert. The people on the other side require the water, but on this side the mountain is sour veld and they do not irrigate. The Government ought to intervene and have a survey made of the mountains and the soil there. At Robertson one does not find any mountain rivers. The land is so expensive there that the people there no longer farm with ordinary cattle. They farm with pedigree Frieslands and Jerseys, and if these animals go roaming on the mountain side after they have been accustomed to lucerne, it takes only a few days before they are suffering from sore claws and then they die. There are no fences there and one does not know what becomes of the cattle. In spite of that the mountain is burnt every year.

I should like to tell the Government what is in my mind. It will not help at all just to buy up the land. The Government should take actual steps. At reasonable distances outlooks should be posted who have to watch out for erosion and the burning of the mountains. The Minister of Lands should tackle this matter. In the past the Minister of Irrigation did not devote much attention to this matter, but if the Minister is prepared to take drastic and effective steps, he may achieve something useful. It will not help one iota if the Government merely buys the land. I can give him the assurance that as many fires and perhaps more occur on Government land. Such a guard in the mountains will have to see that fire-breaks are constructed, and so on. We may have good rains for two or three years, and the trees and other vegetation will grow well and luxuriantly; then we experience a dry year and everything gets shrivelled up. When you put a match to it the mountain will burn for weeks on end. The mountainside should be divided by means of fire-breaks so that when one part catches fire it will be possible to keep the fire under control. Those guards will not catch all the culprits, but they may catch nine out of every dozen. The Department of Forestry has got guards posted in the mountains near Swellendam, and they do catch these culprits. I was in Swellendam when a case against one of them was heard in the magistrate’s court. The guard was sitting not even one hundred yards away from that person when the latter set fire to the mountain. He even came to court with an attorney. The attorney was his employer, who had ordered him to set fire to the mountain. Fortunately the magistrate took a serious view of the matter, and imposed a heavy fine. If we do not guard our mountains it will be no use buying up the land. A coloured boy may go to get some honey and make a fire; another one starts a fire in order to obtain young grass on his land, and we will always find people on the mountainside going there to do mischief. The Government has the power and merely must use that power, and it should consider this problem to be a national problem. The longer we postpone matters the greater will be the damage, and the less will be our chances to preserve our water supplies. I want the Minister to understand that the erosion in our mountains is a very serious matter, and that steps should be taken to expropriate the land there. I do not say that the Minister should take away the farmers’ land and not pay for it. Arbitrators can be appointed to determine a reasonable price, so that the man concerned can make provision for himself elsewhere, but something has to be done. It does not help to pass a Bill here and thereafter to sit quiet and do nothing about it.

I should like to say a few words about river erosion. Most of our rivers, of fair size, and especially the mountain streams change their channels. At Worcester, for instance, we find that the Hex River has side-streams over a length of six miles. Years ago I happened during a court case to come across the fact that in 1883 the court declared riparian land to be non-riparian, because the river had changed its course. Now the river has once more changed its course, and it has again become riparian land. What the legal position will be I do not know for the court has stated that it is not riparian land. In the days when cattle were kept along the river banks the erosion did not do much damage, but now our agriculture has developed, we find cultivated land, vineyards, and orchards along the river banks and when a flood occurs it means considerable damage to the land. In Paarl they had a flood and I understand that some owners of land there demanded £1,000 per morgen compensation from other riparian owners. The Irrigation Act also makes provision for the diversion of water and for the construction of river weirs. This has resulted in the creation of totally different circumstances in such a river. Erosion is the result. Where the land is fairly level, and the river flows slowly the position is not so dangerous. A river like the Breede River flows slowly. Weirs have been constructed there of three and four feet high in the river bed, that is to say above the normal flow of the water. Stones and sand get lodged against the concrete and small islands are formed above such a weir. The water thereafter takes its course to one or the other side of such an island and thereafter the river erodes the land of the owners there.

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

When business was suspended I had just finished discussing the first part of the motion, and I was dealing with the silting up of rivers and indicating how much damage is caused thereby and how the course of rivers becomes changed and the soil, valuable soil, becomes eroded. It has become an absolute necessity that the Government should intervene. It may be asked why the Government should intervene, and why the Government should make provision for the channel of the river being cleaned and the course being straightened? The position is that one often finds an obstruction in the river channel at some place or another but that the flooding which is caused thereby takes place somewhere else, away from the place of obstruction. That obstruction may be a legal obstruction according to the law of the country, but the flooding takes place somewhere else. In addition the flow of the water is today much stronger as a result of mountain fires. The quantity of water which comes down is greater, the rivers are fuller and this causes damage and difficulties. Something on a large scale should be done about it. It may be said that the farmers have their own river board, that there are river boards along the entire length of the river, whose duty it is to see that the channel is clean and is kept clean and that the distribution of the water is done in a fair manner. Why is no use being made of it? From experience I can tell you that we have a river board which has to control the Breede River and whose duty it is to remove obstructions and to keep the river clean. You will understand that if a river has not flooded its banks for one or two years in succession grass and trees will have commenced growing inside the banks and islands will have been formed, with the result that when the river comes down in flood damage is caused and that could have been expected. The farmers along the river banks are not in a position to keep the river in its channel. One also frequently finds that there are parts of the river where the people living along the banks do not make use of the water and therefore do not pay levies. The result is that the farmers who do make use of the water and are compelled to pay levies, then have to bear the entire burden. I am glad that the Government has introduced legislation, part of which has already been dealt with in the Committee stage, and by virtue of which the Government obtains the power to intervene and to have the work done at the expense of the State or otherwise as it thinks fit, and we are grateful, because the matter has grown entirely beyond the control of the farmers themselves. The removal of stones and sand from a river channel is an expensive job. It cannot be washed out because the stones would remain behind. Therefore it is beyond the powers of the farmers to do the work and it has become necessary to amend our legislation in order to provide for this matter. The Government has introduced this legislation and I hope that the Government will make use of the powers which it will obtain under the amending legislation, and will bring the rivers back into the channels in which they flowed before. I think this is something which the whole House should welcome and at the same time steps should be taken for the prevention of mountain fires. In connection with erosion there is another matter which I feel strongly about. Our people are drilling and sinking boreholes to draw water from the soil, but there is no control of boreholes. The water level becomes lower every year and at some future date there will be no water left for man or animal. There is no control over boreholes. Farmers make boreholes too close to one another and they make more boreholes than is necessary, and the result is that afterwards they start using that water for other farming operations. I do not begrudge the Karoo farmer his flower garden and his vegetable garden, but I have visited places where they have been irrigating large trees and gardens by means of this water. The farmers should realise that they must choose between two things. Either there must be water control so that there will be sufficient for man and animal, or if they continue without control and sink boreholes and lead water, the water will afterwards become less and less and in the end there will not even be sufficient for the most urgent needs. I think that as far as erosion is concerned this matter should be put under control. At their congresses the farmers should decide what they want. They should arrange themselves for the control of such matters. They should realise what the position is and regulate the position themselves so that it will not be necessary for a future government to intervene in the same Planner as intervention is now taking place in regard to the rivers and similar matters. They should realise that if they continue in the way they are going on today the water level will fall more and more. As far as jackal-proof fencing is concerned I fully agree with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). In our area the position is not so serious, although we are making use of jackal-proof fencing. I have, however, noticed at some places that the grass cover is disappearing completely, whereas if you fence the land and protect it, the grass cover once more appears on the land. That should be done. As far as the erosion question is concerned I want to point out that, as in the case of irrigation, before a commencement is made with a scheme, it will be necessary to survey the whole river from beginning to end. This is a national problem, and I am grateful to notice that the people, city dwellers as well as rural folk, have woken up to the danger of erosion. One of the hon. members here quoted from a report of 1923, but this matter was discussed long before that time. Nobody has, however, at any time been able to give guidance in respect of the steps which should be taken to prevent the soil from drying up. In the Karoo one often comes across names such as “Rietvlei”, or “Blomvlei”, but when you come there today you will not find a vlei there. The old people then will tell you that there used to be a vlei there, but that the soil has been eroded, that the kloofs and vleis have been eroded, and the position today is that when rain does fall the rivers become such torrents that even more damage is caused. We are at present gambling with the life blood of the Union. I am grateful that the people have woken up, and I do hope that the Government will now come forward without delay with a large national plan. Otherwise our country will ultimately become a desert. It is of little use to do some work here and there. It is quite useless if you have a river stretch of five miles and you find that in the centre two or three farmers are doing erosion work, whereas the rest of that stretch of river is neglected. They should tackle area after area of our country, and put forward schemes for every area, which then can be put into operation in such area. We must put a stop to what is happening in this country, for one day it may be too late and then we shall have the position that the matter has gone so far that nothing can be done about it any longer.

I have been asking myself under whom this question of soil erosion should fall, and it seems to me to be unpractical to place it under the Department of Agriculture. I think the time has arrived when we should inspan every ox next to its team-mate. We must place this matter under the correct department, i.e. the Department of Lands and Irrigation. Soil conservation, just as irrigation, should be under the Department of Lands. It is all linked up with irrigation and for that reason we should connect it with irrigation under the same department. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). He suggested that we should move the riparian owners some distance from the banks of the rivers so that we shall not have erosion on the banks of the rivers. I do not know whether that is the right thing. In the Transvaal we have some of our most fertile soil on the banks of the rivers. The people have their lands there, and I do not know whether we can move them away from the river. We should rather make some other plan by means of irrigation. I hope that the Minister will take these things to heart and give effect to them. But this motion, in my opinion, embraces another matter, and that is the disappearance of our shrubs. In the Transvaal, for example, the position is that our shrubs are sometimes destroyed and ill-treated in a disgraceful way. We have the protea, for example. It is a plant which makes good firewood, which grows rapidly and can be handled easily. The natives are today chopping down these proteas. The first thing the native buys is a small axe and he then proceeds to chop down the bushes. I remember that years ago near Pretoria there was a patch of proteas in which a whole commando of 100 men could take cover for days without being observed by the British, and at the moment it is as bare as this floor.

Is that why you sing: “Suikerbossie, ek wil jou hê”?

Yes, we were in distress and we hid in that patch. When the proteas were in bloom it was a beautiful sight, but today they have been chopped down and destroyed. If we carry on in this way, these shrubs will disappear one after another. The biggest culprits in destroying these plants are the natives. The first thing the native does is to buy a small axe and then he gets a dog. With this small axe he destroys everything; he chops down everything, whether he needs it or not, and whether it serves any purpose or not.

And what does he do with the dog?

That is for the small goats. The native chops down the bushes, and the dog is there to catch the small goats. The time has arrived when we should regard these things in a national light. We shall never get those plants back again. This generation will not see proteas as I saw them. I go further. There are many people who do not care a scrap what they do with their grazing. This year many people in the Transvaal lost stock because they had burnt down their grass. In many cases it is done by the piccanin. He is caught and the magistrate gives him three cuts with the cane, but the farmer may have lost thirty head of cattle. I agree with the hon. member for Rustenburg that these people should be punished more severely. These piccanins play with fire. They destroy our shrubs, and they are responsible for the burning down of the grass, with the result that the farmers lose their stock, and even if they receive three cuts, the fact remains that they have done great damage to the country. There are many other shrubs to which I could refer, but I mention this one merely as an example.

The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) quite correctly spoke of fencing. He should only have added that we must not have one watering place only. If the stock all drink at the same watering place, they tramp out the veld. We must fence’ our farms and erect internal camps, and at the same time we must insist on having more than one watering place, so that the veld will not be tramped out. Last year the Minister spoke about bores for Boers. I welcomed that, but now I want to tell the Minister that there are cases where people buy 10 or 12 morgen. They can never really start farming operations there. They may plant just a few grenadilla trees, but nevertheless they apply for a boring machine. The machine remains there for two months, or until it has drilled two boreholes successfully, and the real farmers have to wait, although they urgently require the boring machine to get water for their stock and to combat erosion in that way.

There is also over-grazing.

That is quite true. That is one of the greatest evils. People become too greedy. Where they previously farmed with 1,000 head of cattle, they now want to farm with 5,000, or where they farmed with 100 they now want to farm with 500 or 600, because cattle farming is a payable proposition at present. Over-grazing is a great evil.

Reference has also been made here to national roads in connection with erosion. I advised the farmers in my constituency to co-operate with the National Roads Board and to try to obviate soil erosion. I know that the Provincial Administration is also meeting the farmers. I know of a case where the Provincial Administration made a furrow of 500 or 600 yards for a farmer to keep the water off his lands, where the water had previously flowed over his lands. The farmers must co-operate with the National Roads Board and with the Provincial Administrations, and they will then be assisted. Then I come to the question of mountain fires and veld fires. There are people who say that the grass should be burnt down in order to keep the veld in a good condition for their stock. I farm in the Transvaal, and I challenge anyone to tell me that it is necessary to burn down the veld. If one wants to improve the veld, it can be done without burning down the veld. They talk about the bush-tick being destroyed in that way. I know of farmers who have not burnt the veld for five years, and yet they have nothing like the number of bush-ticks on their stock as farmers who have been burning the veld regularly. They combat the bush-tick evil by dipping. We must combat the bush-tick evil in that way; we must not burn down the grass in order to get rid of bush-ticks. I think this is one of the most important things requiring our attention if we want to improve our country and build up our stock of cattle and create a future for our country and nation. We should place this matter under the appropriate Department, and we must then expect that Department to do its duty. In connection with this matter, we cannot throw the onus on the owner of the land, as happened in connection with the extermination of weeds. That was done in the Transvaal. I have never heard of a single case where someone was brought before the Court because he did not exterminate weeds, in spite of the fact that weeds grow profusely on his farm. We want to deal with this matter as a national matter; we do not want to be niggardly. During the past six years we have seen what we can do if we have to do it, and I hope that in connection with this matter, too we shall do it.

The discussion in connection with this motion before the House is most interesting, and when the public outside read the reports about it they are bound to agree with all the things that have been said here. I feel, however, convinced that inevitably they will also ask themselves why these matters have repeatedly been discussed here during the past forty or fifty years, and why nothing has been done about it. As far as this matter is concerned, motion after motion has been proposed in this House. These motions have been referred to commissions, the commissions have reported, and on the findings of those commissions even legislation has been passed, but in spite of that, if we ask ourselves what has actually been done to prevent soil erosion, we must admit that precious little has been done. That shows you that so far we have only been talking and have done precious little. No wonder that the people outside refer to Parliament as the talking house, where people are only talking and doing nothing. Seeing that this matter is being discussed again today, I hope that the result will be that the Government will decide not only to talk, but also to act. This matter is so serious that the time is overdue when we should do something about it, for we are losing more and more of our soil. It has frequently been said that South Africa is not rich in agricultural soil, but in spite of that we allow the little we have to be taken away and to be washed down to the sea. I therefore hope that we will succeed by means of this motion to urge the Government into action and that we will hear from the Government that in future we will not only talk about it, but will also act about it.

It has been suggested here today that veld and soil conservation, which at the moment fall under the Department of Agriculture, should be placed under another department. To me it is a matter of little concern whether it comes under Agriculture or under Irrigation and Lands. All we want is that the Minister under whose supervision it will come, will take steps and that he will no longer allow matters to drift as they have been doing up till now. Nothing has been done about it. We have here three kinds of soil erosion. In the first place we have mountain erosion, secondly river erosion and thirdly surface erosion. Steps have to be taken to combat those three types of erosion. As far as mountain erosion is concerned it has been rightly said here that steps should be taken to put an end to the mountain fires which are occurring so frequently. How much has already been said about mountain fires, how many suggestions have already been made, but nevertheless year after year we notice here around Cape Town, where Parliaments come together, that mountain fires blaze up. We see the fires flare up in the direction of Stellenbosch, Paarl and the Langeberg Mountains as far as the Swartberg Mountains, and every year those mountains are being devastated. Decisions have been taken and the matter has been discussed here ad nauseam, but the evil simply goes on; today we want to repeat once more that the time has now definitely come to take steps for putting a stop to that kind of vandalism. We have legislation, which enables us to punish the people who start these mountain fires. In spite of that mountain fires take place. Drastic steps should be taken against persons whó by negligence or deliberately cause these mountain fires. But we will not be able to catch them—they are very cunning—unless we appoint mountain guards, so that the people who start the fires may be caught. On a previous occasion I put forward the proposal that we should have mountain fire clubs here just as we have jackal clubs. If the Government were to appoint mountain guards and would make provision for them to be able to call for assistance in extinguishing fires, mountain fires would no longer occur. If that were done nobody would derive any advantage from lighting a fire, because he would immediately be called upon to assist in extinguishing it. Something of that nature should be done. There should be an active organisation for extinguishing any fire when the first signs of smoke appear, and to stop it before it can do much damage.

One of the hon. members said this morning that the vegetation in our mountains should be preserved. If we allow mountain fires to continue, the natural vegetation will be ruined, and to my mind the natural vegetation is the best means of keeping the moisture in the mountain soil. A suggestion has been made that trees should be planted for that purpose. In my opinion that will not be quite the correct thing. I imagine—I do not know whether it can be based on scientific facts—but according to my superficial observation it appears to me that some kinds of trees which are planted do not form a kind of sponge near the surface, but form a hard crust which causes the water to flow away when it rains. Take, for instance, the pine tree. My impression is that the pine tree causes such a hard crust which the water cannot penetrate, and I therefore feel that if we want to protect our mountain sides, we must protect our natural vegetation there, the ferns and the grasses, for they are the most suitable plants to catch the water, and to form a natural sponge near the surface. When the mountain fires are allowed to continue, that natural sponge will be destroyed, and it should be our aim to restore that sponge so that the water can be absorbed and make useful irrigation possible. The Minister knows that the greater part of our irrigation, especially in the south-western parts of the Cape Province, does not take place from storage dams but from the mountain streams. The mountains form the storage dam and that natural storage dam which we find in our mountain ranges is being ruined year after year by mountain fires to such an extent that the existing water supplies are drying up completely. I therefore hope that the Government will cause a detailed scheme to be drafted in order to put a stop once and for all to the devastation resulting from mountain fires.

As far as the river beds are concerned, I am glad that the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) has raised this matter. The Minister has introduced a Bill in which he obtains powers to control the flow of public streams. That is useful legislation, and we hope that once it has been passed the Minister will use his powers not only to have certain works constructed in regard to watèr supply but that he will also draw up schemes to improve water conservation and to stop the erosion caused in our rivers. There are two ways of controlling the river channels in such a way that the least damage is done by flood waters. The first one is to mark out the course of the river and to canalise it and thereafter to strengthen the banks so that the river will flow as far as possible in a straight line. I agree with my hon. friend that that work cannot be undertaken by an individual. It is too expensive for an individual, and therefore he should receive assistance from the Government. There is, however, other work which could be done in regard to the river beds. We find that after heavy rains the water in our rivers comes down very strongly because the mountain sides have been denuded by fires. There is no sponge to absorb the water and the mountain sides are more like a corrugated iron roof and the flood causes the rivers to erode. No longer do we find large pools in the rivers; no longer do we have subterranean seepage water and the rivers have been so much eroded that they cannot hold any water. In many cases that state of affairs may be remedied by constructing cross weirs so that the river channels can fill up again and form a kind of subterranean storage dam. That is another way of improving our river channels. If that is done there will be more seepage water in our rivers long after the flood has subsided and the normal flow of the river will be supplemented thereby. That is the manner in which the Minister should tackle this problem under his proposed new legislation.

We come now to the ordinary surface erosion. I want to express my agreement with many of the suggestions which have been put forward. We have been doing erosion work here in South Africa for quite a number of years, but how much of that work has or is being maintained? A lot of money has been spent on it, but everything shows that so far we have not tackled this problem seriously enough, and that we have not had the proper guidance. Even yesterday I noticed that banks which had been constructed had afterwards been trampled out and become quite useless. If we undertake work of this nature we must do it in such a way that it can be maintained. Works in connection with surface erosion should be undertaken after proper consideration of all the circumstances and under the supervision of experts so that it will be done in the proper way and it will be possible to maintain them. That has not been the case with many of the works which have been constructed in the past. Also in this case the owner of the farm cannot be left to his own devices. He must receive the support and guidance of the Government and its officials. The fact that works which so far have been constructed were not maintained was mainly due to farmers not possessing the proper and efficient machinery for doing the work. Proper machinery must be provided. The individual is not always able to afford such machinery, and for that reason we feel that assistance should be given on the part of the Government. I do not mean that the owner of the farm should be exempted from taking part in and contributing to such works; he can contribute quite a lot. But what I should like to see is that he be supported and assisted to perform the work efficiently and I therefore would like the Government to establish well equipped and trained teams of workers in every district in order to carry out erosion works in a proper manner in collaboration with the farmer. They should in consultation with the farmer decide how the work can be done in the best and most efficient way. I feel convinced that most farmers will be only too willing to contribute if the State tackles the work in this manner.

Quite a lot has been said already about fencing. That is a very urgent matter. No delay should be allowed in connection with this problem. If there is one good Bill which this Parliament agreed to in the past, it is the Bill in connection with compulsory fencing. As a result of it we have already to a large extent prevented the evil of the trampling out of our veld in the sheep farming districts. Where in the past the sheep had to be put in kraals the veld was trampled out. Fencing has made it possible to let the sheep roam. There are, however, still parts of the country where the farmers have to kraal their sheep. The position today is that farmers are unable to afford the expenditure in connection with fencing their farms with jackal-proof wire. I feel that a very strong case can be made out for such persons being accorded the necessary assistance. The Minister will agree that it is a fair request to ask that any person who wants to fence his farm shall be supported to the extent of the expenditure which would have to be incurred before the outbreak of war. That certainly is not an unfair suggestion to make. No objection can be raised against the fact that people who fenced their farms in the past did not receive assistance whereas the person who goes in for fencing today does receive assistance. The least the Government should be willing to do is to subsidise the difference between the expenditure of fencing now and that before the war. I hope that the Minister will give serious attention to this matter. But not only is support required in connection with fencing, but more support is also required in regard to making provision for drinking places for cattle. One of the principal causes of surface erosion is the fact that cattle have to walk a long distance to their water holes. In many parts of the country, however, it is very expensive to make provision for water supplies; we know, however, that it is not in the best interests of the country that cattle should walk long distances to their water supply under conditions of continual grazing, and the only way of preventing this is to provide as much water as possible. One water hole in a camp of thousands of morgen is too little, and the farmers should receive more support for providing water holes, which will result in combating the evil of erosion. While we are suggesting all these matters—these are matters which have repeatedly been suggested for many years— we want to point out that so far it has never gone further than good intentions and wishes, and that no action was taken, and we do express the hope that the time has now arrived when we will no longer merely talk but will actually take the necessary steps. Fortunately the people of South Africa, as we have noticed, have lately become aware of the danger of soil erosion; not only the farmers in the rural areas, but even the people in the towns and cities are now willing to contribute their share to the combating of soil erosion. Especially during the war when the townspeople began to realise how dependent they are upon the countryside for their food, they began to notice that the soil which has to provide that food is gradually being ruined, and this made them realise that something should be done about it. We are glad that the people as a whole have become erosion minded and are now prepared to make sacrifices and to contribute towards the solving of this problem. We should not allow this erosion psychosis which exists today to dwindle, but should make use of it for taking the necessary steps. I hope that this discussion will have the beneficial result of causing the Minister to adopt a progressive policy and that the necessary erosion works, which are of such importance to the country, will be taken in hand.

I would like to congratulate the mover on having introduced a subject which is of very considerable general interest, and I think we have had a very useful debate on this question. I am very pleased indeed to see that the country is beginning to realise how necessary it is to conserve water, and I think the idea that a start should be made with the mountains is the best and most practicable suggestion. In the past we have allowed many of the mountain slopes to be overstocked and tramped out; this caused water to run off very quickly, creating problems all over the country. In my opinion one of the absolute necessities for South Africa is very considerably to increase afforestation. We require thousands of morgen planted with trees, and this in itself will help in preventing the quick run-off of water, in holding our soils and providing valuable timber for the future. In this respect I find that there is an urgent need for co-ordination between the different Government departments.

We find on the one hand the Forestry Department and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry requiring land for planting. We find a large amount of land in the possession of the Lands Department. There are various other departments who also have land, and I think it is necessary to bring these departments together, in order to carry out this afforestation scheme. In my part of the country there is a lot of land in the possession of the Lands Department, and also farms belonging to the Railways. The Railways originally bought these farms to ensure a water supply for their engines, and these farms have now been leased for many years, and have not been improved. I think it is necessary that this land which is no longer necessary for Railway purposes should be planted with trees wherever possible. Then we find that throughout South Africa we are today trying to do everything possible to assist industrial development. Industrial development and the increase of the population, which we hope will accompany it, are entirely dependent on water supplies. I think one of the lessons of the recent drought is that we simply cannot afford to allow our land to be overstocked and our soil destroyed. We have to conserve water and soil in order to be able to supply water for our industries and towns.

The mover, in his resolution, asks that the Government should assume control over the mountains and rivers. That, I think, is rather a vague statement, and I would be happier, before we ask the Government to assume control over all mountains, if we were convinced that we have the men and machinery necessary to make a better job than we are doing at present. We have many mountains in South Africa, and if the Government is to take control of all of them they will have a big job on hand. I think we have to tackle another aspect of this question, namely, before we launch out on legislation, or any big schemes of water conservation, or anything like that, we have to improve the conditions of service of people employed by the Government, before we can have any success. We need technical men and the best brains in the world to plan these schemes, and first-class men to carry them out. At present I feel that the Agricultural Department and most of the other Departments are very short-staffed, and that their conditions of employment are so unsatisfactory that they cannot do these things properly, and therefore one of the first problems to tackle is to remedy that. Coming down to more details, there is one aspect which I have noticed very clearly in my own part of the country, and that is the need for more advice with regard to the rivers and watercourses and the planting of trees along the rivers. Many of our farmers have planted willow trees along rivers, and I know of several stretches of excellent soil which were ruined in consequence of that. I know of hundreds of acres of first-class soil which are periodically waterlogged merely because willow trees planted there have grown, and the banks have silted up, so that with a little rain the whole area is flooded. This indicates that advice and supervision are required in regard to planting trees along rivers. In the first place, it is necessary to have a local committee to work with the Departments, to assist and advise the owners in preventing these difficulties, and in remedying them in acute cases.

I want to support the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) in his plea for the provision of machines for use in prevention of erosion. The ordinary farmer has not the means of doing the big work which is necessary, and I think it is essential that the Government should providè a number of tractor outfits with the best machinery for making contour furrows in order to assist farmers in stopping further erosion.

There is one point which I also feel should be tackled, namely, the large amount of unused land in the hands of the Native Affairs Department. In my part of the country the Department bought thousands of morgen of land for the Native Trust, a great deal of which is unsuitable for native settlement, but it was considered to be good land for afforestation. The Native Affairs Department insisted on keeping the land for themselves. They wanted to plant trees themselves, which was a big mistake. Up to the present they have done practically nothing in that direction, and I say that the most suitable Department for taking over ground for afforestation is the Forestry Department, who have the skilled staff, and who have done excellent work so far as they have gone. I think that instead of having several Departments tackling the problem of afforestation on mountain slopes, it should be left to the Forestry Department alone.

There has been a rather general idea that the burning of mountains must always be detrimental. I think that is absolutely wrong, and this has been proved by numerous experiments of burning at the right time of the year, and in suitable conditions, which show that no harm was done to the veld. Much excellent work has been done by Mr. Hunt Holley in Natal. He has been writing in the Press for many years, giving the benefit of his experiments. He has done excellent work in burning lightly, and has found a method of improving grazing by doing so. In sour veld areas, it is necessary to burn the surplus grass at certain times. I think the result of such experiments should be investigated by the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture. I would like to emphasise that if a programme of this kind is launched, we should have the fullest consultation with the local people concerned. I do not think it is in the best interests of the country to rely entirely upon Government experts to plan the whole of this work. There are many excellent experts, but I think the practical advice which many farmers could give would be valuable, and I strongly recommend having a conservation committee in every district to assist the Government experts in carrying out these plans.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) on having introduced this motion. I think he has performed a public service in getting this House and the country to focus attention on this important subject. In actual fact I think we have now accepted this as a matter of national importance. Whether one belongs to the farming community or not, it is essentially a problem for every thinking person in this country. It is very interesting to study the various opinions and to hear the various members who spoke, the people who have put their views before us here. They have pointed out the difficulties which are innumerable but not insuperable. They can be overcome. The Government will have to assist liberally. But in actual fact it seems to me that the matter is not one which can be dealt with by any one of the existing departments, because as various speakers have shown many departments are involved. So many departments are concerned, that in order to co-ordinate the efforts the only thing to do is to set up a central controlling body which would deal with all the aspects of this problem. The amendment to the motion deals with certain specific difficulties, but I am sure that this position can only be properly dealt with by such a co-ordinating authority. I think the Minister probably is aware that the National Veld Trust has issued what they call a model bill dealing with this all-important subject. There are many sound suggestions in this model bill. I have no doubt that the Government and the Ministers concerned may find that it is not 100 per cent. applicable, but nevertheless it contains a very valuable foundation for the drafting of sound legislation to cover this important matter. I was rather interested in a book just published called “New World to Win”, by C. J. J. van Rensburg, M.Sc., and E. M. Palmer. I think both these men are well known. In the first chapter it says this—

Another thing I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention, which is very urgent and important is the question of fencing. Fencing is a very important part of the general scheme for soil conservation. I am told that there are tremendous quantities of wire fencing in the hands of the Defence Department.

You are wrong.

I am told that I am wrong, but that was the information passed on to me. I am afraid that that fencing will get into the hands of the merchants.

That has happened already.

Then my information comes too late. I was requested to ask the Minister to stop selling fencing to merchants because when it has changed hands a few times, the people who have ultimately to use it pay many times its price. It is unfortunate that this has already happened.

Another important question is that of native reserves and native farming generally. Whatever scheme is adopted, it will be necessary to have special men to teach the natives the necessity of conserving their land and use the best methods, methods which they do not now understand. If you show a native a donga, he says it was there, and he cannot do anything about it, but with a little education we can do a great deal to make them understand that to apply better methods is in their own interests. Whatever line is taken I hope that the Government will not delay in bringing in a consolidating measure for the purpose of applying all the requirements to make this a successful thing. It is heartbreaking to see how the land is now wasted, and how little it is understood that a lost spring can be recovered by increasing the growth of plants in the area. The same applies to the conservation of land by bordering it with shrubs, which results not only in the saving of soil, but in conserving water in the soil, so that it can stand drought for longer periods. There are so many things that have to be done. We know it will cost money, but I believe that every man and woman in this country, when they realise the danger in which we are, will wholeheartedly support any action the Government may take to consolidate combined efforts in securing our heritage for our children, so that we can leave them more than we received.

I think that it is time for me to say something on this matter now. I am very sorry that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, owing to indisposition, cannot be here today to deal with the matter himself. Nevertheless, I am very glad that I have the opportunity of saying something on this important motion now before the House. The question of fires and erosion and rivers is one of the utmost importance. The rivers are overflowing to a greater extent in recent years as a result of the fires, and are causing much damage. I am very glad that I am able to discuss this matter because my interest is in it heart and soul. I hope in any case that I will not do anything which will compromise my colleague and that I will not go further than he and his Department would wish to go. As far as the policy of the Government is concerned, I want, to state that the policy is that this is a question which should be tackled with all our energy. Soil erosion, mountain fires and control of rivers are regarded as three great evils as far as the farming industry is concerned, and it is the policy of the Government to spend money in order to tackle these questions on a national basis. Let me say at once that my colleague is preparing a Bill which will be introduced during the current session in connection with this matter. This Bill is more far-reaching and comprehensive than anything of this kind which has ever been proposed in South Africa in connection with these questions. Various speakers have said that the people have become conscious of the great dangers and that the time has arrived for the matter to be dealt with on a national basis. That is the policy of the Government. I was glad to notice the unanimity in the House with regard to these questions. We are all wholeheartedly in agreement that if we wish to save South Africa, and to save our soil, and if we want to keep the farming community on the land, then we have to tackle this problem irrespective of what it may cost. Let me add this, that there is at present on the Estimates for 1946-’47 an amount of £1,400,000 for veld fires, erosion and the control of rivers, that is, £900,000 more than in the previous year. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) said that we talked and talked but that nothing was done. That is not so. I want to point out, particularly to the mover of this motion, that certain things are asked for in the motion in respect of which we have powers under existing laws. Under the Forest and Veld Conservation Act of 1941 the Minister concerned has all the powers, the only thing that is lacking is that we find that the provisions do not go far enough, and for that reason, as I have said, my colleague intends to introduce a Bill during the present session which will be more comprehensive and which will make more money available for combating these evils. The Act of 1941 confers all the powers, and that Act was practically the result of a motion which was introduced in this House in 1934, a similar motion to the one we are discussing today. And for that reason the Bill he intends to introduce is much more comprehensive and it will tighten up all these powers and afford him the opportunity of taking more steps to combat these evils. These powers, I say, we have, and this Act of 1941 which confers the powers was the result of a similar motion introduced in this House in 1934, and as a result of that motion the Act of 1941 which gave all the powers to the Minister was introduced. That, I say, is a great step forward. As a result of the shortage of manpower they have perhaps not been in the position during the war years to make as much progress as they would otherwise have done, and we admit quite frankly, therefore, that during recent years they have not done as much as they could have done. But the war is over now, and my hon. colleague is now coming along with this comprehensive Bill under which he will be able to combat these evils. It is not merely a matter of putting an Act on the statute books and declaring that you are going to apply that Act. The farmers should also be made aware of the fact that they have certain duties in connection with the combating of these evils. There is not the least doubt that many of these evils, the evils of soil erosion, have increased during the years when we as farmers in the beginning did not take proper action as we should have done. We should have combated this evil on our farms at the initial stage, but we did not do so. We did nothing.

We did not have the money.

Afterwards the matter got out of control and today it is quite beyond the means of the farmer to combat this evil without assistance, and for that reason the Government has to step in now. But the farmers should also feel that they have certain duties in this respect. I am now talking as a farmer myself. We should realise that we have certain duties, and while the Government is assisting us on such a large scale financially and otherwise, we also have certain duties to fulfil in order to make a success of the matter if we wish to combat these evils successfully. One of the officials told me a story this morning which I would like to tell the House to illustrate my point. He says that as a result of jackal-proof fencing the rock rabbits have increased considerably. One of the farmers complained to him and took him to a place where the veld was eaten bare. He said that it was the rock rabbits which destroyed the vegetation, and he said that if the Government did not take steps now to help him to destroy the rock rabbits he would be compelled to acquire a few dogs. I am mentioning this to point out that we also have certain duties to perform. The hon. member said that while the Department intends to combat these evils, especially soil erosion, it should take steps to ensure that the measures taken are practical and that it has the implements and the manpower and the trained staff for that purpose. The Bill which my colleague intends introducing provides for that. They are already training people so that when the time comes for this work to be proceeded with they will have trained men.

Where are these people trained?

The department itself is doing that. I cannot give my hon. friend the finer details, but large numbers of them are being trained today to do that work. I said that it was really not necessary to have introduced this motion today as the powers already exist, but nevertheless I am glad that the motion has been discussed here today and that we have had an opportunity of expressing our views. I welcome the unanimity which has been evident here today and it gives me hope, in view of the Government’s intention to take active steps to combat the great evils threatening the farming industry, that we will have unanimity in Parliament without having to make any political capital out of the matter and that we will also find unanimity amongst the people outside so that we will be able to deal with this matter successfully.

Mention has been made of the question of veld fires. Veld fires are a terrible evil. My hon. friend over there made reference to the fact that here at the Cape gangs are employed and a considerable amount of money is spent in order to put cut veld fires the moment they are discovered. But one cannot stop it. The slopes of the moun tain are thickly wooded and these fires start without any warning. Before these gangs know where they are, they see the smoke rising into the air. How can one get hold of the people who cause the fires? If you managed to do that, it would be pure luck and I believe that in many instances the veld is wilfully set afire, but even for that provision has been made by my colleague. Today they have people stationed at certain points to watch the slopes of the mountain in order to try and prevent fires from starting and to try and get hold of the persons who set fire to the wood. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) spoke of the mountain ranges at Swellendam and he said that there should be mountain watchers. Provision has already been made for that, but under this new Bill of my colleague the question will be considerably tightened up. He will make provision for the appointment of committees at various centres throughout the country and especially where there are mountain ranges. There is provision for that in the law at present, but it will be extended and tightened up and steps will be taken which will be more effective. Even at Swellendam goodwork has been done by the local people, bur, as the hon. member for Swellendam has said, it is not adequate and under the Bill which my colleague intends introducing, he will provide for the tightening up of the existing machinery and for taking adequate precautions to try and prevent the terrible evil of these mountain fires. Then my hon. friend talks of the control of the mountain ranges and mountain slopes in the catchment areas of our water sources. Even in that respect much progress has been made by the department. The department has today a million morgen which have been proclaimed for the combating of soil erosion. They have no less than a million morgen of mountain ranges and mountain slopes from which our water and our rivers come. I am not suggesting that that is adequate, but today they already have over a million morgen. They have made a proper survey of all the mountains in the parts which are still Crown land today. Even there they are going to take steps to see that precautionary measures are taken. That is already a great step forward in the direction in which my hon. friend is thinking today. I think those are the most important points, namely, soil erosion, mountain fires and mountain ranges, which are contained in this motion.

In the proposed measure which my hon. colleague intends introducing, he contemplates proclaiming areas in which erosion is taking place on a very large scale and also mountain ranges. He is taking powers to proclaim such areas and then to reclaim them. That will be on the basis of regional planning. I mention, for instance, one area, the area near Cradock at Vlekpoort where the department has already proclaimed the area and where they intend trying to reclaim it. On the other farms where the problem is not of such a large and comprehensive nature, it will also be tackled on the various farms.

I now come to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). He asks that a large amount should be made available for combating soil erosion. He asks, to use his own words—

I think I have already given the information, that if the amount provided is not adequate, once we have the personnel and once we return to normal times—and normal times are approaching fast—the amount will, if necessary, be increased, but the idea is to tackle the problem on a national basis if we wish to save South Africa for the agricultural industry. Secondly my hon. friend asks—

One of the main causes of soil erosion and over-grazing is the lack of fencing in the verious parts of our country. It is one of the first measures which should be taken for combating erosion. If we wish to combat soil erosion successfully, we have to erect fences, and in the sheep-farming areas we have to erect jackal-proof fencing. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) saying that the Land Bank refused point blank to grant money for this purpose during the bad times and that they said that in certain parts of the country the land was not worth it.

They are still just as obstinate.

I want to tell my farmer friends this: I regard myself practically as one of the pioneers of jackalproof fencing in this country, and I want to make this statement now, that there is not an inch of land in South Africa on which it is possible to go in for sheep-farming where it is not worth while having jackalproof fencing. I want to say very definitely now that if they offer me a farm in those parts which are unfenced, and if I had to farm there with herdsmen, I would refuse it, even if they offered the land to me as a present. The Americans say “Lucerne is a mortgage lifter”, and where one farms with sheep in this country, and you want to redeem your mortgage, you must have jackal proof fencing. And it is not so expensive. The people just do not understand it. The average farm costs £1,000 or £1,500 to be fenced in by jackal-proof fencing. Say it costs £1,500. One could borrow money from the Land Bank at 5 per cent. or 4½ per cent. I am not sure of the rate of interest, but let us take it at 5 per cent.

They do not want to do that any more.

If you take it at £1,500, then the interest is £75 per annum which the farmer has to pay. The Land Bank refuses to advance the money, and the result is that the farmer has to employ two or three shepherds, and each shepherd costs him at the very least £50 per year. If he has three shepherds, it costs him £150, and those three shepherds are responsible for the soil erosion in this country. In the morning the sheep are driven out into the veld and in the evening they are driven back, and they are driven to the water, and they tread out the soil; and erosion is the result, and the farmer suffers large losses. The jackals are still killing sheep today. I say that the losses suffered by the farmers as a result of droughts and as a result of jackals are enormous. The man has not an inch of ground to spare, and the result is that when the drought comes his whole veld is eaten bare because he had no fences to enable him to set aside certain parts of his farm for times of drought. Let me just give the House a few figures to show what the losses are: these are figures supplied to me by the Department of Agriculture. In 1933 the losses were as follows: 750,000 large stock — cattle and horses — 700,000 goats and 6,750,000 sheep. These were the losses during the drought in 1933. The direct loss is estimated at £21 million, and they say that the direct loss during the previous drought was £35,000,000.

That was in 1926-’27.

That is only the direct loss as a result of droughts. It is much more if one takes the indirect loss into account. If a man loses all his sheep, he loses his entire income for a few years

You are talking very easily today.

I will bring this matter to the attention of my hon. colleague when he is back again, and I want to submit to him the suggestion that we should not only proclaim certain areas under the Fencing Act if a certain number of farmers ask for it. One has the unfortunate position in most of the districts: there is one farmer, perhaps, who owns half of the district, and he is opposed to compulsory fencing. He does not want it to be made compulsory. There are other people who do not know about it, and who do not understand it, and they oppose it. The result is that the’ losses continue. The soil is trampled and ravaged in a most terrible fashion, and I say I will bring this to the attention of my colleague that he should make it compulsory in this Bill which he intends introducing. In Calvinia and Namaqualand it is more necessary than in any other part,

Calvinia has already been proclaimed.

Then Namaqualand must still be proclaimed. I am not in favour of a subsidy being granted to farmers. Our farmers should not accomplish everything by means of subsidies. I am not in favour of subsidies, but I would like to see the Government compelled to give money to the farmers for these purposes, and the Land Bank should not say that a farmer’s mortgage is already too high if he applies for an additional £1,000 to fence in his farm. The Land Bank should realise that fencing is the salvation of South Africa. And it should know that if the farmer did not fence his farm he would suffer tremendous losses. I would like to see the Land Bank making available money at a reasonable rate of interest, but that should be part of its scheme for combating soil erosion, that those areas should be proclaimed and the money should be made available by the Land Bank at a reasonable rate of interest. They have more than enough security, and the assets of the country on the whole are so great that there should be no question of refusing to grant loans for the purchase of fencing material.

I just want to add this. Do you know what my experience has been? My experience is this: Take a part such as Namaqualand, where the price of land has been relatively low until shortly before the war. If anybody fenced in his land there, he must necessarily also put fences along the roads and do you know that in those parts where the land was so inexpensive the farmers fenced in the roads in such a manner that one can hardly pass through with a motor car. They have made the roads so narrow that when the sheep farmer has to trek with his sheep for 50 or 70 or even a 100 miles then one finds that by the time the farmers’ sheep arrive at the train they are completely exhausted and the farmer often loses sheep in this manner. The farmers should accept it as a principle that the roads should be fenced in in such a manner that a flock of sheep could be driven along that road to the market in a reasonable manner. I just want to express this word of warning to the farmers because I have had experience in this connection. It is not only a question of jackal-proof fencing and enclosed camps. One must also have water sources.

How wide must the road be?

I think the hon. member for Swellendam stated here that they should not use those waters for gardening and for irrigation purposes. For that I have already made provision. Very shortly we are commencing with the boring schemes we have in the north-western parts. They stretch from Calvinia, Namaqualand, Gordonia, Vryburg up to Marico and they include the northern part of the Zoutpansberg up to the Limpopo. We are going to assist the farmers in those areas and if we do not find water, the farmer does not pay. It has in many instances been the ruination of the farmer in the past in that it costs him sometimes £200 or £300 or £400 to have boreholes sunk and then he may not find any water or he finds very weak water. Now we are going to sink boreholes on the understanding that if we do not find water, the farmer will not pay anything. The Department is going to appoint water diviners and we are not going to make boreholes unless these people indicate the sites to us. We have already put this plan into operation and it is very successful. The Department is going to advance money to the people in these areas if they cannot pay, for the boreholes, for windmills, for the accessories and not only the accessories, but the farmer must also have a concrete dam. Those earth dams are no good. One finds that the windmills have to pump from January to December and the water for the cattle is polluted. We are going to grant loans to the farmer, if necessary, to enable him to build a concrete dam and a concrete trough and he must use the water only for his livestock and for domestic purposes. If these measures are taken and we advance the money to them and we give them the boreholes, then I think that the farmers will have a good future and that they can be satisfied.

You will agree that the water without fencing will not be of much use.

I realise that and that is not what I am suggesting. We will help the farmers with water. We cannot of course do it at once in respect of all the farmers, but where possible farmers will be assisted.

What is the Minister’s objection to the fencing material being subsidised.

Because I think that it is so inexpensive. If a man could borrow a thousand pounds for the purchase of wire and standards and fencing material, then it costs him only about £50 per annum in respect of interest on the loan whereas it would cost him £150 if he had to employ three shepherds. Why should we therefore give the farmer his subsidy. I am not saying that the Minister does not have in mind the granting of a subsidy also. Fencing wire is expensive today. I myself am not fencing at the moment because it is not economical, but I want to give my hon. friends the assurance that to the best of my knowledge the price of fencing wire will be normal once again very much sooner than most of us think and then we will be able to undertake that work. I have now dealt with the question of fencing material. Then the hon. member for Calvinia asks—

My hon. colleague gives a subsidy today for combating erosion. The maximum per farm is £400. He gives a subsidy of 33⅓ per cent. If the farmer spends £400 he receives £133 by way of subsidy. On the second farm my colleague also gives the maximum of £400. If a farmer therefore has a second and a third farm, he also receives the subsidy on the second and the third farm but he does not get it on the fourth and fifth and sixth farm. The request was made to my colleague that he should make the subsidy 50 per cent. instead of 33⅓ per cent. That question will be taken into consideration when the new Bill is introduced. My hon. friend will then have an opportunity of discussing the question whether it should be 33⅓ per cent. or 50 per cent. I want to put this question to my hon. friends: There are many people who have more than three farms. There are areas in which the farmer is compelled to have two or three farms in order to make a reasonable living and it is no use trying to combat soil erosion on a national scale if certain areas are omitted. That is another point which I will bring to the notice of my colleague. I would like to see the subsidy granted on the farm and not to the person.

The reconstruction committee also recommends that it should be granted per morgen.

I said that it should be on the farm. I think it should be per farm and I will suggest that when I discuss the matter with my colleague.

It all depends where you give the most.

There should be no limitations.

Then I come to the last point in the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia. He asks—

I have already dealt with that. I say that I am glad that we have had an opportunity of discussing these matters. I have dealt with the question of drilling machines and I think that I have now dealt with all the points. I hope that I have given the hon. friend who moved the motion all the information. I hope that my hon. friends will now be satisfied, that they can expect more in future under the new Act. My colleague intends introducing the legislation in the course of this Session.

The question of soil erosion and the combating of soil erosion is something which is relatively new in South Africa. It is only during the past twenty years that we have become aware of it. When the department has tried to devise schemes for combating soil erosion, the difficulty has always been to know what the most practical method of doing it would be and mostly we have, of course, started off by way of experimenting; but the department has learnt a lot. The department responsible has learnt a lot and I hope that in future we will be able to take much more practical steps when my colleague introduces his new legislation, so that we will be able to do something really practical to conserve for our progeny the precious soil which is today washed out to sea. I said that we should help ourselves. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) is unfortunately not here now. He is one of my neighbours. We live on adjoining farms. I have only been in that area for two years now, but in those two years I have discovered a pest and an evil there which I have never heard a single member mention here. I refer to the ant menace. I counted 400 antheaps on one morgen and do you know that the ants destroyed the veld to such an extent that during the drought there was not a mouthful of food for the animals. I want to bring that to the attention of my hon. friends. It is a matter which they should tackle in their farmers’ groups and they should bring it to the notice of the Minister. In this instance again, if we had noticed this evil in good time, the farmer himself could have destroyed the ants. The value of the land is 25 per cent. less today owing to the increase of the ants. It is an important matter as far as the food and the grazing of one’s stock are concerned. The ants carry away everything. There is one matter which should receive our attention. Somebody mentioned the kraalbos. The kraalbos is not such a great evil, however.

It causes the sheep to blow up.

It is encroaching on more and more land.

I admit that. But does the hon. member know that there are certain parts, especially in the Free State—and it is as a result of over-grazing and treading out of the soil— where one finds the so-ocalled Januariebos which is not eaten by any animal. There are parts in the Southern Free State and here also, where a third of the farms have already been overrun by this shrub; nothing will eat it. It has a taproot and can easily be dug out. We did not pay attention to it in good enough time and now this shrub is overrunning the whole place. That is another question we will have to deal with. We have these shrubs and vegetation which are of no value and where they grow nothing else grows. These are all matters we have to deal with. It is necessary for South Africa that we should pay attention to these matters which have been discussed in this House today. The prospects of the farmingindustry are not bright if we are going to allow matters to continue in the same way. There is no question whatsoever that during the past 20 or 30 years, with the recurring droughts we have had, the soil has not recovered after each drought to its former condition. The water runs off quickly owing to the barreness of the soil. Sluits are formed by the running water and even if abundant rains fall after a drought, the soil deteriorates year after year and is worthless to the farming community. We never took into account the harm done to the country. Why do we have all the washaways nowadays which wash our vegetable earth into the sea? It is because our land has become barren and cannot retain the water. Normally only 6 per cent. of the rainfall runs away to the sea. I do not know whether hon. members know that 94 per cent. of the rainfall is absorbed by the soil. But here in our country that is not the case any more. It has changed. Instead of 6 per cent. of the water running away to the sea more water is running away year by year and less is retained by the earth. It is a matter which has to be tackled. We must stop our water from running away. Now I want to deal briefly with our river beds. Hon. members know that I have introduced an amending Bill to the Irrigation Act to provide for control in connection with the protection of river beds in order to prevent our precious soil being carried away by floodwater. This matter has already been discussed here. We cannot leave this matter in the hands of the riparian owners. In the first place it is far beyond the means of the individual riparian owner to undertake this work. What is more, even although individual persons could do it on their own farms, we are faced with the position that he may perhaps take measures to prevent washaways on his own farm, but then he may affect the position of the riparian owners above him or below him. He cannot do it and for that reason, the Government has regarded this matter as a national question and we will deal with it on that basis. Under the Bill which I have introduced the Minister of Irrigation takes powers to assume control of a river and the work will be done by the Government. As far as that is concerned, we should not delay. I think I have now given all the information and if the motion is withdrawn, we can proceed to the next business.

I have always known that there are two persons in the same individual, one is the Minister of Lands, the other the farmer, and when the farmer speaks we can all listen. Today the Minister spoke as a farmer, and we must congratulate him on his splendid speech. With it he has done as much good in the House as anyone ever has done in the past. We thank him for the farmer we see on that side. I wish to agree with him that there are two sides to the erosion problem—the economic side and the technical side. I do not want to enlarge on the economic side at present; I would only say that we know why we have had so much soil erosion. The farmers had to be satisfied with an uneconomic price for their products, and consequently they had to take more out of the soil than they put into it. We hope that this Government and any future government will see to it that that evil can be eliminated so that we may live on such a footing that we will be able to put back something into the soil, something that will make for our prosperity in the future. I hope in future that will be our destiny, and consequently we support the control boards in order to give us that stability for which we are seeking.

Now we come to the practical side. The practical side always comes first with me. I think the Minister will admit that the practical farmers have demonstrated that only by the use of fencing can they accomplish their salvation. The Minister has already told this House that this is one of the principal considerations in our farming. We must fence our farms properly, make proper camps and provide water in the camps, and should we fail to do this we shall have the erosion in its worst form such as we have seen already at Vlekpoort and in the Drakensberg. We can also observe what practical farmers have already done to combat erosion, and if the Government will do likewise it will save many years of experimenting. My opinion is that parts of our country have already been washed away to such an extent that the farmer himself can do nothing with it. The Government will have to proclaim those areas for the combating of soil erosion and work will have to be done along the lines taken in Vlekpoort. There you have a very good scheme for accomplishing big work. In Vlekpoort they are now building certain works which they describe as “vasskopplekke.” From those they work back to the slopes, and the smaller works are later brought to the slopes. The farmer can do the work himself if he is assisted. We feel with the Minister that we should not place any limit on what a farmer can spend to carry out these works. It may cost £100 or it may cost £1,000. But if the work is tackled a success must be made of it. In the past we have done too much patchwork. We scraped out brak dams on the slopes, the water ran out, and instead of our improving the position we had three sluits in place of one. We feel that this system must be changed and that we must set about things in a more practical manner. I agree with the Minister that in every area where land is proclaimed under a scheme we must have a committee of practical men to work with the department’s technical officers. Such a committee will look to the practical side, and with them we have the technical officials. We have such a committee at Vlekpoort and they are doing very fine work. I should like some of our friends to visit Vlekpoort in order to observe what has been accomplished in a short period. I remember that I took the previous Secretary for Agriculture there, and when he got to Uilhoek he said there was nothing more that could be done, and with systematic plans and proper work that valley is now beginning to be put right again. Much remains to be done.

What does it cost per morgen?

I would only say that in this connection we must not count the cost. These are experiments that are being carried out today. Some experiments will be failures, but in that way it is being ascertained what are the best and cheapest methods to combat erosion. For example, a sort of dam was constructed at a cost of £24,000. Now another kind, which is nearly as efficient, is being made at a cost of £400 or £500, a figure that is almost within the resources of the ordinary farmer. Practical work has been done to see what methods can be applied by, the farmers with the support of the Government. The object is not to say that it costs so much a morgen. Even if it cost £100 per morgen to get that area right we shall have had the benefit of having decided how we should set to work.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 5th April.

: The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I regret that I was not present last night at the conclusion of this long debate, the longest in my memory in this House on any Bill. I attended and listened with interest to the remainder of the debate. I must say, Mr. Speaker, the debate was not only long and protracted but it covered a wide field, far beyond the scope of the Bill. Not only the Indian question but the whole colour question was discussed in its various aspects, and there was added a considerable measure of party politics in which I do not propose to take any part today. I regard this subject and the treatment of it as a very serious matter, and I wish to keep clear of all party questions or party aspects of it and to confine myself strictly to the Bill, a Bill which I am convinced deserves the impartial attention of every member of this House. I must say that I have not changed my attitude. The long debate has changed neither my own view nor the attitude the Government originally took up. It is not obstinacy, but the longer the debate lasted the clearer it became to me that the course taken by the Government in this Bill is the only course to arrive at a solution of this urgent and thorny problem. At this stage I would say at once that it is not the intention of the Government to accept these amendments which ask for a further postponement in dealing with the Bill. I shall turn to the amendments presently and discuss them. I would only point out that to us this matter is pressing and urgent and that the postponement of a decision in this House may have very detrimental results to the country. Postponement can only aggravate the matter. It has been pending all these years, and the longer it has lasted the more difficult has the solution become, so that today we are faced with a crisis. The time and the moment have arrived for taking action, and not to have any further postponement, or to look for some pretext for shelving the matter and perhaps later spoiling the whole issue. To me the question of time is of supreme importance in connection with this Bill. Time is an essential factor in the decision on this question, and we now have the opportunity with a Government that feels its responsibility, and assumes the responsibility to bring this question before the House and attempts to put it through, and I say that this opportunity ought to be utilised by us to get the matter through in the permanent interests of the country. I say this in all seriousness. It was not recklessness on our part in taking up this Bill and which has moved this Government to introduce it. We know it is a difficult matter, we know that there is no party advantage to be gained by this side or by any party on this question. It is a national question which profoundly affects the interests of South Africa, and it is in that spirit of earnestness regarding what is in the interests of the country that we have taken up this matter, and in which I ask it should be dealt with. There must be no dilly-dallying in finding a solution. The longer we wait the greater becomes the difficulty.

I personally have a special reason of my own to proceed with the Bill now. As hon. members are aware I shall, in a few weeks’ time, be on my way to conferences which are not only of world importance but which may very possibly deeply affect the interests of South Africa. I shall not be here and I think that in the case of such a Bill and the handling of it it is necessary that the member of the Government who carries the greatest responsibility, should discharge his responsibility, and should take part in the discussion of the matter. I hope thus that it will be possible before my departure at Easter to see this Bill through the House and on its way to the Statute Book. The only safe place for it is on the Statue Book. Any other place can have its consequences not only in this House but also overseas. It is a question which not only attracts the attention of South Africa, but it has also attracted the attention of the whole world. The sooner we can see this thing through and the Bill on the Statute Book the better it will be for the permanent interests of South Africa.

I come now to the amendments. Several amendments have been proposed. Some of them propose further consideration by a Select Committee or a further process of enquiry. Three of them propose that there should be further postponement and investigation. One amendment rejects the Bill entirely in principle, and I shall revert to that amendment later. Let me start by dealing with the two amendments that ask that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. These are the amendments of the Dominion Party and of the Labour Party. I wish to say at once that in my humble opinion there is no case whatever for such a step and I shall give my reasons for saying that. The Bill deals particularly with two matters. The first is the question of land tenure in Natal and in the Transvaal, and the second is the question of political rights of Indians in those two provinces. Those are the two subjects covered by the Bill. In regard to the first, the question of land tenure, there is really no far-reaching difference in this House, with the exception of the members who represent the natives. We are all agreed, and there are no further facts to find. Some minor points have been broached, and some of these can readily be disposed of in the Committee stage; no enquiry is needed. We agree.,

Who do you mean agree?

The whole House.

We do not agree.

I am going by what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, that on the broad features the Opposition agree over the land question as laid down in Chapter I I do not think an enquiry is necessary in reference to the first chapter, in regard to the question of land tenure of Asiatics as dealt with here. The special points that have been brought up can be discussed by us, and I do not believe it will take up much time. To refer the Bill to a Select Committee for further enquiry in regard to the question of land tenure is, I think, unnecessary. It will only be a waste of time, though time is very valuable in the treatment of this Bill.

Take now the other question, the grant of political rights to the Indians. This is not a question for investigation by a Select Committee, it is a matter of principle. It is a matter on which there is a difference of opinion in this House and in the country, on the basic principle. It is not a question on which a Select Committee can decide, and the deliberations of a Select Committee will in this connection carry us no further. It is a question of fundamental opinions and of differences between parties. The knot must be severed. The Gordian knot must be cut through; we are either for that or against that.

Was that not also so in connection with the Native Bills?

No, it was not so. There was a compromise. In this matter we have not the slightest chance of a compromise, and when I go into the matter further you will see what I mean. There is not the slightest chance of that. We are here dealing with a difference of principle in the House, and we cannot solve that by means of a Select Committee. That will not help us. It will be a waste of time, and we shall get no further. The enquiry or deliberations of the Select Committee will help us not at all. We shall have to see it through in this House. We cannot by means of a Select Committee, or any evasion of that sort, solve the matter. It will have to be disposed of by this House, by the parties in this House. So much for the two proposals to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

Do you regard this thing as a party measure?

It is just as you wish to take it. The hon. member can take it up as a party measure. I take it up as something on which there is a deep-rooted difference here in this House, a difference that cannot be solved by a Select Committee. It is a question for the House itself, and the whole House will have to vote on it. It is only frittering away time to send it to a Select Committee.

Now I turn to the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He asks for a rather broader investigation which will occupy much more time, a joint enquiry such as we had on the occasion of the Hertzog Bills in connection with the natives. He asks that we in the interim, as long as this enquiry is in progress, an enquiry that possibly might last years, should extend the Pegging Act with the necessary adjustments. The first question that arises in my mind is this: What is going to happen in the meantime in regard to the Indian question? We have reached a crisis in connection with this question. Three years ago we approached this crisis, and we averted it by adopting the Pegging Act. The question now is how the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition will assist us to effect a solution of this question. As he has put the matter, it will be a very long enquiry, perhaps one that will last for years, and after this period has passed we may be exactly where we are now. The question will not have been solved, and we will have spent all that long time in enquiry and lost much time, and in all probability the position will have become much worse, much more complicated and insoluble, and then we would have to begin afresh with a solution. It seems to me, when we take up this matter seriously, and perceive how necessary it is, when we realise how urgently necessary it is, and realise that we are virtually in a crisis in South Africa, we must not postpone the matter further by instituting further enquiries, we must not start on an enquiry that may last for years, with no one knowing what the situation will then be and whether the question may not then be insoluble. No, we must tackle the matter now and solve it while we have the opportunity. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated that we should in the meantime extend the Pegging Act with the necessary amendments in order that it should apply to the position today, because that would be necessary. The Pegging Act is a limited measure which only applies to Durban. This Bill now before the House refers to the whole of Natal and also to the question in the Transvaal. We would have to remodel and extend the Pegging Act on a basis very similar to that of the Bill now before us. The amendment of that Act that the Leader of the Opposition now proposes will be so comprehensive that it virtually will be equivalent to the present Bill. The result will be that we shall again pass a temporary measure for two years and at the end of that period we shall still not have a solution but only a temporary expedient. We will have the greatest difficulty in this House to pass an altered and amplified Act of that description and subsequently we would only be in the same position as we are now. It will take considerable time to get an amending Pegging Act through the House and when we did get it through we should only be where we are now and where we were three years ago. We should still have the whole fight over the Indian question, and when the Pegging Act expired we should have to resume the struggle, and that perhaps at a juncture which would be far more inconvenient to us than is the case today. My appeal to the House is this: Tackle this matter, the moment has come, tackle it now. Do not let us talk any more about Pegging Acts. The Indians would be just as much opposed to the extension of the Pegging Act that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has proposed, amongst the public there would be just as much controversy, and amongst ourselves there would be just as much contention over the Pegging Act as over this Bill itself. Therefore let us see the thing through. Do not let us talk any further about Pegging Acts, now is the time, the crisis is there, the moment has come, turn it to account and put this measure through. I am strengthened in my opinion by the basis on which the Leader of the Opposition has argued for a further enquiry. He wishes to refer the matter—

The enquiry must traverse the biggest problem in the country, the most difficult problem which goes to the foundations of our social fabric in South Africa, the whole problem in its full compass.

Will you wait for that until another crisis has arisen?

I ask the House this, I ask myself this: How long will it take to see such an enquiry through? What time will it occupy? It will not be disposed of in the two years suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. I doubt whether it will be completed in a generation. I am afraid that this prolonged enquiry into the whole colour problem in all its bearings will only end in one thing, namely, that the actual matter we have before us now, the Indian problem, will be shelved indefinitely and that our difficulties after such an enquiry will be much greater than they are today. So I say let us tackle the matter now. I question whether in a generation you will arrive at a solution of the entire problem that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to have an enquiry on. We change in our views from time to time. It is clear to me that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the whole of the party behind him have already changed a great deal in the course of the ten years since we dealt with the Hertzog Bills. What the views of South Africa will be in connection with this big problem in five or ten years’ time is difficult to predict today in view of all the changes that are going on. I maintain that this is not a matter that you can solve today. In my opinion the matter has been so formulated by the Leader of the Opposition that the basis on which he wants an enquiry to take place is an impossible basis, an enquiry into the whole of this comprehensive problem, something for which we are not ready, and which you cannot at present solve in its entirety.

But your policy is a policy of despair.

It is not a policy of despair, but of acting with common sense. It is not a policy of bits and pieces, but of step by step. To me it is clear that if we tackle this subject in all its bearings and ramifications in South Africa we are going to bite off more than we can chew. We shall be undertaking a task for which public opinion and experience and development in South Africa are not ready. It will be too big. We shall simply have to go forward step by step and act according to our best knowledge and the light we have, and according to our conscience. The amendment can lead to one result only, and that is to leave the matter unsolved, to leave unsolved the Indian problem that is at present before us.

What is the intention of the Leader of the Opposition with his amendment? I have listened with attention to his speech and other speeches, especially from front benches on the other side. To me it is clear that what is intended by the basis proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is that in the future we should have a European Parliament in South Africa, and that the other race groups in the country should be excluded from Parliament. It will no longer be a question of separation in Parliament but a question of subordinate bodies where the representatives of the other races will be. This is the sense in which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) spoke, it is the spirit in which the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) spoke, and it is the spirit that was reflected in all the speeches from the other side. This would imply a complete political revolution in the form of the franchise for the various groups in South Africa. They themselves wish to get rid of the Hertzog legislation of separation representation in Parliament.

Yes, of course.

The forward step that was taken ten years ago will be reversed.

It was a failure.

There is a motion by a member of your own party in that sense on the agenda.

The background of the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is a total political revolution in South Africa, the rejection of what has been achieved, and an attempt to institute a completely new system.

That is what you proposed at the Empire Conference.

I ask what chance is there of that? Investigate the Indian problem that is before us, deal with the problem which is before us now.

Your plan is to give representation here to various race groups; is that not a new political system?

My object is to solve the Indian problem step by step. Ten years ago we had the native problem before us. That was the course we adopted, and we must deal with each case as it comes up step by step. That is the only possible method of treatment for South Africa. The native problem was tackled by way of an agreement ten years ago after a prolonged enquiry in which the various parties took part. We set our course, and with few exceptions we have all kept to that course. Today we have another problem before us, the Indian problem. This has a more menacing form than the native problem, because the native problem was per se an African problem, a problem of our own country, but the Indian problem has its ramifications far beyond our continent. It is a dangerous problem, it is a problem over which public opinion in the world is much more stirred than public opinion was aroused ten or fifteen years ago when we were dealing with the native problem. The object of the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, the background of that amendment, seems to me to be the wrong road for us to take; if we move in that direction we would wander about and get lost, and solve neither the Indian problem nor any other colour problem.

A wrong road? Your way is a false track.

I do not see why we should take such a course of despair. The native problem is, of course, a difficult and complicated problem. At that time we dealt with it and disposed of it, and it is working today. There may be a difference of opinion on what was done, but I agree with what was stated by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn), who was for many years a representative of the Transkei in this Parliament, when he said that although he voted against the Hertzog legislation, it appeared in practice to have been a step towards improvement, and a step that has led to native interests being dealt with better in this House today and in Parliament as a whole than in the old days. I think there is much to be said for that, and the hon. member for Tembuland is not the only one who holds this opinion.

What he says in the morning and what he says in the evening do not always coincide.

I do not see what progress we shall make on the road indicated by the amendment. I believe it will be a false track, a road of despair. Not only would it not solve the Indian problem but it would solve not a single other problem, and seeing we have already set our course it would cause complete confusion, and you would set up a labyrinth in the politics of South Africa.

Did you not say the same about the Hertzog plan?

We have this practical problem before us, and I ask myself what light the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party can see in the course that they propose, what practical solution of the Indian problem they will find on the road? Various opinions have been expressed, but the only ray of light they see, it boils down to that, is repatriation. The only solution they see to the Indian problem is repatriation. Well, Mr. Speaker, what can one say about that? Here you have a plan that has already been tried, an effort was made with it by the Nationalist Party Government in 1927. It had a good start but after two years it was dead, and when it was revived later in 1932 it transpired that it was completely impossible—neither in India nor in any other part of the world were there openings for Indian emigrants from South Africa.

What about the Young Commission’s report?

That is not a matter about which we need argue. A practical effort was made and when tried it proved a complete failure. I think hon. members will agree that if the attempt was repeated today the difficulties would be still greater than in 1927.

Because the Indians do not want their own people there.

Because India is already over-populated. There is no country in the world that is so over-populated as India, and India simply will not have these people there. There is another difficulty in inducing the Indians to return to India. At that time many of them still thought that a return to their mother country would not be a bad thing, especially with the money that they got. But they gained experience and those that did go were bitterly disappointed and sent back reports tbout their disappointment, and today you will find many more difficulties in the road than ever before. At that time it was a hopeless effort and it would be a still more hopeless effort now. To talk about repatriation, to imagine that salvation will be found along that road is looking at a rainbow in the sky, it is an illusion. It is true that you have repatriation today in Europe, but it is occurring there as a result of the biggest war in the history of the world. There you have repatriation under compulsion in exceptional circumstances, but to imagine that voluntary repatriation of Indians from this El Dorado to India or to any other part of the world will succeed is folly.

You now talk about an El Dorado but the Minister of Finance said we were treating the Indians so badly.

No, this is our own problem, and we must find a solution of it ourselves, and the solution so far as the Government can see it lies along this road opened up by the Bill that is before the House today. The Leader of the Opposition asks me why I am in such a hurry, why I do not follow the wise course adopted by the late Gen. Hertzog of first having a prolonged enquiry into the whole problem. My answer to that is clear. The work has been done. Gen. Hertzog instituted an enquiry and at that time they discovered the solution and today we still see a solution in that. You do not need to make this enquiry all over again, no new enquiry is necessary into the question of whether you will give a separate franchise or a common franchise to these people to whom you must of course give political rights. The Hertzog Joint Committee represented all these policies. All these matters were thrashed out and as the result of discussions and enquiry we adopted the course that we have followed in connection with the native problems, and a further enquiry is not necessary. The foundations have been laid. We are building on them. It would only be a waste of time to do all that work over again.

The Select Committee did not suggest this proposal in connection with the Indians.

The proposal in connection with the Indians as far as political representation is concerned is basically the same.

But in the north the natives have not the franchise as they have in the south.

The hon. member says that the natives had the franchise in the south and they were deprived of it, and that a different franchise was given to them. What do hon. members on the other side now wish to do? They want to take away that substitute from the natives.

I am speaking now about the Indians.

I am speaking now about the natives, because the hon. member asked me the question.

You say you are not taking anything away from the Indians. You are only giving them something. It is, a different case to that of the natives.

What I am pointing out is that the hon. member and his party now wish to deprive the natives of this substitute franchise. As far as the Indians are concerned, the position is clear. We have here an Indian population who were born in the country. They form the permanent section of our population. In the Cape Town Agreement it was admitted that those who did not wish to leave but who wished to stay here would be uplifted as a portion of the permanent population. When that is the position the deduction is, of course, clear that you must give them at least the same rights that you give to other sections of the permanent population.

Good, but then will you also give natives in the Transvaal representation, seeing you are giving it to Indians in the Transvaal?

The natives in the Transvaal have their representatives.

Who?

Why are the three native representatives sitting here then?

Do they sit here for the Transvaal? You apparently do not know the law.

The hon. member can jump about as much as he likes. They want to go back on what they voted for ten years ago. That is the whole intention of the enquiry that is proposed in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition; they want to go back on the work that was done at that time, and I maintain that this would land us in a labyrinth, that it is a hopeless effort. We shall never solve the problem on that basis.

It is now being stated that a danger exists that a bloc will be formed in Parliament in consequence of this Bill. The Leader of the Opposition and hon. members on the other side are afraid that a bloc will be formed. Well, the bloc is there. It was created by this Hertzog legislation. It is now being increased. Instead of three there will be six. Six out of 156, six against 150. I maintain that if European Afrikanerdom is so stupid, so foolish and so blind that the 150 European representatives of South Africa will allow themselves to be outdone by a bloc of six on the other side, then South Africa is hopelessly lost. It is an act of despair.

Your argument is an argument of despair.

Not only do they despair of themselves, but they despair also of the future. Let us leave this matter to the future. Why should we distrust Afrikanerdom of the future? Why should we suppose that the generation that follows us will give away the rights of South Africa and surrender the position of the white man? Let us leave this matter to the generation that follows. These are questions of the future, and not urgent today. No these are bogys. Let us leave these matters to the future, and not despair over the Afrikanerdom that will follow after us Every day has enough of its own troubles. We have enough difficulties with the problems that are in front of us. I do not think there is a country in the world, certainly not a young country, that has greater difficulties as far as races are concerned, affecting the composition of its population, than we in South Africa have. If you try to solve everything in a mathematical way, you will be making the biggest blunder and you will have the biggest failure that it is possible to have. Step by step, every case on its own, acting according to your conscience and according to the best of your lights, do the best for yourself and your fellow-men. From time to time opinions in South Africa will change, but they will come through. We have a practical, a concrete problem in front of us. Let us keep to it and not get scared over imaginary difficulties. That business about a bloc—there is nothing in it. The hon. Leader of the Opposition speaks about the time when the natives will say: But look, the Indians have so many representatives, our numbers are much greater, we want 12 or 20 representatives.

They are saying it now.

Let them say it.

That is not the point. We know that Swaziland and Basutoland and those territories will be incorporated and they will also desire representation. What will be the position then?

They will be incorporated and I shall leave it to Parliament, which has to approve the incorporation, to make a decision on that. I trust in Afrikanerdom that will have to decide on the matter, just as today we are deciding on the Indian problem. No, I believe there is nothing in that.

Do not draw a red herring across the trail for us and yourself.

I think there is no justification for the inquiry the Leader of the Opposition wants. It would be a dangerous course to adopt and goodness only knows what it will land us in. It may make not only the Indian problem but also our other big problems much more difficult.

Let me in conclusion say a few words on the amendment proposed by the native representatives. I respect the opinion of those members and they are entitled to express their opinion. No one can find fault with them for that. But I put this question to myself: Is this a practical course that you can take? Is it possible or imaginable that you could get through a Parliament such as our Parliament of South Africa today a motion for a common franchise to natives, Indians and Europeans? You simply would not get it through. You may have your ideals over human rights. You may have exalted views about the equality of human beings, which we all pay homage to, but then you come to the practical application …

Tell Hofmeyr that.

You come to the practical application and you feel you cannot get that across. In politics — everyone knows it and I do not need to say it — you must put the question: What is possible in practice? You may have a beautiful ideal, you may debate something theoretically, but the question is what is possible in practice? What we are proposing is the only practical measure and even this can only be put through with difficulty. This is my measuring rod. When you come to a practical problem you must ask whether it is possible in practice. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) said she was alarmed to hear what I said about the structure of our South African society. But my attitude is simply this, that I ask what is possible in practice? What is possible? She spoke about the future, about a change in affairs that will be accompanied by a change in public opinion. To me the question as a practical man with the responsibility of making this proposal is, what is the best I can do in the circumstances? There is no doubt that the best we can do both for the natives and the Indians is the proposal that is now in front of us. I have not spoken about the coloured vote. That is a settled matter. The coloured vote exists here in the Cape. I accept that, and the matter was disposed of in the past. This is a system that I hope will be perpetuated for the coloureds for many years in South Africa. In connection with the natives and the Indians I speak of what is practical, and the only practical step we can take is the step we are taking here. References have continually been made to my friend the Minister of Finance, but hon. members forget that he gives his approval to this Bill, he gives his approval to this step.

As a first step.

He is a practical man. He knows that without giving up your ideals and principles you may be faced with difficulties which you have to take into account. He is doing this and we accord him all honour for it.

I think I have now discussed the main points of the debate, but there is one point I made in my original introductory speech which I should like to return to, and with that I also revert to a remark that was made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. Years ago I made a speech here in Cape Town in which I spoke about the dispute in connection with equal rights. I said that the emphasis that is laid in South Africa on equal rights diverted our attention from the condition and the treatment of the real interests of our natives and our coloured people. There is so much worrying over the question of equal rights that one forgets there are other questions that are far more pressing than equal rights. These are the social questions of the upliftment of the natives and the coloured people, of the less privileged in South Africa; questions of housing, of nutrition, of health and many other similar questions which are of greater practical importance. They are of great importance because we have to lay the foundation for the future by social improvement, instituting higher standards of living and improving the living conditions of these people. These are the practical steps that lie before us. In my introductory speech I stated it is the intention of the Government, as far as the Indians are concerned, to create machinery for the carrying out of such a policy and to ensure that it is carried into effect in South Africa for the Indians. It is not only a land question and a franchise question that are of importance. Other questions are of far greater practical importance to the Indian. There has been negligence in Natal and also in other parts which we must stop. We live in another world with a public opinion which is very sensitive in regard to questions of social uplift and progress. Apart from this Bill we are now putting through we have to deal with the practical side of social uplift in order to improve and assure the standards of Indians. Some years ago I proclaimed the same doctrine in Cape Town in regard to the coloureds and the natives. We must feel that it is not only the question of differences on abstract political questions but that there are also practical questions of importance for those sections of our population, and that it is our duty to give our attention to those questions. The other minor points that were touched on in the debate I shall not deal with at the moment. The Committee stage is the appropriate place to deal with those points and I will therefore leave them over for the Committee stage.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—80:

Abbott, C. B. M. Abrahamson, H. Acutt, F. H. Alien, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

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.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman. H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stevn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—55:

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Christie, J.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Latimer, A.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—86:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

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.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman. H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Aioli, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Rober son, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

S evn. C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

I do not want to raise any objection to the Prime Minister’s motion that we should take the Committee Stage tomorrow, but I should like on that occasion to move an instruction, of which notice must be given, to the Committee of the Whole House. If Mr. Speaker will allow me to read my motion now and accept that as adequate notice, then I agree to the Committee Stage being taken tomorrow.

The hon. member may give notice of his motion for an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House after it has been decided when the Committee Stage will be taken. In the circumstances, notice of motion immediately after the date for the Committee Stage has been decided upon is permissible and I shall have no hesitation in accepting it.

I hope that the Prime Minister will give a longer time than this. The position is that a very large number of people in this country who are very much affected by this Bill, by the rights which have been taken away, by the difficult position in which they are being placed by the various sections of the Bill, are only just now beginning to find out how they are affected. I wish to put it to the Prime Minister a sufficient opportunity should be given to us, some of us who represent a number of these people, to go and explain what the provisions of the Bill are. There are some people who do not know how they are going to be affected, and particularly does this question arise over the schedule of the areas. That needs to be explained, and I hope the Prime Minister, after we have accepted the second reading of this Bill, under the circumstances which I have explained when I spoke on the second reading, will give sufficient time for information as to the details of this Bill to be brought home to those affected by it. I ask the Prime Minister to give us say a fortnight. [Laughter.] What is the urgency? Why not a fortnight. Why this ridiculous laughter? Is there a plot on the other side to get this Bill rushed through? I am only replying to this laughter. I ask the Prime Minister to give as much time as he possibly can between this time and the Committee Stage.

I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend. What he asks for now is such a postponement of this measure that the business of the House will be very seriously disordered. I think we might accept the motion for the Committee Stage today. I understand the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) wants to move an instruction to the Committee which can be disposed of tomorrow, and if that is disposed of I do not propose to go on with the Committee Stage immediately thereafter. It may stand over till the next day. And, considering that the hon. member and his friends have had now a whole week of debate on the second reading, during which they could have prepared any amendments they have in view, I do not think a longer postponement is necessary than that. When this motion of the hon. member for Piketberg has been disposed of tomorrow we may pass on to other business and resume the Committee Stage the following day.

Motion put and agreed to.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 3rd April.

I have before me a Press report which appeared two or three days ago from which it appears that a meeting of the League of Nations will take place at Geneva on April 8th. According to this Press repor† Mr. Egeland will represent the Union, and the following also appears in this report—

A very important matter is brought up here. As hon. members know, this matter has already been very fully discussed when, on behalf of this side of the House a few weeks ago, a motion was introduced and discussed on the question of the future of South-West Africa. Inter alia the standpoint was taken up in that motion that the League of Nations had ceased to exist; in the second place it was argued there that there is nothing in Article 22 of the Treaty that gives the League of Nations the right to transfer its rights and functions in respect of mandated territories to another world organisation. As I indicated at that time, there is not even provision in Article 22 that the League of Nations can allot to another mandatory a mandated territory that has already been allotted. The reason for that is clear, as indeed the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister admitted in his reply to the debate, namely, that the mandates were allotted at that time by the Supreme Council of the Associated and Allied Powers. The League of Nations indeed functioned as an agent of the Supreme Council of the Associated and Allied Powers. In the first place, therefore, there is the interesting question that the Prime Minister did not touch on in his reply to my motion, namely, in how far the League of Nations still exists, because according to the statements of the Prime Minister himself in public speeches and elsewhere he, as well as others, intimated that with the establishment of U.N.O. the League of Nations had ceased to exist. At that time, speaking figuratively I said that just as you cannot have two governments contemporaneously in the country, and just as you cannot have two parliaments so you cannot have two world organisations. Of more importance, however, is the other question. The Prime Minister said at that time in his reply to my South-West Africa motion that we should leave the juridical question on one side. I could not then agree to that, and the fact that we cannot leave it on one side now seems clear. It appears that you will indeed have to take the juridical question into account, because here a meeting is being held of the old League of Nations, and the question arises whether it was really a meeting of the League of Nations or whether it was not, as I put it, a meeting of the executors in the estate who have to decide what is to be done with the assets of the old League of Nations—its premises and its cash assets. Personally I believe that is the only object of that meeting. In the second place there is the question of transfer of functions. The question is of such extreme importance that I am entitled to mention it here today and to ask that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister should satisfy us that nothing will be done or said by the Union representative in Geneva that will create the impression that the Union agrees that the League of Nations has the right to transfer its functions to another organisation. I make bold to say that if this matter was submitted to international jurists they would also be of opinion that according to the interpretation of Article 22 the League of Nations is not qualified to do this. The danger for us is this, that if there should be a proposal before the meeting that the League of Nations should formally transfer its mandate territories and its functions in respect of the mandate to Ú.N.O., and should that come to a vote, and should the South African representatives also take part in that voting, this would be viewed as an admission on our part that the League of Nations has indeed the right to transfer these mandate territories to U.N.O. I maintain it would be fatal if our representative acted in this way. We have great interest in South-West Africa, and from the Prime Minister’s speech it appeared he largely feels with us that the Union, as he put it, should annex South-West Africa. We should be giving up our position if Mr. Egeland, the Union representative, intimated at this meeting by supporting such a motion that the League of Nations has the right to transfer the mandate territories to U.N.O. as also its authority in respect of the so-called mandate territories. We on this side of the House who came with a motion in which certain principles were laid down regard this matter as one of supreme importance, and I sincerely trust that the Prime Minister Will be able to satisfy us that his representative will not take up such a standpoint. If he permits this it means that the Prime Minister when he goes to New York to put South Africa’s standpoint will have weakened his position in advance. I hope consequently that the Prime Minister will not do this and that he will ensure that our representative in Geneva will not compromise the Union in advance.

The hon. member has brought up two questions, the one is in how far the League of Nations still exists. Technically the League of Nations still exists. To all intents and purposes it is dead but technically, juridically, the organisation has not been dissolved and it still exists, and the meeting of the League of Nations on April 8th has been convened to make final arrangements to finish the agony.

Is it not a case of the estate?

No, it is not a question of the estate. The question of the estate has been disposed of, or has at least been provisionally disposed of. A commission of U.N.O. met a commission of the League of Nations to negotiate about the transfer of the estate—the properties of the League of Nations and the arrangement of all these matters, the temporary provisions that will be necessary when the League of Nations disappears. There are the buildings in Geneva and there are the accounts. It is a very complicated estate, as my hon. friend will know. It must all be brought in order, and so far as I am aware these matters were all arranged by the last gathering of the U.N.O. in London.

With whom?

With a supervisory commission of the League of Nations.

But the League of Nations has no power to do this.

The League of Nations left a supervisory commission at its last meeting before the war, and it negotiated with the commission of the U.N.O.

What about the mandate territories; are these included?

No, this has nothing to do with the mandate territories. Only the property was dealt with. I believe juridically I am so far correct, but technically the League of Nations still exists and it must be wound up, and the object of the meeting at Geneva on 8th April is to effect its termination. It is a very complicated legal question how this must be done, and what resolutions must be taken, but it still exists. That is the reply to the question of the hon. member, the intention is now to wind it up.

But can two world organisations exist simultaneously?

Yes, they can, but of course the League of Nations does not exist in reality. Juridically it can exist, but of course actually it is a ridiculous position that two world organisations exist and this must now be put right.

The other question put by the hon. member is in how far the League of Nations can transfer the mandate territories. In my humble opinion they have not the powers and they cannot do it, and the Union delegate there has been advised that our position is this; our position is that the League of Nations has no powers and no right to transfer the mandates. We are bound by only one thing and that is under Article 80 of the Charter, which says that until a new agreement is made, whatever it may be, with U.N.O., the obligations we have under the mandate continue to exist and we are only bound under that article of the Charter that until the matter has been arranged as far as the future is concerned we shall preserve the rights and status we held under the mandate. That is the position that has been explained to our representative, and he will have to keep to that, and we do not agree that the League of Nations has power to effect such a transfer and that it can carry it into effect. It is very possible that an attempt will be made at Geneva at the meeting there because there are various quarters that interpret these matters quite differently. To me it is clear that the League of Nations has not the power to make such a transfer and our representative will act in that spirit, but it is very possible that other proposals will be made and we shall see what the result will be.

I should like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to give his attention to one aspect of the internment question, and that is the question of policy. The Government has, in its wisdom, thought fit to intern people during the war years and to detain them, some of them officials. I do not need to argue that point. No evidence has been brought up before any court that all these people, or any of them, have been guilty of any offence. Thus regarded from a legal standpoint there is nothing against these people; there is absolutely nothing against them because they have never had an opportunity to defend themselves in court. We know that many of these people are actually innocent. Some of them were discharged precisely because the Government later came to the conclusion themselves there was nothing against them, that the charges brought against them were false. I am convinced that many of the people that the Government perhaps today as a result of biased information regard as guilty are in fact innocent. That some of them have been culpable in regard to violations of the law is also possible, but I maintain that no proof has been adduced that these people have made themselves guilty of any offence. Therefore, apart from their detention in internment camps, they should not be punished from a financial point of view unless the Government proves that they have been guilty of one offence or another, and that proof can only be presented either before one of the courts of the country or before a departmental committee. Those are the only two ways in which the Government can provide that proof. Bearing that in mind I wish to make this reasonable request to the Minister that officials who have no opportunity to defend themselves in court or before a departmental committee must be compensated. The Prime Minister will know what the regulation is in this connection, but I should like to read it out as it stands here. I have before me a copy which the Minister of Finance kindly sent me. Regulation No. 29 reads—

Now I come to the proviso—

What is the date of the proclamation?

It is Proclamation No. 201 of 1939. We have now in the first instance to deal with officials in the service of the Government, that is to say, State officials or railway officials or officials in any other branch who are under the control of the Government. I maintain that if these people have not been accorded an opportunity and will not get one now to prove their innocence, or—let me put it the other way round—if the Government does not bring these men before a court or a departmental committee to prove their guilt, it is fair that they should receive their salaries in respect of the period they were detained contrary to the ordinary laws of the country in internment camps or in gaol. I am now only referring to the ordinary laws of the land, and not the emergency regulations. If the Government can prove that these people have rendered themselves culpable in respect of one offence or another, the Government would be entitled to hold back their salaries. The Minister of Finance can approve certain payments in his discretion. But now we come to officials of the Provincial Administration who have never been charged by the Provincial Administration, who have never been brought by the Provincial Administration before a departmental committee of enquiry—in the Education Department, for instance—who have been interned, for example, by the Union Government and who later have been released. In this connection the Provincial Administration itself has taken no steps; they have done nothing against these people; it is the Union Government who intern them under these emergency regulations. Now the standpoint that the Minister of Finance has adopted is that in these cases he can do nothing unless the Provincial Administrations make certain recommendations. If the Provincial Administrations do not make certain recommendations—and remember the Provincial Administrations have nothing to do with the internments—these people will go without salary. They suffer all this loss for the period they have been in the camps. I want to take an instance; I am prepared to furnish the name; I have already given it to the Minister of Finance. It is here a question of Government policy. If what I now ask is going to be done, it is a question of Government policy. I have here the case of a teacher. I will just read out what he writes. He says—

He mentions the name of the town—

Note this well—

Here you have the case of a teacher where he writes that an investigation was made by the Education Department after the Union Government interned him, and the Department found him innocent; and that man during the 26 months he was in the internment camp received nothing at all with the exception, perhaps, of the allowance that was paid to his wife. I assume an allowance was paid to his wife.

Yes.

In any case he did not receive his salary in the ordinary sense of the term, and he sustained this loss; and he was not the only one. There Were several officials to whom this injustice was done. The war is over. It is a question of Government policy. It is not a question for the Provincial Administrations. They did not intern the man. But, apart from the officials of the Provincial Administrations, I commenced my speech by first inviting attention to the officials of the Government Itself, many of whom are in precisely similar circumstances. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister to give his attention to this side of the matter to do the big thing, the fair thing, and that is to pay their salaries to these people who were wrongly dealt by, Unless the Government can show they are guilty, and this would have to be done in a court or before a commission of enquiry. I appeal to him to pay them their salaries if they are found innocent, and also to see that these people are not unjustly treated in respect of the increments they would have received if the Government had not placed them in internment camps contrary to the laws of the land. I am not dealing now with the Emergency Regulations. I hope that the Prime Minister will give his attention to this.

Many members in this House feel embarrassed in accepting the increased allowance which has been allotted to them. At any rate, they will be embarrassed until a great wrong is righted, and that is the cost of living allowance to the pensioners of the service. Knowing the interest that the Prime Minister takes in the Service I want to stress his point that there is no other country in the Commonwealth that treats its pensioners as badly as we do. In England the pensioners are not subjected to the means test. In England they are advised that they will receive a pension plus a cost of living allowance.

Since when?

I have that in writing.

Originally it was refused.

Well they now get a cost of living allowance. I have the information. Unfortunately I did not bring it along.

I think it would be better if the hon. member raised this matter under the Treasury Vote.

This cost of living allowance affects the position of many members in this House who feel embarrassed in accepting this increased allowance—at any rate those who have a conscience.

This question has already been disposed of under Vote 3. The Committee is now dealing with the Prime Minister’s Vote. This matter will come up later under a Bill and I suggest to the hon. member that he raises it under the Treasury Vote.

May I say that there are two new factors which I want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, which has come to light since this matter has been raised in the House, and one of the principal factors is that when the depression comes …

Order, order! I hope the hon. member will accept my ruling.

We have made representations to the Prime Minister in connection with certain internment matters and he has not yet favoured us with a reply. When the debate on this matter was concluded he did not have an opportunity to reply. Various matters of considerable importance were raised and although the Minister of Justice referred to the question of Union Germans the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has not yet replied in regard to the general question of German internees. We referred certain matters to him personally. Even my Hon. Leader referred to those matters, and we shall appreciate it very much if he will be good enough to give us a reply now. We shall then know whether to follow up this matter or whether we should leave it. Then I just want to draw his attention, while I am on my feet, to the fact that the vast majority of the recognised Nazi representatives and Nazi leaders in the community of the South-West Germans have already been repatriated. They are no longer in South Africa. I received an official list of those people who were under suspicion and I checked their names. I know these people personally and I say that 95 per cent. of them have already been repatriated. They are no longer in this country. It strikes one as strange that more than a thousand South-West Germans are still being detained, while those people who caused the trouble have all been sent out of the country. I want to say again that in many cases the Germans who are being detained have been detained under a misapprehension. They were not members of the Nazi Party and never wanted to be members.

These cases will now be examined by the Commission.

But why are they still being detained? The war has been over for almost a year. In South-West there is a very serious drought and these people are being ruined. I know of one man who has already lost 3,000 Karakul sheep and he has only 2,000 left. Those 3,000 sheep represent a capital of £12,000 or £15,000. Another German-speaking person has already lost more than 1,000 head of cattle, and his wife has been on the farm for more than six years without assistance, and a very serious drought prevails at the moment. They have to trek, but this woman cannot do so, and they are at their wits’ ends. Many of these people have been regarded as harmless for a long time. They were released from the camps, but they are not allowed to return to their homes; they have to roam about in the Union. There are many of these people here and some in Johannesburg and some in Pretoria. They are occupying houses which we need urgently. Why cannot they be allowed to return to South-West Africa to look after their affairs there? If you do not want to allow them to return permanently, give them three or four months to attend to their affairs. Many of these people were interned under a misapprehension. Their names do not appear on the Nazi list; they were not members, but nevertheless they were locked up in the internment camp. It is argued that these people did not want to enlist for active service or that their children did not want to enlist. I know of families where one child enlisted for active service while the father and the other children were interned. The Germans cannot understand the Government’s policy, and I cannot blame them. But what is more, I want to remind the Prime Minister of the London Agreement which clearly lays down that Germans will not be expected to do military service against Germany.

For thirty years.

Yes, clause 11 of the London Agreement, which the Prime Minister himself signed, lays down that “Germans in South-West Africa and their children, at any rate, will be exempted from military service against the German Reich for a period of thirty years.” That was the explicit International Agreement, and the Prime Minister himself signed it.

It did not say that they would be free to take up training in order to fight for Germany, as many of them did.

I am not talking about active hostility, but there are many who were not members of the Nazi party and who never supported the Nazi ideology, and there are still many of them in the camps. I have drawn the Prime Minister’s attention to certain cases. The strongest pressure was brought to bear on some of these people, but they would not sign in favour of repatriation. Pressure was brought to bear upon them by us and by the Nazis in the camps, so seriously that some of them were nearly killed. One had to receive thirteen stitches in his face as a result of a beating, and he spent two months in hospital because he did not want to sign in favour of repatriation. He said: “I am a South African and have never been a Nazi.” Surely these are clear cases where it is not necessary to detain these people any longer. I also want to draw the House’s attention to the fact that there is a strong movement amongst the Germans in the camp to ask as a community that South-West Africa be incorporated in the Union. I notice from a newspaper which supports the Prime Minister’s policy, namely, “Die Suiderstem,” that in a long leading article on 30th March, they wrote that a petition was being circulated in the camp asking the Government to forget the past. They admit that in certain respects they erred, but they ask to be accepted as citizens and for an opportunity to record their vote in favour of incorporation into the Union. I feel that this should receive a certain measure of encouragement from the Government side. Before I proceed with this matter I should like to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to reply to our representations in this connection.

When last he spoke the hon. member put to me the question which he has now repeated, and the position is simply that as far as the German internees of South-West Africa are concerned —the others in the Union have all been released—there are approximately a thousand or a little more who are still interned. The hon. member says there are cases where innocent people were interned merely because they refused to do military service and that there are others who are altogether innocent. He says some of them are roaming about the Union and that their interests in South-West Africa are being neglected. As far as I know the reply to that is simply that I, of course, am not the official applying the regulations; I am only the Prime Minister. That means that I only keep a general supervision over the matter and I am not acquainted with these particular cases. If anyone asks me whether A was guilty and B not guilty and whether C was interned because he refused to do military service, those are questions to which I cannot reply. I can only reply in general terms and say that as far as the return of the Germans to South-West Africa is concerned, the Administration of South-West Africa requested us not to send these people to that territory for the present. The request is that if they are to be released, if the Government wants to release them from the internment camps, they should be released in the Union. That is the request.

But what is the reason?

This request comes from the Administration, from responsible persons.

But surely they must give their reasons?

They advanced no reasons and I did not ask what the reasons were. This request came from South-West Africa and that is the reason why those who were released are in the Union and not in South-West Africa.

How long is this to continue?

The Government has appointed a judicial commission which will investigate these cases. It is impossible for me or my colleagues to go into these cases. There must be an impartial investigation to determine whether these people are not guilty, and this matter must now be brought to a close.

And if they are found not guilty, will they be allowed to return?

That depends on the finding of the commission. If they are not guilty there is no reason why they should not return, but as long as they are under suspicion and there is evidence against them, documentary or other proof, they will not be able to return.

Have the terms of reference of the commission been laid on the Table?

They were published; I do not know whether they were laid on the Table.

It has not been officially published as yet. It falls under the Minister of the Interior, but the terms of reference have not yet been officially published.

The difficulty is that these questions are put to me as Prime Minister. I have nothing to do with the administration. I am fully occupied with other matters, but as far as my knowledge extends I am replying in regard to the general circumstances. I know that a request came from the Administration not to send the Germans back until such time as they had been exonerated and had a clean record.

But surely no Government commission is given a free hand to act as it deems fit. There must surely be terms of reference.

There are such terms of reference. I was under the impression that they had already been published in the Government Gazette and laid before the House. If that has not been done yet, the terms of reference can be laid on the Table. I am replying as far as I can, and if my reply is incomplete, it is because these questions are being put to the wrong person. I do not administer this matter. There are thousands of people against whom there is evidence, documentary or perhaps other evidence, and they are in the internment camps. They must be released and we have decided to appoint a commission to investigate whether or not they should be allowed to remain in this country. The commission will deal with these matters in a judicial way.

I want to associate myself with the reasonable request of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) in connection with certain teachers who were dismissed.

I am sorry that I did not reply to that point. The hon. member referred to a number of officials who were interned. He referred to a few teachers who fell under the Provincial Administration. All I know is that a war measure was promulgated under which officials against whom there were accusations in connection with the public safety were interned. They lost their salaries during the period of their internment. But, of course, I do not know anything about the particular cases.

The request is that this money should be refunded to them if they are found not guilty. Surely that is a reasonable request.

I do not want to say at this stage what the Government is going to do. I only know that there was a war measure which provided that during the period of their internment or absence from duty, because some of them were released but were not re-employed in the service, they, would not be paid. What the final decision will be I do not know. This war regulation has been carried out, but I cannot say that that will end the matter.

Since a war measure was promulgated which, as the Prime Minister stated, was not unreasonable, the request of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is surely a reasonable one. In the event of a man being found not guilty at the enquiry, it is surely reasonable, where he was dismissed and detained in an internment camp for 26 months, to pay him his salary if it now appears that he is not guilty. Surely it is fair and just. But, apart from the case of the teachers, there are various cases of police officials. They were placed in an internment camp, and subsequently it was found that there was no case against them, and they were released, but they were not taken back into the police service. The Prime Minister said the other day that we ought to be forgiving and adopt a new course. Let the Prime Minister set an example by adopting a new course in the future. The war came to an end almost a year ago, and today there are still people who are being punished under war measures. Does the Prime Minister not feel, if he wants to be forgiving, that the time has arrived for a general amnesty? Why should these people still be persecuted a year after the war? Is this the Christianity for which you fought? I hope the Prime Minister will now repeal these war measures. The sooner he abandons the war measures the better. But, apart from these cases there are cases where people enlisted for military service and saw active service. They returned on leave, and, owing to illness or other difficulties, because they could not get further leave, they did not return again. Today they are still regarded as deserters. There are only a few cases. Is it not possible to be merciful towards those people?

Let them appear and present their cases. They are still deserters.

They are afraid that if they return they will be imprisoned.

Give these people the good advice to return.

If the Prime Minister will be of assistance in this respect, I shall be pleased. With regard to the Germans who are still in the internment camps, many of them are married to Afrikaans women; their children were born in this country. Why must they be returned to Germany to die a starvation death? Is that Christian-like and human? I hope the prison doors will be opened now, and that there will be a general amnesty so that we may have rest and peace.

There must be an investigation.

Then I also want to say a few words in connection with the Broadcasting Corporation. I shall raise this matter later under the vote of the Ministers concerned, but during the war the Broadcasting Station was practically commandeered by the Government to make propaganda for the Government. Under war circumstances it may be possible to defend that action. But today the Broadcasting Corporation is still purely a propaganda machine for the Government. Whatever is done and said by the Government side is broadcast, and it is only stated here and there what the Opposition does and says. It was never the intention that the Broadcasting Corporation should be a political body. It must do justice to all sections of the population, but the Government is still using it after the war to make propaganda. The Corporation broadcasts what is said by two or three members on the Government side, and there may also be a brief reference to one member on our side. Let them broadcast these things as they should do it, as it appears in Hansard. I hope the Prime Minister will go into this.

I should like to Put & question to the Prime Minister in connection with a case which has not yet been mentioned here. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) referred to certain Germans who were interned and later repatriated. Many of them agreed to be exchanged because they were treated very badly in the internment camps. I have just had a case at Lichtenburg of a Union subject of German descent. He was naturalised and married to an Afrikaans girl.

I think the hon. member should address that question to the Minister of the Interior. The Prime Minister stated that he has no knowledge of the details.

May I just say that I welcomed the reply of the Prime Minister in regard to the instructions he issued to our representative in Geneva in connection with the mandate question. There is another matter of importance I raised during the debate which has just been concluded, in regard to the Indian legislation. I have no other opportunity to raise it, and I am obliged, therefore, to do so here. I cannot raise it in the Committee stage of the Bill because it would then be out of order. I refer to certain resolutions passed by the Indian Parliament in connection with the application of sanctions against South Africa and the breaking off of trade relations between the two countries. I raised this matter in the course of the debate, but the Prime Minister did not reply to it. Perhaps this is a more appropriate occasion to raise it. In the first place I should like to know whether India, constitutionally, is in the same position as South Africa? We are in the dark in regard to the true position of India. Is the Viceroy of India obliged before approving any resolution or act of the Indian Parliament to refer it to England? Has he the same powers as the Governor-general of South Africa in respect of the approval of legislation or resolutions of Parliament? If not, I should like to know from the Prime Minister what the position is. I think this is of importance because this matter may have further repercussions. We have repeatedly been told that there is regular, mutual consultation between the Union Gov ernment and the Dominion Affairs Office in London. Was the British Government consulted by the Viceroy of India? Did the British King have to give his consent to this resolution? If so, was the Prime Minister of the Union consulted in that regard by the British Government, and, if so, what was his attitude in connection with this matter?

I want to reply to that at once. I am sorry I did not do so earlier. The position of India is not clear. The Government of India consists almost entirely of Indians. I believe there are only a few Britishers today in the Government of India. It consists of Indians and the position is not clear at all. The position is not the same as that of the Commonwealth which has an independent status. India is not in this position, but it is also far removed from the Crown Colony system under which the British Government is responsible for the territory. It is an intermediary system, the details of which I am not fully acquainted with, but I can tell the hon. member that I was never notified and I did not hear anything from the British Government in regard to England’s attitude as far as sanctions are concerned.

Is the Viceroy entitled to approve of anything of this kind, as in the case of our Governor-General, or is he obliged to refer it to England first?

I think he approves of it on his own.

But India is not a Dominion.

Nor is India a Crown Colony. India has its own High Commissioner here: it has its own Government; it has its Viceroy whose relationship to the British Government I am not fully acquainted with. I do not quite know what the constitutional position is.

But even in this country even after we obtained Dominion status, our legislation in certain cases still had to be approved of by the King.

I do not think there was ever anything of that kind even before Dominion status was granted. I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension.

Will you make enquiries?

Certainly not. The British Government has not approached me and I am satisfied with the position. The British Government is satisfied to keep out of the trouble and I am satisfied with the position as it is. If India wants to talk to us, it can do so through its High Commissioner in this country; and India can talk to us direct. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that the British Government has not interfered in this matter at all, it has regarded it as a matter between two separate States so to speak. There is no question of British interference. India is represented in UNO and is independent in that respect. It has its own Government; it has a Viceroy, but to a large extent it leaves matters in the hands of the Government, and the difficulty we have with India in regard to sanctions or otherwise, is a matter for the two Governments to decide and the British Government does not enter it at all. That is the position as it now stands.

I should like to raise a matter which was started by the Prime Minister, and I feel therefore that he is the responsible person. I refer to the “People of Britain” Fund. Certain circulars were sent to the police offices which placed upon them an obligation to collect money. As we know there were strong protests, and I am pleased that that instruction was later repealed. But I am now faced with this difficulty that since the Prime Minister started this fund, a certain measure of pressure is still being brought to bear on people and we cannot approve of that: I have letters here from certain people indicating that they are practically being forced to contribute to the fund. The cost of living is continually rising. We are faced with food shortages, and I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether he approves of a person who earns £5 or £6 per week and who has to support his family, being compelled to make a contribution to this fund. The Prime Minister will reply that this is a voluntary fund. He may regard it in that light, but the fact is that people who are employees are instructed to contribute, or the request is put to them by their employers in such a way that if they are not prepared to contribute they run the risk of being victimised. I have before me a stop order form and for the information of the Prime Minister, let me say that it was signed on 25th March, just a few days ago—

I know that this person cannot keep body and soul together. I am not going to mention his name here, but I am prepared to give his name to the Prime Minister. This fund is supposed to be a voluntary fund, but pressure is being brought to bear on people in this way. A person who is placed in this position knows that if he does not contribute he is hard pressed. He has a wife and children and they have to go short if he contributes. The circumstances in which we live, having regard to the food shortages and the rising cost of living, make it necessary for the Prime Minister to put a stop to this sort of thing. He started this fund and I think it is his responsibility to see to it that no pressure is brought to bear on people in this way to contribute to the fund. I shall be very glad if the Prime Minister will be prepared to issue instructions that people are not to be forced in this way to make contributions. I hope the Prime Minister will not tell me that this fund is a voluntary fund. It is no longer voluntary if he allows people to make an appeal in this way to workers, practically forcing them to contribute. Those people know that they will be victimised. I should like to hear what the Prime Minister thinks of the manner in which money is being collected for this fund.

I should like to mention just two points. The first was brought up by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in connection with broadcasting. It is a matter that I wish to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, although it actually does not fall under him. I wish to ask him whether he will now drop the war use of the wireless in South Africa. Either we are in a state of war or we have peace. We cannot have both at the same time. In connection with the broadcasting it is really remarkable that we are still in a state of war. It is not right that the United Party should continue to use the wireless for its own purposes.

Is that correct?

Let me put it to the Prime Minister this way. He should investigate the matter. But it is causing talk all round that the wireless is being abused by giving preference to the one party as against the other. The Government of the day is a party government. During the war one had to endure it, however much it stuck in your gullet, but the Government of the day used the wireless for propaganda purposes. Now that peace has returned we must come back to normal circumstances. If the Prime Minister is not aware of it let him institute an enquiry and he will find that preference is given to the Government for Government matters.

Public affairs.

Public affairs!

Matters such as the price of mealies.

No, that is not all; it is don in a very subtle way.

. But sometimes it is just crude.

If matters have to be presented for the Government, propaganda is always turned in that direction. One can listen to it practically every night.

Give an instance.

Do not let us go into details now. When we come to the vote of Interior we can go into it. The hon. member asks me for an instance, however, and I ask him just to listen to the reports on what is happening in this House.

It is a scandal.

This is news to me.

A summary is given of the proceedings here in Parliament of what hon. members on the other side say and of what members on this side say. I should like the Prime Minister to listen to what has been said about his side, how it is put over and then again how it is put over in regard to what members on this side say about matters. A high broadcasting official is overseas making enquiries as to how far the proceedings of Parliament can be broadcast. I am not one of those who is in favour of it, but I prefer that a hundred times to the way it is now done. If the proceedings are broadcast the public can hear everything that takes place. But to give a partial and a party impression to the public—rather stop it altogether instead of doing this.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 3rd April.