Mr. Speaker, I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 22, the hours of sitting shall be:
   1. (i) from Monday, 9th June, to Thursday, 12th June:
      • 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
      • 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
   2. (ii) Friday, 13th June:
      • 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.
      • 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
   3. (iii) from Monday, 16th June, to Thursday, 19th June:
      • 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.
      • 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
      • 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
2. (2) that Saturday, 21st June, shall be a sitting day;
3. (3) that the provisions of Standing Order No. 23 (automatic adjournment) shall be suspended, with effect from 20th June, for the remainder of the Session; and
4. (4) that on Friday, 20th June, and on Saturday 21st June, the House shall meet at 10 a.m., business being suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

The Government is hoping that Parliament will not sit beyond the 21st June. In order to adjourn by that date, it will be essential to have additional hours of sitting. If hon. members would look at their Order Papers, I shall indicate to them which Bills the Government would still like to go through this Session. These are Notices of Motion Nos. 1 and 2, which have just been dealt with, and the following Orders of the Day: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 19. Hon. members will note that most of these Bills will not call forth lengthy discussions, but one or two are likely to do so. We should like these Bills still to go through this Session, and for that purpose it is essential for Parliament to sit additional hours.

On this motion, as usual, the hon. the Leader of the House has sought agreement, but it was found from our side that it was not possible to agree with the motion he has moved and therefore I rise this afternoon to protest. I protest because in 1963 a committee sat to revise the rules of this House, which was done very successfully and by agreement. Arising out of the discussions that took place then was the very clear understanding that the extra sittings at the end of a session would be kept to a bare minimum. In my opinion the unwritten customs and conventions of this House are as binding, if not more binding, than those written in the rule book. I believe that is the test of the spirit of what Parliament stands for, when we can observe things laid down and practised without having them written into the rule book. I believe there was then that gentlemen’s agreement. It was breached once before after the present Leader of the House took over that office, and a protest was made, but thereafter we have been able to finish the session with a bare minimum of morning and night sittings. I want to take the last two sessions as an example. In 1967 we sat only for two extra evenings and two extra mornings to finish the session, and in 1968 we sat for four extra mornings and three extra evenings. That was not unreasonable and no protest was raised about that position. In passing, I should like to say that when this matter was put to us there was very little room for manoeuvring at this stage of the Session. We either had to agree or disagree with it. In addition, I noticed that the Press outside, before an answer was given as to whether we agree or disagree, contained articles saying that this was the position. I think that is regrettable. If we are going to have matters which are discussed in a Whips’ meeting published in the Press as a fait accompli, I think that is quite wrong. There may be matters discussed in this way in future which are of much greater consequence than the question of sitting hours, and if they appear in the Press we run the risk of destroying what I believe to-day is very good cooperation as far as the mechanics and the business of the House is concerned between the Government and the Official Opposition. I accept that it is reasonable and has worked well, and I think one runs the risk of completely destroying co-operation if that sort of thing happens.

This side of the House is against what we term “legislation by exhaustion”, because that is what it becomes if you have to sit for a week every night and the following week every morning and night. It does not only become legislation by exhaustion, but all those connected with Parliament cannot give of their best. There is the Press themselves and, more important than that, the staff behind the scenes who run Parliament, and then there is the public. I do not think that in the eyes of the public the prestige of Parliament is enhanced by having this scramble at the end of the Session. I do not believe that Parliament adds to its dignity by conducting its business in this way, and I believe the image of democracy is damaged to an extent. It is possible to arrange the Session otherwise.

The Government, it is true, has command of the position. They can decide what legislation has to be passed in this House and what legislation will be dropped. I believe it is a very good practice, as is being done to a minimum extent now, when the hon. the Leader of the House announces that the Government is going on with certain legislation this Session and some Bills will be dropped. I believe it is a healthy and a good thing to have a number of slaughtered innocents at the end of the session so that we may commence the next session with a certain amount of business and so that the country can have ample time to consider the legislation.

We protest on this occasion so that the Leader of the House and his Government may consider this position and in the hope that they will not come forward again with these heavy hours at the end of the session; that we will proceed more normally than we are doing at the moment. I believe it can be done and we ask them to do it. We protest against this and we will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, if I was in the hon. member’s position I would certainly have adopted the same attitude. I do not think that any of us enjoy additional sitting hours, either on this side of the House or on that side of the House, but we have a job of work to do and I am afraid that if that job of work calls for additional sitting hours, then we simply have to sit additional hours.

Why is the 21st a holy day? Why cannot we sit longer?

In the interests of hon. members on both sides of the House.

Why not sit longer?

If we had to sit the ordinary hours, we would probably sit well into July, and the majority of members on this side of the House and on that side would not like that.

Why not?

The schools are breaking up in certain of the provinces on the 20th of June.

Are you worried about our likes and dislikes?

I am; I am very concerned about the hon. member’s likes and dislikes; that is why I am trying to meet him by allowing him to go home much earlier than he would have done under different circumstances. Sir, the hon. member said that there was a gentlemen’s agreement that the House would sit the bare minimum of extra hours. I do not think that the motion I have moved now calls for excessive sitting hours. If we look at what happened in Parliament in the past, we find that it very often happened that we sat many more additional hours than I am proposing here.

That was to have been a thing of the past.

Well, I never gave any undertaking at any time that Parliament would not sit additional hours when that became necessary.

You were not a member of the committee.

The committee certainly cannot hold Parliament responsible for its actions, and compromise Parliament as such and the Government.

The then Leader of the House was the Chairman of that committee.

It makes no difference. No select committee or any other committee can commit the Government to any form of action; the hon. members should know that.

That was the gentlemen’s agreement.

Sir, I say again that no committee can commit the Government to any course of action. The Government is responsible for the legislation and for seeing that certain legislation is passed by this House. As a matter of fact, I have met hon. members to a considerable extent. There are quite a number of very important measures which are being dropped. We are actually doing what the hon. member has suggested, namely that there should be a number of slaughtered innocents at the end of the session so that Parliament can start in top gear when the new session commences. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that no time was wasted this session. From the opening of the session until to-day Parliament has been going all out and has been dealing with legislation every day.

Because of the new rules.

No, it is not because of the new rules. It has nothing to do with the new rules. In certain sessions, after the introduction of the new rules, the House adjourned as early as 3 o’clock in the afternoon after the first week—the hon. member should know that—but during the last two years Parliament has been busy from the opening day of the session.

In the last two sessions you were able to avoid this.

Because there was less legislation, but if there is certain important legislation that has to be passed by Parliament then the House must be prepared to sit additional hours.

The hon. member spoke about the Press containing articles as to what was going to happen. I am not responsible for that; I did not discuss the matter with the Press. I do not know whether hon. members on that side of the House or on this side of the House discussed it with the Press, but I certainly did not. The only people with whom I discussed it were the members of the Cabinet and the Whips of both parties and thereafter, of course, the caucuses of both parties were informed, so if the hon. member wants to lay the blame somewhere he will have to make inquiries on his own side of the House as well as on this side. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about legislation by exhaustion. But this is not a case of legislation by exhaustion. Good Heavens, Sir, I have worked much longer hours in my time than the few hours which we are calling upon hon. members to work now. Let me add that if hon. members do not want to pass legislation by exhaustion they can surely talk less on many Bills.

Is that a challenge?

We must be realistic. There are many debates which take a completely unnecessary length of time. There is a lot of repetition in debating certain Bills which come before the House, and if hon. members would talk a little less it would not be necessary for the House to sit additional hours to pass legislation.

Start by talking to your own side.

The hon. Opposition is a smaller Opposition than there has ever been in the past and they talk longer and more, but they say very much less. I think if hon. members would curb their loquacity to a certain extent and not continue to talk and talk on a Bill they support, then it will not be necessary to sit these additional hours. I can give one example and that is the Bills which come from select committees. They all support the unanimous reports of the select committees, but they are so fond of the particular Bill, they love it so much that they want to talk it to death. [Interjections.] We are trying to curb our members. It must be realized that we have 127 members on this side of the House. We are curtailing the speeches as far as we possibly can, whereas we have a small Opposition which goes full out in regard to every Bill which is before the House. The hon. member talks about the prestige of Parliament being not enhanced by the scramble at the end. Well, that has been happening since 1910. There has always been a scramble at the end.

There was a time when every member could speak for an unlimited time.

I know, but they did not have to administer a country in such an advanced state of development as we have to do to-day. Does the hon. member really think that the Ministers’ work to-day is the same as it was 50 years ago?

In other words, we must bring about a change.

Of course it is not the same, there is so much more to do, and it means more legislation has to be passed through this House. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I am calling on the House to undergo any undue hardship at all. I think if we sit every evening during the last fortnight, except for Fridays, and every morning during the last week, it can be done quite comfortably. With the co-operation of both sides of the House, we can even get through these Bills I have mentioned much earlier. I can give the hon. member the undertaking that if they are prepared to talk less and to assist me in getting this legislation passed, there will probably … [Interjections.] I cannot talk when everybody talks aloud.

What a ridiculous argument!

What is ridiculous about it? Is it because I am asking hon. members to talk less?

If there was no opposition there would not be any Parliament.

All that I am asking for is sensible opposition. I am not asking for no opposition. I ask for an Opposition which is prepared to do its job and to do its job circumspectly. I ask for an Opposition which is prepared to do a good job, and which will not waste time unnecessarily.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of this resolution is to prohibit suppliers of a product from compelling the resellers of that product to charge a particular price. I should like to explain that the supplier may still recommend a resale price for a product. In my opinion the recommendation of a price may serve a useful purpose in certain cases, for example as a measure of convenience and time-saving in the case of dealers Who sell a large variety of goods, or to serve as an indication to the consumer of the price level which more or less ought to apply to a product of a particular quality. However, I regard it as being contrary to the public interest for a supplier to compel all resellers of a particular brand to charge a uniform price although some of them may be able and willing to sell at a lower price.

The decision of requesting a general prohibition on resale price maintenance, was taken by us after very careful consideration had been given to the matter. The Board of Trade and Industries conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation into the operation and the consequences of resale price maintenance in South Africa. Hon. members would have noticed from this Board’s report, No. 1220 (M), which was tabled here, just how thorough this investigation had been and how the fullest opportunity had been given to all interested parties of putting their cases, in writing as well as orally, to the Board. The fullest use was made of this opportunity, and hon. members would also have noticed from the said report how thoroughly the Board had sifted and considered the evidence offered. However, the investigation of the board was not confined to local circumstances and evidence only. On two occasions officials were sent on extended overseas tours in order to gather information on the latest developments in this field. At the moment we have at our disposal not only the experience of the bodies controlling monopolistic conditions in all the leading Western countries, but we also made a special attempt to ascertain the standpoints of interested businessmen in those countries. Personal discussions were conducted with manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and representatives of other business organizations in five European countries in which resale price maintenance had been abolished. After the Board had submitted its report, No. 1220 (M), to me, I announced in June last year, by notice in the Gazette, that I intended prohibiting the practice of resale price maintenance. At the same time I invited interested parties to put their cases anew to the Board if they were of the opinion that they ought to be granted exemption from such a prohibition. I did that in order to ensure that the particular structure and circumstances of each branch of trade or industry would be taken into account. Applications were received in respect of 19 branches of the trade and these were carefully considered by the Board of Trade and Industries. The reports of the Board were tabled, and consequently the reasons for the various recommendations are known.

As regards petrol and tyres and tubes, the investigations of the Board are still in progress. Until such time as the various reports become available provisional exemption from the prohibition is being granted to the branches of the trade concerned. My proposal is that exemption be granted in respect of newspapers and magazines. In respect of books and magazines it was found that the abolition of resale price maintenance might create certain risks with regard to the availability of books of cultural value. At the same time, however, serious complaints were received in connection with the operation of the system of resale price maintenance in its present form. My proposal therefore is that provisional exemption be granted in respect of books. It is the intention, however, to have another investigation made into the book trade after the expiry of a few years so as to ascertain whether resale price maintenance would still be justified in the public interest and whether this branch of the trade could adjust its system in such a way as to remove possible objections to it.

Therefore I am introducing this resolution to-day in the firm conviction that the interests of all interested parties have been studied and taken into account properly. Consequently I have no doubt as regards the question of what will be in the public interest. The Government, as well as our entire business community, has always attached the utmost importance to our system of free enterprise. We believe that this system provides the opportunities to which all our people are entitled and that it serves as an incentive for achieving greater efficiency.

For this system to come into its own, competition is required. The object of this measure is to make competition in the trade more effective and to create conditions in which the resources of our country can be utilized to the best advantage. In proposing the prohibition of the practice of resale price maintenance, the Government is implementing a policy which has already proved its advantage in the majority of countries in the Western world. At present there are few of the leading Western countries which have not either prohibited this practice completely or restricted it severely. Action against resale price maintenance is deemed necessary as it is a monopolistic practice which eliminates price competition in articles of the same brand between various wholesalers and retailers. Under resale price maintenance suppliers, be they manufacturers or dealers, require of resalers of their product to maintain a prescribed price. The resellers forfeit the right of each determining their own price according to differences in their business methods, their efficiency and their costs. Consumers forfeit the freedom of showing their preference for a particular price. Resale price maintenance restricts not only the consumer’s freedom of choice and the dealer’s freedom of laying down his own price policy, but it has also been found that the practice often serves to make price agreements between manufacturers more effective. The Government is concerned about this possibility because the limited South African market and the fact that there often are only a few manufacturers of a particular product facilitate price collusion. Buying organizations of the State, municipalities and other bodies gave alarming evidence during the investigation of the Board of Trade and Industries about how taxpayers were being forced in this way to pay more.

Resale price maintenance need not necessarily give rise to higher prices and profit margins, but experience has taught that this does in fact happen in most cases. Different distributors of a particular product have different costs but these differences are not taken into account in resale price maintenance. Uniform margins and selling prices are laid down for all resellers. Therefore the tendency is to fix these profit margins at a sufficiently high level to protect even the least efficient reseller. Therefore the margins and prices tend to be higher than would have been the case under free price competition.

In countries which abolished resale price maintenance it was found that even in cases where the average profit margins on goods with fixed and free prices did not differ much, considerably larger variations in profit margins nevertheless occurred under price competition. Therefore, where price competition provides flexibility and offers dealers the opportunity of competing on a price basis according to their costs and the services provided by them, resale price maintenance places all resellers in a straitjacket and deprives them of the opportunity of employing one of the most important instruments of the marketing policy, i.e. the price policy.

The abolition of resale price maintenance will not automatically give rise to price decreases in all cases, because such a prohibition cannot force anybody to compete by means of prices, but it creates the opportunity to compete by means of prices. Experience in the outside world as well as in those South African branches of the trade in which resale price maintenance has been abandoned, has been that advantage has been taken of that opportunity to the great benefit of the public. In South Africa the collapse of resale price maintenance in the trade in groceries and electrical household appliances has led to considerable price reductions. These products are examples of cases where the manufacturers themselves have abandoned resale price maintenance under the pressure of competition. The Board of Trade and Industries estimated, however, that virtually 19 per cent of consumer spending was still subject to resale price maintenance. It will not be possible to penetrate these last strongholds of resale price maintenance without State intervention as the properties of some products and their marketing conditions unfortunately are such that they lend themselves to resale price maintenance. The fact that in many South African industries only a few producers have direct links with retailers, facilitates the application of resale price maintenance, especially as many dealers are only too willing to participate in this monopolistic practice for the sake of protection against aggressive competitors.

Especially in these times of threatening inflation and the continuous upward pressure of costs and prices, the Government deems it its duty to do everything in its power to keep consumer prices in check. The creation of competitive conditions which can contribute towards keeping the cost of living down therefore is of the utmost importance to our country.

Immediately after the abolition of resale price maintenance in some Western European countries considerable price reductions occurred in some branches of the trade. Price reductions of 20 per cent, and in exceptional cases, even 30 per cent or more, were made. After the first enthusiastic wave of price reductions, prices usually stabilized at a higher level although in most cases such prices did not revert to the original level.

The German cartel office conducted a comprehensive investigation into the consequences of the abolition of resale price maintenance in respect of a number of products. In respect of toilet soap price reductions as a result of the prohibition amounted to 35 per cent on an average, and in the case of four different types of film from 23 per cent to nearly 30 per cent. The prices of radios, television sets, chocolates and coffee decreased by percentages ranging from 25 to 35. An earlier estimate of the cartel office was that the price reductions in respect of all products in respect of which resale price maintenance was to be abolished would in the long run amount to 15 per cent on an average. In the light of the most recent experience it is estimated that it will be at least 20 per cent.

In Denmark price reductions in respect of a large number of articles, such as liquor, photographic requirements, groceries, radios, etc., occurred, which varied from 10 per cent to 20 per cent.

In Britain price competition developed more slowly than in some countries on the Continent. In respect of some consumer goods little price competition occurred, for example furniture, watches, stationery and toys, whereas prices of groceries, liquor, tobacco products and electrical goods, on the other hand, decreased considerably.

Investigations conducted after the abolition of resale price maintenance in Sweden showed that considerable differences in the price of the same brand occurred from shop to shop. In most cases these differences were in the vicinity of 4 to 5 per cent, but the differences between the most expensive and the cheapest shops were approximately 10 per cent in general.

Theoretically it is possible for the termination of resale price maintenance in certain areas and in special marketing conditions to give rise to price increases, but in reality this rarely occurred in the countries which abolished this practice. One such exception was the case of cigarettes in Sweden. There a state monopoly over the manufacture and importation of cigarettes had succeeded in keeping the prices and profit margins of dealers down with the result that these went up under free price formation. In general, however, the experience was that where any changes in prices did occur after the abolition of resale price maintenance, such changes showed a downward trend.

As has already been mentioned, the Board of Trade and Industries estimated that virtually 19 per cent of all consumer expenditure in the Republic was still subject to resale price maintenance in 1967. When one takes this estimate as a basis, it means that consumer expenditure amounting to R1,223.7 million was affected by resale price maintenance in 1968. In the light of what happened in the outside world and what happened in those branches of the South African trade in which resale price maintenance had collapsed, such as groceries and electrical domestic appliances, it will be a conservative estimate to hope that the proposed prohibition on the whole range of goods with fixed prices can bring about a price reduction of 5 per cent. If this were to happen, it would effect a considerable saving of R61 million to consumers.

In addition to this regard must be had to the fact that the prices of a whole number of capital goods are also fixed with the result that price competition may also yield large savings to the business world as well as to the State, the provinces and the municipalities.

However useful immediate price reductions may be to our economy at the present juncture, that still is not the only important advantage attaching to the abolition of resale price maintenance. An equally important advantage is that the elimination of this monopolistic practice will on the long run give added impetus to the development of more effective methods of distribution. Resale price maintenance will probably not succeed in preventing the development of new forms of distribution at lower costs in toto, but it does prevent such reduction in costs to be passed on to the consumers in the shape of lower prices. Therefore it is delaying the development of new and cheaper methods of distribution to the disadvantage of the community.

It should also be remembered that the effect of competition between new forms of distribution which may result from price competition often makes itself felt all along the line to the manufacturers. Sometimes the manufacturers react to stronger price competition in the trade by changing also their marketing policy from methods which push up costs, such as greater expenditure on advertising, to methods which reduce costs, such as price reductions.

The abolition of resale price maintenance will create the opportunity for freer development of forms of enterprise operating on a large scale and at lower costs in the trade. At the same time the traditional dealer will adapt himself, for example, by eliminating undesired services or by concentrating on those which are in fact desired and which he is able to provide more effectively than the newer type of shop. In no country which abolished resale price maintenance did it happen that the new forms of enterprise such as chain stores, supermarkets and discount shops replaced the traditional dealer altogether. It was proved time and again that each had his own function to fulfil, that each found his own place on the market and that for each segment of the market prices found their own level.

In all countries which took steps against resale price maintenance, the cry went up that the termination of the practice would create chaos. This, however, did not happen anywhere. The explanation is simple; free price competition creates the natural condition. It affords everyone on the market the opportunity of rendering his own particular kind or level of service, of applying his particular methods of distribution, of charging his own price based on his particular method, service and costs. In this way each one finds his natural place and level on the market. It is resale price maintenance that creates the abnormal condition by forcing all resellers into a straitjacket of uniformity.

Many protagonists of resale price maintenance maintain that the practice is necessary so as to guarantee to the public the provision of certain services, such as guidance, repairs, etc. In the first place it must be pointed out that the absence of resale price maintenance does not prevent anybody from providing a service. What it does in fact do, is to reveal the actual costs of services, because distributors who eliminate these services, are able to reduce their prices in accordance with the costs of the services. This enables the consumer to judge whether he does desire the service and whether the service justifies the higher costs. What the Government is particularly concerned about is that prices are pushed up under resale price maintenance for services which are not provided in reality and which in any event are not desired in some cases. The S.A. Jewellers’ Association, for example, maintained that resale price maintenance on quality watches was necessary for guaranteeing the provision of repairs and advice. Investigations showed that not all jewellers provided these services. This also applies to other branches of trade or industry, for example, the clothing trade.

Sometimes it is also alleged that free price formation may lead to a decline in the quality of products. This allegation was investigated very carefully. Evidence could not be found either in South Africa or in the outside world of the abolition of resale price maintenance having given rise to any decline in quality to the detriment of the consumer. Nor did the abolition of resale price maintenance in any country lead to the products concerned having become less available to the public. The only kind of product about which doubt existed as to availability, is books, and for that reason books are one of the few products excluded from the prohibition on resale price maintenance in various European countries.

In all countries in which the Government had investigations made, the unanimous findings of the authorities were: The abolition of resale price maintenance greatly benefited consumers, especially in the shape of lower prices and more effective methods of distribution, without the dreaded disadvantages in respect of the quality of products and services or the availability of goods having been experienced.

As I said right at the outset, the Board of Trade and Industries was instructed to conduct a thorough investigation to the effect which the abolition of resale price maintenance had in a number of European countries. Personal contact was made with a large number of industrialists and representatives of industrial organizations. In no country could evidence be found of the prohibition on resale price maintenance having affected industrialists detrimentally. The worst thing that happened was that industrialists sometimes lost the power of taking the initiative in fixing prices, but the main fear of some industrialists, i.e. that their brands would go to rack and ruin, or that distributors would refuse to sell their products any longer, was not realized. On the contrary, it appeared that industrialists in some branches of the trade derived considerable benefit after price reductions from increased turnovers. Of course, the main object of resale price maintenance is not to protect manufacturers but to protect dealers against price competition as far as the same brand is concerned.

In all countries in which inquiries were made, industrialists had come to accept price competition after a short while as a normal condition. In some countries, such as Sweden, businessmen in fact said that they would not like to return to resale price maintenance. To me it is clear that the objections of industrialists to the abolition of resale price maintenance are based mainly on fear of the unknown.

There was no evidence either that price competition would ruin the wholesale trade. Admittedly, wholesalers had to make adjustments in order to adapt themselves to the demands of the times, but the result of stronger price competition usually was that they were able to render a better service to the community by means of forming stronger groups and by improving their methods.

To the retail trade the most important effect of the prohibition on resale price maintenance will be that the dealer will regain much of his independence. He will be able to follow a freer price policy; he will be able to vary his services and methods according to the requirements of his particular clients. Greater flexibility will come into the trade and everyone will be able to make that combination of price and services rendered which suits him best. It surprises me that some South African dealers meekly allow their suppliers to prescribe their price policy to them. In some of the countries which prohibited resale price maintenance, the dealers do not want to revert to resale price maintenance because of the very fact that they would not like to surrender their newly gained independence in respect of price policy.

I have had a very thorough investigation made into the possibility of free price formation giving rise to disrupting practices. The principal practice about which dealers and industrialists expressed concern was the sale of catch lines Here the object allegedly was to attract clients to the shop by means of greatly reduced prices on certain goods in the hope of selling other goods to them as well, perhaps even at increased margins. I must point out that the argument of increased margins on goods other than the catch lines does not hold water. The proposed prohibition on resale price maintenance applies to all goods ordinarily sold in shops. Therefore price competition in respect of all goods is likely to be stronger and not weaker. After the prohibition has been introduced it will therefore be more difficult to increase margins as it is at present under resale price maintenance.

As far as South Africa is concerned, the Board of Trade and Industries found that sales of catch lines occurred only in a limited section of the trade. Experience has also shown that resale price maintenance is not always effective in preventing the sale of catch lines. Even if it were effective, resale price maintenance eliminates not only the sale of catch lines, but all price competition in respect of a particular brand. The consequences of this can be more harmful than the sale of catch lines.

Various countries took steps against the sale of catch lines, for example Canada, Britain, Sweden and France. For example, it is permissible for suppliers to withhold stocks from dealers who use their products as catch lines. The measures in all these countries were a complete failure and manufacturers rarely made use of the opportunity of protecting themselves against catch line sales. Everywhere it proved particularly difficult to ascertain whether the goods concerned were being sold below cost price. In cases where the facts could be ascertained beyond any doubt, it was often found that the sales were not made at a loss but merely at a reduced profit margin. In all countries consulted, the authorities regulating monopolistic conditions agreed that the sale of catch lines was a less important phenomenon and that the measures against that practice were unpractical. Experience has shown that widespread price competition makes the sale of catch lines less attractive. The very thing which enables dealers to attract attention by means of the sale of catch lines is fixed prices under resale price maintenance.

Some dealers expressed their concern about the position of the small undertaking possibly being affected detrimentally by the abolition of resale price maintenance. This is a matter to which I have given very careful consideration, because to the Government it is an important consideration that even the smallest entrepreneur should have the opportunity of exercising his trade freely. On the other hand the interests of the wide consumer public cannot be ignored nor can we lightly hold back the coming of improved patterns of production and distribution.

Closer investigation shows that in some branches of the trade there is a tendency towards concentration, a tendency towards fewer but larger units. This tendency is the result of fundamental changes in the methods of distribution and in the buying habits of consumers, which embrace much more than the intensification of price competition. In some branches of the trade, undertakings which implement a policy of a large and rapid turnover coupled with low prices, enjoy an advantage over dealers relying on higher prices and a more limited turnover. The abolition of resale price maintenance can benefit the first-mentioned group, but only in the sense that a method of distribution which the public long ago accepted as something to its benefit, can now be employed freely. Since the smaller undertaking fulfils a useful and characteristic function, it has maintained its position even after the abolition of resale price maintenance. In the Swedish cigarette trade, for example, even the smallest undertakings, i.e. the stalls selling cigarettes, newspapers and sweets, have maintained their position as they meet a particular need by means of their convenient situation and after-hour sales. I am convinced that there will always be a livelihood in the trade for the efficient small undertaking as it provides certain services in particular areas and circumstances which the large shop does not offer or which such small undertakings can carry out more effectively than the large ones. In any event, the Board of Trade and Industries found that resale price maintenance could not safeguard the position of the small undertaking in the South African trade on the long run. One of the reasons is that under resale price maintenance the large undertaking is still able to make its purchases at more favourable prices than the small shopkeeper can do, with the result that resale price maintenance simply ensures a larger profit margin to the big firm without its benefiting the consumer or the small undertaking. As in South Africa, investigations by the West German cartel office showed that the large undertakings, and not the small undertakings, were the ones which reaped the fruits of resale price maintenance. In some cases department stores, chain stores and other large undertakings were able under resale price maintenance to obtain an additional profit margin of 25 per cent above those which could reasonably have been expected under price competition. They were able to make use of these extra profits to reduce the prices of products which did not have fixed prices to the detriment of smaller competitors.

Whereas resale price maintenance cannot ensure the welfare of the small undertaking in the long run, I want to point out, however, that some small shopkeepers do in fact make very effective use of price competition. Some of the largest trading groups in South Africa started as very small undertakings and grew because of the very fact of having attracted clients with low prices. It has struck me that lately men from all sections of our population have come forward to make use of intensified price competition for establishing new undertakings.

I have mentioned sufficient examples to illustrate that the disastrous effects which, according to protagonists of resale price maintenance, would follow the abolition of the practice, did not occur in the outside world. Therefore we may have every confidence that by means of this measure a major benefit can be achieved for the community without any disruption. We shall therefore be obtaining not only prices which will possibly be lower, not only more efficient methods of distribution, but we shall also be striking a blow for free competition—the cornerstone on which our welfare is built. Therefore I have the honour to move this motion now, and I trust that it will meet with the full approval of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to approve of the notice, as proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister. There is no doubt that the general feeling among the people, on both sides of the House as well as in the country, is that when a man buys goods from a wholesaler or a manufacturer he should be free to sell those goods as he thinks fit. I think there is no doubt that generally speaking public opinion is that their interest is best served by not having price fixing by manufacturers or wholesalers. There is just one point I want to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is clear from what he has said, and those of us who read the report of the Board of Trade, know that the recommendations we are asked to approve today are the result of a very careful and full investigation by the Board of Trade, not only in our own country but also abroad. This matter has therefore been very well thought out. But in that report the Board of Trade did point out that there might well be certain instances where it would be in the public interest that retail prices should be fixed. That is why I take it there was a call for applications for exemption last year. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister said he had 19 applications, most of which have been dealt with. The point is that there may be others. Supposing the Board of Trade carries out further investigations into the cases of people who apply for exemption and that it finds that it is not against the public interest in a particular instance that a retail price should be maintained, what will the hon. the Deputy Minister do about it? This is a blanket prohibition with a few temporary exceptions, but supposing as I have said there are recommendations to the board that in some particular instances it is not against the public interest that a particular price should be maintained. What can the hon. the Deputy Minister do about it? Supposing the board comes along with a report after Parliament has adjourned, is the hon. the Deputy Minister then unable to do anything about it until Parliament meets again and he can ask Parliament to agree to grant the exemption? Or has he powers to make an exemption subject to ratification by Parliament, because otherwise it seems to me that in a case like that, and it might happen according to the Board of Trade, there might be a gap of about seven months, before the hon. the Deputy Minister can do anything about it. If the hon. the Deputy Minister can explain that during the time Parliament is in recess, he will be able to do something about such a case, we will accept this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support for this measure. In passing I would like to add a compliment and to congratulate the Board of Trade on the excellent report which they brought out and which was tabled in Parliament. It is a most constructive and thorough piece of work, and I think we all appreciate the work they have done.

In reply to the hon. member for Constantia, I would like to say that if the House adopts this motion to-day, which I think it will, then of course resale price maintenance in South Africa is illegal. It will be prohibited and will be illegal. No branch of industry or commerce can then practise it. That is not to say, however, if there is a case to be made out for exemption, that any branch of industry or trade cannot approach the Department or the Government. Such matters will be referred to the Board of Trade and if the board recommends an exemption in any particular instance, exemption can be given after compliance with the prescribed procedures even if Parliament accepts this motion to-day. This motion is just a general prohibition, but in the same way that the Board of Trade is still investigating one or two cases, one of which is in connection with petrol and tyres, any other branch of trade or industry may approach the Government. If the Board of Trade makes a supporting recommendation and the recommendation is accepted by the Government, procedures exist for granting exemption.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate commenced yesterday I was really looking forward to it, particularly because there has recently been such great public interest in the water situation in South Africa. I would just like to express my sincere gratitude to hon. members on both sides of the House for the discussion which has been held, and particularly for the responsible way in which this was done on both sides of the House. I found this to be a personal stimulation and it also meant a great deal to the Department to hear the points of view and also to receive encouragement from both sides of the House. I want to express my sincere thanks to those hon. members who addressed kind words to me in regard to my appointment to this post. Since he cannot do so himself, I also want on this occasion to express gratitude on behalf of the new Secretary for Water Affairs, Mr. Kriel, to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) for his kind words and congratulations he offered him in respect of his appointment as Secretary for Water Affairs.

As hon. members will recall, when it was also my privilege to deal with this Vote last year, I tried to give hon. members an impression of what the water situation in South Africa was like. Hon. members will recall that I made the point at the time that towards the end of the century we would probably reach a stage where South Africa would to a great extent have made use of that part of its water resources which could be economically stored. I also mentioned that we were actually heading for a situation where we would exhaust the sources of reserve water we now have. In future therefore we shall have to deal very carefully with the remaining sources. Last year I noted that there was very great interest in this statement and that the figures which I then mentioned have been repeated on various subsequent occasions. I have heard this being done personally, and I know of occasions where some of the hon. members of this House made use of those figures. They were mentioned with a view to South Africa being careful with the utilization of its excess water resources. One could gain the impression that we ought to be very pessimistic about it. However, I want to say on this occasion to-day that whatever we might have said in the past and whatever we may think at present, one fact always remains. If we do not exercise care in South Africa in the utilization of our water, if we do not undertake the necessary planning in good time to ensure its proper utilization, and if we do not protect it as we ought to protect it, then we will find ourselves faced with the dangerous position that before the end of the century our sources will have become exhausted.

Look who is waking up now!

It is that hon. member who is waking up now. If he had been here last year, he would not have made such a stupid remark now. I do want to ask the hon. member to listen to what I have to say further so that he can get some information in this regard. The point I want to raise, and I am certain that the hon. member for South Coast who spoke about this yesterday also feels strongly about it, is that if we do not go carefully in future our situation in South Africa will be a very serious one. I want to go further and say that if we are not careful no quantity of water in South Africa will seem sufficient for our needs, for if one wastes water, there is no limit to one’s needs. But in addition to that I also want to say that provided we made provision for the necessary planning, protection and conservation, we need not fear the turn of the century. In fact, then this rule applies, i.e. that a country exists on its water resources as long as it wants to exist on them. It is within its ability to go so far with these as it wants to go. This means that if we take the right steps in time, we in South Africa will apply our reserves in the right way and in time then there is much room for development ahead of us.

On this occasion I also want to discuss the question of reserve water. When I talk about South Africa’s sources of reserve water, I should like to mention facts which to my knowledge have not been mentioned yet up to now. With these facts I then want to give hon. members the assurance that it is true that if we go carefully with our reserves, then our supply of water resources will run out not at the turn of the century but an unforeseen date in the distant future which we ourselves cannot foresee and which we ourselves will determine. In regard to this matter I want to say the following.

The first important source of reserve water which South Africa has at its disposal is water which can be reclaimed. Hon. members will know that a great deal has been said about this. In the beginning of the year this matter enjoyed a great deal of attention when the hon. the Prime Minister opened a reclamation plant at Windhoek, which is very important for South Africa, and which is a breakthrough, not only for us but for the world and for science. This has engaged the attention of scientists and industrial planners and the Department of Water Affairs for the past number of months. Now I want to inform hon. members that the source of reclaimed water is a source which could represent approximately 50 to 60 per cent of the total quantity of water we will consume for industrial and urban purposes. It varies from one place to another. In the case of Windhoek it is possible to reclaim 30 to 35 per cent of the water. In the case of the Witwatersrand, which I wanted to mention now as an example of the largest water complex in South Africa, there is a possibility that we could go up to 70 per cent, but we are basing our present calculations on a figure of 70 per cent. Within the area of the Rand Water Board the following daily quantities are involved. 250 million gallons of water are being used each day. Of these 250 million gallons of water, from 30 to 40 million gallons end up in the Vaal River each day as purified effluent. Water used for irrigation purposes in that area, as well as water which is lost in the process amounts to a further 30 to 40 million gallons. A further 30 to 40 million gallons of water is lost every day, and neither we, nor the Rand Water Board, can give an account of this. If we could reclaim the water which is being lost in transmission plus what we cannot give an account of but which is also in the meantime being lost, plus that which is being used for the purpose for which we think it ought not to be used, i.e. for irrigation in that area, there would immediately be a further 80 million gallons of water available to the Rand per day.

In the case of Cape Town which has an effluent of 35 million gallons per day, there is at the present moment possible reclamation of only one million gallons per day. The reason is because the pipes which conduct the effluent are situated in an area where there is seepage into the pipes, in other words a salinization of the water, so that it cannot easily be re-used. But this is a technical problem with which engineers will in future try to cope. I am now mentioning this figure to hon. members to indicate to them that if we were able to strive for a realistic figure, namely to reclaim 50 per cent of the total amount of water used in the Republic of South Africa, and we were to deduct from that a possible 10 per cent which is already being reclaimed and which is being used at power station cooling towers and other purposes, and we were also to take the further factor into consideration, i.e. that we could reclaim water, use it and then reclaim a percentage of it again, it is possible to reach a reclamation figure of 60 to 70 per cent of the total water we are consuming in South Africa which could be additionally available for industrial and urban purposes. Where we are at present using something like 700,000 morgen-feet of water for these purposes, namely industrial and urban areas, as well as allied uses, except for agriculture, we will towards the end of the century be using 6,000 million morgen-feet for these purposes in South Africa. If we were able to recover 50 per cent of that, it means that we would towards the end of the century be able to claim three times as much water than the total consumption in South Africa to-day for urban and industrial purposes.

But in order to do so, a great deal of work will have to be done. Now I want to furnish these very interesting figures to hon. members. We had a survey made of how many towns in South Africa could possibly reclaim water. There are 104 towns in the Republic of South Africa which fall within the cadre of towns which can possibly undertake the economic reclamation of water. We also made a calculation at the present price structures of what we think should be spent—not to-day; we cannot do so to-day—if we were required to take steps by 1975. I want to inform you that in the year 1975, according to the figures we have at our disposal and according to the present cost structure and techniques, it will probably cost R42 million in order to achieve a position then where 104 towns in the Republic of South Africa can put its water to active use again by means of reclamation. I must also add here that although in the case of Windhoek we are operating a pilot installation, there are other bodies which are now interested in proceeding in the Republic of South Africa with further research and who want to lay out pilot installations, in an effort to undertake reclamation in that way. One of these is in the Cape and the other on the Witwatersrand. They will want to do so on their own. It is also a good thing that it will be done in this way, because I also want to inform the hon. members that although reclamation lay-outs are basically the same it is possible that they can differ for Johannesburg, Cape Town and Pretoria. Water which has to be reclaimed contains effluents differ from place to place and under different circumstances. Hon. members can understand that. If, for example, a new chemical detergent with a new formula comes onto the market it is possible that a new method will have to be found to solve a possible new problem. In other words, the reclamation of water is something which has continually to be adjusted in order to meet the continual changes as well as the adjustments in industry, particularly in the chemical industry.

In other words, constant research has to be carried out. Not only would we like to help, but we will also like to lend financial and other assistance in future. We hope that this will take place in conjunction with the C.S.I.R. Our department will on its part incorporate its entire organization and research in order to keep pace with requirements, so that there will also be a co-ordination of how, where and what research must be done in this connecton in South Africa. And because there is still a good deal of work to be done, we do not foresee that we will immediately proceed to undertake reclamation on a large scale. We shall use a pilot installation which is now being erected at Pretoria and which will be an improvement on the one in Windhoek, because subsequent knowledge has brought new techniques, plus other installations which will arise during the next year or two or three. We shall also utilize it to undertake further research in this regard so that when we proceed to apply this generally in South Africa we will be able to make use of advance and applied knowledge. I also want to predict that this does not mean that we will immediately issue directions in South Africa that an immediate start be made with water reclamation. We are hoping to be able to do so as soon as possible, and we are hoping to recover large reserves of water in this way, and we are hoping that it can be done at a lower cost than the present one. At the present moment costs are calculated at something like 22½ cents—let us say 20 per cent at this stags—per thousand gallons when the intake of the effluent is a million gallons. We hope that it will be possible to decrease this figure by a few cents perhaps, because the reclamation of chemical substances from the water will be able to bear part of the costs and because the technique may perhaps be cheaper in future.

This is one of the many reserves South Africa can fall back on. The second reserve which is very important for our future survival is the reserve which will result from the elimination of injudicious and negligent water consumption. The injudicious and negligent consumption of water in South Africa causes a wastage for which we do not have a figure, but which we know is very high. Actually we can only guess what it is. What is involved here is the use by the ordinary householder. I do not think there is a single house in the Republic of South Africa where water is not being wasted, for the wastage of water by the ordinary citizen is a general occurrence. It even happens when a man stands shaving in the morning using running water. This happens when someone turns open a tap and washes a knife under the running water. This happens with the person who takes a long time to wash his motor car. This also happens in the case of a manufacturer who uses an excessive quantity of water, while he could perhaps do the same work with less water. This also happens in agriculture. I want to furnish you with the following figures. We estimate that in agriculture there is a loss of the equivalent of 1,600.000 to 1,800.000 morgen-feet of water by loss as a result of utilization, transportation and storage. We think that it is possible in the years which lie ahead to reclaim in the case of the present allocation of agricultural water—and I want to tell you that the amount allocated to agriculture is 82.6 per cent of the total stored water in the Republic of South Africa—60 per cent to 70 per cent of what we calculate is being lost in transmission and in other forms of loss. If we could reclaim that, then we could make water available to agriculture, which is losing it at the present moment. This could be equivalent to the supply of agricultural water of the entire Orange River Scheme. In other words, one of the reserves available is the equivalent of the total Orange River Scheme, simply in water which is at the present moment being lost in transmission and also as a result of loss in storage and in unbeneficial use. This loss amounts to a figure which is apparently equivalent to 45 per cent to 50 per cent. Of the amount which is being lost we must only try to recover 60 to 70 per cent. That would be a gain for South Africa.

Apart from these reserves which we can fall back on, there are other reserves as well. An important reserve is that which lies in the hands of my department, the reserve of experienced planning. In experienced planning there is a reply, the extent of which we cannot as yet determine. We do know that in the past the planning in the construction of schemes was aimed at controlling and utilizing that percentage of water in rivers which represent the average annual flow, or as much as possible of that amount. In other words, it must be concentrated on the peak flows of rivers. It is not always possible to plan and to construct a dam in such a way that you can hold back all the water flowing in a river. For example, when the great flood took place some time ago in the Vaal River and also in the Orange, you can imagine the colossal dam or dams we would have had to build if we had wanted to keep back the full flood which was then coming down. But I also want to mention the example of the case you now have before you in regard to the Spioenkop Dam, as an example of what the planners can do in order to put water to better use. In that submission you now have before you provision is being made to store water in the Tugela and then to bring that water up to the Transvaal. The method by means of which this was to have been done was first conceived as a direct pumping operation from the dam on the Wilge River for the filling of the Vaal Dam. That would have meant that when the water level in the Vaal Dam began to drop, pumping operations at a great tempo would have had to be commenced, and then there would have been the risk that when a large amount of water had been pumped into the Vaal Dam it might have rained, and then the water which nature had provided would have been added to the expensive water which had been pumped in from the Tugela, and the surplus would have flowed down to the sea. That is the sort of thing which could happen. But we had this matter gone into again, after the first White Paper was tabled. Then the planners in the Department reconsidered the situation, and we now think that with an abstraction of 60 million gallons per day, we can supply the Vaal Dam at the equivalent rate of 180 million gallons per day. That may sound strange when I say it, but it happens like this. The plan is to build a balancing dam on the upper reaches of the Wilge River and to use that balancing dam to store up peak flow water. We will only supplement the balancing dam with water from the Tugela until it is full, as we will not send this water to the Vaal Dam. It will be pumped over a long period of time, over a year or two at a rate of 60 million gallons per day instead of 180 million gallons per day, which we would at certain times have to pump rapidly into the Vaal Dam. We are keeping this in reserve in the balancing dam, and we are releasing it en bloc, as it becomes necessary, over short periods of time, and we are in this way eliminating transmission losses. It means that what we are now envisaging with this is simply to supplement extreme low levels of the Vaal Dam in the most effective way. That means that what we will in fact have the effect of 60 million gallons per day …

May I ask a Question? How will the evaporation of water affect this Wilge River plan?

Not much because the exposed surface area is also relatively smaller. [Interjection.] No, if it goes into the Vaal Dam, it will have to be released in great volume.

In other words, it will not be a small stream being released; a large volume of water, which flows rapidly, will be released immediately, without transmission losses, for a certain period, and this way it will be supplemented from time to time. Sir, if we are able to use the ingenuity of our people, there can be a great variety of adjustments in South Africa. I do not want to go into details now, but I want to say this to hon. members: A few years ago we had certain impressions regarding the Greater Boland. I still remember how I was told that the Boland could in fact do nothing with its water; that it did not know where to store its water. But as a result of the planning and the research we introduced I can now state that I belive that if there is any place where we are going to astound the local people with how we are able, with careful planning, to keep water for long periods of time and extend the life of an area by means of planning, then it will be the Boland, when we submit the Boland plan. Our planning organization makes it possible for us to stretch our resources by means of planning.

Mr. Chairman, there is another great reserve I want to say something about, and that is the subterranean reserve. On the one hand it is true that at many places the water table is disappearing on a very large scale; that a great many boreholes are being sunk throughout the country; and that it is also being said that in certain areas the water is drying up. We know that in recent years the rate at which boreholes are being sunk in certain parts of the country is much higher than in other parts, and greater also than in previous years. The reason is that we are drawing on the subterranean water more rapidly. The general impression is that there is not much subterranean water in South Africa, and that the water which is there is decreasing at a very rapid rate and that we must be careful. Sir, this is true, and it is also not true. It is in fact true that in certain parts of South Africa subterranean water is being pumped out at an unhealthy and unrealistic rate; in other words, the table is sinking rapidly; that is correct. On the other hand we know that there are also large subterranean reserves which still have to be found. We also know that a great deal of knowledge is necessary in future in order to know at which tempo water should be supplemented, for water occurs in various ways. The most familiar occurrence of subterranean water in South Africa is in the dolomitic zones. Tremendous amounts of water occur in the dolomitic areas, and it is also reasonably easy to determine how much water there is in dolomitic areas. In other words, we would be able to make a calculation of the addition and the guaranteed life if we were to begin to abstract. It is therefore our task to be able to use the full potential without endangering the life of the sources. In order to establish that critical point, research is necessary. We know that some time ago in South-West Africa water was found in the region of Walvis Bay, in the old river basin of the Kuise River, beneath the desert sands. Apparently the volume is equal to three-quarters that of the Vaal Dam. We know that this water takes 70 years to become replenished and that the rate of abstraction can therefore form one seventieth part of the reserve.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with the water from the dolomite areas? Is the Minister in a position to say that when that water has been abstracted, particularly what is called the fossil water, the old water, it will be replenished?

I shall reply to the hon. member’s question in a moment and tell him what we are going to do. I just want to deal with this point first. There are tremendous reserves available. But we do not know where they are. We also know that in certain parts of the country the percentage of water which seeps through after the rains is larger than in others. That is why people in certain parts of the Karoo say that the fountain or the borehole begins to show signs of life after one inch of rain. This is not the case everywhere, but in certain parts it is. We know that the country has reserves which could be anything from 1½ to 12 million morgen-feet per year. It may be 5 million morgen-feet; it may be 10 million morgen-feet. However, we do know that there is in fact a great reserve available, but we shall still have to do a great deal of research work to make it possible to utilize those reserves. Hon. members will know that I appointed a study committee a short while ago on the advice of the Water Planning Commission which stated to me in advance that they felt it was time that we went ahead in the meantime and obtained the supplementary information in regard to our subterranean water resources. I then appointed a commission, a commission consisting of the best scientists South Africa had available. The terms of reference of the commission was to institute an inquiry into the subterranean position, to give us an indication in which direction further research should be carried out. For that reason the terms of reference read as follows—

1. (a) Evaluation of the existing knowledge on subterranean water resources in South Africa;
2. (b) A provisional determination of areas where the danger exists of subterranean water being withdrawn too rapidly for supplementation and where it would therefore be advisable to exercise control over extraction;
3. (c) To furnish indications in regard to the direction in which research in regard to subterranean water resources should be directed in order to achieve the best results.

We will in future have to make use of our best scientists to carry out research into this important direction, and in particular to draw up a water map of South Africa. Hon. members can understand that this is an enormous task. You will be able to understand the enormity of the task if we have to undertake it in a country like South-West Africa, a territory with a surface area of approximately three-quarters the surface area of South Africa, a territory the development of which in fact depends upon the water available underground and which does not itself have great resources.

We know that our subterranean potential is a great resource. The hon. member for South Coast asked me what we were going to do. We can declare an area to be a subterranean water control area. We can then compel a person to abide by certain prescriptions in regard to the extraction of water; we can prescribe to him how and what quantity and when he is able to extract from such a source. To be able to do so, we must have knowledge of it. We had the good services of the Geological Survey Division, which rendered us valuable service in that connection in the past. But we want to further supplement this knowledge on a very large scale. We know what the capacity of certain compartment is at what rate water is being extracted and at what rate that water can be supplemented. As far as some of these compartments are concerned, we know precisely how much water we can extract in order to guarantee its ensured delivery, but we do not have the same knowledge for the rest of South Africa. Nor do we know where other subterranean sources exist; we must trace them, but what we do in fact know is that too much subterranean water is being abstracted in certain areas; that in other areas there is in fact a great quantity of water available and that we will allow it to be abstracted there, but that we must allow it to be abstracted in such a way that the life of the source is not endangered. This study, which I regard as an enormous one for the future, is a study which we will now have to commence, particularly after the commission has given us an indication of what directions our inquiries and research in the future must take. Does that satisfy the hon. member for South Coast?

Yes, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, there is another source of reserve water, and that is polluted water. This source is not a vast one in South Africa. I think we can say that we have succeeded in keeping our streams reasonably clean. It is true that sporadically, at certain places, pollution is caused and prevails from time to time. But I think we would agree with one another that our water sources have up to now not been put out of action on a large scale as a result of pollution. We have a Water Act which makes it possible for the Minister to exercise control over the source itself, how much water is abstracted and what use the industries should make of water which has been abstracted. The Minister also has the power to determine what the content of the chemical composition of a factory’s effluent may be. In other words, we have an Act which makes it possible for us to keep our rivers clean. In this regard I want to say that this is a field in which South Africa not only took the lead but in view of the water position in its rivers also set an example to the rest of the world. One hon. member opposite, and I think it was the hon. member for Mooi River, had something to say yesterday about the condition of the water in the Rhine. He (pointed out that as a result of the degree of pollution of the water, eels were the only form of animal life which could exist there. We can feel proud that as far as this is concerned we lead the rest of the world. At the same time I would like to emphasize the general feeling of uneasiness which exists in South Africa. If we do not put a stop to it there is the possibility that we can, through major industrial development, pollute our rivers. There is a great cause for concern here. In this regard the hon. member for Mooi River focused the attention on a situation which could arise in Natal, at Mondi, where a multi-million rand factory is now going to be erected. With that the possibility arises that one of the biggest rivers in Natal and the cleanest river in the Republic of South Africa, one which brings down in the region of a half million morgen-feet of water per year, will be polluted over a distance of 125 miles. And this is a river which the entire southern Natal depends upon. But no country can allow such a river to be polluted. I have also ascertained that the people have already ordered machinery for the construction of this factory, but I want to warn them that they are investing there at their own risk for unless they can give me the absolute assurance that there is in no way any possibility of that river being polluted, I shall not issue an abstraction permit. We definitely cannot allow South Africa’s prettiest river—and one of the largest—to be polluted by one factory. It ought to be possible to prevent any possibility of pollution, But that is not my responsibility; these people who want to erect the factory must see to it that they know what has to be done. My task is to see to it that the river stays clean. I do not want to prescribe to them what they must do; all I am going to insist upon is how clean the river should be kept. For the rest it is their business how they set up their processes, and not mine. Our industrial development is proceeding apace, and with that there is the danger, as has already happened in America and Europe, that our rivers are going to become increasingly polluted because the rivers are being used as drainage ditches for the effluents. We simply dare not allow this. We are going to keep our rivers clean and guard very carefully against any possibility of pollution in future.

There are cases where local pollution problems arise from time to time, but it is our intention to look into this matter. In this connection I want to give the hon. members the assurance that the existing machinery for this purpose is going to be streamlined so that we can involve other interested parties, participants in communal streams in this matter and obtain their co-operation. The same applies to the Bantu areas. Actually, it is obvious that this should be the case.

Another important source of reserve water is our catchment areas. In this regard there has also been misunderstanding. At the moment our mountain catchment areas are under the control of four authorities: Forestry, Water Affairs, Agricultural Technical Services and Bantu Administration—four authorities therefore where it should in fact only be one. But we have already begun to obtain the necessary co-operation. The Departments of Forestry and Water Affairs are equally eager to keep an eye on this situation and accept responsibility for it.

I hope you are on good terms with the Minister of Forestry?

I can just mention that discussions between the two Departments in regard to this matter have already been held. We hope to take the matter further soon and create the necessary machinery. In fact, the hon. member for Mooi River referred yesterday to the areas which have already been declared. It is true that this happened a few years ago. But I must nevertheless inform the hon. member that we have not remained idle in the meantime. In fact, we have been doing quite a good deal behind the scenes. What has to be done now is to introduce the necessary machinery and the necessary organization in order to deal with the situation in future. In the meantime we have helped the hon. member’s people by freezing the position, as they requested. But that does not mean that we are simply going to freeze the situation and do nothing more about it. In the meantime we are engaged in creating the necessary machinery. The catchment areas are very important sources of water reserves. We do not know how these areas have been affected up to date, although observations indicate that we have already lost a great deal of water here. However, the two Departments of Forestry and Water Affairs are the best observers in this connection. Consequently the administrative machinery will be in the hands of the Department of Forestry and not in the hands of the Department of Water Affairs, because Forestry has the best organization for doing this. Apart from that, the Department of Forestry has an equal interest in the matter. Hon. members can therefore leave this matter safely in the hands of these two Departments, and when we meet again, I ought to be able to give an indication of the pattern of development.

Another source of reserve water is science itself, that which science can produce for us. From time to time there are conjectures as to what we can get from the sea. So far we do not know. We know one thing, though, that it is possible to reclaim water from the sea at a price. We also know that here, as in other countries, research work in this connection is being carried out. The objective must be to do so as cheaply as possible and to obtain the greatest possible volume. The problem is not merely to reclaim the water, for we can do that at a price; a further question is whether it can be done on a big enough scale to keep the human race alive. In other words, the techniques still have to be improved. With the latest attempt, I think it was in Montevideo, the price has already been reduced, if I remember correctly, to 20 cents per 1,000 gallons, which is still high. However, we think the possibility exists that we can develop this source by means of nuclear energy. But I want to warn against the general opinion that we will be able to reclaim so much water at such a low cost that we will be able to utilize it for irrigation purposes. There are many things which we can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty. One of these things is that it will only be possible to utilize the water which has been reclaimed in this way for industrial and for household purposes only. It will be too expensive to use it for other purposes. Hon. members must remember that we are applying irrigation to-day with water at a cost of less than one-tenth of a cent per 1,000 gallons. I can foresee that desalinated sea water will become cheaper than 20 cents per 1,000 gallons. However, I cannot imagine that it will become so cheap that it will be available at far less than 10 cents per 1.000 gallons. But then it must also be borne in mind that we have that water at the coast while our irrigation areas are situated in the interior. The nearest irrigation areas are situated more than 500 ft. above sea level and apparently still some distance away from the sea. We must therefore be realistic. The costs will then not only include the price of the water, but also the cost of taking the water from the ocean to the area where it has to be used. It is unthinkable to imagine that we can begin pumping water into the interior of South Africa after we have reclaimed it from the sea. We must be realistic. I must say that it is a vast source of the future for breathing new life into the coastal areas of South Africa. That is true. It will be possible to harness this reserve for that purpose.

In addition I also want to say that there is a further source of reserve water. That is the source of reserve water which South Africa can produce by making a supreme effort. Up to now we have argued on the assumption that we would be able to store and distribute some 40 to 50 per cent of the economically storable part of the water of the Republic of South Africa. We did not want to consider the rest. The reason why we did not want to do so is because we thought that with the present cost structure water would probably become too expensive. I want to say that, if the economy develops at its present rate, we will reach a stage where we will in fact have to consider this. Probably our techniques will by that time have been improved. Probably the economy of South Africa will be able to bear it much better than now. But there is a possibility of making that which was in reserve available. We do not know where that source lies, but we want to accept that it is theoretically possible to include part of it.

There is a further very important water reserve. After we have done all these things, after we have discussed the possibilities of water conservation and bringing water from other sources, there is one source of reserve water left, namely the reserve of the goodwill of our people. A nation which has the right dispostion and which lives in the right way and is correctly attuned in respect of this source will without having to go to any great trouble or having to endure any great inconvenience create for itself a reserve out of what it has. There sits my hon. colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice. I want to mention what happened a few years ago in his hometown. When water resgrictions had to be imposed on the Rand at that time, Klerksdorp set an example for South Africa. Klerksdorp made a general appeal for the saving of water. What was the result? The result was a saving of 37 per cent. I was there at the time. Various people, as well as the municipality, assured me that nobody complained about any inconvenience. They succeeded in doing so without any great inconvenience. In other words, there is a hidden reserve here, the extent of which we cannot fathom, but which we can all begin to consider. That is why hon. members can understand why it is essential that we should observe a water year next year. The intention with water year is in fact to focus the attention of the nation on this problem which I have been discussing now. We want to bring it to the attention that it is not simply a question of the Department or the Government that has to do this, but that it is a question of the disposition of an entire nation which has to co-operate to achieve a specific goal. In the statement we issued we stated that we would have to consider protecting our resources, the more beneficial use of our supplies, the experience gained by conserving water, the sporting and recreational facilities on our rivers and dams, the rich plant and animal life in our streams, the need for our research, the pride of our constructional creations, the greater certainty for the years which lie ahead by timeous planning and everything which goes with it. Hon. members would agree with me that to be able to do all this and to be able to call up these reserves, it is necessary that an entire nation should realize its duty and that an entire nation should co-operate towards that end.

But the costs involved in this are still very high. To achieve that, and to reach a stage where South Africa would have made use of these reserves and have brought them into operation, it can be taken into account that we will have to incur tremendous costs. We do not as yet know how high these costs will be. However, we do know that water will become more and more expensive. There are sectors which will find it more and more difficult to find water for use. It will simply be beyond their means to use additional, newly-developed water. As far as this process of the utilization of water by various sectors is concerned, I know what a fear exists in the agricultural sector. One of the hon. members mentioned this yesterday. This fear is that we will soon reach a stage where the farmers will not be able to obtain any further water. That is not true. I may as well furnish a few figures in this regard. At the present moment 3 million morgen feet of water are being allocated to agriculture. When I speak of 3 million morgen feet it includes the Orange River Scheme as well. After we have taken this properly into consideration, I think that we will probably be able to increase this figure to 4.8 million morgen feet of water. But I am convinced that if this additional 1.8 million is there and if the reclamation of plus minus 1 million morgen feet is also there, water will be available for South Africa’s farmers, will be equal to what they already have to-day, provided they are able to use it properly. In conclusion there are certain areas where water will be available for one purpose only, i.e. for irrigation. It will not be possible to make it available for other purposes because it will be a considerable distance away and because they will be the only possible consumers. In such areas they will consequently be the only consumers. The water will be made available to these farmers. The hon. member for Mooi River said that Natal also needs water and that irrigation will also have to be practiced in Natal. There are of course rivers which will be available for this purpose. In that province, which is a province rich in water, there are places where water will have to be used for agriculture because that will probably be the only type of consumption in specific areas. It will also be a useful supplement to effect higher agricultural production. But experienced planning, efficient conservation and optimum utilization will have to be the key words for this purpose.

Yesterday various members on both sides of the House took part in the discussions. I shall come to the hon. member for South Coast presently. I want to hold back my reply to his speech for a few minutes. I want to say that the hon. member for Piketberg touched upon a very important matter yesterday. This matter was also raised by the hon. member for Swellendam. It is perhaps time we said something about it in this House. This matter concerns the fact that on the West Coast we have large areas which are chronically stricken by drought. In these areas to which the hon. member for Piketberg referred, a great deal has been spent on locating subterranean water. In the area in which the hon. member for Swellendam is living, our Department has also taken a great deal of trouble lately to locate water. We know that under the present circumstances it will never be possible to develop the potential of these two areas to the full. This is also the case in other parts of South Africa where the same conditions obtain, i.e. not only in those parts in which these two hon. members are living. It will never be possible to develop the potential of these areas to the full, because part of the potential implies the development of the stock factor as well as the utilization of the veld. That is why my standpoint is that as far as these arid parts are concerned, the subsistence equilibrium of the agricultural economy can be maintained by linking up the available water resources with the existence of the stock factor. There is no alternative. We shall have to link up the stock factor with the large water resources. That is why we foresee that we in the future shall be able to do more towards locating water in such areas in order to make it available, if subterranean water is available locally. It is apparently not possible to find subterranean water in the hon. member for Swellendam’s area. This is probably not the position in the hon. member for Piketberg’s constituency either. I do not know; it may be that one simply does not know where to find it. We shall have to do two things. Firstly, we shall have to locate subterranean water in so far as it is possible to do so. Therefore the hon. member will also be able to see now why it is so essential to have this study group which is inquiring into the subterranean water situation in South Africa, for the very purpose of carrying out this function as well. Secondly, in areas where subterranean water is not available, we shall have to make available these surface water resources and take water to the arid parts of South Africa by means of pipelines. This will have to be done, but a strict condition attaches itself to that. We cannot take water to these areas over long distances if it is not an economic proposition to do so. The test that has to be applied, is that such a scheme should at least be economically viable for the individual farmer, for that vicinity and the community, and for the whole area and the equilibrium of its economy. In the case of Swellendam we have appointed a committee. This committee has been instructed to study the economics of the situation and to investigate and reply in full to certain questions I asked in this regard. The questions I asked are concerned with the economic viability of the scheme, the effects it may have on the community and the local area. What the question deals with, is whether a greater measure of equilibrium can be effected in the economy of this area if its water resources were to be supplemented from another source so as to sustain animal life on its surface area. If such a reply should be furnished and if we should obtain an estimate to the effect that breathing new life into that area by laying on water would be in the interest of South Africa, I want to assure hon. members that such an area has as valid a claim to an existence as that of any irrigation farmer, manufacturer or house owner.

I have already replied to the various points raised by the hon. member for Mooi River. I do not think I omitted anything. The hon. member for Christiana raised a few matters here. One of them is in regard to irrigation along the middle part of the Vaal River. The hon. member wanted to know whether we could not devise a plan so that the whole system of supplying water in that area might be reviewed. That area obtains water on the basis of a formula which was introduced back in 1934. I may just tell hon. members that it is no use asking for water to be supplied from a source which is already being overtaxed. At the present moment no additional water is available, but what we shall in fact do, and are already engaged in doing, is to review the situation and to see whether we cannot effect a rearrangement which might appear more fair than the present one, so that certain parts of that area may be given a new lease of life. I cannot hold out the prospect of any specific measures being taken. The only prospect I can hold out, is that we are investigating the situation there.

The hon. member also referred to soil-water. He complained about the instruments we were using. The instruments being used at the moment, are not the best that can be used for locating water, but the best methods are very expensive. The apparatus used is workable apparatus and the operation thereof is within the capabilities of our boring inspectors. The apparatus is the best practical apparatus available. Whereas instructions in regard to subterranean water have now been given to the study committee, we shall also pay attention to the location of water.

Then the hon. member also asked whether the name of the Oppermansdrift Dam could be changed. If the hon. member returns before we conclude this debate, I shall tell him whether or not the name will be changed.

The hon. member for Fauresmith asked a very important question. He wanted to know when we were going to proceed with the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam. The whole country wants to know when we are going to proceed with the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam. Hon. members will recall that some time ago it was found necessary to hold back the construction of this dam. There was a good reason for this decision. The first reason why the construction on this project was discontinued, was that the inflationary pressure at the time forced us to hold back certain projects in South Africa in general. I can tell hon. members that South Africa gained a great deal because we did so at that stage. We gained a few years’ interest on that capital. What is also important, is that the completion of the dam should coincide with the completion of the canals. If that is not done, we shall eventually have completed canals and no dam, or a completed dam and no completed canals. We thought we could synchronize the completion of the dam and that of the canals, if, within the near future, we proceeded with the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam. That is why it has been decided to proceed with the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam next year. This will probably happen at the end of next year. I am now giving you the assurance here, Sir, that if we should only start on the construction of the dam at that date, there will be no delay as regards the eventual supply of water. In the meantime we have taken the trouble of having the situation investigated once again. I can tell hon. members that in retrospect we are grateful now because this has given us a breather as regards the construction of the dam. We have gained invaluable knowledge as a result of the construction of the other gigantic project, the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. The knowledge we have in the meantime been able to gain from a scientific and technical point of view, will also come in very useful in the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam. Tender documents for the construction of this dam will probably be made available early next year. Tenderers will be given sufficient time, and we shall also have sufficient time for judging the tenders so that we may start on the construction of this dam as early as next year. Therefore I am grateful that we are now in a position to say that the construction of the dam will not be delayed any further, and we are also grateful that we can give the assurance of the synchronization of the completion of the dam and the completion of at least such a part of the system of canals as will allow of a return on the water supplied there if the construction is commenced towards the end of next year.

The hon. member also asked a question in regard to the competition between the agricultural sector and the industrial sector. The hon. member feared that in future the agricultural sector would receive less water than the industrial sector. I think I have already dealt with that. This need not be the case. In the broad planning which we envisage, we shall have to make an allocation which will do justice to the economy of South Africa. If justice is to be done to the economy of South Africa, every sector in question will receive its share of the remaining water available in our country. No person in the country —except when water is used for a primary purpose, i.e. when it is used as drinking water for human beings and animals—can claim preferential rights to water. The claim which can in fact be laid, is the claim by South Africa and its economy to the best utilization of the water resources of the country.

The hon. member for Fast London (North) raised a point in regard to certain growth points. The hon. member asked yesterday, if I understood him correctly, whether it was not time for us to stop certain growth points from developing too far. I think the hon. member is concerned about the possibility that we may eventually overtax some of our rivers. That possibility does exist, because any river can be overtaxed. In fact, we are now heading for the situation where the Vaal River can be or will be overtaxed in the future. The economy of the country will also have to make an automatic arrangement and will have to eliminate what cannot be absorbed. What is important, is that we shall reach a stage where we shall also have to realize that certain water-intensive industries should not be located at places where they may cause water resources to be overtaxed.

Mention a few examples of such industries.

We are referring to industries of the kind which may use five, ten and up to 20 million gallons of water per day and need not necessarily be location-orientated.

Such as?

One example of this could be a pulp factory. Such a factory uses between 10 and 20 million gallons of water per day. The raw materials for such a factory have to be conveyed from other points, and such a factory can therefore just as well be erected at another place.

The hon. member also made another point and said that in the future we would have to pay the price of our ideological policy. I think what the hon. member meant, is that we now have to take water to the border areas so as to meet the water needs there. Normally such water will perhaps be available in other areas, and I think the hon. member means that it would entail considerable expense to provide the water part of the infrastructure at places where there is no development at the moment. I want to tell the hon. member that in the majority of the developed areas of South Africa, such as in Cape Town and Johannesburg, there is no water. In these two areas it is so expensive that, seen from a water angle, these are the very areas from which we should keep away industries. I do not know of one single major industrial area in this country which at the present moment would be in a position to take a major inflow of non-Whites. In other words, as far as water provision in South Africa is concerned, we have reached a stage where we are simultaneously experiencing bottlenecks all over the country. In so many cases it is easy to locate industries at places where water is in fact available, since it would be cheaper from a water point of view to locate them there than to keep them where they are. In this regard I want to mention to the hon. member the example of Tzaneen. This area is in a position to absorb industries and, from a water point of view, it is in a position to abosrb them more cheaply than is the case on the Rand, where, at enormous expense, we now have to pump water from the Tugela in order to maintain industrial development there. In other words, from a water point of view there are no grounds for saying that in South Africa we are impeding industrial growth in certain areas and encouraging it in other areas, i.e. border areas, where water is going to cost more. This argument may be valid in other cases. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that it does not hold good in our case.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana raised a point in regard to the old feud between Durban and the Pinetown Water Supply Corporation. The Department of Water Affairs acts as the suppliers of water for Durban. Durban also supplies its own water from a number of established sources, and in terms of a private Act it has control over its own water. Durban is therefore a supplier of water, not only within its own area of jurisdiction, but also to outside consumers. One of the major outside consumers is the Pinetown Regional Water Supply Corporation. This body obtains water from Durban and then distributes it in its own area. A dispute has now developed between these two authorities in regard to the price of this water. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana subsequently raised this question with me and made various points. The hon. member has also discussed the matter with me on various occasions. This also applies to the hon. member for Pinetown, who has also discussed the matter with me. In this debate he referred to this matter after the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had spoken about it.

The hon. members tried to make the point here that the Department of Water Affairs should intervene and make peace, but that it should also, as the body responsible for water in general in South Africa, see to it that Durban supplied this authority at Pinetown with cheaper water. Durban is allegedly making certain profits on water which they are selling to Pinetown. The actual position is that the authorities of Pinetown are buying water from Durban at a price of 13.4 cents per thousand gallons. Having purchased a certain quantity of water, i.e. 21 million gallons, they then have to pay a further price of 37 cents per thousand gallons. The argument which is now being advanced, is that this additional price is a very high one. I now want to tell these hon. members that I cannot intervene in such a situation. The whole essence and spirit of the Water Act is in fact that no profit should be made from the sale of water. However, this is a service rendered by one body to another. A fee is charged for that service. The Department has no control over these fees and can do nothing about them. However, negotiations have been conducted in the meantime, and it may be news to the hon. member to hear that the agreement between the two bodies will lapse in 1972. Durban will then be prepared not to charge 37 cents, but to sell such water at 21 cents per thousand gallons. If it were to charge 21 cents, the price would fall automatically. I want to tell the hon. member that the Department of Water Affairs cannot force Durban to do anything. How can it do so? If Durban were to say that it costs it a certain amount to purify the water, the Department cannot say that it dare not charge that price for its services. The Department cannot interfere there, because this is a local authority and the province exercises control in that sphere In the future we may perhaps review this position from the angle of possibly introducing legislation, but what I want to tell the hon. member, is that at the end of the year we shall supply the authority with either purified or unpurified water. The Department has a price for its water on which it does not make any profit, and the price it will charge will probably, unless the authority subsidizes it, also be in the vicinity of 30 cents per thousand gallons. But we shall make this offer. We shall also make additional provision on the Umgeni River in the future, and I want to say this straight away. Whereas we would probably only have proceeded to this step in a few years’ time, it is likely that it will now have to become a matter of top priority for us. I cannot promise that it will appear on the Estimates as soon as next year, but it is likely that it will. But we shall very soon have to make a start on the next dam on the Umgeni River, i.e. with a view to all the development there. And if this is the case, the Department will then be able to supply water to this organization as well. But now I do at least want to add that when we supply water, one factor in the distribution costs of the Pinetown Regional Water Supply Corporation will fall away. Let me also say that merely in respect of distributing water, the Pinetown Corporation charges 47.7 cents per thousand gallons. That is very high. Its pumping costs alone amount to 11.7 cents. If we were to supply water, it would probably be at a price which would make this amount of 11.7 cents unnecessary. The water will be conducted by gravitation and we shall supply it up to the highest point. The costs they incur in having to pump it from Durban, will probably not be necessary here, and this item will fall away. In this respect it will therefore be made cheaper. But I want to tell the hon. member that it is not so easy to purify water, to keep it available and to administer it in such an area. Water is expensive. It is in fact true that the price charged by this corporation is high in terms of prices charged in South Africa, but the prices charged for water have increased all over the world. In many towns water is expensive. I am thinking of my own town, Louis Trichardt, at the foot of the Soutpansberg—another area which we regard as a well-watered part of our country—but the cheapest price I have ever paid for water there, was 89.7 cents per thousand gallons. The position is simply that water is becoming more expensive now, but I agree with the hon. member in the sense that, if water can be cheaper, one has to keep the price for it as low as possible. Therefore I want to say that we shall make an offer to supply the water ourselves, but then the corporation will have to consider very carefully whether it is going to be cheaper for it to take the water from us and to purify and distribute it, or whether it would not be cheaper for it to come to an agreement with Durban on a rate which we now know may be up to 16 cents per thousand gallons cheaper than the present rate in respect of additional water purchased. If the hon. member wishes to discuss this matter further with these people later on, he is very welcome to do so. Actually, I merely rose to tell him that this is the situation, that in actual fact we cannot interfere, but that we should like to be of assistance if we can do so in future and if we can help the hon. member’s people by supplying them with water at as cheap a price as possible. But I am afraid that we cannot argue with Durban about a price, because this is water which is being bought from Durban after Durban itself has had a great deal of expense in connection with it and has also rendered a service. Apparently the point at issue here is the 3.3 cents which is allegedly the average additional charge and which may appear to be a profit, but which is not a profit. But I do not wish to argue about whether or not it is a profit, however, it is a fee which Durban includes in its price for water and which, in addition it is probably using, as other bodies are doing, for the purpose of building up a nest egg. I do not know whether this is the case; I merely think that this may be the case.

†The hon. member for Pinetown raised the same question. In regard to the matters raised by the hon. member for Pinetown, the position is that I am now expected to grasp a nettle which my predecessors for apparently sound reasons were not prepared to grasp. It has been stated that it is against the principles of the Water Act to resell water at a profit. This is an over-simplification and it is not correct. What the Water Act states is that a Water Board shall conduct its affairs on a non-profit and non-loss basis, which still means that if it wishes to remain solvent it must make a profit on the services rendered by it to enable it to establish a sinking fund or a reserve fund, etc., for replacements, betterments, contingencies, etc. Furthermore, the Water Act states clearly that there shall be no ownership in public water. Therefore no one can sell public water. What a local authority in fact does is to charge for the services it renders in supplying water to its consumers, and it is certainly no function of the Central Government to control the tariff levy by a local authority for rendering this service. It might as well be argued that the Minister of Transport must control bus charges levied by a local authority, or that the Minister of Commerce and Industry must control electricity charges, or the Minister of Sport and Recreation must control swimming-bath fees. This is the control of charges for services rendered by a local authority, and that is a provincial function. If I were to legislate to control charges for water made by Durban, it would be dis-criminating against Durban. I would, therefore, have to provide for the control of charges for water supplied by all local authorities, and as I have already explained, that is not the function of my Department. I have already intimated that I am prepared to meet a deputation with a view to thrashing out this problem and finding a solution to it.

*The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) referred to the Spioenkop Dam. I want to give him the assurance that he need not be concerned that the water which we are going to abstract for the Spioenkop Dam, will be an excessive abstraction to the detriment of Natal. I mentioned this on a previous occasion, and the Prime Minister also mentioned the figure. The Spioenkop Dam will not store more than 5 per cent of the flow in normal years, and as regards the average annual flow-off—i.e., including the bad years—it will not take more than 8 per cent of the total. Out of this the equivalent of the consumption of a city such as Pretoria will be held back for consumption in Natal itself and will be held in reserve for development which may take place there. As I explained a moment ago, initially we thought of abstracting 150 million gallons per day. It is likely that this will s>till have to happen in future, but at the moment we are engaged in a scheme, which you have before you, Sir, which will allow of abstraction at a lower rate than was originally planned. If you listened a moment ago, you would have heard me explaining how we were going to effect a considerable saving from the Tugela in the future by abstracting water at certain times only.

Last night the hon. member for Heidelberg treated us to a perspective in regard to water to which, I suppose, very few of us have given any thought. I want to congratulate him on it. I do not know how much time he took to find out precisely how long it takes to read the whole bible, whether he counted all the verses, or where he obtained all his information, or how he calculated how much water a Scot requires if he lives to the age of 50 and drinks a whisky every day. It was very interesting and I wish to thank the hon. member for this interesting angle which he illustrated here. The hon. member also made a point in regard to flood irrigation and spray irrigation and wanted to know whether we would not subsidize spray irrigation in future. The hon. member said it appeared to him that the farmers should proceed to applying spray irrigation only. That is not so easy. We know that it holds great advantages, but a great deal of study still has to be done. We are working in this direction; in fact, we have started doing a great deal of work in this direction, i.e. to scrutinize the effectiveness of the application of spray irrigation in South Africa very closely, especially in view of the fact that it is so necessary for us to give the right advice. Now I just want to tell hon. members this: We have a very large number of pipe sellers in this country, but there are very few reliable spray irrigation engineers. Three-quarters of these people do nothing but sell pipes, probably with less intelligence than it would take any of us who do not work with this matter all day to be able to read from a list in front of us, which is the way they are doing it. I do want to sound the warning that generally speaking we should exercise caution in purchasing spray irrigaton units, because it is so easy to buy a pig in a poke. The department is prepared to give advice, but unfortunately we do not have enough people to do the research and we cannot do it on as large a scale as we should like to, but we shall also tackle this problem of the shortage of knowledge in this sphere in the same way we are tackling the other problems.

The hon. member for Zululand asked whether we could not pay attention to the Umfolosi River and the possibility of diverting it for flood water control, as we did in fact see it there when the hon. member and I visited the site. I want to tell the hon. member that if we could do that, we would of course have liked to do so, if we had had the money and the people. Unfortunately we have to give priority to the urgent needs which exist at the moment, and I can give him the assurance that in Natal there are several points which are more urgent than the flood water control of the Umfolosi, although this is an important matter. We have reached a stage where we have to be careful as regards our priorities since there is such a great deal that has to be done, and we must do the most important ones first. I said a moment ago that in Natal we would have to proceed at a very early stage to constructing a second dam on the Umgeni, and I also want to tell the hon. member that we shall probably have to proceed at a much earlier stage to constructing a dam on the Umhlatuzi River. The reason is that the Umhlatuzi is an important river and that it has also become more important now in view of the development of Richard’s Bay. There is a lake, the Umzimgazi Lake, from which we can obtain water in the meantime, but as soon as it is practicable for the department and within its physical capacities to do so, i.e. to undertake planning and construction there, we shall construct a dam on the Umhlatuzi. I cannot say exactly whether this will be as early as next year or the year after that; he should not hold me to a date, because we are in a strangle-hold as regards quite a number of projects which are also very important. But we shall do so as soon as possible, and I want to give him the assurance that this dam in Natal is a priority.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) spoke about hydrological research. I just want to tell the hon. member that it is not correct to say that there is a faculty of hydrology somewhere or that there should be one. The fact of the matter is that a great deal is already being done in South Africa in regard to research in this field what we need is more knowledge of hydrology, but what does this amount to? It is in actual fact that part of knowledge which has to do with physics and geology and all the related disciplines. A great deal of research in this sphere is already being done in South Africa. Various universities have chairs or departments which are devoting attention to this matter. The hon. member will know that the University of the Witwatersrand has a very well-known person who lectures on hydraulics, i.e. Professor Midgeley, and they are also doing a great deal in this regard. Some time ago the University of Pretoria introduced a faculty for water reclamation, and there they are also doing a great deal in regard to, as the hon. member said, hydrology, but which is actually related to and actually constitutes the disciplines which are connected with our needs and which are actually concerned with hydraulics. In this way work is also being done in Cape Town, Stellenbosch and Durban. But the Department itself does a great deal in this regard. We are doing a great deal of research work, and we are also on the point of establishing a research station for further observations and research at Pienaar’s River. We are constantly working at model studies. We are constantly working at studies of soil mechanics, because we need them. We are constantly working at studies in regard to concrete technology and special structures. More is being done than we probably know of. That is why I want to give the hon. member the assurance that, although there is a need for more knowledge, the need is actually in the sphere of—as, amongst others, the hon. member for Christiana said—geophysicists as well. On the one hand we need the knowledge which our hydrologists should have, and our hydrologists are people who have ordinary B.Sc. degrees, who are trained and who subsequently specialize further. We shall also need these people in the future, but they will have to be people who will have taken a further degree after the ordinary B.Sc. degree. This will therefore require further study subsequent to taking the ordinary B.Sc.—an honours degree, an M.Sc. of even a doctors degree in the sphere we require. I want to announce here to-day that the other day one of these companies i.e. Imperial Cold Storage, came forward with an offer to make available annually a bursary of R2.400 for a student who wants to pursue his studies in any field, especially in the field of geophysics, be it geology or physics or engineering geology but in related specialized fields in which we need such students. I want to extend my sincere gratitude to them, and I also want to express the hope that this will be an encouragement and an incentive to others in South Africa to make such a contribution towards solving our problems by helping to have our people trained in specialized fields. I am indebted to this company.

The hon. member may rest assured that a great deal is being done in this field. We do of course have a manpower shortage in all spheres. Particularly in this sphere we have shortage of people. In the future we shall also have a shortage of scientists in the specialized field of geophysics, be they people who have been trained in geology and are studying further, or people who have been trained in physics or who have been trained in engineering and who by means of further studies specialize in certain fields in which we need them. Our universities can do a great deal to help us >in that regard. We are a small country and we do not have all these specialized fields of study available at all our universities.

In the course of the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Lydenburg made a few observations in regard to spray irrigation. The reply I gave to the hon. member for Heidelberg, holds good for him as well. The hon. member also inquired about the planning in respect of the Eastern Transvaal rivers which flow in an easterly direction. Yes, we shall do so. The intention is to plan the entire country by way of its water complexes, which will then be investigated subsequent to which they will be planned individually. It would take a great deal of time to have detailed planning of the whole of South Africa undertaken by one single commission. I want to tell the hon. member that the area to which he referred will be given its turn. We simply do not have enough chairmen, secretaries and professional officers to appoint to these commissions. We should have about 20; we only have three functioning at the moment. The people who can be of assistance in this regard are few and far between, but we shall devote attention to this matter as soon as we can.

The hon. member also referred to the private sector which should assist in training engineers. I want to support him in this regard. I appreciate what he said. I am of the same opinion. We are doing a great deal towards training engineers and making up the backlog, but the private sector can do as much. We should appreciate it if the private sector also assisted in training people instead of merely luring away our best brains. All of us—not only they but also we—have a duty towards South Africa. Our task is to maintain the infrastructure, and we should also like them to do their share towards maintaining it and to refrain from luring our people away from us.

The hon. member for South Coast is not here at the moment. Out of courtesy I shall therefore defer what I wanted to tell him until I have another opportunity of doing so.

Sir, yesterday, and also while recent legislation was being dealt with, I listened attentively to the hon. member for South Coast. I want to say that I appreciate the thoughts he expressed here and the attitude which he, as the exponent of the sentiments of his party, displayed. Here we do, in fact, have another possible point of contact, and I sincerely want to express the hope that in future the Opposition will not see this matter as one from which political capital can be made, but as one relating to the interests of our country. Thereby I do not want to suggest that I expect hon. members to refrain from expressing criticism, but we hope that their criticism, when it is forthcoming, will be constructive in nature.

Mr. Chairman, it is the hon. the Minister’s allotted task to implement the 1958 Act. This is, indeed, no pleasant task. It saddles him with a tremendous responsibility. There are a great many problems which must be surmounted. I should like to take this opportunity, for the purposes of the record, of expressing my greatest appreciation to the hon. the Minister for his handling of this matter, particularly in my constituency and in those of my colleagues whose constituencies border on mine. I have the greatest appreciation for the sympathetic attitude which the hon. the Minister displayed, his approachability and the tactful way in which he dealt with those people. I want to say here frankly that I believe that by those actions the hon. the Minister has built up a fine image for himself and the Department of Water Affairs.

Sir, there is a great deal to say in connection with water and water affairs, as we have thus far learned. If one does not fully understand the matters and if one has not had the privilege, either, of listening to what the hon. the Minister said, one becomes a little afraid to think that it is generally accepted that a country only develops to the extent to which its water supply allows. This is a thought which is expressed frequently. The hon. the Prime Minister also mentioned it a few days ago. It is a fact which we cannot argue away; it is an irrefutable fact. Water is the source of life to man, animal and plant, and it is absolutely essential to industrial development and to every sphere of progress. Sir, I have also concerned myself with the sources we could fall back on when we have reached that stage. The hon. the Minister dealt with it at length, and I do not want to try to improve upon, or supplement, that.

I nevertheless think that I should add a few ideas in connection with certain aspects of the matter. The hon. the Minister talked at length about one reserve which we could obtain by saving water or using it economically. I remember that in 1966 I also tried to emphasize this matter. We cannot get past the fact that at present there is a tremendous wastage of water taking place in this country of ours. It begins in our homes, and where we apply irrigation, and also in industry. If we are all agreed on this matter, I wonder whether the time has not come for us to take some positive steps in this connection. I do not believe that we can expect that something should be done by the Minister and his department to prevent the wastage of water, because the Department is limited in what it can do. What I have in mind is that we should use the projected Water Year, next year, to bring this idea of saving home to the public. Let it become a kind of campaign; let us call upon people to save water; let us distribute pamphlets and adopt every means by which to bring the necessity of water saving pertinently to people’s attention. Perhaps it will prove quite advantageous.

Sir, I said that I was not going to deal with all our reserves, but there is one matter about which I hold very definite views, and that is the question of subterranean water. I believe that when the sources at our disposal have been harnassed to the full, we shall have to go underground to see what we can find by way of supplementary supplies. We also welcome the appointment of the commission of inquiry. On the best authority I know that in a particular region, not many years ago, water could be obtained in large quantities at a depth of 20 to 40 feet. The present position in that same region, after people had begun to pump water out on a large scale for irrigation purposes, is that that water is found at depths of 200, 300 and 400 feet. This gives us an idea of what is going on. This is not as a result of meagre rainfall. Sir, you could go from one farm to another and find that there are turbines pumping water day in and day out. If it should continue at this rate I foresee the day when the surface of the earth will be a hard crust in which there will eventually be no more life. I do not want to suggest here that I believe or accept the fact that we should leave our subterranean water altogether unutilized. For human and animal consumption it is indispensable, but I am just as convinced that that subterranean water, except in a few cases where we have large concentrations, cannot be applied economically for irrigation or agricultural purposes. I feel very strongly about this matter and I hope that the hon. the Minister, when those reports, which we are expecting, are made available, will give very close attention to this aspect of the matter.

We appreciate the willingness of the Minister to meet a deputation from Pinetown and from the other parties concerned. However, I do not think the Minister can wash his hands off this question of rates charged for water. The Minister has admitted that he accepts the principle of no profit on the sale of water. But if there are parties who are dissatisfied, to whom can they go if not to the Minister? The Minister said it could not be expected of him to fix rates for all local authorities. With that we agree, but where a party feels there is an injustice the Minister should be the final board of appeal. In support of his standpoint the Minister said it could not be expected of the Minister of Transport to fix fares for buses in towns. But, surely, the Minister knows the law—Surely he knows that the Minister of Transport through the Transportation Board fixes bus rates? If the Minister of Transport regards it of sufficient importance to provide that the licensing for public transport should be dealt with by the Transportation Board and that the Road Transportation Board should be called in when fares are fixed, it is not unreasonable to suggest that also with such a vital thing as water there ought to be a final appeal to the Minister. The hon. member for South Coast this afternoon received the following telegram from the Water Corporation of Amanzimtoti—

I am not pleading for Pinetown only. I am supported in my views by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and by the Amanzimtoti local authority, by the North Coast and by Pinetown. Surely, it is only reasonable that where these organizations feel that they are paying too much they should be enabled to appeal to the Minister. The Minister referred to the 4 per cent to borough funds. I want to make it clear that if that is a charge in excess of the charges for sinking fund, for depreciation, etc., then it is a figure which, in my opinion, needs investigation. Therefore, I appreciate the hon. Minister’s willingness to receive a deputation. This is a matter which has been causing concern; it has been worrying the Pinetown Water Corporation; and it is a matter about which I have seen more than one Minister. Furthermore, in recent months I have been supported by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. These local authorities take this thing seriously. When they went to Pretoria to see the Minister’s predecessor and when they subsequently came to Cape Town they did not do so as an idle jaunt only. But they felt there was an injustice and, consequently, I should like to ask the Minister to make arrangements to meet this deputation or, alternatively, to consider the recommendations contained in this telegram and arrange with the Provincial Administration to convene a meeting of all parties, in the presence of the Minister’s officials. This is an important matter and one which is causing concern, because people are feeling that they are paying too much for water. May I in passing mention to the Minister that the price could possibly have been reduced had there been better planning by the Minister’s department.

All the water going up to Pinetown and for places inland has to be pumped uphill. If the Minister’s department, when they arranged for a pipeline from Midmar to Hammarsdale, had made a survey of the whole area they might have provided a pipeline twice the size of the present one thereby avoiding the necessity of Durban having to pump water to Pinetown, by offering the Pinetown Water Corporation and other places inland an alternative source of supply. I submit that gravity is a good deal cheaper than pumping. But there was no planning as far as the Pinetown Region Water Corporation and the department are concerned. The first Pinetown heard was that a pipeline was going to be laid from the Midmar Dam to Hammarsdale. Of course, the Government approached a quasi-government department and the I.D.C. made the arrangements. I wonder what size pipeline would have been stipulated and what provision would have been made had the Department of Water Affairs made a survey of the future requirements of all areas from Hammarsdale and Cato Ridge down to the coast. They could have offered all these local authorities a cheaper water supply with gravity feed. Much of the excessive charges now being paid and much of the friction and arguments, in the second place, could have been avoided. I have been on this matter for many months. I only hope that as a result of raising it in the House, because I prefer to do it by discussing it with the Minister’s department, and the Minister having given his reply, not only will we iron out the difficulties between the various authorities, but we will get the cheaper water which the Minister suggests we may get in the for-seeable future. The Minister agrees that the charges are excessive. He agrees that savings can be effected. I hope that as a result of this discussion, the Minister’s contribution and the contribution of both sides of the House, our ideal of cheaper water will be obtained.

In the few minutes left, I want to refer to the Minister’s remarks about underground water and the research that is being done. I would remind the hon. the Minister that over 12 years ago the hon. member for South Coast during the discussion of the Water Act, recommended that this survey should be done. In doing so, may I suggest to the Minister that in his investigation, he should make inquiries at Las Palmas. A couple of years ago when I was at Las Palmas, it had not had rain for two years. The theory is that the water for Las Palmas comes under the sea from the Morocco Mountains. At Las Palmas all the water supplied to ships and the water for the local population, which runs to some 3,000 or 4,000 people, comes from underground. The Spanish people have done a tremendous amount of research into underground water. Might I suggest to the hon. the Minister that now that he is accepting the advice of the hon. member for South Coast, given 12 years ago, that he should follow that advice, and dealing with underground water, also deal with the recommendation made by the hon. member for South Coast with regard to the quantity and movement of underground water.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get involved in the feud between the communities of Pinetown and Durban. I just want to say that, seen in perspective, water problems in South Africa actually form part of the progress brought about in South Africa by the National Party Government. To expect that there will be no problems, or even that the problems will all be solved, is to expect man to have super-human qualities.

I want to come back to what was said by the hon. member for South Coast yesterday. He made a plea in which he repeated himself a good deal. I must say that I agree with much of what he said. But I have to come back to some of the statements made by the hon. member, as they really affect the administration of our affairs in South-West Africa. He said that we should first look after our people at home, that one could not spend millions on water projects in border districts or even outside the borders just for the sake of adventure, projects which we cannot control or protect. Then he referred to the Orange River scheme, which was approved by a Select Committee and by this House, and suggested that the scheme was only a shadow of the large whole. He claimed that fruitless expenditure had been incurred in regard to the Verwoerd, Van der Kloof and Torquay Dams. I quote one statement made by him in the course of his speech—

Hon. members know, of course, that we in South-West Africa have the Kunene scheme on our border and that the State is spending a considerable amount on it, inside Angola as well. Considerable funds have been made available to the Portuguese. In order to regulate that river so as to keep the hydro-electric scheme at the Ruacana Falls in operation during the dry seasons and to keep the flow of the water constant, the necessary negotiations were conducted and the necessary arrangements were made and a considerable amount had to be spent on the scheme in Angola itself. There are, of course, other proposed schemes beyond our borders, for example the Oxbow scheme, and the Cabora-Bassa scheme on the Zambesi. All these developments bring mutual benefits with them. There is co-operation in the economic field. This broadens the horizons and affords us the opportunity, of course, of exchanging ideas and views. I have misgivings about the hon. member’s statements. I want to ask him, is he opposed to the development of the schemes on our border, such as the hydroelectric scheme at Ruacana and the dams that are being built on the Kunene River in Angola? Does he not want South-West Africa to make use of the hydro-electric power and the water which are available to it in terms of the rights laid down when the border was determined in 1926? Then the hon. member went on to make the following statement—

He repeated this on three or four occasions in his speech yesterday.

Do not stop there.

Would the hon. member care to answer my question and say that he is not opposed to the development in the Kunene River which has been brought about by the Government? Is he opposed to the development at the Oxbow scheme, which is still pending while negotiations are taking place? Is he opposed to it or is he in favour of it?

No, I am not prepared to answer that.

But can the hon. member say “yes” or “no”? This Opposition, who are having such a good laugh now, do not realize what our problems are in South-West Africa.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member does not know what nonsense is. They do not know what problems we have. The simple fact of the matter is that ’the Odendaal Commission realized what our problems in South-West Africa were and that we will have to develop that scheme in order to survive. If we want to develop the infra-structure of South-West Africa, for example, we will have to have water and electric power. But apparently the Opposition do not want this to happen in South-West Africa. I challenge the hon. member to come to South-West Africa and to tell us this from the political platform.

With the unparalleled growth rate since the Second World War, which was further stimulated by the development of the infra-structure, as I have said, which was recommended by the Odendaal Commission, the need for water in the interior of South-West Africa remains a major factor in the development of the territory, and requires a great deal of well-considered planning. As far as the mining industry is concerned, there is a great deal of activity behind the scenes. In spite of pessimistic views in regard to the mining industry to the effect that it is a disappearing asset and that the end is in sight, the mineral industry is in a state of fermentation and a glorious future awaits South-West Africa, which has ore reserves for mines equal to those of individual mines on the Zambian Copperbelt. This will create new growth points in the central parts of South-West Africa. As you know, of course, there are many developments at present in regard to the supplying of water. Only, I cannot see, if the pending developments in the field of the mining industry were to take place, where the water which is so extremely necessary for the development in the central parts of South-West Africa, will come from. In order to avoid complications of a technical, social and regional nature, it would be desirable to work out a plan in good time, taking into account the available water supplies in the northern border rivers of South-West Africa in particular. These are situated on the borders of South Africa and it is therefore necessary to go beyond the borders, as, for example, in the case of the Kunene River. There is co-operation between the Portuguese and South African Governments, and I hope that the negotiations will be brought to a successful conclusion. If the mining industry in the central parts of South-West Africa is to develop on the same scale as that on the Zambian Copperbelt, the local water resources will most definitely not be sufficient. The quantity of water flowing down the Kunene and the Okavango amounts to 17.800 million cubic metres. That is 7,000 million cubic metres more than can be supplied by the catchment area of the Orange and Vaal Rivers. If we add to this what South-West Africa has, for example, in the Kwando and Zambesi Rivers, with a potential of say 5.000 million cubic metres for the Kwando River and 38.000 million cubic metres for the Zambesi River, you can decide for yourself to what a tremendous potential we are entitled in these rivers. It goes without saying, of course, that we cannot get everything. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall leave it to the hon. member for South Coast to deal with the hon. member for Etosha. Actually, there will be no need for him to do so, because after the hon. member has read that paragraph, there will be no further need to reply to him. We realize what the problems are, but what we deprecate is the fact that the Government does not react to sound advice. In fact, the hon. member for Pinetown pointed out that what the hon. the Minister told us here this afternoon with regard to the planning of our water reserves, was advice which the Government had already received 12 years ago. The planning which has been undertaken, up to now at any rate, has not been following the lines mentioned here this afternoon by the hon. the Minister. We hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will give effect to this in that vigorous way for which the Government is so known. In the past year two White Papers were published which relate to water affairs in my own area. The first dealt with supplementary water for King William’s Town from Laing Dam by means of a pipeline. The second White Paper was published several days ago and dealt with a pipeline, once again from Laing Dam, to the Berlin industrial complex. If anything testifies to inadequate planning by the Government in this connection, these two White Papers do. These White Papers are the cause of water now having to be supplied to these two areas in this way. It is being done on a completely ad hoc basis simply to overcome the water shortage crisis in that area. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that when planning in respect of a certain water supply covers a period of time, one finds virtually without exception that that water is fully utilized before that period has expired. I should not like to venture into the technical field, but I have the gravest doubts, when we have regard to the obligations to be met as regards the water to be supplied over the period for which provision is now being made by means of these two pipelines, whether that water will satisfy the demand over that period. The possibility of having to make further provision within the next five years is not excluded. At present provision is made on the Estimates for the Braunschweig or Fairways Dam, as it is generally known. However, no progress is being made with this dam. This is the second year it is appearing on the Estimates. There is talk of the possibility of this dam not being constructed at all and of its having to be replaced by something else. Therefore I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister when and where another dam, or whatever, will be constructed instead of that dam. I know the hon. the Minister has investigated this matter. I hope he will make this announcement this very day or at an early date, as we in that area must also get our plans in order. Everything depends on the availability of water. After all, as far as this problem is concerned, time is of the essence. There is simply not enough time, definitely no time to waste. I want to repeat, the hon. the Minister may safely act vigorously in this respect.

During the past few hours and the whole of yesterday we heard of the major problems with which the hon. the Minister and his Department were faced. Therefore I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my own personal appreciation and that of my constituency to the hon. the Minister and his Department for the assistance and the cooperation they have been giving over the past few years, and especially over the past year when we were faced with such an acute water shortage as a result of the severe drought in that area. I believe, and I do not think there can be any doubt about this, that there is no other disaster which has a more destructive effect on a community than that which such a drought has, be it in the material, psychological or any other sphere. When water supplies and sources of water run dry, people, and this undoubtedly is so, become panic-stricken. At such times things are done which may perhaps not be in accord with the Good Book. I should like the hon. the Minister and his Department to take this position into account. The circumstances should always be borne in mind.

When a farmer has to sink a borehole, the position is that he has to obtain authority to do so in advance if he requires Government aid. This position applies whether he uses a Government drill or a private drill. Although the subsidy is the same in both cases, separate authorization is required in each case. The reason given for this is that different regulations apply, depending on whether a Government drill or a private drill is used. Most farmers know, although not all of them do, that authority has to be obtained before they start sinking the borehole. Of course, when they apply for authority, they apply for a Government drill. The waiting list for a Government drill is very long and because of that major delays occur. Now it so happens, under the kind of critical circumstances I have mentioned and when a person’s water supplies are becoming exhausted, that there may be a private drill in the vicinity. Such a farmer does not want to miss the opportunity of using that drill, because if he does he may be without any water whatsoever. The result is that he makes use of that drill. He subsequently applies to the Department for his subsidy. He is informed by return of post, “No subsidy is payable, because you have drilled without authority”. Authority is rarely, if ever, withheld. There is more work for the Government drills than they can cope with. The regulations lay down exactly what standards are to be maintained by the operators of private drills. I simply cannot see why such an attitude should be adopted as far as the question of authorization is concerned. Under normal circumstances this may be justified, but when emergency grazing conditions obtain in an area, there is no reason for such an attitude. I know the hon. the Minister has given the assurance that he will expedite the question of granting authority. He said such authority would, as it were, be given by return of post.

It is granted immediately.

No. Sir, this is precisely the point I want to make. It is not granted immediately. I must add, however, that this is not the fault of the Department. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. For example, sometimes applications have not been completed correctly, or the applications do not reach the Department because they go astray in the post, or something of that nature. However, delays still occur. I am prepared to concede that this matter has been expedited, and the hon. the Minister has obtained a further concession from the Treasury, i.e. when boring operations have been started without authorization, an ex gratia payment will be considered. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago we piloted the Water Amendment Bill through Parliament. It contains a clause which is of great importance to the people I represent here. Previously the position was that, when a farmer needed a private irrigation scheme, he could apply to the Department and then receive a subsidy of about R1,000 for it. The new legislation changes the position, so that the subsidy is now being increased to R3,000, or not more than one-third of the total cost, if various farmers were to get together in order to tackle such a project. This will now result in a great deal of water, which previously ran unused down the rivers, now being pumped out and used for irrigation purposes on our barren lands. But the actual value of this, for the constituency which I represent, lies in the fact that the Act now provides that a subsidy can be paid for water which is used for all agricultural purposes, and not only for water used for irrigation purposes. In other words, water supplies for livestock are now also included.

In the area south of the Langeberge, which I have the privilege of representing here, water for livestock supply purposes is one of the most substantial problems we have. Particularly in a period of extremely oppressive drought, such as we are now experiencing there, and which previous generations had no knowledge of, many farmers can now make use of that although they were previously not able to do so at all. This problem has been touched upon to a certain extent by the hon. member for Swellendam, who is my neighbour, and also by the hon. member for Piketberg, but I nevertheless think that my problem is altogether different. I should like to state the problem here. If one must have drinking water for livestock, and the water is not available, one’s first recourse is to drilling. In our area the farms of some farmers are already looking like a sieve, the way they have been drilling. However, they could not find any usable water. The problem was that they had to find good, subterranean water, which perhaps lay at a very great depth. We subsequently approached the Department of Mines, and the hon. the Minister was kind enough to put two of his geologists at our disposal. They carried out an intensive investigation there and made a good survey. The report which they issued indicated that, if good water was possibly available, drilling would have to be done to a depth of as much as 10,000 feet. To drill to such a depth for good water is an impossible task for us in practice. Where drilling operations were carried out at other places, and water found, the quality of the water was such that it could not be used for livestock drinking purposes. Usually it is brackish, and at times altogether salty. The ordinary earth dams which were constructed there have given very good service in the past. But if we have such a period of drought as has been lasting for almost a year now, such a dam serves no purpose whatsoever. To our dismay we have also discovered that many of them are recently in the process of becoming salty and brackish. This can be attributed to the fact that so much fertiliser is being transferred there from the land. For a farmer with such a dam, who finds himself in such a position, there is only one possible way of saving his livestock, and that is to transport water. In our constituency farmers must sometimes convey water over a distance of 20 to 30 miles in order to provide for their livestock. You can understand that in such times of drought fresh water is the most important commodity keeping livestock alive. It preserves their condition. With good water and a little bit of fodder one can go a long way. However, there are many farmers who are financially quite incapable of doing this or of making use of this improved scheme, because they simply do not have the funds at their disposal. Some of them may, in fact, have the funds, but they may not be close enough to a water source in order to obtain the water economically, even if one considers the subsidy which they receive from the Government. I can see no other solution to that problem, which concerns many farmers, than that the fine series of dams, which the Government is building on the southern side of the Langeberge, should be used to transfer water to the farmers by means of a pipeline. This series of dams begins at the Buffelsjag River near Swellendam. From there they lie in a row. Additional dams, which will be built later, have been planned, and they will then reach almost as far as George. If use were to be made of pipelines, it would enable a farmer, who finds himself in a crisis such as we are experiencing now, or even in the normal course of events, to keep his livestock at such a peak that he would be able to deal with an ordinary drought. We are now not speaking of abnormal droughts. Special provision must be made for such droughts. If such a farmer could obtain water from those dams, it would, of course, immedately strengthen his financial position. He would then not be affected by other problems which prove to be a set-back, such as crop failures, etc. We must remember that in that part of the world we do not merely depend upon livestock for a living. Crops give us an additional income, but they so frequently leave one in the lurch. Livestock, after all, remains a stabilizing factor. If we do not maintain that stabilizing factor, we can simply expect more difficulties for our farming population.

The Minister has replied to this in part. He said that such a scheme must be economical. We understand this. One cannot tackle something in this world of ours, and make a success of it, if one does not also bear economic aspects in mind. There may also be another problem, i.e. that when those dams were built it was not intended that they should also provide an extensive livestock area with water. I think that the primary aim in their planning was to obtain water for irrigation. I know those dams well and I know that many of them have an overflow each year which still runs to the sea. If that is the problem, one could, in fact, by increasing the height of some of the dam walls, provide those farmers with water which would otherwise merely pass them by. Hon. members know how frustrating something like that can be. Since this method of providing water to the farmers of the Western Cape coast is being applied with so much success, I think that we could also see whether we could not apply it profitably, as is, in fact, being done elsewhere, to the South Coast, which is far behind in the field of farming. I should therefore like to bring this problem, such as it is, to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in the short time at my disposal I should like to bring three small matters to the hon. the Minister’s attention. Firstly, in the constituency which I represent there are two specific irrigation boards, i.e. that at Kaffer River, and that at Egmond. These schemes have been in existence for quite some time. We have a canal system there which still consists of earth furrows. I do not want to elaborate upon that. Suffice to say that those earth furrows are in an altogether poor condition. Seen against the background of the water shortage in South Africa, we can no longer tolerate water being supplied by earth furrows. In pleading for those two soil conservation districts, we simply want to know from the hon. the Minister what his policy and that of the Department is in this respect, so that an end can be made to such a state of affairs, and in order to cement such canals. It goes without saying that in that way we could utilize the water that we have.

In the second place I want to take this opportunity of asking the Minister a question in connection with the Welbedacht Scheme in the Caledon River. It has been known for quite a while that a decision was taken to the effect that a wall would be erected at Welbedacht for the primary purpose of supplying water to Bloemfontein and its environs. Provision would also be made for irrigation land at the lower end of those dams. There was an announcement in the Press recently by the Department, or an official of the Department, to the effect that this work would be commenced within February of next year. We have heard nothing officially in that connection. I should simply like to know from the hon. the Minister what the true position there is, because it creates tremendous problems for the people who will be affected by this scheme, and particularly the people who are living in the dam basin, if they do not know what the true position is. I would appreciate it if it were now possible to give a reply. However, if it is only possible to do so at a later stage, we should also like to know what the policy would be in respect of the housing of these people. In Wepener there is housing available. There are houses and a hostel which are empty and in which the Department’s people could be housed. We should like to know what the position there is.

Lastly, I just want to say that on another occasion I drew the attention of this House to the silt content problem in the Orange River. On that occasion we noted with appreciation what the Department of Agricultural Technical Service was doing to keep the ground where it was. Thereby the silt content in the river concerned is decreased. But there are rumours that the silting up of this dam will take place much more rapidly than we ever expected. We would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could make a statement in this connection, if it is at all possible to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to the provisions of section 164 bis of the Water Act of 1965. That section makes provision for the declaration of water sport control areas. I should like to quote briefly the provisions of that section. It reads as follows:

The State President can thus confer on the Minister such powers as are necessary to control such a water sport control area. What I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon is to consider the declaration of the well known lake in this area, namely Zeekoevlei, as a water sport control area. In terms of section 164 ter the Minister has power to make regulations if that area is declared as a water sport control area. He can control the use of such an area of water for navigation or any sport which is practised upon or in the water. He also can have control over the use of craft and appliances of whatever nature upon or in water in such water area, etc. The main purpose of my making this request to the Minister is the problem that exists at Zeekoevlei of different kinds of users of the water and more particularly the speedboaters. I should like to bring to his attention the fact that the residential area of Zeekoevlei is under the jurisdiction of the Divisional Council. However, the waters of the vlei are under the administration and the control of the Cape Town City Council. The waters of the vlei were actually transferred to the control of the City Council in 1934. At that time certain conditions were imposed on the council. These conditions were the following:

In those days the vlei was used almost exclusively by yachtsmen, by anglers and by bird watchers. In 1952 speedboats first made their appearance on Zeekoevlei. By 1955 and for a five year period thereafter, deputations were regularly sent to the Cape Town City Council to ask them to take steps to control the activities of the speedboaters. In 1960 there was a Supreme Court action here in Cape Town by residents at Zeekoevlei as a result of which the judge found that it was incumbent on the Cape Town City Council to control Zeekoevlei and to prevent occurrence there of actionable nuisance. In April 1961 the City Council promulgated certain regulations controlling the use of the waters of Zeekoevlei. But two years later, in 1963, the position had not improved much. In desperation telegrams were sent to the Administrator asking him please to intervene and to see that the speedboat users of the vlei behaved in a proper manner. In April, 1963, the council appointed an advisory board and the functions conferred on that board are interesting. The functions were, inter alia, to consider and to discuss matters affecting the interests of residents at the vlei and of persons who use the vlei for pleasure, sport and recreation, with a view to reconciling conflicting interests as far as possible, etc. From 1964 onwards the council has undertaken some very enterprising developments of the southern section of Zeekoevlei. It has laid out roads and launching ramps for speed boats. It has allowed erection of a clubhouse there and the interests of the speedboaters have been very well catered for. But the regulations which were drawn up by the council and promulgated have not been observed by all those that use the vlei. As a result, the number of complaints increased over the years. In February, 1966, the Divisional Council unanimously resolved to request the Minister to agree to the transfer of the control of Zeekoevlei from the City Council to the Divisional Council. In 1967 the Secretary of Water Affairs wrote to the City Council and said that he had received numerous complaints about the activities of speedboaters on the vlei, and of their reckless behaviour. He referred to the fact that the Divisional Council had then formally applied for the transfer of the control of the waters of the vlei to it. I came into the picture as a result of local residents approaching me, and I asked the Secretary of Water Affairs in the middle of 1967 to convene a meeting of all interested parties. That meeting was actually held on 7th February, 1968, and all parties were represented, including a strong delegation from the Cape Town City Council. All parties were heard and the Secretary of Water Affairs promised to take action and to inquire into the conditions at Zeekoevlei if further complaints should continue. He suggested that there should be a trial period in which it could be seen whether the parties with different interests in the vlei could not be reconciled. I am sorry to say that their interests have not been reconciled and to-day there is an absence of control and enforcement of existing regulations. Attempts have been made by members of the advisory board to control the activity of speedboaters and they have also attempted to limit the number of power boats being used there by the public to a number of forty. This number excludes the members of the Aquatic Club whose numbers exceed that figure greatly. They have asked for the appointment of a launching official who can supervise the launching of power boats. They have also asked for a traffic officer and a patrol boat on the vlei. They have also asked for a safety zone. A small safety zone has in fact been created, but there is no patrol boat and no water traffic officer. There is a beach constable, but he has a bicycle. He is apparently expected to ride around the vlei to report contraventions, either of the safety zone regulations, or any other abuses. The number of the boats have not been controlled. In fact on a recent Sunday, 85 were launched, and this fact was mentioned at a meeting of the advisory board the following week as being an official figure. This excludes, as I have mentioned earlier, the number of boats that belong to the recognized power boat club with its clubhouse there. 540 speedboat licences have been granted to owners of boats. The use of the water by speedboats is not controlled and it is very necessary that it should be controlled effectively. They can be a danger to others who use the vlei. In addition there is noise and nuisance for the residents and also the danger of the pollution of the waters of the vlei. The present position is completely intolerable. There is in fact a state of affairs which results from incompatibility among the bedfellows using Zeekoevlei. The power boat owners and yachtsmen have arrived at some sort of arrangement which is mutually amicable. But there are also the oarsmen, the anglers, the ornithologists and the residents. Worst of all there is a divided administration of the area by the Divisional Council around the vlei and the Municipal Council which is in control of the waters of the vlei.

In conclusion I would like to say that yesterday the Civic Association of Zeekoevlei presented to the Secretary of Water Affairs a petition asking the hon. the Minister to declare it a water sport control area and to hand over the control of the vlei to the province. I would like to request the hon. the Minister to declare Zeekoevlei to be a water sport control area and to investigate the present situation there with a view to giving consideration to either the province or the Divisional Council being given effective control, far more effective control than exists at the present moment, over the waters of the vlei.

Sir, allow me to congratulate the present Secretary, Mr. Kriel, on his appointment, and to wish him every success in this difficult task, i.e. the conservation of our water in this country. I just want to confine myself to two points to-day, i.e. the danger resulting from the de-watering of our subterranean water sources by the mines and the consequences in connection with that. In my own constituency we have Stilfontein mine which pumps out about 7 million gallons of water a day, fresh subterranean water, at a depth of between 4,000 and 5,000 feet. But the resulting problem is that a great deal of the constituency has been drained of all water. Therefore I want to thank the Minister very warmly this afternoon for having accommodated me, as well as those people from the farm Stilfontein No. 39, which was drained of all water by the mine, and I want to thank the Minister for the fact that the Department, in co-operation with the mines, has now decided to lay a pipeline for those people in order to provide for their needs. That is the danger, because years ago, before that mine was worked, there were fountains and many boreholes and there was a plentiful supply of water, but to-day that area is dry, although 7 million gallons of water are pumped from the same mine each day.

Then I want to thank the hon. member for Heidelberg for having proved to us yesterday how necessary water is, and subsequently I come to the question of whether the Department of Mines permits the pumping of water from the compartments in the constituency of the hon. member for Carletonville, the Bank compartment and the other compartments there? Will gold and prosperity perhaps eventually, in the distant future, result in that vicinity being altogether without water? I have been instructed by my constituency to express our concern, and to call upon the hon. the Minister to say that the Department of Water Affairs should do everything possible to stop that pumping out of water in that area. We cannot live on gold; we cannot eat gold, and without water, as we heard yesterday, the best equipped warrior cannot fight. I want to make a serious appeal for pressure also to be exerted in future as far as the mining authorities are concerned. That disaster at West Driefontein could, I believe, have been prevented. We received a reply, but I must say that I doubt whether that reply will ever satisfy me. I have doubts about that reply and about whether everything possible was done by the mining group to prevent that disaster.

The other matter which I want to mention is that, with the prosperity of this country, with the establishment of its great industries, there should be a law to-day to provide that each large industry, making use of a large quantity of water, should be compelled by law to purify and reclaim that water and to use it over and over again in the industry. It must be a clause in the Act before an industry starts up, so that it knows that, whether it uses 20 gallons or 20 million gallons of water a day, it is its own personal responsibility to use that water over and over again. If one just considers that each day Johannesburg purchases 67 million gallons of water, we cannot do otherwise than to appeal to the municipalities of large towns and cities, next year when we begin with our Water Year, to co-operate in the conservation of our water. It is no use speaking about it here in the highest Chamber, and nothing is done about it. If the public of South Africa does not want to co-operate, they must be forced to do so by legislation.

I strongly object to the hon. member for Stilfontein’s attack on Johannesburg and the use of water by the citizens of Johannesburg.

On a point of explanation, Sir, I did not attack Johannesburg at all.

The hon. member said that 67 million gallons of water per day were taken by Johannesburg and that the time has arrived that the municipalities should see to it that they used less water. My reply to that is that Stilfontein receives proportionally as much water as Johannesburg out of the Vaal Dam. I am referring to the Stilfontein health committee, apart from the Stilfontein gold mine. What is more, we have water restrictions in Johannesburg. Are there water restrictions in Stilfontein? The citizens of Johannesburg have to make sacrifices for Stilfontein.

But I want to come to another matter. I want to take the hon. the Minister to task in connection with hundreds of thousands of rands lost by his Department during the past year as a result of bad planning which must be laid mainly at his and his predecessor’s door. I am referring to the hundreds of thousands of rand which must be paid by the Department of Water Affairs in connection with the inundation of bridges as a result of the Orange River scheme. The hon. the Minister knows that we raised this matter previously in connection with the first bridge that was built, but does the country know that this year, even before the end of the financial year, a further R475,000 has to be paid by the Department of Water Affairs to the Railways for the further deviation over 1.3 miles of the railway line at Bethulie? This is another fantastic example of recklessly bad planning in this country, and there can be no excuse for it. This is nearly R1 million which has simply been wasted and thrown into the water as a result of bad planning. We want to know more about this R475.000, which the country still knows nothing about, because I am disclosing it here for the first time this afternoon.

The next matter which I want to mention is also in connection with what the hon. member for Stilfontein said. It is in connection with that annual irritating nuisance which the citizens of Johannesburg and on the Rand have in the form of water restrictions virtually year after year. When they were introduced in 1966, the Transvaler referred to “shocking news” in connection with the water restrictions, but it has become such an everyday occurrence now that it is not shocking news any more. We have become so used to bad planning that we virtually expect these water restrictions every year. Sir, there are 40 Members of Parliament in this House who represent Witwatersrand constituencies. I know that what I am saying here has the support of my party, but I am still waiting for one single hon. member of the National Party to get up and object to these water restrictions, which in fact are being imposed unnecessarily.

Is the hon. member saying that the water restrictions are unnecessary?

No, they are not unnecessary, but they are the result of bad planning. This method is a desperate one. It is the counter-poison. But I admit they are inevitable. We have this ridiculous position in Johannesburg—and I wonder whether the country knows about it—that we can water our gardens for only one hour per day, and on four of those days you can only go round with a bucket, because you are not allowed to use a hose.

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member asks what is wrong with that. Does he want to see a pensioner or an old lady water their gardens by bucket? I have seen it, but it does not matter to him. To us it does matter. We hear about plans, we have been hearing about plans for years. The Oppermansdrift Dam is going to be completed now. It is already costing three or four times as much as it should have. We hear about a dam in the Wilge River. We heard about the Tugela plan, which will also take years. My point is that the hon. the Minister can talk as much as he likes about plans, but we on the Witwatersrand do not want plans; we want to know why the water is not available. That is the important thing, and according to that he will be judged. We must remember that the C.S.I.R. has been warning over the years, and the National Resources Development Council has warned and the Rand Water Board has warned in connection with this matter. A simple plan was suggested in the past. The wall of the Vaal Dam should only be raised by 10 ft., only the height of this fine Chair of Mr. Speaker, and then the Vaal Dam would be able to hold 45 per cent more water than it can hold to-day. That was announced in 1966.

Was it the hon. member’s party that suggested that we should raise the wall of the Vaal Dam by 10 ft.?

My reply is that it is one of the matters which must be urgently investigated in the light of the fact that in 1966 the Minister’s own Department drew up plans for the raising of the wall of the Vaal Dam. He must not accuse me now of making an unfounded suggestion, because his Department started with it. But perhaps the hon. the Minister does not yet know about it. Two years later, in reply to a question in this House, it was stated that this would be one of the last steps. Therefore the Department is also considering it as a step, but as one of the last steps. But now we hear something strange again to-day. We hear that 30 million gallons of water disappear from the Vaal Dam every day. That is what the hon. the Minister said, if I heard him correctly.

You heard quite wrongly. You were speaking about the Vaal Dam; I was speaking of within the area of the Rand Water Board.

Does this water disappear out of water that comes out of the Vaal Dam? Very well, then I accept that 30 million gallons of water, for which no one can account, disappear out of the Vaal Dam. To me this is a fantastic state of affairs. Where are those 30 million gallons of water going to? It does not disappear as a result of evaporation and it cannot drain away into the soil itself. What becomes of it? The Minister must find out and tell us. If he can solve this problem he will have solved a major part of his problem. But what I object to is that when it comes to the consequences of the shortage of water on the Witwatersrand, it is always the citizens of Johannesburg and the Rand who have to suffer first, and they are the first to be blamed, directly and indirectly, for allegedly consuming too much water. As a Member of Parliament from that area I resent and object to this. We must bear in mind that the Rand Water Board takes only a little more than one-third of all the water from the Vaal Dam per day. Iscor and Sasol collectively use more than three times as much as the whole of Vereeniging plus Klerksdorp plus Kimberley. I am not saying that they should not get water. Please do not go and misinterpret my words. But I mention these facts in order to show how wrong it is to blame Johannesburg and that hon. member’s constituency and his constituents. I am standing up for them; why does he not do so? [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Orange Grove misinterpreted a statement made here by the hon. the Minister with reference to a question. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that 30 million gallons were disappearing from the Vaal Dam daily as a result of evaporation.

No, not because of evaporation.

At any rate, he said that that quantity was disappearing from the Vaal Dam. What the hon. Minister said, is that 30 million gallons were disappearing from the Witwatersrand Water Board complex, and that is of course quite a different matter; that is not from the Vaal Dam. But, Sir, I leave it at that. I should like to associate myself with the representations made here by the hon. member for Smithfield in connection with the silt carried by the Orange River. The Orange River when in flood carries a tremendous quantity of silt. Sir, the Hendrik Verwoerd project is an expensive one; it is a prestige project; it is a project which South Africa will be proud of in future. It has been ascertained through research that the Orange River, when in flood, brings down millions of tons of silt, and therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon whether the building of the Morgenzon Dam cannot be expedited, since the Morgenzon Dam will keep the silt in the upper reaches of the Orange River and prevent the Orange River from picking up so much silt. This is a very important matter and I hope the hon. the Minister will pay urgent attention to it.

Another matter I should like to raise here relates to the severe drought we had recently, the most severe drought in my constituency within living memory. I should like to express my personal thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister as well as to the Department of Water Affairs. I want to place it on record here to-day that had it not been for the quick action taken by the Department of Water Affairs in making the necessary pneumatic boring-machines available, there would have been not only a large-scale withdrawal of stock from those areas, but also a large-scale withdrawal of people. I admit that many dry boreholes were sunk, but there were also many successful ones. If those boring-machines had not been made available so soon, an unprecedented disaster would have occurred. I therefore want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister as well as to his Department for what they did to assist us in that area. I can give the Minister the assurance that my constituents specially appreciate it. We shall always remember that the Department did a great deal to assist us in that area in those times of emergency.

Then there is another matter I should like to raise here. There are eight perennial rivers in the North Eastern Cape. These are not small rivers; they are fairly large rivers, and so far only one dam has been built in those eight rivers, namely in the lower course of the Tsomo in the south-western part of the Transkei. A dam was built there to supply the needs of the irrigators there. We are grateful for it. This dam will also make a large contribution towards developing the Transkei area. More to the north-east there is the Wildebeest River at Ugie—its waters flow quietly into the Indian Ocean. There are irrigation possibilities not only in the white area, but also for thousands of morgen in the Transkei itself. If we go further up to Maclear, we find the Pax River, the waters of which also flow quietly into the Indian Ocean. There are irrigation possibilities in this area as well. More to the north there is the Tina River, also a fairly large river. Its water all flows into the Indian Ocean too. Then there is the Kanera River and the Amabella River in Griqualand East. A dam has already been measured out below the Drakensberg, and we are grateful for it. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister to pay urgent attention to the building of this dam. This dam will not only supply the needs of the Whites, but also the needs of the non-Whites in the reserves. When it is dry, there is no water for irrigation purposes in this area, and when it rains, the entire area is flooded. Consequently that valley, one of the most fertile valleys in the world, is inundated, and nothing can be done about it. Then there is the Umzimvubu River, which is the largest of all these rivers, and this river also inundates large tracts of land when it is in flood. Then there is also the Umzimzlaba River.

Those rivers are all in the Transkei.

These rivers all have a tremendous water potential, and when we dam them up one day, they could possibly supply the water needs of the rest of South Africa. Natal has its industrial potential; Natal is getting the third Iscor now; Natal is getting the aluminium smelting furnace in Richard’s Bay, but in 50 years’ time, if proper planning is not undertaken, Natal will not be able to develop further, as a result of a lack of water. The same applies to the Vaal Triangle, and therefore we should already be planning the water potential and all the rivers at our disposal for use in the future. Sir, the hon. the Minister said here this afternoon that research was being undertaken in regard to our subterranean water. In my humble opinion the conservation of our surface water should receive priority.

I want to refer very briefly first of all to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I think it is necessary to give him some advice. I know it will not heir». I noticed that quite a number of members on his side lowered their heads and looked around in embarrassment, after his outburst. I think that that Party really has enough problems and that that hon. member should take it into account when he makes such outbursts here. That is really all I want to say about the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for the vigorous performance put up by the Department of Water Affairs, especially during the past year, and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department especially. In my constituency we have a large number of irrigation boards. Under normal circumstances large quantities of water are available, but the administration and the construction works of these irrigation boards present quite a number of problems. We have the position that a river such as the Crocodile River has been nationalized. The permit system posed many problems for the people, because it took years to finalize and in many cases has not yet been finalized. But to-day the position is that progress is in fact being made and I want to express my appreciation for the trouble which the Department has taken in this connection.

Sir, when we speak about water then we have to do with a problem that has many facets in this country. The Department of Water Affairs must in the first instance carry out research; then it must undertake planning and thereafter it must administer the Water Act. As we amended the Act again this year, the duties assigned to this Department are becoming greater and greater, and that is why I particularly want to congratulate and thank the hon. the Minister for the vigorous way in which he has given attention to the extension of this Department. It is of no use to us to spend millions in order to make water available, if it is not applied properly. Another important matter is that our people must be made more water conscious. Sir, a world congress was held in Rome some time ago in connection with the purification of water, and a leading engineer said the following there—

Mr. Chairman, I quote this, because to me it is the crux of the matter. We do not get people to co-operate with the Department and to realize the problems, as was again demonstrated here this afternoon, if there is no crisis; and therefore I want to say that under these circumstances it may have been a blessing in disguise that we had the drought of the past few years, because some of our large cities must be brought to a proper realization of the fact that we have a shortage of water in this country; that you cannot simply waste water and that you must make very careful use of the available water. It is the task of the Department and of the hon. the Minister to make people realize this, and this is a great task. The reaction that you often find is that people are not prepared and do not want to listen to reason if they are asked to make sacrifices. I want to go further and submit a plea that the Minister should do everything in his power to make staff available. I know it is difficult and that he is working at it, but my plea is that all possible steps should be taken to obtain engineers to perform this task which will have to be performed in future. When water shortages are experienced from time to time, as is the case here in Cape Town when we arrive here, water restrictions are imposed. The situation is simply that there is more and more competition for that water. We should therefore have the necessary trained persons who can work out and determine the priorities. We in agriculture are concerned about the situation. It was mentioned here yesterday that people say that the most economic use of water is not in agriculture. That is true; water can be applied far more economically than in agriculture, but agriculture is a basic industry, and as agriculture is very productive, we shall have to ensure that agriculture gets more water. But the problem is to make the use of water in agriculture more effective and more efficient and to have less wastage. It is really very easy to do so; you must supply the water by means of pipelines; you must distribute the water by way of pipelines and you must apply spray irrigation under strict control. Theoretically it is very easy, but all these things cost money, and this is where I want to make the further plea that we must make more money available as far as farming is concerned, also for the irrigation boards, because the large amount of money is applied not only towards the supplying of water, but also the efficient distribution and use of that water. Sir, if you come to the Eastern Lowveld of the Transvaal and you see the enormous investment that has been made in spray irrigation there, then this is obvious. The farmers realize that water must be used efficiently. I can give you the assurance that expenditure of R300, R400 and R500 per morgen for establishing an efficient spray irrigation system on a farm is nothing out of the ordinary. That is apart from the amounts which have to be paid for the water itself. In my opinion it is therefore necessary that as far as agriculture and industries are concerned, we should establish a dynamic equilibrium for the use of water in future, an equilibrium based on careful research and investigation. But there is another important factor. We can ask for and demand water in this House, but the time has perhaps arrived that we should take the development to the water. We should not always bring the water to the development. There are cases where development might have taken place better at the water sources than far from them. All these matters must be taken into consideration. Then there is also the possible disruption of vested interests. However, I feel that we must look into these matters and approach them realistically in order to solve the problems involved in the interests of the country as a whole. Careful attention should be paid to the approach that people can simply say that because they are settled in a place they want water. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to think about this matter. Where it is economically and practically possible, future development should, in my opinion, take place as near as possible to our water sources. We have a large quantity of water available in Natal which is simply flowing away, and part of that must now be pumped to the Witwatersrand complex at large cost. It may be better rather to stimulate the development in that area. The same applies to the eastern parts of the Transvaal. We must stimulate development where there is water, provided the other factors make it possible.

I also want to refer to the amounts of money spent on construction work, which forms part of the general task of the Department. If we look to the Loan Estimates, we see that money is voted for 91 State water schemes. One also sees that there are 39 items in respect of boards and local authorities. More than R74 million is involved here, and provision is also being made for R5.7 million for expenditure on equipment. I want to deal with the question of equipment in particular, because I have found in the past that engineers and officials of the Department who are concerned with construction, have many problems as a result of a lack of equipment. This is also clear proof to me that the Minister and his Department have their finger on the pulse in an attempt to find out where the hitches are. That is why they have had this amount voted for equipment. It will mean that the work will be done far more efficiently.

In conclusion I want to thank the Department for the investigation which they are undertaking in the Eastern Lowveld in connection with the building of dams there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as our time is very limited I should like to put three particular points to the hon. the Minister and ask him to deal with them in his reply. I do not propose to enlarge on these points; I merely want to put them to the Committee.

Firstly, I would be grateful if in his reply the hon. the Minister could give us some information about the Fluitjieskraal Canal which is associated with the Orange River project. The authorities have not proceeded with the project in that particular area. Secondly, I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us information in regard to his decision in connection with the water coming from the J. G. Strydom Dam on the Pongola River. It used to be called the Josini Dam. I should like to know whether that water will be made available at all to the west side of the Lebombo mountain. If that water is only to be utilized on the east side, I should like to know whether some provision will be made for the irrigation of the land lying on the west side of the mountains by using the water in some other rivers such as the Umzimkuzi River.

Thirdly, I want to deal with the pumping of water from the Tugela, from the Spioenkop Dam to the Lofa river. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the possibility of the transfer of bilharzia parasites in that water has been examined. I speak entirely without my book in this regard as I am not sure whether the bilharzia parasite goes as far up the valley of the Tugela as the site of the Spioenkop Dam. The parasite may not go as far inland as that.

The parasite has gone over the mountains already.

According to the most recent information I received, the Vaal River basin was still free of the parasite. If I am wrong, the damage is done. If, however, the Vaal River is still free of the parasite I think that medical experts should be called in to advise the Minister as to whether there is any risk in regard to the possible transfer of the parasite from the basin of the Tugela River to the Vaal basin. That, Sir, is the third point. I now want to deal for a moment with the question put to me by the hon. member for Etosha. The best way I think I can reply to the hon. member is to deal with the matter which, because of the fact that my time expired yesterday, I was not able to deal with then. It concerns the supply of water to South-West Africa from what is called the four rivers of the North. The hon. member will know which rivers I am referring to.

Yes.

The hon. member himself said, on the basis of the percentage of the volume of all the water used in the Republic, how important those four rivers are as a source of water for South-West Africa. I want to assure the hon. member that we, on this side of the House, support entirely our claim to the water from the four rivers of the North. We are supporting South-West Africa one hundred per cent. In so far as those rivers have a bank, which bank is under the control of the Government of the Republic, we have a legal right to the water than comes off on our side. That we can protect. That is not what I was talking about. If the hon. member would read my speech of yesterday carefully, and I am willing to let him have my Hansard …

I have it here with me. It is contrary to what you say now.

No, Mr. Chairman, it is not. I appreciate the compliment paid me by the hon. member in getting my Hansard and studying it so carefully. I consider it to be a great compliment. I never knew that hon. members on the other side paid so much attention to my speeches. Let me make this abundantly clear. We are aware that the basic development in South-West Africa, sooner or later, is going to depend upon water from the rivers of the North. That is going to be basic for the whole of the economic development in the future.

It is our birthright, and the hon. member agrees with it.

Whether it is a birthright or otherwise, we have a legal right to it. We accept that legal right. That, we say, can be defended

Why not develop it then?

That is exactly what I am saying. The hon. member is hard of hearing. I just said that the whole of the future economic development of South-West Africa will depend upon that water.

The hon. member says that for diplomatic reasons his party will support it.

No, Mr. Chairman, I said that if the Government embarks on foreign adventures … What does “foreign” mean? It means outside our borders, and if there is a diplomatic reason for those foreign adventures, then we will support it. But it is not economics. What I am talking about now is water abstracted from those rivers …

Could I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member consider that the Kunene scheme, which is being executed beyond our borders, as having been undertaken for diplomatic reasons, as stated by himself in this House?

Is the hon. member referring to the Ruacana Falls scheme? Is that what the hon. member has in mind? I do not know whether that is what he has in mind.

Ruacana is this side of the …

Order! I think the hon. member should rather make a speech after the hon. member for South Coast has finished speaking.

I cannot take this matter any further. I can merely indicate that this side of the House does not want men and money invested in foreign adventures, but that we do stand for the development of South-West Africa and the development of the water supply from the four rivers of the North. I hope that there is going to be no argument or dispute about that.

Now, Sir, with regard to that matter I should like to say the following. As was quoted here from a speech which I made when the late Dr. Verwoerd was Prime Minister, we are today concerned with the rivers that run through territories which are called Bantu homelands. Where do we stand in regard to those Bantu homelands? The hon. member for Transkei in 1950 called for a survey of the rivers in the Transkei and for a proper survey of the water resources of those rivers. I do not know whether anything has been done. Perhaps when the hon. the Minister replies, he can tell us. Here again, in the same way as the rivers of the North are so necessary for the development of South-West Africa, these rivers which run through Bantu areas are necessary for the development of the Republic itself. We have to have that water controlled by our own Minister. I leave it at that. I say to the Minister: You must control those rivers, be it the Tugela, which runs such a long way through a so-called Bantu homeland, or be it the rivers of the Transkei, or wherever they may be. The water of the rivers in the Republic must all be controlled from source to mouth by the Minister of Water Affairs of South Africa, and not by some other authority.

May I say, in the minute which is left to me, that I am supporting the hon. member for Pinetown. The telegram he received was given to me this afternoon. When we were dealing with the Water Amendment Bill earlier on, I said: “We must leave the power in regard to water affairs in a known, identifiable and accessible authority”. I went on to say: “Therefore we are giving the power in that regard to the Minister”. Mr. Chairman, he is known, identifiable and accessible. In regard to the matter which the hon. member for Pinetown raised, we want that authority to take the initiative. We do not want him to act as a judge. He is not a judge, and we do not expect him to act as such, but we ask him to use the authority of his position to put in train the necessary steps to grapple with this problem and to try to find a solution acceptable, as far as possible, to everybody, including the officials of his own Department.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not be long. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the announcement he made this afternoon in connection with the P. K. le Roux Dam. For approximately two years there was some uncertainty in my constituency in this connection. There were even rumours that the dam would no longer be built. However, I was able to squash such rumours and give the assurance that the dam would, in fact, be built. I could do this as a result of the fact that millions of rand had been spent on laying out the town near that dam. Another reason why I welcome the Minister’s announcement is that the buildings in that town, which are all new buildings, have been caused considerable damage during the past two years, because the people whose duty it was to look after them did not do so properly. Many windows—I would almost say hundreds of thousands—have been broken by mischievous people. It would perhaps be a good thing if the Minister would see to it that those buildings were looked after properly, because a great deal of money has been spent there. We must bear in mind that plans had to be drafted for the village that was laid out near the P. K. le Roux Dam. A great deal of money has been spent on it. The streets have all been tarred. Water and playing grounds have all been laid out. It is a modern town. That is why I say that the sooner the work is started there the better.

Another minor point I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention is that negotiations have been conducted for several years with the former Secretary of Water Affairs, Mr. Jordaan, the previous Minister and also this Minister, about the construction of a water pipeline to Colesberg and Noupoort. At one stage fairly good progess was being made. There were really encouraging signs that water would in fact be made available by means of a pipeline. A deputation came to see the Minister and he advised them to get geologists to go into the possibility of subterranean water first. Geologists were in fact sent there. They pointed out a number of places. The municipalities bored for water at some of those places, but the results were unsatisfactory. They did find water, but the yield was only between 1,000 and 2,000 gallons an hour. This does not help a municipality at all. One cannot do anything with such a yield. Another reply I received was that I should explain to the municipality that, if they wanted additional water, it would cost them anything between R1 and R7 per 1,000 gallons. This is, of course, something unheard of. One cannot pay that price, not even for water for domestic purposes. It is quite impossible to pay so much. One must bear in mind that both villages have to provide the Railways with water in that area. As a result of the development taking place at the Verwoerd Dam development at Colesberg and Noupoort is considerable. A greater number of trains are running there. Water has to be provided for these trains because those two villages have a standing contract with the S.A. Railways. They cannot therefore refuse to provide the Railways with water. The village will also get a new government garage, and 14 houses are being built there. The village is also getting a new gaol. Hon. members know that a great deal of water is used in a gaol. Gardens have to be laid out as well. All these things require water. I have wondered whether the hon. the Minister would not investigate the matter to see whether we cannot obtain this water more cheaply. It is not essential that the pipeline should be paid for within the first 10 years. Payment may just as well be made over a period of 30 or 40 years, calculated on a sliding basis. The people will then be able to obtain the water more cheaply. As regards Steynsburg, people there can divert water from the canal. The water will therefore be cheaper there. We must bear in mind that there is a difference between the water of the other villages and that of Steynsburg, which will only cost approximately 70 cents per 1,000 gallons. I should like to appeal to the Minister to reconsider that matter. He may even have an interview with those municipalities. Those municipalities are usually having difficulties towards November and December. Then they do not know what to do. It is impossible to stop people from watering their gardens and lawns. This simply cannot be done. Surely the people cannot plant new lawns every year. Those lawns may only be watered by hand and not, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, with little watering cans. We simply attach a hose to the taps and water the lawns.

They are not allowed to do that.

I am much in favour of water saving. There are many ways in which we can save our water. In this connection I am thinking particularly of farmers. I should like to appeal to my friends who are farmers and who are in this House also to promote water saving. The State may also help us in this respect. We cannot get an effective automatic brake for our windmills. The windmills of most farmers run 24 hours per day, while one hour per day is sufficient. That means the windmills are running for 23 hours per day for nothing. However, so far nothing has appeared on the market which may be used to control that water. I should like to ask the Minister that his Department should make inquiries as to whether such automatic brakes could not be placed on the market. The farmers do not expect to get those brakes free of charge. They will buy the brakes for their windmills. As regards sprinkle irrigation. I want to associate myself with what my hon. friend has said. In the Hex River Valley only sprinkle irrigation is used. I have experimented with it on my farm myself. It works very well. My experience is that more than 50 per cent of water can be saved through sprinkle irrigation. Lucerne lands may possibly be the only kind of land on which sprinkle irrigation cannot be used successfully, because the lucerne roots are too deep. In the case of other grain lands, however, sprinkle irrigation works very well. The soil also remains loose and stays wet longer. In fact, a much better crop can be obtained with spray irrigation, than without it.

Before I sit down. I want to refer to something else. I went to see the Minister in connection with the use of land above the P. K. le Roux Dam. As regards the Department of Agricultural Credit, they have done their duty. But it was brought to my attention that officials had free use of that land and were keeping live-stock, sheep, cattle and other animals on the land. I do not want to go there, because I am not interested in what is being kept on that land. Another portion of the land that was expropriated now falls under Water Affairs. I should like the Minister and his Department to have a thorough investigation made in that connection in conjunction with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The people concerned will then become involved; I will become involved too. I am receiving complaints all along because the farmers’ livestock, especially in times of drought, may not graze in those areas where the grazing had been restored. The farmers would also like to use that veld, but it is being used by officials now. I do not want to know who those officials are. I was present when this matter was raised by a very prominent person in Petrusville, and I think this is a matter which justifies an investigation.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to discuss two projects with the hon. the Minister. I am not pleading for such a short pipeline as the hon. member for Colesberg did, but I am pleading for a very much longer one. I want to begin with the Orange River project. I want to discuss this with reference to a remark made by the hon. the Minister himself here this afternoon, and which I was glad to hear. He said that people living in these dry areas also have a say in regard to the water that is conserved in this country. As regards this national water project, the Orange River project, the estimates of the 1962 report, the supplementary report of 1964, and the supplementary report of 1968-’69 have always remained the same. It was calculated that the water supply being built up there will eventually have to serve 300,000 morgen and more of new irrigation land. I want to impress it upon the hon. the Minister that the 300,000 morgen of new irrigation land will be able to support 10,000 small farmers at the most, who will have 30 morgen each. I want to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s notice positively that from the Southern Free State across the Karoo to Nieuwoudtville there are 30,000 farmers who have had terrible problems during the past 10 to 15 years. They even had problems with water for their stock. The question of laying on water was mentioned. We must not think that it is an extremely difficult project to lead water over a distance of 600 to 700 miles. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that in Australia 3,000 miles were canalized to take water to the dry areas to make stock farming possible there. I just want to submit for the hon. the Minister’s consideration that if we could take water over the length and breadth of the Southern Free State and the Great Karoo, and if we could supply the same quantity of water, say for the irrigation of 10 morgen, to every farmer, subject to the condition that he shall use it for the production of fodder, instead of new irrigation land being laid out and tens of thousands of small farmers being placed on that land, we would have overcome our drought problems by more than half. This would impart stability and continuity to the farming methods of the Karoo, which is only suitable for small stock purposes. In my heart of hearts I am a stock breeder, and I love this Great Karoo area very dearly. I should like to see this area also being helped out of its difficulties by way of this project, which is going to cost us so many millions of rands. However, my time is too short to go into similar projects in other parts of the world any further. I can only draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that many projects for laying on water over long distances are carried out in other countries in order to enable existing developed areas, which have cost millions to develop up to the stage they have reached, to continue, instead of developing new areas. I do not want to pay any further attention to this, but I just wanted to bring it to the Minister’s notice.

I should now like to refer to my own constituency and the border areas there. I spoke about this last year, and I said that those areas did not have enough water, not even for the development now being visualized by the Government for those areas. There is no plan at present to build a canal from the Orange River project to the Eastern Cape. The rivers we have at our disposal, the Fish and the Keiskamma Rivers, cannot provide the water supply that is needed by that area. I also want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the announcement the other day that 240 morgen—J am speaking under correction—on the Berlin Flats would be supplied with water. I should be glad if the hon. the Minister, when he replies, could tell us whether these are the same 240 morgen that were mentioned by another hon. Minister as being land of the Berlin area which will now fall under the City Council of East London. I understand that the hon. member for East London (North) asked the same question yesterday, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, since we know now that there are not enough rivers and not enough water for intensive industrialization as well as for agriculture there, we cannot use the water of the Kei River, which forms the border of the Transkei, and other east-flowing rivers. After all, we know the topography and the circumstances of these areas. We know that the Drakensberg range is the catchment area of the water, and as in Australia and in other countries in the Southern Hemisphere, most of our rivers flow towards the east coast. The water is flowing to the east coast, and this is where it will flow until the end of time. We can pump the water of the Tugela across. But what about the water of the rivers flowing through the Transkei? I want to ask the Minister specifically to answer my question. Have any arrangements been made, or is the Department considering, before the Transkei becomes an independent Bantu area, to make provision for some of the water to be taken to those areas where the water supply is inadequate? We know that at the perimeter of the southernmost point of the Drakensberg the water must come from the western to the eastern side, because nothing is flowing off the point. Is it not the intention at some stage or other, now or in the near future, to build a canal from the Orange River project to those areas? We who are interested in our constituencies and in that entire area from Queenstown down to the coast, are asking in all reasonableness where the water which has to serve the industries and the development in that area for 25 years, is to come from? If provision is not made now, while the Transkei area is still partly administered by the Government, for some of the water in those rivers to be taker to that area which has to be developed, when will it be done? This remains a burning question to us. The hon. the Minister has acquainted himself with the water circumstances of the country, he has studied them, and it is clear to us that he is devoting himself heart and soul to his work. But now the hon. the Minister must give us the answer so that we, when talking to our constituents, can tell them without any hesitation to bring the industries to the area, because there will always be enough water. We are still in doubt whether there will be enough water, and whether the possibilities of its being supplied do exist. As it is, the Orange River project will have to carry more than it can. This project is already overloaded, and now there are proposals that it should be extended, so that it can supply water to more areas. In the Karoo region the position is very serious. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could therefore give us an unequivocal statement if he is at all in a position to do so. I would be glad if he could tell us in this debate that provision has in fact been made. Provision can be made on the eastern side of the Drakensberg. The hon. member for Aliwal mentioned a large number of rivers here from the Kei to the Umzimvubu and the Umzimkulu. Surely all of us who know geography know that these rivers flow eastwards. One cannot dam them up at the bottom, because that is in another man’s territory. One cannot dam up the water along the upper reaches, because there is no water yet. So one has to wait until the water flows down before it can be used, so that all the streamlets can connect up and can be used. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister, if he is at all in a position to do so, can tell us whether provision has been made so that we can also divert water from the eastern pant of the Drakensberg to that area. If we cannot do so, and if there is no such agreement, and no provision has therefore been made by the State for this to be done now or at a later stage, the hon. the Minister must tell us where the water for the Berlin Flats and East London areas is to come from.

Mr. Chairman, referring to the point of difference between myself and the hon. member for South Coast, I shall appreciate it very much if you can allow me to quote here from his speech as recorded by Hansard. After the hon. member had referred to the dams in the Orange River and to certain fruitless expenses which have been incurred there, he went on to say—

I take it that he is referring to the Kunene scheme which is on our border and beyond our border.

I quote further: “I repeat, we cannot protect and defend.” In other words, we in South Africa cannot protect and defend what we have up there at our borders. He then said: “If there are ever cases where there are diplomatic reasons behind expenditure” I take it that the Kunene scheme which is on our border and built beyond our border is being built for diplomatic reasons, and that the hon. member accepts it as such. He goes further: “… of that kind, then we should be told frankly that this flows from a good neighbour policy, and that is why for diplomatic purposes we are prepared to enter into such and such projects with our neighbours.” I assume that the hon. member is prepared to accept the Kunene scheme as being built for diplomatic purposes. The hon. member then said: “This is not economics and not the development of South Africa’s water resources, nor is it the protection of our water resources.” I say the Kunene scheme is our lifeblood and salvation and for that reason it is built for sound economic reasons and for the development of South-West Africa. The hon. member, on the other hand, says that it is not economics and not the development of South Africa’s water resources. The hon. member went on to say: “We therefore, secondly say that all our own resources should be developed before we start on foreign adventures and spend these vast sums of money where we cannot protect and guard them.” I wish to stress this point. The hon. member’s accusation that we cannot guard and protect what we possess is utter nonsense. There is only one country on the continent of Africa that can protect what it possesses and that is the Republic of South Africa.

May I ask the hon member a question? Did I mention the Kunene scheme anywhere in my speech?

What did the hon. member then mean by foreign adventures on our borders and beyond our borders?

(Mr. Chairman, in this last minute of the debate I just want to say this, that my greatest disappointment is that there are too few United Party members in this House, and so many of us. I should very much like to react to the speeches made by the hon. member for Fast London (City) and the hon. member for Orange Grove, but now it is 7 o’clock and I do not know whether I will be allowed to do so.

The hon. member still has a minute and a half.

I am very grateful for this minute and a half. I do not want to waste any more of my time by reacting to what was said by the hon. members for East London (City) and Orange Grove in connection with the black cloud which is allegedly hanging over the sources of our rivers coming from the Bantu areas, that we have no policy, etc. I shall leave that to one side for the moment. Furthermore my problem is that no one can make a speech in a minute and a half, and I shall therefore, with due respect to the Chair, ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions by way of a speech. I should like to ask two questions the first relating to a matter of a local nature in the Western Transvaal area, and the second to the wider national sphere. My first question is whether the hon. the Minister will, in his reply to the debate to-morrow, give particulars, even if very briefly, of his and the Department’s policy in regard to the protection of the compartments from which the water of the Potchefstroom and the entire Mooi River scheme is flowing. The second question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is whether in his reply to the debate he will give an indication of what his planning is in respect of the Schoemansdrift Dam.