I move as an unopposed motion—

The untimely death of a likeable colleague and a good friend came as a shock to all of us, the more so because he was such a likeable person and because it happened so unexpectedly. Martiens Bekker became a member of this House on 25th July, 1960, after a by-election in the then constituency of Groblersdal, and he represented that constituency until it later became the Potgietersrus constituency, which he represented in this House until his death. Immediately after he had become a member of this House he showed that his interest lay mainly in irrigation and water affairs, and in the House he proved himself a champion of the interests of the farmers, yet he displayed a very wide interest, and that interest was evident in the speeches he made in this House. He rendered distinguished service on several select committees, i.e. that on State-owned Land for many years, select committees on various Bills, and in 1966 and 1967 on the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He also made his contribution in the party context, and served as a member of the Agriculture Group and the Water Affairs Group. As a person he was charming, sincere and at all times self-possessed, but I think his outstanding characteristic was that we all knew him as a hard-working Member of Parliament who always watched over the interests of his constituency with the utmost diligence. I do not think I would be saying too much if I said that he was everything one expects a Member of Parliament to be. As Minister of Justice and as Minister of Education I myself had the experience of receiving him in my office when he came to state the case of his constituents. He always did so with characteristic thoroughness and with a courtesy which one particularly appreciated. He was a man who believed in his cause and in the principles of his party, and these he stated at all times with firm conviction, but always in a dignified way, as we came to know him in this House. Mr. Speaker, someone recently calculated that the average term of parliamentary service of members since Union to the present day has been seven years. It was not granted this colleague of ours to exceed that period. We bear him in pleasant remembrance, and we pray that God in His mercy may comfort his widow, his children and his relatives.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to be associated with the words that have fallen from the lips of the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of the late Mr. Bekker. We knew his as a quiet member, a polite member, a member who did his work most conscientiously. On the Public Accounts Committee he earned the respect and affection of those who worked with him. Sir, he had a remarkable career. I believe he was in the Police Force. I believe he bought his discharge, set up as a farmer and farmed most successfully in his area, so much so, that it was no surprise to us to find that he was a leading member of the agricultural group on the other side of the House. I think if there is one characteristic for which we shall remember him it was his friendliness. He had time to pass the time of day with everybody in the House, with the messengers, with the policemen on duty and every member with whom he came in contact. His politeness endeared him to all of us. I think we on this side of the House would particularly like to be associated with the messages to his family, to whom his early and untimely passing must have been a most terrible shock. I second the motion.

My colleagues and I wish to identify ourselves with the motion before the House and with the well-merited tributes paid to the memory of our late friend.

On this tragic day I wish to associate myself with the observations made by the hon. the Prime Minister and by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the passing of our friend and colleague, Mr. Martiens Bekker. As farmers we enjoyed the special privilege of working in close collaboration with Mr. Bekker. His sincere and strong personality and integrity were characteristic of him. I want to reaffirm that we co-operated most cordially. He carried out his instructions most meticulously and correctly. His strong personality and sincerity will always be an example to us, and may the Almighty confer His blessings upon his family and his wife, particularly at this time.

Motion agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

Under this Vote we are dealing with a portfolio which has had a rather chequered history over the last two years under changing Ministers, and we appreciate that the hon. the Minister in charge of the Vote to-day is still not the Minister of Indian Affairs. But the matter is of such importance that notwithstanding that it comes so low in the list of votes to be considered by this Committee, there are certain important aspects which we must deal with.

I would like, firstly, to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would inform us as to the part he sees as the part to be played by the Indian community in the Republic. Let us, for example, deal with one aspect of the matter, and I should like to put this also in the form of a question to the Minister, and that is the industrial development of the Indian people. Here in the Cape there is in Government circles a belief that a certain area in the Western and the South-Western Cape can be reserved for the employment of Coloured people, because it is their natural homeland and it is the area where they can expect to be protected as far as their employment is concerned, and from which the Bantu must get out. But when you come to where the mass of the Indians are residing at present, chiefly in Natal, with a big group in the Transvaal, and an indefinite and indefinable group in the Cape, the position is quite different. Whereas in the Cape it may be said that there is a certain area which can be reserved for the employment of Coloured people, Indians residing in this area are classed as Coloured people for that purpose, and so they are protected, and that goes also for the Malay group. But when you come to Natal, it cannot be said that there is an area which can be set aside as the natural area for the employment of Indians and that the Bantu can be asked to leave those areas and go back to their homelands, leaving the employment available to the Indians. That position does not obtain. Whether we like it or not, the Indians and the Bantu are going to find their labour opportunities in exactly the same area as, for all practical purposes, the white man. I put this question of development to the Minister, and particularly the industrial development in regard to Indians. The Bantu as such do not really come into industrial development. They are in part coming into commerce, but they have not yet got very far in industry. They are feeling their way gradually, but they are making their way in commercial pursuits. But the Indian has already gone a long way in regard to industrial development. He has industries, and with his capacity he is very successful in industry. Where does he carry out these activities, and how does he fit into the economy? On this side of the House we believe in one fundamental economy for the whole of South Africa, irrespective of race groups, and we believe that all the various race groups should participate in that one economy, each according to his capacity and his opportunity and each according to his way of life. Here we have the Indian now, and we would really like clarification as to what part he is expected to play. Is he to be a farmer? If so, what opportunities are being provided for him so that he may be a farmer? What training facilities are provided for him to enable him to make the best use of the ground? We have unfortunately been unable, because of the press of time, to deal with that as we have done in the case of the Bantu. Is the Indian to be a hewer of wood and a drawer of water, and if so, where? Amongst his own people only, or is he to infiltrate into other areas where he can sell his labour to other employers? Is he to be an employer himself, and if so, what labour must he employ? Is he to employ only Indians in his factories and businesses, or will he be permitted to employ other race groups? If we have one economy in South Africa and the Indian has to play his full part, I would like to know from the Minister what that full part is to be, and how it is to be determined and who will determine it and what facilities will be given to the Indian community so that they can play that full part? They are increasing in numbers very fast indeed, with the result that in areas where they are being established under the Group Areas Act there is already tremendous pressure arising from inside, and this can only lead to difficulties. This brings us to a law which was enunciated—I heard it in Natal for the first time many years ago—which says that when you are dealing with races the point of contact is the point of friction. When you have groups separated in group areas—and here I should like to refer particularly to the big Catsworth area outside Durban where a vast complex is going up—I do not know what it is being planned for, but it is filling up so fast and the conditions which are developing there are already holding in themselves the seeds of trouble. They are generating the seeds of great trouble, because there is a community there which is not going to be a viable community with expression in all walks of life and all activities which a natural business community may find for itself or manufacture for itself because it has the facilities. The access to raw materials, the access to labour, the access to capital, the access to the ability to expand and to take advantage of markets, are not present, are not there. But houses are being built for the housing of more people —more houses, more people. It is not only a dormitory. It is a dormitory the walls of which are already starting to show signs of cracking because of internal pressure. This creates a very acute problem. When once the Government accepted the position that they had to depart from their 40-year-old policy of the repatriation of the Indian, once they accepted them as South Africans and as a permanent part of the population here, it demanded of all of us—and this is the particular responsibility of the Government—that we exercise our minds on this problem to try and find out what part this community is to play in the development of South Africa. As I say, that is in particular the responsibility of the Government. I do not want to use the old cliché about their being a voiceless people— they are far from voiceless, although they may be voteless. The fact remains that they are a very able people indeed, and amongst them we find some of the most able intellects that we have in South Africa. What is their future? What is facing them? Where do we go? The Government have just recently given to a large number of these people, who are stateless persons, South African citizenship. The Minister gave a very fine reply the other day. It was a very good reply and I have no grouse against it. But the fact is that a position has been created where a number of Indians who were stateless people, as reported in the recent Gazette, are now South African citizens. They have been added to the South African community. For what purpose?

I think that we can demand of the Government that they shall give us a reasonable explanation, acceptable not only to those of us who sit here in Parliament but which will carry conviction to the people outside, of what they intend doing about this matter. Something like half a million people have been added to our community. They are an able people and they are going to try and emphasize their existence in terms of the economy of South Africa with every opportunity that presents itself to them. How do they fit in? Where do they fit in? Are they to be allowed to fit in so that they play a part without friction, without trouble and without difficulties so far as the other races are concerned?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast put several questions to the hon. the Minister to which the Minister will probably reply in due course, and for that reason I do not want to follow the hon. member in his argument.

Since the Department of Indian Affairs was established as an independent Department, the Opposition or the antipathy of the Indians to the Government’s policy of separate development has gradually disappeared. The influence of certain elements, in particular the Indian Congress groups, which were always casting suspicion on the well-meant efforts of the Government, diminished gradually, and the Indians as individuals and as communities began to co-operate with the Government, also to their own benefit. Since it came into being the South African Indian Council has contributed a good deal to the positive creation of the proper atmosphere for co-operation. This council has come to form an integral part of the administrative machinery which handles Indian affairs in the Republic. There is close liaison between the Department and the South African Indian Council, which is also thoroughly appreciative of the fact that the Government’s policy and its implementation offer important benefits to the Indians of the Republic. For that reason the members of the Council could also agree when the hon. the Prime Minister addressed this Council here in Cape Town on 14th February, 1967, and said the following, amongst other things—

In the first place the Prime Minister referred to the benefits in the field of education which have accrued to the Indian community in the past number of years, and I should therefore like to make some observations in this regard.

It is generally known how the official Opposition mustered tremendous opposition and how there was also opposition to the Indian Education Act on the part of some of the Indian teachers. They were in fact incited by a section of the Press. This Act came into being in 1965 with the exclusive object of bringing about co-ordination and expansion of all Indian educational services, under the Department of Indian Affairs. In terms of this Act all primary and secondary education in the three provinces, namely Natal, the Transvaal and the Cape, which then came under these provinces, would in due course also come under the Department of Indian Affairs. Thus it came about that primary and secondary education in Natal were incorporated in this Department on 1st April, 1966. That in the Transvaal was transferred to the Department on 1st April of this year. It is as yet too soon to judge whether Indian education has benefited noticeably as a result of being taken over by the Department. But after slightly more than a year we can now ask ourselves questions which may elicit informative answers. An important question is: Has Indian education in Natal improved or has it deteriorated during this transition period? In other words, are there signs of growth, of stagnation, of deterioration? The reply should be sought partly in the way in which the Department has tackled its work.

As regards the standards or the quality of education, there were those among the ranks of the Indian teachers and also among the official Opposition who at the time feared that the educational standards in Natal, in particular. would go down. But it has already been proved that the opposite is true. At present there are many Indian teachers who also concede that the educational standards have improved in this short period. The maintenance or improvement of educational standards depends on the quality of the teaching, and of course this, in turn, depends on the availability of qualified teachers to teach the various subjects or to offer the various courses. It is particularly in this respect that there has been noticeable progress. As a result of the intensive training programme for Indian teachers 378 of them had completed their training at the Springfield Training College for Indians and the University College for Indians in Natal by the end of 1966. At Fordsburg, at the Transvaal Teacher’s College for Asiatics, 82 teachers completed their course and were employed by the Transvaal Administration. This large number of teachers who completed their training made it possible to replace unqualified temporary teachers in the service, but unfortunately certain parties tried to make political gain from this replacement. This positive and clearcut proof of the improvement and an attempt at the improvement of Indian educational standards was described by some newspapers as the “sacking of teachers”. It appears that the hon. member for Houghton also tried to make some political gain from this situation when she put a series of questions to the hon. the Minister, Mr. Trollip, on the discharge of Indian teachers in Natal on 31st January of this year. To these questions the Minister then replied that no qualified teachers had been discharged from the service, but that only the employment of 247 unqualified persons who had served as temporary teachers was terminated to make room for qualified persons who had successfully completed their courses. On that occasion the Minister also said that up to that date 91 persons had again been employed in a temporary capacity. While I am dealing with this, I know that the education section of the Department of Indian Affairs has already planned an in-service training programme for temporary teachers who have a satisfactory record and who show enthusiasm for education. Now I want to ask the Minister how much progress has been made in this regard. We know that such a measure will serve as an interim measure. As regards the training of Indian teachers, the customary procedure is being followed. We are aware of the fact that there is ample provision by way of bursaries and loans for prospective teachers.

I found it interesting to study an analysis of the qualifications of Indian teachers in Natal. From a total of 4,780 Indian teachers 578 held a degree with a professional diploma, that is, approximately 12 per cent. In the past two years in particular this percentage has risen considerably, compared with the previous figure. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort referred to the Indian Council and the measure of co-operation existing between the Indian Council and the Department at present. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what the plans are as far as the future of the Indian Council is concerned and when it will be developed in such a way that it will function on the same basis as the new Coloured Council. Since the Government has gone so far as to establish a representative council, it is its duty, in my opinion, to give full attention to the requests that are submitted by that council. Now, I know that the Indian Council has for quite a number of years made pleading representations to the Minister in connection with the resettlement of the Indians of Johannesburg. After all, they regard the Department of Indian Affairs and the hon. the Minister as the agency which has to approach other Departments when the interests of the Indians are affected. I think the Indians of Johannesburg and the Indian Council have adopted a very reasonable attitude. They have accepted the fact that the residential areas of every town and every city are being reorganized in such a way that each population group will get its own residential area or areas in that town or city. They have offered to co-operate with and to assist the hon. the Minister. But there was a time when the Indian population, members of which are serving on the Indian Council to-day, was unwilling to co-operate with the Department and the Government in connection with the zoning of residential areas. That arose from the fact that the Government initially adopted the attitude that vested business interests also had to be uprooted. Obviously the Indian community saw a threat to their whole future existence in that, and consequently refused to co-operate at all as far as the zoning of residential areas was concerned. Then there was a change of attitude on the part of the Government as far as uprooting business interests was concerned. After that the Indian population was more willing to co-operate with the Government in connection with the zoning of residential areas. I think it is important that in recent years they have shown themselves prepared to co-operate in this field. But the Indian Council objects to and has made representations to the hon. the Minister against the fact that the entire Indian community of Johannesburg is not going to get one single residential area within the municipal area of Johannesburg and that the entire Indian population is going to be pushed out of Johannesburg and will have to go and settle 18 to 20 miles from the centre of town. In other words, the rich and the poor, all groups and classes, will simply have to move out of the city and go and settle up to 20 miles from the centre of town. Hon. members on this side have on various occasions made representations to the Government to reconsider the matter. I myself raised the matter here with the hon. the Minister on two or three occasions. We pointed out that it was an injustice towards these people. The hon. the Minister must bear in mind that a city like Johannesburg has been built up and has become what it is with the assistance and through the labour of all the race groups living there. The Whites to-day have more than 250 residential areas within the municipal area of Johannesburg. Would he say that it was unreasonable of the Indian community of Johannesburg to ask for one residential area within the municipal area of Johannesburg, within the boundaries of the city in which they grew up and which they have helped to build up?

Here I want to stress that we on this side are not opposed to the zoning of residential areas for different race groups. But we are strongly opposed to the way in which it is being done. We have never made any secret of that. We are also opposed to the spirit in which it is being carried out; because the Minister will have to admit that it was said that the Group Areas Act, whether one agreed with it or not, envisaged an equitable demarcation within every town and city for the various race groups. I do not think it ever became apparent from the speeches made when this matter was discussed that an entire population group would be moved right outside a town or city. I think that is quite contrary to the spirit in which the policy was presented to this Parliament. Take the example of Johannesburg to-day. Townships are being established inside Johannesburg for the Coloured population, and even the Chinese population is getting an area inside Johannesburg. A large section of the Bantu have also been settled inside Johannesburg, but the entire Indian community has to go and settle at a distance of 18 to 20 miles from the centre of town. After all these representations the hon. the Minister consulted his two colleagues the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Planning last year, and they then decided to investigate the matter personally. Upon the conclusion of their investigation they issued a press statement in which hey said that they did not intend changing their decision that Lenasia outside Johannesburg was to be the only area for the Indians of the city.

The hon. the Minister then conducted negotiations with and even exerted pressure on the City Council of Johannesburg with the object of getting this area incorporated in Johannesburg. This will not be the first time that a United Party city council or body has to help the Government out of its difficulties. We are completely in favour of the City Council granting people every assistance it possibly can, but it is our duty to say to the Minister that even if it does incorporate that area, the thousands of Indians in Johannesburg will continue to feel that they are being pushed out of Johannesburg.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to place our point of view on record. We want the hon. the Minister to know that we express our strongest disapproval of the attitude which the Government has adopted and is still adopting in regard to this matter. We believe that not only will it leave a stigma against the Government, but because the Government is the official mouthpiece of the Whites in South Africa, it must also arouse feelings against the Whites as a whole. We believe that if the Government wants to zone a city, it must do so on an equitable basis. All the people who grew up there and who have helped to build it up must get an equitable zoning of residential areas. Suppose all the Whites of Cape Town within a circumference of 18 miles—all the Whites living in Tamboerskloof, Oranjezicht or in the central area in the city, and up to Bellville—are given notice that they have to pack their belongings and go and settle far beyond the boundaries of Cape Town. Let that happen to Whites. Can the hon. the Minister imagine what the position would be if all the Whites in Cape Town were compelled to leave the city? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This afternoon he actually made the important admission that the United Party accepted the group areas policy lock, stock and barrel. This was in the first place. But now we come to the “but”. He said that they had nothing against the demarcation of group areas. Those were his words. Then he said in the same breath that they were opposed—we must take note of this—to the spirit and the way in which it was being done. This is indeed a typical United Party argument. Hon. members on the opposite side realize as well as we do that this Government is engaged in creating a new setup in South Africa, in drawing up the new blueprint in South Africa. We are concerned with a future in which we have to break away from and do away with the roots of the evils of the past. This is a difficult task. Everybody has to admit that. Now hon. members try to take their stand on the spirit and the way in which it is being done. May I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what he and his party said when Isipingo Beach, which was a white beach through and through, was given to the Indians? Now there is not a word from them. Then they pleaded for those Whites. They said that those Whites could not be removed for the sake of the Indians who had to get a beach area. When this Government wanted to give Verulam, which was occupied by Indians and Whites, to the Indian community, what attitude was adopted by those hon. members on the opposite side? Where were they? Then they pleaded that the Whites of Verulam should not be moved or uprooted. Sir, do you know what the United Party is asking in effect? They are asking only one thing. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said: How could one remove people who grew up in a town or city, who helped to develop that town or city? In other words, the United Party and its brethren are asking only one thing. That is that we should leave the mixed residential areas exactly as they were in the past. That is what they are asking. With this kind of cheap propaganda they are trying to make, they will stand naked before the people of South Africa. They cannot face both ways.

I want to go further. In the brief period available to me, I want to ask the United Party a question this afternoon. Last year when the hon. member for South Coast took part in this debate, he made a whole speech in which he did nothing but ask the Minister of Indian Affairs questions. This year he again did nothing in his speech but ask a whole series of questions. He made only one statement, which was that the United Party believed in one economy in South Africa. That was the only positive statement made by the hon. member for South Coast. Apart from that, his entire speech consisted of questions. Last year the hon. member made a speech which consisted of questions, and again this year. Now I want to ask a question. The hon. member for Duban (Point) or the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who likes to get up here to get his name into Hansard, may now take the opportunity to reply to this. I want to ask the United Party this question: What is their attitude in respect of Act No. 26 of 1946? In 1946 the United Party placed this legislation, which gave the Indians the political franchise in South Africa, on the Statute Book. Under the United Party the Indians of South Africa would get two white representatives in the Other Place and three white representatives in this House. Under pressure from the hon. the Prime Minister the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated his policy this year. He said that the United Party was in favour of the Indians of South Africa being represented in this House by three representatives. But the 1946 Act went further than that. The 1946 Act provided that in the Other Place they would be represented by two members, in this House by three members and in the Natal Provincial Council they would have two representatives. This representation in the Provincial Council of Natal would be by Whites, but they could also be Indians. Now I want to ask the United Party a pertinent question. Through the hon. the Leader of the Opposition they said this year that the Indians should be represented in this House by three representatives. Now I ask them: What is the position in Natal? I ask the hon. member for South Coast. I now give him the opportunity. Let him tell me whether he is still in favour of the Indians being represented by Indians in the Provincial Council of Natal. Yes, now he is writing. I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) whether he is in favour of the Indians being represented by Indians in the Provincial Council of Natal. I put this pertinent question to the loquacious member for Pietermaritzburg (District). What is his attitude in this respect?

You know what my attitude is.

The hon. member says I know what his attitude is. Am I to take it that because he said last year during the election that the day would come when Bantu would be represented by Bantu in the Parliament of South Africa, he also meant that in Natal that would be the case as far as the Indians were concerned? Is that their policy? Mr. Chairman, here we have the United Party, and they do not want to give us a reply to this question. Sir, let me make it very clear that we should approach matters which affect a group such as the Indians in South Africa with the utmost caution and circumspection. May I give hon. members of the Opposition this advice: We should not try to force maturity on to matters in South Africa as far as Coloured relations are concerned. The United Party has to admit to-day, after giving the political franchise to the Indians 21 years ago, that they were then forcing maturity on to something in South Africa. Here we have them this afternoon, 21 years after they placed that measure on the Statute book, and they are unable to state their policy unequivocally.

What is your policy?

Not only is our policy written up in books and in Statutes; the policy of the National Party is manifested in measures taken every day in the interests of the Indian population in South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, they cannot shout me down, and by trying to do so they will not cover up their own policy. The fact of the matter is that they are trying to pass off as a laughing matter something which they are hiding. We just want to give them this advice: Before they can go to the people of South Africa and ask the people of South Africa to put them into power, they will have to state a positive policy in respect of all population groups in South Africa, including the Indian population.

Sir, I am not very interested in the political speech made by the hon. member for Klip River. I simply want to say this to him. He mentioned the fact that Isipingo which had been a white town had been declared an Indian group area and that nobody had kicked up much fuss about it. Well, I do not think he is accurate in that regard. I think the United Party did kick up a fuss. But let us leave that aside. Can he deny the fact that in the Transvaal, for instance, by the time the Group Areas proclamations have been implemented, only about 7½ per cent of the total Indian population of the Transvaal will have been left undisturbed in their original areas? In other words, something like 921 per cent of the Indian population of the Transvaal will have been moved when the Group Areas proclamations have been finally implemented.

May I put a question to you?

The answer is “no”. Can the hon. member tell me that that is a “fair and equitable and judicious manner” in which to implement the Group Areas Act, which were the words used when the 1950 Act was introduced by the then Minister?

Sir, I rise to support the plea made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about the Indians of Johannesburg. This will not be the first time that I make this plea and I want to make it again and I make it particularly now because of the distressing statement which was issued by the three Ministers who are all involved in this, the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Planning, a joint statement to the effect that they have given a final “no” to the request by the Indian Council for a further group area inside Johannesburg for the Indian population. Sir, the hon. member for Koedoespoort, when he spoke earlier on, told us that the Indian Council recognized all the achievements of the Government on behalf of the Indian population. Well, I have a cutting here which is headed “Indian Council shaken by Trollips’ ‘no’”, and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, that the Indian Council has had its confidence in the Government severely shaken by this final “no” to the urgent request to the Government that another group area be proclaimed for Indians inside the Johannesburg Municipal area. Perhaps I should say a group area, because there is not one. I believe that the hon. the Minister is going to reply to me and to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout by saying that he has asked the City Council of Johannesburg to incorporate within the municipal area Lenasia which is the one and only area for something like 46,000 Indians of Johannesburg. Sir, this is not the answer to the problem. The trouble with Lenasia is that it is much too far away. It is between 19 and 22 miles from Johannesburg, and the Indians want the same privilege that has been granted to other racial groups who are citizens of Johannesburg. I might say that Indians have been associated with the development of Johannesburg for 80 years; they have contributed to the City Council coffers and to the prosperity and general expansion of that city. Other racial groups have all, of course, had provision made for them closer to Johannesburg—and certainly within the municipal boundary—than Lenasia. I want to point out that Lenasia was established 11 years ago. Something like 14,000 people are now living there. Apart from the few rows of housing when one enters the township and which are good houses, expensive houses built by the wealthy Indians, the vast majority of people in Lenasia live under miserable conditions. There are still prefabricated buildings; there is a complete lack of recreational facilities. At the moment a centre is being built but up till now there is nothing. There is not even a police station anywhere within seven miles. Crime is rife inside the township and so is delinquency and there is a great deal of robbery and pilfering. There is not even the normal policing that a respectable community can expect. I want to say too that the transport costs are prohibitive—50 cents for a return trip to Johannesburg. It is a prohibitive cost for the vast majority of Indians living in that area. The Minister’s statement did say that a cheaper rail route was being planned but, Sir, it is now 11 years since that township was established, and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister when he anticipates that this shorter, cheaper rail route is going to be established and functioning for the Indians of Lenasia. As I have said earlier, I believe that Lenasia is not the answer to the problem. The Indians do not want another area miles outside of town and they do not just want Lenasia to be incorporated in the municipal area of Johannesburg. What they want is an area within easy reach of the one and only area, Fordsburg, where they are going to be allowed to trade. Sir, most of the Indians who are not employed as waiters or in factories or as self-employed market gardeners are employed in trading since there is very little opportunity or scope at the moment in industrial employment, although I will concede that these opportunities are increasing. These people want to live close to the areas where they have always lived and I can see no reason at all why another group area cannot be proclaimed near Johannesburg, in the areas in which Indians have traditionally lived, areas such as Fordsburg, and Newtown. Those are the traditional Indian areas. We have always had Indians living there. No white people live in that area. Even within the terms of the Government’s own policy—with which I heartily disagree—I see no reason why the hon. the Ministers should have given this final “no” to the Indian Council. I believe that the confidence and the co-operation of that Council have been most gravely shaken.

Sir, there is one other matter that I should like the hon. the Minister to look into in his capacity as Minister of Indian Affairs, and that is the whole question of the payment of salaries to Indian doctors who are working at the African and Indian Medical School in Natal. I understand that new scales of salaries are being worked out. There is now going to be a three-tiered scale of salaries for doctors working in the same hospital, doctors who have had the same training and who have the same qualifications. The Indian and African doctors are going to be paid on a lower scale than the white doctors there. Sir, I consider that hopelessly inequitable, and I might say that the staff of that hospital also consider it to be hopelessly inequitable. I think there is going to be a considerable amount of trouble at that medical school unless the hon. the Minister steps in and sees to it, whether this is the responsibility of the United Party Provincial Council or some other authority’s responsibility, that whoever has taken this shocking decision is made to reverse it right away before there is trouble at this medical school.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the agitation started under the leadership of the liberalists in Johannesburg and in particular the kind of people who think like the hon. member for Houghton, and who were also taken in tow by other people in the United Party, such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, against the creation and the establishment of a decent Indian area in Lenasia, is something of which this House and the entire country outside are sick and tired. I want to say this to-day, that if it had not been for the attitude adopted by these people to the establishment and development of an Indian area in Lenasia, there would by this time most certainly have been no opposition from the part of the Indian community against that area. But it suits these people; it suits the hon. members for Houghton and Bezuidenhout and the liberalists who think the way they do, to try at all times to make a political issue of this matter.

What do I get from it?

The political gain they seek from this is that they always want to drag this thing into the political arena. I have never heard the hon. member for Houghton get up here and state any objection to the fact that the Bantu population of Johannesburg were living up to 16 and 20 miles, at the furthest, from Johannesburg. Surely the hon. member for Houghton knows that the Bantu population of Johannesburg is the lowest paid community, and they get subsidized transport just like the Indians of Lenasia. But it suits them to politicize about this matter. I want to say this. The hon. members for Houghton and Bezuidenhout and the United Party City Council of Johannesburg are, as I have said before in this House, the greatest protectors of these slum landlords of Johannesburg. I want to tell the hon. member that the speech she made here this afternoon and the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout fit in perfectly with the wishes of those people. Those people will be jubilant. Who are the people behind the resistance of the Indians of Johannesburg? They are the rich Indians who own the land in Pageview and Fordsburg and those places. They are the people who exploit the poorer section of the Indians, the people who have to work for their living, by letting these slum areas to them, and the hon. member for Houghton is aware of that, and I would not be surprised if there were certain members of the same race as the hon. member for Houghton who own land …

Do not get personal, and do not get anti-Semitic.

The hon. member must not tell me that, but I want to say that that is what the hon. member is doing here. She is the advocate of those people who own land in those areas and who exploit the poor people. I say that the Indian people who have settled in Lenasia—and I know it— are quite happy there, and have been so right from the beginning. We had to do with the development of that township, right from the beginning. It is only the small group of people who started that agitation who are unhappy. Where could one get a community such as Lenasia where there are such proper developments? The hon. member for Houghton said that there were a lot of prefabricated houses. I challenge her to show me one prefabricated house in Lenasia. That is not so. In Lenasia there was a military camp, and in the earliest days, when we wanted to clean up Pageview and remove the Indians who were right up against the Whites there, and when we wanted to take Indians from Sophiatown, that military camp, which consisted of barracks, was used to accommodate Indians. But since then the Resettlement Board of Johannesburg has taken over Lenasia and at present proper houses are being built there by the standard building methods. For the hon. member to say that there are “pre-fab.” houses is a gross distortion of the facts. And after all. I can see nothing wrong with a pre-fabricated building. There are many Whites throughout the Republic who would be only too grateful for such a house. What is wrong with it? The City Council of Pretoria used factory-produced materials at Laudium to build houses for the Indians, and to-day there are houses which any White would be proud of living in.

Somebody mentions Acacia Park. There one also finds pre-fabricated houses. But the hon. members for Houghton and Bezuidenhout want to broadcast it to the world that a gross injustice has been done to those people. [Interjection.] That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. To live 20 miles outside the city and to have a happy home there is by no means new in this country. We must simply accept it. The Coloureds in Cape Town also have to live far from their work, but if we want to provide happy homes on a parallel basis for people, those sacrifices will simply have to be made. I also want to say this. If one takes the non-Whites, who are settled throughout the Republic, then those people also have to make their sacrifices to travel some distance to their work. I simply cannot see, and the hon. member for Houghton should get up here and tell me, how one could establish an Indian area in the Fordsburg complex and which Indians could afford to buy those properties and to build their houses. If one had to proclaim that area an Indian area, with those expensive properties, it would have only one result, and I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he wants us to adopt that course. One would find that the rich Indians would become the land-owners there and that they would erect buildings there which they would let at the highest possible rentals to the less-privileged classes. In other words, one would once again create an opportunity for this kind of exploiter to step in and exploit his own people.

Sir, we are also in contact with the Indians. I also have contact with Indians in my constituency, Benoni, because it is one of the constituencies where there is a very strong Indian community, and I want to say that they are among the happiest people on the Witwatersrand. I want to tell you that I have also been in contact with the Indian community of Lenasia, not with the agitator type, but with the people who have settled there, the people who work as waiters in our hotel industry and the like. On various occasions those people—and I could show you the relevant correspondence —expressed their gratitude and appreciation to the Government for what it is doing for them in providing them with proper housing. But now I also want to mention a further problem, and this I want to lay at the door of the City Council of Johannesburg, because they are the people who are keeping this agitation alive. If they had co-operated with the authorities to incorporate Lenasia in the municipal area of Johannesburg so that they could cooperate in inducing the Indians who are living in white areas to move to Lenasia and to settle there, then this problem would have been something of the past long ago. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Benoni has. I think, rather summed up the policy of this Government towards the Indian group by saying that the Indians have to make sacrifices and ride long distances to get to their homes in return for the homes which this Government is giving them. I think that is a very fair summary of this Government’s policy. The Indians have to make the sacrifices, they have to ride a long way to get to their homes in return for the homes which this Government gives them. There I want to leave the hon. member for Benoni.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Klip River. If I were to be allowed to refer to him in other terms I would be inclined to call him Henry—because there is a hole in his bucket, a big hole. When he referred to the United Party, or the “Sappe” as he called us, as denying the Indians the right to a beach in Natal he did not know his facts. And he still does not know them. Let me tell him a few facts.

If you accuse him, do not look at me …

I always like to look at the Deputy Minister’s face because it makes me cross and then I get a little more cross with the other hon. members.

I want to deal with the question this hon. member has thrown into this debate, namely the question of Isipingo, and let me remind him of the facts, not the fiction as he has put if before this House. The facts of Isipingo are this. I want the hon. member to hear every word so I hope he is listening well. This Government advertised that there would be a hearing to decide whether Isipingo Beach should remain for white occupation, as it had been for over 70 years, or whether it would become Indian. I was present at that hearing. I sat out the full two days of the hearing. There evidence was given by everybody concerned, including outside municipalities, and including the Indian group to whom it was proposed this area might be given as a beach residential area. Throughout that hearing—I hope the hon. member can hear me—there was not one request by any person of any group that Isipingo beach should be anything else than for white occupation. This is the point. The Indians were represented by legal men, who presented their case.

I want to remind this hon. member that the chairman of that hearing was a man who used to sit in Parliament with us; he came here with me in 1958, a Mr. De Ridder. He left the Senate to become chairman of the Group Areas Board. Whilst this hearing was in progress he and I, together with other members, went on an inspection of an alternative beach which was offered free, without any pressure, by the Shell Company who had bought the rights of that area for their present refinery and who said that this beach would offer an alternative and, if anything, a better site for beach facilities for the Indian community of Chatsworth and the area going up towards Chatsworth, than the beach at Isipingo itself. I went on that inspection with the chairman of the board at this hearing, and on the beach, and at the resumed hearing, he made a statement that he had no doubt in his mind and he could assure everybody who appeared at this hearing that Isipingo Beach would remain white. He assured us—and my hearing is quite good, but in case it was not, he assured me twice—that Isipingo Beach would remain for white occupation. And the Indian group were happy with that decision. They were there when he said that, and they raised no objection at all.

Is the hon. member aware of the fact that a member of the Group Areas Board, the chairman of a committee that held an investigation at Isipingo Beach, would not necessarily be the Chairman of the Group Areas Board, that he cannot express an opinion there, and that if he does express an opinion, it is only his personal opinion, as the matter has to be considered by the full board before a decision can be arrived at?

Now the hon. member has had a second bite at the cherry! The hon. member wants to know whether the chairman could in fact give that assurance. Well, he did give that assurance; he did give it. Was I, and everybody else who was present at that hearing, to assume that he had been sent there by this Government to conduct a hearing into the implementation of their policy, and that he was giving assurances which he in fact could not give? Was I in fact to ask him whether he was in a position to give them or not? He gave those assurances, and I go further, just to soothe any fears that this hon. member might have: He resigned his position as a result of that hearing. He resigned his position as chairman of that board as a result of that hearing and what the Government did with the evidence that he presented to them as a result of that hearing. These are the facts that the hon. member should be aware of before he comes to this House. He should stop trying to take us for a ride. Now he knows why I said that he has a hole in his bucket. Because all the facts have fallen out and the bucket is empty.

We have had two members who have got up here to try and justify the Government’s policy towards the Indian group. One was the hon. member for Benoni who failed entirely to do so, because he did not put up one argument in support of the Government’s policy. Then this hon. member, who has also acted as chairman of a group areas hearing and should know what the powers of a chairman are, made a speech, and the only thing he can present here is a complete set of wrong facts about a group areas hearing affecting the Indian people. This is typical of the way in which the policy of this Government towards the various race groups is carried out. Here we are discussing a Vote by which the Indian people are particularly affected. I think that the arguments which have been presented here by hon. members on that side have been completely debunked: They have not got a leg to stand on. But the Government will persist in this policy.

Now, let us take Lenasia and those places outside Johannesburg.

What do you know about Lenasia?

I do not profess to know anything about them, but what I do know is that they are a long way away from the places where these people earn their living. The previous Minister of Indian Affairs in the face of attacks by the hon. member for South Coast— he has been asked questions by the hon. member to which he gave replies—and by me in times gone by, had to concede that the Grey Street area of Durban would remain a business area for the Indian community. Why was that? Because he admitted that the Indian community cannot exist in vacuo. They are part of the same economy in which you and I live. That is the position. The previous Minister for Indian Affairs admitted that fact. He admitted that very fact. And having admitted it he allowed them to trade in the same area, although he wanted to move them out of the city of Durban. So he said that they could stay there, they could build new businesses, bring new businesses into existence, by permit, so that he could control those activities. But they are there to-day, and I predict that in a hundred years’ time they will still be there, in spite of the policy of this Government, because they cannot exist in an economy of their own.

What makes you think that anybody cares about that?

Yes, but hon. members on that side bring up arguments to try and show why they should be removed miles and miles away from the economy in which they exist. We have no objections to separate residential areas, let me make that quite clear. Part of the policy of my party is that we should have separate residential areas. And I agree with that 100 per cent. I think the Indian people also agree with that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite interesting to note that the United Party is now trying to pretend that they have accepted the policy of group areas in principle. But what they are apparently not prepared to accept is that group areas cannot be a policy of measles development. By this I mean spots throughout the country. In effect this means precisely that if in Lenasia, for example, an area is established for the Indians where the entire Indian community of Johannesburg can be concentrated in one area, then it follows logically that it should take place where the expansion of both this area and the white area could not hamper the entire policy of group development. We do not have a policy of measles development. The same applies to Natal as well. The policy of group areas is there to try to prevent unnecessary friction from arising in future. I just want to refer to the development which is, for example, taking place in other cities where the policy of separate development is not being implemented and where there are also different races in those cities. I am thinking, for example, of the city of Washington, where at present considerably more than half—indeed, I understand it is something in the nature of 70 per cent—of the population living inside the city of Washington are already non-Whites. The Whites move out beyond the boundaries of Washington. This is precisely what the result will be if in this country we were to follow a policy of allowing our non-Whites areas in the central city or in the wards of municipal areas. That is why in Natal, in Durban, for example, we established the Indian areas on the outskirts and incorporated those areas in Durban. The Chatsworth area adjoins areas outside the Durban municipal area, and there is also development potential for the future. It adjoins Shallcross, Klaarwater and the area up to the boundaries of Pinetown.

Are there development areas for the Indians?

Yes, Indian housing areas can develop in that direction. There is Isipingo Rail, where Indians can develop industries, and there is the Isipingo Beach area, where they can develop a holiday resort. I want to plead that consideration should be given to the simultaneous development of that entire area for the Indian community, including the economic progress of the Indian community. I would go further and say that as Chatsworth and the adjoining Indian areas are mainly a housing area, regard should be had to the fact that possibilities for the employment of Indians are available both in white industries and in Indian industries on their doorstep. The entire Mobeni area is an industrial area, and numerous Indians are employed there. Even in my constituency, in Queensburgh, there is land which has been proclaimed an industrial area. As yet there is no development, but it is land which is ideally suited to the development of Indian border industries, and Indians could be employed there in any industries which are going to be established there.

I think we would be failing in our duty if we allowed this debate to pass without paying tribute at this stage to one of the people who perhaps contributed most to the improved relationship which at present prevails between the Indian community and the white community. That person is the director of Indian Education, Mr. P. R. T. Nel. He tackled an extremely difficult task, first as planner of Indian Education and afterwards as director of Indian Education. He was not assisted by the Opposition in this House. In fact, in all possible ways the Indians were made suspicious of the good intentions and the bona fides of this Government. I read from Hansard of 20th April, 1965, when the hon. member for Berea said in this House—

That plea of the hon. member was not meant in a favourable sense. It was meant to make the Indian community suspicious of the Government’s intentions. He also said—

The Indians themselves had misgivings about the take-over by the Government, but within a very short period they realized that the Government was sincere in its intentions and that the Indian community was benefiting by what the Government was doing for them. That hon. member himself mentioned that from 1957 to 1963, over a period of six years, the Natal Provincial Council provided 242 additional classrooms for Indian education in State schools, but since the take-over in April of last year, a period of one year, 300 classrooms have been built for Indian education in Natal. Whereas in the year 1964-’65 Natal spent R6 million on Indian education, more than R11 million has been made available for Indian education on the present Estimates. There has also been progress in many other respects. During the first year after this Government took over Indian Education, there was an 8 per cent improvement in the senior certificate examination results in Natal. The examinations were not set by the Department of Indian Education; they were the national examinations. In standard 6 there was a 7 per cent improvement on the previous year. Let us consider the teaching staff. Last year there were 279 principals in Indian schools. On this year’s Estimates there is provision for 347 principals of Indian schools; i.e., an increase of 25 per cent. In respect of other teaching staff there has been an increase of 18 per cent in one year. I think it is clear that this Government has gone out of its way to gain the goodwill of the Indian community within the framework of the policy of separate development, for if there is one thing that could strain the relations between various races and communities, it is a relationship of tension. As long as there can be separate development, we can develop on a basis of mutual goodwill. There can also be progress in the relationship, as there has in fact been. Towards the end of last year I was present when one of the newly-built schools was handed over to the Indian community. On that occasion one of the senior members of the Indian Council said that initially they had been mistrustful of the Government’s intentions in taking over Indian education. Now all that distrust has been cleared up. In fact, they are most grateful for what the Government has done for the promotion of Indian education. I also want to pay tribute to the Department for the method employed to expedite the building of Indian schools on an economic basis and in such a way that the needs can be met effectively. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not really convinced by the remarks of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, and his claims that the Government has done a lot more for Indian education than the province of Natal was able to do. I think that an argument like that does not hold water when one considers that when Natal controlled Indian education, the Government kept it continually short of funds. It then took over education, spent a lot of money and said: What good chaps we are. I do not think that his argument holds any water whatsoever. It is also very interesting to see that while he gave us some figures for the development of Indian education in Natal, he was strangely silent on probably the most topical question in respect of Indian education, namely the abolition of the school feeding scheme. He spoke for ten minutes and gave us many figures, but he fought very shy of the Indian school feeding scheme. I believe that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is either indescribably naive or else he does not believe the things he says himself. Therefore I do not think there is any reason for me to deal with him any further.

I should like to refer to the Indian school feeding scheme in Natal, which was abolished on 1st April, 1967. In the Estimates of last year the figure set aside for this scheme was R300,000. The figure set aside this year is R30,000. One assumes that that is to carry the scheme up to the end of March this year. I should like to start by reading a statement made some years ago, which in part was as follows (Senate debates Vol. 2, 1951, Col. 2029-2030):

It goes on to say in part:

Mr. Chairman, these extracts I have read are from a statement made by the Minister then in charge of education. The date of the report is the 19th April, 1951. It was a Minister of this very same Government who expressed himself in that manner. And yet what do we find? By April, 1967, the last of the school feeding schemes in South Africa has disappeared. In other words, 16 years later the very Government which expressed itself so strongly in favour of school feeding schemes has once again completely reversed an earlier view. There are 132,000 Indian schoolchildren in Natal. This was the figure at the end of 1966. Of this number 87,000-odd received supplementary school feeding. The total cost to the authorities was a mere If cents per pupil per day, or a total of R300,000 in respect of a little over 200 schools. If the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is at this stage bowing his head in shame, I would agree with him. That school feeding for the Indian schoolchildren of Natal has been stopped by this Government cannot have as its reason an attempt to save money, because now they state that the children previously fed in this manner will receive help from the various welfare bodies. In view of the statement I have read, I believe that the Government’s action reeks of heartlessness and a callous disregard for a group who have no voice in matters concerning it. Despite all the fine words spoken by hon. members opposite, I wonder if this would have taken place if the Indian Council had been as strong as they claim it is. The Department remained unmoved by the knowledge that at several Indian schools there are children who go up to nine hours without food, that many of the younger and poorer children have to wait for elder brothers attending the second session at the school, and therefore go up to nine hours without anything at all in their stomachs. Up to now the school feeding scheme gave them at least something. But now there is nothing. A hungry child cannot concentrate. He cannot learn. He cannot think properly if he is hungry. I am pleading for these 82,000 children. I will beg for them if necessary. Anyone who has seen hungry children would do the same. That is why I am more than shocked when members on the other side can blithely talk of the plight of the Indian and the great things they have done for them when this penny-snatching on the part of the Government has deprived 82,000 children of at least something to eat during the course of the day. Some shopkeepers in the vicinity of these schools have offered to provide children with bread, jam, etc. Some of the wealthier parents, and some who are a little better off than those who were being assisted, send their children to school with extra lunchboxes. All I ask from the hon. members opposite is that they will join with me in this plea to the hon. the Minister that something should be done about this. The Department has said that the responsibility of feeding children is something which falls under welfare services. But, Sir, the welfare services can only assist these children if the parents are almost destitute. Therefore it is no assistance at all. In any event, the 1 2/3 cent per child per day will relieve the burden imposed on the welfare societies. I am not so much concerned with what the Government plans to replace the school feeding scheme, because it is my belief that they stopped the school feeding scheme long before they had anything else planned as an alternative. In that event I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what they intend doing about the 82,000 Indian schoolchildren of Natal who previously enjoyed this facility.

The hon. member for South Coast, who opened the debate for the opposite side, began by asking me how I envisaged the role of the Indian in South Africa; what role he was to play in our country. Mr. Chairman, without going into details one could reply to that by saying that one should like to give the Indian, too, an opportunity to develop his talents to the full in this country. One should like to see to it that he has a chance to develop his talents for his own sake, as a human being, but also to be able to make his proper contribution to South Africa’s development, and therefore I am very glad that the hon. member, following that question which he asked me, also raised the question of industrial development. What do we envisage as regards industrial development for the Indian? I am very glad that he asked that question, because to a large extent it answers his first question. Because we should like to see the Indian receive opportunities to develop his talents for his own sake, as a human being, one should not like to see him concentrate his talents in only one or two specific vocational fields. Experience in this country has shown that the Indian has concentrated mainly on the field of business, to such an extent that it was not always to his advantage as far as human relations were concerned. I am therefore very glad that the hon. member raised the question of industrial development here, because in that field there has in recent years been a considerable deal of progress in the development of Indian industries. Only since the beginning of 1965, 105 factories and business undertakings have been registered on the names of Indian proprietors. Apart from this new field of business enterprise, this also has the advantage, of course, that it offers opportunities for employment. The institutions to which I have just referred are already offering jobs to 1,350 Indians, which is a very healthy development. In this regard one could think, for example, of the David Whitehead Textile Mill at Tongaat, which started with 500 Indian employees. It is anticipated that when that factory is in full production work will be provided to 900 Indians. This factory and the numerous others which I am not going to name now are manufacturing a variety of articles for use in South Africa and naturally also for export. Mr. Chairman, this is an important development, this industrial development which has now been taken over by Indians, because it brings about diversification of initiative. It has the result that they do not concentrate in one field only and thus perhaps elicit an unfavourable attitude from other population groups. We intend encouraging this development even further. The hon. member wanted to know what we intended doing. Within the framework of separate development a great deal can be done for the Indian in this field. In fact, a great deal is being done. Apart from this development to which I have just referred, we also intend placing the decentralization benefits with regard to industrial development at the disposal of Indian entrepreneurs, in order that they may also receive this assistance from the State in establishing industries in their areas. This development is going to receive great impetus through the Indian Investment Corporation which is to be founded. Hon. members are aware of the stage which has been reached. We have received a report on it, and at the moment it is being considered in consultation with an ad hoc committee of the Indian Council. Within the near future this Indian Investment Corporation should be an accomplished fact, and with the assistance of this corporation it will be possible to give greater impetus to this development, and this could also be instrumental in making the Indian in this country apply his powers and his energy over a wider spectrum.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort referred appreciatively to the goodwill among the Indians at present. To me, who in the past years has had the privilege of coming into contact with the Coloureds, on the one hand —and last year, when I acted as Minister of Indian Affairs for six weeks I also came into contact with the Indians to a larger extent—it is a pleasure to see the goodwill among the various colour groups in respect of the pattern of separate development which is being established in the country. Mr. Chairman, today these people can grasp the meaning of separate development; to-day they can see and appreciate its positive aspects, and for that reason they understand it and that is why the liberalistic inflammatory propaganda is losing all its power. That is why people such as the hon. member for Houghton can actually put up a performance only in this House: she can no longer inflame the world outside by those tactics of incitement. She can no longer do so either among the Coloureds or among the Indians. That cracker is completely fizzed out. Last year I made a point of visiting the Indian township, Laudium, near Pretoria. It is a show township. Any hon. member will find it rewarding to go and visit that township, whether or not he or she is in favour of separate development. I think every Member of Parliament should make a point of visiting that township. Even the hon. member for Houghton could fruitfully visit it, in order to help her to form a somewhat more objective conception of the development in this country in the field of race relations. There are houses in Laudium which are on a par to the best one could find in Waterkloof in Pretoria. There is also housing for the lower-income groups in Laudium, and there are business concerns. I paid a visit to two of the factories which are run by Indian proprietors on a very flourishing basis. There one sees what separate development is, and then one can understand why at present the Indians are adopting a different attitude to it, and then one can understand why a member such as the hon. member for Houghton can now no longer achieve success through her agitation among these people.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort also referred to education. He conceded that the Department of Indian Affairs had taken over Indian education only a short while ago. He conceded that in such a short space of time one could not perform miracles. But I want to make the statement to-day that what has been achieved in this short period of one and a quarter years since Indian Affairs took over Indian education, could almost be called a miracle. This may not carry much weight if I say so: let me rather quote someone whose words may perhaps carry more weight in this connection. Here in my hand I have a report of an interview granted by Dr. B. Ramberich of the Faculty of Education, Salisbury, to Graphic. I quote what Dr. Ramberich said, as reported in Graphic of Friday, 19th May, 1967.

Mr. Chairman, in this short space of time a tremendous deal has been done by this Department. This work has been tackled with the utmost industry and drive. If one considers that this building programme to which Dr. Ramberich refers is a ten-year building programme which was drawn up with a view to the growing demands of Indian education, if one considers that at present four new high schools are in the process of construction and that as regards the scientific training of students the language laboratories have been expanded, that the classrooms at the high schools have increased from 20 to 30, and that extensions are at present in progress at numerous Indian schools, then what happened in this short space of time is a miracle, as Dr. Ramberich described it. In view of this I now want to convey the appreciation of the Department of Indian Affairs to the Public Works Department, for the way in which the latter has helped us this year in this crash building programme. It has been truly laudable, and I want to convey my appreciation to them.

But there has also been mention of the prejudice which prevailed when Indian education was taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs. It was then said that it would affect the standard of Indian education, that old bush college story that we heard in the past from the liberalists in respect of any separate educational institution which was established. To what extent has the standard gone down in the year that Indian education has been under Indian Affairs? I shall tell you how it has gone down. Take the results of external examinations set by the Natal Education Department in December, 1966. The first year after the take-over shows that as regards the standard six pupils, there has been an improvement of 7 per cent in their pass-figure, compared with the previous year. As regards the Senior Certificate, there has been an improvement of 8 Der cent on the previous year. So that is how the standard has gone down. On the contrary, under this Government education is being taken care of with a firm hand with results which may justly be regarded as miraculous, as this scholar said, and for that I want to pay tribute to the Department.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked a question about the in-service training aspect. Because it is a problem that a large number of the Indian teachers are not properly qualified, this is one of the methods which are being applied. A great deal is being done in that very field. You will be pleased to hear that in January, 1968, professional in-service training will commence for the unqualified or inadequately qualified group of teachers. The course will be spread on a part-time basis over three years and it is hoped that it will be repeated only twice. It is hoped that after that it will no longer be necessary. That means that within six years after 1968 all Indian teachers should be professionally qualified. A great deal has been done in that field, and for that reason it is a pity that by this reference to the feeding scheme the hon. member for Port Natal tried to disparage the good impression which has been created in the field of Indian education. It is true that the feeding scheme for Indians has been abolished. In fact, it has been abolished throughout the country in all schools and in all educational institutions. There is no feeding scheme left in the country. The Indian schools of Transvaal which were taken over did not have a feeding scheme at all. As regards Natal itself, it stopped its feeding scheme in January, 1967. What was actually the substance of this feeding scheme which has given rise to such a fuss? Basically it was a meal which involved only 1½c a day, and this is what had to keep people alive, according to that allegation. In a moment I shall come to the economic position of the Indians, to establish whether it was really so essential, but first I want to deal with this scheme as such. It is regrettable that the scheme itself was abused in various ways. It was abused, because although it was actually intended for needy pupils, principals and other concerns extended it much beyond needy pupils. It was extended willy-nilly to include everybody who wanted to take part in it, and it was extended in a way which had the result that some of the administrators of this scheme in the well-to-do areas, were not satisfied with this 1 2/3cg meal. Oh no, a cook had to be appointed, and they were still not satisfied. Luxurious kitchens had to be built, and once that had been done, there were demands that lfc was far too little and that it should be increased to 5c or 10c. The demands increased further and further. It was therefore felt that as a result of the abuses on the one hand and in view of the economic position of the Indians on the other hand, it was simply no longer necessary and that they could do without it, like people elsewhere in the country.

Those who are always talking about the economic leeway of the Indians would do well to take note of the unemployment position of Indians throughout the country. Yesterday I called for a statement on the most recent unemployment position among Indians, and it showed the following: For the Republic of South Africa the unemployment total is 2,873, and for Natal it is 2,736. But there are 110,000 in real active employment. In terms of percentages, only 2.6 per cent of the Indians are unemployed, and anybody knows that by international standards 2.6 per cent is not regarded as unemployment; in fact, it is regarded as full employment. So we need not become alarmed by this kind of propaganda. On the contrary, the Indians who really need it will always be able to get assistance. The welfare services are available to them. They should apply to the welfare services of the Department of Indian Affairs, and they need not fear that they will be treated in an inhumane fashion. On the contrary, those who really need it, will be assisted by those means.

I now come to the remarks the hon. member for Houghton made with regard to Lenasia. Before saying something about this, I just want to say that there are two other aspects to which I am not going to reply here. One was raised by the hon. member with regard to the salaries of the medical practitioners of Natal. That comes under the Provincial Administration of Natal, and I do not intend replying to that. She may take her representations and objections to the right address. The hon. member for Umlazi referred to the group area proclamation at Isipingo. That does not come under me either, and therefore I do not consider it necessary to go into that.

I now want to come to the question of Lenasia, although strictly speaking it does not come under Indian Affairs either. Actually it relates to Planning and Community Development, but we nevertheless have a much larger interest in it than in a beach area such as Isipingo, because here one has to do with a large mass of urban people. In this regard one would perhaps do well just to note again that before Lenasia came into being consultations were held with Indian concerns in Johannesburg and its vicinity, and do you know what their attitude was then? What was said by the hon. member for Benoni, the man who was involved in everything, from A to Z, is correct. At the time they would have nothing to do with any possible group area. But what is even more important as regards the long distance from Lenasia to Johannesburg, is that at the time there was a proposal in respect of an Indian group area much closer to Johannesburg than Lenasia is, but under the influence of the liberalists and other elements the Indians would not even listen to it. They were not even prepared to consider it. Further investigation and planning were proceeded with and eventually the conclusion was arrived at that Lenasia was a suitable site, and Lenasia was developed. To-day it is not a mushroom which could simply be uprooted. To-day Lenasia is a place where millions of rands have been spent on development. Houses and public buildings have been built, and there are tarred streets and three high schools. It is a developing area. I concede that it is far from Johannesburg, but it is not the only residential area which is far from a city where people work. Last Monday I paid a visit to one of the other areas which comes under my Department of Coloured Affairs. This is Mamre, 36 miles from Cape Town. What is important is that more than 80 per cent of the people who live in Mamre are working in Cape Town. They commute every day in 16 buses. They live there quite happily and they regard it as a very pleasant place. But I want to come back to the 20 miles separating Lenasia and Johannesburg. Surely the Government was not indifferent or callous about this. The Cabinet considered this matter years ago, and years ago the Government decided, in collaboration with the hon. the Minister of Transport, to grant a transport subsidy to the people who had to live in Lenasia. Those people are therefore also receiving assistance from the Government because they are living in Lenasia.

Lenasia has significance also in the context of replying to the question put to me at the outset by the hon. member for South Coast. What do we envisage for the Indians, what do we have in mind as far as development is concerned, the hon. member asks? In a moment I shall come to the Indian Council and to what we are contemplating with that. But before coming to the Indian Council one should surely have schools and local authorities? Surely it is desirable that Indian townships should be established where local Governments can take over the responsibility? As regards the Johannesburg Indians, how on earth could we establish a noteworthy local government if they are to be dotted and spread all over the whole Witwatersrand or Johannesburg complex? If we concentrate them in one area like Lenasia, with the services it already has, we can expand those services further to such an extent that we can give them a fully fledged local Government in order that they may also exercise their responsibility in that way. It is an important part …

But you have six areas for the Coloured people. Why doesn’t the same apply to the Indians?

For the Indians this is the indicated development area. With a view to their local government development, too, we cannot have them spread out over a number of areas. The fact that there are Coloureds on both the West Rand and the East Rand is due to a historic development which is not at issue in a debate such as this.

I now come to the Indian Council. It was also referred to by the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. They want to know what we have in mind with the Indian Council. At the moment the Council is still appointed, as you know, but it is not our intention that the Council should remain an appointed body; it is the intention of the Government that it should become a statutorily elected body, a body which is to have legislative powers but which is also to have administrative powers. What we have in mind is that when the council becomes legislative and administrative it should also be able to take control of social services, and that it should be able to take control of education, local government and other incidental matters. With a view to the establishment of such a statutory body, a thorough inquiry was carried out and the Indian Council was in fact thoroughly consulted in the matter. They appointed an ad hoc committee to go into this matter, which submitted proposals. At the moment we are considering those proposals with a view to further development in that field.

I want to conclude by saying that in this field we also envisage for the Indians the opportunity to attain self-fulfilment, to reach a stage where they will also be able to contribute their abilities and their talents to the development of their own areas and their own people, and once that stage has been reached, we believe that they will also be able to make their best contribution to the development of South Africa.

In these industries in the Indian areas, are the Indians restricted entirely to Indian labour in their factories?

No, they are not limited. I take the example of Laudium. I visited two of those factories in Laudium. As a matter of fact, one of their problems is that they are not able to recruit the necessary Indian technicians at the moment, so they are not limited to Indian workers. Indeed, in those two factories which I visited they employ Bantu, Coloureds and Indians. But as I see it, I think the natural thing should be that ultimately they should employ only Indian workers. Of course, that cannot be enforced at the present time because it would be totally unrealistic to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to take this opportunity to convey my gratitude to the young Department of Indian Affairs for what they have achieved in such short period. I am convinced that very soon we shall all realize how wise it was to establish this Department in order to do justice not only to the Indians but also to the Whites, as regards their attitude towards the Indians. We are particularly grateful for the work that has been done, and I want to wish the Department every success in future.

It is a pity, and I deplore this, that this afternoon the United Party should adopt a critical attitude to Lenasia and that it should be their policy to establish some other group area for Indians within the boundaries of the City Council of Johannesburg. I am convinced that in the years ahead it will be realized how wise it was to choose Lenasia as an Indian residential area. I think it would be a fatal mistake to establish another Indian area inside the municipal boundaries of Johannesburg. I am in fact also grateful that the Government decided against that. Lenasia is a rapidly developing township of which not only the Indians can be proud, but also South Africa as a whole. If one passes it by train and one looks at it through the window, one is impressed by the fine development taking place there. We also know, because we frequently visit the township and come into contact with the Indians, that they are very happy there and that it is very pleasant to live there. They are happy in that rural environment after being housed in slum areas in Johannesburg for so many years. The Indian population are most grateful that they have now been able to move out of those slum conditions and to become properly housed in that beautiful environment. I do not think the Government need take any notice of the few agitators who still object to being moved to that township.

I actually rose this afternoon to ask the hon. the Minister when the Indian Teachers’ College, which is still in Fordsburg, and under the most abject circumstances, that higher educational institution of the Indians, will also be moved to Lenasia. With the best will in the world, and no matter what the Department does, they cannot do justice to the higher education of the Indians of Johannesburg as long as that college is located in that vicinity and under those circumstances.

I would indeed plead that the removal of that college should enjoy the highest priority and that it should be done as soon as possible. It will have the result that the Indians will be more eager to move to Lenasia. It will provide the Indians with an opportunity to develop their cultural activities in their higher educational institution. It will have the result that among the Indians a greater national pride in South Africa will develop, as far as Johannesburg is concerned.

There is no land in Fordsburg. There are no facilities available. There is the necessary land in Lenasia, so that the necessary facilities may be provided. I therefore plead that the institution should be removed to Lenasia and that the necessary facilities should be provided to the people there. Concomitant with this I must also ask that the other Indian schools which are still located in the Fordsburg complex should be moved as soon as possible. I think it will help to an increasing extent to gain the goodwill of the Indian population of Johannesburg, and this is so essential. One day, when all those facilities are located in Lenasia, we shall see that the decision to develop Lenasia as an Indian township for the Johannesburg Indians was a very wise one. It will mean that those people will live there contentedly, and it will have the essential effect that friction between Whites and Indians and other population groups will be removed because they would all live happily together. It will also mean that the antipathy which some Whites still harbour towards the Indians will be removed altogether. I plead that serious consideration should be given to these few matters.

Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to follow the hon. member for Langlaagte but I do support his plea for better educational facilities for the Indians in Lenasia. According to him everything there is not as rosy as it should be. The hon. member for Port Natal raised the matter of Indian education and the hon. the Minister replied and told us how much better off Indian education is to-day than it was when the Provincial Council was in control. I take it that with the funds available, it should be better. I must say one thing as far as the Provincial Council was concerned, namely that I think that they did a very wonderful job in the field of education for the Indians whilst they were in control of it. I know that personally because I was a provincial councillor at that time. I believe that at the present time although the Department has taken over Indian education, the question of Indian salaries is still under dispute. I wonder whether the Minister could kindly make a statement in that regard and tell us when this will be brought to finality, as was the question of teachers’ salaries in respect of the Department of Coloured Education. It is quite clear that it is Government policy that industry is to be based where there is Bantu labour. If that is the case there is no question about it that the main industrial complex of the Republic will be established in the Tugela Basin in Natal. Apart from the Bantu, I think that the Government is overlooking this vast resource of Indian labour in Natal. I understand that there are more Indians than Europeans in Natal. Whatever development takes place cognizance must be taken of this vast source of Indian labour. I am very glad that the Minister has said that the Indians will be entitled to earn a living and that they will have a place in the sun in Natal. They are a poor people but they are educated and they are very suitable and available for skilled and semi-skilled work in industry. To take an example, the boot and leather factories have moved from the Eastern Cape to Natal to make use of this Indian labour. I think that to-day they practically run that aspect of the trade.

I was going to mention the R9 million cotton mill that has been established in the Indian border area which I believe employs about 900 Indians. They work three shifts a day. It also attracted, I believe, 45 immigrant families from overseas. In the past the Deputy Minister has repeatedly said that industrialists should switch over to automation. As far as industrialists are concerned, that does not create a surplus of labour. They say it creates more vacancies. I think that that has been proved in the shoe factories and motor assembly plants all over the world. I mention that because whatever industry is going begging, we have room for it in Natal. Indians are making a name for themselves as industrialists. There is the Indian meat canning factory which to-day displays the South African Bureau of Standards label and I believe that it is one of the few canning firms that can display this prestige mark.

Certain work is reserved for Europeans only. I am referring to barmen. There are no Europeans to do this work, and I believe that Indians have been given exemption to be employed as such and as stewards. Here in the Western Cape I believe there are not sufficient Coloureds to take the place of those Bantu who are being returned to the homelands. I want to ask the Minister whether it is the intention to replace these Bantu with Indians from Natal.

Another matter is that more facilities should be made available for technical education for the Indians. At the present time the skilled labour that must teach the apprentices in their race group, must do so without theoretical knowledge, which is most unsatisfactory. I should be very glad if technical education is made available to Indians as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply briefly to the last two speakers. To the hon. member for Langlaagte I want to give the assurance that we are giving very serious consideration to this question of the removal of the Indian Training College. There is still the problem of finding a suitable site, but you may rest assured that it is a matter which is at present enjoying our serious attention. I want to inform the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) that the increased salaries for Indian teachers will be of effect as from 1st April of this year. It is hoped that the necessary adjustments and payments will be made within two months. As regards the plea for technical training for Indians, you may also rest assured that we are devoting our full attention to that. As a result of the introduction of differentiated education at the schools, technical subjects are already enjoying much more attention than previously. In the expansion of the existing Sultan College this matter is receiving as much attention as possible.

Vote put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, we have a new item here, namely “Contribution in connection with loss on Bantu passenger services: Public Utility Transport Corporation, Ltd.” I wonder whether the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister could give us some information on this and relate it to the overall cost of transporting Bantu from the Bantu areas to the cities.

Mr. Chairman, with effect from 1st luly, 1963, a subsidy equivalent to the difference between the economic rate, which is calculated at 1 cent per passenger per mile, and the amount that the passenger himself has to pay has been paid to PUTCO for its services in connection with the transportation of Bantu, except in respect of the services in Natal and Boksburg. As far as PUTCO’s services for Bantu in the Natal and Boksburg areas are concerned, it has so far not been possible to apply the above-mentioned basis of subsidization owing to insufficient funds being available in the relevant accounts for Bantu transportation services. Transport contributions at a maximum of 10 cents per week are being levied here. These are being collected in the areas concerned and used to subsidize the difference between the approved bus fares, which are calculated at less than 1 cent per passenger per mile, and the bus fares paid by the Bantu passengers. But as far as these services are concerned, the subsidy to PUTCO is insufficient to subsidize PUTCO on the basis of 1 cent per passenger per mile in the Natal and Boksburg areas. A committee of inquiry was appointed by the hon. the Minister of Transport last year to go into the entire administration of PUTCO as far as efficiency, finances, etc., are concerned. The finding arrived at by this committee in its report was that the basis of 1 cent per passenger per mile should be made applicable to the Natal and Boksburg services as well. The National Transport Commission agrees with the committee of inquiry that PUTCO cannot be expected to transport the Bantu passengers in these areas at a loss. It would be desirable to apply the same basis of subsidization everywhere.

It is perhaps necessary just to deal briefly with PUTCO’s financial position. PUTCO closed the 1965-’66 financial year with a loss of R605,771. It is estimated that PUTCO will close its 1966-’67 financial year with a loss of approximately R461,000, the main reason for that being the uneconomic rates which apply on the Natal and Boksburg services. If a subsidy is calculated on the basis of 1 cent per passenger per mile in respect of the Natal and Boksburg services as well, it will mean that PUTCO will receive additional revenue amounting to R619,367 for 1965-’66, and a subsidy of approximately R720,000 for the 1966-’67 financial year. That is an additional subsidy, if that economic basis of subsidization of 1 cent per passenger per mile is made applicable to the Natal and Boksburg services as well. The additional subsidy for the current financial year will therefore amount to approximately R1,339,367. That is the amount being asked for here, i.e. R1,340,000. If the additional subsidy cannot be made available or guaranteed to PUTCO, we may accept that PUTCO will be forced to discontinue its services. The hon. member will agree with me that if that should happen, it would have very serious consequences for commerce and industry and the general public interest, not only on the Witwatersrand, but also in Durban and Pretoria. The granting of an additional subsidy of approximately R1,339,367 must be regarded as a temporary solution only. The National Transport Commission is already considering the possibility of making increased bus fares applicable to PUTCO’s services. Those are briefly the reasons for this amount being required.

Hon. members must understand this clearly, and must not make a mistake. In actual fact the wording is not quite correct. The impression is created that the subsidy is being granted in order to compensate PUTCO for their losses. It would be unsound in principle to grant a subsidy or to say to PUTCO: We shall bear your losses. That would be completely unsound in principle. But that is not what we are doing. All that we are doing in this case is to grant PUTCO a subsidy calculated on an economic basis, as it applies on the Witwatersrand and in the Pretoria areas, and to make it applicable to the Boksburg and Natal services as well.

Mr. Chairman, two points arise from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation. The first point I should like clarified is that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration stated this year that he felt that the time had come to stop subsidizing the transport of Bantu from Bantu townships to their work. Here we are being asked to vote R1,340,000 for a service which another member of the same Government tells us has got to stop. I do not think that it is fair to ask this House to vote money in direct conflict with what appears to be Government policy. Otherwise we must accept that this subsidization is Government policy. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration must be repudiated. As long as we have the two statements on record, we have a conflict which we cannot allow to pass unchallenged. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to state clearly and unequivocally that it is in fact Government policy to subsidize Bantu passenger services and that it will continue to be the position, so that there can be no mistake about this and no misunderstanding in connection with this matter.

The other aspect is that we now have—let me deal specifically with Durban—the subsidization of PUTCO. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will consider subsidizing the Durban City Council …

The hon. member may not raise that matter under this Vote.

This is for the transport of Bantu.

That is not at issue now. These are the Supplementary Estimates. The hon. member may only raise matters mentioned specifically on this Vote.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister then whether this amount, which is a contribution in connection with the loss on Bantu passenger services, is confined solely to one company, or whether he is prepared to grant subsidies to any …

Order! That is out of order too. It is stated here that it is for one company only.

I want to ask whether that is the only company.

It is stated here that it is the only company.

I abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I await with interest the hon. the Deputy Minister’s clarification of the clash of policy which has been displayed between himself and his colleague.

That is not at issue now either.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Point) knows very well what the Government’s policy is.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must not be out of order himself. The questions put by the hon. member are out of order.

All of them?

Yes, they are all out of order.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 15,—“Social Welfare and Pensions, R1,500,000”, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 18,—“Provincial Administrations, R3,848,000”:

Sir, we in the Cape Province would be uncharitable if we did not express our gratitude that there is an increase of R3 million in the extra-statutory payments to the Province, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would indicate to the Committee what progress has been made in regard to the obviation of these extra-statutory grants to the Province, and the placing of these grants on a new basis of subsidy.

Order! The hon. member can only ask for the direct reasons for this increase.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this method of extra-statutory payment is necessary because the basis of subsidy as defined in Act No. 38 of 1957, is not now applicable.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to suggest the reasons for the increase.

The hon. the Minister, knowing now what is puzzling us, may be good enough to explain to us why he has found it necessary to give an extra-statutory grant of R3 million to the Cape Province.

The position is that the Cape Province was unable to balance its Budget from its sources of revenue unless it made enormous increases in taxation, and in order to prevent enormous increases in taxation from being made under the present system, the Government decided rather to make an extra-statutory payment to the Cape Province pending a further investigation of the whole problem.

I thank the hon. the Minister for that explanation. He says that this is being done under the existing circumstances and pending further consideration of the whole problem. Is he likely to publish the report of the Schumann Commission?

Order! That has nothing to do with the reason for this increase.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 28,—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General, R500,000”, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 34,—‘“Water Affairs, R428,000”, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 36, — “Indian Affairs, R57,000,” put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 42.—“Commerce and Industry, R50,000”:

I would like the hon. the Minister to explain the reason for this increase of R50,000. Item H reads: “Contributions and grants-in-aid: Contribution to the S.A. Bureau of Standards” but the footnote says that this amount is for the promotion of productivity. I want to know the reason for that from the hon. the Minister and how this amount is going to be spent. Is it going to be given to the Bureau of Standards to spend, or is it going to be given to another organization?

As the hon. member quite rightly said, the footnote indicates that this provision is being asked for the promotion of productivity. Allow me to give a brief explanation in this regard. At the productivity conference held by the S.A. Bureau of Standards last year, the following resolutions were adopted: Firstly, that a productivity advisory board be established; secondly, that a small committee be appointed to go into the best way in which such a board may be constituted; and thirdly, that the existing productivity advisory committee of the S.A. Bureau of Standards be instructed to undertake this task and that this committee be authorized to co-opt additional members where necessary. Further to this and because productivity is an important consideration in maintaining our growth rate in South Africa, the Council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards resolved at its meeting on 19th April, 1967, that, as the matter of productivity was of urgent national importance, immediate steps be taken to establish a department of productivity in the Bureau, with a director— and I think this is the reply to the hon. member’s question—with a director in charge to plan the development of the department and to make recommendations regarding future policy, particularly in the organizational field. The general activities of the proposed department are still under discussion, but it is envisaged inter alia, firstly, to make advisory services available to all sectors of the national economy, secondly, to provide an information service which will collect international data for local distribution through publications, lectures and other available channels, and thirdly, to encourage and to assist organizations and institutions which can promote productivity in some way or another, and to co-ordinate activities in connection with productivity in a comprehensive national productivity campaign. This amount of R50,000 for which provision is now being made is proposed to be spent on salaries and loans in the department that will be established within the Bureau of Standards.

Arising out of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply, it is interesting to hear that he is providing for the establishment of this department within the Bureau of Standards. I would like to know whether those facilities will be available to commerce and industry, to the Bantu areas, and also to Government Departments. The hon. the Deputy Minister says the object is to promote productivity. We would like to be reassured that the facilities which will be made available by the Bureau will be made available not only to commerce and industry and Government Departments but to the Bantu areas as well, having regard to industrial development that may take place in those areas.

It is envisaged that productivity will be promoted in all ramifications of the economy of the country. In other words, the reply to the hon. member’s question is “yes”.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 44,—“Coloured Affairs, R374,000”, and Loan Vote P,—“Coloured Affairs, R64,000”:

I notice that provision is being made under item L for R46,000 for flood relief. This is a new item. I should like to know in what area flood relief was granted.

This item “Flood relief” relates to damage caused by flood waters along the Orange River. The Eksteenkuil settlement falls under the Department of Coloured Affairs and the damage that was caused there will be covered by this amount. As far as damage caused along the Orange River is concerned, the Department’s responsibility includes the following: The reparation of waterworks and the restoration of cultivated lands at Eksteenkuil, subsidies and loans to private Coloured farmers for the restoration of cultivated lands, and loans for means of production such as seed, etc. For the above-mentioned purposes the following amounts are being asked in the Supplementary Estimate of Expenditure from Loan Account: Firstly, for development, R29,000. It is estimated that the cost of restoring approximately 305 morgen of cultivated lands at the Eksteenkuil settlement will amount to R29,000. The 142 lessees at the settlement have been impoverished to such an extent as a result of floods during January, 1966, and the subsequent drought that they cannot possibly be expected even to make a contribution towards the restoration of their holdings. Even if loans were granted to them, they would not be able to repay them; it would only lead to their further impoverishment. The land is in fact State-owned land which is being leased and the restoration thereof is normally an obligation which rests on the lesson, i.e. the State. Then, as far as the flood relief is concerned, the position is as follows: In the case of 155 private Coloured owners approximately 896 morgen of cultivated lands were damaged and the restoration costs are estimated at approximately R92,000.

On the Loan Vote I notice that provision is made for an amount of R64,000 for advances to settlers. Is this for some new settlement? I notice that there was only a token amount of R200 before.

That money is for the same purpose; it is for loans.

Are these loans to the settlers, loans for purchasing machinery? What is the purpose of the loans? Are the loans for purchasing land, machinery, equipment and seed? What is the basis on which the money is lent and how much has been paid back?

This amount is for the cost of repairs necessitated by flood damage.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 45,—“Bantu Administration and Development, R459,000”:

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be good enough to indicate whether this additional vote is for a specific purpose, or whether it is a general re-assessment of the amount required for pensions and grants.

This supplementary amount has to be voted as a result of the increases announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech in respect of the social pensions of Bantu.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I wonder whether he will indicate whether this will enable him to consider the request which has been made to him for the introduction of war veterans’ pensions for Bantu ex-servicemen. Will he be able to give consideration to that request under this Vote?

War veterans’ pensions are granted on an ex gratia basis to Bantu ex-servicemen. The provision which is being made here includes a certain amount for that purpose on the existing ex gratia basis.

The hon. the Minister says that he is making provision here for the increases announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, but, talking about war veterans’ pensions, I want to point out that the Coloureds and the Whites receive an additional amount. Are the Bantu not going to get any increase?

I have already said that as far as Bantu ex-servicemen are concerned, to whom war veterans’ pensions are paid on an ex gratia basis, the amount to be voted here in the Supplementary Estimates includes a certain amount for them.

Is it on the same basis as the old-age pension?

Sir, I say for the fourth time now that these pensions are paid on an ex gratia basis.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I wonder if he can tell us on what basis he has arrived at this figure of R454,000.

Order! The hon. member may not suggest reasons for the increase.

No, Sir, I am not suggesting a reason. I am asking the hon. the Minister to tell us on what basis he arrived at this figure.

On the conclusion of the period of 100 hours allotted for Committee of Supply in terms of Standing Order No. 91, business interrupted by the Chairman in terms of Standing Order No. 96.

Revenue Vote 45, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account, Bantu Education Account and Loan Account and Supplementary Estimate of Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts reported without amendment.

Estimates adopted.

I move—

The Water Act, No. 54 of 1956, can most definitely be regarded as one of the best Water Acts in the world. It was placed on the Statute Book after a select committee of Parliament had deliberated on it for two years. But although it is an excellent, well thought-out Act, the fact remains that the provisions of the Water Act are so extensive that continual improvements have to be effected to the Act in order to keep pace with the development of the country.

Water forms the basis of our agriculture, our mining, our industries and our life itself, and consequently the continued development of our national economy is very closely bound up with the steady and equitable utilization of the water resources of the country. It is against this background that we have to see the various amendments to the Water Act made in recent years as well as those that are now being submitted to Parliament for consideration.

During the recent drought the problem of controlling the water in our large rivers to the best national advantage came into great prominence. It is a fact that the Water Act, 1956, is based on the principle of dominus fluminis, that is to say, that the State is the holder of all water rights. In fact, in Government water control areas, where each riparian owner is allocated his water rights by the State on a fair and equitable basis by way of permit, this principle is being applied with great advantage to the community as a whole. It is an impossible task, however, to place all public streams in the Republic under State control immediately. Consequently there are many and major rivers in the Republic, such as the Orange River and the Tugela River, which for good reasons have not been placed under State control, and it is in the case of these uncontrolled rivers that serious problems in connection with the proper and equitable control of water can arise in times of drought.

Placing a river under State control is a major task. When such a step is taken, the Department of Water Affairs is obliged to assume the function of a water court in order to make a legitimate and reasonable allocation of water to each riparian owner or other user of water along that river. Before that can be done, complete surveys of all irrigable riparian land are necessary and the assured supply potential of the river has to be determined and investigations have to be made as regards the legitimacy of all existing rights. Then a complicated formula has to be devised in order to ensure that the available irrigable land will receive a fair allocation of water from the stream. That is a major task which has to be carried out with great care and extreme accuracy, as it affects the water rights of individuals. For that reason it cannot simply be disposed of within the space of a few months and the State cannot assume control over rivers if it is unable to exercise control within a reasonable space of time.

The flow of water in the Orange River decreased to such an extent during the recent drought that there was a real danger of riparians along the lower reaches of the river suffering a shortage of water for domestic purposes and for the purpose of watering stock as a result of the fact that riparian owners along the upper reaches of the river abstracting for irrigation purposes all the water flowing in the river.

Clause 1:

Under the existing law the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is experiencing problems in connection with obtaining water rights for using public water in Bantu townships which do not fall under municipal control, but fall under the control of the Bantu Trust. The Bantu Trust is not a local authority in terms of the Water Act. Similarly, Bantu local authorities which may in due course be appointed in Bantu townships are not yet definable at this stage, and problems may arise in due course in regard to this aspect as well.

In order to solve these problems it is proposed, as provided in clause 1, to amend the definition of “use for urban purposes”.

Clause 2:

Clause 2 of the Bill envisages that in times of water shortage or imminent water shortage the Minister be granted powers to regulate the use of water in rivers which may be specified by proclamation. It must be realized that regulating the water of a national river in times of drought is an enormous task and that I do not want to accept responsibility for that lightly. However, we must not allow the magnitude of such a task to deter us if the national welfare is at stake, and therefore I feel myself at liberty to ask Parliament for these powers.

During the crisis period last year I had almost daily consultations with the parliamentary representatives for the areas concerned in order to apply practical and effective measures to ensure an adequate supply of water. These negotiations were kept up over a period of many weeks and we remained in constant contact, as a result of which problems that arose locally were solved quickly and effectively and, I hope, to everybody’s satisfaction.

This House may therefore rest assured that in exercising these powers the Minister will not act in an arbitrary way and that the powers will only be applied on a temporary basis during times of water shortage or imminent water shortage. The question may well be asked: Why does provision have to be made for times of imminent water shortage? The reply is that if a rationing system is properly planned in advance, such a system can be applied in good time and with the least inconvenience and to the greatest public advantage. The success achieved in the recent past with the introduction and application of control over water derived from the Vaal River bears testimony to that. Fortunately we had the necessary statutory authority to be able to apply and enforce such a system of restrictions. In the case of the Orange River last year, too, it was only as a result of timeous action, while there was still water flowing in the upper reaches of the river, that a shortage of water for primary use along the lower reaches of the river was averted. In the case of rivers such as the Orange River, in respect of which we do not have the necessary statutory authority, my Department and I and the Members of Parliament concerned had to spend many sleepless nights in finding ways and means of ensuring that riparians along the lower reaches of the Orange River would not suffer. The absence of enabling legislation for us to do that added greatly to our problems, and it was only as a result of merciful deliverance from above and the fine co-operation of the body of riparians along the Caledon and Upper Orange Rivers, for which I cannot thank them enough, that a disaster was averted. There were a few individuals, however, who refused to co-operate and who unceasingly continued to abstract water on the normal basis, in spite of the fact that they were fully aware of the crisis with which the riparians lower down were faced. The Department took legal action against those persons. All the prosecutions failed, however, as a result of the absence of enabling legislation already referred to.

In order to prevent a recurrence of this state of affairs, legislation is necessary, and I am sure that the House will agree that there must be no delay in placing these powers on the Statute Book. Droughts will come again and it is our duty to make provision, as far as it is humanly possible, for combating the consequences of such droughts.

I also want to give the House the assurance that whenever it becomes necessary to exercise these powers, which I hope will be very seldom, they will be applied, as in the recent past, in the closest collaboration and consultation with the local communities that will be affected and their representatives in the House of Assembly. In fact, that is the only way in which it will be possible to apply control successfully.

Clause 3, Control over Pollution:

The Department experiences great difficulty in having criminal proceedings instituted against persons who act in conflict with the provisions of section 21 of the Water Act. This section 21 forms the basis of the control exercised by the State in order to prevent the pollution of public water. If this section cannot be enforced in courts of law, control measures will be of no value.

It has therefore become necessary so to amend subsection (8) of section 21 that the State will be able to take more effective action against offenders. The Department and I are in great earnest about safeguarding the purity of the water in our public streams and I believe that hon. members will give me their full support in my endeavour to facilitate effective action in this regard.

Control over Abstraction Permits:

The same amendment is proposed in the case of the new section 62 (7) of the Water Act, which is contained in clause 6 of the Bill, and the object thereof is also to enable the Department to take criminal action against offenders who abstract water in conflict with permits.

Clause 4:

It has also become necessary to define the meaning of section 59 of the Water Act clearly and unequivocally. Section 59 (3), as it stands on the Statute Book at the moment, provides that all areas which were proclaimed Government irrigation areas before the date of commencement of the Water Act, i.e. 13th July, 1956, shall be deemed automatically to have been proclaimed Government water control areas under the provisions of section 59 (1) of the Water Act.

Now, section 59 (1) has two subdivisions, namely section 59 (1) (a) and section 59 (1) (b). Section 59 (1) (a) provides that the State President may declare any area a Government water control area for the purpose of the building of Government works, while section 59 (1) (b) provides that the State President may declare any area a Government water control area so that the water in such area may be controlled in the public interest.

The Department, the general public and also the courts, as in the case of Van Staden v. The State, 1959, adopted the attitude in the past that any area which had been declared a Government water control area in terms of section 59 (1) had been so declared for the purposes of both paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said section and that the State thereby obtained the right—

1. (a) to build Government works; and
2. (b) to control the water by way of permits in terms of section 62 of the Water Act.

The principle that had been applied was that, after all, the whole included all the subdivisions of the whole. On that basis the issuing of permits was continued in all former Government irrigation districts which became Government water control areas in terms of section 59 (3) of the Water Act on 13th July, 1956.

During September last year, however, the Appeal Court found that in such areas the State had obtained only the powers conferred by section 59 (1) (a) of the Water Act, namely the power to build works, and that the control by way of water allocations by permit in such areas was invalid.

Although in the appeal case concerned the State won four out of the six points at issue, this finding had far-reaching consequences. It means that the 500 permits that have already been issued in such areas, of which there are 18, are invalid and that the State can exercise no control over the public water in those areas. You can imagine what the consequences would be if this state of affairs were to continue. It would lead to complete chaos and the abuse of water to the detriment of other riparians. In that way riparians along the lower reaches of a river would be deprived of their legitimate water supplies and would be much worse off than would have been the case if proper control had been applied.

The moral aspects involved are of even greater significance. Whereas in the past the State disposed of hundreds of expropriation cases at rates of compensation based on the water permits of the properties concerned, such expropriated persons can now morally claim increased compensation on the ground that the compensation they were offered had been calculated on an incorrect basis. The amount of money that would be involved cannot be determined, but it would be a very large one.

I have no doubt that in 1956, when the Water Act was placed on the Statute Book, the intention of the legislature was that the State should have full control over the water in public streams in all former Government irrigation districts. I should like to quote here from the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Water Bill, page 24, where, by way of summarizing the principles contained in the Water Act, 1956, the following statement was made and accepted without any opposition—

Indeed, if the legislature had wanted to grant the Government only powers to build works in such areas, it would have stated explicitly in section 59 (3)—

It did not say that, and the section provides—

In order to validate permits that have already been issued the present amendment to the Act which is contained in clause 4 of the Bill must be made retrospective to the date of commencement of the Water Act. Otherwise the State will be faced with great moral obligations.

Clause 5:

The amendment contained in clause 5 is being inserted in the Water Act in order to ensure that due regard is had to legitimate water rights when compensation for expropriation is determined. As section 60 (3) of the Water Act reads at present, it does not provide specifically that water rights shall also be taken into account in determining compensation. This has in fact been done in the past as a matter of policy, but in order to eliminate any interpretation problems in the future, it is necessary to make specific provision for it in this Bill. It is the policy of my Department to see to it that justice is done to—

1. (a) the person expropriated; and
2. (b) the State and its taxpayers,

when expropriation is necessary or when Government works have to be erected on private property. In order to give effect to that and to eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding, this amendment is necessary.

You will notice that the existing section 170 of the Water Act is retained virtually unchanged in clause 7 of the amending Bill. All that is being asked in clause 7 is that offences against control measures introduced by proclamation during times of water shortage or imminent water shortage should be made punishable. Without penal provisions even the best control measures that are introduced will be of no avail.

In conclusion I may say that this Bill served before a select committee of Parliament and that after thorough consideration it was unanimously agreed to by that committee. I should like to express my thanks to the committee for the intensive investigation to which they subjected the measure, as well as for the expeditious way in which they carried out this difficult task.

Mr. Speaker, may I commence this afternoon by expressing our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for sending this Bill to a select committee before the Second Reading. It gave us an opportunity to sit down, as hon. members all know, in a different atmosphere to the atmosphere of political controversy which one so often finds when a Bill is before the House, and to deal with what at the start appeared to be quite a thorny problem. It may not be out of place perhaps, and you will forgive me for saying so—perhaps it is most unusual, almost unique —but I feel that a word of thanks is due to the chairman of the select committee for the manner in which he conducted the proceedings. I think that that is the feeling of all members of the select committee.

We on this side of the House regret that the proceedings of the select committee have not been more fully printed and that decisions which were taken, which are now recorded in the form of the draft Bill before us, have been printed without any of the reasoning being available. The report of the select committee is but a brief document. We have the names of the witnesses, virtually just a couple of pages of the proceedings, and that is all.

I want to say that we on this side of the House agree with the Minister as regards the importance not only of this Bill before us which we hope to see integrated into the Act as an integral part of the Act, but also of the whole question of water and water conservation, distribution and so forth which is provided for in the Act which is now proposed to be amended, namely the 1956 Act. We have stressed that from this side of the House, the Minister has stressed it again here and we agree with him entirely. The importance of this matter cannot be over-emphasized. When one views the recent drought and the consequences that flowed from it, one realizes again how important it is for our statutes to make provision for all the vicissitudes which arise from time to time in human experience. We must make provision for the bad drought years, for the normal years and for years when floods and so forth again bring new problems in their wake. The Act must make provision for the problems arising from too much water and from too little water as a result of normal flow in our rivers from normal rainfall. So one cannot over-emphasize the importance of this question.

I wish once more to say that there is no record in the proceedings of the select committee to show why these decisions have been arrived at. I hope therefore the hon. Minister will bear with us on this side of the House for a few minutes while we traverse some of the proceedings so as to indicate our attitude towards the various clauses in this Bill.

It would be safe to say, I think, that the Bill as now before us and as amended in the select committee has, as the Minister has pointed out, provisions for a crisis period, a crisis brought about through inadequate water supplies. But there are provisions other than the provisions dealing with the crisis periods. There are provisions here which are not related to a shortage of water. There is, for example, the provision in clause 1 providing for the supply of water to the South African Bantu Trust in respect of certain areas which are under its control and which are not local authority areas for the purpose of the Act. This clause was inserted during deliberations by the select committee and accepted by all members of the select committee. A good case was made out for it and we were prepared to accept it and to insert it although in itself it had nothing really to do with the conservation of water as such. But it was a very important administrative feature from the point of view of the Department of Bantu Administration, who were finding themselves in grave difficulties where they established these Native towns and villages and found that they did not have the necessary authority to come to the Department for water to be supplied although in fact they could be deemed to be a local authority. So provision is made for that in this particular clause and we accept it.

Then we come to clause 2. This is a clause in respect of which there was a great deal of evidence and a great deal of discussion, and I think it fair to say that there was a great deal of controversy—outside this House—over this clause. I received representations both for and against this provision. Clause 2 gives the Minister certain power during certain periods which one might call crisis periods. I do not want to split hairs about the meanings of words so I will call it a crisis. He will also have powers in regard to an anticipated crisis, and this is where one of the points of difference arose. I want to say that these are far-reaching powers. What I say here goes for this side as well as for our members on the select committee and probably it was common to all because on the select committee I did not hear much being said against it, although it was discussed. Power is given to the Minister in advance of a crisis to say that in his opinion he thought a crisis was approaching and he now had to take certain steps. Those steps are very far-reaching indeed. I do not propose traversing them. They are virtually the control of the whole of the water supplies as far as public sources of water are concerned, public rivers and so forth, in the area which he might proclaim as an area in respect of which he anticipates that a water shortage might occur.

Now I do not envy the Minister. I did not envy him his task in the last drought. He inherited this portfolio just when the drought was already starting to fasten its tentacles on South Africa and he has had to carry on through it. He is in any case no stranger in having to deal with difficulties, including droughts. The Minister is a practising farmer so he knows what a drought is. I do not envy him this task, this responsibility. Because if this Bill is passed what Parliament is saying to the Minister is, in effect, this: “In the event of a drought threatening in any part of South Africa, the control of the water supplies is in your hands as an individual, as the Minister. You have the responsibility; we are giving you the power, but with the power goes the responsibility.” The responsibility is his. He can seek advice from whence he will but the responsibility is his and his alone and if there is criticism because the steps he took were inadequate or insufficient to meet the eventuality which arose—a severe drought for instance—the ill effects thereof will be laid at the door of the Minister. People will say that the Minister asked for this power, Parliament gave it to him and now he has fallen down on the job. It does not matter how he may strive and it does not matter how he may garner every drop of water, if there is something which can be laid at the door of the Minister because of a sin of commission or of omission it will be laid at his door. He knows it, Mr. Speaker, and we know it—it is so. But what does it carry with it? It carries with it the decision of Parliament to place this responsibility and the power in the hands of the Minister so that action can be taken quickly. As I have said, this matter was discussed in many quarters. I have had representations made to me personally. I am aware of the views of many people who felt that there should be some check on the power of the Minister. But that means delay. If you check the powers of the Minister to take appropriate measures when he thinks there is a water shortage threatening you create delay and by the time the steps prescribed have been gone through and the Minister is told to go ahead he may very well throw up his hands and say he cannot do anything because it is too late! “The drought is here and we are short of water already; the crisis is upon us.” This is I believe what actuated the select committee in deciding to adopt this clause and to confer all the power it gives upon the Minister. We wanted the Minister to be in a position where he could act quickly. After all, who can tell what is going to happen? The Minister is just as human as the rest of us. He can see a drought threatening and impose the restrictions it is in his power to do. The day after that, however, the rain may come and the restrictions are no longer necessary. People may then ask the Minister why he acted in that way and why he could not have waited a little bit longer? That the Minister must expect. We cannot help him. On the other hand, again, he may be blamed that he waited too long.

Here I want to touch on another point, a point which was very carefully canvassed. The suggestion was made that the Minister should be slow in imposing restrictions. As a matter of fact, the way in which it was put was— the Minister should impose restrictions late and he should lift them early. Mr. Speaker, I cannot put myself in the shoes of the hon. the Minister but I would be very very chary to accept that advice. I say that quite frankly. The Minister would have to use his discretion in every single case depending entirely on the circumstances of the case at that time. The moment he thinks a crisis is threatening because of a shortage of water, in my opinion his duty will demand that he imposes restrictions immediately so that from that time onwards control will be in his hands. And if we get rain 24 hours later or a month later or six months later the Minister’s duty at the moment when he sees a crisis threatening is to impose the necessary restrictions. As to lifting these restrictions early I take it the Minister will lift them as early as he possibly can. He would not want to keep them on in view of the criticism that would go with it when restrictions are continued when there is no longer any need for it. May I in passing say that this is one of the reasons why I personally am prepared to accept this clause because it does not fix a permanent limitation like a proclamation declaring an area to be a water controlled area. Such a proclamation is there for keeps. Restrictions in terms of this clause, however can be imposed and in due course again be lifted and people can go on without the restrictions. So, we support this clause subject to other aspects of the matter still to be discussed by one of my colleagues when he takes part in the debate.

I now come to clause 3. The Minister dealt with this clause and said it was a very important one. This is one of those clauses which was introduced into the Bill by the select committee. It is very short and simply says—

It deals with the punishment for pollution of our waters. The hon. member for Heilbron, who was chairman of this select committee, and I are the only two persons who also sat on the original select committee considering the legislation leading up to the Water Act of 1956. I think we sat there for something over two years. The hon. member and I exchanged views the other day and we recalled how at the time when we dealt with the legislation of 1956 I tried to get what I called an enforcement agency. The hon. the Minister will remember that last year too I raised this question of an enforcement agency. He was kind enough to write me a letter earlier in the Session informing me that his Department was now the enforcement agency and will deal with this question of pollution. What worried me at the time, that is in 1956 and again last year was that I knew only too well from my own experiences as Administrator of Natal and had the job then under a provincial ordinance of dealing with the question of pollution, how difficult it is to deal with this matter the difficulty to take offenders to court and to get a conviction. I felt this was imposing a duty on the Minister’s Department which was not entirely in line and in keeping with their duties dealing with water supply and water conservation. While it is akin in the sense that it is the pollution of water it is a matter which has been requiring special investigation by industrial chemists and all kinds of scientists and other qualified folk in order to enable them to go to court and in respect of any particular sample of water say that that sample of water is polluted with this, that or the other and can obtain a conviction in a court of law because the presiding officer will be in a position to say that the people who have been charged are guilty. The evidence is there. The water was polluted and polluted by them bringing them within the ban of the Act.

It was quite clear from the evidence given to us that the officials of the Department had trouble in getting convictions and so they asked for this clause to be inserted in order to make it abundantly clear not only that they will be able to get a conviction but also a prosecution because their trouble arose from the fact that sometimes they could not even institute a prosecution. Prosecuting officers in the absence of a specific provision of this kind refused to prosecute. This now makes it an offence. The punishment is provided for in another section—a very severe punishment. I think I may say that we on the Select Committee welcomed this with open arms as something that was absolutely essential. As I pointed out before, it is no use conserving water and giving the Minister the power to protect our water supplies, conserving the origins and sources of our rivers and that kind of thing and then get one factory to pollute a river perhaps 100 miles away from the sea. All the water within that 100 miles is then polluted. It is an incredible situation, Sir. And the harm and the damage it can do are inestimable. People lower down may be irrigators and we have had the experience in Natal where such people saw their entire orchards die, bearing fruit trees die, as a result of pollution higher up the pollution of water which was used for irrigation purposes. It contained such elements that killed full bearing fruit orchards. What was their remedy? Their remedy was almost an impossible one—to find the evidence on which to convict the owners of the factory concerned, to convict them in a court of law. This was a large and financially strong organization and they as small farmers would have to band together to fight it. It was an impossible situation and they did not do it. They simply decided to go in for another type of farming. In this particular case the pollution was so great that they could not even water their stock at the river. To be able to bring the proof to a judge and to get a conviction, that was almost impossible; it was an Herculean task far beyond their purse strings. So they had to suffer. But now we have this clause and the Minister’s assurance that his Department is going to enforce control over the pollution of our rivers and take the necessary action to prevent it. Now we are beginning to see the dawn of a brighter day because with the Minister having that responsibility and his Department undertaking the enforcement of the clean water provisions of our law and it being laid down that it is a criminal offence to pollute water, now we have a brighter outlook.

Mr. Speaker, we come now to clause 4, which by inserting a new subsection (3) (a) and (b), deals with certain loopholes in the Act, which came about as a result of a law case. Clause 5 similarly deals with compensation. There was one point here which I would like to raise. I do not know whether the hon. member who was chairman of the select committee will perhaps deal with this. I hope he will speak in this debate. I do not want to impose it on the Minister. Here we have a case where three different people were involved in a law suit, initially with the Department of Water Affairs. One case was before the courts. It was adjudicated upon, judgment was given and that case was ended. There remained two. I am not concerned with the why and wherefore. There remained two. It is a fact. In regard to the one, the Department held that the court found what had not been accepted as being the law. The Department had accepted a certain position as being the law. They believed that they were working within the ambit of the law. The court said: “You are wrong”. It was found otherwise and they awarded certain compensation to the plaintiff in that case. We in the select committee had to adopt the attitude that what the court said was the law. whether we liked it or not, whether it had been the accepted practice or not. Once the court adjudicated upon it, it was the law. If that was not the attitude which the Department had adopted towards the provisions of the Act in the past, it was necessary to deal with the matter. There was abundant evidence. The hon. the Minister has dealt with it. I think he said there were 500 cases of permits that had been issued. It was necessary to deal with it because of the 500 cases referred to by the Minister where the Department had acted in a particular manner and bona fide 500 people had obtained permits from the Department. Those people had not questioned the legality, the rightness, of the interpretation which the Department placed on that provision of the Act. The Department considered that it was acting correctly. It had acted in that way. It had construed that provision in the Act in that manner. The court now found that it was wrong. But what about the 500 holders of the permits? Their permits will now all be either in jeopardy or they are in a position to sue the Department, because they could claim that they had been also placed in the same position as the man who had gone to court. But that case was finished. We had to protect those licence holders. Provision is made here for it. But at the same time we did not want to come to Parliament with a Bill which would have the effect, while cases were before the court and while they were virtually sub judice, of passing legislation which would in some way or other detrimentally affect the rights of the litigants while they were still before the court.

We are not concerned with the rights of these people except that we did not like legislating so as to diminish those rights while the cases are actually before the court. We did not want to say that their rights would have been so and so, in the event that this Bill had not been passed by Parliament. During the course of the proceedings in court, while it is still sub judice, we rush a Bill through Parliament and we diminish and limit the rights of those litigants before the court. We did not want to do that. It was hard to bring the two things together. I believe that it has been done for practical purposes. As I say, I hope the chairman of the select committee will deal with this particular point in this clause we have before us, because what I am certain of, was that we had to protect the 500 people who were permit-holders and had acted bona fide with the Department of Water Affairs on one side —that is the Minister, because he is the head of the Department—and they on the other side. There had been an application for permits and the permits had been granted and from both sides the normal course of the Department had been followed in respect of that provision of the law, because they believed that they were interpreting the law quite correctly. It had never been called in question. We have now to put it right. I feel that if we can protect the rights of those litigants, so that they are not adversely affected by the passage of this law, this will also be of very great comfort to the people, who would not like to see Parliament unsure and adopt an attitude of that kind, whether the litigants are one or two or 1,000 or 2,000. They would not like to see Parliament pass a law which would diminish those rights while the case is actually before the courts.

Clause 6 is a perfectly straightforward one. There is no difficulty about it. There is also no difficulty as far as clause 7 is concerned. The provision here is, as hon. members will see—it is printed before them—a provision in regard to interference with, or altering, the flow of water in a water works. I think that that really brings me to the end of the remarks I wanted to make. In general, I would say that we feel that we cannot over-emphasize the importance of this Bill, which we hope will be passed into law and will become an integral part of the Act. With the added care and responsibility we are now thrusting upon the Minister, we hope that there will never be the drought which will make it necessary for him to have to carry the responsibility which is imposed upon him in terms of this Act.

Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the introductory words of the hon. member for South Coast you will also now allow me to say that I owe a large measure of thanks to the members of this Select Committee for the way in which they have acted. Our unanimity is the result of the fact that the hon. member for South Coast, who was a member of the original Select Committee when the Act was passed in 1956, was very firmly convinced that the State should have control of water in South Africa. He felt the question of water as a basic requirement in South Africa so strongly that I think that much of the unanimity was the result of that.

Allow me to avail myself of this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation to the former hon. member for Potgietersrus who was also a member of this Committee. He made a really great contribution. I cannot omit to mention his name on this occasion.

The hon. member for South Coast made mention of the fact that the report of this Select Committee appears to be a thin one. It looks as if we did not give this matter our proper attention. But if hon. members begin by looking at the number of memorandums which we received—it is mentioned in the beginning of that report—and also take into consideration the fact that we heard verbatim evidence which ran into approximately 100 pages, then hon. members will realize that in the short time of approximately six weeks which we had at our disposal we did in fact go into this matter thoroughly. There were only two contentious points in this Bill which we had to revise and which we had to inquire into.

But I also want to begin with clause 1. After the legislation had already been referred to the Committee this matter was referred to us, i.e. the question of the provision of water to the Bantu townships established by the Bantu Trust. The Bantu Trust is not a local authority. Because it is not a local authority it did not fall within the purview of the existing Act. It could not allocate water for urban purposes. As the Bill was stated at that time, it was solely for the purpose of giving local authorities control over water for urban purposes. Consequently the definition in clause 1 has been inserted whereby the difficulties of the Trust have now been eliminated. I may say that the Bantu Trust has been involved in several water court cases in this regard. On each occasion it could not risk the outcome of a court judgment. On each occasion it had to settle the case by means of an agreement because it was aware of the weakness in the existing legislation. That is why I am glad that this clause has now in fact been inserted. If we want to supply those Bantu townships, which are all situated on trust land and are controlled by this Trust, with water, then the Trust must have those powers which local authorities have. I am pleased that we will now be able to meet that need.

Most of the points at issue dealt with the second, and the fourth and fifth clauses. Most of the evidence which we heard was concerned with these two matters. The one is the control which is being given to the Minister in times of water shortage. Here I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for South Coast. The Select Committee went into this matter very thoroughly. It also received long memoranda from various bodies. I do not want to mention the names of all the bodies here. The Select Committee felt that if we were faced with a state of emergency it had to be possible to act quickly. There would not then be time for all kinds of deliberation. Nor would there be time for divided control. Any form of divided control would cause a complete breakdown in control during a state of emergency. Some of the bodies stated that they had made contributions towards the construction of certain water schemes and that they had even, in terms of existing legislation been granted certain jurisdiction over water in those schemes. Because they had made such major contributions they ought to have a right to an equal say, and even control in a time of emergency over that portion of the water which had been allocated to them under the existing legislation. The attitude of the Select Committee was that we could not take that into account. It would in the first instance have resulted in divided control, something which could not be tolerated in a time of emergency. In the second instance it would have meant that the Minister would have had to treat all kinds of persons alike. It would not have been only one or two major bodies which would then have had to be taken into consideration. Smaller municipalities, which had laid on their own schemes using only their own capital would also have had to be consulted. Their own opinion in regard to that matter would also have had to be solicited. That would have caused the entire matter to miscarry. It would no longer have been possible to act rapidly.

I come now to the second matter, which is in regard to clause 3. I can recall that a few years ago, after the passing of the Act in 1956, I drew the attention of the then Minister of Water Affairs, Minister P. M. K. le Roux, to the water pollution along the South Coast of Natal, where the water had turned a brownish red colour for miles and miles and all the marine life there had been destroyed. That situation which the hon. member for South Coast sketched here of hundreds of miles of river which had been polluted was not entirely imaginary. I am thinking of other rivers as well which have to a large extent been polluted already. There is for example the Jukskei River, running into the Hartebeestpoort Dam, which is subject to a large degree of pollution. It is very essential that we should have effective control over the pollution of water. After having received representations we were of the opinion that it would then be possible to effect efficient control by also mentioning that any contravention of a permit was not only a contravention of the statutory provision as it existed in the existing Act but was also a contravention against any permit which had been issued in terms of that Act.

I come now to the amendment of section 59 of the principal Act by clause 4, which had actually been the contentious section and in regard to which, as the hon. member for South Coast mentioned, there were certain cases pending and in regard to which the Appeal Court had already given a judgment. Let me just put it briefly as follows: In Section 59 (1) mention is made of a Government water control area. According to paragraphs (a) and (b) of that section, a Government water control area is divided into two parts, namely paragraph (a) which deals with the dam construction area, that is to say, the dam basin and paragraph (b) which actually deals with the control over the flow in the river for division purposes. Paragraph (a) therefore deals with that part of the river and the surrounding land which forms the dam basin and which must become a Government water control for the purposes of erecting a dam there, that is to say, for the walling up of that land in that dam basin. Paragraph (b) deals with that part of the river where the water is flowing. That water has to be divided up and a Government water control area must be declared for the division of that water. Subsection (3) provided that such areas which had been declared to be Government water control areas for various purposes in terms of the Act of 1912 would be regarded to have been declared as such under section 59. The Appeal Court then found that in the case of a Government water area which had been declared to be a Government water control area under the 1912 Act for the purposes of dam construction, it could not be stated by implication that this had been done for the purposes of both paragraph (a) as well as paragraph (b). An area which had been declared to be a Government water control area for dam construction under the 1912 Act could not subsequently be made something else by means of implication. That was the judgment of the Appeal Court and the Court stated that if a water control area had been declared the Department of Water Affairs could not assume that according to the Act it had been declared for both those purposes once it had been declared a water control area, and that the Department could not read that meaning into the Act. Consequently they stated that all the permits which had been issued in those dam basins were invalid not only for construction purposes, but also for the purposes of distributing or dividing water. That is why it became necessary for us to introduce this legislation.

I want to state very emphatically, and this also appeared very clearly from the speech made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon, that the original intention of the Select Committee at that time and the Act of 1956, was to give the Government full control over water where a Government water control area had been declared. The Government practically become the owner of that water and it could deal with it according to the provisions of that section which conferred those powers upon it. Through this decision of the court the situation was changed entirely. Although we adopted the attitude that we would accept the judgment of the Appeal Court, because it was the existing legislation, the Select Committee nevertheless regarded it as its duty to face up squarely to certain consequences of that judgment. It had to consider what the consequences of that judgment would be for the country and for the Government of the country. For the country it would have meant that those permits which had been issued in respect of a Government water control area, which had been declared as such in terms of section 59 and which did not specify whether they were for both purposes, would be invalid and that the permits issued would all be invalid. Today for example if a man takes a mortgage from the Land Bank then the Land Bank requests him to surrender his permit. That permit gives him a right to water in the Government water control area and it is of tremendous value. If those permits were all invalid then that affected the security of the Land Bank and it affected the security of any person who advanced money to a landowner to whom a water permit had been issued because he no longer knew where he stood. This would therefore have resulted in a large measure of legal uncertainty in the country. But apart from that it would also have exposed the Government, in the case of all those persons to whom permits had been allocated by the Department of Water Affairs, to court cases which would of course have been conducive to further uncertainty. That is why the Committee regarded it as essential that this amendment should in fact have been introduced.

That brings me to clause 5 of this Bill. I just want to dwell on that for a moment. Clause 5 in fact deals with the question of compensation. The point at issue here was that those who wanted compensation wanted full compensation as if the old riparian owners’ rights in terms of the 1912 Act were fully valid. That was the purport of the representations which were made to the Select Committee. But, Mr. Speaker, if you were to read the 1956 Act carefully, you would see that those riparian owners’ rights are not fully protected when an area is declared to be a Government water control area. They are only protected to a certain extent in so far as those rights are exercised. The Government had to issue a permit in terms of the riparian owner rights which were being exercised, and the owner had to be compensated in terms of that. That is how the Act reads at present. But representations were made to the Select Committee to the effect that we ought to have returned to the old state of affairs under the 1912 Act and that all riparian owners should have been compensated fully for their rights. Let me illustrate this by means of an example: Suppose a person has 100 morgen of irrigable land and that there is not sufficient water in the normal flow of the river to irrigate that entire 100 morgen but that the owner is only able to irrigate 50 out of the 100 morgen.

In terms of the 1956 Act he would then have been able to receive a permit for those 50 morgen which he had already developed and irrigated but would not have been able to receive a permit for the other 50 morgen which he would have been able to irrigate, even though he had previously been able to do so in terms of his riparian owner rights. That water which he could have used but did not use prior to 1956 or prior to the area becoming a Government water control area then became the water or the property of the State and it was the intention to divide it as the Minister deemed fit for various purposes, i.e. for irrigation purposes, for industrial purposes or for urban purposes. In other words, he lost that part of his riparian owners’ rights which he did not exercise before the area became a Government water controlled are; that part of the water which he did not apply before 1956 became Government property: it was no longer his water. Consequently we could not comply with the requests of the people who made representations to the effect that we should insert in the Act that a person ought to be compensated as if he had fully exercised his riparian owner rights prior to 1956. That would have meant exceeding the principle of the 1956 Act. In 1956, as you are aware, the idea was to make the State the dominus fluminis, in other words the lord and master of the water, and it was solely a concession to those who had already exercised their riparian owners’ right that they would be taken into consideration to that extent and to that extent alone. The Select Committee did not see its way clear to going further than that degree of concession.

Mr. Speaker, these were actually the two major points at issue. Firstly, whether the hon. the Minister who was to be able to exercise full control in times of a water shortage, and, secondly, whether he ought to have paid this additional compensation. In conclusion I may just say that as far as section 4 is concerned, there was a suggestion that the proclamation of a Government water control area should take place by means of two proclamations, the one proclamation being made when it was proclaimed for construction purposes and the other proclamation when it was proclaimed for the purposes of dividing up the water. But what would that have meant? I understand that there are approximately 80 or 90 Government water control areas, but it is only in 18 or 19 of those areas where the permits of the owners are actually affected. In all 18 or 19 cases another new proclamation would have had to be issued each time in terms of (a) or in terms of (b) of section 59 (1), which would have been a long-drawn-out process and which could not have gone through without being tested in the courts. That would therefore have lead to law suits.

The hon. member for South Coast has made it clear that we on this side of the House support this Bill. It has been said on both sides that there was unanimity in the Select Committee. Sir, the various clauses of the Bill affect the rights of individuals or could affect the profitability of various enterprises—the clauses for example, which deal with compensation and with pollution— but I wish to confine my remarks to one particular clause, namely, clause 2, which is identical with the original clause 1 of the Bill, as it originally appeared before it was referred to the Select Committee. Sir, I do so because although the other clauses are important, clause 2 is the meat of the Bill; it is the very crux and essence of the Bill, because it gives exceedingly wide powers to the Minister. As the hon. the Minister has said, the need for this has arisen from the experience that was gained in what the explanatory memorandum, which was issued with the original Bill, described as the exercise of control last year during the water shortage in the basins of the Vaal and the Orange Rivers where there was just not enough water for normal purposes and where it was found that the powers of the Minister were not sufficient to exercise control properly where certain individuals were not prepared to co-operate. Sir, if the Minister had not taken steps to allocate water, that could very easily have led to something approaching a national disaster because the area covered, particularly the area covered by the Rand Water Board, embraces a metropolitan area in which some 50 per cent of that portion of our national income, which derives from manufacturing, is earned. This is an area with no fewer than 3 million people living in it. I must confess that when the Bill first appeared I was one of those who had very grave doubts and great misgivings about this clause 2, because of the exceedingly wide powers which it is proposed the Minister should be granted in terms of it. Under the clause he will have power to discriminate not merely between different persons but also between different classes of persons. He will have power to allocate water entirely within his own discretion to different persons or different industries or different areas on a basis which may not be the same. I think that is clear from what happened last year when it was necessary for the hon. the Minister to say to the irrigators on the Vaalharts that he would cut their allocation of water by some 80 per cent, whereas the users of water in certain other areas such as the Free State goldfields and the area covered by the Rand Water Board were not cut by the same amount. In view of this I felt very dubious about the provisions of this clause and my doubts were not dispelled until the Select Committee had reached a fairly advanced stage of its deliberations, because I was seeking to find either in the principal Act, the Water Act of 1956, or by some other means, whether there was not some other avenue by which the Minister could be given control and the rights of individuals could yet be safeguarded. The Minister in terms of this Bill will have power not merely to allocate water, but he will have that power without having to pay any compensation, and also his power will not be subject to a right of appeal. The people to whom allocations of water are made will have no right of appeal to the Water Court. I did not relish granting these powers to the Minister, but the more I looked at the principal Act, the more I became convinced that these powers were in fact very necessary. I would say that the success of this legislation when it is put into practice is going to depend very much on the manner in which the hon. the Minister exercises his powers. I have no fear with the present Minister, because he showed last year that he was not merely prepared to exercise his powers carefully, but he showed that he exercised them with wisdom during the last crisis. I am glad to have heard from the Minister this afternoon that he regarded these measures as something to be applied on a temporary basis. I hope he will again, for the record, give us an assurance that that is his intention. I agree with the hon. member for South Coast that he should not wait too long before he applies his powers. He must not wait until danger has absolutely overwhelmed us, but on the other hand it should be very clear that the danger is in fact of such an order that we are facing a major crisis because of a threatened water shortage. Again, it would do a great deal of harm if the Minister were to lift the restrictions he imposes on the use of water prematurely, but it would perhaps do even more harm if he were to prolong them unduly.

There is one question I would like to deal with a bit more fully. I think hon. members must realize that this Bill takes us one step further along the road which we started on with the Water Act of 1956, when the doctrine of dominus fluminis was accepted as a principle in our water legislation. I should like to refer to the fact that this was touched upon during the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs by our late colleague, Mr. Bekker, the late member for Potgietersrus. May I also say at this stage how very much we grieve that he has been taken away from us so suddenly, because we had respect for his personality and his friendliness. Speaking in that debate, he said—

I say that with this legislation which is before us, under clause 2, we are proceeding further along the road which was started with that 1956 Act. The 1912 Irrigation Act divided the uses of water into primary use, i.e. uses necessary for the support of animal life and in the case of riparian owners, for domestic purposes; and secondary use, which is for irrigation purposes, and thirdly, tertiary use, which is for mechanical and industrial purposes. If it is possible under this Bill for the Minister to make allocations as were made during the last period of water shortage in the Vaal Triangle, where it could be said to irrigators, for example, that their water usage had to be cut by 80 per cent, whereas the Minister might consider that the maintenance of some industry on a full-time basis was more important to the national economy, then indeed we see that the principles of the original Irrigation Act of 1912, giving preference to secondary use over tertiary use, have been very far departed from. The industry, under these restrictions that the Minister might impose, would in fact be gaining preference over secondary users I do not want to pursue that any more, but I do feel that we must be very careful indeed before proceeding apace along this road. We must be wary.

The possibilities of other methods of giving the hon. the Minister the power of control is something which we investigated, and in particular the question might be put as to why it is necessary to give the Minister complete discretion in the matter when under section 59 (1) of the Water Act of 1956 the Minister has in effect powers to proclaim a Government water-controlled area and to allocate water within that area.

Section 59 (1) (b) reads—

In effect the hon. the Minister already has powers to declare the whole of the country a Government water controlled area if he deems it fit. But I think he himself this afternoon has given the answer to that, namely that speed is of the essence when a national crisis is in the offing because of a water shortage. The procedure whereby permits are issued in order to control the allocation of water in a Government water controlled area is a long and cumbersome process.

And it is not always necessary.

I agree with the hon. the Minister. But there is a further objection in that it might become a more or less permanent arrangement and that water controlled areas are not very easily de-proclaimed. I think that if we were to adopt that line and left the Minister merely to rely on his powers to declare affected areas—i.e. areas in which a water shortage was likely to arise—Government water controlled areas under the 1956 Act, he would have found himself in a very difficult position indeed. What is more, the people concerned might have found themselves in the position (instead of having merely a temporary deprivation of their rights) that the control itself—which was a permanent control if it had been declared a Government water controlled area—might have been very much less to their liking than the temporary control which is liable to be imposed by the Minister, it has also been suggested that a situation like this—a situation of water crisis—could perhaps be dealt with by temporary legislation. It is however obvious that there are times when temporary legislation would not be possible. If Parliament was not in session, for example, and a water crisis was showing up on the horizon, it might well not be possible or desirable to call Parliament together simply to pass temporary legislation to deal with such an eventuality. There has further been the objection that no appeal is given under this legislation against the Minister’s decision. I should like to point out that aggrieved parties would still have the right to apply to the courts for an interdict against that decision. But, apart from that, if provision were to be made for an appeal under this legislation, if it is something which again might hold up proceedings for months and months. It might negative the whole idea of this legislattion. I feel that the best assurance against it ever becoming necessary to use this legislation is a vigorous plan for the development of our water resources. The more those resources are developed the less likely it will be for the hon. the Minister to find himself in the unfortunate position of having to use these powers which it is proposed should be given to him.

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a time during which our population became aware of a water shortage and the pressing need to protect and conserve water then it was probably during the past drought. It was then that the population became aware of the role water is playing in the development of South Africa. Whereas the effects of droughts had in the past mostly been felt in the rural areas, the urban population was perhaps never so seriously water conscious than they were during the recent drought. The result of that was that a drastic measure such as this legislation could be unanimously passed by the Select Committee. We are therefore in the position to-day that this drastic legislation, which bestows certain powers upon the Minister, can be passed with the unanimous consent of this House. There are two aspects in this regard which I want to mention. The first is in connection with the fact that the entire development of South Africa is dependent upon the available water. All of us are therefore fully aware that we must make provision for times of water shortage. In addition provision must be made to ensure that the water which we have at our disposal is kept pure, clean and unpolluted. Somebody must be empowered to do so. Under the present circumstances that power can be given to no other person or body than the Minister and his Department who are able to see to it that control is exercised in the national interest of South Africa. It must be clear to everybody that the drought conditions which we have recently experienced, viewed against the background of the development which South Africa has undergone, was probably the most extensive we have ever experienced in this country. But it must also be clear to everybody that it will not be the last and that the extent of the drought may in future be even greater than the one we have just experienced. I am saying this particularly with a view to the increase in our population and the development which is at present taking place. That is why I say again that there is no doubt at all that all the members of the Select Committee felt that these powers of being able to cut in the case of serious drought conditions ought to be entrusted to no less a person than the Minister himself. After the recent drought we experienced I am absolutely convinced that the methods utilized by the Department with the approval of the Minister and their legislation at his disposal were carried out in such a judicious fashion that even the Opposition has thanked him for that to-day. It is therefore a feather in the caps of the hon. the Minister and his Department for the way in which they have dealt with these matters during the crisis, because it was really a difficult task. When one has survived such a crisis and the entire community is still able to express their gratitude then that is truly an honour which such a person and his Department has had conferred on them. In particular I want to mention the fact that in regard to the new, comprehensive powers as far as the Vaal River is concerned, the Minister has also obtained the co-operation of the population. I think that the Minister is as grateful as we are for the fact that he was able to obtain that general co-operation. Yet there were people who did not want to co-operate and who landed us in difficulties. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the matter they still wasted water, and that was something which amounted to nothing less than a crime. That is why it is necessary for us to bestow these powers upon the Minister. I am also convinced that the Minister and his Department will use these powers judiciously in the interests of the entire population in all its ramifications.

Mr. Speaker, we as riparian owners have always been and will always in future be proud as well as jealous of our rights as riparian owners. But as the Act reads at present compensation will have to be paid when the State makes use of its great powers in the interests of the general public. The Minister now also has the power to expropriate. To my way of thinking it is obvious that he must have this power. But, as I see the matter, expropriation can only take place on a certain basis. This basis can be no other basis than the normal flow of a stream. But, as the hon. member for South Coast has said, that is something which it is difficult to determine. Nevertheless the present flow in all our major rivers has already been determined. There are of course times when the rivers are in flood, but these waters are to-day being stored in dams and conserved in the interests of the population in general. In such a case that water can only belong to one body, i.e. the Government. As regards the circumstances under which that law suit took place, I as an ordinary citizen and not as a jurist, can realize that it is necessary to differentiate between a person who has been granted a permit below such a dam and a person who has a permit above the dam, within the basin. The one above the dam is being deprived of his water rights to ensure that the water can remain there, whereas the one below the dam is being granted a permit in respect of the normal flow of the stream. When rights in a basin in which water is being stored, have to be expropriated, it can take place in no other way than on a basis whereby the man below the dam will be allowed to make use of the normal flow of the stream. That, to my mind, is the general and also a fair point of departure, and however much jealousy there may exist amongst riparian owners, they realize that the entire population must be able to utilize the surplus water. The real problem is dividing this surplus water.

In conclusion I just want to say that it was a privilege for me to have participated in the discussions of the Select Committee. I also want to testify to the fact that the Chairman of that committee acquitted himself very well of his task. He had a difficult task. Then, too, I find it a pleasure to see that hon. members are so unanimous in regard to the need to get this urgent legislation on the Statute Book before the end of this Session.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here this afternoon with the fruit of the labours of the Select Committee. Since this is the case I have a deeply felt need to express my regret that one very valuable member of that Select Committee, namely the hon. member for Potgietersrus, cannot be with us to-day to enjoy with us the fruits of what was his labour as well. Otherwise it has been for me, as Minister of Water Affairs, a very pleasant experience this afternoon because there was so much unanimity in regard to this vitally important requirement of any country, i.e. water.

In reply to the hon. member for South Coast I want to say that I am grateful for this legislation although I do have a measure of fear in regard to certain of the powers which this legislation bestows upon me as Minister. Here I am thinking in particular of the power to control water in times of water shortage or threatening water shortage. But there is one power which this legislation bestows upon me which I am very glad about and that is that it will in future enable me to act with greater powers to prevent the pollution of our water. In fact, this is to my mind the most important aspect of this legislation. South Africa is a country which is sometimes seriously handicapped owing to a shortage of water. That is why it is out duty to see to it that the water which we do have is not wasted or polluted. Therefore I want to avail myself of this opportunity of informing our industrialists, including any future industrialists, that I will utilize the powers bestowed upon me by this legislation to keep the water of South Africa clean. I am uttering this warning here this afternoon and I hope that it will be heeded.

The hon. member for Albany referred to other powers. I will of course give the assurance that the restriction of water rights in terms of powers contained in this legislation will only be temporary. In fact, I have said that I as Minister will deal sensibly with people as far as this matter is concerned. But surely no Minister can afford to make use of powers of this kind, especially in view of the criticism which will accompany the enforcing of those powers, without having the consent of those people whose rights he wants to restrict. No Minister will ever be able to think of introducing water restrictions of this nature without having obtained the co-operation of all concerned. It is obvious that no Minister can afford to disregard that aspect and no party can afford to keep a Minister who disregards those matters. That is why I should like to give the assurance that such restrictions will only be of a temporary nature. I also give the assurance that such restrictions will not be imposed too soon. Nobody likes criticism and everybody knows that when it is a question of placing a restriction on the use of water it is going to give rise to criticism. No Minister will therefore risk coming forward with such restrictions too soon. But neither must he leave it too late. That is why a Minister will have to be strong enough to take the necessary steps at the right time. The hon. member for Albany also referred to the excellent speech made by our deceased friend here last year. He also discussed priorities. In that speech of course he wanted to point out to me that since we now, as he put it, want to swing away from the old principles of priority— primary, secondary and tertiary—we must deal with this swing very carefully. I want to say that I am one of those people who believes that primary consumption is of primary importance—the needs of people and animals for water come first. In addition I want to say that secondary consumption is also of tremendous importance, and so too is tertiary consumption. We have become an industrial country and we shall have to see to it that our industries are supplied with water. Just consider the restrictions placed on water along the Vaal River during the recent major drought, even if it is expensive we can nevertheless still afford to compensate the farmers for the losses they suffered there, but if the industries in the Witwatersrand complex had collapsed, no government would have been able to compensate for that. One will continually have to use one’s judgment when allocating or restricting water in this way.

The hon. member for Heilbron, who was the chairman of this Select Committee, has received congratulations from all quarters on his chairmanship and the way in which he handled the Committee. I cannot congratulate him now because I was not there. But I want to thank him for the way in which he handled the Committee so that it was possible for this report to be published at such an early stage. As a result it will be possible to pilot this important legislation through Parliament this year.

The hon. member for Christiana spoke about the importance of water. When the hon. member for Christiana, as well as the hon. member for South Coast, have discussed water and agriculture then there is not much left for me to say about the matter, and with that I want to conclude now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps in dealing with this clause which confers these powers on the hon. the Minister, it might not be out of place here if I was to express our appreciation to the Rand Water Board for the very responsible manner in which it acted during the recent drought. I think on the evidence we have before us that we can say that, while it is true that this clause will give the Minister power to enforce his decisions in regard to restrictions, we must in all honesty say there was very great co-operation as far as that body was concerned with the Minister and his Department during the drought difficulties.

Thank you for mentioning it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This relatively short measure amends, in two respects, the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act which was passed in 1963 and which provides for the licensing of sites used for installations capable of causing nuclear damage, for regulating the liability for such damage, and for compelling certain persons liable for such damage to provide security for the fulfilment of such liability.

To put it briefly, what the relevant provisions of the said Act amount to, is that no person other than the Atomic Energy Board may use any site for the purposes of a nuclear installation except under the authority of a license granted by the said board, and in terms of section 5 of the Act such licensce will then be liable for all nuclear damage caused by an event (or “nuclear incident”, as the Act terms it) which may take place on his site or which may be caused while any waste is being discharged from his site or in the course of the carriage of any nuclear-hazard material to or from his site.

In addition it is provided in section 6 that security should be given to the satisfaction of the Minister of Mines for the fulfilment of any obligations which may arise from a nuclear incident, and then subsections (2) to (6) of this section lay down various requirements and provisions in connection with such security. For instance, the Minister of Mines, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, has to determine the manner in which security has to be given, the circumstances in which it has to be made available, and the amount, not exceeding R10 million, for which such security has to be given. Provision is made for reducing or increasing the amount (within the said maximum of R10 million) for which security has to be given, as may be necessary, as well as for additional security to be given as existing security is exhausted or diminished by claims for compensation. Finally, in subsection (6) of this section, penalties are prescribed for failure to comply with any requirements laid down by the Minister in terms of this section.

Although I said at the beginning of my speech that the Atomic Energy Board itself, in contrast to other bodies, does not require a license to use a site for the purposes of a nuclear installation, section 12 (4) of the Act provides that these provisions relating to security, those I have just mentioned, do in fact apply in respect of the board as if it were a licensce.

However, the security the Atomic Energy Board was able to obtain from insurance companies, was inadequate, did not cover all contingencies and, what is more, required a very high premium.

Consequently the Government decided that the Atomic Energy Board itself should bear the risk in respect of its liability for nuclear damage outside, as well as the risk of material nuclear damage to all the property of the board, including its reactor at Pelindaba, but that the State would provide the necessary funds to cover the board’s liability and any such damage.

This has the effect that the requirements and provisions of section (6) (2) to section 6 (6) relating to the manner and amount of security, etc., which I mentioned, should no longer apply to the Atomic Energy Board, and therefore section 12 (4) of the Act, in terms of which they do in fact apply in respect of the board, is being deleted by clause 1 of the Bill.

Hon. members may ask whether the State is not letting itself in for too great a risk under the proposed new arrangement. However, I can give hon. members the assurance that the precautionary measures the board has taken against possible harmful nuclear incidents and are constantly maintaining with the utmost vigilance, are being regarded everywhere as so effective that experts in this field consider the possibility of such an incident taking place, to be extremely remote.

The second amendment envisaged by the Bill actually amounts to supplementing the existing Act to cover cases where nuclear-powered vessels of foreign registration (or such vessels as may have on board any nuclear intallation) call at any South African port or enter our territorial waters.

When the Nuclear Installations Act was passed in 1963, thought was mainly given to nuclear installations on land, and the maximum of the security which had to be given in respect of the liability of a licensce was, as I have already indicated, set at R10 million.

However, if a nuclear-powered vessel of foreign registration were to call at any of our ports, the conditions to which a nuclear site license on land is normally subject, cannot be applied just like that. In addition to that the security amounting to R10 million, which applies as the maximum on land, is being regarded as quite inadequate in such a case. In similar cases the U.S.A., for instance, requires security to the amount of 500 million dollars!

Accordingly it is being proposed that a new section 12 (a) be inserted in the Act, in terms of which the Minister of Mines, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may determine the conditions on which such nuclear-powered vessels, or vessels which have any nuclear installations on board, may enter the territorial waters of the Republic or call at any of our ports, including conditions relating to the liability for nuclear damage, security therefor and the manner of dealing with such security.

It is realized that the power conferred here upon the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Finance is wide and undefined, but from the nature of the case it cannot really be different at this stage. In this respect we are embarking upon territory with which we are quite unfamiliar and in respect of which we have to proceed with caution. This also applies to other countries which have gained the maximum experience in this regard. As far as such visits are concerned, inter-state agreements will have to be entered into or understandings will have to be reached, and only after we will have paved the way and developed the necessary rules, the latter can be embodied and outlined in legislation in greater detail.

The other clauses of this measure merely contain consequential amendments and do not require further explanation.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill. We think it is a timeous Bill in view of what is happening in other parts of the world at the moment. I do not think that it has ever been brought more to the fore than at this time how important our own ports are. The fact that the Government is now taking precautions to make sure that our ports themselves and the inhabitants in the near vicinity of the ports will have the necessary security is, I think, most gratifying. It is quite obvious that this type of legislation is very necessary indeed. When one considers what is happening, say in the Middle East at the moment, and takes into consideration the number of nuclear propelled vessels that the U.S. navy has at the moment, then this measure is all the more necessary. I think that two years ago the U.S. navy had 16 nuclear propelled submarines equipped with 252 Polaris missiles. These submarines will have to use another route if they are not to go through the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, and for that reason it becomes so very necessary for us here in South Africa to prepare ourselves for the eventuality of vessels of that type coming here. I say that the Government should go out of its way to prepare for the reception of such vessels. I do not know what the state of our harbours are at the moment, but I sincerely hope that they will be able to accommodate vessels of this nature. There may be difficulties in detecting vessels from foreign countries which carry nuclear-powered instruments which are not obvious. I do not know what precautions can be taken in that regard, but I do know that certain vessels carry nuclear devices and it is possible that these vessels may come to our ports.

There has been, as the Minister knows, a natural scare among the population, not only in this country but in all countries, for atomic warfare and nuclear reaction, since the first nuclear bombs were dropped. I feel that at this time we should not only take security measures as far as monetary matters are concerned but I also feel the time is ripe for us in this country to prepare the population against eventualities of that sort. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister has given the House his assurance that every precaution is being taken to protect the population of our country from our own land-based nuclear installations. That is very gratifying to hear and I hope that the necessary publicity will be given and that we will all feel assured that the future will be as secure for us as the past has been. As far as I know, there has only been one minor accident relating to a nuclear test, and that was very quickly detected and rectified.

I think it would be advisable at this stage to ask the Minister a few questions relating to one or two other matters. I will be as short as possible. As regards clause 2 of the Bill, I do not know whether it is advisable to allow the Minister of Mines such latitude when he has to consult with the Minister of Finance from time to time to determine the conditions for nuclear damage and security. I think that it should be obligatory for him to do so. This is a very important matter, therefore I do not think that he should take it upon himself to determine whether he will consult or not. I think it should be obligatory for him to consult the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health in this matter. Because he will not only be determining damage to property but he will be determining at the same time damage to life as well. I think that when this aspect is in issue, the more people who are concerned in determining security, both as regards property as well as life, the better it will be for those people who are concerned at the moment about their own security here, be it as a result of our own accidents or flowing from the visit of vessels to our ports.

There is one other matter I want to ask the Minister to clarify. Clause 2 (2) reads as follows—

Now, who is going to be charged? I cannot quite make out whether the captain of a ship is going to be charged because he brings a vessel into port without the necessary security measures, or whether the country whose vessel it is, is going to be charged. I do not know what is going to happen if the captain of the boat decides that he is not going to pay. What will happen then? Will the warship or the submarine be impounded, or will the captain be seized and told, “Well, you are not being released until your country pays up.”

Or both!

Or both, yes. With those few words I say that we on this side will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker. I should like to thank the hon. Opposition and the hon. member for Rosettenville for their support of this Bill. I think that in referring to the public in general, it would psychologically also prepare our people i.e. the mere fact that it is a Bill which is supported by both sides of the House.

As regards the first question asked by the hon. member, namely whether it should not be obligatory for the Minister of Mines to consult with the Minister of Finance, may I just say that there might be different situations and not in all of those would it be necessary to consult with the Minister of Finance, and therefore it is not made obligatory. As regards the second point: Of course, the captain is always in charge of a ship, but these things must also be ironed out and that is why the clause is so wide, so that we could, in consulting the different countries and drawing up our own regulations, make provisions for all these aspects.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.