I have to announce that Mr. President and I have on behalf of Parliament accepted busts of two former Prime Ministers, viz., the late Hon. J. G. Strijdom and the late Dr. the Hon. H. F. Verwoerd. The busts were presented by the Strijdom-monumentfonds and the Nasionale Partyvroueklub, respectively, and have heen placed in the Gallery Hall.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Sea Point is not present. I told him that I intended replying to a certain allegation he made yesterday. I am disappointed that he has not displayed the courtesy of being present here now.

Did he hurt you?

Yes, he said a mean thing and I am going to reply to it.

He is mean.

Order! The hon. members must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

I also withdraw it, Sir. The hon. member for Sea Point, in a speech he made here, discussed my character instead of agriculture, but I can understand that because the hon. member knows very little about the subject, and I have no objection to that. But in his speech the hon. member made an assertion which I am now going to repeat, and if the hon. members who are present here, think I am not repeating it correctly, they must please help me to rectify it. He made the assertion that I had leased a farm from the Coloured Development Corporation for R25 per year. This assertion has a very ugly implication which I am not going to discuss now. I just want to state categorically that it is an infamous lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I am not saying he told a lie.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Then I simply say that it is a lie.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say it is a lie. He may say it is an untruth.

On a point of order, Sir the hon. member is not saying that the hon. member for Sea Point told an infamous lie. He stated that the assertion that he had entered into such a lease is a lie.

Order! The hon. member said that the hon. member for Sea Point had alleged this yesterday, and that is why he must withdraw it. He is not allowed to use the word “lie”.

I withdraw it, and I state categorically that it is an absolute untruth which has been sucked out of someone’s thumb, and I leave it to the sound judgment of this Committee to decide out of whose thumb that story was sucked.

That hon. member went further and he stated that he did not think that I had more right than he had to discuss agriculture, because he represented a certain person, a certain Mr. Jack Basson. Now I want to tell him that I humbly represent the constituency of Namaqualand where there are several thousand farmers, and as such I think I have at least as much right as he has to discuss agriculture. But I want to go further and tell him that since it now appears that he is this gentleman, Jack Basson, it is very clear to me why he has been conducting such a brilliant political retreat all these years. He has now retreated as far as Sea Point, and the name of his constituency indicates that it is a point in the sea, and if he were to fall back further in his political retreat, I want to inform him that he will fall into the sea, and I have strong doubts whether, as in the case of Jonah, there will be a fish there willing to swallow him up.

I will not make any attempt to reply to the speaker who has just sat down. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Sea Point will deal with him suitably when the occasion arises.

I want to discuss the veterinary surgeons and the tragedy of Onderstepoort. To criticize Onderstepoort is almost, one might say, like blasphemy, but nevertheless it is time that the position of the veterinary officers in this country, their education, their numbers, their research and their position should be brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister. When the C.S.I.R. was established, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services contracted out from the overall control and direction of the C.S.I.R. It went out, one might say, on a limb, and it appeared as if this was a good decision on the part of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. But as time has passed, as the years have gone by, it is now quite obvious that the fact that the school for training veterinarians and for veterinary research is under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is a tragedy. It has led to a falling back of the veterinary services and the veterinary surgeons in the country from the high standard which was set them by Sir Arnold Theiler, so much so that the most distinguished scientist of the country, Professor Mönnig, reports—

He made this report when he returned from a world tour on which he had been sent by the then Prime Minister—

Sir, not only has the school suffered—it is not really a university faculty—but the teachers there have suffered. What do we find in reard to the remuneration of these professors? A clinical professor in a school of medicine is paid a flat salary of R9,000. Even a principal specialist, who is not a professor, gets R8,100. So far as I can judge the maximum that a professor in the faculty of agriculture can obtain is R6,600 per annum, and the secretary of the Department of Agriculture is paid R9,800 according to the latest report. An administrative officer has little right to be paid more than the leading professional men in any faculty and especially in a faculty of this size. The veterinary officers of this country are numerically the smallest professional organization in this country and they look after an animal population which is far greater than the human population of the whole country, and their work is increasing. Not only must they look after the large flocks of the farmers but they are faced with the problem that the medical schools are using more and more animals in research. The medical schools find that they have no knowledge of the care of animals. They are seeking veterinary officers but they cannot get them. There is more and more work for these people. Professor Wiser of the University of Pennsylvania, the Arnold Theiler lecturer in 1965, drew attention to the fact that the teaching load was so heavy upon the teachers at Onderstepoort that they had no time to do research and that their administrative duties took up so much time that they had no time for reading. He said that they were competent, able men, but that there was a need for specialization in veterinary medicine, just as great a need as there is in human medicine, and that there was no means of learning that in this country. How much post-graduate work can be done at Onderstepoort, and if it is not done there, where will it be done? The hon. the Minister promised three years ago that he would set in train the appointment of part-time members of the veterinary profession to undertake the eradication of the tuberculosis plague amongst cattle. So far as I have been able to ascertain he has not yet started nor has he, so far as I know, engaged any part-time people for this purpose. Research in the biological sciences has been given a special committee by Professor Mönnig in his recommendations to the Prime Minister, and in that committee he joins human medicine and veterinary medicine. We in medicine have suffered because we are not more closely associated with the veterinary surgeons but nothing to the extent that the veterinary officers have suffered because they have no contact with human medicine. Faced with the explosion of new drugs, drugs which came out first for human service and which are now being used for animals, where have they been able to learn except from the pamphlets supplied to them by the wholesale manufacturers? Sir, I do not in any way denigrate from the great work that this college has done and is doing in the treatment of animal diseases. Nobody could possibly wish to do such a thing. The men there are able; they are over-worked; they are given no time to do research, and they are not yet equipped to develop the specialties which veterinary science demands.

Last night when the House adjourned I was indicating the danger which wind erosion constituted for our country and particularly for those regions which had a very intermittent rainfall and which have already been broken up by the plough. I am convinced that if those farmers had been aware of the end result of wind erosion in those areas during periods of drought they would most certainly not have ploughed those lands. But since we are dealing with a condition which already exists I want to advocate that we reclaim those areas by means of planted grazing and ley crop schemes as a means of rehabilitating that pasture. I want to advocate that the stock factor be introduced in order to furnish the farmers with a steady income and also to increase the carrying capacity of the land.

In addition I want to dwell on the question of uneconomic units, which has already been raised in this House. I want to divide uneconomic units into two categories, firstly the small farms which are too small to make a living on, and which must be consolidated. I do not want to discuss those uneconomic units because provision is already being made to consolidate them. Many people are being helped to acquire an economic unit by means of the concession that the units need not necessarily be adjacent. However, I want to advocate that where two units have been consolidated provision should as soon as possible be made at a more densely populated settlement for the person who has had to surrender his unit. But in particular I want to raise a plea for the owners of uneconomic units which were formerly economic but which became uneconomic owing to a too heavy demand on the potential of those units, mainly as a result of droughts, decreased wool prices and increased rates of interest which have compelled the owner to keep more stock in order to meet his obligations. In this way the veld has been trampled to such an extent that one cannot to-day make a living off it. It is absolutely essential that we should reclaim those areas. If the grazing is rehabilitated and the vegetation re-established, then that man can make a proper living on it, and we must help him to do so.

Let us consider what factors have all contributed to this state of affairs. In the first place it is owing to drought conditions. Droughts are mere temporary phenomena and of an ephemeral nature. At the moment most of our country is being blessed with rains. In those parts where the shoe still presses, it is possible to obtain assistance. In the second place there are the decreasing wool prices, prices which decreased by as much as 20 per cent last year, as well as the year before last. At the moment, however, there has been a slight improvement. We can do nothing about that either, and we can only hope that the present price will be maintained, or may even increase. In the third place there are the increased rates of interest. I am convinced that with the influx of capital into our country and the fiscal measures which have been taken to combat inflation there will be alleviation in this instance as well, as soon as the success of the steps we have taken allows.

Then there remains the major problem, i.e. the overtaxing of the potential. I agree with the hon. the Minister when he says that in many cases it is the farmer’s fault that this is taking place. It is as a result of the overtaxing of the carrying capacity of that land that the farmer kept too many animals. We also know that when the need is pressing, when accounts have to be paid and prices have decreased, one has to keep more animals. Consequently they found themselves in a position over which they had no control.

There is only one efficient way in which this veld can be reclaimed, and that is by means of an uninterrupted ley period. We cannot expect the farmer who is already in difficulties to let one-third of his farm lie fallow for two years. However, there are schemes which have met with complete success in the large stock areas, such as the Transvaal and the Northern Cape. I want to advocate that we should apply those methods on a large scale. What happens is this. For a certain period a part of the farm must be allowed to lie fallow. The gates are locked and the farmer is forbidden to introduce any stock there. This will cause the landto recover completely after a few years so that the farmer will once again be able to make a living on land which to-day is uneconomic. As soon as the vegetation has been established, the situation will improve.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that he keeps on repeating what has already been said in this debate by other hon. members. New points must be raised, otherwise the debate will be concluded.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling, and I shall now raise a few other points. I now want to discuss the role of the farmer during the past decade in regard to the increased production which we have had and the tremendous industrial development which has taken place. He produced a sufficient amount of food and also earned currency for our country; this was all to the benefit of our country. The only reason why the farmers and the agricultural sector were able to make such a tremendous contribution was because the Government had a long-term agricultural policy, a policy which was laid down in our Marketing Act by means of realistic and fixed product prices and a guaranteed floor price.

Order! That point has also been made.

Possibly the other points which I want to raise have not yet been made. The Opposition has accused us of not decreasing production costs. We know that mechanization has played a large role in increased production figures. The number of makes of tractor have decreased in South Africa and this has resulted in great savings. It has alleviated the burden which reasted heavily on the shoulders of agricultural organizations and implement companies. In 1961 there were 34 different makes on the market, and these have now been reduced to 15. I think that this decrease can be of tremendous benefit to the agriculture and can decrease production costs considerably because so many different spare parts, etc., are no longer necessary for so many different makes of tractor. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the hon. members for Cape Town (Gardens) and Newton Park are the main speakers on that side of the House on agricultural matters. I am not a man who speaks a lot; I like listening, and I like being given food for thought. I want to tell the two hon. members that as the hon. members are sitting on the opposite side they represent, according to our party system, the alternative government of this country. With all due respect to their ability, and in all decency and affection, I want to say this to them. As long as they grind the coffee as they are in the habit of grinding it here year after year, they will sit there and not be able to contribute anything constructive to this debate in the interests of South Africa.In the limited time at my disposal I should like to confine my attention mainly to our mealie industry. First of all I want to make a few statements. I think we are past the stage where we will ever have a shortage of mealies for domestic consumption. Science has seen to this by means of improved seed selection methods and better cultivating techniques in general. I think we can accept that we have now reached the stage where we must realize certain things. Firstly, that loans and subsidies can no longer be the only solution to natural disasters or injudicious farming methods. Secondly, that the mortgage liabilities of many mealie producers cannot be increased very much more without serious implications for the industry. Thirdly, that mortgage liabilities have already in many cases become greater than land or currency appreciation. Fourthly, that subsidies and loans are no longer a valid, objective formula with which to stabilize or to balance the disruption and instability which are being caused by the tremendous fluctuations in the volume of production as a result of the nature of world prices. Fifthly, we have also reached the stage where the law of averages in our price determination policy no longer forms the only and effective basis in view of the increasingly important role which capital, merit and science plays in our production process. This law of averages may be a valid one, but as a factor in the determination of a long-term policy it is an unreliable plaything and dangerous for the future of the industry and our national interests. It does not allow justice to be done to the young farmer who is not well provided with capital, or to merit which is linked to scientific methods. In due course it can be reduced to one determining factor, namely, whether one is well provided with capital. Below the sphere of influence of the law of averages it would be possible for more young, meritorious and scientific farmers who do not have much capital at their disposal, to absorb the shocks and fluctuations which are in fact responsible for the average line. Above the line of averages can be situated more of the older producers who are well provided with capital and who produce on a mass scale. That is where they are situated, and who is ultimately going to remain solvent? Those who can produce the volume at a low profit and those who have large capital resources which enables them, in times when unusual decreases in the volume of production take place or when there are major price fluctuations in the world market, to channelize, during such production and price shocks, income from other sources of income to the loss vacuum in these fields.

In my opinion we must therefore look for those supports which have, in my humble opinion, been lacking up to now. I want to mention them here. The producer is involved in the production process. The State, through the Marketing Act via the Control Board, is involved in the marketing process. The State or the Control Board and the producer have the greatest interest in insuring against those factors which are the basic cause of losses, namely natural disasters. The industry and the country as a whole will benefit by an elimination of injudicious producers or production practices or human weaknesses within those production processes. The producer is compelled to plan in advance, and advance planning is closely linked with the advance planning of prices. The farmer’s planning includes selection and analysis of his best land, the elimination of ineffective and the acquisition of the most efficient implements, fertilizer, seed, etc., but it also includes a resolution as to whether he can or must farm extensively or intensively.

It also includes his decision in regard to the integration of other commodity production, that is to say planning for mixed farming is closely linked to certainty as to the price and the time. It cannot take place on an annual basis. His planning action and policy must therefore be supported by a previously-laid-down price for his product. Having said that, I have not finished. That support, namely the price determined in advance, must be supported and is inseparably linked to a second support. No determination in advance of prices can take place without price differentiation based on production quotas. Such price differentiation must be based on production quotas which in turn have to be based on a projection of domestic consumption and a continuous intensive exploitation of overseas markets. This will definitely make the advance determination of prices possible and valid for at least three to five years.

I want to conclude by saying that the producer, the consumer and the State are intimately involved with a third support on which our endeavour to obtain stability, security of producers and the elimination of regular subsidies and loans must rest—and that is insurance. It must be remembered that a partially controlled economy, or an economy which can immediately be fully controlled, has nothing to do with slogans such as “It will deprive the farmer of his freedom” or “It will affect private initiative” any more. What we are dealing with is an endeavour to find formulas which must, in the interests of our farmers, our country and the industry, provide maximum security. We will have to find a formula for insurance. Come what may, it must be found. It already exists in other countries. In our country, with its increasing sensitivity for periods of drought, it is absolutely essential. It must be ad hoc commodity insurance, only concerned with losses as a result of natural disasters, and based on a production history of the production unit in question. This brings me to the fundamental matter, namely the registration of producers and farms by means of which the necessary production history can be acquired. We are paying millions of rands for the maintenance of marginal mines, for prospecting for new minerals and for producers on all fields of a very broad level. I am asking in all seriousness whether the present framework is the correct framework, in which we are doing justice in respect of merit and the meritorious farmer who makes use of scientific methods and in respect of the producer who is less well provided with capital, and in respect of the elimination of the parasite who wants to live off State subsidies and loans, in the full knowledge of his human weakness.

Mr. Chairman, during this debate so many speakers on the Government side have taken the line that the problems facing agriculture to-day, are due to drought. I want to quote from the speech by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) when he said—

We on this side do not deny the fact that agriculture has suffered as a result of the prolonged droughts. I often wonder what hon. members on that side would say if we happened to have five good seasons and they could not blame drought elements any longer. I regret that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat this afternoon, as I wanted to refer to points which he raised in his speech yesterday. He spent ten minutes trying to convince this House that the United Party was accusing the Government falsely as regards the bad conditions in agriculture to-day. This is one phrase he used: “Nieteenstaande die feit dat dit dan nou so vrot gaan met die landbouer, die boer, soos die Verenigde Party beweer, het hy daarin geslaag om sy skulde in so ’n mate te verminder dat hy slegs 1.31 persent van die verbandlas nog skuld.” He used the word “rotten” on numerous occasions in his ten-minute speech. We do believe that agriculture is in a bad state, but none of us have used the word “rotten”. Nevertheless in some areas the position is very near rotten. When one reads recent Press reports and the headlines in newspapers, one soon realizes that agriculture in general in South Africa is in a sorry state to-day. I want to read only a few newspaper headings: “Farmers fear bank rate rise may be the end of agriculture; farmers call for milk racket probe.”

What about a few dates.

When hon. members oposite accuse us for blaming the Government for the bad conditions in farming, they say we must substantiate our facts. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister spent ten minutes accusing the hon. member for Newton Park of not being able to substantiate his statements. It is not necessary. It is quite obvious to the world that our agriculture is in a bad state to-day. Hon. members opposite will have to listen to these facts whether they like it or not. I want to mention a few more of these newspaper reports: “Farm squeeze hits a snare; farmers’ massive debts.” In spite of the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that the farmers’ debts have been reduced, here we see that this year farmers’ debts show a R200 million rise in two years to R1,200 million. We did not hear this from him yesterday.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that he must not raise points which have been raised again and again in this debate.

Yesterday this figure of R1,200 million was not mentioned by any speaker on that side of the House.

Order! Hon. members on that side of the House are not the only ones who have taken part in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I have been present throughout this debate and I have not heard anybody mention that figure.

The question of the increase in bonds has already been raised.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the House is now in Committee and I do submit that an hon. member who is dealing with a matter such as this and replying to accusations that have been made against this side of the House and dealing with a matter which affects his own constituency, is surely entitled to quote figures such as this. We are in Committee of the Whole House.

I asked the hon. member not to repeat. I did not say that the specific figure the hon. member was referring to was a repetition.

Whether it is the same figure or not, you are suggesting that the fact that he is using these figures is repetition.

Some of them are repetitions.

But the argument has been used. I suggest that one is entitled to call evidence to prove the contention that this side of the House is putting up in regard to the position of agriculture in general.

I have attended this debate for a longer period than most hon. members, and I say that there has been a lot of repetition. Some of the figures used by the hon. member were also repetitions. The hon. member may continue.

I continue with “Wool prices in Buyers’ favour”; “Fewer farmers, but no cause for alarm”; “Nat predicts black future for East Cape pineapple farmers”; “Farmers claim bank squeeze would be fatal”; “U.P. pleads to save the farmers”; “Farmers will ask Vorster for relief in Pretoria” (this is what Nationalists say); “Fundamentals of farming in South Africa must be revised”, says the Nationalist member of the Provincial Council for Queenstown. Die Volksblad says “Vleispryse daal” (in October, 1967). Mr. Chairman, I could keep on quoting for the rest of the afternoon.

The Deputy Minister went on to insinuate, as a matter of fact he said that a certain newspaper which is supporting the United Party— he mentioned the Rand Daily Mail and the Financial Mail—I quote, “in sy uitgawe van die lOde Mei horn soos volg uitlaat: ‘Cheap money and plenty of it makes a mockery of credit squeeze, yet the Land Bank provides just that.’ ” The hon. the Deputy Minister said here yesterday that this magazine, the Financial Mail, is a paper which supports the United Party. That is not so.

He did not say so.

Here is his speech. I have just read it now. The hon. member said that the Deputy Minister did not say that. This is what he said:

This magazine certainly does not support the United Party, not by a long, long way. I repudiate what the writer of this particular article said. too. He said: “Cheap money, and plenty of it, makes a mockery of the credit squeeze, yet the Land Bank provides just that.” This is absolute nonsense. With all respect, the writer of this article quite apparently does not have any idea about credit squeeze and inflation when it comes to agriculture. One cannot compare inflation with agriculture, when most of the money invested in agriculture is risk money. We all know that risk money means higher rates of interest. This is why the farmer to-day pays a higher interest rate than any other industry. How can somebody claim that this is the cause of inflation? I want to quote another reason or cause of inflation from an advertisement where a farmer advertised for merino sheep.

Where was that?

In the Karoo.

Yes, but what paper?

I have it here. He is advertising for merino sheep and he is prepared to pay 12 per cent interest on the purchase price. Admittedly, this is risk capital. This is why I say that people writing in the Financial Mail and some other magazines do not have a clue, when it comes to risk capital. This farmer is prepared to pay 12 per cent interest for Merino ewes. Now I want to know from the hon. Minister, whether, because this farmer has to pay 12 per cent interest on sheep, the housewives will not have to pay more for lamb? This is inflation, and this is why we feel that agriculture should be assisted. Under the present conditions, inflation can be aggravated. But inflation, to my way of thinking, can be completely different when industry is involved. The State is assisting industries to-day in a very big way. We hear about border industries every second day. Industries are receiving much assistance. I want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister, who quoted from this magazine, whether this is not inflation. Is it only when the farmers are assisted that inflation is being caused? What nonsense! We do not accept these statements in the Financial Mail. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if one has to display a knowledge of agriculture, as the hon. member for East London (North) who has just resumed his seat has done, by quoting advertisements and newspaper clippings. one can be certain that one is completely out of touch with the actual situation prevailing in agriculture. Anyone who offers 12½ per cent interest on money which he wants to borrow in order to invest in any undertaking must be a fool if he cannot make very good profits out of it.

He does not have the money; that is why he is prepared to pay that interest.

I am certain that the one who offers to pay that, knows that he is making a very good investment. We are used to the United Party blaming the Government when what is actually responsible is the drought. We are used to the United Party taking the words Ministers have spoken out of their mouth and distorting them. I remember that I once attended a meeting at Riversdale where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke. I just want to tell hon. members what he said there. He swept his hand over the audience and said: “Have you heard what the Minister of Agriculture has said? The small farmer must disappear. There are so many of you sitting here: will you not also be affected by it?” If that is not a case where words were erroneously put in someone else’s mouth, then I do not know what it is.

But I should like to put my few minutes to better use than to quarrel with the Opposition over such matters. I represent a constituency which is situated in a region where wheat cultivation is the most important economic activity. Hon. members know that big capital is involved in wheat cultivation. Consequently, when things are going well with the wheat farmer the entire region benefits as a result. If a great deal of money is brought into circulation when the crop is a good one, the economy of the entire region is stimulated and kept alive. During the past few years the wheat farmer has. for the most part, had bad harvests, with the result that an entire group of people outside wheat farming have been affected. Last year, because the climatic conditions were better, we had a better crop. But it is obvious that the losses of the previous two years have not been eliminated by the one reasonably average crop we had. Consequently we want to thank the Government as wheat farmers for the ten cents, the temporary allowance which had been paid over the previous two years, as well as for the additional ten cents which was added to the wheat price last year out of the Reserve Fund. We appreciate it. What is unfortunate though is that one cannot, with a higher wheat price, compensate the producer for any poor crop he has had. It will be of no avail offering the man even as much as R25 per bag if he does not have any wheat to deliver. It is general knowledge that we calculate the wheat price according to the cost-plus system. Items such as seed, labour, land prices, fertilizer, bags, and others, are being devalued in order to be able to determine the production costs. In addition, a reasonable entrepreneur’s. wage is added, which is actually the farmer’s profit.

But that is what we have always said here.

If you would wait just a moment, you would hear something which has perhaps never occurred to you. The average yield per morgen also plays a major role of course. A good crop in one year tends to force down the prices obtained in former years to a slight extent, because a five-year period is taken as a basis. It is a fact that one can raise certain objections to this system of cost-plus. By doing so I do not of course want to intimate that we should scrap the entire system. In the first instance, not all wheat producing areas are included in the survey. As far as I know, no cost survey is made anywhere in the South-Western Districts, where quite a fair amount of wheat is produced. In addition I think that items such as Coloured labour should be assessed a little higher than is being done at present. Another factor which plavs a role is grazing benefits. This is of no value to the share-cropper because as soon as he has harvested his crop he has no further right to the land. But the main objection I have to this system is that in good vears it can force the price down while we still have a shortage of wheat in the land. It is wrong that the price of any commodity should be forced down while there are not sufficient supplies of that commodity for use in the country. Our wheat shortages are supplemented by importing wheat at a somewhat lower price than that at which we produce it here in this country. Now the question occurs to me whether we cannot encourage our farmers to produce so much that we will be able to be self-supporting in this important respect. Can we not determine the price in such a way that it will serve as incentive for the farmer to do everything in his ability to increase his production so that we can cultivate sufficient wheat to meet all our needs? It will be a glad day when our production figure catches up with our consumer figure. When that stage is reached, then we can reconsider the price. At the moment the producer is receiving R6.50 for a bag of wheat. That sounds like a lot of money, but in reality where does one buy so much for so little money? Set the food-stuffs you can purchase in a shop for R6.50 alongside a bag of wheat and you will realize how much more a bag of wheat is worth. If wheat was a manufactured article, if it were produced in a factory where there are no risks involved, the price of wheat would have been three times as high.

I also think that we should reconsider the system according to which we determine the price and that we should then take these three basic factors into account as well. The first is that there is a shortage of wheat in the country, and although we have never had any difficulty in supplementing the deficiency by means of imports, it can nevertheless happen very easily that our sources are cut off in a time of crisis. Secondly, we must realize what the value of wheat is in our national economy. It is the staple food not only of the Whites, but also to an increasing extent of the Coloureds and the Bantu. It is much better to pay more for an article in one’s own country than to import that article at a cheaper price from abroad, because in that way we can build ud a strong home market, which is surely something we are all striving to achieve.

Another point I want to bring to the Minister’s attention is the discount of 5 per cent on C wheat. Take for example the wheat variety “Drommedaris”. That is the kind of wheat which is being sown extensively in the South-Western District, primarily because it is such a reliable, disease resistant variety. In addition it has a good yield. [Time expired.]

We are very grateful for the magnificent country-wide rains which fell a week ago, and I am also particularly grateful for the fine rains which have fallen in my constituency. For that reason you may regard it as unbelievable to hear that in my constituency there is still an area which since 1965 has only had 4½ inches of rain. As opposed to that other areas in my constituency have had no less than 25 inches of rain last year. This area which had so little rain covers 91,000 morgen. There are no more animals to be seen—the world is as bare as this bench in front of me. Farmers have migrated as far as 200 miles away in search of grazing and they have had to pay a great deal for it. What I now want from the Minister is to have that area declared a drought-stricken area as quickly as possible so that the people there will be able to receive the benefits which this entails. At the moment they are having a hard time of it. On this entire 91,000 morgen there are at the moment only 337 cattle, cattle which the farmers are keeping for dairy purposes. All of these animals have to be fed. Consequently I would be pleased if the people there can be given assistance.

It has come to my attention that the Native Trust land is at present being transferred from the Department of Bantu Administration to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. This Trust land is situated approximately 20 miles south-west of Kuruman and is 90,000 morgen in extent. The grazing is adequate there, because they have had a great deal of rain, and apart from that there have never been many animals on that land. I know the policy of the Department is to allow such land to lie ungrazed for a year or two so that it can recover properly before being distributed. But I wonder whether tihe Minister will not in this case depart a little from that policy in order to accommodate these people. The land can subsequently be withdrawn. I am pleading for these people; they need help desperately. I want to plead with the hon. Minister, with all the earnestness at my disposal, to help these people as quickly as possible.

We have listened to this debate on agriculture with great interest, but I think the many thousands of farmers in the country will be bitterly disappointed if they realize what the outcome of this debate in Parliament in fact is, because I do not think that any new ground has been covered. I do not think there have been any new undertakings on the part of the Government to assist the hard-pressed farmers. I feel that we are perhaps missing the point to a very large extent. The Opposition is accused repeatedly from the other side of putting up a case for the farmer purely for political gain.

Precisely.

There we have it, Sir. The hon. member says “Precisely”. I wish to assure him that we on this side of the House take our duties seriously. We are more concerned about the future of the farmers and of this country than we are about votes. That is the position and I wish the hon. member would take note of that fact. It concerns us deeply that during the past 20 years since this Government has been in power there has been virtually no progress made whatsoever in respect of soil conservation in South Africa. The Government has given us, at length, statistical evidence of what has been done, the number of farms planned and the number of works completed, but that is not the proof of the pudding. The proof of the pudding is to take a trip through this country and see what is going on in fact and then to satisfy yourself as to whether or not we are making progress. The evidence is there for all to see that there is retrogression taking place at an alarming rate. I had hoped that during the course of this debate the hon. the Minister would tell us what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has at his disposal a vast organization which is capable of dealing with this situation.

He has at his disposal a vast army of efficient and well-trained workers who, I am sure, given the right leadership, can tackle this problem in a dynamic manner and achieve the success we all wish for. We had hoped that the Minister would review the position over the past 20 years and say to himself that what has been done up to now has not been successful; we now propose to do it this way or that way and hope to achieve success by a new approach. I think the time has come when we on this side of the House can sincerely ask the hon. the Minister to review the whole approach by the Government and all the Departments concerned in regard to the way this question of soil conservation has been tackled in this country. In a speech which can only last for 10 minutes one cannot possibly review the whole situation, but the one aspect to which I wish to draw attention this afternoon in the limited time at my disposal is in regard to the extension services.

I believe that the key man in the whole approach to soil erosion in South Africa is the extension officer.

No, it is the farmer himself.

Sir, that hon. member has had plenty of time to make his speech. I wish he would allow me to carry on, because I obviously have more to offer than he has. The extension officer, of all the departmental officials, if the hon. member wants it that way, is the kingpin in the whole situation. The extension officers, who are the contact between the Department and all its research activities and the farmer, who obviously has a role to play, form the link between all those factors; they carry the message from the Department to the farmer. My plea is that the Government take immediate steps to see that more extension officers are made available in the service of the soil conservation department, and that not only should these people be considered to be important individuals with the highest possible status, even possibly equivalent to the status of the landdros, but that they should be given a status of high regard and respect in every district where they serve the public. I believe that in the past these people have not received the consideration nor anything like the salary that the importance of their job demands that they should receive.

Another thing about these extension officers is this. Their duties are so important and so significant that they should not in any way be tied down to their offices to do ordinary office work. That has been a complaint that we have raised in the past about their duties. They should be free to get on with their liaison job, to make contact with the public and to bring the latest methods of farming to the notice of the farmers concerned. I might say that at present we have reached a very advanced stage in agriculture in South Africa. There are thousands of farmers who are prepared to do their utmost to reverse the trend of soil erosion. There is a fund of goodwill. All that this Government has to do is to explore that situation to the utmost. We realize that there are farmers who have not pulled their weight. That is why I said in a previous speech that I endorsed every word published in this report of the Marais Commission, because I believe it is a sound document and everything said in it is absolutely correct. There are thousands of farmers who accept the message of that report, but what we need is a dynamic approach by the Government to exploit the goodwill that exists in the minds of the farmers at present. I believe that if we can get that message across, this bogy of soil erosion will once and for all be brought under control.

Then there is another point I want to raise. I said before tihat I believe the farmers of South Africa are sick and tired of the subsidy system. We cannot abandon the subsidy system overnight; it is a system that has to go on, but I believe that other and better systems can be put in its place. That is why I suggested, as I suggest again, that the Government must very seriously look into the question of providing bigger and better financing organizations to assist farmers who farm according to the principles laid down in this report, so that they can get the assistance they deserve. If we can get away from the subsidy system, then I believe that all soil conservation undertakings can be expedited. Just as a matter of interest, I hold up here copies of soil conservation plans with which I have been intimately connected. Here they are, documents to be filled in in triplicate and in quadruplicate and a hundred and one things that have to be dealt with. I would like to know how much the compilation of this farm plan has cost the Government in administrative expenses. If you can get away from the subsidy system, all this kind of thing can be eliminated, and the jobs we need to have done, the dams, the contour banks, the fences and the application of proper systems of rotational grazing, can all be expedited a great deal. This farm plan has taken no less than 15 months to compile. It will take another three years before the works in this plan can be completed. So it will take something like five years altogether. My appeal to the Minister is, firstly, to see that the extension officer gets his rightful place in the Department, so that the contact he can make with the farmers is in fact made. There are hundreds and hundreds of farms in South Africa—I say that without hesitation—which have not had the privilege of a visit by an extension officer (a) because they have not got the personnel and (b) because the extension officers are tied down in the offices, doing work which clerical assistants could well do. If the Department or the Minister says that one of his problems is this question of a shortage of personnel then I say that he has a very easy way to rectify the situation, if he introduces a scheme which I believe can be built up into a most successful scheme, under which he uses many of the farmers who are available to-day to become assistant technical officers in the Department on a paid basis. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat will forgive me if I do not follow up on what he has said. I have followed this dehate quite regularly and I have sat here with one ineradicable impression, namely that when the Opposition discusses agricultural matters it creates the impression that it is in fact afraid to come to power in this country. Mr. Chairman, I can give you the assurance that it is a fear which the farmers share with them. The farmers of South Africa are sick and tired of this irresponsible way in which the Opposition in this House are continually trying to make political capital out of the problems with which the farmers are faced. We recently witnessed a blatant example of this when the hon. member for East London (North), who is unfortunately not present at the moment, treated us to a tale of an election campaign which he waged in his constituency. During the election campaign he submitted to the farmers there a so-called blueprint which was supposed to have been drawn up by the then Smuts Government. When it came to question time his subsequent experience was that those farmers had no questions to ask him concerning that blueprint; all they wanted to know from him was to what church denomination he belonged, etc. He added that this had happened during a time when the cattle, the donkeys and the sheep belonging to those people were dying of thirst and hunger. Surely this is a clear indication that the people are not interested in what the Opposition has to offer them; that the farmers have no confidence in the Opposition. That lack of confidence is reflected by the number of Opposition members sitting here. The farmers of South Africa are a proud people, and rightly so. They do not allow their affairs to be discussed in this House in an irresponsible way. Mr. Chairman, nobody has denied that there are certain sectors of the farming industry which are suffering hardships at the moment and which are heavily burdened. Nobody denies that the wool farmers are at the moment experiencing great difficulties and in particular have found themselves in financial straits owing to a decrease in world prices, as a result of the threats, inter alia, offered by artificial fibres, and as a result of droughts.

What is your solution?

I shall come to my solution in a moment, but no solution has as yet been put forward from that side of the House. All they had done was to state a fact; they have not suggested any solution. I humbly want to submit for consideration by the hon. the Minister that he should in due course expand this wool brokers corporation which is to be established and by means of which he is going to make available a large sum of money for the farmers for short-term loans—and let me add at once that those of us who represent the wool regions are sincerely grateful for this—into a wool financing corporation which will also be able to supply the long-term financial needs of the wool farmer. I believe that it is essential, for the benefit of the conservation of our soil, and in order to enable the wool farmers to undertake proper advance planning, that they should be afforded the opportunity, in respect of their financial obligations, to negotiate long-term loans at a rate of interest which is economic for them, a rate of interest which will enable them to plan in advance, and at a rate of interest which can possibly be subsidized by this body.

What should it be?

During the past few years the wool farmers have gone through a very difficult time, and the wool regions, as a result of their peculiar soil conditions and their climatic conditions, do not lend themselves to any other type of farming than with wool, angora goats and to a certain extent Boer goats. Therefore mixed farming can only be practised in those areas on a limited scale. I, therefore, want to put forward the hypothesis that owing to the peculiar circumstances of the wool farmer, and more specifically the wool farmer of the Karoo regions, they can lay claim to special consideration and facilities, and that they cannot therefore be treated on an equal basis with other farming activites. Sir, the Land Bank is doing very important and excellent work for the entire agricultural sector, but I feel, owing to the particular circumstances in which the wool farmers find themselves and particularly the Karoo wool farmers, that they should be placed in a position where they will be able to acquire long-term financing on a long-term basis from this to be established wool brokers’ corporation. Sir, seen from a socio-economic point of view, and owing to the nature of and lack of natural resources in those areas I am talking about, we will of necessity, in our creation of points of growth, have to take cognizance of these irrefutable facts and we will, in our creation of points of growth, and in our attempts to put a stop to the depopulation of this area and the resultant destruction of the area as an asset to our country, we will to an increasing extent have to concentrate on the protection and promotion of this industry as a growth point in itself.

Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with the plea of the hon. member for Cradock that better finance should be made available for the wool farmer through the wool brokers, but I notice that the hon. member was very careful not to commit himself when he came to the question as to what he felt was a reasonable rate of interest for the wool farmers to pay. I want to ask the hon. member whether he would consider a rate of interest of 5 per cent or 6 per cent to be reasonable to-day?

It all depends on the financial climate.

The hon. member says that it all depends on the financial climate. Here we go round in the same old circle again. Two years ago the hon. the Minister of Finance said that farmers would have credit made available to them; that they would not be affected by the credit squeeze, but one after another hon. gentlemen on that side of the House get up and after spending eight minutes thanking the Government for what they have done, they spend the remining two minutes very quietly suggesting other methods to the Government which they say should be taken to alleviate the lot of the farmers. The same hon. gentlemen said here last year that all was going fine with agriculture in the country and that there was no need to worry about the farmer. Sir, I am glad that at least one of the hon. members on that side of the House has taken the advice of his agricultural union which infer alia, covers the same area as the hon. member for Cradock represents—I am referring to the Midlands Agricultural Union —-and which very recently decided to send a deputation to the hon. the Minister to ask the Government urgently to make money available at low interest rates and to review the subsidizing of the existing interest rates. Sir, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet who spoke yesterday went even further. He associated himself with this side of the House in saying that a subsidy on wool prices was necessary. We see that little by little, hon. members on the other side of the House, under the pressure from the farmers whom they represent, are gradually learning a little bit of common sense.

I did not ask for a subsidy on interest rates.

No, I know the hon. member did not, but I asked him what he thought was a reasonable rate of interest and he would not commit himself; he said that it depended on the financial climate. I want to ask that hon. gentleman whether he thinks that 8½ per cent or 10 per cent is a reasonable rate of interest under present circumstances.

Certainly I do not.

The hon. gentleman says he does not. In that case we want to know how he is going to arrive at a reasonable rate of interest for the wool farmers unless he is going to subsidize that interest rate? There is no answer from the hon. gentleman.

Zip!

Sir, I was interested in the speech this afternoon of my old friend, the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who said here that where you have a product of which we do not always produce enough in our country, there was a good case to be made out for an increase in the producer’s price of that product. Among other things he mentioned that when that price was arrived at on a cost-plus basis, the land prices were taken into consideration. I hope when the hon. the Minister replies he will tell us what is the basis for land prices and how that basis compares with the price for land on which those very same farmers, whose price for their products is based on this particular price which the Wheat Board has set, are farming. When it comes to their being taxed, for example by the Divisional Council, or when it comes to the taxation of their estates, how does the price taken as the basis for the determination of wheat prices compare to those two things, namely the valuation for divisional rate purposes and also the valuation for estate duty purposes. I hope the Minister will give us a little information on that point. I hope also when the Minister replies to the hon. member for Mossel Bay and he agrees with the hon. member that there should be higher wheat prices. he will be consistent in this matter. I have here a Press cutting of March of this year concerning another product which concerns some of my constituents. Yesterday I told the Minister of the difficulties of our pineapple farmers who could not switch to other products, and had time permitted I would have mentioned that one of the products they cannot switch to any more is chicory. Because what has happened there is this. According to this Press statement the Chicory Control Board has this year had to import 5.6 million lb. of chicory. They will have to import another estimated 4 million lb. next year. The manager of the board said this year’s crop was produced by 241 growers, which is 142 fewer than the previous year. The report states—

That is a story I think we have heard quite often in this House, where shortage conditions arise and one of the factors in the situation is the action of the Minister in turning down the recommendations of the producers’ board. Thereafter we have shortage conditions arising.

I want to switch to an entirely different subject now and that is the one raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central), namely the question of veterinarians. The hon. member mentioned the difficulties at Onderstepoort as regards staff, training and salaries, and so on. I have mentioned this during a previous ter had only just taken over the port folio and debate this Session and at that stage the Minister had only just taken over the portfolio and one could not take it amiss if he did not react to what I said on the question of the salaries of veterinarians at Onderstepoort and other technical personnel. The Minister has however now held this portfolio for some time and I think he should be in a position to tell us what he has in mind as regards increases in salaries for these people. If one looks at the salaries mentioned in the memorandum which the dissatisfied veterinarians at Onderstepoort submitted some time ago, one will see they are exactly the same. The top notch for an ordinary veterinarian was R5.100, and the top salary provided for in the Estimates before us is the same, for instance. I want to tell the Minister if he does not do something very quickly indeed about our veterinary services, both at Onderstepoort and our veterinary field services, then we will run into trouble. In fact, we are already running into a very dangerous situation as regards the livestock industry in this country.

I do not want to pursue too much the question of the training of veterinarians. We debated it in this House a lot. I only want to say the Minister has been very coy as regards answers to questions which we put on the Order Paper on this subject. Some two years ago, I think it was. the hon. member for East London (City) asked what was happening about the training of veterinarians and the question of a second veterinary faculty. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor said then there was a study committee appointed by the dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science at Onderstepoort and this was going into the matter. He said, though, this was not a matter for his Department. When I asked the same question of the hon. the Minister of National Education earlier on, he replied this matter did not fall under his Department but that it came under the Department of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. When I asked this Minister what was happening about the report of this committee and whether he would make it available, he said, “No, that is a matter for the dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science at Pretoria University.” I accept that, but the name of Dr. Mönnig was mentioned here earlier. He is the hon. the Prime Minister’s scientific adviser. I think it is correct that Dr. Mönnig is advising the Minister on these matters. I hope the Minister is going to give us some indication of when he expects to get a final report on this matter from Dr. Mönnig. On the other hand, if he has already had a final report, will he tell us what are the recommendations and when is he going to act on them? This is a burning matter for the whole livestock industry throughout the whole country. Our shortage of veterinarians is probably much bigger than the ordinary man realizes. Moreover, the present shortage which exists, is at the present rate of training, liable not merely to continue but to increase relatively. It is going to get worse and worse as time passes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will excuse me if I do not follow up on what he has said. In the few minutes at my disposal I have another matter which I should like to discuss and I hope that the hon. the Minister will lend an ear to this matter I want to raise. It concerns uneconomic units, and the inability of units to provide a livelihood, particularly those in my constituency. I want to express my deep concern about this. A number of these units have been legally created by the Government, and up to the present we have been unable to have the matter rectified. I would like to ask the Minister what he intends, and how he is going to have the situation in regard to those uneconomic units rectified. I want to refer to a certain area in that vicinity, where the Government has created such units. A number of years ago units were created along the K.B. canal. The units were cut so as to be economic, and are 2,000 morgen or more in extent, with 20 morgen of irrigation added. Three or four years later those units were, within a radius of approximately five miles, cut up again, created or replanned. They are from 600 to 1,000 morgen in size, with six morgen of irrigation. Now how one must reconcile this. I do not know. I am not in any way blaming the Minister for this. The Minister receives advice from his Department. What officials can explain this position to me? Within a radius of five miles, or make it ten miles, the land, the weather, the rainfall, the topography of the soil, etc., is under all circumstances the same. How can it be said that a farm must be 2,000 morgen in extent with 20 morgen under irrigation in order to be economic, whereas a farm 600 to 1,000 morgen in extent with only six morgen under irrigation is also economic. The farms are there. The Government has undertaken projects on this basis, and stated that the small farms must be used solely for the purposes of dairy farming. But they realized their mistake and withdrew the instruction. In the first place artificial insemination of animals, which was a requirement on those farms, has been withdrawn. Subsequently they stated that the farmers need not carry out only dairy farming activities there, but that they could also farm with cattle there. I do not know how one can make a living if one has to farm with cattle on only 600 morgen of land. But the officials said that it could in fact be done. Then this matter was taken further. Then they said: No, you may now plant cash crops. I want to repeat that the man who can plant cash crops on six morgen of land under irrigation and make a decent living out of it, still has to be born. From 1957 up to the present we have consistently been bringing this matter to the attention of the Government and asking that these units be made economic, either by transferring some of the people and dividing the land amongst the rest, or by giving those people extensions, or thirdly by supplying them with more water so that they can farm economically. But up to this stage nothing has been done. Since the hon. the Minister is actually the father of this idea that an uneconomic unit does not have the right to exist, I am turning to him to-day, and I am asking him to put a stop to those uneconomic farming undertakings by helping those people. These three factors I have mentioned, namely water, extension or removal, can be applied.

But now there is a second matter. In that region there is an area of 12,000 morgen of land, plus 200 morgen of irrigation land which the Department of Bantu Administration is now clearing, and from which they are going to remove the Bantu. There is a further 12,000 morgen of land which is now going to be cut up into five farms. I am now asking the Minister whether he will not consider moving those people from their farms, which are uneconomic units, to these lands, in order to make the other units economic in this way. I also want to ask that if this land is to be cut up. the same mistake should not be made again of dividing them up into farms of 600 to 1,000 morgen each, but that they will at least be 2,500 morgen in extent and that the irrigation farms there will at least be 40 morgen in extent. I am saying this because in our area it has been proved time and again that 30 morgen and less is not economic. That is why I am appealing to the Minister and asking, with all the seriousness I possess to-day, that these people must be allowed to make a living. I am asking that something be done for these people, in view of the fact that that land is available, and in view of the fact that this land is now going to be distributed. If this land is distributed, and these people are not helped, there will never be another opportunity of helping them, because the State will never again have land in that vicinity at its disposal. This is the last of the State-owned land in that area.

I now come to another matter. Since the Government has almost 2,000 units at Vaal-Hartz which were distributed a long time ago, when the system was commenced, as economic units, and the norm at that time was that R500 was the income a family could live on, the position has changed to such an extent to-day, owing to changing circumstances, that the income on which a family can live is to-day determined by the Government to be R 1,500. Now that R 1,500 has to be found in the form of a profit on that plot which has remained the same size. If you were to tell me that the income from these plots has increased to a large extent as a result of intensive farming, I would agree with you. It is so, but I want to add that the method of farming has changed only so much. In those days when the land was distributed the land was ploughed with a team of mules, using one plough and a small planter. To-day we need two tractors and two ploughs, and a further capital lay-out of approximately R10,000 to do the same work on the same plot. That money must now be found at an interest of approximately 20 per cent. That is why the income from those plots must be so high to-day in order to ensure a subsistence income that the farmer simply cannot cope. Secondly, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that something should also be done about the position there because the farmers are remaining on those plots and because half of their man hours per day are unproductive because they have nothing to do. In view of the fact that there are people who lease up to five plots, I cannot see why the State cannot allow a person to purchase a second plot in order to help him to reduce the over-all expenditure on his plot, which will consequently provide him with an income which he can live on. To-day I want to raise a plea to the Minister that he Should grant that right to people who have 30 morgen or less. Of course I am not talking now about those who have more than that. What I would like is that they should be granted the right to purchase a second plot, with retention of the water rights, which have to be granted by the Minister of Water Affairs. I am pleased that the Minister of Land Tenure is also the Minister of Water Affairs to-day, because then he can decide on this matter himself. I am asking that the people with those plots should now be helped. I am asking that the Minister change the policy which lays down that at Vaal Hartz a man can only irrigate 30 morgen. I want those people to be granted the right to be able to irrigate more than 30 morgen, and that the State should help them, where there is no land to give them, to buy up other land. I am asking that the State should also grant loan benefits to those people so that the land which is now lying there can be acquired and so that somebody can make use of it. Such an opportunity for purchasing land will not or may never occur again in future. I hope that the hon. the Minister will help us at Vaal Hartz in this respect, with the concession that plots may be purchased with the retention of water rights.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cradock said just now that we have no influence with the propaganda we made here. As a matter of fact he said that the farmers were sick and tired of the propaganda we made and that it is not effective. I presume that he was not here when the hon. member for Mossel Bay spoke. The hon. member for Mossel Bay made an impassioned plea for the wheat farmer in this country. In his plea he said that the wheat farmer was not getting a price commensurate with his production costs. He said that the policy of the Government is to fix the price on a cost-plus basis and that in doing so they were not taking the real production cost price into consideration and that the production cost price was higher. I am sure that the hon. member for Mossel Bay genuinely feels that the wheat farmer is not getting a fair deal. He agrees with us that the wheat farmers are also struggling and that they should get a better price for their products. However, I think that there is another reason why he pleaded their cause, namely because his constituency borders on Swellendam. The farmers in Swellendam in no uncertain manner showed the Government that they were not satisfied and that they do take notice of what we say in this House. I think that that is the real reason why he spoke about this matter in this House. The farmers do take notice of what we say and they do realize that this side of the House is the side of the House which genuinely pleads the cause of the farmer in South Africa.

I should now like to deal with a subject in which I take a keen interest, namely soil erosion and soil conservation. This is a matter about which I am very perturbed, because I know that the farmers and the department are doing a job of work in trying to conserve our soil and our veld. The department does its best with its depleted staff and there are many farmers who do their best. But in spite of this I am absolutely convinced that the progress in soil conservation is losing the battle against the progress of soil erosion. I am going to take as my authority the hon. the Deputy Minister. Approximately 12 years ago it was stated by high authorities that we were losing 300 million tons of soil and about three years ago the Deputy Minister said that we were then losing approximately 400 million tons of soil. I am using him as my authority. Apart from that, my own observations for what they are worth have also convinced me that we are not winning the battle against soil erosion in spite of the good work we do. I feel that we are not doing sufficient to combat soil erosion although a lot of good work is being done. The pace at which we reclaim land is slower than the pace at which the destruction is taking place. We read in the report of the department that approximately 528.000 farms have been planned, and wcrks have been approved and just under a ¼ million of these have been completed.

We read that during the first 18 years in which the Soil Conservation Act has been in operation the works have been completed at the rate of just under 50 per cent. But lately that figure has not been improved upon. As a matter of fact, in the year 1966-’67 there were considerably fewer works constructed and finalized in relation to the number that had been approved. Even the State in 1965 completed work to the tune of R359.000 whereas last year it amounted only to R190 000. As far as I am concerned. I can see no justification for the reduction in the work the Government is doing. The tempo should bo quickened. Many of the construction works, for example damming sluits, are essential and they have to be done. They assist in reclaiming the soil.

I believe that the new sluits and dongas that are formed exceed the number that are reclaimed at the present stage. One of the reasons why the farmers have been so slow in completing the schemes, I think, is the fact that their financial position is so poor. I have read the latest report of the Soil Conservation Board, and they say the following—

These people have left their farms because they cannot exist there; their income is too small. That is one of the reasons why they leave their farms. I do not know why the Minister is laughing. I do not think that they leave their farms for any other reason …

Do they leave the farms because the department is not doing its work?

I do not know what the Minister is talking about, nor do I blame the department for not doing conservation work, I made the point that the farmers’ financial position is such that they cannot do the conservation work.

They can get the subsidy and a 100 per cent loan.

But if the farmer cannot make a living as a result of his low income. then he goes to Thabazimbi and Rustenburg to find a job.

If he cannot make a living on the farm, then you cannot blame the department for not doing its work in regard to soil conservation.

I have never blamed the department. I am saying that the department is doing a good job. What I have said, is that the department, and I shall come to that, do not have sufficient people to do the necessary propaganda. But I do not blame the department in any way. As a matter of fact I said that they had done a very good job of work. I cannot blame them in any way. I want to read another part of this report:

That is quite correct. It is the result of the fact that the farmer does not have the capital. That is the point I wish to make. He does not have the capital and for that reason he cannot undertake these works, amongst other reasons.

The board also stresses the losses due to the drought on unplanned farms, where soil conservation practice has not been applied. I want to emphasize that also. Those farmers who have applied soil conservation methods properly, could stand the drought far better than those who have not. That gives strength to my point that we must do more in order to get these farmers to do the soil conservation work, than we are doing at present. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when we heard that the United Party had asked for 14 hours for this agricultural debate I was very pleased. I was certain that they would bring us new ideas and offer us solutions for the problems being experienced in agriculture. We on this side admit that there are shortcomings. There are major problems in some of the branches of agriculture, but up to now not one of them has come to light with a constructive idea on which we can build. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, spoke about soil conservation, small units and depopulation. Now I want the United Party to tell me: How can one have larger units without depopulation. Surely it is impossible to consolidate. It simply does not work out.

To judge from the way in which the hon. member for Walmer put his case in respect of the neglect and the washing away of our soil, I think he meant it seriously and honestly. He farms in an area, Graaff Reinet, where washaways really take place. But now I simply want to ask him: Does he realize the difficulty of obtaining suitable extension officers?

But that is your responsibility.

Hon. members will tell us that we should pay more to obtain the services of those men, but it is a whole structure which cannot be wrested out of context.

The Commission itself says so.

That is right, yes, but the people have to be found.

After all, we are not the Government.

The position is that we cannot obtain any extension officers to-day.

But there is a shortage of engineers and extension officers to-day; there is almost a shortage of United Party men to-day. The hon. member for Walmer must remember that the work can be done if the staff is available.

The hon. member for Albany discussed the canning industry yesterday, particularly the question of the pineapple industry. He was dissatisfied because Langeberg is going to close down the Port Elizabeth factory. Now I want to tell him something I have always maintained: Efficiency is very important in agriculture. We in this country must compete against the rest of the world with the 115,000 tons of pineapples canned here. We must compete against a country like Hawaii, the geographic situation of which is such that they are able to produce a better quality pineapple.

I am not arguing that point with you.

But where does the fault lie? It does not lie with the farmer. In Hawaii one can cut nine rings out of a pineapple; in South Africa four. We told the pineapple farmers—and I am not reproachimg them—that they were not to neglect trace elements and that they had to apply hormone spraying. The hon. member knows that there are in fact farmers in his constituency who are doing this, and where it is possible to cut nine rings with a square shoulder out of a pineapple.

You are tempting me to reply to you. You might be sorry.

The hon. member is afforded ample opportunity of speaking. He can reply. Now I am asking: Must one hamstring a canning industry so that it loses R380,000 on pineapples in one year? Should one not rather say to it: You must be efficient; take the pineapples from the Peddie area to East London, and concentrate on one factory? I just want to say to the hon. member that we were not unsympathetic towards the pineapple farmers. We realize that they were in difficulties, but there are two sides to every question.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member said the pineapple farmers were inefficient. May I ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied that that factory at Port Elizabeth is efficient?

No, it is definitely not. I do not doubt that for a moment. The old Ford factory is a “monstrosity”. It is impossible to be successful there. I am not saying that all the pineapple farmers are inefficient; the hon. member must not make that mistake.

If, through some freak occurrence in this country, the hon. member for Newton Park were to become Minister of Agriculture then I ask him, arising from what he said yesterday when for 10 minutes he asked the Minister to follow a long-term price policy: Will he get up and say “Next year I shall pay you R3.30 for a bag of mealies”? I am asking the hon. member whether he would be prepared to do that. Is his reply yes or no?

He is shaking his head.

But he is asking the hon. the Minister to lay down a long-term price policy. It is impossible. The United Party must get it into their heads that world supply and demand influences the price of agricultural products in this country.

What did the hon. member for Carletonville say this afternoon?

If one were to read old Hansard reports, one would see that the United Party maintain that nothing controlled by this hon. Minister obtains good prices. They have said it again here. I want to say to-day that if we did not have control over our mealies, wheat, dairy products …

And tobacco.

… and tobacco products, this country would have been in great difficulty. I should like to mention one more matter. This is something which I mentioned during the small Budget debate, namely that there are too many canning factories in our country. A country such as Australia has only five canning factories, whereas South Africa has 32 canning factories. In this respect we are not efficient either. A revolution will take place in respect of the canning industry in South Africa. State aid will be granted to the canning industry, but I want us to realize the fact that we should rather concentrate on one canning factory. I want to mention another matter. There are extension officers and research stations in our country. Personally I feel that we are paying insufficient attention to the work these people are doing. They have no prestige and pride which enables them to say that they have achieved something and that the nation recognizes their services in this respect. I am thinking specifically of the Roodeplaat Research Station near Pretoria. Two men, Carstens and Evans, are doing great work for the fruit farmer of the Transvaal. They have, inter alia, developed a tomato there which is practically mildew-resistant. I am also thinking of the Tobacco Research Station. The people there are saving us millions of rand, because they are now developing a tobacco plant which is vitually free of powdery mildew. I should like to pay tribute to these people at the various research stations for what they are doing for us.

There is one last item I want to ask for, and in point of fact I am addressing my requests to the fertilizer and oil companies in our country. There is a need in this country for a museum to be established for agricultural implements. The old selfbinder is disappearing, and one does not find it anymore. My child does not know what it looks like. There is the old buck-wagon—the farmers will be prepared to donate these …

Cannot we put the Minister there as well?

The hon. member for Newton Park is very irritating. Agriculture, with which we are dealing in this debate, is a very serious matter. The United Party asked for 14 hours for the discussion of agriculture, and have made a mess of it. Here is an hon. Minister who runs four Departments. In the past the United Party also appointed a Minister to run this Department, namely Minister Strauss. What happened then? The farmers were in a miserable situation. I would die of shame if I made a remark like that. I want to leave this idea of a museum at that, because I feel that it will be an encouragement and an incentive for our children, who must also be encouraged to take up agriculture. It will be a good thing if they can see what their grandfathers farmed with. It is very interesting looking at an old iron-wheel tractor. Consequently I should like to put forward this suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, before I discuss soil conservation I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for East London (City), arising from a remark made by myself. His accusation was a disgraceful one, and I hope that the hon. member will read my speech in Hansard. If he would do what I expect from him, as a decent person, he would apologize to me.

The United Party is intimating that they are the people who are supporting the farmers’ case to such an extent. I want to leave this at that and merely add that our actual accusation against the United Party is that they are so unrealistic and so unpractical that they often make the task of the Government more difficult. They maintain that they advocated the Orange River development scheme. That they pleaded for it from time to time is probably true. Who built it? Not only the National Party Government, but the hon. members who pleaded for it as well.

I should now like to say something about soil conservation. If, from time to time, one considers the speeches made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) one sees that they amount to one thing only, and that is that they accuse the farmers of not carrying out their task and of being poor farmers. That is what his entire argument amounts to. He wants the Government to spur on the farmers to an increasing extent, pay more subsidies, and kick up a fuss in order to persuade the farmers to apply soil conservation. Am I correct?

No.

Of course I am correct. I should like to quote what the hon. member said in a previous speech. The hon. member stated in Hansard (1967, Vol. 21, Col. 5373)—

Do you see what that amounts to, Mr. Chairman? The hon. member goes on to say—

In this way I can refer to many parts of the hon. member’s speech. He maintains, in other words, that the farmers are not doing their work and that this Government must persuade them to do their work better. This Government must consequently take the necessary steps to ensure that the farmers carry out soil conservation work. That is what the hon. member’s speeches amount to year after year. What is the position? Does the hon. member really believe what he has said there? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition believe what he said at Swellendam, namely that 600 million tons of soil is being washed away to the sea each year? Does he believe that soil conservation has deteriorated to such an extent?

The Department and others maintain that the downflow of soil has decreased. The percentage is only 8 per cent and it is decreasing annually. Do the hon. members really believe that water erosion is the central problem in regard to soil erosion? Personally I am convinced that we are giving very serious attention to soil conservation methods. I have never doubted this. However, the task which the Opposition is tackling is such a negative one. They apply negative methods by continually accusing the farmers. All their accusations amount to this. I think it is high time the hon. member began tackling the task he would like to undertake for the farmers in some other way. Does the hon. member really believe that so much soil is being washed down to the sea? Then our task would be much easier one of these days. All we would have to do then is to move the land to where the sea is at present. Many of these concrete skyscrapers being built outside, are being built by making use of millions of tons of this washaway soil. Water washing away in rivers is no longer the central problem in regard to soil conservation.

All of us, not only the farmers, live off the soil. Who is abusing the soil, however? Let us have a look. If it is true, and I doubt it that in these years during which we have spent so much on soil conservation the position has deteriorated, then whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Government? One cannot divorce the Department from the Minister. If soil conservation is deteriorating it is either the fault of the Government or it is the fault of the farmer, or it is owing to the fact that people are using the land in some other way. We all make use of the soil. The one consumes land and the other utilizes land. The first 18 to 24 inches comprises the living soil. We must see who is destroying it. Is it water erosion? Is the biggest loss attributable to that?

Now hon. members have one of the easiest debating points they could have found, namely to climb up on a platform and indicate how our soil is being destroyed and how it should be conserved, but indirectly it always amounts to the fact that it is owing to a number of bad farmers who are not carrying out their task, just as they are now stating that the entire farming community is becoming bankrupt; they are in such a hopeless financial position that it would be better for the Government to take millions of rands of the taxpayer’s money and pay them a subsidy to stop farming. It is to this unrealistic modus operandi on the part of the Opposition that we object, because it makes our task inside the Republic more difficult, the task resting on our shoulders which we have to fulfil for the farmers. We must institute a more realistic investigation to find out why the soil is deteriorating. If the Opposition wants us to do so, we will agree with them wholeheartedly, and then they as an Opposition wil help us in this direction, to discuss our problems and to try and solve them. But the Opposition must not act in this irresponsible and unrealistic way and they must not continue making this indirect accusation against the farmer in such a tactless way, and by so doing making our task more difficult. This is the accusation we have against the United Party.

We hope that the United Party will realize its responsibility as an Opposition, and that it will give us its co-operation in that direction. But they are using this debating point merely as an excuse to say that the farmers are bad, and are not performing their task as farmers. All they tell the farmers is that their soil is deteriorating, but in what way is it deteriorating? I repeat that we must investigate this matter. Where are these first 18 inches of living soil going to? Where is one destroying that soil? Where is one utilizing it? It is not water erosion which is causing it to get lost. I accept that we have to make a living out of the soil, but it is being misused.

Take these enormous brick buildings. When will we realize that we can manufacture bricks in some other way than utilizing the first two feet of living soil? When will we realize that the largest portion of our living soil is being utilized to manufacture bricks for tall buildings, and when will we realize that water flowing off the tar roads is washing away our soil, and that it is wrong to subdivide farms injudiciously in order to build more roads? Those are the things we must investigate, instead of climbing up on a platform and saying that the soil is washing away to the ocean. When will the United Party help us by regarding this matter in its correct perspective and tackling the actual problems? [Time expired.]

I should like to have replied to the hon. member for Christiana, but my time is limited. I do want to tell him one thing, though. It seems to me he no longer believes his own Minister, because as the hon. member for Gardens said, his authority for the facts he used is only what the hon. the Deputy Minister himself quoted. Now the hon. member maintains that he does not agree with him; there are other reasons for that. That question of bricks has a bearing on a very small portion of the soil only, for most soil which is used for that purpose does not consist of the first 18 inches. They go much deeper than that.

But I should like to say something about the question of research stations, which the hon. member for Standerton also raised. If we study the amounts in the Estimates, we can come to no other conclusion but that there are injudicious priorities. If we look at Vote 31, item “K”, we find the appropriation which is being made for the various stations, but if we look under “L” we see that an amount of only R 192,000 is being appropriated for new, smaller works and maintenance, for all the 32 stations. Apart from that, if we look at Loan Vote “B”, Technical Services, we see that an amount of approximately R5.25 million has been appropriated. If we take a closer look at that, we would see that Pretoria and its immediate environs is receiving no less than R4.5 million of that R5.25 million. In other words, slightly more than R0.75 million is being voted for the rest of the Republic. To me this looks suspiciously like a case of those who sit closest to the fire. As the hon. member for Standerton said, these research stations are rendering an invaluable service to our farmers in South Africa.

I should just like to mention the one at Döhne in the Eastern Cape, one of the largest, and probably one of the best in its field. I should also like to pay tribute to Mr. Kotzé and his staff at that station, who have under his guidance built up the station from absolutely nothing into the excellent one it is today. As you know, he is the man who developed the Döhne Merino, a variety of sheep which will probably make a major contribution to the sheep and wool industry in South Africa. This is a case where barns and expansions of the utmost importance are needed, but these things are continually being put off because insufficient money is being appropriated. I do not doubt the fact that Pretoria can lay claim to the money which is being appropriated for them, but I should like to bring the matter to the Minister’s attention in the hope that they will investigate the priorities, because this is important.

Here I return to the hon. member for Christiana, because this station I am talking about in the Eastern Cape sees to it that all the knowledge acquired there by perseverance and hard work, is not being locked up in a file or in a safe, but is being made available to farmers who are welcome to go there at any time to look to learn and discuss their problems. That station has influenced farming activities in that region tremendously. This is in fact the fundamental and the gravest problem facing us to-day, i.e. the present shortage of officials and the fact that we are dealing with a farming community which is extremely conservative. The station finds the answer to a problem, but the biggest problem of all is conveying that answer to the farmers, making the farmers realize that it is the answer, and in addition that they, the farmers, must not reject that solution after the first set-back.

Now I know that a great deal of work is being done; volumes and pamphlets by the thousands are being distributed, but we must also realize that the written word only makes an impression on a certain section of the farming community. In general I think it is right to say that the farmers do not readily read scientific literature, they prefer to discuss their problems. And I believe that research stations should create opportunities and expand their activities precisely so as to enable the farmers to come and see what is going on. It is for that reason that I find it is such a pity that the old demonstration farms which once existed have been done away with, because I believe that they served a great purpose. If a farmer can come and see what the farm looked like in the beginning, and he can see what progress is being made over the years, then he can compare it with his own progress, and he will be able to realize precisely why that progress is being made on that farm. There is undoubtedly no better method of convincing a farmer than this see-and-learn method. I believe the need for this was very clearly expressed when Prof. Kolbe addressed the opening congress of the Institute for Agricultural Expansion a year or so ago. Inter alia, he mentioned that a survey had been made in 24 districts. I do not want to state which districts these were, because that does not apply now, but in these 24 districts no fewer than 1,500 farmers were questioned and the following facts came to light: Only 28.4 per cent knew what the purpose of extension services was; 40 per cent of the farmers were over the age of 50 years, and 84 per cent of the farmers were Afrikaans-speaking. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but we do in fact know that the Afrikaans-speaking people are more attached to traditions and that they are less susceptible to changes and new modern methods. It was also found that the desire for change was very low, as well as the level of knowledge. It is interesting to note that in the educational field the position was as follows: 7.2 per cent of the farmers had at one stage or other received university training; 34.7 per cent had only passed Standard 8. Thirty-eight per cent went up to Standard 6 only. It is impossible to make poorly-trained farmers understand scientific methods. The tendency is then to carry on in the old way, and all we have to do in order to overcome this, is to make use of the method I have mentioned. He must come and have a look to see what is going on, and then one persuades him; then it makes no difference what his background is. I therefore want to recommend that this question of conveying knowledge should receive attention, and that the hon. the Minister must take active steps to see to it that the agricultural potential of South Africa can be exploited to better effect in this way.

The hon. member complained that inadequate funds were being voted for research stations. The hon. member knows very well that, just as in all other sectors, a drain of technicians, scientists and experts is taking place. What this Government and the Department are doing to meet this position under these circumstances— and I do not know if the hon. member has already noticed it—is praiseworthy. Does the hon. member not know that the Institute for Agricultural Extension was recently established to gather together under one roof, under the control of the Department, all research which is being done by the various sectors in agriculture, to make the results of research work available to the farmers by means of correct guidance? In South Africa, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the fertilizer companies are doing research; the livestock medicine manufacturers are doing research, and the feed manufacturers, who manufacture stock-licks and so on, are doing research. There is a whole series of these articles coming onto the market and the farmers do not always know which are the most effective. The Department is aware of this problem. That is why this extension institute has been established to determine whether these various types of research cannot be coordinated with a view to achieving proper agreement among the various researchers so that the right products can reach the farmers. I think that the Department is really doing its duty in this regard under difficult circumstances as a result of the large drain of scientists taking place.

The hon. member also maintained that the demonstration farms which existed previously have been done away with and he pleaded for the re-instatement of these demonstration farms. I want to agree with him that these farms have been done away with, but as far as I know new ones are in process of being established. In my area, in the Eastern Highveld, we have the farm Esplè, where a great deal of valuable work is being done, inter alia, management studies by the Agricultural Production Edonomics division. Valuable work is being done and valuable information is being obtained for inter alia the district committees, to assist them in drawing up conservation farming plans.

I should like to return to the hon. member for Gardens, who spoke about soil conservation once again. Mr. Chairman, the Opposition must be wary of one thing now that they have sat in the Opposition benches for 20 years. They are developing a complex which causes them continually to scratch around and look for frustrations; they are losing their capacity to approach matters positively and to overcome problems and suggest solutions. Sir, I should like to prove this by quoting from the speech made by the hon. member for Gardens. What is his solution? He actually summarized this as the crux of his solution for the soil erosion problem in South Africa. I want to quote a part of his speech to him from last year’s Hansard, column 5373—

And so the hon. member continues. Sir, we have long ago passed that stage of soil conservation. I want to say to the hon. member that, as the hon. member for Christiana said to him just now, our farmers are not school children. Our farmers are not unaware of the dangers and problems of soil erosion in South Africa. I want to read to you from the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services what the Department has done in connection with the training of farmers. I believe that the solution is to be found in that.[Interjections.] I am now giving my opinion with reference to an example from the report. Can the hon. member not understand that? I shall now come to the hon. member for Walmer. As far as “Prior to training” is concerned, the average number of committee meetings held per year, i.e. by the soil conservation committees, was 3.5, and as far as“After training” is concerned, it was 5.0. I quote further—

In other words, a tremendous increase. Sir, I agree with the hon. member for Walmer to a certain extent, but what he suggested is not the primary solution to this problem; it is secondary. The follow-up visits are the most important contact points with the farmers in the soil conservation effort, and not the extension officer. The extension officer cannot inspect farm plans all day long to see what progress has been made with conservation farming systems. The farmers must do it themselves, and here we have the proof. The farmer himself is the person who undertakes soil conservation in South Africa. The extension officer is important, but he is mainly the technical adviser to the districts committees. I quote further—

The increase in this case is less than in the case of the previous item, but this is as a result of the drought. I may just say to the hon. member that approximately 1,600 farms were planned quite independently by farmer committee members, according to the latest annual report. Hon. members are aware that these people are receiving training and I believe that the solution to soil conservation is to be found in that, and not so much in the number of extension officers

Mr. Chairman, I want to mention another aspect. The hon. member for Gardens is continually busy measuring the progress made in regard to soil conservation in terms of the works constructed. This may perhaps be a criterion for the present, but we cannot use it as the sole criterion for measuring the progress made in the field of soil conservation in South Africa. To me conservation works are not synonymous with soil conservation, and I shall demonstrate this with an example. Once we have reached the stage of having developed proper conservation farming systems in South Africa, then surely further erosion cannot take place. We must therefore not continually want to measure this physical protection by the progress which is being made in the field of soil conservation. [Time expired.]

I want to support my bench-mate, the hon. member for Standerton, in his plea for a museum for old agricultural implements. It is very interesting to know that in the present Budget an amount of R61,000 has already been voted for the Cultural History and Open-air Museum in Pretoria. It may interest hon. members to know that this open-air museum wil be erected at the Fountain Valley outside Pretoria specifically for this purpose. It will indeed be something of exceptional interest to see all the old agricultural machinery to which my hon. bench-mate referred, standing there in the course of time—the old threshing machines, yokes, old tractors, and so forth.

Since one of the hon. members have referred to all the money being spent on the research stations in and around Pretoria, I should like to refer to inter alia the grass research station at Rietondale, a research station which is definitely worth visiting and which is actually being visited less than it should, and where crossings and specimens of more than 400 cultivars of indigenous grasses from all over the country, even from up in the Caprivi Strip, have been collected. Blue buffel grass and other varieties are being developed there to withstand the various climatic conditions and to yield very large harvests of hay on the veld under natural conditions. This is research which is being done near the agricultural headquarters in Pretoria. Pretoria (District) pre-eminently lends itself to research stations and projects of this nature. I refer to the dairy research station at Irene. I refer to the bulltesting station there; I refer to the artificial insemination station. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has just lef the chamber, because I should very much have liked to refer to a specific place in the Pretoria (District) constituency which lends itself ideally to the establishment of an agricultural high school, namely Tiegerpoort and its environs on the same pattern as the Bekker Agricultural High School near Magaliesberg. A need exists for such a school

Mr. Chairman, typical of the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition this afternoon were the contradictions in their arguments. I refer, for example, to the hon. member for Walmer who said that as far as soil conservation was concerned, the extension officer was the pivot on which everything hinged. He suggested by implication that the extension officers were doing too little work. What is the real situation, and how does this handful, handful according to him. of extension officers reach the farmers of the country? According to the annual report, page 5, the following individual contacts were made with farmers during the year: Farm visits, 53,885; personal interviews at offices, 27,802; interviews by telephone, 70,022; by correspondence, 11,054. Is this not crystal-clear proof of how the extension officers are succeeding in making first-hand contact with the farmer on his farm and with his problems?

May I ask a question?

Mr. Chairman. I should just like to complete my speech. The hon. member for King William’s Town quite rightly said that the farmers were conservative and that it was a problem to convey processed information to them because they are not avid readers. The hon. member is perfectly right, but he keeps quiet about the very large role played by the agricultural radio programme. which is broadcast every day from 1.30 p.m. and which disseminates an enormous amount of topical information, and to which thousands of farmers listen. Sir, if hon. members of the Opposition who are speakers on agriculture would go so far as to listen to these agricultural radio programmes during the day, they would perhaps also be able to make speeches of a better quality in this House. To-day I want to pay tribute to the part played by the agricultural radio programmes and their broadcasting staff.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has already emphasized that if the requests of the Opposition were to be met, every farmer in the country would have to be provided with an official to farm for him. This would be to undermine the sense of independence of our farmers, something which has characterized them all these years. The attitude adopted by the Government and the agricultural departments to-day is to help the man who wants to help himself, who can help himself. If the Opposition still has a great deal more to say, we must look at their record. I want to look at their record in respect of soil and water conservation. Just listen to this. Up to 1947 their record reads as follows: Farm works completed: none; Government works completed: none; subsidies paid: none; rebates on loans granted: none; subsidies on establishment of lay crops and on artificial fertilizer: none; loans granted in this connection: none. That is their record. And what was the position in the year 1967? Let us take a look. Farm works to an amount of R247,000 were completed; Government works completed: R823.000; subsidies paid: R1l½ million; rebates granted on loans: more than R3 million; subsidies on establishment of lay crops: R261,000; loans granted in this connection: R15 million.

I also want to quote the example of agricultural study bursaries. Since 1948, just after we came into power, more than R1½ million has been granted in respect of 1.454 pre-graduate bursaries. In addition R632.300 has been granted in bursaries to 336 post-graduate students. This is for the training of scientists. Five hundred and fifty-seven research officers and 275 extension officers, all trained persons, were placed in the service of the agricutural industry; 1,065 trained technicians were employed. The number of extension posts was doubled, and the conditions of service were in fact improved. In 1948 there was one extension officer for every 1,400 farmers. To-day there is one for every 600 farmers. Is this not a big improvement?

Agricultural exports are a direct reflection of the achievements of our agriculture. Processed products have increased four-fold since the time of that side. Citrus products have increased three-fold, so that to-day we export about 400,000 tons a year. Deciduous fruit exports have increased from 35,000 tons in 1947 ’48—that was during the Strauss-period—to 200.000 tons to-day. For every box which they exported in 1948, we now export 20 boxes.

What about farmers’ earnings to-day? The net value of agricultural production after deduction of all expenses, interest on capital, wages, and so forth, was R139 million in 1947, while in 1967 it was R640 million. This represents an increase of 360 per cent. But those hon. members opposite want to criticize. As they rightly mentioned, the number of farming units has in fact decreased. But let us look at the income. The average income per white farming unit in 1947-’48 was a mere R 1,160 per year, whereas by 1967 an increase of 192 per cent had taken place, and in that year it stood at R3,200. This represents an annual composite increase of 5.5 per cent, which compares favourably with the growth rate in the rest of our economy. I challenge any hon. member opposite to prove the contrary.

Then there are economic achievements in our agriculture which are totally ignored by those hon. members. Over the past 20 years the physical volume of agricultural production in this country increased by as much as 122 per cent. I challenge them to refute that as well. Agronomy increased by 174 per cent. Horticulture increased by 163 per cent. Animal husbandry by 66 per cent. Are these the signs of a frustrated farming community? The gross value of this physical volume of agricultural production increased from R376 million in their time to R1,307 million to-day. This represents an increase of 248 per cent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) has come here with a long string of figures which purport to show the agricultural industry is in a very sound condition. However, I do not think the hon. member has replied to the question we on this side have posed throughout this whole debate, namely whether the agricultural industry is to-day in a sound financial position, whether it is able to bear interest on the debt which it owes this Government, whether it is able to bear interest on the debt it owes private concerns and private banks? There has never been a period when agriculture has been more in debt than to-day. With all respect to the hon. member and all the figures he can quote, despite the fact that this Government has been in office for 20 years already, there has never been a time when the agricultural industry has been deeper in debt than to-day. Not only to the Landbank but to every single organization which lends money in this country, at a rate of interest which the agricultural industry cannot bear.

I want to raise a certain matter with the hon. the Minister which is of particular concern to my own constituency and that is the matter of the American bramble. This matter Has been taken up at the highest level in Natal by organized agriculture, and with very good reason. [Interjection.] Yes, organized agriculture in Natal even represents people like the hon. member for Vryheid. People have come together in Natal determined to combat this menace and to do something positive about combating this menace which is spreading in Natal.

Like the United Party?

One day no doubt we will get over the new rinderpest that hit our country when the Nationalist Party came into power, but until that day comes I am talking about the American bramble. The Natal Agricultural Union went to the trouble of conducting a survey in Natal which established that there are some 70,000 acres infested with American bramble which in effect renders that ground completely useless for agricultural or pastoral use of any sort. Moreover, it is spreading year by year. It is spread by human agency and by birds, and it is something we believe has got to be controlled now. It is possible to control it by way of ploughing or by continuous mowing, but that cannot be done on stony ground or in very inaccessible places where that weed is spreading. Of course, burning has no effect on it at all because bramble kills the grass underneath but the fire does not burn the bramble itself.

Organized agriculture in Natal started a programme which kicked off with the slogan “Unite to Beat the Bramble Blight”, and the whole of organized agriculture to-day is giving its attention to eliminating the bramble. The N.A.U. prevailed upon the chemical company which supplies the chemical which to-day will kill bramble, to provide free one gallon of this chemical to every farmer who purchased four gallons with the intention of eliminating the bramble on his farm. Four gallons of this chemical costs R200, and it is clear it is a considerable gesture on the part of the company concerned. I think it is something for which we should express our appreciation here. It will play a significant role in encouraging people to incur that additional expense connected with taking the first step. Of course, the Department does recognize the seriousness of the American bramble and it was declared a noxious weed some two or three years ago. However, for many years before that the Department would not declare it a noxious weed because there was no effective way of destroying it. One of my farmers’ associations took great trouble in doing research work to find out how this chemical can best be used, to establish a cost for its use, and they have established that it works out at R30 per acre. This cost includes the tractor operator’s wage, fuel, the cost of the chemical, transport, and so on. They went to considerable trouble to establish this as a cost. I do not know if the hon. the Minister has a cost which he can put against that but I believe it to be a fair and reasonable cost. I went into the figures and I think it is very reasonable. When you have 70,000 acres infested With American bramble and you reckon the cost of eliminating it by means of chemical spraying at R30 per acre, it works out at R2 million. This is of course a tremendous amount of money. I want to stress that this is not a national problem because the bramble does not spread throughout South Africa. The problem is largely—but not exclusively— confined to the higher rainfall areas of Natal. It is precisely these areas which to-day have one of the greatest food-growing potentials in the whole of South Africa, namely the higher rainfall areas of Natal. I believe it is time the Department took a hand in sharing the cost we are going to have to bear to get rid of the American bramble. It is spreading out towards every Bantu location up in the foothills of the Berg. As the hon. member for South Coast said, if it once develops a mutant, a new variety which has adapted itself to local conditions, it can spread throughout the whole province of Natal. I believe it is of sufficient urgency to ask the hon. the Minister that he will consider this problem again. The spreading is going up from an area such as Mooiriver, which in the past was regarded too cold for bramble, even further into the valleys of the Berg. Once it gets right into the foothills of the Berg, where there is no established intensive farming, it is in very grave danger of getting out of control altogether. I believe that the hon. the Minister and his Department should look at this and I make a plea to him here to-day to meet the farming community of Natal to make some kind of a gesture to subsidize the chemical which is going to be required to eliminate the American bramble in the province. It is a plant which lends itself readily to chemical control. It flowers with a brilliant white flower. It can be very readily spotted. It is an easy matter to spray it. In areas where tractors and vehicles cannot get in, it is possible by means of knapsack sprayers and other sprayers to control it. I think the time has come that we should realize that this is something which has to be destroyed now, before it gets out of hand, before it spreads beyond the control of the farmer who is in permanent residence on his farm, and gets into the foothills of the Berg, where there is extensive grazing only.

There is another matter which I should like to raise here briefly, namely the question of the study groups which have been established in Natal and in certain other areas to go into the economics of farming, studying in every particular soil conservation district the detailed cost of the production on individual farms and the method employed in calculating the cost down to the most accurate figure possible and then comparing individual farms to find out why one farmer can produce at a lower cost tihan another. This is something which has produced very interesting results, certainly, in certain areas like Underberg and in Mooiriver, in my own area of Lions River. We believe this is something which will play a considerable part in bringing home to the farmer on a practical basis how he can cut his costs by seeing how his neighbour, the man working in exactly the same area with the same price structure and the same costs, can produce a gallon of milk, a pound of wool or a ton of wattle bark, or whatever the case may be, cheaper than another farmer can do. This is something which I think poses a problem, because one usually finds that in a district where a study group is formed, they tend to be among the younger group of farmers, and there is always a certain amount of resistance to the results achieved by the study group among the other farmers who perhaps feel left out of it, or something of that nature. I do not know why it happens; but that seems to be the case. I believe it is here that the extension officer plays such an important part, to be able to act as the disseminator of the information, the person who will check and evaluate information. Because they found at Underberg—they put it forward as a theory— that to produce milk in the winter, it was cheaper to produce by providing silage rather than planting green crops. For a couple of years, this was a generally held theory, until somebody checked up and they found in point of fact that the milk production was going down. They were comparing it over a series of seasons. Now they have gone back to the production of green feed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I quoted from the report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and I said, inter alia, that the gross revenue for agricultural products had increased from R376.2 million to R 1,307.1 million.

Order! This is the fifth time that I have heard that figure this afternoon.

But, Mr. Chairman, I said that I had quoted it yesterday. I do not deny that I mentioned it.

But the hon. member must not repeat himself.

The statement I want to make is that an hon. member in the Opposition back-benches then said that he could not really understand why I had quoted this figure and what I had wanted to prove by it. But I want to agree with the hon. member for Bethal in that he said that one actually had to teach the hon. Opposition. The longer one teaches them the closer they may perhaps come to the truth.

We are looking for better teachers though.

I want to protest on behalf of the farmer of South Africa against the fact that wherever the United Party go in the rural areas they spread the gossip that the farmers are in fact having a very hard time, while the statistics on page 148 of the report, which cover all those fields, indicate that the farmers had a tremendous increase in production revenue from 1947-’48 to 1966-’67

The farmers are doing well!

The point is that it would be very stupid and ignorant of the farmers if they, notwithstanding the fact that they were doing badly, produced more of particular products and of every product which was mentioned here, and by so doing increased their losses, if the United Party’s assertions are correct.

Why then are their debts increasing?

Their debts are increasing because they have much more intelligence than the United Party, whose numbers are decreasing. If people’s initiative has become static their debts also become static, and if their initiative goes down it is logical that their debts must also go down. I am not suggesting by that that persons whose debts have increased have necessarily made more progress, but if I look at these production figures, it is logical that persons who wanted to make certain investments decided, on their own initiative and with assistance from both outside and inside the agricultural sector, that it was worth while for them to incur greater debts in order to increase their production and to try to supply cheaper food to the population of the Republic.

I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River, and I want to agree with him. The bramble bush in Natal has become an evil. It must be combated. I understand it is encroaching upon as much as 169,000 acres of our good grazing land in Natal and Griqualand East, and it is already spreading to the colder areas, as the hon. member said. But what intriqués me is that the hon. member is now appealing to this inefficient Department with its inefficient Minister for assistance. In that way he is subtly admitting that he has confidence in them. But he does not want to express it, because if we aise and thank the Department and the Ministers of Agriculture for what they have done, they laugh and scornfully refer to the “so-called” good Departments.

But to-day I want to pay tribute in regard to a specific aspect, which has actually not yet been mentioned in this debate, namely the fact that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has succeeded in controlling East Coast fever to such an extent that it has never occurred in the past 14 years. If any person cannot realize the implications of the control of East Coast fever, that person should go to the Lowveld regions, and especially to Natal, where it was very acute, to see what is going on there. I want to suggest that, in controlling East Coast fever, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has opened up an area in the lowveld regions of Natal, provided that water is supplied. But I do not want to discuss the question of water at the moment, because the hon. the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs will probably give attention to this question later. In doing this the Department has opened up an area for the Whites, who were apparently more seriously affected by East Coast Fever as it used to exist in the past. This area can eventually serve as a vegetable-producing area for the rest of Natal and also for large parts of the Republic. Because of the fact that that area is low-lying and reasonably level and because there is plenty of water in the high-lying parts and the soil is good silt, that large area between the Lebombo and Ubombo Mountains on the one side and the Rooirande and the Bantu areas on the other side as far as Mtubatuba and even further up to Empangeni, can be developed into the vegetable-producing area of our country. We know that with the provision of water to the Makatini area the possibility also exists there for similar development. But I want to suggest that the soil between the Lebombo and Ubombo on the one side and the Rooirande on the other side down to the coast is very much drier, of a much better quality and much easier to cultivate than the soil behind the Lebombo and Ubombo Mountains. I am referring to the so-called Makatini flats. When I was a provincial councillor, I was cosely connected with the control of foot-and-mouth disease as undertaken by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I now want to say that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services was involved in a dire struggle with certain Parks Board officials to obtain their co-operation in preventing foot-and-mouth disease, which is endemic to the adjacent neighbouring states, from spreading to our Natal livestock regions. They succeeded in doing so. For that reason we of Natal want to pay tribute—and this includes the country and the United Party-—to the Department for the great service which it was able to render there with its limited staff in eventually controlling foot-and-mouth disease so that it remained where it was endemic. In the area which I have just mentioned, the position has developed since the extermination of East Coast Fever that the fibre industry is being concentrated upon. As dry regions those areas, are extremely suitable for the planting of sisal. Many thousands of morgen are already under cultivation. Many of the factories which extract fibre from sisal are situated there. I have nothing against that, but I do want to suggest that if water should become available there, sisal would yield a much poorer crop than the products which can be cultivated under irrigation there. But higher up, in the parts where the so-called wattlebark tree once reigned supreme and was a profitable product for. I almost want to say, persons who are less prepared to work hard, the farmers have planted phormium tenax. Now we have a particular problem there. As a result of this we want to make a plea to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and through the Minister to the C.S.I.R. to design a defibring machine for us by means of which we can make that fibre softer and more serviceable so that we may eventually make our own bags and will not need to import them from other countries. This will also make these bags cheaper. The present machines in existence for extracting fibre from phormium tenax are unsuitable because the tonnage which they can yield per day is very low. In addition they are also of little use as regards improving the quality of the fibre and its strength, because the extracting of fibre from phormium tenax is still in the development stage in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River will not take it amiss of me if I do not follow him up. He raised a few good points here and I think that the hon. the Minister will definitely give the necessary attention to them. But I want to give the Opposition some more advice. I advise them rather to give up the fight at this stage and to throw in the towel, because the longer they keep on levelling charges against the Government’s policy, the deadlier the evidence against them becomes. They will run the risk of also losing the little prestige which they still have. I therefore think they may as well desist at this stage.

There are two matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first matter relates to those farmers who farm on proclaimed mining land. They are not very happy about the new system of allotting grazing rights. In the past it was the practice that farmers could apply for grazing rights on available farms at a fixed tariff per head of cattle. Now it is being said that that old system is going to be done away with. The farmers maintain that if the tender system is applied—and that is the system which I believe is now going to be introduced—the poor man will be forced out altogether. I do not say that he will be forced out, but he may be forced out. The rich speculator will then submit the highest tender and consequently stand the best chance of obtaining those grazing rights. There are farmers who have been farming there for 20 years and more and they have also effected many improvements there. They were the pioneers of that area. They civilized it and now they are feeling rather concerned about the possible threat to their existence, seeing that after five years, when the period for which they have leased the land will have expired and new tenders will be called for, someone will be able to come along and submit a higher tender than they are able to do. Then they will simply have to vacate the land. If this should be the case they feel that it will cause total disruption. That is why we are asking the hon. the Minister to consider this matter very seriously and that when they call for tenders for grazing rights, they will take into account not only the value of the tender as such, but also other factors on the basis of which they can select the farmers. There are many other decisive factors and the farmers feel that it cannot simply be left to the highest tenderer. We shall appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister can give us a little more information about this matter as regards the way in which it will function and in which it will affect the farmers who have been living there all these years. I want to plead that they should always be taken into account in this case. We feel that they deserve consideration by virtue of the good service which they have rendered there all these years. I therefore want to make a very earnest plea on their behalf that they should always be given priority over new tenderers in respect of the existing land.

I now come to the next matter which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It happens from time to time, and it has happened again recently, even here in the Western Cape, that an article appears in the Press in which mention is made of losses suffered by the tomato farmers. I am thinking more specifically now of the farmers who grow tomatoes for factories which produce tomato purée. At the same time tomato purée is being imported for the fish-canning factories. In my constituency there are also many tomato farmers who grow tomatoes for tomato purée factories. I am thinking of Hoedspruit, for example. It has already happened that the hon. the Minister even had to grant a subsidy to the factory to enable it to buy the farmers’ products. It has also happened that hundreds of tons of tomatoes, although I would not say thousands, had to be thrown away because the factories could not take them. They maintained that there was no demand for it, as there was a surplus. At the same time it is maintained that purée was imported for the fish-canning factories. We should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us how such a thing can happen. The farmers are not very happy about it and they hope that the hon. the Minister will give the necessary attention to it and will see to it that this will not happen again in future.

A short while ago the hon. member for Vryheid mentioned figures here in regard to the way production had allegedly increased. He considered those figures to be proof for saying that the farmers were doing well. But what he omitted to do, was to tell us how production costs have increased, and these costs have increased more rapidly than have the prices of products themselves. Therefore, the fact that there has been increased production does not necessarily mean that the farmers are doing well.

Why do you persist in running down the farmers?

I find it strange that hon. members opposite are suggesting that we are running down the farmers. We are farmers ourselves—why would we run down ourselves? The hon. member for Standerton who made that interjection may be a better farmer than I am, but as a farmer I, too, do my best. We are not running the farmers down. On the contrary, we are merely pleading for farmers here.

The hon. member for Bethal reacted to a speech which I made under this Vote last year and in which I dealt with the manufacture of short films. Recently we had the Festival of the Soil, the main purpose of which was to bring the necessity of soil conservation to the notice of the population as a whole. Soil conservation is a national cause and as such it affects everybody—the city dweller as well as the farmer.

Who arranged that festival? The Department did.

Yes, and they deserve the highest commendation for having done so. I have always said that the Department is a first-rate one. But I want to return to my point. I say that soil conservation concerns the city dweller as much as it does the farmer, and it is therefore imperative for the city dweller to be made as conscious of the necessity of soil conservation as is the case with the farmer. Therefore I did not think it necessary for soil conservation films to be shown at the smaller towns to the farmers of the district. I know that the farmers are conscious of the soil erosion that takes place and the necessity of soil conservation. But this does not apply in the case of city dwellers, and that is why it is necessary for them to be made conscious of these things. That was why I said that this type of film should be shown in the cities. To-day I want to repeat that suggestion here. We must make our entire population aware of the necessity of soil conservation. That is why the city dweller, who has a major interest in this matter, should also be provided with proper guidance in this regard. For this purpose short films on soil conservation may be the best method. I believe that it would bear fruit.

Now I wish to address a few words to my good old friend, the hon. member for Christiana. He claims that I am blaming the farmer and the Government for the condition of our soil. The statement that I blamed the farmer for that, is definitely untrue. Never for one single moment did I say that the farmer was the cause of that. In cases where farmers do not apply soil conservation methods, it can be attributed to a shortage of capital. The hon. the Minister responded to that by saying that such farmers could borrow the money and obtain a subsidy. But the fact of the matter is that a farmer who already finds himself in financial difficulties, cannot afford to take even greater liabilities upon himself. The income of many farmers to-day is so meagre that they cannot afford to withdraw some of their veld from grazing or to allow certain lands to lie fallow for a while. Nevertheless, it is important that they be placed in a position in which they would be able to do so. I am sure that my good old friend, the hon. member for Christiana, did not read the report of the Soil Conservation Board.

I did.

If that is the case, he did not read it thoroughly enough. I have here the latest annual report of the Soil Conservation Board for the period 1st July, 1966, to 30th June, 1967, I need not tell you who the people are who serve on that Board, except to say that they are exceptionally competent people, people who are dedicated to the cause of soil conservation. I want to quote a few passages from this report. On page I we find the following—

I have already made the statement here that there is deterioration as far as that matter is concerned. The hon. member for Christiana denied it. But I repeat that statement of mine. The report states further—

It is absolutely essential that we should bring the gravity of the situation to everybody’s notice. Then the report refers to the proclamation of districts, the planning of farms, and so forth, and goes on to say—

I agree.

I am very glad to hear that. And our whole argument was, after all, that the tempo should be accelerated. But let me continue with the passage I am quoting—

I want to advise the hon. member to read the report once again, for the point we are making here is that soil conservation is of the greatest importance. Soil deterioration is a national disaster, and the rate at which we are working, is not fast enough. [Time expired.]

Hon. members will, of course, not take it amiss of me if on this occasion I do not reply to all the requests of a local nature that were made to me. I repeat that we shall see to it that the Department furnishes those hon. members with replies. Nevertheless, there are a few matters to which I should like to reply. I find it strange that when the hon. member for Vryburg made reference here to the revenue earned by the agricultural industry, hon. members opposite were very quick to ask: But what about the production costs? But when hon. members opposite quote figures in regard to the amount of money farmers owe and how their debts have increased over the past twenty years, they omit to mention to what extent investment in the agricultural industry has increased. Is it the same type of thing. I want to mention just one figure as an example—a comparison with 1948. In 1948 there were 10,000 tractors in the agricultural industry; at present there are 170,000. I shall estimate the value of the tractors on a very conservative basis, i.e. at R2,000 each. Actually one can only buy the smaller type of tractor for that price. This simply means that over the past twenty years—merely in respect of tractors in use at present— the capital investment has increased by R320 million, and this amount does not even include implements. In referring to the increase in debts, one should also consider what progress has been made in regard to investment in recent years, including investments in land, in property. The price of land has increased tremendously and huge investments have been made in land. But this is what I want to say: The impression that is being created, is that this R 1,000 million, which is the amount the agricultural industry owes, a figure that is mentioned time and again, represents money loaned to farmers at an interest rate of 10 per cent. This is not entirely correct, because more than half of that debt is being held by the Land Bank and by the Agricultural Credit, charging, on the one hand, a subsidized interest rate of 5 per cent, and, on the other hand, a fixed interest rate of 6 per cent in respect of private investments. I should just like to put this matter in its correct perspective, for when we talk about debt it is not necessarily proof to the effect that the deterioration in the financial position of the farmers is directly proportional to the increase in their burden of debt. This also applies to any company which expands and which incurs debts for the purpose of implementing its programme of expansion. Such a company also has a major burden of debt, but that does not necessarily mean that it is uneconomic. But the impression created by hon. members opposite, is that this is the position.

The other accusation that is being levelled is that the Government is saying that there are no problems in the agricultural industry, but, surely, it is absurd to suggest anything of that nature. Nobody claimed that every sector of the agricultural industry was doing well. The fact of the matter is that all the aids introduced by the Government, were introduced for the very reason that it thought that certain sectors of the agricultural industry were struggling. If the Government thought that all sectors of the agricultural industry were doing well, it would after all have been ridiculous to ask the taxpayers to make a contribution towards helping that sector. Nobody is claiming that all sectors are doing well, although there are some sectors that are doing well. But this is the position: when one wants to apply relief measures for solving these problems that do exist in the agricultural industry, one has to do so in such a way that they are effective and that they will not undermine or damage the industry further in the future. We do not merely want to save a small group of farmers from ruin. We must also have regard to the future of the industry, and that is as applicable to the determining of the price of products. After all, if the price one determines for one product is totally disproportionate to the structure of agriculture as a whole and to other prices, it must inevitably mean that one is undermining the whole structure. But one does not merely undermine the structure; one is in actual fact promoting the exhaustion and the exploitation of the soil, since one might be stimulating that particular product unnecessarily.

Hon. members also spoke about soil conservation, and nobody takes that amiss of hon. members opposite. Nor did the hon. member for Christiana take it amiss of the hon. member for Gardens when he called attention to the dangers of soil erosion, but what he did take amiss of the hon. member was, in the first place, that he tried to create the impression that the Government was to blame for the total deterioration of our soil and, in the second place, that he said that the Government was doing nothing to remedy this position. [Interjection.] He also said that as a result of the steps taken by the Government it was steadily getting worse. That is the impression which the hon. member created and to which the hon. member for Christiana objected. This whole attack was sparked off as a result of the statement that this Government was not carrying out to the full its duty in regard to soil conservation. The whol impression the hon. member is creating, is that the Government alone can prevent soil erosion from taking place. At least, this is the impression the hon. member gave me. I may have misunderstood him. The hon. member might not have meant it that way, but this is the impression he creates. I do not suppose that there is anybody in South Africa—and least of all this Government and its Departments of Agriculture—who is not concerned about the deterioration of our agricultural land. But the figures quoted by hon. members do not prove that nothing is being done for soil conservation. There are many farmers who do a great deal in respect of soil conservation, without availing themselves of any of the relief measures provided by the Government. Never in my life have I asked for a loan or a subsidy in respect of soil conservation, and hon. members are welcome to inspect my land. In any case, it looks a great deal better than it did 30 years ago. The point is that the soil conservation work with which the Government was concerned, forms only a small part of the total soil conservation work carried out. At least 27 per cent of our farmers apply soil conservation themselves, and when I talk about soil conservation, I agree with the hon. member for Bethal that soil conservation does not merely mean making contours and dams and blocking gullies. It also means the correct utilization of our soil. I would agree with the hon. member if he were to make a speech in which he would try to draw the attention of the public to the question of the deterioration of our soil, and I would help him to do so.

But that is what I want.

In that case the hon. member must state it more clearly. I admit that we do have difficulties owing to the manpower shortage, which exists everywhere, but even in our soil conservation effort there are works which have been approved by the officials, but which are not being completed by the people.

Why not?

The hon. member said that the reason for this was that the funds were lacking, but in each of those years I mentioned funds that were originally voted as subsidies on soil conservation schemes, were paid back into the Treasury because those works had not been completed. [Interjection.] One of the hon. members opposite, if not the hon. member for Gardens, said that these works had not been carried out because the funds had not been available. But the fact of the matter is that funds had been made available in the Estimates and that they had had to be paid back into the Treasury by the end of the year in question, simply because those works had not been completed.

Why were those works not completed?

Because the farmers did not carry out those works.

Why did they not carry out those works?

You cannot ask me that. How am I to know? If a farmer’s plan has been approved and he is granted the loan but fails to carry out the work, I cannot help it. In the first place, the farmer made application and, in the second place, the work was surveyed and approved and, in the third place, he obtained the Department’s approval to carry on and to spend the funds to do so. Am I now to account for the reasons why every farmer in South Africa did not do so? I would know why I did not do so on my own farm, but I do not know what reasons the other people have.

Surely, if there are so many there must be a reason.

There are farmers who have had loans for those soil conservation works for a long time and who have as yet carried out no work. In recent times we have effected changes in this regard. There are cases of farmers who have obtained loans from the State but who have as yet not carried out soil conservation work. Now one has to prosecute him, because he obtained the money but did not do anything. If, owing to the fact that he failed to do the work within a certain period of time, we were to prosecute him, the complaint of those hon. members would be that we were persecuting them. We are aware of those things, and that was why we convened a special conference of soil conservation committees in Bloemfontein at the beginning of this year, a conference where we reviewed the past 20 years and asked the committees to put forward suggestions. The hon. member ought to have made definite proposals. I have certain proposals in mind as to what we can do. The question I ask myself is whether a subsidized system with a loan is the right system whereby it should be financed, or whether we should not introduce a system of merely granting a loan which can be written off. But that is by the way. We had this conference, and our most important task is to get the farmers to apply these soil conservation practices on their farms. Hon. members are saying that the farmer cannot afford to apply them, since he has to keep too much stock in order to make ends meet. If the application of soil conservation in South Africa means that one has to derive reduced income as a result, then our entire soil conservation effort must fail.

Soil conservation is a long-term policy.

Of course, it is a longterm policy, but the fact remains that soil conservation is not merely a question of conserving the soil. The soil one conserves is being farmed on; it does not merely lie fallow. If one is to have land which simply lies fallow, its conservation does not mean a thing. The best method of conserving soil is to withdraw all the stock in South Africa from the land and to have the Government subsidize everybody, but that is unpractical. Soil must be conserved in such a way that it can still be utilized: it must still be possible for the farmer to farm on it. But now I ask myself the other question of what soil conservation really is. It is not only the soil itself that has to be conserved. What is the quality of the stock grazing on the land at times? If farmers improved the quality of their stock, they would be in a position to keep a smaller number of stock and to have the same income.

Then the farmers are once again to blame?

No, I do not say that the farmers are to blame. To a very large extent some farmers are to blame. The hon. member should not tell me that it is only the poor farmer, the one who is struggling, who cannot apply soil conservation. Even amongst the biggest and richest farmers there are some who do not apply soil conservation but overcropping, because they want to derive the highest possible income. I say that the whole question of soil conservation in South Africa is a question of education. We must educate the farmers. It is maintained that there is no guidance, but the necessary guidance is being provided. If the farmers would go to the information department and ask how these things are done, they would hear. And they need not only go to the Department; they could go to their fellow farmers who do apply soil conservation. But do you think they want to do that? It is not always the case that they do not want to do it because they do not have the capital. Sometimes they do not want to do so because they think that they are not going to derive enough income from it. That is why I say that the task of soil conservation is more specifically a task of education than it is a task of financing, and for that we do not only need our extension officers; for that we also need the soil conservation committees and all those people who can co-operate to get our farmers to realize the importance of that idea.

Now the hon. members have come forward with a second point. They are talking about a shortage of guidance and extension officers. We have problems with people who are lured away from the Public Service by other bodies. But what I find strange, is that farmers are complaining about the shortage of officers, and then these companies, such as fertilizer companies and others, come along and they lure those very same extension officers into their service and employ them in the same towns where the State stationed them. Those companies employ them in the same towns where they have been working for the State, and then the farmers go to them for guidance. They could have availed themselves of the services of those extension officers free of charge while they were still working for the Department, but the moment they are employed by a company which makes a profit out of them, the farmers are more willing to approach the company than they were to approach the Department. The hon. member is shaking his head.

At many places you do not have extension officers.

Of course, there are such places. This is why it is so: If one has an extension officer at Bethal to-day and he is lured away by a company, then one has to station another one there and then there is, in turn, a vacancy at another place. Surely, the hon. member will be able to understand that.

But you have closed some of those offices.

I also want to tell the hon. member this: It is the duty of the farmers to co-operate with the extension service. We are trying to obtain closer co-operation with our farmers’ associations and the agricultural organizations. Through our economic guidance and extension services, etc., we have in certain parts succeeded to a very large extent in drawing people into study groups to cooperate with the Department. We are succeeding in that and in certain parts of the country we have had great success in this regard. In other parts, where farmers are less willing to co-operate, we have not been quite as successful. But the fact remains that with the cooperation of the farmers through their organizations, one extension officer can do much more extension service than he would when sitting in his office in town, without getting any assistance from organized agriculture or from the farmers in that district, or when he has to visit each farmer on his own farm. I told hon. members yesterday how many farms had been visited. We agree that soil conservation is important to us, and we are trying to develop it as much as possible. In the Orange River region we established a special soil conservation section under a special head to further soil conservation in the catchment-areas of the Orange River so as to prevent siltation. All these things are being done.

It is very late.

Of course, it is late, and it will always be late, for one does after all not combat a problem before it arises.

But the problem of silt has been there for many years.

The farmers who were living in that area, have always had the right to make use of the relief measures placed at their disposal by the State, but they did not do so. That is the whole point.

Mr. Chairman, I want to touch upon another matter, i.e. the question of the training of veterinary surgeons, to which one of the hon. members also referred. The hon. member also referred to the training of veterinary surgeons at Onderstepoort, and he asked that Onderstepoort should no longer fall under the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, the research institute at Onderstepoort has fallen under the Department all these years, and under that system it has developed into being one of the best known research institutes for research into stock diseases in the whole world. Whether the time has come for Onderstepoort to be under a new set-up, is a question about which one can argue. I know that recommendations were made in that regard. Up to the year before last, after the expansion of the previous generation, the facilities we had at Onderstepoort were such that we could enrol all the students who wanted to receive training there. Hon. members will perhaps tell me that it is not so easy for all the people all over the country to go to Onderstepoort. We realize that there is a shortage of veterinary surgeons. We realize that the Department in particular has problems in this regard, and we also realize that there are more applications for admission, and for that reason we have now instructed the Prime Minister’s scientific adviser to investigate this matter further. The instructions we gave him, area as follows: (1) to determine whether a need exists for a larger number of white veterinary surgeons to be trained annually in the Republic; (2) if such a need exists, to determine the number of students for whom provision has to be made, where and how it should be done, i.e. through extending the training facilities at Onderstepoort or through the establishment of a second faculty of veterinary science at one of the existing universities, and (3) to determine the staff and facilities required, with an estimate of the capital requirements and current annual expenditure. To establish such a training centre for veterinary surgeons, requires an enormous amount of capital, but apart from the capital one also needs the staff to train those people. One can understand that Grahamstown would want such an institute, that Stellenbosch would want one, that all universities would want one and that Onderstepoort would want to expand its own institute. But in establishing such an institute, it is essential that we should do so on a basis which would in the first instance provide the best training for the students, on the best economic basis, and on a basis which also takes into account the available manpower for the purpose of training, and it is for that reason that we instructed the Prime Minister’s scientific adviser to continue the investigation into this matter. As soon as he submits his report, we shall of course act on his recommendations. I just want to tell hon. members that we are in fact engaged in an investigation into the desirability of the provision of extra facilities for the training of veterinary surgeons.

Owing to the pressure we on this side have brought to bear.

Sir, to me it is wonderful that the Opposition have been bringing pressure to bear for 20 years and have as yet accomplished nothing. According to hon. members on that side everything the Government does, is being done owing to the pressure brought to bear by that side.

You submit but you take a long time.

That hon. member should kindly refrain from mentioning “pressure”; there is only one person who has brought pressure to bear upon him, and that is why he is still sitting here. Mr. Chairman, the provision of additional facilities will be investigated and those facilities will be created if it appears to be necessary. If we feel that additional facilities should be created, we shall decide where and on what basis they are to be created.

I just want to say a few words with further reference to the speech made by the hon. member for King William’s Town. He referred to research facilities and he said that if he looked at the Estimates and especially at the Loan Votes, it seemed to him as though everything was concentrated up in Pretoria and as though the other research stations were getting nothing. But, surely, this is very logical. The hon. member must remember that we effected tremendous expansions at Onderstepoort and that we had to erect large buildings for research at the University of Pretoria. It so happens that both are situated in the North, but next year it may happen that those facilities would have to be established at Stellenbosch or at Grootfontein or wherever. The hon. member should not look at the Loan Votes for one year and then say that all the facilities are concentrated in one place. When we come to research and especially to basic research, and especially in a certain field, we must ask ourselves whether we are to carry out dairy research at every experimental station; whether we are to carry out tobacco research, or fruit research, or animal husbandry research, or research in connection with stock feeds at every experimental station. Is it not better for us to concentrate this type of basic research at a central point, at an existing institute, be it Pretoria or Grootfontein or Stellenbosch, for if that is the case one can use one’s people much more effectively and one can utilize one’s apparatus much more effectively and one can apply one’s results much more effectively. Our experimental farms have not been established for research purposes only. Some research is being carried out on them, but these experimental farms have more specifically been established for the purpose of carrying out applied research. That is what we have our experimental farms for, and that is what they are doing. The hon. member should not expect us to establish an institute with large buildings at every experimental farm.

But they also need the basic facilities.

Of course. They do receive the basic facilities they require for applied research. But I still maintain that when one carries out research in certain fields, such as dairy research, it is better to concentrate that research at one large unit than to do these things on a divided basis with a divided officialdom, in view of the fact that a shortage of officials already exists. The hon. member need not be afraid. The research that has to be carried out, is being carried out at the universities and at the institutes and, to a lesser extent of course, at our experimental farms as well. Of course, we are all concerned about the shortage of officials. We should like to have many more officials. It is so easily being said that if one would only increase the salaries of these people, one would retain their services, but the fact remains that the State cannot compete with the private sector as far as salaries are concerned. We are trying to create facilities for these people and we, the State, shall treat them to the best of our ability, but the fact remains that the private sector is in a better position than the State is to offer higher salaries. To-day I want to make an appeal to the private companies to co-operate with the State to a greater extent. Bursaries are being made available by the State and also by agricultural organizations, such as boards of control, and my appeal to these private companies is that they should not entice these people, once they have been trained, away from the State merely to use them, in many cases, for commercial purposes only.

What about the Institute for Extension?

Order! Hon. members should rather make speeches than make interjections all the time.

Our agricultural organizations can also assist us by effecting closer co-operation with the Departments. My appeal to them is that they should not go after an official of the Department when he is transferred. What often happens, is that when an official makes a good impression on the farmers, he is employed by a certain company and then the farmers go along with him to that company. In cases where our farmers ask for State aid, they should see to it that they, through their organization, support the State when it provides them with these services.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 32,—Water Affairs, R 12,000.000, and Loan Vote E,—Water Affairs, R63.489.000:

Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs will take charge of this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? In connection with this Vote, we come to one of the features which is now beooming of paramount importance not only in regard to agriculture but in regard to so many other facets of our economic life. Our towns and villages are dependent upon water supplies; the whole of our agricultural and pastoral communities are dependent upon water supplies. Probably no aspect of agriculture has received greater recognition from the public over, say, the last two years than this question of water has; there has not been a greater awareness on the part of the public in regard to any aspect of our agriculture over the last three years than there has been over this question of water. Every segment of the population has a greater and greater appreciation of the need for an adequate water supply. Sir, I would like to say at the outset that while we appreciate the courtesy of the hon. the Deputy Minister in taking charge of this Vote, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister himself has found it necessary to leave us. I say this because of the importance of the Vote. The Deputy Minister is a new man who has just taken it over.

You watch him!

It is not a case of watching him, it is a case of making representations to someone experienced in the administration of this Department and with the background of experience which the Minister himself has got. Right at the beginning of the debate I want to say this quite frankly. In my opinion it is not only right that the Department of Water Affairs should fall under the Minister of Agriculture, as it is. There are also Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Agricultural Technical Services and Land Tenure. These matters are inextricably bound together. Earlier to-day we heard hon. members repeatedly returning to the subject of soil conservation. We cannot have soil conservation without water conservation. When we come to Water Affairs now, we get a link with other Votes, namely Agriculture, soil and water conservation, and all that goes with it. All these are inextricably linked. I want to go further and say this subject matter is linked also with forestry. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will after this debate take my Hansard to the powers that be to see whether Forestry cannot also be brought within the ambit of the Minister. Forestry to-day is one of the main factors as far as the conservation of our water supplies is concerned. I cannot talk forestry with the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs; I have to talk to another Minister. The subject is cut off. Indeed, it is like a body without a head. We are told, “Here is the head, here is the body.” We are supposed to deal with it as two separate entities. But they are not two separate entities. Forestry should be linked with these other matters in one comprehensive whole so that the Government as well as the people can see precisely what is involved here. Our water sources, the sources of our rivers, the big sponges and so forth, our “waterbronne” fall entirely within the ambit of the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs who is now in charge of the Vote, but in one of its main essentials it is really the concern of another Minister altogether. We have to face this big difficulty; it is one of the difficulties we have to face up to.

I wish to say this in connection with the Vote itself and its relation to water supplies. Some few years ago the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission prepared a plan for the Tugela Basin. The commission was established over 50 years ago, it has done a wonderful job of work and its plan for the development of the Tugela Basin has been looked upon internationally as a model. Amongst other recommendations was the development of the resources of the Tugela and some four or five years ago already I raised the question in this House of the waters of the Tugela which runs through non-white areas, through the Bantu areas. When the Government comes to develop the water supply of the Tugela they are going to be faced with the question of where the river runs for long distances through Bantu areas. At that time, when I first raised it, it was suggested by the late Prime Minister that perhaps I was a little premature. However, I submit events have shown that I was not premature. At that time the late Prime Minister said if this question arises at a time when the Bantu authorities have developed far beyond their present stage, we may even have to go so far as to make a treaty with them to deal with the water which runs through their territory.

I have studied two or three of the big water systems of the world. One of them is the Indus river in India. When I was in India and Pakistan I had a look at that river. I went up to the Indus. It is a river which has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war on several occasions since 1948 when the British raj, as it was called, left India. A hot war even started on one occasion. Over a million armed men are facing each other in those two countries, and they have been doing so for years because of the waters of the Indus.

The waters of the Nile come down from the highlands of Ethiopia, and in regard to the Nile exactly the same trouble arises. And we are facing exactly the same problem, albeit on a smaller scale. The white man here has the area where some of the major sources of the river are. I say some of the major sources, because some of the major sources are not in the white man’s land. The river runs through white man’s land, then it runs for a long distance through black man’s land, and then through white man’s land again. My question then to the Deputy Minister is this: In respect of the development of the Tugela Basin, which is now receiving further attention from the Government, and we have had on the Estimates since last year the construction of a dam at Spioenkop, will the Deputy Minister give us now a precise plan for the development of the dams in the Tugela river? We have heard it said that there will ultimately be six or perhaps even eight. We should like to know what are the Minister’s plans so that people can prepare for what is coming. What about that portion of the river that runs through non-European areas?

The Minister’s predecessor last year had a look at many of the rivers we have got on the south coast of Natal and the north coast of Natal. The then Deputy Minister of Water Affairs then had a look at the rivers on the north coast of Natal, right up to the Portuguese border at Oro Point. The Government was thus in a position to know exactly what the setup there was. From Durban to the Cape border at Port Edward we have the only uncommitted rivers in the whole country. The then Minister of Water Affairs last year had a look at them. One by one he examined them, had a look at their potential, and so forth. Every one of those rivers runs through a Native area.

No, not all of them.

Every one runs through a Bantu area.

No, only the majority of them.

Will the hon. member tell me which rivers do not run through a Native area?

The Pongolo and the Mkuze do not.

I was talking about the south coast, I wish the hon. member would listen. I spoke of the area between Durban and the Cape border. The hon. member has his Pongolo mixed up with his Umhlatuzi. The problem there is not one associated with tn is river or that river, and when we get to the border between Natal and the Transkei, namely the Umtamvuna river, we have a river which is becoming an international boundary because of the status of the Transkei authorities to the south. The middle of the river is a boundary line. We again have the classic case of the Indus and the Nile. Half of the water in the river belongs to one country and half to the other. We have the same position in the north, where we have Usutu, where the Portuguese have one half of the Usutu river, and South Africa has the other half. I am sorry I have to place this on the Deputy Minister’s shoulders but I cannot help it, but will he please now tell us the plan of the development for the dams in the Tugela river. What development does the Government consider embarking upon there? We know the Spioenkop dam is on the Estimates for this year. I am not asking whether all those dams will be built next year, because I know that is impossible. We do not want to be unreasonable. But we want to know what is the long-term planning in terms of the Tugela Basin planning scheme. Can the Minister tell us how many dams there will be and can he give us a rough idea as to when they are likely to be developed?

Then we have the question of how the Government proposes to tackle the question of the water flowing in those Bantu areas. I want to come to this point before I go on to the next one. When you have crossed the Tugela and gone further north along the Tugela for part of its length, the rivers there are partly in the Bantu areas and the Bantu are entitled to the water in those rivers. When I last made this statement, which was a year ago, the Minister of Social Welfare sent a note across to me which I have kept because it is of such interest. He said, the water in the Tugela did not belong to the Bantu but to white people because most of the sources are in a white area. Therefore all the water that runs down the valley and the river belongs to the white people, because some of the major sources are in a white area. This is quite incredible. It was so interesting that I kept his notes. I want to repeat that the water in those rivers in those areas belongs to the Bantu. The development of the Bantu must come sooner or later along the lines of economic development when the water will be necessary. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not here. At my request, last year, he also went up north. I took him to the Mkuze river to show him what the position was there. My friend, the hon. member for Vryheid, will know what it was.

You never notified me, but went straight into my area.

It was so ill-kept and badly represented that for very shame, I could not tell the hon. the Minister that this was Mr. le Roux’s constituency and that he should help him out. I could not do it. I had to keep the name of the member in whose constituency we were secret. I had to hide it from the hon. the Minister and just had to show him part of South Africa without saying who was responsible for this terrible state of affairs. The Mkuze river was a river which used to run waist high with clear beautiful water 30 yards across, but which was then a dry river bed. One could walk about in it. There was not one scrap of water in it. I asked the hon. the Minister where the people got their water from. He then asked me where they did get it from. I replied that I would show him. We walked for half a mile down the river on dry sand until we came to where some Native women had dug a hole about four or five feet deep. They had a little kettle, and an old calabash and a four gallon drum there. As the water seeped into the hole they scooped it out and poured it into the drum.

When they had about three gallons of water they took it away. In no time another 12 or 14 women had arrived and were all taking their water out of the hole.

This problem was presented to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development six years before, through the Bantu Affairs Commissioners who control the area up there. When the Minister went back he was going to deal with it. As we are sitting in this House now, the Native women are digging that water out of those same holes in the valley of the Mkuze. My hon. friend is laughing. He should not. It is happening in his constituency and he should be weeping. I make this point, because 12 months have gone by. Here sits the hon. the Deputy Minister with this problem on his hands, but his colleague the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is doing nothing to help him. In spite of this there are thousands of Bantu dependent upon the waters of the Mkuze river. Where is the development? What is going to happen to these rivers? What Departments are going to take part in it? I am sorry that the hon. the Minister is not here, but I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell him what I have to say. I believe that the time has come when the Government has got to make up its mind to establish a central water supply authority, possibly for the whole of Richard’s Bay north right up to the border.

There should be one central authority for the providing of water. This authority should take charge of the whole area. This authority can be established under the Department of Water Affairs. That is most probably the best Department to handle the situation. They have got the know-how and the people and the background.

Look what is happening. As we sit here tonight two of our game reserves in Zululand are completely dry of water. The water supply that has remained there for the last 25 to 30 years, and in one case a river which has never been known to dry up, has dried up. The pundits claim that this is due to the new forest and the tree planting that took place 11 years ago. Here again we overlap with the Department of Forestry. The fact remains that these water supplies have dried up. Now, at a very expensive charge, the Parks Board is transporting water to those two camps to keep them going. Salinity in the whole of the lake system of St. Lucia has got to be diluted with water from, probably, the J. G. Strijdom Dam as it is now called. That water has probably got to come down. When the then Minister of Water Affairs, the present State President, went into the matter here in Parliament, he gave the assurance that that water would be made available. Just how much it is has been more or less reasonably calculated, I believe. The report of the St. Lucia Commission tells us how much water is required. But that Commission calculated how much fresh water came in by seepage. Seepage to-day has practically stopped so that the supply of fresh water by seepage is almost ended, and that will have to be made up now. It cannot be made up from the Hluhluwe dam, which is the only other one there, and that is in use to-day for industrial purposes. It is getting committed. It will have to come from the big dam, from the J. G. Strijdom Dam. When the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was up there last year, I showed him the big lakes where we are breeding fish for the Bantu so that they can get proteins.

The Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, as he was last year, went along and we showed him everything in detail, so that he would see exactly the lengths to which we were going in breeding fish, to provide that protein. But one thing is necessary. Those big pans and lakes in the flood plain of the Pongola must get water from a flood. They cannot get water from normal flow. It is only when a flood comes down and the water goes over the flood plain of the Pongola, that the water goes into those dams and those big vleis. It covers huge areas with shallow water, but that is where we are breeding the fish. It is the only place they can be bred. If that water dries up, it will mean the end of the fish. There are to-day tens of thousands of pounds weight of fish being taken out of those lakes by the Bantu.

It is taken out entirely by the Bantu; nobody else goes in there, except the people from the Parks Board who are breeding the fish for them. But that water must be supplied, and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development again said: My water supply must be protected from the Pongola Dam; that is to say, the Strijdom Dam. He went into the question of how much water was necessary for a flash flood to fill those pans. They worked it out and ascertained that it was possible; it can be done. But now arose the position that was referred to by an hon. member earlier this afternoon. On the east of the Ubombo—I think it was the hon. member for Vryheid—the so-called Makatini Flats are not the best spot for irrigation. But the dam was designed for the purpose of irrigating the Makatini Flats. Now it has been found that far more fertile soil is on the western side of the mountain range—right on the other side between the Ubombo, the Swartrand and the Rooirand, and from there right down past the Mkuze railway station, following the railway line, in fact right down to the Hluhluwe railway station, the whole way. It is subject to certain difficulties in leading the water, and one must remember the fact also that one cannot go to such a low level in irrigating on the west of the mountains as one can on the east, because it is designed for irrigation channels by gravity to feed land on the east. Now one has to go to higher land back on the eastern side; so one does not have the volume of water. But the demand is there and investigations have been made. How many people have tried to claim the water there, because of the fact that it is all contained in one big dam. St. Lucia Lake, the big irrigators on the western side of the mountain, the Government scheme for irrigating the Makatini Flats on the eastern side and the whole of the Low Veld Native area fish farms, all require their water from the Strijdom Dam. I repeat: Who is looking after this? What happens if the plan of the Minister of Transport at Richard’s Bay gets under way? There again, the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs last year asked me to go and show him where the supply was that I told the Minister of Water Affairs was available. We took the hon. member for the constituency—he did not know where it was either—and showed him Lake Umzingazi.

That is not all he does, you know.

The hon. the Minister of Transport knows where it is. There is a lake that can give five to six million gallons a day without unduly lowering the level of the lake. It supplies fresh water, potable water, which can be used in the initial stages of building up the seaport and in the development of Richard’s Bay, as well as the big smelter. But it is not the answer to the water supply. Already I have heard from some of the technical men concerned that we are going to have difficulty in putting a dam on the Umhlatuzi River. The development is taking place at a tremendous tempo. If I said that the Government of South Africa had recently discovered Zululand I would not be exaggerating. The emphasis by the Minister of Transport on the development of Richard’s Bay attracted attention there. Other works are also being undertaken. The Government will know what those works are. I only hear a slight whisper here and there. Great development is now taking place there and the basic requirement, the pivot on which the whole development hangs is an adequate water supply. We now have certain dams such as that proposed on the Mkuze River, that proposed to be built on the Umhlatuzi, a lake near Richard’s Bay, the Strijdom Dam in the Ubombo Mountains and the dam on Hluhluwe. This matter should be properly coordinated. I want to suggest most emphatically that there should be one central authority which is going to allocate and control the water and the development of water resources which may include the dams. It does not really matter what works are included. As far as the Natal Parks Board is concerned the tourist development is held up there completely because we cannot supply water to the camps. There is a suggestion for another camp that is going to cost us approximately a million rand. But the whole plan has got to be frozen at present because we cannot get water. It is out of the question to start developing these areas if you cannot provide a necessity such as water. I therefore deal with this matter with the greatest emphasis. I believe that the potential for development is there but that it must be adequately controlled and it cannot be controlled in bits and pieces with little authority here and little there. A central authority is necessary.

The question of the drying up of these water resources impinges on the terrain of the Minister of Forestry. This is why I suggest it. I do not want to take the Minister of Forestry’s portfolio away from him. That is not my point at all. But how can we complain to the Minister of Water Affairs as we do today with regard to the drying up of some of the sponges and some of these areas where the resources of our rivers are located. How can we approach him and tell him to see his colleague the Minister of Forestry and tell him to stop tree-planting? Here are reports that have come from his own Department in which the warning has been given that the place to store our water is in the ground and not in a dam. Our springs should then provide that water in a natural way which then flow into the streams and then from the streams into the rivers. That is the place for us to store it. There are two reports which have just recently been issued by the Department and a third is to be issued in the future. The report states that if that is to be done adequately you must beware of having the high forest, whether it is indigenous, and this is very important, or whether it is the introduced exotic species, in the form of plantations, anywhere near the stream bed because they will dry it up. You must also keep it away from the springs, the sources of the streams, over a wide area where you keep only grass. There is only one safe vegetative covering from the point of view of the protection of our water sources, and that is grass. That is the conclusion reached in this report. I therefore say again to the Minister of Water Affairs: Please intercede with your colleague in the Cabinet and do not let him destroy your water sources so that we will badger you as regards the drying up of our rivers, when the man who is responsible for it is your colleague. We cannot discuss forestry under this Vote and tell him that what he is doing is endangering our water supplies. That Vote should also fall under the Minister of Water Affairs because then we will be able to deal with it adequately. We will then be able to deal with soil and water conservation, forestry, water and other allied subjects in one debate. That would be a workmanlike manner of dealing with the question. I want to say in regard to this matter that I do appeal to the Deputy Minister to take our water sources into consideration and see whether it is not possible on the basis of a national policy taken at Government level, the highest level, and not on the basis of independent separate portfolios, to ensure that our water sources are now as far as possible protected by grass cover. That is what we should aim at and in the areas where there is already trouble we should see how far it is possible by negotiation with the sister department, to see whether these trees are not endangering our water sources. I think of all these newly introduced exotic species which we are growing here along the banks of our rivers and our water courses and on our rolling grasslands on the downs, which are now being broken up in thousands of acres. I am a forester myself. As a farmer I grow trees, and I know the danger of growing trees under certain circumstances as far as the water supply is concerned. I know that this is a very delicate subject, but it is going to be a far more delicate subject if our water supplies dry up. If we do not have water we can argue until the cows come home as to whether it was the trees or something else that dried up those rivers. Once rivers are dry it will be too late. Here we have two important reports we have already got from the Department of Forestry. I ask the hon. the Minister please to go into this aspect of the matter.

I return for a moment to the question of the right of the Bantu to have their own water. I refer to the whole Western Tongaland and the northern areas. I ask the Minister of Water Affairs to look to the future and to ensure that the water is properly allocated by a central authority which I recommend be established so that, as the economic development of the Bantu takes place, they will have adequate water for their development. Their claim to the water should be recognized ab initio in exactly the same way as the claim to that water by other sections of the community is recognized. We believe that principle No. 1, as I enunciated last year from this side of the House, is that we must safeguard the supply of water to existing communities before starting adventures in developing areas where there is nobody yet and where we hope hereafter to start a new population. Existing communities, rural or urban, should have their water supply safeguarded for them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast made a very interesting speech. I should have liked to have followed up his speech, but my time is rather limited. In any case, I want to agree with many of the matters he raised. He mentioned certain principles in respect of water conservation which were basically correct and sound. I agree with him that water conservation in South Africa is steadily becoming more important and that more and more attention is being devoted to this matter and that the public outside is showing more and more interest in this important matter. In this regard I want to agree with him wholeheartedly. In view of the fact that our country is so poor in water and that relatively speaking we have too little water, and in view of the fact that we have to do everything in our power to utilize, store and conserve our available water in the most economic way, it is necessary for us to devote the most dedicated study and research to this aspect of the matter. Accordingly it was very gladdening to me to hear that the hon. the Deputy ¡Minister had made a number of very important statements in regard to this matter a few weeks ago. In a newspaper dated 14th May I read a report in which it was stated that he had opened the Institute for the Prevention of Water Contamination and made a number of very important statements, into which I want to go a little deeper and with which I want to agree very heartily. On that occasion the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke, in the first instance, of the economic utilization of water. He also spoke of the re-utilization of water in South Africa. In view of the fact that this matter is so extremely important and that, especially as regards the future, it is becoming so important for us to pay attention to this matter and to carry out research in this regard, I welcome the ideas the hon. the Deputy Minister expressed on that occasion.

I referred to the very important matters the hon. the Deputy Minister had referred to when he opened the Institute for the Prevention of Water Contamination two weeks ago. I want to thank him for having participated in this gathering, and I should like to ask him what his Department is doing in respect of these matters as regards similar organizations abroad and even in this country, bodies and individuals that are interested and carrying out research in this field, and particularly in respect of similar bodies abroad. I feel that this is imperative not only for acquiring knowledge in this respect, but, as in the case of medical science and in many other respects, I also feel that the Republic should leave no stone unturned in its efforts to make itself heard abroad, in view of the circumstances prevailing there. I believe that in this respect, too, it is not only possible for us to make a contribution, but also to play a leading role. I should like to hear whether the Deputy Minister could tell us something in this regard.

To return to matters of a more local nature. I should like to congratulate the Department through the Deputy Minister, i.e. those persons who are engaged in the implementation of two schemes in my constituency, namely the Oppermansdrift Dam and the Krugersdrift Dam. I mention these specifically because I know what is happening there. In view of the phenomenal progress made in regard to the work there, I cannot omit to extend my hearty congratulations to those officials, the engineers and the workers at those two schemes, on the phenomenal progress and the fine and speedy work that is being done there 24 hours a day. They really deserve the congratulations and the gratitude of the country. But I am also a witness to the Deputy Minister’s conduct towards the officials of his Department, the senior officials as well as the most subordinate officials, and the interest he shows in their work and the knowledge he displays of this Department, and the way in which he inspires his officials. It can only benefit this Department. I should like to congratulate the Deputy Minister on his conduct and his approach to the work of his Department.

Then I also want to raise a few other matters of local importance. The Sand-Vet Water Scheme, which for the main part falls into my constituency, is also faced with its specific problems in respect of water provision. The private persons who irrigate their lands under that scheme and also the people living in the settlement, are experiencing specific problems, since in their opinion the water quota they receive is too low, and it is too low because conditions there have a particularly adverse effect on their farming practices as they apply them. The nature and structure of the soil and the terracing that was done there, because the terrain slopes, have all contributed towards those people having to irrigate their lands more often than was initially considered to be necessary.

Order! Hon. members at the back must realize that only one debate is being conducted at the moment.

The hon. the Minister knows that all of us take a great interest in water conservation, and since I want to point out to him that it is possible for people to have too few turns to use water under their allotted quotas, I want to say that it will not necessarily amount to more water being used if this plea of mine is complied with. I think the Department should give serious attention to introducing sprinkling irrigation there, since it has already appeared to be successful in many other places and since it effects a 20 per cent to 25 per cent saving in water in certain cases. But when this is considered. it should at the same time be considered to grant to those people some form of financial assistance or other in respect of the expenses incurred in Changing over to this system.

There is another matter of local importance that I should very much like to bring to the notice of the Deputy Minister, and that is the supply of water to one of the small towns in the Western Free State, a town which bears the name of the person with whom the slogan “South Africa First” originated, namely General Hertzog. The town is Hertzogville, with a white population of between 500 and 600. Its subterranean water is sinking, i.e. the water level is dropping. Apart from State-aided water from Government water schemes, they have no other source of water. To my mind the Oppermansdrift Dam, which is being completed, is the obvious scheme. I want to make a special plea for that town, namely that their application for water should be given very favourable consideration by the Department.

In the latter part of his speech the hon. member for Winburg dealt with local matters, and I do not want to follow him in that, but I want to say that I have very little fault to find with what he said in the earlier part of his speech when he was dealing with the economic use of water. There is no doubt that our water supplies are so limited and our rainfall so erratic that we in this country have to do everything possible to use our available water to the best possible advantage. The hon. member also touched on the question of the purification and the re-use of water, and I agree with what he said on that subject. Last year in this Committee I raised the same question, particularly in regard to the re-use of water by coastal towns, where at the moment in many instances the water that has been used by the inhabitants of those towns, industrial or domestic water, is just allowed to flow into the sea and is lost to the community, and particularly where that water has had to be brought, sometimes at State expense, over a distance of several hun dred miles under the new system of providing water over long distances. It is absolutely essential that we should pay attention to this matter of the re-use of water. We can boost our effective water supplies to a great extent if we give this the attention it deserves. In this connection I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to tell us what progress is being made to implement further the recommendations of the report of the Stras-zacker Commission, one of which was that there should be an institute of hydrology at each of our universities. As far as I know, the position at the moment is that the relevant institute of the C.S.I.R. has been moved down from Pretoria—at some considerable expense —to the University of Stellenbosch. I do feel that this is a matter where our universities with their trained personnel and researchers can definitely make a contribution to the solution of the country’s water problems if each of them was equipped with an institute of hydrology along the lines recommended in this report.

I want to deal to-night with a matter which I consider to be completely non-political, and I hope that all hon. members on both sides of the House and the hon. the Deputy Minister himself will also regard it in that light. It is a matter which was referred to here some few years ago by the then member for King William’s Town, my very good friend Mr. Miles Warren. On that occasion he got no reply from the then Minister of Water Affairs, the present Minister of the Interior. It is also a matter which I have discussed informally with the present Minister of Water Affairs, and I hope that what I say to-night will be transmitted to him by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It has to do with the question of naming one or other major work under the Orange River project after my predecessor in my constituency, the late Dr. Tom Bowker. Various works under that project have already been named after Ministers, and in fact in one case after the late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd. namely the Ruigtevalleidam, which was renamed after the late Dr. Verwoerd. I have no quarrel with that, because Dr. Verwoerd was Prime Minister at the time when the scheme was announced.

Also, the Vanderkloofdam, it has recently been decided, will be renamed after Minister P. K. le Roux, who was Minister of Water Affairs at the time. The late Dr. Tom Bowker, who sat in this House for 27 years as a most respected member, made it one of his life’s ambitions to secure adequate water supplies for the Fish River Valley and other areas in the Eastern Cape by diverting portion of the water of the Orange River to the Fish River Valley. He made that one of his two main ambitions. I think the other ambition was to see that a worthy monument was erected to his forbears, the 1820 Settlers. I do not say that Dr. Bowker was the only one who pressed for this scheme; there may have been others, but I think it would be a very fine gesture indeed on the part of the Government if they were to honour his name by naming a major work under the Orange River project after him. I think the most suitable one to be named after him would be the work which will in fact bring the water from the Orange River, in this case from the Verwoerd Dam, into the Fish River Valley. That is the major tunnel which will bring it down to the Teebusspruit. Sir, I hope that the Government will give this request favourable consideration and grant it, because I feel that it will be a fine gesture to a man who displayed a great interest in water affairs, and who certainly did a lot to keep alive in the mind of the public an interest in the Orange/Fish River scheme. Year after year in this House he introduced a private member’s motion dealing with this matter and he persisted, and I think he would have been a very happy man indeed if he had lived to see the waters of the Orange River flowing into the Fish River Valley. Sir, I would just like to repeat my appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the Government to treat this on a completely non-political basis. No matter on which side of the House the late Dr. Bowker sat. he should be honoured as a man who was a fine member of this House, who took a great interest in this scheme and who, like his forebears before him, for some 150 years, was a very good South African.

Sir, the hon. member for South Coast, when he introduced this debate, referred to the fact that the Department of Water Affairs was now becoming so important that perhaps it should take over the functions of certain other Departments. I think he referred to the fact that it would be a matter of administrative convenience in many ways and a matter of good principle if, for example. Forestry and Water A hairs were more closely connected. Sir, I would like to refer to another aspect and that is that the Department of Health still seems to have large powers which are no doubt a survival of a previous state of affairs where the Department of Water Affairs itself did not play quite such a big role in the life of our country as it does to-day. I have here an extract from Government Notice No. 278 dated 3rd March, 1967 under the heading “Department of Health: Extension of Limit of Supplies of the Rand Water Board to the District of Rustenburg.” I say that it is a survival of previous rights that the Department of Health should control such an important matter as the extension of the limits of an important body such as the Rand Water Board to an area as far from the Rand as Rustenburg. I presume that when it was decided to supply the Rosslyn area with a permanent water supply and not merely from the boreholes on which that industrial area was originally founded, it was also the Department of Health which had to sanction the extension of that supply. Sir, I think this raises an important point of principle and that these are powers which should fall under the Minister of Water Affairs. Here we have a case where the functions of an important body like the Rand Water Board and the area which that body serves are being extended in order to serve the Government’s border industry policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when we consider what was said by hon. members on both sides who participated in this discussion earlier on, it becomes very clear that the problem of water supplies in South Africa is very pressing and that this is one of the most urgent tasks of the present and the future. When we consult the Estimates to see what work the Department is doing in this regard at present, it strikes us that an amount of R58,830,000 is voted on Loan Account for the Department of Water Affairs for the current year. When we make an analysis of the schemes and works for which this money is to be utilized, we find that the Department of Water Affairs is at present engaged in constructing 30 large Government dams and is in addition engaged in 56 other schemes which it is undertaking by itself or in connection with which irrigation boards and local bodies receive subsidies. This gives us some picture of the enormous task in which this Department is engaged. There is one alarming phenomenon, however, and that is the tremendous shortage of trained technical staff in this Department. The shortage of engineers, according to the approved establishment, is 75 at the moment—a shortage of 75 trained engineers. We feel very concerned about this state of affairs when we have regard to the fact that the Department has a large construction division and is engaged in the construction of large dams and works which requires a high degree of technical skill. These dams and works have to be constructed very accurately as they are to be permanent structures which have to stand certain tests and come up to certain requirements. I want to say here to-night that in my opinion the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet to give very serious attention to the possibility of providing more engineers. We know that this is not something which can happen overnight.

The world is looking for engineers and even if we advertise overseas we do not readily obtain the services of large numbers of engineers. Therefore I should like to make the suggestion that the hon. the Minister should give very serious attention to special measures for attracting more engineers to this Department with its extremely comprehensive task. The time has arrived for more and larger bursaries to be made available to prospective students. The time has also arrived for a large-scale investigation into this matter and for inquiries to be made so as to find people who are interested in becoming engineers. There still is a considerable number of people who have done well in their Senior Certificate examinations but who, because of a shortage of funds, do not have the courage to enrol for such a difficult and expensive course at a university. Therefore I hope that the Minister will contact universities and high schools in order to attract more people to the Department of Water Affairs in view of the task it will have to fulfil in future. I regard this as a very urgent matter and I am grateful to know that the hon. the Deputy Minister is fully aware of this need. In view of the fact that the question of our country’s need for water and water conservation is so closely integrated with future developments in the field of agriculture, we can only hope that this matter will receive serious consideration and that the necessary steps will be taken in this direction.

Mr. Chairman, to-night I should like to refer with a feeling of deep gratitude to the fact that serious consideration has lately been given to the question of water supplies in the Western Cape. There was a time when we thought that there was no real need to see to water supplies in the Western Cape as it is an area with a fairly regular rainfall, but over the past few years our agricultural sector has come to realize more and more, particularly in view of the fact that ours is a sector of the agricultural industry which mainly applies itself to the production of citrus fruit, deciduous fruit, etc., for the export market, that it cannot compete on the world market unless it has a high quality product and unless it has the necessary water to produce that high quality product. When we analyse the amounts which have been voted and the work which has been done in connection with supplying water to the Western Cape, we must admit that the emphasis falls mainly on supplying water to the Peninsula. The White Paper which has already been published points in the direction of supplying water by means of a canal to Voëlvlei Dam. The Theewaterskloof Dam in the vicinity of Villiersdorp is to cater for the immediate needs of the Peninsula, and we do not want to find any fault with that. But I should like to stress here to-day that we should take a look, and a very serious look, at the needs of the agricultural industry in the Western Cape. People do not always realize that one has various regions in the Western Province which have an annual rainfall of 50 inches, 100 inches and even more. The actual agricultural areas are situated a mere three, four, five or ten mines away from those areas and these agricultural areas have development possibilities but a rainfall of only five, seven or ten inches. Because of the very fact that they have such a low rainfall, these areas are depression areas. They are undeveloped areas in which the farming community finds it very difficult to make a living. Therefore I want to stress the point, seeing that we are looking ahead as regards the provision of water in South Africa and seeing that the Minister and the Department fortunately are giving attention to the scarcity of water in the Western Cape, that we should not overlook the needs of the agricultural industry and that we should give special attention to water conservation in those areas in which there is a storage potential, which are close to other areas with a high rainfall, and in which there are likely dam sites, with a view to stimulating agriculture in those areas. I want to mention one example of what I have in mind in this regard. The Olifants River in the district of Citrusdal and Clanwilliam has a good flow of water but at present there is only one dam at Clanwilliam which provides water mainly for the Vredendal-Lutzville irrigation area. But the area along the upper reaches of the river in Citrusdal is one in which the people are having hard times as a result of the shortage of water and the poor prices for citrus fruit on the overseas market; and because of the very fact that there is a shortage of water that farming community, with available land, cannot adapt itself to circumstances. They cannot allow their orchards to perish; they have to maintain them, and the water which is available is just sufficient for maintaining those orchards. Those farmers cannot protect themselves properly against the pressures and the onslaughts of droughts and low prices and therefore I trust that the Department of Water Affairs will not overlook the need of the farming community. This does not apply to the Olifants River only, it applies to the Twenty-Four Rivers, the Porterville-Piketiberg area and large areas in the Berg River Valley; it also applies to large areas along the Breë River, which I do not want to discuss now. I trust that these needs will not be overlooked also for another reason which is equally important, i.e. the future production of food for our growing population in the Western Province. I trust that serious attention will be given to this matter in good time and that the necessary works will be constructed as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, on occasion I have spoken to a few leading farmers in a certain area. They told me, “Sir, we are considered to be the leading farmers in this area, but if provision is not made for water for our farming needs, we are doomed to bankruptcy”. This is true as regards many farmers in many districts in the Western Cape. If provision is not going to be made for water for them, then many of them will be doomed to destruction. [Time expired.]

This evening the hon. member for South Coast expressed his disappointment about the fact that the Deputy Minister was deputizing for the Minister in this debate. I just want to give him this assurance: Just as they are pleased with Minister Uys to-day, the United Party will one day also be pleased with the present Deputy Minister of Water Affairs.

Do you want a job somewhere?

I am merely stating a fact. The hon. member for Durban (Point) feels disappointed because he had conducted a dirty oil debate here for which he was taken to task by the Deputy Minister, and now he feels very hurt. Mr. Chairman, we have 940,000 morgen of land under irrigation in this country. This water is drawn from wells, boreholes and all other sources of water. An additional 330,000 morgen will be placed under irrigation by the Orange River Scheme and an additional 64,000 morgen by the Pongola Poort Scheme. I am not being over-optimistic but I say that this country of ours will be able to feed our 50 million people without any difficulty; it will be child’s play. Thirty years from to-day our children will laugh at our present-day farming methods. The day will arrive in this country when an average yield of 40 or 50 bags of wheat per morgen will not be something impossible. With improved methods we shall be able to produce a great deal more than we do to-day. Just consider the fantastic development there has been in the field of agriculture over the past 20 years; just consider the increases in production. For 14 hours we listened to the United Party telling the farmer that he had to beg for charity. I am telling that side that they are making a mistake. Do not belittle the people who are producing the surplusses. They should rather have regard to what is going to happen in the future. The number of farmers has in fact decreased but production has increased, and I tell hon. members that in 30 years’ time—unfortunately there will not be many of the hon. members opposite left—there will be a completely different picture to be seen in this country. If we want to be able to feed our 50 million people we must treat the water which we have available to-day with a great deal of respect and act accordingly. Now I put the following question to myself: This Government has to construct irrigation schemes at an enormous cost for the cultivation of what product? To me this is something ironical and the day will arrive when we shall have to see to this matter. I do not want to tell the farmer what he may plant where, but if we want to be realistic we must realize that a day will arrive when we will have to tell a man, “You may not plant mealies on irrigation land”, and this is what is happening at present. Farmers have cultivated mealies on expensive irrigation land, and we are stuck with a surplus of mealies. There simply will have to be co-ordination. The argument is advanced that the cultivation of mealies does not require much water. Mealies grow rapidly. I have certain figures which I want to quote. The production of one pound of dried mealies requires 361 pounds of water. The production of one pound of potatoes requires 499 pounds of water. We have a shortage of dried wheat in our country. To produce one pound of that requires 455 pounds of water, which is only slightly more than that required for producing one pound of dried mealies. We must have regard to this ratio in the allocation of irrigation water for the production of crops of which we have a surplus.

Now I want to ask hon. members: “Is there any crop which we cannot grow in this country?” No, there is not. We can grow coffee, tea and the full range of crops.

Another factor which plays a very important role is the question of temperature and the respiration of plants. I have a few interesting figures in this regard. The transpiration of a mealie plant at Standerton is such that 1.2 units of water are required to produce a certain quantity. It is a dry material. In Groblersdal on the other hand, the same plant requires 2.3 units of water. These are all factors which we have to bear in mind if we want to be able one day to feed 50 million people with the water we have. But a certain trend is noticeable in our country. A strong stream may be flowing through a certain area and people say that a dam should be contracted there. That area may be one which is very hot during the day but cold at night and where the winters are severe. In such an area one is not able to produce what one will be able to produce with the same quantity of water in the Lowveld or in warmer regions as a result of the higher temperatures in those regions. These are all things which we must bear in mind.

It is a pity that the hon. member for South Coast is a United Party member, but he made a speech here this afternoon for which I want to give him full marks. I wholeheartedly agree with what he said. The one big difference between a National Party member and a United Party member is this: A National Party member admits when a man has made a smart speech. But what does the United Party do? They criticize all day long. The speech the hon. member for South Coast made here this afternoon was one he made on the basis of conviction. He is concerned about the sponges in the upper reaches of our catchment areas and I feel that legislation will have to be passed to prohibit the establishment of plantations in any sponge area. They have to be protected because our future depends on that. I am still dealing with the question of feeding 50 million people.

We have to review the existing relationship between our municipalities and the Department of Water Affairs. The municipalities request more water but how do they utilize it? How do factories in the Vaal Triangle and on the Witwatersrand utilize that water? I can take hon. members to factories where they will be able to see for themselves how water is being wasted. I know of one particular factory in Boksburg where three cusecs of water run down the drain 24 hours per day every day.

They pay for that water.

Yes, they do. That water is used for cleaning foodstuffs to be processed and the water simply runs down the drain. It is not re-used. In Paris the mighty River Seine flows through the city, but that water is nevertheless re-used seven times. Why cannot we do the same thing in our country? These are matters to which we have to give attention. Is the relationship between our local authorities and the Department of Water Affairs what it should be? Should we not achieve better co-operation? The hon. member for Albany spoke of the Rand Water Board which falls under the Department of Health. Has the time not arrived when that Board should rather fall under the Department of Water Affairs?

That is precisely what the hon. member asked.

I agree with him. Now we find in the field of research that the universities have research departments which are investigating the question of water conservation and the re-use of water. The Department of Water Affairs also has such a division as well as the Institute of Water Research. I ask why there cannot be a co-ordinated body under the umbrella of the Department of Water Affairs. Seeing that we have such a shortage of manpower in South Africa, these people can work together. I advocate cooperation in this regard. These various organizations should be united under the Department of Water Affairs.

I conclude by making the following request. The hon. member for Potgietersrus has asked me to mention this again. The catchment area of the Loskop Dam is so large that a quantity of water equal to two and a half times the volume of the Loskop Dam flows away over its wall every year. The assurance has been given that the wall of the dam will be raised and every year we are going to ask for the wall to be raised until it has in fact been done. An enormous quantity of water is being wasted. When one drives through the National Park one sees water in the Olifants River flowing away to the sea, water which could have been stored in the Loskop Dam. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. In the time allotted to me I want to deal briefly with the Orange River/Fish River/ Sundays River irrigation scheme of which at the moment the first stage is under construction. I should like to follow on to what the hon. member for Albany has already said.

I have been particularly interested in this project for many years now. I recall when this Government took over from the United Party government and how we looked forward to the scheme being implemented, yet how disolusioned we were. In 1948 it was estimated that the Orange River scheme could be completed at an estimated cost of some £40 million, which is R80 million. Ten years later the estimate increased to £70 million, which is R140 million. I recall so well myself, having fought an election in that particular area that hon. members opposite were not one bit interested in the irrigation schemes of the Fish River or Sunday’s River valleys.

It is not true.

Of course it is true.

That is not true and you are telling an untruth.

Order! I do not want any interruptions.

I expected this reaction, now exactly ten years later. I recall the 1958 election so well …

It is not true and you know it is not true.

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he does not obey the Chair, the Chair will have to act.

I addressed meetings in a constituency neighbouring the constituency which the hon. Deputy Minister represents to-day, namely Somerset East. I fought in the Cradock constituency and I promised the people this scheme from platform to platform, neighbouring the hon. member’s constituency. I pleaded with the people. I can recall very well that I had the blueprints of Orange River/Fish River/Sundays River scheme. When the time for questions came, I have said it before, all the hon. member’s supporters were interested in was: “Sê nou vir my. mnr. Wainwright, aan watter kerk behoort u? Aan dr. De Blank se kerk, of hoe?” This is all they were interested in. They were not interested in water, despite the fact that their animals were dying of thirst and starvation in those valleys. It is absolutely true and I defy anybody to deny it. In 1958,only 10 years ago, nobody on the Government side was interested in this water scheme. I will go further. In 1957, just a year before the election, the hon. member for Prieska who later became the Minister of Agriculture said the following—and I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to listen to this—Mr. P. M. K. le Roux was talking about the Orange River scheme and this is what he said—-

Is this untrue? I am now quoting from the speeches of hon. members on that side of the House. The hon. member went on and said that this scheme would cost £70 million. He said it would be criminal, because it would cost £70 million. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister tells me that it is not true. This has been the pattern for the last 20 years and we are sick of it. The point is that we are now reaching the first stage which was estimated to cost R85 million. According to recent figures this is now going to cost R240 million. The construction price of irrigation schemes is therefore rising day by day. The hon. member for Parktown asked the hon. Minister for the estimated cost of the scheme in the light of the contracts that have already been awarded. The hon. the Minister replied that the figure for the first stage would come to R240 million and that this amount had been approved by Parliament. What is worrying me is the estimated cost and the actual tender costs. Three years ago the Department of Information issued a booklet of 32 pages outlining the six separate stages of this scheme. Observers, of which I am a very interested one, now believe that this scheme will not be completed under R1.000 million.

That is all right. What about it?

What about it! When we plead for a little money for agriculture, hon. members on that side are very ready to say that more money for agriculture would be inflationary. This was said here yesterday by the hon. the Deputy Minister for Agriculture. Let no one be mistaken or misled in anyway. We, on this side of the House, are very interested and eager to see this scheme brought into operation. It is a United Party scheme. It is the policy of the United Party and always has been. But where is it all going to? The other day I visited an area which I know as well as I know the palm of my hand. I had a good look at the villages which are being built under this Government, namely Teebus and Midshaft. These villages will be occupied and made use of, once the tunnel is being built. These are beautiful little towns, complete with modern power station, power, tarred streets and schools. They are complete and have everything except the people living in it. There is nobody there; they are still ghost towns. Each one costs R2 million. We do not have capital money available to lie idle for years and years. I know that the time will come when those towns will be utilized, and we hope that they will be filled. Imagine all those beautiful prefabricated houses, schools and hospitals still standing empty. The then hon. Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, Mr. J. I. Fouché, last year made a tour of inspection there, and I think we will all admit that he was shocked to see how much money had been spent and that nothing was being done, yet that the people were not using those houses, etc. It is a glaring example of money being wasted. This is now Government planning! This is lack of planning, lack of foresight. It is a complete waste of time.

Why is it a waste of time?

Well, I should say a complete waste of labour hours, interest, i.e. money lying idle, not drawing interest or being utilized.

I want to support my colleague, the hon. member for Albany. I know much has been said about the long tunnel to be built from Venterstad to Teebus. I have heard many suggestions in regard to the naming of this tunnel. I heard suggestions being made only the other day in Steynsburg. But I would like to support my colleague in asking the Government to seriously consider naming the tunnel, or atleast one of the projects, after the late Mr. Tom Bowker, one of the fathers of this scheme. I do not think anybody will begrudge us asking the Government to consider this. When one thinks of what the then Minister of Agriculture, now Minister of the Interior, Mr. P. M. K. le Roux, said about the scheme ten years ago, and now to have a dam named after him, surely we should consider Mr. Bowker’s name too? I see in a publication in the Press of March this year that the proposed Vanderkloof Dam in the Orange River Development Project, will in future be known as the P. K. le Roux Dam. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not in the habit of speaking on the portfolios of colleagues, but when an hon. member utters untruths about matters in which my constituency has a greater interest than any other constituency in South Africa, I feel compelled to expose those untruths. This hon. member is still embittered because Cradock rejected him in the election in which he stood there as a candidate. They did not reject him because he belonged to a certain church denomination; they rejected him because he belonged to a wrong political party which had a wrong policy. That same constituency and any other constituency in that area will never accept him. It does not matter to which church denomination he may belong. He may join a different church denomination, but until he joins a different party he will find no home there. The hon. member now wants to suggest that the Orange River scheme was a United Party scheme. I shall tell hon. members what the United Party scheme was. [Interjection.] The hon. member should keep quiet now. The United Party scheme was only the old Conroy scheme. We opposed that scheme over the years, because it was an unacceptable one. That scheme gave rise to agitation from Port Nolloth and the Orange River mouth all along the Orange River, because that scheme only comprised the idea of having a tunnel in the same area in which this 51 mile tunnel is now being built. That scheme only made provision for water from the Orange River and the surplus water of the Orange River to be conducted to tihe Fish and Sundays River valleys. I should very much like to see the water there. I have a far greater interest in that than that hon. member will ever have. I have a personal interest in it, but I am glad that my personal interest has never weighed so heavily with me that I had to serve my own personal interest in a matter such as this. I serve the national interest. That is why the former member for Cradock, Mr. Gerhard Bekker, I and others, when that worthy member the late Mr. Tom Bowker—and this hon. member does not really have the right to use his name here—introduced his annual motion here, told him that a scheme that would only divert this water from the Orange River, whether it be surplus water or conserved water, could never work. The scheme would have to be an Orange River project such as has been accepted by this Government. There had to be no quarrel between the inhabitants of the Orange River basin and the inhabitants of the Fish and Sundays River valleys, but it had to be a project which would serve the Orange River with all the land in its basin which had to be placed under irrigation, and would also take water to the Fish River valley and the Sundays River valley.

What was the difference between the two schemes?

You keep quiet. This is the scheme that was eventually decided upon. The hon. member referred here to what the previous hon. Minister of Water Affairs had allegedly said in this House to the effect that he could not build a scheme in the Orange River which would take water to the Fish River and Sundays River valleys at a cost of R140 million. He would be committing a criminal error if he did so. And so it would have been. Why is he trying to create the impression to-night that the then hon. Minister was opposed to the entire scheme? If this hon. member had been in this House a little longer, he would have remembered what happened when Dr. Steenkamp, the former member for Hillbrow, put a question to the then hon. Minister in this regard. When the then Minister, Mr. P. M. K. le Roux, announced that the Pongola scheme was going to be built, but that certain investigations were still being undertaken in connection with the Orange River scheme. Dr. Steenkamp asked him a question in this connection. If I had known that the hon. member was going to talk such nonsense here this evening, I would have looked up the reference in Hansard to enlighten him in this regard, but it is probably not necessary to have it. Dr. Steenkamp then asked, “Will this include the Orange River project to supply water to the Fish and Sundays River valleys?” Minister Le Roux’s reply to that was “Yes”. The United Party scheme was a small one to take water to the Fish and Sundays River valleys and no more. [Interjections.] No, it would not have included the Sak River. That is one of the objections we had against it. That is why we had that struggle at all agricultural congresses.

I also want to say something to the hon. member for Gardens, who wants to become angry now. When the late Mr. Jimmy Bekker and I put forward this matter at an agricultural congress, people from the area from which he comes pulled us away from the microphone and said, “These two people now want to divert the water of the Orange River to the Eastern Cape; if the good Lord had wanted the Orange River to flow through the Eastern Cape, He would not have had it flow to the West.” If those hon. members do not have a policy, they must not criticize this scheme.

To that hon. member who is objecting to the fact that a specific dam is being named after Minister P. M. K. le Roux and who has now asked that a scheme should also be named after Mr. Tom Bowker, I want to say that he is making his request at a very late stage. I am not making a prepared speech on this matter this evening, but I want to say to him that I made that request in this House when I was still a middle-bencher. I suggested as long ago as that that a dam or a tunnel should be named after him. Mr. Tom Bowker took a very great interest in this matter. Although I differed with him over the years in regard to his approach because he was interested in having a small, limited scheme, I nevertheless made that suggestion. The National Party Government takes a broad view of matters and foresees a scheme which will supply water to an area extending from Port Nolloth to Port Elizabeth for a thousand years. As a result of Mr. Tom Bowker’s interest in such a scheme, however limited the scheme may have been, I asked at that stage already that one of those dams, even if it were only the one that is to be built in my area, be named after him. I asked that one of those dams or tunnels be named after him. I am glad that I am also receiving support from the hon. member tonight. I just want to tell him that it is a pity that he is putting forward this idea at so late a stage and that he is now wanting to derive political advantage from it. The hon. member now wants to suggest that because the scheme is now going to be built, he wants to associate himself with Press reports that this scheme is going to cost R 1,000 million, whereas it could have been built for R80 million before. Is the hon. member so childish as to want to suggest that because a scheme is being built at the right time, its cost can be compared with the cost in former years? Perhaps I may concede to him that this scheme should perhaps have been completed two or three years ago if we had known about this drought. But this scheme has to be completed so as to keep pace with the consumption of the additional production. Can he compare the position with that in former years? I now want to ask him this: If this was the case, and if they were the wonderful United Party people with a wonderful Minister of Irrigation with his big mouth—I am sorry, one does not refer to the departed in that way—why did they not build it at that time? At that stage it would not even have cost R80 million. It would have been still much cheaper than that. Why did they not build the Hex River tunnel at that time? Then they could have completed all these schemes when it would still have been cheap to do so. No, they could plan and make a lot of noise and talk big, and to-day they want to live on the big talk of that time. But in actual fact they achieved nothing to boast of. They can only criticize and disparage, but they cannot point to anything else that they achieved. That is why they were rejected. I kindly invite the hon. member in advance to come and speak in Cradock, Somerset East or one of those constituencies in which the Orange River scheme will operate. If he does that, he will have an even harder time than he had during the election at that time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has been a little agitated and I think with very good reason. The hon. member for East London (North) got under his skin in no uncertain manner because he told the truth about the Nationalist Party and the way in which they opposed this scheme year after year. How does the hon. the Deputy Minister think that the United Party proposes to pass water down the tunnel from the Orange River to the Fish River without creating storage capacity, without measuring off the surplus and without going into the whole scheme in detail? Here he comes with a big act, pretending that we had no intention of doing anything at all. I believe that he has got himself quite on the wrong side altogether. The hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that this is a great scheme which the Nationalist Party planned and implemented suddenly, as though it was their own idea, or as though it was something which they took over from the United Party and improved beyond all recognition. The truth of the matter is that the only reason why they entered into this scheme at all was because they found themselves in dire straits after Sharpeville, and they had to find some major capital expenditure with which to restore confidence in this country. That is the reason why the Nationalist Party decided to embark upon this scheme. It is significant that, at the first sign of inflation and at the first sign of the economy getting out of hand, it was the first scheme which they cut. I think that this Deputy Minister is on very shaky ground. He put on a big act here to-night, but I do not think that he has a very good case, and, if I may say so, he did not present it very well.

I wish to take part in this debate in connection with another matter altogether. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether any progress has been made with a proclamation which he said he would issue, when I had the opportunity of leading a delegation of farmers from Natal to see him in connection with the Karkloof and Ixopo River catchment areas. This deputation from the Natal Agricultural Union went to see the Minister in connection with a matter raised by the hon. member for South Coast, namely the planting of trees in those catchment areas. This is a matter of the utmost concern to the whole Midlands of Natal. The Deputy Minister knows the situation. Three of the major rivers of the Midlands of Natal rise in the Karkloof range. The hon. the Deputy Minister did us the favour of saying that he would issue a proclamation freezing those areas, or preventing them from being planted with trees. This is a matter which has very great consequences, in that the Minister will be undertaking, on behalf of his department, to pay compensation to persons who are affected. I would very much welcome a statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister who is handling this portfolio, in regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for South Coast, as to whether the department is prepared to go to those lengths, and whether they are prepared to define certain areas. Obviously it will take time, but it will be centred largely in Natal and the eastern areas of the Transvaal, where water catchment areas are being affected and threatened by the planting of trees.

Will it stop Frankie planting a weeping willow at Newlands?

That is a very good question. The point is that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to consult with the Minister of Forestry. This reinforces the case made by the hon. member for South Coast. All matters which are related to the conservation of water, and particularly where they embrace soil conservation and forestry, and where they have to do with the planting of those areas and the control of the sources of our rivers, are, we believe, of the utmost importance We realize that it is a most important step which the Deputy Minister will be taking, from the point of view that he will have to be prepared to grant compensation to people who are affected in this way. Both the Karkloof and the Ixopo River areas are in the Mooi River constituency. In the Valley below the Ixopo River the only water supply the people have rises on three farms which are to-day in the process of being planted with trees. Some two years ago I raised the matter with the hon. the Minister of Forestry. I asked him to prevent this happening. He said to me then that he had no powers under the Act. At the time I did not know that this Minister had the powers, or I would have gone to see him. I have not yet seen the Gazette, and I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could tell me whether it has been issued, and what its terms are.

There is another matter which I want to raise. It is of the utmost importance to us. Again my constituency furnishes an example with the pulp mill which is proposed to be erected at Creighton. The Anglo-American Corporation applied to the hon. the Minister’s department for a permit. I do not know what has happened about the permit. I do not know whether the plans are being proceeded with, but this raises an important question. Industrial pollution of the Umzimkulu River at that spot, 100 miles from the coast, will greatly affect the whole future use of the Umzimkulu River. Make no mistake about it, Sir, this is a major river. Not only is it a major river, but it is the boundary between the province of Natal and the Transkei. Serious pollution of that river may well raise a matter which will become international when the Transkei becomes independent. I think that this is something of which we have to take careful cognizance. Our request to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he should take steps to see that the C.S.I.R. is given powers, to prevent the pollution of rivers and this river in particular, and that it is empowered to become an enforcement agency. Provision for this is not made in the 1956 Water Act. I believe that the industrialization of our country has made this matter more and more important. The hon. member for Standerton mentioned one factory in Boksburg which uses three cusecs of water per day, which just runs down the drain. This is a criminal waste of water, having regard to the conditions of our country to-day. We are advancing, and we can obtain technical knowledge from overseas, which will allow us to re-use water on an increasing scale. This, however, requires direction and initiative. We now have a new Deputy Minister. He has just come into this portfolio. Perhaps he will take it upon himself to attend to this aspect, namely to see to the control of pollution, and to insist, before permits are granted to extract water, that the process of purification, which is linked with the application of the water, is satisfactory to the C.S.I.R., in order to make sure that pollution cannot take place. I think that this is something of the utmost importance. We have reached a certain stage in South Africa in regard to looking for water, and seeking to protect our water supplies, and to increase them. In the department’s report, on page 10, it is stated that they propose to obtain first hand techniques overseas to initiate rainfall stimulation projects in the head water regions of suitable areas, the seeding of clouds, and so on. There is a problem attached to such techniques, and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister would be well-advised to bear them in mind. When one starts seeding clouds, one may well provoke flash floods, etc., which will cause considerable damage to people downstream. Experience has shown in certain countries and particularly in Australia that heavy compensation has to be paid. These are matters which I think we have to be very careful about and which we have to bear in mind. It also illustrates the steps and the lengths to which we are prepared to go to increase our water supplies. I come back to where I started, namely the question of the planting of timber in these areas. I hope that the Deputy Minister will be prepared to take the initiative and to issue instructions for the zoning of areas in the high rainfall regions which lend themselves to the planting of trees. If he does, not only we on this side of the House but the whole of South Africa will be very grateful.

The hon. member who has just sat down, once again made the far-fetched and absurd allegation that this Government had embarked on the Orange River scheme for no other reason than that it had been forced to do so after Sharpeville. This hon. member surely is a Rip van Winkle who slept for many years. Does that hon. member not realize that during all the years the United Party and its predecessors were in power, including the few years of the first National Party Government, i.e. from 1910 to 1948, those successive Governments spent merely R49 million on water conservation in South Africa? During the subsequent 18 years, i.e. from 1948 to 1966. this Government spent no less than R252 million on water conservation in South Africa. Now we have to hear that this Government had to embark on the Orange River scheme because our economy had come to a standstill! Does that hon. member not know that the national income of South Africa increased from R1,701 million to R9,363 million, a fourfold and larger increase, from 1948 to 1967? He is indeed a Rip van Winkle . During this period of 19 years our industrial production increased from R401 million to R1,751 million, and then the hon. member speaks of a “standstill” of the economy. But I want to leave the hon. member at that.

I have to come back to the derogatory statements made here this afternoon by the hon. member for South Coast about the hon. the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs. He was upset about the fact that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture suddenly had to leave the Chamber after he had to sit here and listen to United Party stories for 14 hours, and the hon. member was concerned that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs would have to deputize for the Minister in this debate. But I want to say this to the hon. member for South Coast. We on this side of the House have the fullest confidence in this young and energetic Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, because in the short time since he has taken charge he has already proved that his appointment by the hon. the Prime Minister was an excellent one. To-night I want to congratulate him most heartily, seeing that this is the first time he has been in charge of this Vote, on the distinction which has befallen him, and I want to give him the assurance that we on this side have the fullest confidence in his excellent insight and his ability, and. seeing that he has been trained in economics, I believe that he will not overlook the economic aspect in dealing with Water Affairs.

For many years I have delivered pleas here that in planning of our water schemes we should not neglect the economic aspect. Now, it is the position that when people are suffering as a result of droughts, that naturally touches the heart of the Minister of Water Affairs and he listens to their representations. There are two schools of thought as far as water schemes are concerned. The one school maintains that one should give water where the shortage of water is the most severe. The other school maintains that one should utilize the water where it can be utilized most economically. In view of the fact that I have been pleading here for many years for economic water schemes. I feel completely at liberty to-night to address myself to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, who is an economist, in connection with the economic aspect of water conservation and utilization. I have been delivering pleas here for many years for a large water conservation and utilization scheme in the Western Province, and I have done so for various reasons.

The first reason is that a water scheme for the Western Cape will be an economic one because the silt load of our rivers is extremely low. I want to refer to the White Paper on the Theewaterskloof Dam, which has just been published and in which it is indicated that the silt load of the river which will feed that dam will be as low as 0.07 per cent by volume. There is hardly any silt, with the result that that dam will not silt up within the next 10 or 20 years. It will be possible to make full use of that dam for many years to come.

A second reason which I want to advance is this. Because this area has a very constant winter rainfall, irrigation is necessary during four months of the year only, and for that reason a given quantity of water can go two or three times as far as in those drought areas in,which irrigation has to take place throughout the year. A third reason which I have always advanced is this. Because we produce products in this area which can carry high water rates, it is possible to have a scheme in this area which will cost the farmers as much as R90 per morgen per annum as against the average of R6 to R8 per morgen in the rest of the Republic. We have another scheme which costs R65 per morgen per annum. A White Paper on a scheme in the Berg River Valley is before this House at the present time, a scheme which will cost as much as R112 per morgen per annum and the bodies and persons concerned are prepared to pay those costs because they produce products which can carry high water rates.

I want to mention a fourth reason why a scheme in the Western Cape is an economic undertaking. The farmers in this area have become accustomed to making a little water go a long way, and consequently they employ the most modern methods of water utilization, i.e. spray irrigation. Therefore this Theewaterskloof scheme which the hon. the Minister has announced and which will supply water to the Berg River Valley, is a source of great joy to us.

But I nevertheless want to point out that there still is one shortcoming as far as this scheme is concerned. According to the White Paper which has been tabled, that scheme will supply in the needs of the Riviersonderend Valley, which is quite right as those people who live along the Riviersonderend do have the first right to that water. In addition provision is made for the adjoining Ruggens area. That is also quite right and I do not have any fault to find with that. Provision is made for the towns of Franschhoek. Paarl, Wellington. Stellenbosch, and that too is quite right and I cannot find any fault with that. Provision is made for the riparian owners along the Berg River, and this too is quite right. But I nevertheless find it a great pity that provision has not been made for the entire valley from Franschhoek to the mouth of the Berg River, and now I am referring to those people who are not riparian owners.

I understand that the problem is costs and manpower and because that is so I do not want to be difficult and ask for this to be included in this scheme immediately. But I nevertheless want to put it very strongly and urgently to the hon. the Minister and his Department that, as far as irrigation is concerned, we have here an enormous valley which stretches from the mountains at the top end of the Franschhoek Valley to a point far beyond Wellington in which water can be utilized very economically and that we shall be able to utilize the full, water potential of that scheme only if we also make provision for a system of canals which will supply water to owners who are not riparian owners. For the reasons I have just given. I repeat my statement that this will be the most economic scheme we have ever seen in this country.

To-night I want to make a request for a reassessment of the future water requirements of the Orange River to the west of the confluence of the Vaal and the Orange Rivers seen against the background of the Orange River Development Project, W.P.X.-’62. The immediate reason for this request is the serious shortage of irrigation water suffered on 2,500 morgen of irrigation land situated in the Lower Orange region and lower down on three occasions during the past 20 months. Some of the oldest settlements in this country are situated in this area. Kakamas was established at the beginning of this century, and Upington and Boegoeberg were established subsequently. In the relevant report on the Orange River Development Project we find the following statement in item 4 (a) (vi) under the heading “Available Land”—

I fear that we have already arrived at this stage, because losses amounting to millions of rand were suffered in the past two years as a result of these three droughts. Losses were also suffered on the Vaalharts scheme, losses for which those farmers were compensated, but they, as riparian owners, were entitled to that water of which they were deprived because it had to be used, as a matter of first priority, for the important Vaal Triangle complex. The agriculturists in my region could not lodge that claim. Their water in the Orange River had flowed to the sea long before. I admit that the Government and the Department were very sympathetic and rendered a great deal of assistance, and I believe that this will also be the position in the future if we should again find ourselves in difficulties. We also realize that once the Verwoerd Dam has been completed in 1971, the urban and the rural areas to the west of the confluence of the two rivers will undoubtedly have a much more secure supoly of water but, and this is my point, the additional agricultural development envisaged for these regions in the existing plan, does not indicate any appreciable extension of the agricultural basis of these regions. Over a period of nearly 70 years a sound nucleus of development has been established in these regions. At present agriculture in these regions yields 38 per cent of the gross regional product, while for the rest of the country the gross geographical product is approximately 9 per cent. An urban and industrial complex, with agriculture as its basis, has been established in this region, and lower down in the direction of Namaqualand there are still large resources of mineral wealth awaiting development in the future. At present this development is only in its initial stages. In addition there is a good deal more fine agricultural land in the basin of and close to the river which can be developed so as to extend this agricultural basis. On page 7 of the report we find figures relating to the urban and industrial water supply of certain cities and towns, but they merely refer to complexes situated to the east of the confluence of these two rivers, and no mention is made in the report of a town like Upington with a present population of nearly 30,000 and in which one can already see the signs of urban development. The original plan envisaged a storage dam, now called the iP. K. le Roux Dam, which would make provision for the irrigation of more than 200,000 morgen of new land. This is land about which, I have learned, considerable doubt exists as to whether the alkaline content and the sodium content of the soil may not lead to serious brackening in the future within a generation or two. At the moment the State is not yet committed to the development of the full extent of all these new lands.

I now want to pose the question whether sufficient regard was had in the drawing up of the original plan to the future requirements and the development of the western part of the Cape Province, which is a dry region but not less precious and through which the Orange River runs for hundreds of miles? I want to request that the points of growth which are developing here and which, in my opinion, ought to be promoted in accordance with a policy of balanced economic development, should be viewed in a new light. Therefore I request a re-assessment of, firstly, the agricultural possibilities and, secondly, the demands of future urban and industrial water requirements. I should like these matters to be reconsidered before a final decision is taken on the final planning stages of all proposed schemes. This need not hamper any existing communities or any development. This can be achieved by means of a dam to the west of the confluence of the two rivers. The wall of the existing Boegoeberg Dam can be raised, or a new dam can be constructed in its vicinity. It has been estimated that it will be possible to irrigate at least 35,000 morgen of new land if the wall of the dam is raised by 100 feet at an estimated cost of approximately R14 million, with a possible additional amount of R6 million for a pipeline to the Kalahari. In view of the fact that there is no clear assurance, because sufficient provision has not been made for water, that it will be possible to develop the full potential of that part of the country, i.e. the western dry regions and the Lower Orange, I want to say to-night that that creates a measure of uncertainty for that established community for whom there is a potential of development, and this uncertainty has been aggravated by the droughts of the past few years. If in future it should happen again that new priorities should be determined in respect of the use of water and if these determinations of priorities were to give rise to a position that some of the water of the H. F. Verwoerd Dam or of the P. K. le Roux Dam could not be released for areas situated lower down on the river, we would like to see that a dam would have been completed to the west of the confluence of those two rivers, a storage dam for water to be used by those regions, water which would belong to the Lower Orange and to those areas situated more to the west of Namaqualand, water which it would not be possible to take back.

The hon. member for Gordonia has dealt with purely parochial matters and I am sure that he will excuse me if I do not follow along the same lines that he has pursued. I want to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Paarl who is not here at the moment. However, for the sake of the record I want to put straight one assertion made by him. He rather took umbrage at what he considered to be the attitude of my colleague, the hon. member for South Coast, during his address when he alluded to the absence of the hon. the Minister. What he hon. member for South Coast said was this: He was sorry that the hon. the Minister was not here. He was dealing with the question of a rearrangement of portfolios. He did not criticize the hon. the Minister’s absence from the House. He merely made the statement that it was unfortunate and he regretted that the hon. the Minister was not present.

The hon. member for Paarl said that he accepted as a principle of water administration that water must be used where it is most economic. Sir, in this House during the last session, we on this side set out our policy with regard to water affairs, a policy by which we stand. We said that one of the principles on which we stood was that water should not be taken from one area to another at the expense of a settled community. We went on to say that water should not be taken from one area to another at the expense of possible future development in that area, especially if that water is to be taken to another area for the purpose of developing some other industry of whatever nature it may be. Sir, I asked that the hon. member for Klip River, the new Whip on the Government side, should be present, but unfortunately, I believe, he is away, but maybe his noisy friend from Vryheid can answer for the hon. member. I want to refer to a report which appeared in the Press on the 13th February, 1967 and in which the hon. member for Klip River was reported in in the Natal Daily News as follows—

First of all, I do not know how he could have had the cheek to think that he had proposed this but let us leave it at that. At any rate, he made the statement that this dam should be developed to provide water for the Vaal Triangle. Sir, I find that the same newspaper, the Natal Daily News, in a report of the 16th November, just nine months later, said the following under the heading—

A typical grasshopper.

Sir, I do not know whether the hon. member is back at his old tricks playing politics, whether he is setting out to mislead certain people. Perhaps he had to make such a statement in the Escourt area to retain his seat but, Sir, what is the true position? I want to put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is Natal’s water going to be taken over the Berg to the Transvaal for the development of new industrial areas and other new developments at the expense of possible future development in Natal? Sir, I ask this advisedly because I have here White Paper X of 1967 dealing with the development of the Tugela River at the proposed Spioenkop Dam, from which it is apparent that before the first shovelfull of concrete was laid in this new dam, more water in that dam had been allocated to the Transvaal than for development in Natal. There is no need for me to go into the potential for development of the Tugela Basin. This matter has been mentioned in this House so often that I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of this potential. He is aware of what we are hoping will take place there; he is aware of what his colleagues, the three blind mice, are hoping is going to take place there in order to save their Bantustan skins.

You are a conceited junior back-bencher.

I am not blind and I am not chasing after the farmer’s wife …

You are a loud-mouth…

Order!

Ministerial behaviour!

We find here that 30,000 morgen feet is set aside for irrigation in Natal; 32,000 morgen feet is set aside for future industrial development of a town, as they put it, of the size of Pretoria to-day, and 96,200 morgen feet will be available for other purposes and for transporting over the Berg to supplement the water of the Vaal Dam. The point I want to make is that that water which will go into the Vaal Dam will not go there particularly for the assistance of the existing industries within the Vaal Triangle complex but it is also going to such areas as Rosslyn, new areas which are being developed in furtherance of the ideological nonsense and clap-trap of the Government. This is the point that I want to put quite directly to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is this water going to be taken from Natal to the Transvaal for the development of further areas such as Rosslyn?

Sir, having looked at the figures given in the public statement I find that there is rather a disturbing tendency; I find that the amount set aside for the employment of students as engineering pupils over the vacation has been reduced by R600. The amount set aside for general investigation of water resources outside of the Orange River Scheme has been reduced by R2,000. The amount set aside for the purchase of recorders for the control of water generally and other similar services has been reduced by R4,000. The amount set aside for the study of flood expectancies has been completely obliterated, in other words, there is a reduction of R 15,000; there is nothing whatever set aside for it to-day. Sir, this is a tendency which worried me when I saw it and I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this line is being taken deliberately. Is the Department satisfied on all these points, which are important matters, that it has now obtained sufficient data and information, and that it no longer needs to extend the research in those spheres, or is this perhaps being done for some other reason? I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister in all sincerity why there are these decreases; whether this is merely accidental or whether this is a defined trend; whether the Department is satisfied that it has sufficient information on these matters? Dealing with the question of the study of flood expectation, I must say that I am disappointed to find that nothing is being allocated for this service to-day. This is a subject which was raised by my hon. friend, the member for South Coast, during last session, and this year we find that there is nothing allocated for this service at all. Surely we should have some research into flood expectancy. There are many people who maintain that floods come in cycles. Should we not do some research and try to ascertain if there is such a cycle? My hon. friend has pleaded for an investigation to ascertain whether droughts come in cycles. Surely if this information could be collated it would be of invaluable assistance to the Department and to the country as a whole from the point of view of preventive measures which might be taken, not only with regard to floods but with regard to droughts as well.

Sir. there is a small item on the Estimates of R440 under “Miscellaneous” in respect of ex gratia payments to farmers. I do not know what this represents; perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell the Committee for what purpose this amount is being set aside. Sir, another thing which came to light in my examination of these figures is the fact that the amount set aside for general pollution control measures has not been increased over the last three years. There is still only R60,000 set aside and this notwithstanding the tremendous amount of pollution, the tremendous problem which this presents to South Africa. Sir, I have just picked up a few headlines in the newspapers. … [Time expired.]

It is a commonplace that water is the life-blood of the economy of the country. I think that water is one of the resources of the Republic of South Africa in regard to which we are the most vulnerable. That is why this Government has devoted a great deal of attention to water conservation, as did previous governments. We have the greatest admiration and appreciation for the water schemes envisaged and being built by this Government, but we shall have to concentrate more and more on using water more economically. I therefore appreciate the fact that the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs is making it his object to encourage spray irrigation. I think that one of the things to which attention will have to be given is the question of spray irrigation at our settlement schemes in order to use water more economically. I think we will have to encourage the introduction of spray irrigation systems there more and more by providing the necessary assistance. Mr. Chairman, we also have an educational function to perform here. We have to teach the people how to use water more economically. Just consider how much water is wasted in household consumption.

In the third place, we should also devote increasing attention to the re-use of water. It is very necessary that we should use water over and over again. Various hon. members have pointed out the necessity of this. Mr. Chairman, when we have put all these schemes into operation, when we have stored up all the possible run-off water in the country, when we are using water as economically as possible and when we are re-using all the water that we can, I believe the Republic will still be faced with the problem that we have too little water, and then in the last resort we shall have to consider desalinating water. In this connection I should like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister what has become of the experiments carried out in the past in connection with the desalination of water. We have the peculiar circumstance on the Free State gold-fields that there is an incalculable amount of subterranean water. Enough water is being pumped out daily to supply three cities as large as Bloemfontein with water. About 40 million gallons of water are being pumped out of the gold mines daily. This water contains a weak solution of table salt and consequently is not suitable for human or animal consumption. Attempts have been made to desalinate that water and make it fresh. The Department of Water Affairs, in conjunction with Anglo American and the C.I.S.R., launched an experimental scheme by which they tried to desalinate the water. This scheme is known as electro-dialysis. It consists of an electric current being passed through a diaphragm in which a chemical reaction is set up which separates the table salt and the water, so that pure water remains on the one side and a weak solution of hydrochloric acid and caustic soda on the other. It has been calculated that this scheme in regard to which experiments have been carried out, can yield fresh water at 30c per 1,000 gallons. Fresh water could be supplied from the Vaal River and gold-mines at 25c per 1,000 gallons. When this experiment was discontinued in 1959, it was felt that the extra 5c per 1,000 gallons was too much and that it would be cheaper to obtain water from the Vaal River. However, when water restriction were imposed during the severe droughts anybody would have been prepared to pay 5c per 1,000 gallons more if he could only obtain the water. I know that, as far as this process of the desalination of water is concerned, our scientists and analysts were ahead of the world with their experiments. If this scheme is in any way economical I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that it should be put into parctice in order to meet these problems. As I have mentioned, it is a scheme which will perhaps have to be considered in the distant future, when we have stored up all our run-off water and when we have no more water that we can re-use. We have a golden opportunity in the Free State gold fields of carrying on with this experiment. which had already reached an advanced stage.

In the last part of his speech the hon. member for Virginia referred mainly to the question of the desalination of water. He pointed out that an enormous quantity of subterranean water is available in the Free State. I do not want to follow up the argument of the hon. member, but I do think that there is in fact an enormous supply of water which can be utlized, and consequently I want to associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In view of the fact that investigations have already been conducted, we trust that a greater measure of success will be achieved in due course. There is no doubt whatsoever that the enormous quantity of subterranean water which we have and which is being pumped out at the mines, can supply an enormous quantity of water to South Africa.

I should like to raise another matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to raise the matter of private dams. When one consults the report of the commission of enquiry into the agricultural industry, and particularly as regards the extensive parts of South Africa, especially the Cape Province, one realizes that it is in fact possible to produce large quantities of fodder in this country if our water resources are utilized properly. Now, Sir, all farmers are not fortunate enough to have a river or a stream flowing across their farms. There is no doubt, however, that a tremendous quantity of water flows over the plains of the Karoo at certain times of the year, particularly during thunder storms. I think it is a generally accepted principle that every farmer should to the best of his ability try to retain the water which falls on his farm. I think all of us are in agreement about this principle, namely that the water which falls, even if there is no river or stream, should be retained on that farm. The policy of the Division of Soil Conservation is that weirs should be constructed and that floods should be stemmed, but that surplus waters should always be allowed to flow on. Consequently the construction of storage dams in that area is also something which is essential. But the building of a storage dam in 1968 is an entirely different matter to what it was in 1938 or in 1948. To build a storage dam to-day, even in the Karoo, costs a fantastic sum of money. I think it is the ideal of every farmer to stem the flow of that water, but the financial resources of those people are not such that they can afford to do so. Now they are in fact entitled to a subsidy from the State. I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister for his consideration that the subsidy which is paid at present for the construction of private dams in that large, extensive part of the Cape Province is totally insufficient under present circumstances. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the maximum amount which a farmer can obtain if he wants to build a storage dam on his farm is, if my memory serves me right, approximately R 1.000. I want to tell him that that amount is totally insufficient under present circumstances. One should not think that there are no further expenses once a dam has been built. The dams silt up. With the passing of time the wall deteriorates to a certain extent. The cost of maintaining such a wall are enormous. The wall of that dam has to be maintained, because when a farmer has built a dam, he has done so for the purposee of bringing 15, 10 or in many cases even fewer morgen of land under irrigation. Therefore it is not only during the initial stages that he has those expenses. He must also have regard to the maintenance costs of that dam as time goes by. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if we want the people in those extensive farming areas of the country to conserve the water, we have to assist them to-day to an extent which will be in keeping with the present-day costs of conserving water. I want to mention a few examples to the hon. the Minister. I know of people in the Karoo who followed the policy of the Government and of this side of the House, namely to conserve the water which falls on their farms, and who spent R15,000, R20,000 and more on building such dams, and who have been following this policy for the past few years. The maximum amount which they could obtain from the Government for those private dams was in the vicinity of R 1,000. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that we have really reached the stage when we should give consideration to providing more assistance to those people if we want more small schemes on individual farms. Unless we do so, we cannot expect them to be able to conserve that water. The Marais Commission holds out the prospect of subsidies from the State to farmers so as to enable them to plant lucerne and other perennial crops which are drought resistant. But they will not be able to grow those crops without a decent supply of water and a sufficient supply of water can only be ensured by building storage dams. We hope to have an opportunity at a later stage of taking the Minister to those parts of the country and showing him that there still is scope for many storage dams to be built by individual farmers. They do not have rivers or streams on their farms, but the water which flows away on their farms is sufficient to justify the building of a storage dam. I want to plead for additional assistance to be given to those people once the Minister has seen what the position in those areas is and what can still be done.

Another matter which I want to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister is the question of Government boring machines for which an amount of R4,280,000 is made available in the Estimates. We know that the State is doing a great deal, especially by the provision of boring services, to enable us to utilize our subterranean water resources. The State sends boring machines from one place to another and it undertakes boring work all over the country. But there are farmers in certain extensive parts who have been waiting for years for a State boring machine. Let me refer the hon. the Minister to an area like Calvinia, a large sheepfarming district. I understand that in the magisterial district of Calvinia there are farmers who applied for the services of a State boring machine three years ago, and who are still waiting. Now we know that there is a staff shortage and to a certain extent perhaps of capital as well. (Time limit.)

I should like to make use of this opportunity to express my appreciation to the previous Minister of Water Affairs. On occasion I led deputations to him in connection with the supply of water to Heilbron and other towns in the North-Eastern Free State, but especially to Heilbron, which is known as a border industry area for Coloureds. It may seem strange that there is an area for Coloureds in the North-Eastern Free State. The Town Council of Heilbron incurred heavy expenditure in order to provide housing to a large number of Coloured families at Heilbron for whom accommodation had to be found. The Department of Planning declared that area a border industry area for Coloureds. However, there was one obstacle in the way of the development of that area as a border industry area, namely water. We thereupon submitted the matter to the then Minister, with the result that his Department investigated the whole matter and a White Paper was tabled here in this session, on a proposed water scheme for Heilbron, in the first phase, and for surrounding towns in subsequent phases. This scheme will cost approximately R600,000. Of this amount, R50.000 is being provided on these Estimates. I cannot but express my appreciation to the Department for this step to supply that part of the Free State with water. It has been said here before that very little of the water of the Vaal River and of the Wilge River is being used on the south bank. Of course. Sasol and the gold fields developed there. It is a great improvement to those parts, which are flat country, which does not lend itself to the construction of large dams. The most expensive item in this scheme is the pipeline which has to be laid between the Vaal Dam and Heilbron. The second phase of this scheme, as I see it, will be to supply water to towns such as Lindley, Steynsrust, Petrus Steyn and others, towns which have a great shortage of water at present. They do have small local schemes, but these are quite inadequate to meet their needs.

Then I want to associate myself with the eloquent plea made by the hon. member for Virginia for the desalination of water. He naturally pleaded for his own constituency in the first place, but I should like to have more information about this matter. For example, what progress have we made with the desalination of water by means of nuclear power? I understand that in due course there will be such a scheme here in the Western Cape. Are there any plans in prospect apart from this one? Is it the idea to desalinate water on a larger scale than this, also in the Orange Free State, where water is badly needed? I am aware that it is the intention to supply water to that part of our country under the Tugela Scheme, a plan to which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) took exception. But I cannot understand his argument, because even to-night other hon. members of the Opposition pleaded for water to be brought from the Orange River Scheme by means of canals to the catchment area of the Eastern Cape. In connection with the Tugela Scheme, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) objected to the fact that under that scheme it is planned to bring water from one catchment area to another. But on the other hand some of his colleagues advocate the same thing. The United Party prides itself on actually being the father of the Orange River Scheme, and they even want to name a part of that scheme after one of their former members. In this regard I therefore find an incomprehensible contradiction in their arguments. I think the Tugela has too much water for its catchment area. Apart from the fact that a large portion of its water runs into the sea, three-quarters of it runs through Bantu areas. All the water which is now required for the border area development along the upper reaches of the Tugela is available there, but we can push a large quantity of that surplus water across the mountain into the Vaal River, because the greatest development in South Africa is in fact to be found in the Vaal Triangle, whether we want to admit it or not. The position is simply that the development of South Africa is taking place in that area. That part of the Vaal Triangle also forms part of my constituency. I want to plead for the water to be taken there, where it can meet the greatest need and where the greatest development is taking place. Therefore I should like to see that scheme also receiving attention.

I am also aware of the plans in connection with the Oxbow Scheme, by means of which it is the intention to obtain water from Basutoland. I do not know how much progress will be made with that. That matter is being discussed, and will probably be further discussed, on an international level. I do not want to advocate it here either. However, I want to plead for our own water, the water of the Republic, to be applied in such a way that it is available where it can be put to the best use. I am convinced that much of the surplus water of the Tugela Valley can be put to proper use in the Vaal River basin, where all the towns in my constituency which I have mentioned can use it. This is one of the things the previous Minister considered. He asked whether there was enough water in the Vaal Dam also to supply water to Heilbron and the other towns mentioned. If we are going to be so provincialistic that we can no longer see the needs of the Republic as a whole, we will just do our country great harm. Therefore I want to plead once again that this matter should receive attention. I ask that the scheme in terms of which the towns of the Northern Free State which are suffering a great shortage of water will be supplied with water, should be proceeded with, and that a second phase will follow on this first phase of supplying water to Heilbron.

Mr. Chairman. I like to follow upon the hon. member for Heilbron, who is a supporter of the creation of Bantustans, the model of which, i.e. the Transkei, has already been created. I want to state to the hon. the Minister the situation as regards the supplying of water to the Eastern Cape, the border areas, and especially the King William’s Town-East London complex. Earlier on in this Session I asked certain questions and the replies I received amounted to this, that that complex will have sufficient water for the next few months only if the pipeline from the Rooikrans Dam is completed together with the raising of its wall. My question only related to water supply for the next few months. During the function that was held in connection with the Bridle Drift Dam the Minister made the remark that one of the most necessary things in the Eastern Cape, especially in the complex mentioned, was water. I also asked whether it was the intention at some stage by means of canals to bring the waters of the Orange River down to those parts where the Government would like to develop its border area industry complex in the quickest and best way. I want to suggest that the Buffalo River and all the dams I arn going to mention will not be able to supply the water which is needed in that area. We have the Buffalo River with the series of dams that were built there. There is the Rooikrans. Dam, which must be raised to supply an additional 2.8 million gallons per day to the King William’s Town complex and the Good Hope Textile Factory. There are also the Nahoon and the Bridledrift Dams. The White Paper which was issued in connection with the Buffalo River Government Water Works envisages that King William’s Town alone will need 6,900,000 gallons per day in 1980. I say the rivers at our disposal at present cannot accumulate the necessary water supplies to meet the needs of that specific complex. If the water of the Bashee River and of other rivers were to be utilized as well, that water supply will still be insufficient to supply in the requirements of the future industrial development in that part of the country. What I am thinking of now is the King William’s Town East London complex as well as the piece of land in between, namely the Berlin Flats, which have been designated for industrial development. If we take into account what development will take place in the Eastern Cape over the next ten years, I want to submit that not nearly enough water could be stored to supply in the requirements of the proposed industrial development in that area. I have also asked whether it is the intention and whether measures are being taken to dam up and to utilize the waters of the Keiskamma River, which is the next river of appreciable size which can be dammed up. I know the Keiskamma River runs through the Ciskei for the most part. The reply I have received to my question is that surveys are continually being made in this respect. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what is being envisaged in order to supply water to that complex, namely the 100 miles to the south of Fort Beaufort, the part which is situated next to the lower part of the Transkei. We know that under present circumstances and with the drought which we are experiencing at present, the position there is very bad. Unless we get good winter rains which will cause a flow of water in the Eastern Cape—and this is highly unlikely because as a rule this does not happen—a flow of water which will feed the dams, the people in that region will have a hard time. That is the position in spite of the present capacity of those dams, as I have been informed here in reply to a question. I want to predict here that towards September we may expect to experience the greatest difficulty as regards the water requirements of the King William’s Town-East London complex, unless we get these good winter rains. Even at the present rate of use the position is rather poor. Strict water restrictions are applied there. Things were so bad that another Minister had to pay a visit to that area to see what could be done in connection with the Good Hope Textile Factory. This is only one textile factory which has been experiencing a hard time. The possibility of installing long pipelines was even considered to see whether the factory could not be assisted in that way.

It is important to the people living in the area which I represent, in East London, that the hon. the Minister should make a statement outlining future plans for that area. We should like to know his Department’s point of view as regards the accumulation of water supplies for that complex for which border area industrialization is envisaged. With the encouragement which is being given so as to attract industries to those areas, and if the Government’s plans for that area should materialize, what will be done if the necessary additional water is not supplied, if the water of the Orange River is not taken to the eastern parts? Where would the water come from which will be required there? These are important questions to us who live there. Along with other people we are also trying to attract industries to that area, because industries are the lifeblood of that area and therefore it is important to us that they should come to that area. Surely it should be possible to tell prospective industrialists that there will be no water shortage in that area within the next 25 years thanks to the Government’s plans for the future in this respect. I know the hon. the Minister visited that area himself. I think that was one of the first visits he paid in connection with performing the duties portfolio. I have read the speech which he made there and it proves that the Minister too is of the opinion that there are problems as regards the question of supplying water to that complex. Therefore I shall be glad if the Minister will apply himself to this matter. I am not going to deal with the position further to the north, in the area extending as far as Queenstown. That area may have possibilities as regards the provision of water as well. I seriously doubt whether we have at this stage the necessary catchment area and whether we have taken the necessary measures to be able to supply sufficient water to the complex the Government is hoping to create there by means of border areas.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London (City) spoke of a picture of the future and of border areas, and it seems to me the ex-general is going straight again. We are grateful that the future strength of South Africa is on this side of the House and not on that side. It was a pleasure to me to hear that he was talking of a picture of the future. He seems to have accepted the idea of border industries too and we are very grateful for that.

The future development and the future potential of South Africa depend to a large extent on the way in which water is utilized and saved in the years to come. It is interesting to see what has been done in this respect during the past years. During the past four years of the regime of that side, namely in the years 1944 to 1948, their annual expenditure on water affairs and waterworks was R 1,202 million. During the past four years under this Government no less than R34½ million was spent on it every year. What a great difference that is! What has not already been accomplished! In the past 20 years this Government has accomplished a great deal, but I know that in future much more will be accomplished as regards the saving and utilization of this source of life.

I know there will be a reaction from that side, but nevertheless I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department sincerely for the Vaalkop Dam which is being constructed in my constituency. This is a project which costs R6 million and which has a capacity of 26,000 morgen/feet. It will be one of the largest dams in the Transvaal rural districts. I am extremely glad and grateful that it is being built. The project is already under construction. The dam is not only being built, but it is being built in terms of regional planning and development. Sufficient provision is being made for the farmer, for the industrialist, for the two towns in my constituency, namely Rustenburg and Thabazimbi, as well as for the platinum mining industry. The advantages this dam will have in earning foreign exchange for the exchequer will be very great in the form of indirect value. I should like to bring the value this dam will have as regards tourism to the Minister’s notice. If one looks at the climate, at the geographical situation and at the beauty of the bushveld there, one must admit that it will be one of the most beautiful environments in the whole of the Republic. I want to ask that when farmers’ land is bought to be used for the dam, land should be set aside for tourism and nature conservation purposes.

We recently experienced a terrible drought and we fully appreciate what water saving and utilization means. Agriculture there receives a water allocation of 5,950 morgen/feet. The White Paper makes it very clear that the transmission loss will be 50 per cent of that. The utilization will be 24 inches and it will be possible to irrigate 1,500 morgen. If the water could be canalized, we could place 3,000 morgen under irrigation. I think this is very important to the agricultural industry. It is a well-known fact that the river bank in that area is very porous and that water seeps away completely there. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the water cannot be canalized. This will really be appreciated very much.

I am very grateful that this dam is not being put out on contract. It is my considered opinion that the Department has acted correctly here. I am grateful that the Department itself is constructing this dam, at a cost of. as I said, R6 million. At present we are building dams on a large scale in South Africa. At the moment there are 56 dams under construction or being raised or still being planned. The estimated cost for this year is approximately R60 million. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to consider the possibility of expanding our departmental teams in such a way that the work can be done departmentally. If we could expand the building teams in that way, if we granted recognition our engineers, we would be able to save enormous amounts of money. I am convinced that we are getting at least R6 million’s value for the dam which is being constructed in my constituency. But I would not have been so happy if the work had been put out on contract. Then there would have been consulting engineers and other consultants; there would have been all kinds of additional costs. Where dams are put out on contract, the Department must nevertheless exercise control. It would be a very good thing if our departmental teams could undertake all construction work of this kind. The advantages of such a system have already been proved in other fields. It has been proved that where construction work is being done this is a sound policy to follow. We are not a static country. We have a great future. As regards industrial development, our best days are still ahead of us. Therefore I say it is essential to construct our dams and our water projects at competitive costs. If the Department could be further developed in this respect, I am convinced that we will construct many more dams in the future.

I want to state quite explicitly this evening that my constituency is throughly water conscious. Every drop, even of sewage water, is being used in the mining of platinum. The drought taught us a big lesson. The hon. member for Albany had much to say to-night about water coming from the Rand Water Board to Rustenburg. I just want to tell him this. If he had known what the foreign exchange value of the platinum is which is being exploited there, he would rather have kept quiet to-night. I think the value is much more than his constituency can ever yield. Therefore I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Heilbron, who said that he was not provincialistic. In future I will say, “Vrystaat”. because this is the right spirit. South Africa is being developed as a whole. We are tired of this provincialism and this attitude of the United Party. We are tired of the stories of that side of the House, although there are a few old war-horses on that side whom I like. The hon. member for South Coast was the only one on that side who made a positive contribution to this debate. Therefore he will remain an honourable old man in my estimation. But the attitude and action of the younger hon. members on the opposite side are not the same as those of the old traditional United Party men as we knew them. This Department has had to endure many pinpricks from those people. At the beginning of the year their great war-cry was, “Water and Water Affairs”. During and after the drought they created such a fuss, but now that calm has returned, now that we have a young and dynamic Deputy Minister, things are much better. And let me make it quite clear that things are going to happen under this Deputy Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg who has just completed his speech has obviously done so to the delight of his colleagues. They were laughing so much that I could not hear what he was saying. I hope therefore that he will not mind if I do not follow him in his argument. I would, however, like to give him some advice. Some of the members on the other side of the House also need some advice. They keep on starting their speeches and quoting statistics of 30 or 40 years ago when the United Party was in power. Those statistics are meaningless and prove nothing. They should rather decide what the problems are now and give us their views as to how to solve those problems and to plan for the future. In that way they will probably succeed in making a valuable contribution towards the debate. I do not want to follow the hon. member for Rustenburg in his speech in which he dealt with his own constituency. He is obviously a man who is very fortunate. He has a constituency for which a R6 million dam was provided. His problem is not the shortage of water, which is the case in many other constituencies, but how to utilize that water in the best manner. That is obviously a matter between himself and the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I want to speak about the river valleys in South Africa. So often, when we discuss water affairs, the only province that seems to have river valleys is Natal. The debate usually confines itself to that province which has many rivers. There are other provinces which have rivers, and there are other provinces which have problems with their rivers. I want to deal with some of the rivers that are in the drier areas of the country and especially in the Cape Province. These may not be rivers in the true sense, in that they are rivers that are always flowing with water, but they are important in the sense that they are the water courses that conduct flood waters over big areas during times of heavy rain to the sea. These rivers must receive consideration in any planning by the Department of Water Affairs. The water courses and rivers which I am referring to are rivers like the Sundays River which flows into the sea near Port Elizabeth, the Fish River which goes through the Albany district and the Seekoei River which is a tributary of the Orange River. These river valleys or bigger water courses also have many smaller tributaries which flow into them. It is these smaller tributaries to which I really want to draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention this evening. These smaller tributaries traverse many of the drier plains of the platteland. When we have heavy storms that come periodically in the Karoo and other dry areas, they develop into rushing torrents. They develop into big gashes through the fertile valleys. When they are in flood thousands of tons of valuable topsoil are taken down by these smaller rivers to the sea. This soil is irrevocably lost to the country. In the days gone by, 200 or 300 years ago, these same river valleys which are now these open gashes in the countryside, were flood plains which were densely overgrown with fluitjiesriet and other tall grasses.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order 23.