I think that most members of the House would have heard over Radio South Africa this morning a broadcast purporting to report news coming from New York to the effect that the South African Government has extended an invitation to two members of the Committee of seven to visit South Africa for discussions with the Prime Minister in Pretoria, and I believe a further report to the effect that they had been authorized by the Committee to accept that invitation. In view of the importance of this matter I wonder whether the Prime Minister will take an early opportunity of informing the House of the details of the position and making a statement so that the matter can, if necessary, be debated.

I take it that the hon. the Prime Minister will reply in due course to the question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all of us will follow his reply to that question with great interest. I want to say immediately that this is one of the first matters which has been raised in this protracted debate which has been worthy of the debate.

What could we expect in a long and important debate such as this one on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister? I think that we could reasonably expect three things: In the first place, an analysis of the crux of our country’s problems; in the second place, the test as to whether the broad policy of the hon. the Prime Minister satisfactorily tackles and meets the crux of those problems; and in the third place, that the Opposition would put their policy and show us how that policy seeks to tackle the crux of those problems; that the Opposition would try to prove that things would run more smoothly under their policy than under the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister.

But what did we find? There was no analysis of the actual main problem of South Africa. The first approach of the Opposition to this Vote was through the medium of their hon. Leader and a number of other members who asked a mass of questions, chiefly minor questions upon matters of detail. There was nothing tangible, there was simply a whole series of minor questions, and in that process of questioning the hon. the Leader of the Opposition even went so far as to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister of Nigeria would be invited to visit South Africa or not. I do not wish to dwell upon this; I merely want to show how senseless such a question is in the light of the fact that after the Commonwealth Conference almost exactly a year ago Mr. Balewa, the Prime Minister of Nigeria, expressed himself as follows, for the benefit of the whole country and the whole world, regarding our country when he said—

And according to the Argus reports he went further—

And yet that same Prime Minister whose name is put forward as a potential guest in our country arrived at an airport and raised no objection to the youth organization of his party bearing banners like the following: “Give us arms to fight South Africa”; “Boycott South African goods”; Remove South West Africa from the South African mandate”, “Starve Verwoerd into submission”. How childish can we become if in a debate of this nature we ask questions the replies to which are so self-evident? This was the first facet of the line taken by the Opposition, the asking of minor questions.

What was their second facet? It was the establishment of a new propaganda front. In the first place, their purpose was to make the National Party suspect amongst the voters of South Africa in its role as the protector of the interests of the White man, and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was the first to enter the arena with the idea that we would Kenya-ize the Europeans in the Transkeian Territories. He concentrated on the proposition that this Government would leave the living White man in the lurch. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) turned from the living to the dead and delivered an impassioned plea in regard to the manner in which we apparently wish to abandon the graves of our forefathers who fought and died in Natal. I want to dwell for a moment on the unpleasant idea of the hon. member regarding these graves. If we had to take the history of South Africa and project it into the future in those terms, then we who are Afrikaans speaking would have to say today that the burial places and the battlefields of Magersfontein and of Majuba must remain in Afrikaner hands because that is where we find the graves and the great tradition of Afrikanerdom. That is how we should view the position. According to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) our attitude is, however, and must be that the glory of Majuba and Magersfontein belongs as much to our English-speaking fellow-Afrikaners as it does to us, just as we cultivate the idea that the tradition of Dellville Wood belongs as much to us as it does to them. So much for that graves story. Furthermore, hon. members raised the question of the determination of the boundaries of the Bantu homelands. This is a matter which has been resolved 90 per cent by the determination of the boundaries of the released areas. There is only a small additional amount of land to be added. When it comes to the last resting places of our forebears in this country, I can also say a word or two and I want to say that our forefathers, mine as well, did not fight to retain for us the scenes of past battles but to find a homeland for our entire nation and to bring the gospel to the whole of South Africa. We did not fight for the permanent possession of those specific laager sites and those specific battlegrounds. We fought for a homeland for the whole nation and for the Christianizing of the whole area and if the future requires us to forfeit what is right in order to retain that which is necessary and which is hereditary to the European, then we will probably prefer to divide ourselves rather than to be divided by outside forces.

The last facet of the building up of this new propaganda front of the Opposition came from the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). She came to light with tales and newspaper reports about districts which are disturbed about the question as to whether they will be included in the Transkeian Territory or not, and she also came to light with heartrending stories regarding farmers adjacent to the Native areas and who are living in uncertainty. Those matters have been repeatedly cleared up by statements by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in connection with the Transkeian Territories, and statements by the hon. the Prime Minister, and the boundaries were further determined in the Schedule to the 1936 legislation, the released areas. However, the stories of all three hon. members are raised to create a new propaganda front, and they do this in spite of the fact that they also wish to retain their old propaganda front. The namesake of the hon. member for South Coast, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), wrote in the Cape Times, not about this Government seeking to Kenya-ize and desert the White man, no, his charge remained the old traditional charge from the heart of the United Party and this is what he wrote, according to the Cape Times of this week—

That is the motive which that party has untruthfully ascribed over the years to the Government and still tries to ascribe to it while at the same time they wish to open up this new front.

The last facet of the old liberalist attack was launched yesterday evening by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who once again, because of the labour relationships in our country, tried to suggest that this Government wished to develop an economic system with a reckless contempt for the problems and the potential of the Bantu.

To put it briefly, what is the real problem in our country? I would say that it is composed of three things. In the first place, that we must be able to resist a racist Pan-African movement against the wheels which infects not only the whole continent but which can also infect and has partially infected our own Bantu. Opposition to this inexorable, irrational, hostile, racist movement is our first task. Our second task is to fulfil our moral duties towards both the Bantu and the White man in South Africa as regards residence in this country and the enjoyment of its amenities. The third facet of our task is to maintain economic leadership in Africa and to provide employment for the increasing population in our own country. What has this debate produced in respect of these matters? I wish to dwell for a moment on the last facet, and it was also this last aspect which was mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville. When we think of our labour problem and the task of the Bantu where can our aims be better achieved than within the concept of the development of the border areas and the reserves? We all know that the mingling of White and Black labour in our European areas brings about labour disruption. Why cannot we develop those reserves unanimously and without inhibition? The machinery of state capitalism has been made available to make a contribution to assist the Bantu there; the machinery in connection with border industries has been set up there. The labour potential of the Bantu can be used there to increase the riches of the whole of Southern Africa and to create thousands and tens of thousands of opportunities for employment. The hon member for Yeoville quoted from the report of the Viljoen Commission which said that if we expand our economy sufficiently, we will also have to train non-European technicians. [Time limit.]

I think I should reply as soon as possible to the question put to me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Unfortunately, so it seems to me, leakages in New York have led to Press reports and that forces me to give certain information to the House at this stage, but I hope I will be excused if I do not go too deeply into the matter since the Government received no formal reply at all. I am therefore not in a position to disclose fully the content of the letter we sent to the Committee, or of the approach made by that Committee. I think this should be given to the Press, or the public or to Parliament at the same time in both place. There should be a release in New York and here in full of the reactions of both sides at the same time. I am, however, prepared to meet the position which has resulted from this leakage by making a certain statement, which I hope will fully satisfy the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and which I hope will prevent us from continuing these discussions under the existing circumstances, particularly since it might upset what could be a favourable arrangement. My statement is as follows:

Informal approaches were made last week to the South African ambassador at the United Nations by the Chairman of the Special Committee of South West Africa. It was the impression of the South African Government that in these informal discussions a spirit of cooperation animated the Committee’s approach in the matter.

The South African Government could, of course, not be a party to any proposal or action which could imply a departure from its consistently held attitude on the juridical position since General Smuts led the South African delegation to the United Nations in 1946.

On the other hand, the South African Government still adheres to its desire to have removed this constant source of friction which has for many years had a disturbing effect on conditions of harmony and stability in the territory, so necessary for the promotion of the interests of all those who live in South West Africa.

The co-operative attitude displayed by the Chairman of the Committee in his informal discussion with South Africa’s permanent representatives has led the Government to believe that the Committee desires to establish contact with the Government for the purpose of conducting discussions aimed at finding a way out of the present impasse, without requiring the Republic to compromise its juridical position, or to discuss sub-paragraphs (b) to (h) of paragraph 2 of Resolution 1702. On the assumption that this belief is correct, the South African Government has indicated that it would undertake to co-operate to the extent possible for it to do so, without sacrificing its position in any way and without paragraphs (b) to (h) becoming part of these discussions.

In the circumstances it has been decided to extend to the Chairman of the Committee, and also to the Vice-Chairman, an invitation to visit the Republic as guests of the Government, with the assurance that the Government would then be prepared, without prejudice to its juridical position, to enter informally into a review of the matter at issue between the United Nations and the South African Government.

It would not be possible to invite the whole Committee, as this could be open to an interpretation prejudicial to South Africa’s position in the case at present pending before the International Court of Justice.

If, as a result of the discussions at Pretoria, it should appear advisable that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should also visit South West Africa for the purpose of acquainting themselves with the territory and its peoples, then a visit could then be arranged.

If this proposal is accepted, it will be seen that it is in line with the proposal formerly publicized that the South African Government has nothing to hide and would be prepared to receive three past presidents of UNO. If in the circles interested instead of three past presidents it would be preferred to have these two gentlemen as guests of the South African Government, then we see no difference between receiving either the one group of gentlemen or the other, as long as it remains perfectly clear that South Africa can in no way sacrifice the position it has taken up so far. This has been stated quite clearly and if the news report is correct that these gentlemen are prepared to accept our invitation, that could only be to the advantage of all and perhaps lead us out of the present impasse.

I think I should say no more at the present stage.

I think I am expressing everybody’s view when I thank the hon. the Prime Minister for the statement he has made in the present circumstances and so far as we are concerned we welcome the step taken by the Government and we hope that it may lead to a fruitful discussion and perhaps an easing of tension in respect of this matter.

I want to deal with a point that was dealt with by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, and dealing with this question of the boundaries of the future Bantustans and the contention that is continually raised by hon. members on the other side that the lands which are being made the subject of the Bantustans are lands which, so far as I am able to interpret the meaning of what the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, are their traditional by inheritance (I think that is as fair a way as I can put it). I want to say this. The hon. the Prime Minister said that we are handing back to the Bantu those lands which are traditionally theirs by inheritance. You see, notwithstanding assertions that are made specifically to the effect that the boundaries of the Bantustans are known, there is no such statement available that has ever been made. The boundaries are not known. I would say for example categorically in regard to the extension northwards of the Transkeian Bantustan, why is the Government continuing to buy land in Natal proper, north of the Umtamvuna River, in terms of the definition of the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday? That is not the traditional land by inheritance of the Pondos. They never owned that land, it was never under their paramount chiefs, it has never been under their chiefs. But the Department of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration continues to buy all around Harding; they are making Harding a small White village and all that portion of Natal is obviously destined ultimately to join one of the Bantustans, and it can only join the Transkei; it cannot join Zululand, because Natal proper rests between that portion of southern Natal and Zululand proper.

But let us come to the definition of the hon. the Prime Minister. If he is to give to the Bantu what is traditionally by inheritance their land, then what happens to the whole of Natal? Let us look at our history. The Voortrekkers, Sir, went to get from Dingaan Natal. That was given them. Let them read the document that was found on Piet Retief’s body that gave him what is to-day Natal. Do hon. members opposite insinuate that it was the intention of those Voortrekkers to hand that country back again to the Zulus and to give them self-government under their own independent government in respect of those parts? Do hon. members want to say that it was not the intention of the Voortrekkers to actually keep that land that had been granted to them? That land was granted over and over again by the various Bantu chiefs, the same land. Farewell and his people got a grant. They got a grant of land up to Durban Bay. The hon. the Prime Minister talks about land which is traditionally theirs by inheritance. Let us look at the words which to-day appear on our railway stations and so forth, such as the railway station of Congella. What is Congella? That is not the name of that place. The name of that place is Kangela Izinkeruyana. It was the lookout of a Zulu outpost against the cannibals that were then in the whole of the southern portion which had been raided by the Zulus. That established their boundary. That is where their outpost was located, not down on the flat where the railway station is, but up on the hill overlooking the bay. That is historical. Why did the Voortrekkers. why did the first English settlers at the Bay go and ask Zulu chiefs for a grant of land unless they recognized that it was the Zulus’ to give? Sir, what is the position in Zululand proper when the hon. the Prime Minister talks about the traditional inheritance? How did the present piece of land on which is situated the sugar mill in the Transvaal, the only sugar mill and sugar estate in the Transvaal, how did that piece of land become acquired by Whites in the valley of the Pongola River? That piece of land was acquired by the late General Botha and his commando from Dinizulu, the successor to Cetsjewayo, as the result of helping Dinizulu against Sebepu in the internal wars of the Zulu. That is why that land was granted to them and they took that land that was granted as a result of their help to Dinizulu at the battle of Tshaneni Hill, where the remnants of the battle are still to be seen to-day in the skeletons of those who were killed there. There are still skulls to this day lying there, and anybody who read the late Deneys Reitz’s book will see a photo of all the skulls and bones lying there in the veld that was burnt off on Tshaneni Hill 25, 30 years later. General Botha and his Burgers gave that military support and they were given the land in return, but the land did not stop where the Pongola scheme stops to-day. It went right down the valley of the Pongola and across the Flats, and it included Sordwana Bay because the Transvaal Boers wanted an outlet to the ocean, and they intended to make Sordwana Bay their harbour. All the documents of that time make it perfectly clear, and Britain stepped in to stop the Transvaal from getting a port and annexed Zululand as a direct result of Botha’s help to Dinizulu. They annexed the whole of the country up to the Portuguese territory of Lourenço Marques so that there was a common boundary between British territory and Portuguese territory. The result was that Britain took the territory right up to Delagoa Bay itself and had a quarrel with the Portuguese. All that is historical. That led to what was called the MacMahon award, when Britain and Portugal instead of going to arms, went to arbitration, and Marshal MacMahon, the President of France, was the arbitrator and Britain then accepted all that land as annexed territory and shut the Boers off from getting their seaport. Is it suggested by hon. members opposite that General Botha and all his people did that with a view to handing that land back to the Zulus to use for a self-governing Zulu state? What utter nonsense, Sir! And to come along as the hon. the Prime Minister does now and say: We will give all this land back to the Zulus, the land which is traditionally their land by inheritance!

You have missed my whole argument as a result of a misunderstanding apparently.

Then the hon. Prime Minister should make it clear. Where are the boundaries? Why did the Government not define the boundaries, and then when they are acquiring land outside that boundary, we can come to the Government and say: “Why are you acquiring White man’s land outside the boundaries which you have laid down for the Bantustans?” We are not necessarily accepting the concept of Bantustans. We don’t accept this thing in principle. But we do want to know where we stand and the White people want to know where they stand. So I want to emphasize again what I said the other day that this is the Government’s Kenya policy that is being enforced.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

The hon. the Prime Minister tried to show that there is a difference between the British Government’s policy in Kenya and his Government’s policy in regard to the White people in the so-called Bantustans. Where is the difference? The hon. the Prime Minister said that in the case of Kenya those people have to go. Where are they to go? Back to their homeland? Where are the people from the Transkei and Zululand to go? The people in Kenya have not lost their franchise rights in Britain. They can go back there and enjoy their franchise rights and their rights of citizenship, just in the same way as the people in the Transkei can get out and come here. As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) asked: The point is what happens to their property? Where does the Government protect the property and the rights of the people in those areas? They went to that area as an area which was part of our inheritance, a part of South Africa, and whether the territory was on this side of the river or on the other side of the river, or whether they went to Pondoland, they went to a part of South Africa. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) talks about battles that were fought and about sacred places. With all due respect to him what does he know about sacred places and battles that were fought? Those places are places which are here in South Africa, all those sacred places. We have not heard the last of this, Sir. I gave a warning six weeks ago in this House as to what the Zulus were going to do about their sacred places. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) gave the same warning yesterday. We have our sacred places and the Zulu have their sacred places, and they are just as sacred to them as ours are to us. But the hon. the Prime Minister comes along and he will not define the boundaries, he talks in general terms and then says that there is a misunderstanding. We want to know specifically and precisely where the line is to be drawn, where the boundaries are. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down is very concerned about the price which we wish to pay for the retention of South Africa for the Whites and their civilization, but while I wish to leave him to the hon. the Prime Minister I would like to tell him briefly that the policy of the United Party of a multi-racial state can in the long run result in only one thing and that is the forfeiture of South Africa as a whole, including her civilization. It is precisely in this regard that I wish to express a few ideas. I think that all of us will agree that the most important task in life of a nation is to build a culture and a civilization where Providence has deemed fit to establish that nation. We attach great value to the civilization which we have built up here over 300 years because we have paid very dearly for it. I do not wish to make a blood-and-tears speech but do not think that I shall be guilty of exaggerating if I say that blood and tears and sweat cling to the civilization which we have built up here over 300 years.

If, however, as world opinion demands of us, we were to terminate all racial discrimination overnight and apply the one man, one vote principle here overnight, darkness would descend over the Republic of South Africa and over that dearly earned civilization of ours overnight. Mr. Chairman, one cannot leave a civilization to the mercy of people who are as yet uncivilized or semi-civilized and expect them to maintain it and guard and preserve it for generations to come. The experience elsewhere in Africa has produced ample proof to the contrary. And yet this is precisely what the world, including the so-called civilized nations of the world, including too our own Opposition to-day, expects of us. They expect us to hand over that civilization which we have built up here to people who are still semicivilized and uncivilized and say: “Here is our civilization; take it and do with it what you will.” Therefore the present Prime Minister, like his Nationalist predecessors, has rejected that road as a stupid, foolish and disastrous road for the Republic of South Africa. And they have therefore planned our road for us; they have demarcated our road ahead, a road which will give the non-Europeans those things which the world demands for them in the name of civilization, but, and this is very important, without destroying us or our civilization or causing us to forfeit that civilization in the process. We will give them one man, one vote, but in their own area. We will end discrimination by living alongside one another as equals in the areas which history has carved out for us. That is briefly our road. That is the road to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who, by the way, comes into the Chamber when he wishes to make a speech, referred as “minor apartheid”. I wonder on whose behalf that hon. member speaks? The day before yesterday he was a member of the U.P.; yesterday he was National; to-day he is N.U. and to-morrow he will be “N-I-K-S ”, yes nothing once again because to-morrow he will again be a member of the U.P.! [Interjection.] Yes, my hon. friends on that side call Mr. Basson “a man of many parts ”, but we call him “a man of many parties”!

When the hon. the Prime Minister stood up in this House on 23 January 1962 to announce the Transkei self-government plan, he told us: “The time to talk and to think and to ponder on our road is past. The time has come for us to place our feet upon the hard earth of that road, that road of apartheid which we have.” Therefore that day will …

You may not speak about apartheid.

I am speaking about apartheid, Mr. Chairman. I am not ashamed of apartheid and I shall tell you why later. Therefore that day, 23 January 1962, will always stand as an important turning point, as the new order in the history of South Africa; as a red-letter day, when under the forceful and dynamic leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister theoretical apartheid was converted into a practical apartheid; as the day when friend and foe in South Africa saw the fulfilment of our ideal, our long-cherished ideal of segregation; as the day when the Bantu in South Africa have personal experience of the fact that apartheid was not the great lie which was proclaimed to the world, namely, an oppressive and discriminatory policy, but that on the contrary it would open doors for him which would lead to full freedom and independence for him in his own state; and, lastly, as the day when the world outside and our Opposition here in the country had practical experience of what they never wished to accept verbally, namely, that the National Party was in earnest with apartheid all the time; that all the time we were sincere in this regard and there was never any question of its being a bluff.

And gradually, Mr. Chairman, they will also realize that apartheid is possible in practice. Time will also teach them that this is the only solution to the problem of multi-racialism on the Continent of Africa and elsewhere. It remains the one and only solution which is fair towards both White and non-White and which takes cognizance of the demands of our calling of civilization. The day will come when the word “apartheid”, which in the meantime has become a word of abuse in the world, will be reinstated as an honourable word because it will be seen that this is the only Christian and morally justifiable policy. When we refer to the Transkei we say with pride to-day to the Bantu in our midst and also to the whole world: There is apartheid; there is the Transkei as its first gleaming fruit. More Transkeis will come. This is the start of peaceful co-existence in South Africa; this is the start of a peaceful commonwealth of nations in Southern Africa. Let the little people continue to fuss and complain as they have done over the past few days; let the mongrels bark, the caravan of apartheid moves onward to better White-Black race relationships, to a new order of peaceful co-existence of White and non-White in South Africa.

And now, Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by following somewhat the example of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. No, I do not wish to become a United Party supporter! However, I wish to ask a question, as he did. I do not wish to ask as many questions as he did. I want to put one question to him. The question which I want to put to him is this: When is he going to stand up in this House again and make a speech in which he adopts a definite standpoint and when is he going to cease asking a series of questions which give no indication of the standpoint which he adopts?

Throughout the lengthy discussion on this Vote very little indeed has been said about the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy in regard to our Coloured people. The Coloured citizens constitute an important section of our population and I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of discussing their position in our country. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will give me his attention in what I have to say in this regard. I do so in the hope that the Prime Minister, who up to now has dealt most casually with his policy in regard to the Coloureds in this country, will be induced to make a further pronouncement which will hold out to these people some hope for their future. I think, Sir, that they are entitled to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister himself what part he envisages for them in their own country.

Sufficient has already been said in this debate on the Prime Minister’s policy to substantiate the grim fact that South Africa stands isolated to-day in the eyes of the world as a result of the racial policy which has relentlessly been pursued by this Government since 1948. There is no gainsaying the fact, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister’s policies—when I talk of his policies I am talking of the policies of the Government—have been the principal object of enmity on this African Continent and have been primarily responsible for isolating us from the rest of the world. These policies, we are told by the hon. the Prime Minister—and I accept what he says—have been pursued for the purpose (and I use his own words) “of saving the White man of this country and saving White civilization in South Africa”. The hon. the Prime Minister claims that his sole object is an earnest desire to save the White man in South Africa. I should like to say immediately, Sir, that I do not think there is a single person in this House who will not associate himself with that stated object of the hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. the earnest desire to save the White man of South Africa. But the differences which exist between the Nationalist Party on the one hand and every section of the Opposition on the other with regard to the saving of the White civilization of our country, are the means whereby this object is to be attained. I think it would be fair to say that we are all united in attaining the end but where we differ fundamentally from the hon. the Prime Minister and from each other in this House, is in respect of the means by which this end is to be achieved. Where I think, with respect, the Prime Minister errs is that he thinks of the White people of South Africa in complete isolation. The hon. the Prime Minister is responsible for having made a policy statement in which he declared to the world— and I use his own words—that “when I talk of the nation of South Africa, I talk of the White nation of South Africa”. Since the declaration of that unfortunate policy statement, many members of the Cabinet and many ordinary members of the Nationalist Party have followed the same line of thought, i.e. of talking of the South African nation as though it consisted exclusively of a White nation with a total disregard of the rest of the South African population. I repeat, Sir, that the fundamental mistake made by the hon. the Prime Minister is that he thinks of the White people of South Africa in absolute isolation. He fails to take into account the fact that the 3,000,000 White people living in this country and whom he wants to save, live integrated with the 12,000,000 other people of this country. He fails to take into account the fact that the 3,000, 000 White people of the South African nation are dependent in many respects upon the rest of the South African population in order to survive. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that throughout the country the presence of all sections of our population is absolutely necessary if the 3,000,000 White people of this country are to survive. For instance, Sir, one cannot imagine the continued existence of the Rand without its vast population of Africans; can one imagine what future development there will be in our industries in this country without the services and the needs of the other 12,000,000 of our South African population; can one imagine for a single moment how the Western Province—I am coming nearer home—will survive without our Coloured people at practically every level? No, Mr. Chairman, if the non-White residents of South Africa were to be withdrawn from the farming industry in this country, can you imagine what would happen to that industry? The more one examines the position, without introducing any political bias, the more one is convinced that our South African nation cannot be regarded as the White man in isolation. If South Africa is to survive as a country the basic fact has to be acknowledged that the White man and the non-Whites are all inextricably interwoven and dependent upon each other for their survival. When the hon. the Prime Minister talks of the South African nation as consisting of the Whites, he must surely realize the incalculable harm he is doing his laudable object of trying to save the White man of this country. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that a statement of policy of the nature of the one I have just read must offend not only the 12,000,000 remaining citizens of this country but must have a most devastating effect on South Africa in the eyes of the outside world.

I wish to deal to-day particularly with the impact of that policy statement by the Prime Minister upon our Coloured people. The hon. the Prime Minister already knows what the world’s reaction was. I do not wish to take up the time at my disposal to go into that. The Prime Minister already knows what that reaction was to this statement of policy of his. I wish to confine myself to the effect which this has had upon the Coloured community of South Africa. I say, Sir, that the Coloured people were deeply shocked by this policy statement of the hon. the Prime Minister’s. When I talk of the Coloured people, Sir, I talk of them as a whole, the handful of the Coloured people who support the Government and the vast majority who are non-supporters of the Government. I am not going to quote to-day from the public statements which were made by most of the prominent leaders of the Coloured people with regard to this policy statement. But what strikes me forcibly, Sir, and what I think is worthy of repeating here in the presence of the hon. the Prime Minister, is the manner in which this policy statement was received even by that handful of Coloured people who are supporters of the Government for reasons best known to themselves. I want to quote, for instance, from statements made by Government nominated members of the Union Council of Coloured Affairs. These men owe everything that they possess in the way of status in the Coloured community to this Government. These men have attained their positions as a result of being nominated to this Council by the Government. These men themselves in no uncertain terms condemned the statement of the Prime Minister in regard to his conception of the South African nation. For instance, Mr. S. Dollie, who is a Government nominated executive member of the Union Council of Coloured Affairs, said this with regard to the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy statement—

He is now trying to justify his support of the Government. Though they might have a system of self-development, the Coloured people form part of the South African nation—

[Time limit.]

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) could not control his urge to “march” this morning once again and he marched right into the mud. I would like to tell the hon. member that a man should not tackle a task for which he is not equipped. If you do not know your history, you must not confuse the British annexation of Zululand and the incorporation of Zululand into Natal in that way. If a man does not have the heart for it, he must not demand that his province “march and if a man cannot speak representatively of South Africa, he must not try to teach the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government a lesson as to how they must deal with the geographical surface of South Africa. What does the hon. member for South Coast represent? He represents a province which until two years ago had not even become a member of the Union, as far as its spirit was concerned; which did not even think that its borders were the Drakensberg but that its borders were at Cato Ridge. Now this is the man who has to teach us a concept of history and the demand which history makes of us in respect of the utilization of the territory of South Africa. Then he has the audacity to ask me what I know about the holy places of South Africa and what right I have to speak about them. If he can find a history teacher, the hon. member can inquire from him about Hans Steyn of Blood River, Congella, through Boomplaats, the first magistrate of Utrecht, and so fourth.

Mr. Chairman, I come now to his pertinent historical reference when he spoke about the situation in Natal and the annexation of the territory of the New Republic of Vryheid. In the first place it was not General Louis Botha who was the leader when that land was obtained. As a young man he accompanied General Lukas Meyer who led the operation and the negotiations. Neither General Botha nor General Lukas Meyer participated in that action to obtain land for South Africa for a fixed purpose. They went along to obtain the land for the use of their people because is was right and necessary for the nation to use that land. Those eastern parts of the new Republic which were first annexed by the British Imperial Government and later taken over by the Union Parliament in 1936, were set aside chiefly as Bantu areas in that arrangement of 1936. Now the hon. member must tell us what his party’s policy is. They also wish to implement that 1936 settlement; they also wish to purchase the remaining land for Natal which must be purchased in terms of their policy. What is his criticism in respect of the determination of our boundaries and what is the difference between the parties, and what is their standpoint as a whole? It did not pass unnoticed that the hon. member for Hill-brow (Dr. Steenkamp) said that the borders of their Bantustans are well known—they are the borders of South Africa. Precisely! That is the whole difference. Those hon. gentlemen wish to subject the whole of South Africa to the Bantu and we wish to give a portion to the Bantu.

The hon. member for South Coast should really tell us what the borders of the local autonomous Bantu areas in Natal will be in terms of their own policy, according to the explanation of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). He said: “The Native areas should be given local authorities.” Where will the borders of their “local authorities” in Natal be in terms of their policy? The hon. member should rather tell us how many members will be made available to represent the Bantu in this Central Parliament. The urban members were mentioned by their Leader, but the representatives of the Bantu national groups were not mentioned. Is the number going to be eight or is it going to be 16? He can also tell us how many Indian representatives they are going to send to the Central Parliament. He can also stand up and give us the information which his hon. Leader has never given to the country, although they try to sell an alternative Government policy to the country. He should rather stand up and tell us what Natal will do with those Indians entitled to the franchise in their provincial councils and city councils. He need not speak about people who wish to swim with the Indians but he is a member of the party which desires to give an undefined franchise to the Indians in the Central Government, but he has never investigated this aspect, the implications which will arise from it at the provincial and municipal level. [Interjections.] The interjection of that hon. member in connection with the Japanese is just as appropriate as his meddling with and abuse of the past. He can always make misuse of an argument because he does not grasp the point of it.

I know the position far beter than you do.

I asked that the hon. member for South Coast should inform us in regard to the implications of the policy of that party in respect of the Indians in Natal. In conclusion the hon. member can also inform us in regard to what he has in mind in connection with control over the land which has historical associations as far as the Whites are concerned. He stated here that those who went to the Transkei and Pondoland went to a part of South Africa, to White man’s territory, just as this is. Does he stand by that? Does the hon. member wish to state that the various territories which were annexed in the Eastern Cape from 1877 to 1884 were annexed as White man’s territories? Or were they Bantu-Xhosa territories which were placed under the control of the Imperial Government and the old Cape Government? Surely it is a well-known fact that those territories were never released for White settlement as was the policy to the South in the Ciskeian Territory. And if he gives this interpretation to history, let him stand up and tell us whether the Transkeian Territories and all the Bantu territories in South Africa should now, in terms of the policy of that party, be released for White occupation or not.

When I was interrupted a moment ago by the time limit, I had read to this Committee a statement made by one of the members of the Union Council of Coloured Affairs, Mr. Dollie, with regard to the Prime Minister’s statement as to his conception of the South African nation. This statement came from a supporter of the Government, a man who owes his status amongst the Coloured people, to the office conferred upon him by this Government. We have heard what his reaction was to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement.

I want to quote another Government nominee’s views on the Prime Minister’s statement I refer to the statement made by Mr. T. M. Le Fleur, also a nominated member of the Council. He had this to say with regard to the Prime Minister’s statement—

Another Coloured man, who is a direct employee of the Government, not a nominated member of the Council, but a direct employee of the Government, is Mr. Adam Small. He is a lecturer in philosophy at the Coloured University of the Western Cape. He said this—

It only emphasizes the distance existing between apartheid and the reality of circumstances which for us fill every day with the immoral consequences of the idea that the nation of South Africa is the White people of South Africa.

Dirk Opperman, our celebrated Afrikaans poet, recently referred to the—

Mr. Chairman, these then are typical of the condemnations which the Prime Minister’s policy statement with regard to the South African nation, received from even Government supporters among the Coloured people. You can well imagine, Sir, what the Coloured opponents of the Government had to say in regard to that statement of the Prime Minister’s. But I do not at this stage, propose to waste my time by reading those to the Prime Minister. However, this condemnation did not only come from the Coloured people. White supporters of the Government also condemned this unfortunate statement on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister. Even the Government sponsored organ, the Burger, had a great deal to say about this unfortunate declaration. Other European supporters of the Government condemned it. A man like the hon. Thomas Boy-dell who, for reasons best known to himself, lauds the Government on every possible occasion, rushed in to condemn that statement. In his own inimitable style, in dealing with the Coloured people, he said this—

Surely there was no necessity for the hon. the Prime Minister to give this gratuitous insult to the Coloured people. Surely it is necessary, Sir, even at this late stage—and it is a late stage—in view of our isolated position, in view of the difficulties with which our country is being confronted, for us to do something to win back the friendship and the goodwill of this important section of our population, a section which has always loyally stood by the White people of this country.

Mr. Chairman, has the time not come for the hon. the Prime Minister to clarify his statement of policy with regard to the South African nation? Has the time not arrived for him to declare in no uncertain terms that he includes our Coloured people in his definition of the South African nation? Has the time not arrived for the hon. the Prime Minister to declare to the world at large that he is prepared to take active and tangible steps to incorporate the Coloured people in the South African nation? Does the hon. the Prime Minister not realize that the continued deprivation of citizenship rights of our Coloured people is totally opposed to the outlook of Western civilization and to all Western conceptions? Surely the Government must realize that in this year 1962, the civilized world leans towards extending political rights rather than curtailing such rights. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that in the last few years—and even during the course of this Session—the Government has been responsible for moving South Africa further and further away from the ideals and practices of Western civilization.

I want to come back to the point where I started. Whilst, therefore, we all have a common object of endeavouring to save the White man of this country, it is necessary for us to examine, without bias and without introducing any political animosity one way or the other, the best way by which this can be achieved.

I say that the Prime Minister’s method of endeavouring to save the White man by isolating him, as his policy indicates, …

That is your conception.

It is my idea.

It is a wrong one.

It may be in the hon. member’s opinion. I am not rying to convince the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller); I am trying to convince the hon. the Prime Minister. I say, Sir, that the Prime Minister’s method of trying to save the White man by isolating him is doomed to failure. It can only continue in turning the rest of the world from us. If South Africa is to survive as a nation there will have to be some complete re-thinking on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister, because to my mind, Sir, he is the guiding spirit in this matter. There will have to be some rethinking on the part of the Prime Minister as to what the South African nation shall consist of. I say that no time must be lost. I say that no time must be lost in modifying the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy statement so as to include in our South African nation at least our Coloured people. I do not wish to delve into the problems confronting the Government in regard to the Bantu, but at least in regard to the Coloured people who traditionally and historically form part and parcel of the White population it is at least necessary for the Prime Minister to include in our South African nation those Coloured citizens who historically have always been regarded as belonging to the White orbit in South Africa. I hope that the Prime Minister will in the course of this debate make some pronouncement with regard to the Coloured people so as to hold out to them some hope for the future role they have to play in South Africa, their only country.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) repeated the accusation which we have heard so often in the past, namely, that South Africa is isolated from the rest of the world and, more especially, that the hatred revealed in the African countries towards South Africa is as a result of the policy of this Government. They base their statement largely upon what happens at UN and from that they make their deduction. I feel that it is my duty to dwell on this point for a while. Let us see what the position was at UN when the United Party was in power and what changes have come about since then.

If we go back we will find that in 1946 the total membership of UN was 55 and in 1947, it was 57, of which about two-thirds could be regarded as being European countries and the remainder countries of the Afro-Asian group. There is no doubt therefore that at that time the West controlled the balance of power and that the West could enforce its will at all costs. But what has happened since? To-day the membership of UN stands at more than 100 and those which have since been included have almost without exception been non-White states; those which are still to be included and will be included will without exception all be non-White states. This changed the pattern at UN completely and not only this, but it also changed the spirit which prevailed there. In 1946 and 1947 we experienced a post-war spirit of cameraderie which arose from people who fought alongside one another, a spirit of goodwill towards South Africa because South Africa fought together with those Black nations of Africa to save their hides. At that time the South African soldiers liberated Abyssinia and Somaliland and helped to fight in the north of Africa. There is no doubt that those things had to make an impression on those people and it would have been extremely ungrateful of them to take action against South Africa at that time. However, one forgets quickly and it is precisely those countries which have forgotten what South Africa did for them, the White man of South Africa, when they needed that assistance. As I say, the whole spirit has changed. Where it was a spirit of friendship, it has changed into a spirit of animosity, and for what reason? Firstly, because of our colour policy. Let us accept this as being so, but there are also other reasons and very serious reasons, reasons which have their origin here in South Africa. In this House, from poltical platforms and in newspapers it has been stated that in South Africa the present Government is oppressing the non-Whites. It is said that this is a police state; that the non-Europeans are thrown into prison in large numbers without trial. Mention is made of the cruel apartheid laws which are applied here and the serious discrimination against people simply because of their colour.

That is true.

Somebody has again said so. This is reiterated. However, it does not remain here. From here it is taken overseas and these things are used overseas. Blood-curdling stories are told there at UN, bolstered up and supported by cuttings from newspapers here, from speeches which are made in this House and elsewhere. There can be no other result than that when these things are conveyed at UN, they create a feeling of rage on the part of those people. I myself have seen what happens there. When evidence was produced there against South Africa, one of the members in the Fourth Committee stood up with clenched fists and called out with tears in his eyes: “For God’s sake, just tell me this is not true!” What else can we expect if those people are so stirred up at UN by the persons who give evidence there? It must create a feeling of rage on their part. It must create a feeling of hatred and opposition and distaste, and where is the source of that trouble? It is here in South Africa, from the lips of South Africans, from reports in our own newspapers. No wonder that a person who is held in very high esteem by the United Party said this—

And what about the speeches of the Nats?

I am coming to that. He said—

I would like you to ask who said this.

Who said it?

No less a person than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) on 31 March 1958. Those were his words. He is a partner of the United Party to-day and his documents and speeches are used eagerly by UN.

Then we had a changed method of action at UN. In former times the countries which were represented there acted independently, individually. Each one acted on its own but that no longer happens to-day. We have joint action taking place to-day. No matter is discussed in UN unless a thorough caucus has been held in that regard. It often happened that when a meeting was due to start the chairman announced that the meeting could not start because the African group was still in caucus or the Afro-Asian group was still in caucus. This is the way they operate, in groups, and those caucus resolutions bind each member of that group. It is self-evident that when such joint action is taken it is a far more effective manner of taking action than was previously the case. It is the White nations at UN which do not form a group and have no caucus.

The next difficulty is that Africa has become a very important factor in world politics today. Every country at UN is seeking the favour of the African states because each one of them has a vote which counts just as much as do the votes of America or France or Russia or Britain. They fear that number of votes because it is the number of votes which is used to compel any country there to do what they want. No wonder that America has now started placating. Mr. Adlai Stevenson, the Ambassador of the United States of America at UN, said—

The hon. the Deputy Minister painted a picture of what happened at one of the committee meetings at UN and told us that when one of the witnesses against South Africa appeared before that committee, this delegate, presumably from one of the African states, got up and called out: “For God’s sake, tell me it is not true!” Now the question arises: Why did we not tell those people that those false stories were not true? [Interjections.] The Deputy Minister made a comparison between the UN of 1946 and of to-day. I am the first to admit that difference exists and that in 1946 there were only 55 members, whereas now there are over 100, and that of the 55 members in 1946 the majority represented White nations. But again we point out: In 1946, of those 55 White nations we could get the support or the friendly neutrality of up to half or two-thirds, while to-day of those 55 nations, who are all still there, we can get the support of one or two at the most. That is the important point. The hon. the Deputy Minister will forgive me if I do not follow him further, because I want to raise another matter.

My Leader, during his speech yesterday, raised a very important matter when he referred to Radio South Africa and to certain events in that organization which are causing alarm to the general public. The airy dismissal of the subject by the hon. the Prime Minister in a sentence or two is to be deplored. After all, the Prime Minister is one of the people who has been using the radio for purposes which we do not regard as proper. I think of one instance when he made a speech after the last general election criticizing the hon. members for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and making political remarks of the most deplorable nature.

If ever there was an issue calling for an investigation at the highest level, it is the S.A.B.C. If ever there was a granite wall hiding from our view favouritism, nepotism, frustration, seething discontent, Gestapo methods and political persecution, it is the granite wall surrounding the S.A.B.C. For. mark you, Sir, that organization is getting £1.6 million a year from the public in licence fees, and those licence fees have been increased to an extent equivalent to probably 10 per cent of the taxes paid by the poorer people. Nearly £1,000,000 is taken by Springbok Radio. Millions are granted in loans to the S.A.B.C. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent on a luxury building in Parktown which became a sort of club for the members of the board of directors, and we are not allowed to know the particulars about what happened there. We do not get those particulars, despite the fact that the law of the land, the Broadcasting Act, says that those particulars—not general facts— must be placed before Parliament. Even today we had the fantastic case of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs getting up and telling us that he could not get information from the S.A.B.C. as to whether there was any consultation with political leaders during the last general election on political broadcasts. Yet two weeks previously he had specifically told me in reply to a question in this House that there had been such consultations. Where did he get that information? Obviously from the S.A.B.C., and I say that information was false and I say it was probably a lie.

Sir, the country has been alarmed during the past year by the spate of resignations of people in important positions in the S.A.B.C. We had, first of all, the resignation of the Director-General, Mr. Gideon Roos, a brilliant man, whose resignation so shocked the country that even the Burger had to cry out—

That was only one resignation. There were the resignations of the editor of the Radio Bulletin during the past 12 months, the resignation of the senior administrative assistant to the Director-General, and of an important producer. There were the resignations of another senior producer in March last year, the resignation of a senior announcer in May last year, and of a further senior radio announcer in May last year, a man who had 27 years’ service. In December last year an important official resigned and then the Deputy Chief of the news service resigned. The Publicity Manager of the S.A.B.C. resigned last year after 28 years’ service. An important technical adviser, Mr. Robert Gaynor, resigned after 25 years’ service. A Cambridge graduate who had been with the Corporation for 15 years resigned last year, and a fortnight ago the whole of the English news staff in Durban resigned. What is going on when these continual resignations are taking place?

We know that there are contracts entered into by these gentlemen which preclude them from telling the public what has happened. We are not prepared to accept the excuse, first of all, that this is ordinary wear and tear in an organization. It is not ordinary wear and tear; it is an erosion of talent and men and money in a fearful mess. It is no excuse to say, as the S.A.B.C. has been saying, that the resignations only represent 1.8 per cent of the senior male staff; 12 major resignations in one year is not 1.8 per cent of the senior male staff, and that can be worked out on any bit of paper, because it means that there would have to be 660 members on the senior male staff. Here I believe again that the S.A.B.C. has been giving deliberately false information to the country. There is indeed something rotten behind this granite curtain. In December we discovered that a certain person had been appointed as the Head of the Personnel Department, who would go into the capabilities of all the staff members of the S.A.B.C. One of the results of that was, I believe, that Christmas bonuses were arbitrarily cut or increased.

Now we ask ourselves what we are to do about this. I say the first and most important thing is for the S.A.B.C. to carry out the law as laid down in the Broadcasting Act and let Parliament know the particulars as demanded by that Act, and I am not the first one to say so. The United Party had the courage to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the S.A.B.C. in 1946. It brought out its report in 1948, but unfortunately, owing to the change of Government, that report could not be carried out, but one of the recommendations in the report was this—

Why has this recommendation not been carried out? [Time limit.]

I do not propose to deal with the private feuds of hon. members in connection with special matters, nor do I propose to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. If he wants to continue his feud in respect of Radio South Africa, there are other Votes perhaps under which he can do so. There is only one point that he made which affects me personally and in regard to which I should like to say a few words. He alleged that I had misused the radio. He bases that on one broadcast out of the many that I made. He regards that as sufficient to justify generalization. The particular broadcast to which he refers was made in response to a request after the recent general election to give a diagnosis, as I saw the position, of the significance of the results of that election. If hon. members think that one misuses the radio when one gives one’s honest opinion, when the election is over and it can no longer have any influence on the outcome, as to what one thinks the election proved, then I do not understand them. After all, there is only one way in which one can react in expressing an opinion after an election and that is to talk politics and I certainly did talk politics. I said what I thought of the chances of the Progressive Party, and that is that in due course the United Party would wipe them out again. That statement is held against me by the Progressives. Apparently even this consolidation did not greatly delight hon. members of the United Party, because as far as the United Party is concerned I stated that it was an outmoded party in terms of the points of view and the matters that it could submit to the public. My opinion therefore was that unless the United Party became rejuvenated and imbued with a new spirit and began to develop new policies and became positive in its planning for the future, the outcome of the election had shown that it was no longer acceptable; that the electorate no longer regarded it as a party which really had any prospect of making a contribution. In other words, in that case it was a dying party. That was the trend of my diagnosis of the outcome of the previous election. When the public has to be informed over the radio as to what the then Prime Minister thinks of the outcome of an election, then I do not propose on such an occasion (which I certainly do not misuse because it can have no affect on the next election which will only be held in another five years) to hide my opinion simply in order to receive eulogies perhaps from the hon. member about my reticence. That is all I wish to say in this regard.

Then just a few words with regard to the questions put to me by the representatives of the Coloureds. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has made use of this opportunity to make a propagandistic attack. I do not think that attack deserves to be analysed by me in dealing with my Vote, and I do not propose to do so in detail therefore. All I do want to say is that one must distinguish between two aspects of this matter. The one is citizenship of a country and the other is what the components of a homogeneous nation are. There is no doubt that the Coloureds are citizens of this country. There is just as little doubt that they are not part of this homogeneous entity that can be described here as “the nation”. Just as one finds in certain other states that two groups of the population who in the nature of things are two nations have the same citizenship, so in South Africa too various groups of the population who in the nature of things are different nations possess citizenship. The Bantu are part and parcel of the citizens of South Africa, but who on earth would say that they form one nation together with either the Coloureds or the Indians or the Whites or everybody in this country? We ourselves as Whites are descended from various nations, and for a long time we regarded ourselves as English and Afrikaners, etc. With the establishment of the Republic the unification of those two components into one nation became a possibility, and it is for that possibility that I plead. But, after all, the unification of both White population groups into one nation need not necessarily be accompanied by a further unification, namely a unification into one nation together with the Bantu. What constitutes a nation is something quite different from the citizens of a state. I fully adhere therefore to what I said in that connection. What is of more actual importance to the Coloureds is the question that was put to me by the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) concerning the destinies of the Coloureds in a part of his constituency, namely in the Transkei. Here we are dealing with various groups of Coloureds. They are not all of the same type. In the first place there are the Coloureds in the White areas, in the towns which remain White areas. Their position in respect of the Republic is precisely the same as that of the Whites who remain in those areas. They remain under the control of the Republic of South Africa. Their political rights too will therefore be exercised in the same way in which those rights are being exercised now by Coloureds here, just as in the case of White citizens those White citizens remain parliamentary voters Then there are the Coloureds who will be in the Bantu-controlled area, and here we also find two types. There is the one type who is on a par with the White traders. Just as the White traders as citizens of the Republic will continue to exercise their political rights as they do at the present time, so too those Coloureds will continue to exercise their political rights as they have done in the past. That applies to that section of the Coloureds in that area who retain their identity. That is the first of the two groups within the Bantu-controlled area. But there is another group within the Bantu-controlled area, namely the Coloureds who have become absorbed into the Bantu community, who pay Bantu taxes and inter-marry with the Xhosa and who have therefore become largely assimilated with them. These non-Whites will probably have to be classified as Xhosa citizens. Apart from that group which has actually become assimilated—and it is a small portion—we find amongst the first group, namely those who have retained their identity, a section occupying certain areas as agriculturists, for example at Rietvlei and Umzimkulu. They present a special problem, a problem which it will probably be possible to solve only by means of re-settlement. Some time ago an inter-departmental committee was appointed to enquire into the destinies of the Coloureds in all the Bantu areas of South Africa, with special reference to the Transkei. With the assistance of the report that will come from this committee we shall have to devise plans as to what we can reasonably do in respect of those Coloureds who have retained their identity and who will probably no longer wish to live in a Bantu State but in another agricultural area that will be under the control of the Department of Coloured Affairs. If that is what they desire, then it will be possible to plan accordingly. In other words, we are very seriously considering the position of those Coloureds More than that I need not say in this regard.

I come back now to the further discussion that has taken place here as far as the United Party is concerned. I must admit the discussion that has taken place since I last spoke has not produced much that is new, apart from the fact that they did advance a few new arguments to buttress the accusations made earlier in the debate—for example about the lack of knowledge on the part of the public with regard to the proposed boundaries. Some of the main arguments advanced were the accusations made by the hon. members for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), namely that I am supposed to have said that all kinds of areas which are now White but in which formerly one or other Native group lived are regarded by me as being theirs by inheritance and that it will be taken out of the hands of the Whites to be given to the Bantu group concerned. But that is not what I said. What I said was quite clear, namely that it concerns what is now Bantu area and what is theirs by inheritance. If I did not say it clearly enough for those hon. members to understand it in that way, then I am putting it this way now to clarify what I said before. Our attitude in regard to the Transkei has already been stated very clearly, viz. that this Bantu controlled area, under any new Constitution which might be given to the Bantu, will be precisely the same area, i.e. bordered as it is now, which is being controlled by the present Bantu Territorial Authority. In that sense I said that the borders were clearly determined, because the borders of every Bantu Territorial Authority are prescribed by law. Therefore the borders of the Transkeian Territorial Authority have also been prescribed. When people allege, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) did, that there is doubt in the minds of the population of Port St. John’s, then there is no justification for it. In fact, I clearly stated that the Bantu Constitution would concern the area as it is now in fact defined, viz. as the area over which the Bantu Territorial Authority now has authority. The latter, however, has no authority over Port St. John’s. I said on a previous occasion that in my opinion Port St. John’s is not a White spot, as, for example, Cala is, because it is not completely surrounded. The fact that the sea on the one side forms the link with the White state particularly does not make it a White spot. If hon. members opposite do not accept that, or if they do not like one to argue in that way, they can do what they like, but that is the definition this Government gives to it and will maintain. Its policy will be judged in terms of its own definition and not in terms of any interpretation the Opposition may like to attach to it.

May I put a question?

The hon. member may put his question in a few moments. I hope that it is now very clear that when I talk about what is Bantu area, which may come under the control of the new Bantu machinery of control, then it is essentially and basically the presently existing area. Therefore I am now referring only to this as the area which is now Bantu area and which is theirs by inheritance. I am giving no undertaking and making no promises in respect of any other area which in the course of history became White territory. It is now White territory, inherited and by inheritance.

Does that apply to the Transvaal also?

It applies everywhere. The area which is White now remains White; the area which is Bantu now remains Bantu. To that, however, I added this: an undertaking was given in terms of the 1936 Act which affects land which is White territory. That is not based on any argument in connection with inheritance or any other argument, but results from the legislation introduced by the United Party in 1936. So, for example, originally an obligation was entered into to add 7,500,000 morgen to what is Bantu territory. A reasonably large proportion of it has been purchased during the course of the years and added to it, but everything has not been added yet; everything has not yet been purchased. That quota of 7,500,000 morgen included the released area, but the released areas were not sufficient. In that Act it was therefore also provided that the portion which did not as released areas comply with the promises but falls within the quota would have to be indicated from time to time. The Government will also have to purchase that and add it because it has undertaken to honour the promises made to the Bantu by the previous Government. No Government can honourably do otherwise than honour such undertakings given by its predecessors. Therefore it is essential to continue to add to what is obviously the already clearly defined Bantu area the amount of land promised in terms of the United Party Act of 1936, in the first place the released area and further quota land outside it.

In addition, one is still landed with a problem, namely that there are certain Black spots. Black spots have also been clearly defined in many discussions in the past, viz. as not also the smaller Bantu reserves, and in regard to this the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) is confused. Black spots have clearly been defined by us as such smaller Bantu residential areas or farms which have from time to time been acquired by them or which have been given to them inside the White rural area. They often form little areas of about 4,000 morgen, or even smaller, which were perhaps granted to them in Paul Kruger’s time for certain services rendered. Land was then given to them, e.g., as the result of assistance given by them against Black attackers. Some Black spots are in fact inside the released area and surrounded by Whites, but they are not really reserves as defined in the 1918 Act. The result is that one has to deal with private Black areas completely surrounded by Whites and which are small, as well as with declared reserves. Those which are not reserves are the most obvious areas to exchange and to shift the population. We will continue to shift these people so that they will be nearer to their own folk, because in terms of the Act that is comparatively easy. On the other hand, to exchange a proclaimed reserve, however small it may be, and to shift its inhabitants to the compensating area is difficult, but we also undertook that in some cases. Therefore I said that it is only reasonable that when a definite Black spot or a smaller reserve can easily be consolidated with the basic Native area, it will become White, whilst White land adjoining that Native area will become Black in exchange for it. That is an old practice which we have been applying for a long time already. By doing that the White area becomes more consolidated and the Black area becomes more of a geographic unit. For that reason I said that whilst the borders within which such an authority will receive jurisdiction are clearly defined, as they are under the Territorial Authorities, there will be adaptations of the borders in the course of time, inter alia by means of this specific procedure. It was done in the same way in the past, but in the past the Government sometimes had to try for five years to exchange a small Black spot for a White area adjoining the Bantu area, simply because the Bantu thought that they were being deceived, or because they were strongly attached to their land and had no feeling of attachment for the other area where ethnically they belonged more. In future, when better Bantu controlling machinery is created for the Bantu area, for which every Bantu in the Transkei will have the vote, it will be easier to have the necessary adaptation of outlook. It is absolutely clear that we are not unjustifiably trying to rob the Whites of their land. Any scaremongering by the hon. member for South Coast or the hon. member for Hillbrow to frighten the people of Natal is deplorable, for example, that the Government is creating great confusion and that it wants to deprive the Bantu of large areas of land without applying the procedure which has been adopted over the years. By doing this the Opposition is misleading the people and creating unnecessary anxiety.

I also want to remind hon. members that on the previous occasion I spoke here I said that when I referred to Zululand in connection with any Zulu authority, I was referring only to what is already Bantu Zululand, and that I realize that the concept of Zululand is history, and even to-day in the ordinary language of many Natalians, is a much broader concept which includes large areas which beyond any doubt are occupied by Whites. I then said that I did not want to be misunderstood, and that I did not want to create the impression that everything which is generally known as Zululand is the area to which we refer when we speak about the area which the Zulu nation may govern itself. That was clearly all I referred to when I used the words that all the Zulu nation will control is that which is now its own territory, because it is also its territory by inheritance. Surely one cannot state it more clearly than that. I hope there will be no more misunderstanding about this. I do not want the words “by inheritance”, which I happened to use, to be used to create any impression that areas which in the past belonged to their forefathers but which in the meantime unequivocally became White will now be handed over on the basis of this argument in regard to inheritance, There is no such idea; there is no such plan.

What about consolidation?

I said very clearly that through the process of clearing up Black spots and the process of shifting small reserves, one would to a large extent be able to consolidate everything around the larger areas. If that is done, the large number of smaller Bantu areas will also disappear. If there are hon. members who say that we ever stated that one would be able to consolidate large reserves, e.g. the large areas which are Zulu areas in Southern Natal, and the large Zulu areas in Northern Natal, and to make them one area, then they are wrong or they are deliberately trying to cause confusion. I stated on a previous occasion that in the same way that it was not possible, when the state of Pakistan was established, to join together various large Mahommedan-Indian territories and to make one territory of them, neither is it possible here. There government control is exercised to-day still over two areas which are separated from each other by 1,000 miles of foreign territory. Here scattered areas will also have to be governed. We shall have to accept it as a basic problem that some of these Authorities will have control over various large areas, but their administration of them will be easier, because these areas are not as far apart as in the case of the similarly divided state of Pakistan. I also added at the time when I dealt with this matter that without any doubt it would lead to difficulty, that it is a difficult position, but that this difficult position and the difficulties emanating from it would not be comparable with the danger it would constitute for South Africa and for the White people if we were to have a mixed state here in terms of the United Party policy, with a mixed Cabinet and a mixed Public Service and a mixed Army. Therefore I said that we had to choose between two evils, seeing that history had created this situation for us. One cannot have everything just as one would like it. I said that this side of the House also recognized the fact that it would be dealing, e.g. in the Transvaal, to which the hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker) referred, with various areas in the West, in the East and in the northern central part of the Transvaal which organizationally but not physically would be linked with each other if that ethnic group develops to a selfgoverning community. I even emphasised that it would certainly cause us trouble and that these large areas certainly could not be eliminated. Consolidation will therefore have to take the form of linking up all the small and large areas possible, but to have one area will be impracticable in various cases. In that process it may be that the future will show that it will be possible to link up some of these areas with Swaziland, Bechuanaland and Basutoland, because there are certain Bantu areas which ethnically really fit in with them. Had we had control over the High Commission Territories and had we been able therefore to guide the struggle for freedom of those Territories, then in that case, I said, we would not have allowed a mixed Basutoland and a Swaziland under mixed control to come into existence. We would have seen to it that there was a Basutoland under Black control without the bluff of giving the 2,000 Whites (as second class citizens because of limitations) some sort of share in the control. We would not have bluffed them in that way but would have allowed them to vote in the Republic. It would have been possible for Basutoland to develop into a Black state and in the case of Swaziland we would have linked together the areas which were ethnically Swazi in exchange and in compensation for White areas, areas which in turn could be joined on to the Republic. However, those areas are not available to us for better planning. I do not know what the future of those areas will be but we envisage the possibility that the time may arrive when the relationship between the Republic and, say Basutoland, for the sake of argument, and Swaziland and Bechuanaland will be so good that when the idea of a commonwealth takes further shape in South Africa, a good-neighbourly relationship can be established along those lines. In that event not only the Transkei but Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland as well, would be able to share in that. That would be highly desirable but the time for that has not arrived yet. I do not, therefore, want to speculate on it any further. I hope it is perfectly clear now that these hair-raising stories that we are supposed to want to deprive White people of their land illegally and wrongfully, for whatever reasons, and that we are promising to hand over large areas, are without any foundation whatsover. If the hon. member for Hill-brow wishes to ask me a question he may do so now.

I thank the hon. the Prime Minister. The matter which I dealt with yesterday was not so much the borders. There are legacies of the Whites within the hereditary Zulu area. The legacies of the White people lie next to Ema Kosini, the burial ground of Zenzengakona and Zulu. I asked the Prime Minister what he was doing to ensure that those were maintained as the property and treasure of the White people.

Firstly, the question of Ema Kosini was already discussed at the time when I was Minister of Native Affairs and I gave the unequivocal reply at the time that Ema Kosini was regarded by the Zulu as the place where the Zulu nation was born. As I said at the time, it is a comparatively small area there—and that was also the attitude of my predecessors in the United Party—and one which in all fairness should vest in the Zulu nation. Since then attempts have been made to buy it. I do not know what progress has been made. The Minister of Bantu Administration should be asked what has happened in the meantime. The principle underlying the attitude which was adopted at that time, however, was that small area which contained the graves of the forefathers of the Zulu nation should be incorporated in the Zulu area because it is of great religious significance to them.

That is right.

A comparatively small area is affected.

[inaudible.]

The acquisition would have taken place by way of exchange. It would have been compensatory land for other land which would in turn have been given to the White man, land which would have been of greater value to him, because he does not want to have Black spots in his midst. The hon. member cannot, however, conclude from that, as he said the other day, that we will also include Babanango or other adjoining White areas, because those do not form part of Ema Kosini.

Moordkoppie is just alongside.

Moordkoppie, where you have the White mission station, lies just alongside, true enough, but if that portion were completely encircled by a Native area, it would form a White spot. The Department has been trying for a long time to remove other White spots in Zululand. White people have been living there for a long time, but they themselves are becoming anxious to leave. This process has so often been discussed in this House that it is surely not necessary to argue about it as though it is the outcome of the policy of establishing Bantu homelands. These removals are not the outcome of the policy of establishing Bantu homelands; they flow from the old policy of letting the Bantu live in a Bantu area without any White spots and letting the White people live in a White area without Black spots. That is part of the old process which has been in operation for a long time.

I understood from the hon. the Prime Minister that Port St. John’s was in a totally different position from the other towns in the Transkei, because it is not completely surrounded by a Native area. The other towns and villages are to become Black gradually. I have often asked this question in the past and I hope the hon. the Minister will give me the information to-day: How are these towns to become Black when the Group Areas Act does not apply there? How are the White people to dispose of their property?

I will deal with that point because it appears on my list of Opposition questions. Let me first also give the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) an opportunity of putting his question. I do not wish to play the role of school teacher but it seems I have no alternative.

Is it the intention at the present time to do away with all the coastal native reserves north of the Tugela, i.e. all those Native reserves banking onto the ocean— all those north of the Tugela—and if that is the intention, is it not correct that in order to provide compensatory land, some considerable extent of White-owned land will have to be taken over in order to compensate for those.

It is not my intention to indicate now which reserves will be moved and which will not. I am at present no longer concerned with the administration of Native affairs but what I am able to tell the hon. member is this: In Natal a considerable number of obligations still remained under their own 1936 Act. By reason of the fact that Natal has already been so tremendously fragmented—and I have a great deal of sympathy with the concern of the hon. member for South Coast regarding the interests of the Whites in Natal in the light of historical events there and the enormous inheritance (which they bequeathed to us and which was bequeathed to them) of the problem of Black and White in many places living alongside each other; Natal is in a terribly difficult position and I have, and have always had, a lot of sympathy with that province as far as this is concerned—we are endeavouring to better that position. In terms of the United Party Act there is still such a tremendous amount of land to be given to the Bantu (in terms of their 1936 Act), that we are trying to make use of the large amount of state land which is still available there. When state land is used either for compensation for the clearing up of Black spots or for clearing up certain smaller reserves, for whatever purpose that might be necessary, as e.g. in complying with the necessity for still giving the non-released land which has to be given under the 1936 Act, it reduces the area of land belonging to White farmers which otherwise would have had to be purchased for that purpose. Nevertheless, when to-day land is bought from White farmers it is used, particularly in recent times, as compensation in the implementation of methods in terms of which Natal’s terrible intermingling of White and non-White areas can be relieved. It is surely desirable that the White areas should be consolidated more than they have hitherto been. I would have thought that in this regard we would have had the full support of Natal. That is in fact what we get from many parts of Natal—joy because our object is to consolidate the White area more than has hitherto been the case. State land is therefore being used to facilitate the implementation of an obligation which the United Party assumed, in terms of what otherwise would have had to be purchased from White farmers.

Now I come back to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. I have said over and over, and I am sorry that I so often have to repeat my statements because of the renewed attacks made, that Port St. John’s is not surrounded by Bantu area. I mentioned the case of Cala—and I could mention many other places which, on the contrary, are completely surrounded and therefore are White spots. We know that Umtata is also completely surrounded, but we have always made the point that they differ from Umtata, which is a large urban area as well as a surrounded area. It will surely in the course of history become part of the Black Transkei, but in that case the transition process must necessarily, because of its magnitude and its significance also to the internal economy of the Black state which will be established there, be much slower. It will be a natural process but a very slow one. People there need not be concerned, particularly in the light of the good spirit revealed by the Bantu leaders there, in which I believe. These smaller places, as I have already said, will obviously be incorporated in the Bantu-controlled area, even though we do not make them Bantu homelands territory. It is mainly the pressure of the increasing Bantu capacity to render services to their own people which in itself will clear up those areas as White spots. How did those places come to be established? A White trader came there because there were Bantu customers but no Bantu traders. A missionary went to live there because there were people he could convert. The need arose for a post and therefore officials went there. Then the need arose for a school for the children of these White inhabitants of the towns, and consequently teachers were attracted to those towns. That created the need for a church for those White people. In the same way the need arose for White clerks to serve in the expanding post office and, if a railway station was built, to work in that station. Gradually the need arose for White clerks to work in the shops, because in the beginning there was nobody else to assist. That is how those towns were established. Now this process, however, is reversed without anything being done on our part. Educated Bantu clerks become available and even the White traders prefer to use Bantu clerks, either because they work for lower salaries or because it attracts customers. The State is busy with the process of employing Bantu to serve their own people, e.g. in the post offices, etc. In other words, the same process which attracted the Whites is now busy removing them, because the need for them is disappearing now that the Bantu can take over their own services. That must necessarily, whether we do something about it or not, lead to a shrinking in the number of Whites who go to look for work in those smaller towns. The question is only: How will the authority allow that process to take place? Requests have come from time to time during the past ten years from the Whites in those towns to sell their houses to the Bantu in spite of the law. Those requests had to be refused because there was the danger that the value of the properties of all the Whites in the vicinity would drop if the Bantu built houses on certain plots in between them. That is what happens all over the world. That also happens in America and England when Black people buy houses next to those of Whites. Therefore the Government adopted this standpoint: here we see the new process increasing of the advent of the Bantu official, the Bantu clerk and the Bantu teacher. Why, at any town like Cala, surrounded by a Bantu area, should a separate location now be developed whilst that White area is becoming empty and the houses there are becoming valueless? Let the process of absorption rattier take place by the planned taking over of such towns themselves, then no quarrels will arise. The Bantu can occupy those towns bit by bit. The result is that what we did then—and this is also stale news; I already referred to it before I became Prime Minister and mentioned Cala specifically—was to zone a section of the white spot town in which the Bantu could buy property. In this way that natural process can evolve conveniently for the Bantu and the White people who have property there and want to or have to go away to have the opportunity to sell those properties. In fact, they have sold their properties continuously in that way, and it was not in conflict with the Group Areas Act. In terms of the powers which the Minister of Bantu Administration can exercise in the Transkei, we were able to, and did in fact, implement this policy all the time (also since the passing of the Group Areas Act), to zone in that way with the object of allowing zone after zone to be sold to the Bantu. What more must I say about this matter than I have already said?

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has also said in the course of his complaints that I do not know who will rule the Transkei It may not be the well-disposed persons with whom we are now negotiating. Of course it is true that where a selfgoverning area is established which can elect its own Parliament and its own Cabinet, I cannot determine who will be the rulers from time to time, but these people themselves will determine it. That is true. But it is equally true that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition establishes self-governing areas in terms of his plan, the same process will take place. He will not know either who will be in authority in those areas in the course of time.I know, however, that in terms of our policy the Bantu leaders, whoever they might be, whether they are acceptable to us or not, will only rule themselves! In terms of the policy of the United Party, those who are unacceptable will, however, also sit in this Parliament! Those who may be “unacceptable” will surely see to it, in terms of the race federation plan of the United Party, that they will be represented in the Federal Parliament. If future Bantu leaders are then going to become such dangerous and unacceptable people, they will not be a hindrance to my kind of state except on its borders and beyond its borders as neighbours, but they will be a hindrance to the Leader of the Opposition’s kind of state as members of the body governing the whole country. Therefore I want to warn the Leader of the Opposition and his followers that this kind of argument can be turned against them with serious results.

Then the hon. member again said that he was surprised that I was not prepared to accept the report of the Recess Committee at this stage already, seeing that I myself had given advice in regard to that report. Is it really necessary again to explain something which should really be clear to every normal person, namely that if a particular body has to make representations to another body, that other body, or its representatives or its leaders, cannot give a decision before the report is received and before it is known whether a preliminary report, in regard to which the other body or its leaders have been consulted, has actually been adopted by the particular body which is the responsible body? Surely that is obvious. Does the hon. member really consider that it would be fair of me to face the Transkeian Territorial Authority with a fait accompli and with the possible implication of a threat that I will accept this present draft and not an amended one? Surely I cannot do that.

But surely they asked for an indication from you as to what you were prepared to accept?

Of course I can accept that those people will draw inferences, namely that when they get advice from me in regard to certain points on which they have difficulty, I consider it desirable and acceptable, but that does not mean that I must make an official statement in that regard to them or to this Parliament, namely that I will accept that and therefore nothing else.

But they will be justified in drawing inferences.

They can draw inferences if they like, and the hon. member can also draw inferences if he likes. I cannot stop them or him from doing so. But I will not be forced by him to make statements of what I will do in respect of such a report or what I will do in case the report is different.I shall await that report, and that is the correct line of behaviour.

Then the hon. member also raised a point which shows how confused his thinking is. He says that he is surprised that I am now even recommending to them to have a larger proportion of elected members.

In view of your past policy.

The hon. member says he is surprised at it, in view of the fact that in the past I adopted the attitude which I did adopt in regard to the establishment of the Territorial Authority system. In the past I adopted a very clear standpoint for which the hon. member of the Opposition would never give me credit and which they always partly tried to conceal from the public. Their confusion to-day is the result of that attitude which they always adopted. My standpoint has always been this: the Bantu will have to develop along the road of self-government, and when people are assisted to develop one should not begin by foisting an unknown or strange form of government on them. One should not foist a Western system on to a Bantu community, which has no real experience of government without adapting it to their needs. If one does so, one harms them and then confusion arises, as has so often happened in Central Africa. My standpoint was rather to adopt a different method, rather to adopt the following process: begin with a form of government which they know and allow them, as and when they understand it and desire to develop further, gradually to become better acquainted with the Western elements by increasingly adding them. That is precisely the process we have followed hitherto and which I held out in prospect at the time as a further step, which we are now taking. In the firstplace I introduced the system of Territorial Authorities, by means of which we broke away from the existing co-control of the Whites in the Bunga and proceeded to have a body completely controlled by the Bantu, but on the basis of the natural democracy of the Bantu, as I always described it, namely the representatives or leaders who, according to their customs, represent the tribes. Now that this body has had the opportunity to look after their own interests for a few years, according to this indigenous system, the one which was known to them, and their Bantu Chairman and officials have gained experience in handling their own people on a basis and by methods well known to them, they have now reached the stage where they themselves ask that we should grant them the next stage of governmental development. The next stage of development still does not mean a complete change-over to our Parliamentary system as we know it, but it does mean the introduction of the factor of representation in their system. That is what they have asked for so far in their proposed constitution. In my opinion, however, they wanted to take too small a step in this direction by making provision for a small limited number of elected members, and my advice to them was this: Retain your tribal leaders and thus retain the characteristics of your natural democracy, but make provision, on the other hand, now that you are reaching the parliamentary stage of development, for a reasonable direct representation so that it will be appreciated that a further substantial step has been taken on the road of constitutional development. What I am doing is no more than is advocated in Nigeria, the country to which hon. members opposite refer with so much respect. In Nigeria one of the parliamentary leaders, a Minister I believe, specifically stated that it was a mistake on the part of the West to try to superimpose its parliamentary system on to their state, because more regard should be had to the tribal background. Here we are in fact observing all the principles for which even Nkrumah pleaded at one stage before he continued further on the dictatorial path. In other words, when the hon. member says he is surprised that I wanted to see more elected members there, there is no reason for him to be surprised because I am doing precisely what I always said the process would be. I hope that in future the hon. member will stop making accusations of this kind against us. After all, in the past, they often came along with the story that with the territorial authority system we wanted to lead the Bantu back to the jungle, to the primitive state. Hon. members will recall the accusations that we wanted to lead the Bantu back to something of an inferior nature. Our argument was always that we believed in development from the known to the unknown. Now that we are busy with this development, they come along with the opposite accusation that we are leading the Bantu too soon towards the independence of Western civilization. They no longer talk about “leading them back to the jungle”.

Who said that you were switching too soon to Western civilization?

No, the hon. member did not say it but insinuated it.

The hon. member says that I should have taken into account the position of the Whites in the Transkei. But, in the first place, can I put the position more clearly than it is stated in the report which the hon. member read out and which indicates that the Bantu themselves wish to give guarantees to the Whites?

What guarantees are contained in it?

There we have the guarantee that they are favourably disposed; there we have the guarantee that they want these people there; there we have the guarantee that if these people want to leave they will make provision to compensate them for their possessions.

The shopkeepers?

But apart from that and in the second place I gave certain guarantees on behalf of our state. I divided the interested parties into classes. All that the hon. member now wants me to do in addition to that is to make a whole series of promises about compensation in respect of the houses of professional people who will apparently not even have to move. If they did leave for other reasons of their own, then in any event I ought not to make any promises. He wants me to make clearer promises but at the same time he says that all my promises are worthless. I think it was the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) who said that I would retain no authority in respect of the Whites in an independent Transkei.

Yes.

But surely that is wrong. Every country has influence and a say over its own citizens in another state. If there are Whites there and they remain citizens of the Republic, they will be under the care of the Republic. The representative of the Republic there will be the person who will have to look after their interests and protect them against unjust action. The independence of such a state does not deprive the Republic of those rights in respect of its own citizens. In other words, we will be able to help our citizens living in neighbouring territories. Apart from that we are entitled to grant any assistance we like in our own territory to such citizens if they have to leave that territory. If that territory gives undertakings and makes promises which are not fulfilled, we can intervene on behalf of our citizens to have those promises carried out. There is no substance in the argument that we are not able to look after our citizens.

They can do the same thing of course in respect of their citizens in our country.

Of course. If there is a Transkeian Authority and there is a Transkeian Bantu here who enjoys and exercises his citizenship rights there, and who is here because he is a work-seeker and has undertaken to obey the laws of our country, then as soon as he refuses to subject himself to the laws of our country, they can accommodate him in their country. Or if there is any question of an injustice, they can make representations, in the same way that England can make representations to South Africa in respect of her citizens, even when it is a person like Ganyile. Naturally. But even if it brings difficulties with it, it is much better to have this situation than that we should have dissatisfied Bantu as our partners and that they should have the reins of government in what was our own country and that they should be able to say, because of their majority, “Do so and so”. It is a question of choosing what is the best course. Let me say to the United Party that this whole campaign of sowing suspicion in which they are engaged at the present time, is one which they also tried during the previous election. The voters do not fall for that type of accusation. The voters do not allow themselves to be frightened in this way, because they know that a difficult choice has to be made between two difficult courses — between the course of separation, which is difficult, and the course of integration which is infinitely more difficult and deadly. They have to choose between those two courses. They were aware during the election of all the problems that would flow from this. It was stated very clearly by us what we proposed to do, and the United Party then also tried, even by misrepresenting our intentions, to frighten people as much as possible, but they did not succeed in coaxing away our supporters.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) apparently wants to defend Britain’s attitude towards the Whites in Kenya, because she says the people who went to Kenya went to a foreign territory. In other words, when they are treated in the way that they are now being treated, that is to say, when they are left in the lurch, then according to the hon. member it is no more than they deserve, because they “went to a foreign country”! She therefore defends the United Kingdom against the claims of those Whites who developed this territory. But what is the truth? Britain invited these people to go there to assist her in her task of bringing civilization to this territory. She was so anxious to have them there that promises were made to them and the prospect of stability and protection was held out to them. Britain did not bring them under the impression that she was going to lose control over this country, nor did she think that this would happen. Subsequently, when the first moves were made in this direction some years ago, Britain made promises of compensation in order to keep the Whites there because of their economic value to the territory and to the guardian herself who believed that she would retain control. To-day, however, the people of Kenya say that Britain has not carried out those promises.

In conclusion I want to make just a few further observations. The hon. member for Drakensberg has raised the objection that the farmers throughout the country are in a state of uncertainty. She has quoted certain reports to show that they have asked that we should buy the land in which they have an interest as soon as possible. That is not something, of course, which specifically flows from our policy of Bantu homelands. It is an old complaint on the part of farmers who fall in released areas under the United Party Act of 1936; they are anxious that the land owned by them and that was ear-marked at the time under the Act of 1936 to become Bantu areas should be purchased by us as soon as possible. I can well understand that those of them who do not want to hang on to this land are anxious that the undertaking of 1936 should be implemented as soon as possible. But both our Government and previous Governments have been able to do no more than to carry on with a programme of purchases extending over a reasonably long period. The sum of R2 million for the purchase of land this year, to which a certain amount of objection has been raised by United Party members, has been provided for in the Estimates for the very purpose of meeting the demands of the farmers. In the prevailing circumstances, of course, it is impossible to satisfy all the demands within the space of one or two years. There is still an enormous amount of land in released areas to be purchased. I can only say that these purchases are being expedited as much as possible. Any allegation of stagnation in farming that is based on this ground is a charge against the effects of the Act of 1936 since 1936 and not, as she tries to put it, a charge which flows from the Bantu homelands policy. In actual fact most of these farmers have developed their lands and there has been no real stagnation. They have been able and are able to develop their land because they have known that they will be compensated not only for the land but also for improvements on the land. Development has in fact always taken place there. The farmers concerned have known that they are not all going to be bought out immediately and they have carried on with their farming developments. This attack is therefore really a repetition of a charge which has been made over a long period and which is without much substance, although one feels sorry for the farmers who are in released areas and whose land cannot be bought out immediately.

The hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker) has pleaded for certain existing industrial areas. I believe he has in mind places like Brakpan. He wants to know whether some assurance cannot be given that there will be opportunities of development for them. My reply is, and this has already been said clearly before, that apart from the border area development, there will of course, be development in the hinterland, but in developing the hinterland, and particularly industrial development, the aim must be to get away from this increase in Bantu labour. What we must try to achieve is mechanization and automation in the industrial sphere and better use of the Bantu labour that is already here, so that there will be no undesirable further influx of labour. That process is continually being encouraged, namely that industrial development in the hinterland must not cease but must be so planned and be of such a nature that it does not cause a constant increase of Bantu labour in these areas. I have no doubt that it is possible in certain industries to maintain quite a different ratio of White labour to non-White labour than we have had in the laissez faire period of the past. There is every indication that will be the case, also with regard to new industries that will come into being.

The allegation has also been made that I have come forward with an entirely new policy, a policy which differs from that followed by Dr. Malan or Adv. Strydom. That is not so. The fact of the matter is that from the inception of the policy of apartheid it was realized what the trend of the development would go. Hon. members will remember that I and others have often spoken about the two opposite roads which we could follow in this country. The one is the road of integration and we have said that must untimately lead to Black domination. We also spoke about the other road, the road which the Government is following, the road of apartheid. Throughout the years everybody has said that road will ultimately lead to the existence of independent states alongside each other, White and non-White.

Very wrong.

No, that was always said. But the question which was put to Dr. Malan and subsequently to Adv. Strijdom was this: Is your immediate objective to bring about territorial apartheid and separate states? At the time when I was Minister of Native Affairs the charge was already made, in an attempt to drive in a wedge, that we were giving different replies to that question. However, all of us have always replied and said that it was not practical to follow that policy at the moment. Dr. Malan adopted the attitude that we as the guardians, should grant more and more rights to the Bantu and that the further outcome of that did not constitute a problem which we need worry about at the moment. It was clear to all of us what the United Party had in mind when they made that charge, namely, that when a leader envisages something for the distant future, to project that immediately on to the present and to use that as a charge against the policy which he followed at the moment. That was why my predecessor was very careful in adopting any stand and only referred to what we were doing at the moment. That was to give the Bantu a greater and greater degree of self-government under our guardianship. Since then the position has changed considerably. I as Prime Minister find myself in a different stage of the development. It is a fact that development everywhere has been very condensed. I want to admit frankly, that as far as I am concerned, in spite of the policy which I have always advocated and its ultimate end, I did not envisage that within ten years the position in Africa and in the world and locally would be such that it would be necessary for these steps to be taken to-day already. I often said that I did not know when the separation would be complete, whether it would be in ten years’ or 20 years’ or 100 years’ time, but I said that because I wanted to make it clear that the period would not be determined. There was no undertaking that the process would take 200 years. I realized that it was simply impossible to determine the time it would take and nobody could say whether the process would take a short time, a long time or a very long time. The position which has arisen over the past few years, however, has caused us, for the sake of the security and the prosperity of our country, to let the stages follow one another quicker than we had expected they would. Those factors were the same factors which urged the United Party to advocate more and more that its policy of a multi-racial nation and state should be followed immediately. Which member of the United Party would have said ten years ago that they would have been prepared in 1962 to advocate a federation with all the non-White groups as partners, with everybody represented in Parliament by his own people, within the foreseeable future? Who would have said that? When we accused them at that time of adopting the Hofmeyr attitude they denied that they had supported such liberalism. The application of our policy has certainly been expedited but there has not been a change in principle or in the direction of our policy. I hope, therefore, that it is quite clear that we are not dealing here with a dishonest policy or that there has been a clash in directions, but with a position which has been created by modern developments which have taken place at an unexpectedly fast pace.

I wish to raise a final point. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) made this statement: “You say that you have confidence in the assurance which the Bantu leaders have given to the Whites in the Transkei.” She asks: “In that case why do you not trust them to form a mixed Parliament and Government or to live in a mixed state?” Well, that is the whole crux of the difference which is still existing between us. We are convinced that if the Bantu is given the opportunity separately to achieve all his ambitions within his own circle, he can become a good neighbour and that he will then wish to co-operate with us as friends and that he will even need us for economic and other reasons. If the Whites try to take the Bantu with them into one society major clashes will of necessity have to take place in that society, clashes in respect of outlook and clashes in respect of the ambition to achieve supremacy in that common land. The friendship which could have developed between independent neighbours will not develop between partners who are fighting one another to gain that supremacy, as has happened elsewhere in Africa. When it is said that constitutions of such a nature will be drawn up (based on numbers and based on the standard of civilization) that they will constitute guarantees to the Whites and that the Bantu will be kept in the background, you will be creating situations which will cause difficulties. There will be no confidence. The basis of our attitude throughout the years has consistently been that method must lead to conflicts, conflicts which will stand in the way of separate though full opportunities. As I have said before, if you have various members of your step-family living in your home, you will easily clash with them. But if any members of your step-family live next to you, a spirit of mutual helpfulness may develop, because those contacts which cause tension will be absent. The trust and love and co-operation which is so difficult to obtain in one household where the people are foreign to one another, are different when they live next to one another or near to one another. In that event the possibility exists that good relationship will develop.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

Yes, certainly.

What are the Prime Minister’s plans in connection with the physical presence of those Bantu people who are permanently resident in the White area of the Republic?

That is also a question which I have often replied to. Before I deal with that I want to finish stating the first point clearly. It does not follow at all that because the White people may have assurances and are confident that there will be co-operation and friendship with the Bantu when they have independent control over their own areas (something which they are glad that the Whites have helped them to obtain), there is justification to expect confidence when the races do not only live together in one area but are also in continual competition with one another in every sphere of life because the White man will always try to maintain himself and the Black man will try to maintain himself there.

The hon. member asked the further question as to what we intended doing with the Bantu who will continue to work here. When the people who are in our midst can exercise their rights in the ethnic areas with which they are connected, in respect of those people who are their own, and if they are able to go there and by virtue of skills which they have acquired here, climb to the highest positions, and when the taxes which they pay are utilized there, in other words if they are here to work and to make a living merely because they wish to be here and should be grateful for the right to be here and to make a living, we can expect them basically to be well-disposed and appreciative. Does the hon. member think that the Italians who go and work in France or Germany, and who perhaps remain there their whole life through, are not grateful for the fact that France or Germany or whichever country it may be, has afforded them that opportunity.

They can become naturalized there.

Of course there is the difference in regard to naturalization, something which we will not allow. But we know that those Italians do not exercise that right often either. That is not a source of trouble, therefore, because their fatherland offers them a way out to fulfil their ambitions and to achieve their desires. The opportunity to live in peace simply does not exist in a common fatherland where there are continual conflicts. I am firmly convinced, therefore, that with the policy which we advocate the country is on the road of friendship and peace whereas with the other policy peace and quiet will never be attained.

It is not my wish to prolong this Vote unnecessarily, but there are a few things the hon. the Prime Minister has said which I do not think one can let pass. Firstly, running right through this debate there has been the tendency from speakers opposite and on the part of the Prime Minister himself, to try to draw parallels between South Africa and what is happening in other parts of Africa as to the inevitability of the submergence of the White race if any political rights at all were to be given to the non-European in the same state as the White. It seems to me that there are two points which are overlooked when those parallels are drawn. The first is the population ratios. I wonder whether those hon. members who have drawn those parallels, realize that the ratio between White and non-White in the Federation is 1 to 26; that the ratio between White and non-White in Kenya is 1 to 94; in the Congo 1 to 124; in Tanganyika 1 to 409 and in Ghana, which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is so keen to talk about, it is 1 to 1,000. Here in South Africa it is 1 to 4 and if the Cape Coloured people are reckoned with the Whites, it is 1 to which is a very different proposition indeed. The second point is that in not one of those states to date has an attempt been made to grant representation on the basis of a federation of the races as envisaged by this party. It seems to me, Sir, that this parallel is being drawn, or that attempts are being made to draw it, for the simple purpose of trying to get away from the difficulties with which the hon. the Prime Minister and his party are faced. What has been most interesting to-day has been to see yet again a shifting of the ground in the application of the policy of apartheid. I noticed the hon. the Minister of Lands at times gazing with admiration upon this creation of his imagination in 1948 when he came out with his apartheid policy statement. I wonder whether he ever envisaged what has happened at the present time.

Let us look at some of the changes which have taken place. When the original policy statement came out we heard that there would be ultimate total territorial separation. What has happened to-day, Sir? Now there are going to be more Blacks than Whites in the so-called White areas; now we are going to have Black areas which are not even going to be consolidated. One must congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on the fact that he is moving faster and faster towards United Party policy. He has appreciated at long last that the difficulties in the way of consolidation are such that he can no longer face up to them. To-day we had it coming for the first time in my memory that these Territorial Authorities who will ultimately get independence, will have control over separate geographical areas, not necessarily contiguous to each other.

I have used the example of Pakistan over and over again.

In other words, Sir, he now concedes that there is not going to be consolidation. Are these areas going to be scattered all over South Africa? The whole idea of consolidation as set out by the Tomlinson Commission, has now been thrown overboard. I wonder what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration thinks about that? He signed the report of the Tomlinson Commission. We were always told how he was going to clear up the Black spots in the White areas; we were always told how by means of exchange he was going to get rid of the little reserves and how the big reserves were going to be consolidated until you had geographical units.

We are doing that every day.

There we have it Sir! What better example could one have of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has changed his policy. But let us take it one step further. It was always the policy of the party opposite that for the successful conclusion of their policy it was necessary to have the protectorates. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated that they would be the heartlands and that these reserves would be attached to them. Now what has happened, Sir? Now we are not going to get the protectorates. But it appears that the reserves will be given independence and that they will be free to join up with the protectorates in due course as foreign states outside of South Africa. You know, Sir, the great virtue of having a federal arrangement was that consolidation was unnecessary, entirely unnecessary. The big problem of the Prime Minister’s was his difficulty of consolidating. Just by a flick of the hand he has thrown the whole thing overboard and left the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development a couple of weeks behind in the latest development! No wonder that he cannot give us the outline of the boundaries of these reserves. He concedes that he is going outside of the released areas. He concedes that there are going to be exchanges but nobody knows where those exchanges are going to take place and many of them may not take place for many years.

Under the 1936 Act they have to go outside the released areas.

To a very limited extent, and the hon. gentleman knows it. But that will not get the hon. the Prime Minister out of his difficulties. The position he envisages leaves the country in a state of complete uncertainty because he cannot give them any idea at all as to where those boundaries are to be. And now he tries to justify the attitude of his party by indicating that General Smuts was supposed to have stood for this kind of policy. Sir, it has been done so often, but I think I must, before this debate closes, refer to just two statements made by General Smuts. The first is from his Oxford Lecture in 1929 “Africa and some World Problems.” This was what he said—

Let me give just one more quotation from the speech which General Smuts made in the City Hall in Cape Town in 1942—

Then he deals with the attraction of the goldfields and he says—

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from a speech made by General Smuts in 1942, General Smuts to whom hon. members opposite have been referring as an authority for their apartheid policy.

Sir, we have been discussing this Vote for some two or three days but we are still faced with a large number of uncertainties and imponderables. I think those uncertainties to a large extent still remain despite the most courteous efforts on the part of the Prime Minister to try to meet our requests. We have no idea yet, Sir, what the absorption rate of the reserves is going to be. We have no idea whether he still stands by his policy that within 50 years from 1955, when the Tomlinson Commission’s report came out, his objective was fifty-fifty Black-White in the so-called White areas. We still do not know, Sir, whether there are going to be trade unions for Natives in the Bantustans. We do not know whether they are going to be allowed to form trade unions if they are engaged in border industries. We do not know whether Bantu industries in the reserves are going to be able to import White labour or skilled artisans. We do not know whether there is going to be job reservation in the reserves.

We know you know little.

We know very little about the compensation to the Whites. And that hon. member who has interjected knows least of all. because he has made no attempt, despite talking three or four times, to answer a single one of those questions or to assist the hon. the Prime Minister. Now the hon. gentleman says that these uncertainties are not affecting our economy. Well, Sir, if they are not affecting our economy, then surely currency control is no longer necessary. Then surely, Sir. the experiment can be tried of lifting that currency control. The only reply from the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Prime Minister is “the Opposition is so strong that the Opposition will influence people to take their money out of the country”. Mr. Chairman, I wish the Opposition which is so strong, could just influence this Government a little to take a few more sensible decisions in respect of this policy, to adopt a little more of the United Party policy and then they will have a realistic policy to follow in the future. Where are we, Sir. We have a Government in power which, to use the Afrikaans phrase, ‘ is uitgedien’. All it has to hold its people together is this policy of separate development. But I am satisfied that the people will prefer a policy of federalism, keeping the units together, to the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 5—“Lands”—R1,616,000.

Perhaps the Minister would comment on these estimates we have here. I notice that there is an increase in all administrative charges. There is a general increase in all administrative costs to a considerable extent. Wages and allowances have increased by R37,500 whereas the expenditure on all the settlements has actually decreased. In the case of welfare settlements, there has been a decrease of R6,500. As regards welfare settlements most of this expenditure is recoverable. After all, it is a very fine location for the elderly and infirm people. I am wondering why there is this decrease. Is the Minister reducing the accommodation or the availability of allotments to people of infirm health.

In regard to the items under Irrigation Settlements, I hope the Minister will be able to inform us that the settlers at Buchuberg all have increased holdings. That has been my general complaint, that those people have uneconomic holdings and their conditions have been very strained and difficult. The Minister has promised to make provision for some to sell out to other and to offer those, who have sold out, land somewhere else along the Orange River. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what progress he has made in that regard. Then as regards Loskop, one of our outstanding settlements, we should like to know whether malaria is now under control or, preferably, whether it has disappeared altogether. In respect of Riet River, Sir, we should like to know what steps the Minister has taken in regard to the stabilization of the water supply there. We should like to know how many settlers have sold out or have left the Riet River settlement and what future prospects he offers settlers there as regards an adequate water supply.

With regard to the Vaalhartz Settlement, I should like to know whether the Minister now regards the Vaalhartz Settlement as providing for a stable population. We should like to know how many of those who obtained title have sold their holdings. And at what average price. We should like to know what steps the Minister has taken to overcome the drainage difficulties there. It is rumoured that the yield of crops there has dropped. Whether that is true or not I do not know but we would like to have any information which the Minister can give us. Because, with the Minister, we place great importance on these settlements. We do hope that when the Orange River scheme comes into operation there will be an enormous extension of settlements and that we will bring about a drift from the towns back to the land, which is essential if we are to develop a healthy nationhood in this country. So, Sir, we would like the Minister to give us whatever information he can. I have always asked what the average income of the settlers at Vaalhartz was. I do not like to repeat that question but, in view of the rumours I have heard that the people are not doing so well there and that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction, I should be pleased if the Minister could give us this information and assure us that these rumours have no foundation. However, these rumours have reached me from very reliable sources and I know it is only the Minister who can contradict any wrong information which may have been conveyed to me. We would, of course, like the Minister to give us some details about the drainage. Perhaps the Minister has paid due regard to the amount of water which flows in the “Dry Hartz”. When I last visited the Vaalhartz Settlement there was as much water flowing from the drainage system in the Dry Hartz River as there was in the canals coming from the Vaal River, which seems to be something very unhealthy. It meant that over-irrigation was taking place and, that the mineral content and the value of that soil was being drained by over-irrigation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what steps have been taken in regard to the control of irrigation on those plots. I think this is a most important factor. If we wish to conserve our waters and provide for permanent water supplies on irrigation holdings, we do want to have the assurance that this water is used on a conservation basis and that there is no over-irrigation. Over-irrigation is of no advantage at all, Mr. Chairman, Not only does it wash out the top properties of the soil but it does not guarantee a permanent increased yield. It may do it for the first year or two, but after that the crop decreases. And we would like the Minister’s assurance that in general on land settlements, special attention is now being paid to the controlling of our water and that there is no unnecessary wastage and that people realize what the cost is to the State to provide these settlements with an adequate water supply. If that is not done, Sir, I do not see much hope for our future development of our irrigation settlements. Even along the Orange/Fish Rivers, it is no good our measuring what contents proposed dams will contain, the extent of land they will be able to irrigate if, when the irrigation is put on this land. the water is wasted and runs off through the drainage systems. I think that we have had to spend far too much at Vaalhartz on the drainage system. In fact, I think it is a disgrace when one comes to think of what has been spent there and the wastage of water which is taking place. I think if the Minister could reply to those questions, we would appreciate it very much. We are deeply interested in the Minister’s portfolio. We appreciate the interest he takes in the various departments, but it is only through him that we can obtain reliable information and receive the encouragement in this development of land settlement which is so essential to this country.

In the first instance I would like to bring a few matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister in connection with Section 20 and also direct a request to him. In the Annual Report of the Department of Lands for the year ending 31st March, 1960, I find that from 1912 to 1960 the Department had already purchased 4,902,000 morgen of land for farmers under Section 20 and that the total purchase price for that land amounted to £19,976,000. Where this section has assumed such vast proportions and where it was such a popular section up to 1960, I find in the same Annual Report that the Secretary for Lands expresses concern because these purchases show a tremendous drop. He gives the figures and he points out that in the previous financial year there were 604 applications and in the current financial year only 385. In other words, this number was virtually cut by half. He gives certain reasons for this. Unfortunately, this year’s report has not yet been Tabled and I would like in passing to refer to this fact. I understand that consideration is being given to whether a report of this nature will ever be Tabled again; that the Department of Lands is considering no longer issuing an Annual Report. If this is so. I want to make an earnest plea that this should not be so and that we should have an Annual Report because it contains very important information and data which I think ought to be made available to this House.

The Secretary of the Department of Lands gives his reasons and he mentions the increased Land Bank loans, the consolidation of debt under the Farmers’ Assistance Act. and then he comes to the third reason and he says: “The policy which is at present being followed by the Department to ensure that only economic units are purchased.” I wish to dwell on this aspect for a while. Where steps are being taken to ensure that only economic units are purchased, I want to ask that there should be better co-ordinated consultation with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. When I speak of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in this connection, however, I do not wish to speak only of the officials of the Department. For example, I do not want the Land Board and the Department to consult only the extension officers in a certain magisterial district and tell them: “We have now received an application to buy that farm and we want your report on it.” Such extension officer may be a technically trained man; he may be very capable: he may come from a university; however, he is not au fait with all the circumstances there. I think. Mr. Chairman, that if we can make use of the already established Soil Conservation Committees on which an official of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, namely, the extension officer, does have a seat, then we will obtain a far better report in two ways. We will obtain a report from people who have been selected by that area and are regarded as people who are acquainted with agriculturally economic units and who are acquainted with the nature and circumstances of farming which can be applied, and who may also be au fait with the applicant so as to know that the applicant is not merely a man who can plough over the land and try to sow mealies but a man who will also farm with Jersey cows or poultry or bees—that he is a man who can farm with other things as well. In other words, the economic unit also deals with the applicant and the method of farming which is applied. If we only make use of that extension officer, who may perhaps not know the applicant at all, while the soil conservation committee may possibly know him far better if he is a person from that area—I say that if this is done then we are going to obtain a far more detailed answer and a clear and more detailed picture of the position. I would like to add something further to this. Such extension officer may, after he has made his soil tests, has ascertained the nature of the soil, the quantity of water and so forth, base his report up on those findings. However, he often finds that he has not taken account of the natural circumstances, climatic conditions, the fungus diseases and so forth with which these soil conservation committees are acquainted because they have been there for some time and have to deal with these matters every day. They are accordingly in a position to make a better report. Mr. Chairman, this aspect is very important. You will find that on six or seven occasions, namely, 1935, 1937, 1942, 1944, 1948, 1955 and 1960, the amount which is granted under this section has been increased, namely, from 3,600 to 4,500 to 5,510 to 6,300 to 8,300 and to 10,300 and has now been increased to R13,000. We find therefore that the Department of Lands and the hon. the Minister consider it desirable to increase this amount. However. I think that another reason why we have obtained so few applications during this period, why the popularity of this scheme is perhaps waning, if we consider the number of applications, is the price structure of land in South Africa. I fear that the amount of R13,000 is still too small to buy an economic unit which will enable a young farmer to do the right thing. I want to make this very clear because in the preamble to this Report the Secretary for Lands states—

Therefore I believe that the amount must be larger and we must make use of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Not only must we make use of the officials but also of the soil conservation committees.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister this question. In this same Report mention is made of the fact that demonstration plots have been laid out. It is stated that a demonstration plot and at the same time an experimental plot has been established under the Sak River Settlement. I would like to ask that the Department of Lands should establish a proper experimental plot under a sugar settlement, preferably at Pongola, so that the Department of Lands will be au fait with the sugar production and with what constitutes an economic unit in regard to the quota allocations which are made. I mention this because I gained the impression that the Department of Lands is not properly acquainted with the circumstances of sugar production. It has at the moment to ask Edgecombe for the necessary details and unfortunately it is not always sympathetically disposed in this regard or it does not always accept the information of Edgecombe because Edgecombe may perhaps base its information on a larger production unit. There is this aspect, that you find yourself in the position where a certain amount of land constitutes a unit if you go a little way beyond it before you arrive at the second amount, you have a gap in the meantime which makes it an uneconomic unit while the smaller one, which does not need the tremendous capital investment, is still an economic unit. I want to make a very earnest plea that the neccesary experimental plot should be laid out so that the Department of Lands can determine for itself what the reclamation methods must be in respect of soil which becomes brak or sour. I want to mention an example. There is one man at Pongola who was a very good student at university and qualified himself properly in agriculture. He wants to reclaim his soil but now he finds that the ley period is such that he does not have sufficient land to enable him to reclaim it properly. All these are things in regard to which the Department of Lands will be better able to express an opinion if it makes the tests there itself.

It would appear that my suspicions over the past years must have been well founded because we have the state of affairs now as the result of arrangements being made by the Department of Native Administration that they are now staking a claim to State-owned land that has been in the hands of the German settlers for well over a century. That land is now being sought by the Department of Bantu Administration. That land has been in the hands of those settlers for all that time. The position there is peculiar to those areas alone, as the Minister knows full well. You have that chain of country from Amalinda to the base of the Amatola Mountains which has been occupied by those people for all that time. It is unsurveyed land. Nothing is embodied in their titles. Now the Minister wants that land. Having been used by those people for that length of time, and in view of the fact that the Minister since he took over this portfolio has allowed the subdivision of the other pieces of land falling under the various settlements and has allowed it to be allocated to the owners of land within those areas, I want to ask the Minister to protect those settlements. I am talking now of Potsdam, but that is not the only one. I have got information that the Minister is to take over a series of these bits of land. I want those people to be protected. They could claim that land by prescription, but they do not want to do so. The Minister tells us they want to sell. I dispute that. Some do want to sell but as the Minister knows there are always people who will sell when the right price is offered. But when these people are uprooted from these small settlements they own within those grazing areas, they cannot re-establish themselves anywhere else in view of the present price of land unless they are compensated for the grazing they have to-day. Far from letting that land go for nothing to the Minister of Bantu Administration, I want to ask the Minister to set a price for that land equivalent to the selling price of land so that these people can receive some reward for what they have done over the last hundred years. That will enable them to re-establish themselves elsewhere. On that particular settlement alone there are 43 of those owners who will be uprooted. The Minister knows himself the difference in the types of farming in that area in comparison with where land might be offered to them on other settlements. It is so different that it is quite impossible for these men to be transferred, nor can they re-establish themselves unless they get compensation for that land. I think it is essential that the Minister should put his foot down and ask for compensation on behalf of those people for what is at present State-owned land but which they can claim by prescription, because it has been grazed and farmed by them for the last 100 years.

I might as well answer from time to time, otherwise the questions mount up and I may be accused of taking up too much of the time of the House.

May I just ask this question in regard to this new item on page 16, Expansion of Establishment, R9,500. Will the Minister tell us what this new expansion is, or whether it is just an advance figure for a larger amount to be spent later?

The R9,5000 is for certain posts which we have asked to be filled. Those posts have not been filled yet. They are posts for various purposes, which we hope to fill. As the hon. member knows, we are trying on our settlements to get more people who can instruct the farmers in the different methods of farming and we have applied for further posts and that R9,500 is for that purpose.

Now, to start at the bottom, the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has again raised this hardy annual, but it always comes up in a slightly different form.

It has crystallised now.

It always comes up in a slightly different form because there is no uniformity. I think I should explain to the House what this is all about. About 100 years ago, in 1856, after the Crimean War, a number of German settlers were placed there, starting with one of the regiments which fought in the Crimean War. They were placed in the Eastern Province, where they were given land. Subsequently further German settlers came, I think in 1868. They were all given land there and it is rather interesting to note that the amount of land given was in proportion to the rank they held. A private would get so much and a sergeant so much and a captain so much and a major would get far more than half-a-dozen corporals together, and their children all counted as well. The farms given to them were small, but they were given a large amount of communal land. These communal lands were given to them in different ways. In some cases the ownership of the communal land attached to the property given to the settlers and in those cases there has been very little difficulty. In other cases it was kept in trust for them as Crown land. Then villages started, sometimes on these communal lands or adjoining them, and for the last ten or fifteen years, and particularly the last five years, we have been trying to divide up these communal lands and proportion them to each owner in relation to the size of his farm. But then the municipalities came in and said some of it should be given to them for communal grazing for the towns, and it has been a very difficult subject indeed. However, in most cases we have come to an agreement and, except for a few, most of them have been settled. Now Potsdam is one of those where the land is held by the Crown and not in ownership by the farmers. I told the hon. member some time ago that even if the Crown held this land in trust for those settlers, I, in principle, would consider that the land belonged to the settlers and that I was willing to divide that land up amongst the settlers in the same way that we would have divided it up if the land had been held in communal ownership by the settlers. I feel that morally they have the right to it. In fact, they have practically possessed it for the last 100 years. They have used it and I do not think it would be right in any way to deprive them of this land which they have had for 100 years, and which everybody has accepted, because in many cases the people do not know whether they are the owners of the land, or whether it is held in trust for them. I do not know exactly what the position at Potsdam is.

Exactly as you have stated it, but the Minister of Bantu Administration now wants that land

Yes, but he wants a lot, and he requires a lot of land.

*The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) raised a few important points in connection with Section 20. He expressed his concern that insufficient use is made of Section 20, or the one-tenth contribution system. It is quite correct that over the past few years and particularly during the past financial year for which the report appeared there was a considerable drop in the number of applications. He also mentioned the three reasons which were given in the Report of the Secretary for Lands as to why that decrease took place. The one is that people can obtain Land Bank loans so much more easily now than was the case previously. That is probably the most important reason. They prefer to take a Land Bank loan because then they immediately become the owners of the land. Where there is a very strong feeling on the part of our people to obtain right and title to a piece of land in their own name, they are more inclined to approach the Land Bank for a loan simply for those sentimental reasons, in order to become the owners of the land immediately, rather than to purchase it through us and only to take transfer thereof in five years time or even later. It has been our experience throughout the years that as soon as the Land Bank is prepared to advance more money, we experience a decrease in the number of applications. However, if the Land Bank finds it difficult to advance money, the number of applications to us increases. The consolidation of debts has not had so much to do with it, although it is a contributory factor, but the third thing is that we only allocate economic holdings to these people; in other words, that we are more careful to ensure that when we assist a man under Section 20 to obtain a farm, it must be an economic holding on which he can farm according to the standards which we lay down. As the hon. member knows, we started settlements as a form of charity. It was to assist people who had no other place to go and those people were simply given a small piece of land. I would almost say that in many cases it was the poorest type of man who had the greatest claim to land. However, our policy has changed completely over the years and it has adopted a direction whereby we wish in the first place to give a man a farm on which he can make a decent living, and secondly — this flows from the first provision — that we give land to a person only if we are sure that man will make a success of it himself. Last year I announced the new system we have applied in the selection of applicants for land under Section 20, particularly on the more thickly populated settlements, and in this regard we are far stricter regarding the selection of candidates than was previously the case. We had a meeting the other day of the superintendents of our settlements and everyone testified, with great joy, to the great improvement which has taken place in the class of person whom they are now obtaining since we introduced this new system. We find far fewer “duds” there. This is also one of the reasons why fewer concessions are made. However, there was another shortcoming in regard to Section 20 and this was that we had far too many failures. These failures were due to various causes. There are natural causes, of course, but I am not talking about the things which nature can do to a farmer. We had too many failures which were due to bad farming methods and the inefficiency of certain persons, to a lack of capital and particularly due to holdings which would not enable even the best farmer to make a living. I immediately tried to make changes. There is the Land Board. These are people with a sound knowledge of practical farming and land values, but who, from the nature of the case, do not have the technical knowledge. For the first time then I laid down the provision that we should call in the assistance of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. However, the hon. member has now come along here with a suggestion that we should also consult the soil conservation committees. I want to give him the assurance that this is a suggestion which I will follow up. I do not wish to commit myself but it is a good idea which I will investigate further.

The hon. member asked whether we do not perhaps make too little money available and whether we should not advance more than R13,000. The strange thing, however, is that immediately after we raised this amount to R13.000, we experienced this decrease in the number of applications. Therefore, it does not appear as though there is any connection between the two things because if we raise the amount in the normal course of events the number of applicants would not decrease but would increase. However, their number decreased. Therefore, I think that the reason for the fewer applications cannot be the fact that the amount which we make available is too small. It must therefore be due to the other reasons which I mentioned. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that the amount which we advance enables many people to farm successfully and he will pardon me if I say that since I have been in this House — and that has been for a very long time — I have not yet attended a debate on the Department of Lands in which no request was forthcoming for the contribution under Section 20 to be increased, and I think that this will always be the case.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is always someone who is very interested in land settlement and who fires a lot of questions at you with extreme rapidity. I tried my best to write down as many of them as I could, but the hon. member speaks faster than I can write, but I think I have most of them and I will try to reply to them as well as I can. In the first place he asked why there was an increase in salaries. I have partly answered that, and the rest is due to the normal increase in commitments with regard to salaries, the normal promotions and annual increments.

Then the hon. member raised the question which he raised last year also, the Boegoeberg-Gariep development on the Orange River. As hon. members know, the old Orange River Scheme was given out in allotments which according to our ideas to-day are far too small. The people who are there are probably the most hard-working farmers we have in the whole of South Africa and they also have less complaints than I get from any other settlement, although their income is lower than that on any other settlement, because of the small allotments. So what we try to do is to increase the size of the plots. We do it in various ways. Where an allotment becomes vacant we split it up between the neighbours, but for the last year or two we have started to develop a new scheme on the northern bank of the Orange River, the Gariep Scheme, and then we said to the people on the south bank that we would move them across to the northern bank where they could get farms about twice the size of their old farms. The new farms are about 12 morgen, which is a very fair-sized farm there. The old ones were six to eight morgen. We were very disappointed in the small number of applicants. We had about 120 farms on the northern side. It seems to me that what happened is that the sons of the farmers on the small plots, seeing that the allotment was too small for the father and the son, the sons have got out and found work somewhere else, and the present holders are mostly older people and they say that at their age they can make a living where they are and they do not want to start a new farm. Nevertheless quite a number did apply and they have been moved across and their farms on the southern side of the river have been split up. So we have managed to do quite a lot.

The hon. member asked what the position was in regard to malaria at Loskop. Sir, in the Republic of South Africa, if a man gets malaria to-day it is his own fault. I remember in 1934 the Railways up to Zululand came to a stop as the result of malaria. Now on many of the sugar plantations up there, when a man gets malaria they treat him, but warn him that if he gets it again he will get the sack, because if he gets it, it is his own fault. For anyone taking any reasonable precautions there is no danger of getting malaria on any of the settlements. The position at Pongola was the same. There was a settlement started at Barberton which had to be abandoned as the result of malaria. To-day that area is free of malaria and the whole Republic is to-day practically free of malaria.

What about bilharzia at Pongola?

Bilharzia is another problem. It is not a problem for Pongola only, but for the whole of Africa, right down from the Nile, and it is coming down the coast. It was never in Natal, but it is there also now, and even in some parts of Pondoland. The wandering Native spreads it. In regard to Rietrivier, the hon. member asked how many have sold out there. I do not know how many have sold out, because the only people who can sell out would be those who have already got ownership. From time to time they sell out, but someone else comes in their place. But I do not think any of the lessess have surrendered their plots, although it might happen as the result of illness or insolvency. But the people there have suffered considerably from drought, because the Rietfontein Dam, which is the second biggest dam in the Republic, was empty. To-day there is about 28 per cent of water in it and that is quite a considerable amount and I foresee that this year the position will be better than last year. As the result of the Orange River Scheme, water will be brought from that river to supplement the water of the Rietriver and when that takes place there ought to be no trouble in regard to water there.

The hon. member asked about Vaalhartz and wanted to know how many people have sold there, and at what price. I cannot say how many people have sold. There are hundreds of people there who have full ownership of their land and sell from time to time, but the prices have been from about R12,000 up to an average of R16,000, and some of them up to R20,000. These people who got very reasonable prices had worked hard and had developed the farms. The bad farms do not sell well but these farms which fetched high prices are farms which have been well-developed and scientifically farmed.

The hon. member raised the question of the drainage at Vaalhartz. He knows that Vaalhartz lies in an enormous basin, and when all the water was let into it, the water-table started rising and it could not get out, and the land of many farmers who had extremely good arable land, was suffocated by too much water. The Department of Irrigation immediately had to start to get the water out again, and eventually it has cost the Department just about as much to get the water out as it cost the Department to get the water into Vaalhartz. [Laughter.] Yes, that is quite true. We therefore had to take certain measures to persuade those people there to use less water. Well, you get to a certain level where you cannot use less otherwise you lose income, but with judicious use of your water you can use less than many people actually use. A few years ago therefore we introduced a scale of payment for water. Where the man had paid a flat rate for water beforehand, so much a year, entitling him to so many inches of water, which was his quota, we now start with a low payment for the first quarter’s allotment of water to him. and it rises very steeply as it gets to the end. At the very top he does not pay anymore actually for his water than he paid before, but he pays considerably less for water actually used, especially at the high level, and the result has been quite remarkable. On some of our settlements we have saved up to 20 and 30 per cent of water.

The hon. member then said that he went to the Hartz River and that he saw a lot of very fine water running away there. We have started a new settlement on the Hartz. I cannot say how many farms there are but there are quite a number of farms there and they are using this water which results from the drainage of Vaalhartz. It is quite good water, it is not brack, and we have quite a nice scheme coming along there where this water is being used for the second time.

Then the hon. member asked me what the average income was at Vaalhartz. The average gross income is about R4,000 per annum. Then he said that he had heard talk that there was a decrease in the total production of farm produce from Vaalhartz. No, on the contrary there has been an increase. Last year I announced here, when my Vote was under discussion, that the total income was R3,500,000, and this year it is just over R4,000,000. I think that with better methods and with the drainage which is taking place there and with the planning which we now have for agricultural methods in the use of their soil, we will be able to push it up considerably.

There is one aspect in connection with farming on Land Board land which I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister and that is in the case where the Department of Lands builds dams for irrigation schemes and where the farms of certain farmers are partially inundated and where the Department of Lands has then to step in to purchase that land from the farmers, as was the case with the Vaal Dam and will probably also be the case with the Sand River and the Vet River. I know that there is dissatisfaction, particularly amongst people in a certain area, part of whose land has been inundated. There is dissatisfaction particularly amongst persons who do not own large tracts of land there. Take for example the case of a man in the district of Frankfort whom I know of. He had about 130 morgen of land on the Wilgerivier and after the Vaal Dam wall was raised—this is not far from the town of Villiers—a portion of his land was inundated and the Department of Lands had of course to step in to purchase it. Thirty morgen of his 130 morgen is arable land, the best part of his land, and it is those 30 morgen which have been inundated. You yourself will realize, Mr. Chairman, that if a man only owns 130 morgen, of which 30 morgen is arable land and the other land is somewhat hilly, and the Department comes along and only purchases those 30 morgen, then the remaining 100 morgen means absolutely nothing to that man in that area because you cannot farm with cattle on 100 morgen of land. I would like to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister and ask that where such cases materialize where land is inundated and where the Department of Lands has to step in to purchase it, special consideration will be given in such cases; that the Department should also purchase the remainder of the land of that farmer on a small scale at an economic price so that he can buy land somewhere else because he simply cannot make a living on the remaining 100 morgen of land.

There is also a question which is an actual problem in agriculture to-day and that is this question of agricultural surpluses. Now that mention has been made of the tackling of the great Orange River scheme, which I want immediately to say has my blessing, I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the possibility of even greater surpluses of certain agricultural products in the future must not be lost sight of and in this connection I wish to put the following points to the hon. the Minister: I imagine that the Department of Lands will be the instrument to purchase that land under the Orange River scheme and also assist in allocating that land once again to farmers to enable them to farm under the closer settlement conditions. Where the hon. the Minister of Lands and the Department of Lands, as a result of the large thickly populated settlements, as a result of this new tendency in South Africa to bring large irrigation schemes into being along all our large rivers, will play just as important a role in the agricultural sphere in South Africa as the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing are playing, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think, with a view to the danger of surpluses, that the time has come for them to put their heads together in order to see whether a plan cannot be evolved in regard to land which is controlled by the Department of Lands in order to ensure—I do not say through the medium of pressure and coercion and I do not say that people must be compelled; this can be done by means of education and persuasion—that agricultural products will be produced on that land which is controlled by the Department of Lands, products of which surpluses are not being produced by the other farmers of South Africa. I think that it is very necessary for the hon. the Minister and the Department of Lands to give their attention to this matter. If it is merely left to the farmers themselves to produce surplus agricultural products on a large scale on the very thickly populated settlements of the future as well, then I do not know whether the Government and the Departments of Agriculture will ever be able to solve this problem of agricultural surpluses because to a large extent already it has become one of the most actual problems in the country. As far as agricultural matters are concerned this can become one of the greatest problems for the Government in South Africa in the future, namely to find a market for these surpluses, and I think that the time has come when all the State Department will have to frame plans in order to overcome this problem. This is only one of the solutions which I suggest to the hon. the Minister of Lands as far as his Department is concerned.

Then there is another case which concerns my own constituency and which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In my constituency there is a school, the Roosevelt Park School. We are building a new large school there and the municipality has asked for more land for the school. The application was granted but we have been informed that the registration of the land which has been purchased is subject to the consent of the Department of Lands. I do not have all the details here; that was all I was told. The school board and the school commission of that school want to have the school built as soon as possible; they have the necessary permission and I would just like to request the hon. the Minister to ask his Department to expedite the matter as much as possible when it reaches the Department. I would appreciate that very much.

I would also like to say a few words about the Riet River scheme which was mentioned by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). I am pleased that the hon. the Minister appreciates the seriousness of the position of the Riet River scheme in the Free State. The settlers there have over the past few years experienced a very difficult time and they still do not have sufficient water. There are people there who can no longer make a living. The hon. the Minister said here that once the Orange River scheme is completed, their difficulties will be solved. However, I can assure the hon. the Minister that unless plans are framed in the meanwhile to keep those people on that land, they will all become bankrupt and will have to leave. I just wanted to bring these few matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

In the past various commissions of inquiry investigated the position of the local farmers at Vaalhartz and certain changes were also made. On my own behalf and on behalf of those farmers who received assistance I wish to express gratitude to the Minister for having sent those commissions there and for the changes which were effected. However, in the course of their investigations the commissions also made certain discoveries, namely that the soil at Vaalhartz had either deteriorated in the course of time or that those people who formerly submitted reports on conditions at Vaalhartz had erred, because, after the most recent investigation by the commissions, certain concessions were made to many farmers at Vaalhartz because their holdings appeared to be uneconomic. Consequently they were granted additional land or even grazing land to enable them to make an economic living. Those people are extremely grateful to the Minister. But what is the mistake which has been made over a period of years? I can mention cases of people who requested the Minister to give them other holdings because in their opinion the holdings they were occupying were uneconomic. Yet, the departmental officials who conducted investigations there, and the commissions who went there, declared that those farmers were on economic holdings. Now, after ten years, the most recent commission who went there recommended that those people who had asked for assistance over a period of ten years, should be given assistance. That proves one of two things. It proves that either the previous commissions or the departmental reports were wrong or it proves that those holdings have deteriorated over a period of years and that they had become uneconomic. If the position were that they had deteriorated over a period of years and had become uneconomic, it means that there is only one thing which can be done in future to prevent us from expecting farmers at Vaalhartz — and I suppose on other settlements as well — to make a living on uneconomic holdings. It means that the Minister will either have to appoint commissions annually to investigate local conditions or appoint a departmental committee annually with instructions to conduct investigations and to ensure that those people are not expected to make a living on uneconomic holdings. One of those two steps will have to be taken. I think the hon. the Minister will readily agree with me that the argument is perfectly logical. It is also true that although many farmers have received assistance, some have not received assistance. It is obvious that those people who have not received assistance are very disappointed because they are convinced that they should have received assistance. I personally am convinced that many did not receive asssistance who should have received assistance. I want to make this further suggestion: The income of farmers should be examined and in cases where farmers ask for additional land, I should, for instance, receive a letter stating that the income of the applicant concerned compares favourably with that of farmers in the neighbourhood. However, we should not only consider his income; we should also consider his costs of production. A farmer’s gross income may be R4,000 or R6,000 per year but his costs of production may be so high that he is left with insufficient to make a decent living. His costs of production should be taken into account. There is also another factor. When incomes are considered, the source of those incomes should also be taken into account. Some farmers have a considerable income but that income is not derived from their holdings. A large number of the farmers at Vaalhartz own machinery to-day — peanut-picking machines or combines to reap their wheat— and when the farmer submits his income he does not show what amount he has earned with his machinery; only the round figures of his income is shown, and it is then taken that income has been earned from his holding That is not the case. The reason why I plead that attention be given to the matter, is that as farmers become more prosperous. more and more of them buy machinery with the result that those who, in the first instance bought machinery for harvesting or picking peanuts, find that their incomes are progressively decreasing as they buy their own machinery, because, in the long run they have to live on what they make out of the soil. We all know that there are small holdings at Vaalhartz. There are holdings of 19 morgen. I think those are the smallest holdings there. If that man does not have another source of income it will become impossible for him to make a decent living. For that reason I wish to plead earnestly with the Minister to see to it that the income returns which are submitted by the farmers at Vaalhartz indicate the source of that income — whether it was earned from the soil alone or whether it was additional income derived from machinery, etc. I think it is essential that the Minister should give serious attention to that matter and I should very much like to have a reply from him on the point I have tried to make, namely, that if the soil of those people who have now acquired additional land is gradually deteriorating, which must be the case unless the previous reports have been wrong …

A farmer can very easily let his soil deteriorate if he farms incorrectly.

Yes, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in most cases, if not all cases, those farmers who retrogressed really acted upon the advice of officials from the regional offices. Many cases have come to my notice and I have personally investigated the farms. The official advises the farmer as to the type of fertilizer to be used and the type of crop to be planted, yet without success. For that reason I should like a reply from the Minister on that point. Then there is the other question of those who farm on a small scale, or the dairy farmers, which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It has been established that those farmers should farm either with Friesland cows or Jersey cows. [Time limit.]

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to certain State land in Zululand for a moment, and that is the land lying below the proposed Pongola Dam, and in this regard I should like to refresh his memory for a moment by referring him to what he said at Riverview in a speech on 19 October 1960, in regard to that matter. The hon. the Minister said this—

It is gratifying to know—and I am quite sure the development would not have taken place without it—that a careful investigation was made into the whole question of this irrigation scheme before it was put into effect at all. Indeed one can hardly expect any responsible Minister embarking on an expenditure of R36,000,000 of public moneys without a careful investigation of the use and every detail of the scheme before it is put into effect. Now, Sir, the scheme has been put into effect and I think the House is entitled to have some details from the hon. the Minister as to what is anticipated in that regard. Is the State land—50,000-odd morgen—to be used for the purpose of the settlement of White farmers or Black farmers as the result of this scheme being put into effect? What crops is it expected will be grown on that land? How big will the plots be? This is the sort of thing which must have been investigated before the scheme was put into effect. Indeed the hon. the Minister went on to say in the same speech to which I have referred—

The hon. the Minister could not have said that there would be 2,000 flourishing farms unless it was known, at that time at least, nearly two years ago, what size the plots would be and whom it was intended to settle on the land. I ask in all earnestness that this Committee be given some information in this regard at this stage: Who the people are it is intended to settle there, what types of farms …

Order! To which scheme is the hon. member referring?

The Pongola scheme.

The hon. member may proceed.

Coming away for a moment from the aspect of the Pongola scheme, I should like to deal with the interdepartmental committee which the Minister has appointed to investigate the future of State land in Natal. That committee was appointed at some time prior to 10 November of last year and I should like the Minister to give this Committee some indication of what progress that committee has made, what investigations it has made, what sort of people it has interviewed, whether it is anywhere near completing its job and when it is expected that committee will report. Furthermore, I should like the Minister to give us an indication as to whether the report of that committee will be made available to this House or to the Press or to any other persons. The committee has been given terms of reference, some of which I referred to at an earlier stage when the Prime Minister’s Vote was under discussion; one of them is that it should investigate the possibility of making available compensatory land in exchange for certain Bantu reserves. I do not ask the hon. the Minister to tell me now what that committee is going to recommend because obviously he cannot do it, but I think I am entitled to put this to the hon. the Minister: What motivated the drawing up of these terms of reference? What was the object of giving this committee terms of reference which necessitated the making available of compensatory land for reserves numbered 1, 2, 13, 15 and 16 in Zululand? Those are the reserves along the coastal strip abutting onto the sea. Is it envisaged that those reserves are to be abolished?

Order! Will the hon. member please refer me to the particular item to which he is referring?

I think the hon. member is in order, Mr. Chairman. This is a committee of the Department which is investigating a certain matter and I think that is in order.

What I should like to know from the Minister, and I am sure the House would like to know, is what was the motivation behind the framing of these terms of reference? Is it envisaged that this coastal strip be created into a White coastal strip, and is it envisaged that the reserves along the coast be done away with?

Then a second term of reference of this committee is the possible changing of the boundaries of some six other reserves. What is the intention behind that? Why is it necessary to give such a term of reference to this particular committee? Those are the factors upon which I think the Minister can enlighten us and I hope that at a later stage of these proceedings he will do so.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Swart) referred to surpluses and he asked the hon. the Minister to devote attention to the type of products which can be produced when holdings are allocated. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member always puts his case in such a calm and quiet manner. Just so that we do not misunderstand one another, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that this is not such an easy task and that many difficulties can be caused thereby. In the first place, I want to ask whether we do not often exaggerate these surpluses. Although I do not wish to deny that at this stage there are very large surpluses which create serious problems, I am not so sure that this is something which will remain such a serious problem in the long run. As far as I am concerned I think that in the development process of South Africa, notwithstanding the tremendous development in the country, the farmers have developed even more swiftly and that this process will probably reach a stage where it can be capitalized upon and where it will be far more easy than it is to-day. Therefore, we must be very careful. I think of what the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G.Bekker) said just now in respect of the small farms at Vaalhartz. Those small farms were intended primarily for dairy farming and at this stage those people are experiencing difficulty because there is also such a large surplus production of dairy products and there are urgent representations to the hon. the Minister to permit them to produce other products as well. If you wish to impose restrictions in respect of what may be produced on settlements, you have to be very careful. Otherwise the matter is made even more difficult, particularly for the settlers. I wish to refer to the position under the Riet River scheme. We know how serious the position of those farmers on that settlement is. I on my part wish to express a particular word of thanks to the hon. the Minister and his Department for the assistance which has been given there recently. The Western Co-operative particularly is now closely concerned in these matters, and has a great deal to do with these matters, and the hon. the Minister has gone out of his way to render assistance in difficult circumstances which nobody could foresee. The matter has not yet been resolved but in the meantime I wish to express my thanks for the efforts which are being made to solve that problem.

There is a new development in progress in respect of settlements. We know now that the State lands have been exhausted and that in reality, apart from the close settlements, all the land which becomes available to a certain type of farmer, a farmer who cannot obtain land from his father or as an inheritance. is made available under Section 30. This has been one of the good sections over the years and a large number of middle-class farmers have been assisted to obtain land under its provisions. Tremendous sums of money have been spent on this scheme. We realize that the development which is now in progress is creating considerable difficulty for the hon. the Minister and the Department. Much land is being purchased which is probably uneconomic, and in many cases the hon. the Minister has had to take certain steps to save a farmer from being doomed to failure. I would like to refer to this matter particularly. We realize that a duty rests upon the Department and the hon. the Minister to ensure that the number of failures of this nature is kept to a minimum. The steps which the hon. the Minister is taking are steps which we welcome in many respects. However, at the same time, if we are not very careful as to how these steps are applied, they can create new problems. The officials of the Department and the officials of the Extension Section which falls under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, are utilized to ascertain whether holdings are economic and whether they can enable a man to make a living or not. We cannot do otherwise than welcome that step but we may find that a technical official who is often a young man who comes from university and takes up his employment has to determine the values, and it is sometimes extremely difficult for him to do so. We want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that such a person should not have the only say in ascertaining whether a holding is economic or not. We want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to make a little more use in this regard of the soil conservation committees. Can they not be of assistance to the technical officer? I am thinking particularly of the young officials and I feel that it is sometimes not desirable that they should have the final say. I can mention a practical example of proclaimed diggings, a farm which will be partially deproclaimed in terms of the recommendation of the Mining Commissioner. If this happens, we will have 400 morgen of land, practically in the heart of our arable areas, which will be deproclaimed, and this land will then be allocated for settlement purposes. According to the Mining Commissioner, the Department contends that this 400 morgen of arable land will not be an economic holding. I do not take it amiss of the hon. the Minister and I realize that it is a difficult problem to solve but what I would like to see is that no single official should have the final say as to whether that holding is economic or not. That is the one problem.

Secondly, I think that in the future we must be far more strict in ensuring not only the holding should be appraised but that the persons who are placed on the holdings should particularly be appraised. All who are farmers know from experience how often a farmer makes a failure of a small farm, or even of a large farm and is eventually left with only a small piece of land, having sold one piece after the other; eventually he only has the small piece left and this he sells to a person just starting out to farm. That new farmer builds up that land and makes a great success of his farm. In other words, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that these two factors carry a great deal of weight and also that the method of the determination of values should be reconsidered and that it should not be left to one person only to decide whether a holding is economic or not. Firstly, therefore, we have the personal element of the farmer. The farmer himself has to be appraised to see whether he will be worthy of the land, whether he has affection for the land and the ability to appreciate the land, to build it up and to make a success of it. [Time limit.]

I was particularly pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister of Lands this afternoon that the lot of the farmers on the southern bank of the Orange River has now been improved and that those holdings have now been enlarged. I think that I have spoken in this regard on various occasions in this House but where the hon. the Minister has been sympathetically disposed in this connection in the past he has not been able to give us the good news which he gave us this afternoon. He stated quite correctly that those people are amongst the most hard-working in the country. It was particularly interesting for me to hear from the hon. the Minister that they are the people who complain least, because if there are people who have reason to complain, it is those people. It says a great deal for their tenacity and also for their courage that they approach the hon. the Minister so seldom.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) and the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) raised the question of what an economic holding is and how one should determine an economic holding. This is also something which gives many settlers much cause for alarm because if they contend in certain cases that their hildings are not economic, the Department so often contends the opposite. That is the form, the method in which it is determined and in regard to which I would like to say something in passing. I think that the hon. the Minister should ask his Department not to supply him with gross income figures in the future but net income figures because the income fluctuates to such an extent …

It is impossible for us to ascertain that.

It ought not to be impossible. The farmer must show his net income for income tax purposes.

Do you do so?

Yes, and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Lands also does so. The hon. the Minister will not put me off in that way. With present day expenses it means hardly anything to come along and tell someone who has any knowledge of farming that the income of a settler is R2,000 or R4,000 per annum. How is the hon. the Minister going to know how those people can make a living when he only knows what their gross income is? Whether it is difficult or not so difficult to ascertain this, I still feel that the net income must be considered and unless this House knows the net income and unless we can be told that a certain amount is the average net income of a farmer on a specific settlement, we will not be able to take a decision on the matter.

There is another matter which I wish to discuss and it deals with Land Boards and the functions of members of the Land Board as such where they are appointed as valuators for the valuation of land. We find that the Land Board values land where expropriation has to take place in connection with the establishment of large irrigation schemes. They are the persons who determine the value of that land and the farmer is paid out on their valuation of the land which will be inundated. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what co-ordination exists in this regard. We have four land boards in South Africa, apart from South West Africa.

There is a Central Land Board.

Yes, but the Central Land Board does not do the valuating. The various Land Boards do the valuating in the various provinces. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what co-ordination there is between the Land Boards as valuating bodies in the various provinces. My experience is that a large number of divergent valuations are made. I find, for example, that in the Cape Province, in Umtata, valuations have been made of farms which have been sold to the Native Trust and these valuations have been reasonable and good ones. Then I find that in other provinces, and the hon. the Minister knows this better than I do because in some provinces he has to make ex-gratia payments, the farmers have many complaints regarding the valuations which are made there. I think at the moment of the one which is closest to me. It is the dam in Northern Natal which has now been completed, the Ingagane Dam. I find that in all the cases which have been brought to my attention where farmers have complaints regarding these valuations such valuations appear to be low, because they tell me that there is no fixed scale of calculation in respect of unimproved land. There is no scale for the valuation of prairie land. Now you find a farmer who has a large piece of land—the holdings in that area are fairly large—he has a large piece of land and the dam is built and the water rises. It rises over the low-lying parts of the farm of that farmer and he is left with hilly land on both sides. He is paid out for grazing rights in respect of that portion which is situated on the low-lying ground because it is regarded as unimproved land. He used it for grazing purposes. However, in that portion lies his most valuable land, the low-lying portions of his farm. They have the real carrying-capacity. It is those parts which are best in time of drought. However, that land is now valued as ordinary grazing land and that farmer is paid out on the basis of ordinary grazing land. The best part of his farm is lost to him and he is left with ridges on both sides which have not been inundated. In the case of one well-known farmer, a leading Nationalist, he was cut off from his water supply on that farm. Where a dam is built the dam is fenced off and the catchment area is also fenced off. This must be done to keep the water clean and pure. That farmer of whom I am now speaking finds himself with two sections of his farm to-day, one on each side, whereas the low-lying area, the central section, has been expropriated for that dam. He was paid out, or rather, he will receive compensation on that basis. He has not yet received compensation because he is a wealthy man and he is going to take his case to the Water Court. However, that is my difficulty, namely, that where Land Boards make valuations they do not consider all the factors and circumstances. A farmer who has his best land inundated in this way ought to be compensated accordingly and that land ought not to be regarded as just ordinary grazing land.

This brings me to my second point and that is that under the present water legislation the right to arbitration has been suspended. If a farmer experiences difficulty now, he has to go to the Water Court. I spoke just now of a farmer whose best land had been inundated and who is going to take the case to the Water Court. The case has still to come up. However, in that same area we have the neighbour of that farmer whom I have just mentioned. This neighbour of his is a widow with 230 morgen, a small piece of land for that part of the world, and she too was given a valuation which to my mind was far too low. However, the poor woman does not have the money to go to the Water Court, nor does she have the knowledge. She is lost. There is nobody to tell her what she can do. She has been given a valuation for her land and there is nothing that she can do in that regard. [Time limit.]

I would like to return to the report of the Secretary, paragraph 4, the grants in terms of section 20 of the Land Settlement Act. He says here—

Then he gives three main reasons for this. The hon. the Minister has mentioned some of them already but for the purpose of my speech I would like to mention them as they appear in the Report—

I would like to add a fourth reason to these and I think that I would give this reason as the most important one. According to my practical experience the main reason why this important section has become practically immobile and why the number of applications has decreased, is that the amount of the advance to-day is inadequate for the purchase of an economic holding.

Did you hear my reply in that regard?

Yes, but I want to make this point and then come back to it. The hon. the Minister gave us a reply but I want to put it to him that this section, in the times in which we live, has become the most important section by means of which young, deserving farmers, whose parents are not able to leave them a farm, have managed to scrape together sufficient from their own earnings to enable them to make a large contribution towards the purchase price of a holding and to become land owners, are given the opportunity so to become land owners. In the past large areas of State land were available and as the State made those parts which had no water suitable for farming by drilling for water, prospective farmers were assisted to acquire land. By so doing there was always the opportunity for our younger farmers to obtain land. That State land has now been exhausted to a very large extent. Then another source of supply came to light in the form of large pieces of company land where companies purchased land for mineral purposes in the old days and later sold the land to the State for settlement purposes. That type of land is also no longer available. Therefore, this section which has always been regarded by all Governments as being the best under the Land Settlement Act, has now become the most important section. We now know that land is still allocated under irrigation schemes, but we know that this is almost the same as taking a lottery ticket: Thousands take tickets but only one can win the prize. The result is to-day that there is no hope for the young farmer to be assisted on an irrigation scheme. It is only the few fortunate ones who are successful. I contend that we have to face up to this position. We have to deal with rising land prices and as land becomes scarcer we must consider how we can assist this type of young farmer to obtain land. You know, Mr. Chairman, that the man who can leave a farm to his son to-day is fortunate and the son is fortunate. But I want to make the point that in South Africa it has never been the farmer whom you could rely upon most who inherited that farm. The man who built up that farm out of his own earnings and through his tireless hard work to the stage where he could make something out of it, was the man on whom you could rely. We speak a great deal about economic holdings—I will almost say that we juggle with it. Mr. Chairman, give the right man a small piece of land to start with and he will eventually buy out his neighbours. That is our experience and is a reality.

He must, however, have sufficient money to be able to make a start.

Give him a chance and he will make the money. I do not want the hon. the Minister to follow the policy of giving land of any size but I am stating a particular fact. I want to make a strong recommendation to the hon. the Minister that we must not move along five years behind the development. Let us go forward with development and let us enable this type of farmer to obtain his own land. It is very difficult today to be a farmer even if you have your own farm but it it almost impossible if you have to cultivate a share, in many cases a halfshare. Will it not pay us to assist a man who fights in this way to make a living to obtain his own land? I know of farmers who in some years have to pay about R4,000 to the owner of the farm in the form of shares. Why should they not rather use that money to pay off their own land? This is a very urgent requirement. I can give you the assurance that members of Parliament on both sides of the House are greatly impressed by the fact that you cannot buy an economic holding with that advance of R13,000 to-day in the dry areas where there is no irrigation. Take for example 350 morgen in the Western Transvaal. You will perhaps say that this is a very small holding, almost uneconomic. However, I know that it is large enough if you have the proper man to run it. However, you will not obtain that land for R80 a morgen. That land would then cost you R28,000 even at that rate, and we only give an advance of R13,000. Therefore, a transaction in that part of the country cannot go through. Take a district like Mafeking in my constituency where one can practise crop and mixed farming reasonably well. There they ask R40 a morgen but the Land Board will not approve of land which is smaller in extent that 600 morgen because then they regard it as being uneconomic. However, that land will then cost you £12,000 or R24,000; I can mention the district of Vryburg where land in some areas costs R24 a morgen to-day. There one can still resort to crop farming to some extent but cattle farming is the best. You need not less than 1,000 morgen there for an economic holding and this will cost you £12,000 or R24,000.

How many head of stock per morgen?

It depends upon how much fodder a farmer can produce. It may be the usual five morgen per ox but it depends upon the type of farming one practises. If a farmer produces fodder for his animals he can keep far more animals. The size of the land and whether it is an economic unit also depends upon the type of farming which that farmer practises. If he practises cattle farming on the veld in the usual way he needs a far larger amount of land than when he sells cream of delivers milk to a cheese factory. However, then he needs land on which he can produce his fodder. I want to plead most urgently with the hon. the Minister not to allow this Section 20, the old section 11, to fall into disuse. This is the best section. A man who contributes one-tenth is not going to allow that land to leave his possession easily. If a man has invested a few thousand rand which he has really worked for in a land transaction, he is going to struggle and fight to the utmost to make a success of his farming operations, and this has also been proved to us in the past. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, there are a few matters which I would like to bring to your attention. The first is in connection with the policy concerning temporary settlers. From time to time the Department purchases land or land is purchased on behalf of the State and that land then falls under the Department of Lands. Temporary settlers or overseers are then appointed on that land. My question is Is it still the policy of the hon. the Minister that when such an overseer has to be appointed the post is advertised so that there is some measure of competition and not simply to appoint the first man to make application? It so happens that under the Vaal Dam the temporary settlers also eventually became full settlers. So that man who is on the land does indeed have an advantage over other applicants. I should like to know, therefore, whether there will still be that measure of free competition, in other words, that the appointment will only be made after the post has been advertised.

This brings me to my second point. It is a rule under the Land Settlement Act that a settler who has obtained land cannot ask for transfer of that land until he has occupied and farmed that land for five years. It does sometimes happen that before the five-year period has elapsed a settler is unable to continue with his farming operations.

Is that under Section 20?

Under all the sections.

Under the others the period is ten years.

We can treat ten years and five years in the same way for the purpose of the point that I want to make. Such a settler is unable to carry on. It sometimes happens that a very old man obtains the land. He becomes ill and cannot continue farming, or there is another reason why he wishes to give the land back or transfer it to someone else. I would like to know whether it is still the policy that in such a case the land will be taken back by the Department and again be released for free competition so that applications can be submitted and so that the land will not be transferred directly from one settler to another. If that is done, then the clause which forbids this will indeed amount to nothing because then the transfer of such land would result in speculation.

I come now to the third question that I want to ask. A number of small holdings have already been allocated under the Sand-Vet scheme. I would like to know when further small holdings will again be allocated, what the size of those small holdings will be and whether the people living in the Free State will receive preference in the allocation of those small-holdings. A further question is this now that the Orange River scheme has been announced: You will remember that there are a large number of settlers on the Riet River who have not had sufficient water. This has been the case for a very long time. A number of the smallholdings under the Riet River scheme could not be farmed successfully. I would like to know whether under the Orange River scheme sufficient water will be made available in the Riet River to supply all the settlers under that scheme with sufficient water?

Order! No provision appears under this Vote for an Orange River scheme.

In any case I have already asked the question. It is too late now. A further question which I wish to ask is in connection with the annual report of the Department. I understand that the annual report will no longer be appearing. I am sorry that such a decision has been taken. The annual report is of particular value to us because it makes us au fait with what is going on in the Department, how the Department is developing, and it is of great importance to us to see the amount of success achieved by the various settlement schemes. In this connection I would like to ask a question regarding the new land inspectors. You will remember that last year a new system was introduced. The old system was abolished and we now have inspectors who are appointed, all of whom fall under the Public Service. I would like to ask whether that scheme is really a success because I have information that the man who now has to operate in the Free State, and in my constituency as well, only arrives there once every six months, if ever. One never sees him. That man simply cannot cope with the work any longer. I would like to know whether more posts are going to be created under the Public Service to make an adequate number of inspectors available.

I come now to the last point which I wish to raise and this affects the land board valuators: it is a matter which was also raised by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). I want to agree with her. It is a wonder that I agree with her because I usually differ from her. I am compelled today, however, to agree with her because I have had experience in this regard. The land boards which we appoint, so it appears to me, do the valuations for the Department of Lands, inter alia for purchases under Section 20. When this is done there is apparently one type of valuation because then the person involved has to contribute one-tenth. The valuation is then at its very lowest and, usually the man cannot obtain sufficient money to purchase the land because the price asked by the man wishing to sell is higher than the valuation. In other words, there the valuation is always as conservative as possible. However, as a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission I also come into contact with that aspect of the matter. What surprises me is that this same land board, when a farmer wishing to purchase the land is affected, acts so conservatively that it does not value the land properly. But when Bantu Affairs has to pay for that land, then the price shoots sky-high. I want to say that it is to the advantage to the farmers to sell because then they receive a good price.[ want to admit that honestly. But I simply do not want so many yardsticks to be used. Here we have two yardsticks which are used and there is a further one. I have had personal experience of this. I had land in connection with which the Department of Water Affairs had to compensate me for a servitude. In this case the land board also made the valuation and once again their valuation was an extremely conservative one. In this respect I feel very concerned about the fact that the land boards, apparently have various yardsticks for the valuation of land. On the other hand I wish to laud the valuators of the Land Bank in this connection. They have a fixed yardstick, a yardstick which is more or less the same in all the provinces and which is reasonably uniform in each province. I have already found that the Land Bank valuations have also differed in the same province. I want to ask that the Land Bank yardstick should be used; that is to say that the grazing value, the reasonable animal husbandry value and the agricultural value, and also the improvements, should be properly valued according to the system which the Land Bank valuators have. I may just say that the Land Bank valuators are appointed but they also receive reasonable instructions in regard to their method of valuation and the Land Bank also ensures that those instructions are carried out to the letter. This cannot always be said of the land boards. I am sorry that I have to criticize them in this respect but I think that it is necessary as a protection. In this I also find one of the reasons why fewer and fewer purchases are taking place under this Section 20. It is because the valuations are not correct; they are unrealistic and highly imaginary. It is the same people who make the valuation who have to recommend whether that land should be purchased or not. I feel that the hon. the Minister should have an investigation instituted in connection with these matters.

I have nothing to say in regard to what was said by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) because those were questions which he put to the hon. the Minister. However, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) and his plea that the amount which is made available for purchases under Section 20. with the one-tenth contribution, should be increased. I do this in pursuance of a report which is known to all of us generally as the report of the Commission of Inquiry on European Occupation of the Rural Areas. In paragraph 380 on page 43 the Commission states very clearly—

When it was still that figure; it is higher now—

In other words, R20,000—

That shows that this Commission gave its thorough attention to this problem and felt that something more should be done to attract those people back to the land. The hon. member for Vryburg is quite right when he says that it is this type of man who is going to become the most important farmer of the future. We are not so much interested in the man who has to be assisted completely right from the start. But we are interested in the man who has already achieved something and who wishes to go further and who can be assisted under this Section 20 through the medium of his one-tenth contribution, if the amount can be increased in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) where he made a plea in connection with the position at Vaalhartz. I think Vaalhartz is more or less similar to all the irrigation schemes throughout South Africa. The hon. member made out a good case in respect of the extremely high production costs. In his reply to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) the hon. the Minister merely spoke about the supply of water, drainage and so forth, and he said that the farmers were no longer using so much water there. Let me tell the hon. the Minister what one of the reasons for the increased production costs is. There has been an increase in the amount which they have to pay for water to-day and this is one of the most important reasons why productions costs have risen to such an extent. I do not think that the hon. the Minister created the impression that there had been no increase in their water tariffs, but if that where the case, I would just like to say that it was completely incorrect. I would like to show the hon. the Minister how the water tariffs of those people have risen and how this has assisted in causing their production costs to rise over the past few years. Up to 31 March 1957, they paid R2 per morgen per year. This amounted to R60 per year for 30 morgen. In April 1958, this amount was raised when the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs came to light with the increased tariff. In April 1959 it was raised again. To-day it is the equivalent of R4.25 per morgen per year if the full quota of 64 cusec-hours per year is utilized. A tremendous increase in the production costs of these people has therefore takenplace over the past few years. My question to the hon. the Minister, and this is also the question of many of the irrigation farmers, is this: They say that they are not protected by the Department of Lands when it comes to the question of an increase in the tariffs. They say that the water tariffs are left to the Department of Water Affairs and they and their problems are not adequately considered.

Why do you not raise this matter under Irrigation?

I know it falls under Irrigation but I mention it in pursuance of the increase in the production costs of those people. This is one of the most important items and their argument is that the Department of Lands, when it comes to negotiations with the Department of Water Affairs regarding the raising of water tariffs, must give thorough attention to the position of those farmers. These tariffs were increased on 1 April 1957; they were increased again on 1 April 1958, and they were increased once more on 1 April 1959. There were three or four increases over a matter of a few years. We must understand therefore that the production costs of these people have increased very considerably.

What is it per morgen at the moment?

At the moment it is R4.25 per morgen per annum. Up to 1 April 1957, it was R2 per morgen per year. I have previously told the hon. the Minister about this and I want to repeat it to-day. There are people who have obtained uneconomic holdings under Vaalhartz. They are not so much uneconomic from the point of view that these people did not obtain sufficient land. They did receive sufficient land. Just to mention an example, instead of 30 morgen the man received 38 morgen. Thirty morgen is regarded as being uneconomic and therefore he received a bigger piece of land, namely 38 morgen. However, 8 morgen may perhaps lie on a slope and this land is difficult to irrigate. On the other hand there may be one type of small-holding where there is a very large quantity of water and the drainage is poor, and it is in a case of that kind that the owner of that small-holding may have received those extra morgen. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why cannot those people who have such small-holdings be adequately assisted? They will have to pay for the extra service which is given to them by the Department. The Department has machinery at its disposal so why cannot it assist those people to level out those 8 morgen which lie on a slope so that land can be put into production?

You are completely wrong now.

I am not wrong. Why cannot the Department of Lands assist those people? The Department helps them with drainage work, does it not? I know of smallholdings under Vaalhartz where over the past two or three years large drainage furrows have been laid by the Department.

That is done by the Department of Irrigation and not by the Department of Lands.

Are you opposed to it?

No, I am making a plea for those people. I ask that the man who, for example, has 38 morgen of land, 8 morgen of which cannot be farmed because the land cannot be properly irrigated, should be assisted by the Department to level that land.

His maximum is 30.

I know his maximum is 30 but he can pay for that and those 8 morgen can be brought into production in the proper way. Does the hon. member for Kimberley (North) want that land to lie there without being used?

You do not know what you are talking about.

Now the hon. member says that I do not know what I am talking about. Let me tell him that I have a small-holding under Vaalhartz and I know what I am talking about because people make these representations to us. That is why I am asking whether there is no method or means which can be used by the Government so that land which is not in production at the moment but which falls within the holding of such a person can be brought into production properly. I have experience of this. The farmer may perhaps be able to utilize sprinkler irrigation on that land. He has water for 30 morgen and by way of sprinkler irrigation he may also perhaps be able to farm the remaining 8 morgen. But, Mr. Chairman, these people must also be permitted to have extra water.

That is the difficulty.

I know that is the difficulty of the hon. the Minister. It is the main difficulty. However, in view particularly of the experience which we have had in the past in the laying out of these settlements, we must see to it, especially when we establish these very large schemes in the future, that we do not again make the same mistake of placing these people in the position of having to farm on uneconomic holdings. I say that a small-holding, just like a farm, must have reserves that one can draw upon. If we are going to permit people to take the maximum from that land in order by so doing to make an economic living, without leaving any reserves to draw upon on that farm or smallholding, it will not be to the benefit of the country. It is not in the interests of the farmer either.

I would like to bring a further matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. When these new irrigation schemes are laid out and settlements are established we must not simply think in terms of settlers being placed on that land. We must also set aside large portions of that land to enable the stock farmer, for example, to be in a position to obtain a piece of land there so that he can cultivate fodder for his own use. For example, to make all the land which will be available under the Orange River scheme, the 350,000 morgen …

370,000.

Whatever it may be. We must not give all that land to settlers. We must also think of the thousands and thousands of stock farmers who find themselves in difficulty from time to time because they do not have their own fodder bank and their own lands. Where those parts will be in the central Karoo, in the north-west and the Eastern Province, we must make those facilities available for people to obtain that type of land. Because, Mr. Chairman, it has also been proved that some of the large-scale farmers who have, for example, purchased land under Vaalhartz, are not going to exhaust that land. No, they have invested many thousands of rand in that land and assisted in the development of that area. They have applied the best farming methods and by so doing have also supplied themselves with a reasonable quantity of fodder. We must encourage this and assist it. Mr. Chairman, we have made so many mistakes in the past with our settlement schemes, with those 7 and 8 morgen which the hon. the Minister mentioned, that we are all grateful that the number of morgen will now be increased. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I readily agree with the hon. the Minister where he said that the decline in the number of applications under section 20 was due to the fact that many farmers or applicants were applying to the Land Bank for loans. I personally. think, however, that the reason for the decline in the number of applications and grants is due to the fact that the maximum grant of R13,000 which the Board can grant an applicant cannot be reconciled with the requirements of the Land Board as to what constitutes an economic unit. In particular, it cannot be reconciled with the higher requirements which the extension and technical officers lay down to-day under their high valuation formulae. There is a conflicting element: On the one hand you have the small amount which the Government is willing to contribute and on the other hand you have the high demands as to what constitutes an economic unit, a unit which will be approved when application is made. Let me prove that by way of a small calculation. Irrigation land is generally valued at R400 per morgen. With R13,000 you can therefore buy 32.5 morgen. It sounds well and good on paper but in reality no irrigable land which can be cultivated intensively can be bought under any good irrigation scheme for less than R1,000 or R2,000 per morgen. In other words, only 13 morgen will normally be available for that amount. Therefore it can hardly be expected that applicants will come forward because the land is not available. Secondly, dry land for sowing purposes is reasonably available in the maize triangle and elsewhere at R100 per morgen. That gives an applicant 130 morgen within the limits of the grant, but in reality land is not available in the best parts of the maize triangle at R100 a morgen either. The position of the applicant is therefore aggravated and those parts are closed to him. The The only farms which are available to an applicant are those farms where extensive farming is practiced. He may try to purchase farms at perhaps R20 per morgen in those areas. That will provide him with 650 morgen for extensive cattle farming. But in that case the 650 morgen farm on which extensive cattle farming is carried on is no longer a unit, and he applies in vain for it. Experience in general shows that the typical farm for which the young man and the farmer, who have a craving for land, applies, is the farm on which he can conduct mixed farming operations; five to six morgen under irrigation, fifty to a hundred morgen on which he grows crops, and the balance grazing land. Those farms are four, five, six, up to seven hundred morgen in extent. However, my experience in Marico has been that it is no good an applicant applying for these farms to-day, because they have been written off as being uneconomic.

That leads me to conclude that a suggestion which I have already made to the Minister in a speech on a previous occasion in this House, should once again be considered, namely that the maximum grant should at least be increased to R20,000. I am not in favour of a particularly high maximum because that may have an inflationary effect on land prices, especially land at settlements and other irrigation land. But the present maximum gets us nowhere and I am convinced that applications under Section 20 will continue to decline and that type of young farmer to whom the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) has referred, will come less and less into consideration.

I want to hurry and bring a few other small matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I suggest that when an application is refused, the Department should not notify the seller as well. Because that often embarrasses the applicant who has obtained an option from the seller because in that case the seller may withdraw the option. In that event the buyer who could perhaps have made some other plan, loses his opportunity of approaching the Board once again or of even trying to raise a loan with the Land Bank because his option has been cancelled.

The following matter which is of importance, is that in all cases preference should be given to applicants who apply for small units of farms which have been cut up with the object of consolidation. That will encourage farmers to consolidate small uneconomic units.

Finally, I want to address a word of thanks to the officials who are present in this House. I wish to thank them for the expeditious manner in which they have dealt with the agreements of sale in respect of those farms which the farmers in the north western corner of the Marico District have offered to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. It is the duty of the Department of Lands, to value that land and to negotiate with the sellers who offer farms to the Department of Bantu Administration as compensatory land for the removal of black spots. Where sellers have objected the land has been satisfactorily revalued and we are deeply grateful to them for that. In conclusion, applicants complain bitterly about the delay in dealing with applications and I wonder whether it is not possible to oil the machinery a little so that applications can be dealt with more expeditiously.

I should like to say a few words about the Sand-Vet River Scheme near the Free State Goldfields. Actually, I want to direct a request to the Minister, and at the same time I want to congratulate him on a scheme which promises to be a great success and a great asset, not only to the Free State but to the whole country. I would like to know from the Minister whether it is not possible that when applicants are selected applicants from the immediate vicinity will receive particularly sympathetic attention. I should like to mention two groups. I have in mind the people who were born and grew up there, whose parents went there as pioneers and made the country habitable. One feels that their descendants surely have the right to feel that they can share in the developments taking place there now. But apart from that, I think it is obvious that a person who has lived there for years and who knows the local conditions should make a good settler. As far as I am concerned, that is a principle which should apply to all schemes and I should like the Minister to consider it.

The other group are the miners there. There is a saying that once a miner, always a miner, and that is quite true in some cases, but it is equally true that there are many miners who should really have been farmers and who work in the mines simply because they cannot help themselves. Therefore I want to say that it is quite possible that this scheme would not have been in operation already and would perhaps never have been established if it were not for the fact that gold mines were developed in that area. I can understand it if the miner feels that to some extent he had a share in the establishment of the scheme, and when he goes home from work he gets the smell of ploughed lands. Therefore I urgently want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible, perhaps by way of a gentleman’s agreement that when applications are received the local applicant should receive a little extra consideration over the others, although I will not say that he must always get preference.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister a matter which I have already raised with his Department. It is the question of making available land belonging to the Department of Lands to drought-stricken farmers. These people are sympathetic in regard to the matter, and one does not like to see available grazing not being used while people are in trouble. But there are certain problems connected to the matter. In the first place the Department of Lands normally does not like to give consent for such land to be rented to these people, but the practical problem is that the farmers want to hire the land of the probationer tenants, who do not like to lease it because the grazing is limited, and also because the rentals have to be paid to the State. I should like the Minister to consider giving the probationer tenants of this land the right to sublet and to receive compensation for it, because unless they receive the compensation they are not inclined to lease those lands to the people who need the grazing. I shall be glad if the Minister will give attention to that. There are certain lands which are leased by the Department on a temporary basis, and farmers have made inquiries from me and have said that the probationer tenants are prepared to lease the land to them but that they are reluctant in view of the fact that they must first apply to the Department and that the proceeds of the rental have to be paid directly to the Department. I hope that a concession can be made so that whilst there is an emergency there will not be grazing which is not utilized.

I should like to bring two matters pertinently to the notice of the Minister. The first is of a local nature, and as long as I and the Minister are here and Sterkrivier exists we will never stop talking about it. We have the settlement at Sterkrivier in my constituency, where the farmers enjoy some measure of stability as the result of the fact that they farm there intensively under irrigation. It is true that they also suffer from the vagaries of nature over which we have no control, but we have always maintained that granting them 20 morgen of land under irrigation there is not enough in view of the fact that the soil is very poor. There is sand, clay and stony land. I am at liberty to say so in view of the fact that I clearly remember that last year, when referring to Sterkrivier, the Minister said that it was one of our weakest settlements, not because we have weak farmers there but because of the quality of the soil there, and that is true. We have received requests to consolidate the land and to remove some of the tenants from the poorer plots (and here I am thinking of 101 to 105, where changes have already been made), and to give them more land, something which is very difficult to do on the Sterkrivier Settlement unless one turns two plots into one, which will surely be very uneconomic to the State.

The matter I wish to raise is the purchase of those plots. After the lapse of seven years the time has now arrived when the first tenants are receiving letters saying that they can exercise the option to purchase, and I must bring it to the notice of the Minister that several of the dams there are leaking, and for two or three years experiments have been made to discover the difficulty and how to remedy it. There are two possible ways of getting out of this difficulty, namely to fix a lower purchase price and then to grant those tenants a loan to enable them to repair the dams themselves, or otherwise to repair the dams soon and then to fix the purchase price so that the tenants can exercise their option to purchase. I hope and trust that when the prices are finally determined it will be borne in mind that these are small plots of only 20 scheduled morgen and that the soil is very poor. We are all of opinion that the sum of R6,000, which is now hanging in the air somewhat in regard to the prices there, is possibly on the high side. It is essential to have experimental plots there on the poorest holdings in order to give further guidance to the farmers.

I just want to point out further that in regard to land purchased under Section 20. I want to make a more general statement, that as the result of circumstances over which the farmers have no control it has happened during the last few years that an increasing number of tenants on those plots are in arrear for one or two or three or four years, and when they are in arrears for four years the Minister has no option but to cancel the lease. Then it is sometimes done in such a way that the man is kept in suspense and we tell him: Pay half of one instalment now so that you fall just within the four-year period, and you will not quite strangle to death because your feet will just be touching the ground, and when that period is over you must pay another instalment so that you are only 3½ years in arrear, but just be careful of the four-year period because then the Minister has no choice and must cancel. But things have now gone so far that I should like to know what percentage of those tenants are in arrear for the third and fourth years, something which causes me and the Minister and the Department headaches. We must continually assist those people. I think we have perhaps come to the stage where I should make a very drastic suggestion to the Minister, namely whether we should not still during this Session go so far as to pass a law to consolidate their debts, as I think was done in 1925 and 1931, in order to give these people a chance to begin again with a clean slate in regard to the payment of interest and capital, so that they will have a clear four-year period before them and will not continually feel demoralized as the result of knowing that they are staying on those plots only out of charity and that to-morrow or the next day they will have to get out.

I wanted to bring these few matters to the notice of the Minister and again to express my thanks for the fact that after having had so much trouble in regard to Sterkrivier, as the result of the fact that these plots are uneconomic units, the Minister told me in the lobby that he would visit Sterkrivier after the Session, and I wrote to the Superintendent and the leading inhabitants there and they were gratified to hear that the Minister will visit the settlement and that we will be able to discuss these problems with each other. I wish to thank the Minister heartily for that.

The Minister mentioned here that in recent years there were fewer applications for land under Section 20. I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister that there is one matter which causes much difficulty. Formerly an applicant had to obtain a three months’ option from the owner of the land, and that was increased to four months. I know that the reason why it was increased to four months is to give the extension officer the opportunity thoroughly to ascertain whether that plot is an economic one, and I agree that this is very necessary. But I want to appeal that the rule should be applied more stringently and that the extension officer should use a slightly stricter yardstick before saying that it is an economic unit. But it now happens that the owner gives a four months’ option, and the four months expire without the applicant knowing whether his application has been granted, and that causes the owners much concern. I have a case here where the four months' option expired on 15 March, and when I went home recently, neither the applicant nor the owner of the land knew yet whether the purchase had been approved or not, with the result that owners of land are becoming hesitant because the matter takes so long. Now I realize that the Minister is in a difficulty. I know that there are not always enough extension officers, but that is one of the reasons why landowners are not keen on granting options.

Then I want to plead with the Minister not to give heed to the plea of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) that the people in the vicinity of the Sand-Vet scheme shouldreceive preference, because what do they know about irrigation? They know as little about irrigation as do the Bethlehem farmers who apply. Therefore I hope the Minister will adhere to his policy that an irrigation scheme is intended for all the applicants throughout the Republic. I also want to ask the Minister not to give heed to the plea of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that he should adopt the Land Bank basis. We know the Land Bank is very conservative, and I want to point out to the Minister that the Land Bank generally assists farmers to acquire the larger properties, and that the one-tenth Land Board farms for which the applicants apply are usually the smaller properties which are obviously generally more expensive than the large farms. I just wanted to bring these two matters to the notice of the Minister and I hope he will give heed to my request.

I wish to exchange a few ideas with the hon. the Minister in connection with the acquisition of land and the screening of applicants under Sections 20 and 23. So far the experience has been that a considerable number of applications are refused under Section 20 because the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services decide that the land is uneconomic. Hence we are grateful to the Minister for having indicated to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) that the assistance of the local soil conservation committees should also be called in on account of their more extensive knowledge of that type of land and of local conditions.

I said I would consider it.

Yes, and we are grateful to you for that. As far as the screening of applicants on the settlements is concerned, you get the impression, Sir, that according to the yardstick used by the Department to-day, particular emphasis is laid on the possessions which the applicant has at the moment. The attitude is that the applicant should have capital to tide him over any difficult period which he may experience. We wish to point out that if that is the position it will be impossible for a far greater number of deserving applicants to qualify because the position to-day is that the very poor man cannot go anywhere else than to the Department of Lands to get land. That is why I wish to plead with the Minister to arrange his Department in such a way that those people will qualify, even though they have no cash or have very few possessions, because we cannot get away from the fact that if we over-emphasize the question of possessions or assets, it will mean that the idea of rehabilitating those people, which has always been the objective of the Department, something of which we are very proud and which is also so essential, will disappear. That is why we will greatly appreciate it if less emphasis were placed on that aspect when it comes to the screening of applicants.

I should also like to refer to the problems which the welfare section experiences at the Loskop settlement. To sketch the background briefly, you have a number of farmers each with six morgen of land. It is true that those people are not physically 100 per cent able and hence the fact that special provision has to be made for them. But it is equally true that numbers of six-morgen plots are uneconomic or sub-economic as a result of conditions beyond the control of the Department and some of those holdings have been lying vacant for years. We wish to plead with the Minister that where there are vacant plots which can be used partly, they should be made available to other tenants who are there at the moment and who normally cannot make a living, to sow one or two crops, or to tenants who do not reap sufficient crops on their six-morgen holdings.

We also wish to suggest something else, and that is that those holdings with infertile soil, should be enlarged by adding the fertile portions of those which are sub-economic or 50 per cent economic, thus making a holding of perhaps nine morgen available to the more deserving cases. However, we also wish to put forward a more revolutionary suggestion and it is this, that in the more deserving cases those farmers who cannot re-enter the agricultural industry in any other way, the hope should be held out to them that they can one day ultimately own that land. Otherwise those people have no hope for the future on account of their physical inability to qualify for holdings on the closer settlements which are established from time to time. In that case the possibility will at least exist for those people to cultivate their smaller holdings beneficially and to own them at a later stage.

As I have already indicated we are dealing with people who suffer from physical defects and in many cases from mental defects hence the fact that the settlement was originally placed under the Department of Social Welfare. We wish to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to add to the list of services rendered by the Department, a social service to be rendered to those people. Our experience has been that some of those people can be rehabilitated and absorbed into society as useful citizens. Just as provision is made in its list of services for a nurse or for a medical service, we wish to plead that a social welfare worker should also be appointed. At the moment the Pretoria office of the Department of Social Welfare renders that service but the discussions which I have had with that Department lead me to believe that they cannot perform that service properly on account of the scope of the work and the distance.

As far as the medical services which the Department makes available to-day are concerned. I wish to point out—and this is a fact—that the district surgeon renders the necessary medical service but if prescriptions are given and medicine has to be obtained from a chemist, those people are unable to obtain those. Many of them have no credit with the trades people and they cannot obtain the medicine in any other way. We wish to know whether arrangements cannot be made administratively with a local chemist to provide those settlers with medicine because we feel that this is an important aspect which deserves the attention of the Minister.

Furthermore we have the position that settlers are provided with agricultural requirements. Agricultural requirements such as seed, fertilizer, etc., are provided. At present the Department provides those things from elsewhere and it often happens that the grain bags, spades, seed, screws and nails which those people get, are more expensive than the product which is locally available. I am not blaming anybody for that but it is a fact that those people sometimes have to pay more for those articles than they would have paid for them locally. We should like to ask that administrative arrangements be made whereby those articles can be provided departmentally or else be obtained locally. That is why we ask the hon. the Minister to give those few points his attention.

Finally I wish to refer to one aspect as far as the broad policy of the Department is concerned. We have the position to-day that on the closer settlements and in specific circumstances loans of approximately R400 are available to assist farmers in cases where holdings of approximately 30 morgen are available. But you have the Section 20 farmers who farm from 200 to 300 morgen and no other loan other than this loan of R400 is available to them, and as you know, Sir, those people do not qualify for loans under State Advances, nor can they get assistance from any other Department. They are solely dependent on the Department of Lands and because there is such a great difference between the farming operations of the settler and the Section 20 tenant, we wish to know whether it is not possible to increase the loan of the Land Board tenant to R600 per tenant, in order to bring the position into line with the assistance which other farmers receive from State Advances. That will enable the farmer with the greater responsibilities and the bigger area to cultivate to conduct his farming operations on a proper basis.

I must thank hon. members most heartily for the helpful way in which they have discussed this Vote. I want to give them the assurance that many of these matters which are of a local nature will receive our full attention. I do not think hon. members expect me to deal with each of these matters, particularly not the last one. Some matters have been raised, however, which are of more general interest and to which I want to reply. I do not propose to reply to each of the members individually, because important matters have been raised by many members, and it would take too long if I were to refer to the speech of every individual member. There is, for example, the important point which has been raised that we should also place mine-workers on our settlements because they made a contribution to the settlements. Well, if we start doing that, then the important question also arises whether we should not also allocate land to teachers because after all they did train the children in order to equip them to be placed on these settlements. And then the question also arises whether we should not allow ministers of religion because after all they prepare the settlers so that they can get an even better plot in the life hereafter. I just want to say therefore that once one starts with this thing, the possibilities are endless, and we would have some rare settlements if we wanted to please everybody.

Another question that has been raised is in connection with the purchase of land in areas where we construct dams, and that is that we should not cut up a man’s land in such a way that he is no longer able to make a living out of it. I just want to say again to the hon. member who raised this matter that is the rule that we follow; where we expropriate land from a person to construct a dam and the rest of his farm is not big enough to enable him to make a decent living on it—if it partially dismembers his farm—our fixed policy is to buy out the whole of the farm, and then we take the remaining pieces of land surrounding the dam and cut them up into small-holdings for allotment.

Another important matter which has been raised by quite a few members who are farmers is the question of surpluses. A certain amount of fear has been expressed that if we have large settlement schemes, such as those contemplated in the Free State, for example, but particularly along the Orange River, we shall be saddled with the problem of surpluses. Surpluses, like the poor, have always been with us. We are constantly expanding our farming, and it seems to me that our farming is expanding on the basis of surpluses; our farming does not retrogress because of surpluses. I think we must accept the fact that we shall always have surpluses but that we often cultivate new markets with these surpluses. Take the question of oranges for example. I can remember the days when we were exporting 750,000 boxes “What is going to happen when we export 1,000,000 boxes of oranges; who is going to eat them?” Three or four years ago the manager of one of the co-operative societies said to me, “Do you know that we are exporting 7,500,000 boxes and we expect to export 10,000,000 boxes within a few years; who is going to eat them?” I then told him about the 750,000 and the 1,000,000 boxes. One of these days we shall be exporting 17,000,000 and the time will come when it will be 20,000,000, and then people will still be asking who is going to eat those oranges. But the consumption in the world is increasing. I do not want to suggest that we should be stupid and go and plant things on settlements for which there is no market. That is a matter that is always engaging our attention. We have just had an investigation at our new settlements, and at a few of our large settlements, into the farming methods to be applied there. One of the important things that was investigated there is the necessity in the first place to produce something there which is suited to the area and, secondly, to produce something which is not going to cause an artificial overproduction. This is a difficult problem and we will still hear a great deal about it in this House.

At the beginning we made many mistakes on our settlements, and I blame nobody for those mistakes. I blame nobody because when we started with land settlements here in South Africa, we had to start from the beginning without any knowledge and we had to learn as we went along. We have now learned what size the small-holdings should be; we have learned that provision must be made for drainage when the small-holdings are laid out; we have realized the necessity of constructing roads; we have learned that when a settlement is established roads have to be constructed immediately to avoid the mess that we had on some settlements where there was large-scale production and the districts under whom the settlements fell were unable to construct those roads. Another thing that we have learned that is very important is that as far as possible all the small-holdings on the settlement must be of the same size, because even if the man is perfectly happy to get a small plot initially, within a few years he will be sitting on your doorstep complaining that he has been treated badly because the other man was given a bigger plot than that given to him. The fact that the other man had to pay more for his plot is overlooked by him. I say that many mistakes have been made in the past. I do not think that we can point to a single settlement in South Africa where no mistakes have been made. As time goes on we make fewer and fewer mistakes, and I hope that on the settlement that we are now establishing in the Free State fewer mistakes will be made than at all the settlements that we have established up to the present moment, because we have sent some of our best officials there. We have gone into the question of sloping small-holdings and drainage and all that type of thing. We have said to the officials concerned, who have had experience of all our large settlements and who are aware of all the mistakes that were made on our big settlements, “Go along and plan this settlement from the very beginning and let us see how many of the mistakes made in the past we can avoid”. But here I do want to say one thing. I think that the Department of Lands is being very good to its settlers. I think we are treating our settlers very well indeed. Within the limits of the laws under which we are operating we have never refused to assist a person who has come along to us with a good case.

Even people with weak cases have been assisted.

Sometimes we have also assisted people with weak cases. But having said that, I do want to make an appeal to our Members of Parliament to try to develop a little backbone and not to encourage our settlers in South Africa constantly to come and sit on the Government’s doorstep when the slightest thing goes wrong. Sir, we have excellent people on our settlements and we also have weak people on our settlements. Let us try to build up the morale of the weak man to the level of that of the good man; do not let us bring down the morale of the good man to the level of that of the weak man. Sometimes I am ashamed of people who come to us with requests for assistance, and on the other hand I have the greatest admiration for others who have a much greater struggle but who put their shoulders to the wheel and who persevere. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) or the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) talked about the capable people whom we should fine to place on our settlements, but we do not want good people to be spoilt there by people who constantly approach the Government with requests which are not justified. We are treating our people well and we shall continue to treat them well, but one thing that is necessary is that we should tell our people that they should sometimes try to battle through their own difficulties and not to come and sit on the Government’s doorstep the whole day when it is not necessary to do so.

Hon. members have referred to the income of settlers and to their net income. They have pointed out that we must take into consideration the expenditure incurred by these people. Well, that is quite true, but the only figure on which we can go and in regard to which we have certainty is the income of our tenants; we know what their income is because it goes through our books. We do not know what their expenditure is. The expenditure of a good farmer is usually a smaller percentage of his income than in the case of the poor farmer. But what we try to do in the case of settlements is that we institute investigations and find out more or less what the percentage of expenditure ought to be in relation to income. We can then strike a balance more or less. In certain places it is estimated that the man’s expenditure is about 45 per cent of his income; in other places it is 30 per cent and in certain areas it goes up to 60 per cent. One can then determine more or less what the man’s income ought to be. Reference has been made here to some of our settlements where the income is low. Reference has been made, for example, to Vaalhartz; it has been said that we simply take into account the man’s income but that his expenditure is so high that he is unable to make a living there. Mr. Chairman, if people are struggling to make a living at Vaalhartz. why do they receive such good prices for their farms when they acquire title and sell those farms? Why do they get R16,000 to R40,000 in some cases? Many of them get between R15,000 and R25,000. That is the price for quite an average farm. Why are there so many who get those prices if these people are struggling so much? It seems to me that it does not make sense because our farmers are not so stupid as to go and pay a high price for a farm which is not a payable proposition. But I do admit that there are difficulties. On a large settlement where 500 to 1,400 farms are allotted, you are bound to have a number of farms which have been badly planned, and further planning must take place there to rectify the position, but we are limited in certain respects. One of the hon. members has asked why we do not level a piece of ground above the man’s small-holding. In other words, what he wants is an additional piece of land to be given to the man. Once he has been given an additional piece of land but a piece which is not scheduled for water, the next request will be that we should give him water for that additional piece of land. And if he is given water, there will not be sufficient water for everybody and then you will be in even greater trouble. Take the Sundays River, for example. A few years ago when the dam was full of water—not the last time but on the previous occasion—they came along with the request to the Department that we should schedule more land because the dam was full; the wall had been raised and they said that the dam would never become empty. Two years later those people were in the greatest trouble. If we had given extensions, all of them would have been in distress and they would have been in even greater distress. One is faced with the problem of water therefore. The next problem with regard to extensions on our large settlements is that there is often no land for extension. That is the greatest difficulty. We are told that a certain man has an uneconomic small-holding, but where must we put him? We have to find a different small-holding on which to place him but there is not unlimited land there; in many cases the available land has all been used. These are all difficulties which we have. But within the limitations imposed upon us I think that we are meeting these people as far as we can, and I do want to add also that where we do come to the assistance of people they are grateful to the Department for what it does for them.

As far as Pongola is concerned, a question has been asked here with regard to the important inter-departmental committee that was appointed to institute investigations in Zululand into the availability of State land there. A preliminary investigation has been instituted. The committee has met certain people there. They asked all the bodies concerned to make representations to them. Many of these bodies have already submitted representations to them; many others still have to make representations. The committee will meet again next week to go into this matter further. There are various problems. There are pieces of State land situated all over Zululand. In many cases that land is being occupied by Natives. Well, if this land is eventually going to become Native-owned land, then there is no objection really to their occupying the land, but if this land is going to be needed for irrigation or something of that kind, they cannot be allowed to occupy the land. Then under the proposed Pongola Dam there are certain small Native areas, one of which lies in the middle of the irrigation area. The Pongola Irrigation Dam, when it is completed, is intended for Whites and for Natives—one part for Natives and one part for Whites. This one small reserve lies in the middle of the White areas. It is much better to add that Native reserve on to the non-White irrigation scheme. That is one of the cases, and there are quite a few other cases where the problem is more or less the same. As far as the coast is concerned, to which the hon. member for Zululand referred, there is the possible development of Sordwana Bay. At the moment the border runs between Native Trust land and State land, right through the middle of the bay. Hon. members who have been there will know that the camping site is on State land and the road down to the bay goes through Trust land. If a harbour is going to be developed there eventually, then we can have the line running through the middle of the town; some arrangement or other will have to be made there. That is another thing that will be investigated. But what we are now doing is to say in advance where land will be available so that we can act accordingly in the future. That was the object of the appointment of that committee, which is an inter-departmental committee. It is not normally the procedure to publish the reports of inter-departmental committees, but that will be decided when we get the committee’s report.

A good deal has been said with regard to the Land Boards and their method of valuation. There is a certain amount of misunderstanding in this connection. It is alleged that the Land Boards value in a certain way in one place and in a different way in another place, and that when it values land for the Native Trust it pays the owners high prices but that when it values land for purchases under Section 20, it pays the farmers low prices. I do not know whether they are paying too much in the case of purchases for the Native Trust, but where land is purchased for a person under Section 20 I think it is a good thing that the Land Board should be conservative in its valuation, that it should not make the man pay more for the land than it is worth. There I think it is a good thing. Apparently there is also a certain amount of difference of opinion because some people have said that we should call in the valuators of the Land Bank and others feel that we should rather carry on in our own way. It seems to me therefore that this is a matter which has not yet been settled. But reference has been made here to one point which is based on a misunderstanding, and that is the question as to what co-ordination there is between the five Land Boards that we have. Apparently the hon. member who asked this question does not realize that the final valuations are done by the Central Land Board. The Central Land Board consists of the chairman of the Central Land Board, who is a full-time official, and the chairman of all the other boards. They meet once a month. There is a certain amount of liasion therefore between all the Land Boards. All the chairmen get together in connection with all these valuations.

They simply approve of them; they do not do the actual valuations.

It may not be the best form of co-ordination but in this way we do get a certain amount of co-ordination, and it is very difficult to obtain greater co-ordination. We cannot go and second the Transvaal Land Board to the Cape for a month or three months. What would it know about the value of land in the Karoo; what would it know about the value of land in the Gamtoos Valley; what would it know about the value of land in the coastal region? Just as little as the man from the coastal region would know about the value of land in the Highveld or in the Lowveld. It is a difficult matter therefore.

Another matter to which many members referred is the question of Section 20. Every year we have an interesting debate here on Section 20. The plea has now been put forward that we should increase the assistance that we give under Section 20. The amount was increased about 15 months ago, and it was increased by a bigger margin than ever before in the history of South Africa. I do not know whether or not it is going to have the desired effect. However, hon. members have quoted figures from the last report of the Department of Lands. I have just received the latest figures which indicate that the loans applied for will probably exceed the amount which is available this year. In other words, things have taken a new turn again; there has been an improvement in the position, but there is one thing which hon. members must understand very clearly. If we pushed up these Section 20 loans too high we would defeat the object of Section 20. The man in the higher brackets, who wants to farm on a bigger scale, is the man who goes to the Land Bank. There are really three classes of persons whom we help. There is actually a fourth class also, the indigent. We have our closer settlements where we can settle the man who owns nothing; we can put him on a closer settlement where we keep him going and where we can make a farmer out of him. Then we have the man who is assisted under Section 23 and who already has a good deal of capital, and in between we have the Section 20 scheme, which I always describe as the scheme for the younger son of the farmer, the son who cannot inherit the farm but who accumulates a little money through his own hard work and whom we then assist. But the class above that is the Land Bank’s responsibility. I readily concede that generally speaking, the amount that we make available for stock-farming, is inadequate. One needs much more capital for stock-farming than for agriculture. The agriculturist needs perhaps a quarter or half the amount that the stock-farmer needs. I have not asked him but if I were to ask the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) whether this is a good scheme in Brits he would probably reply …

That it is a very good scheme.

On the other hand the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) comes along and says that it is not a good scheme in Vryburg. They are both correct. But this scheme was never intended for the man in Vryburg; the Land Bank was intended to assist him. Where we have made use of this scheme, we have constantly increased the amount so as to assist the Vryburg man, but we have never given him adequate assistance. On the other hand we often give too much to the other people. Every time that we push up the amount it means that there are so many fewer people whom we can assist.

Is it not possible to differentiate between the settler on a closer settlement and the ordinary settler on that land?

Where would we draw the line? You get the man who is an agriculturist and who also has a number of sheep, and the more sheep he has the less agricultural land he has left. Then again you get the Vryburg people who have a small piece of agricultural land at a windmill or at one of those fountains that we find in Kuruman. There the man has a small piece of lucerne that he cultivates. Those few morgen of lucerne that he has are worth a great deal to him. Is he an agriculturist or is he a stock-farmer?

He goes in for mixed farming.

It becomes impossible later on to draw the dividing line. This is one of the best schemes that we have in South Africa. There are numbers of Cape members in the House at the moment and I hope that they will take heed of what I say and that when they go back to their constituencies they will try to get the people in the Cape to make use also of Section 20. I do not know whether the people in the Cape Province are too independent, but a very, very small percentage of the Section 20 applications comes from the Cape Province. It seems to me that the Cape farmers battle through on their own.

They do not know the terms of the Act.

The hon. member behind me says that the Cape farmers come and make a success of farming in the north.

A question has also been asked here with regard to farms that we hire temporarily. There our policy is just the same as when we allocate land. We also have to invite applications in the normal way. Those farms are then given to people under temporary lease, and when they are allocated later on we invite applications. But when those lands are allocated, as in the case of some farms in Zululand at the present time, then if a person has been on that land 10 or 15 years as a temporary lessee and has made a success of his farming, he has a very strong claim when the allocation takes place. In that connection the question has been asked what we do if anything happens to a man who can get transfer under Section 20 after five years or after ten years under Section 23. He may, as happens very often, become too ill to farm. If he has only been there a short while we take the farm back and pay him out for improvements. But if he is approaching the end of the period then we are inclined to give him transfer if we receive a certificate to the effect that he is unable to farm, or if he dies we give it to his wife or to a child of his. In some cases we have even gone so far as to give it to a grandchild, where there is a member of the family close on hand who is willing to work the farm for him. Otherwise we take it back and then it is allocated afresh in the usual way.

At Sand-Vet the farms will be an average of 26 morgen in extent, and they are not meant for local people only. It is not the local people who pay for that settlement; we all pay for it and why should our sons not have just as much right as the local people to be given land on those settlements? If the local young man has a good knowledge of the type of farming which is going to be practised there, then it always counts in his favour. When the Kalahari farms were allocated, we had applications from people who, if they had been given those farms, would simply have abandoned them within a few months. We could only give those farms to people from the north-west. They are the only people who have the hardiness and the necessary experience. But the difficulty with a settlement is that usually it is entirely a new form of irrigation which is going to be practised there, and very often one puts a settler in a place where the land is good but where there is no water and where there is nobody who has any experience of irrigation, and then it is often wise to get people from districts where they have grown up with irrigation, because irrigation is not simply a matter of diverting water on to a piece of land. And in saying that I want to add that the success of our large irrigation works in South Africa today was ensured by people who came from Oudtshoorn and Calitzdorp and Ladismith. Here sits an hon. member who came from that area and he can testify what those people with their knowledge of irrigation meant to Brits when the scheme was first established there. You can go to these settlements and you will see that in the early stages the leading people are always those people who come from districts where irrigation is a natural form of farming, in other words, people who grew up with irrigation. The other people then learn from them.

Our inspectors sometimes have to travel long distances, and they do so; some of the older inspectors had to travel long distances but they did not do so, and I think I can say that our system of land inspectors on the permanent staff of the Department of Lands is a very great success.

Another point of interest that has been raised is that an opportunity should be given under the new Orange River scheme to the stock-farmer to acquire a piece of land there so that he can build up a fodder bank for himself. That is one of the many interesting suggestions made here to-day, and I want to give hon. members the assurance that all these suggestions will be taken into consideration. We shall have to do a great deal of thinking if we want to make a success of this enormous scheme, and the suggestions which have been made here will certainly receive our serious attention.

It has been suggested here by some members that we should assist people who have been afflicted by droughts. I want to say to those hon. members that is our rule. We go out of our way to assist people who have been afflicted by droughts. We give them whatever assistance we can.

I think I have dealt with all the important points now. I can give hon. members the assurance that the other points that I have not dealt with will receive our serious attention.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 6.—“Deeds Offices,” R778,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 7.—“Surveys,” R1,559,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 8.—“Forestry,” R1,239,000, put.