Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Charges by Member, I move—

Although the report has virtually been completed, the evidence consists of a large volume of material, and the Committee needs a few days more to conclude dealing with it.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to what my bench-mate, the hon. member for Piketberg, said I am standing up to make a few basic remarks about the ambitious and imaginative water plan which the hon. the Minister announced last year for the Boland. The Boland is the oldest civilized part of our country. In this particular area we do not have basic raw materials on which we can build our future. We have said this repeatedly in the past, and my bench-mate also stated it very clearly. We do not have gold and we do not have coal. Our sine qua non here in the Boland is our water. On that we must build our future. In recent years there has been concern in the Boland about the general development pattern. In many respects there was a lack of a proper preplanned water scheme for the Boland. The hon. the Minister has now come to the fore with this plan. From the nature of the case this accommodates those of our Cape Cassandra’s who had to complain repeatedly in the past about this situation. As a result of this comprehensive plan, this ambitious plan, I am now standing up to lodge a plea for the establishment of a water advisory board for the Boland. Please note, Sir, I am not pleading for a water board for the Boland which is going to take all the powers out of the hands of the Department of Water Affairs and take over this situation. I am lodging a plea for a water advisory board which will co-operate with the Department of Water Affairs as far as planning is concerned and participate in the unfolding of this gigantic and ambitious water plan for the Boland.

Water development and water management affects not only the engineer today, but also all other scientific disciplines. It is a broad plan which must carry with it proper and well-calculated planning for the future. It is in the light of this that I advocate that the next step in the unfolding of this gigantic and imaginative plan must be a water advisory board for the Boland. I want to mention four reasons to indicate that at this stage such a water advisory board is absolutely essential for the Boland.

The first is the nature of this plan itself. Here we are not purely and simply dealing with an ad hoc water plan. Sir, this is not just another small plan. The future impact of this plan assumes imaginative and ambitious proportions. It affects the entire unfolding of the future pattern of this oldest civilized part of our country, as I have already indicated. Since the advent of this plan numerous analyses have been made scientifically of what the true extent and impact of this ambitious Boland water plan is. In passing I shall mention here a few averages which I drew up out of these scientific calculations adapted to the general public. These are calculations which indicate how truely ambitious this plan is. This plan will provide enough water for urban and industrial use in the Western Cape to house another 3,8 million people in the Western Cape. This is the tremendous impact of this plan. The population of the greater Peninsula will be able to increase at least fourfold. According to the latest calculations Johannesburg today has a population of about 1,4 million people. Greater Cape Town will, according to calculations, eventually be able to grow, with the aid of this imaginative plan, to twice the present size of a city like Johannesburg.

Thirdly, in the area of the lower Berg River—this is the development of the fourth phase of this plan—there will, according to calculations, eventually be water for about 1,26 million people. That is my first argument, Sir, i.e. that this plan is an ambitious one. Its impact is actually a tremendously great one, if I may state it in those terms.

Secondly we are dealing here with a network. The foremost characteristic of this plan—I said this at the beginning—is that it is not only an ad hoc water plan. This plan embodies a network for the Boland, a network characterized by the fact that the one area’s water can actually be used for another area as well. The water of the Twenty-four Rivers is not only that area’s water. Hon. members probably saw in the newspapers recently the lovely photographs of the overflow of the Twenty-four Rivers being transferred into the Voëlvlei Dam. In my humble opinion this actually forms the nucleus of this spider-web, this network. The overflow of the Twenty-four Rivers is fed into it; it draws the Little Berg River’s water; eventually it will also get its share from Theewaterskloof Dam. I also take it that with the development of nuclear power it will eventually be possible economically to pump water from one area to another. I also wish to assume that another area, for example a fine storage area like the Suurvlak Mountains, which links up with the Voëlvlei area, will eventually be able to develop within the overall pattern to serve with the Voëlvlei Dam as a central storage area. In other words, this is not only one single plan; this plan is the core of a network, which is developing for the entire Boland, as analysed in all its facets. Thirdly, a distinction must be made between the industry in this particular area, on the one hand, agriculture in a particular area on the other hand, and then human consumption —the people who must themselves drink the water from this area—and fourthly the drinking water for livestock. Last week the hon. the Minister was in an area where the first phase has been worked out and where watering places for livestock have been made available in the particular area. Everything points to the fact that the impact of this facet is infinitely great in the planned set-up of our Boland. The hon. the Minister said this first phase is being born. Sir, I want to express the hope that in the future this fourth facet in the larger Boland plan will be extended with great deliberation, because it is true that in these particular areas—I am thinking of an area such as the Swartland—there are certain stretches where the most sheep per unit morgen in South Africa graze today, and at certain times of the year water must be transported for this livestock. Sir, this livestock has as much right to this water as industry, irrigation farming and people themselves have. In other words, this fair distribution amongst all these claims also entails that with the help of a water advisory board for the Boland we shall be able to help the department to use its judgment when it comes to further distribution.

Then, lastly, there is a fourth argument I want to advance in connection with the determination of priorities. The hon. the Minister came along here and announced a plan for the Boland consisting of a first, second, third and fourth phase, but I want to allege that in the growth pattern of the Boland, from time to time, a situation will develop … [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg who has just spoken no doubt had a few commendable ideas. What struck me particularly was his advocacy of what we on this side call a “grid scheme”, for the Western Province. As you know, Sir, yesterday the hon. member for South Coast stated the grid-type of scheme as one of the basic parts of the United Party’s policy for Water Affairs. I commend the hon. member for Moorreesburg on having been converted to this part of our policy. I would also like to express my appreciation and the appreciation of every member on this side of the House to the hon. member for South Coast for the clear way in which he stated the four main points of our water policy.

Sir, there are two matters of regional importance that I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister. The first is the P. K. le Roux Dam and the contracts in that connection, and the second is the pollution of our rivers, and in particular of the Vaal River and the tributaries of the Vaal River in the Witwatersrand area. Sir, we know that tenders were called for the P. K. le Roux Dam in 1970 and that tenders were received for R61 million, R56 million and R49 million for the whole project. The tender for R49 million was later on rejected. Where these large, responsible companies have spent hundreds of thousands of rands in working out their tenders for this big project, the hon. the Minister came along and rejected all the tenders, saying that the prices were far too high. At the same time he maintained that instead of an average cost of R56 million for the P. K. le Roux Dam, his department would be able to do the work for only R45 million. At the same time he promised to keep Parliament informed of the progress, and to keep Parliament informed as to how far his department was able to keep within his estimate for R45 million, instead of R56 million, which was the average of the tenders submitted by these large, responsible companies. He said on 3rd June, 1971—

I realize, Sir, that not too much could have been done since the last tenders were received and since the commencement of the work, but I think the Minister will have the opportunity now of indicating to what extent he has been able to work within the cost figure that he predicted. I know that he mentioned in his speech that unforeseen circumstances have to be excepted. He must not tell me that rising labour costs and rising material costs are unforeseen circumstances, because we could have told him, as every responsible contractor knows, that these are variables which will inevitably increase. I do concede that to a certain extent devaluation might have caused an increase in the total amount of his own estimate, and I would like to hear from him now what that total increase is going to be.

I believe that his estimate of R45 million for that whole project is entirely unrealistic, if he does not arbitrarily relax the stringent conditions in regard to labour and conditions of employment that were laid down in the original contract; if he also takes into account the fact that, if the Department of Water Affairs does take over this whole job, the income tax, for instance, which would have been paid on the profits made by these contractors, will now no longer accrue to the Government; if he takes into account the fact that import duties and petrol duties which might have been paid by these contractors to strengthen the finances of the Government might no longer be paid by the Department of Water Affairs, and if he takes into account the fact that even special railway rates might be granted to the department. Sir, all these factors have to be taken into account in trying to prove, as the Minister wishes to do, that this whole project is going to cost R45 million and not much closer to the R56 million tendered by those contractors whose figures he so arbitrarily rejected.

Sir, let me say, as far as these contractors are concerned, that we on this side are not happy about what has happened. We believe that some of the biggest and most important contractors in South Africa have actually been snubbed after having spent hundreds of thousands of rands in working out those estimates. After all. these people have experience. Some of the contractors and sub-contractors are people of world fame; some of the biggest contractors on the world scene assisted in working out these estimates, and they have been arbitrarily told: “You do not know what you are talking about; we can do the work on our own for R10 million or R1,5 million less than the figures you quoted.” What also concerns me is whether this is not another instance of what I would call the Government’s policy of creeping Socialism in more and more taking over the task of private enterprise.

Sir, the second matter that I wish to raise in the few minutes left to me is the question of water pollution, particularly in the Vaal Triangle. Here, too, I have another promise from the hon. the Minister. He minimized the problem of water pollution. Two years ago, on 5th June, 1969, he said in this House—

Sir, those were the words of the hon. the Minister. I admit that he has an Act; I admit that he has certain powers under that Act, but we would like to know why those powers have not been used to the full extent. Why is it that while he has those powers, pollution has actually been increasing in the Vaal River and in the Vaal complex? We warned him before that he would have to control not only the Vaal itself but also its tributaries. We have told him that he is utterly understaffed when it comes to inspection on the Witwatersrand on the tributaries, and when I talk about him going understaffed, I also include the Rand Water Board and its inspectors. The position has been worsening on the Witwatersrand. Mr. Leburn, the chief engineer of the Rand Water Board, told us recently that there are actually instances where tributaries, streams flowing into the Vaal River, are so polluted that there is no hope of aquatic life or plant life existing in those areas. In other words, those streams are already becoming as bad as the Rhine in Europe.

Do you know, Sir, that it was estimated that the standard of the pumped water above the Vaal River barrage—not from the Vaal Dam but above the Vaal River barrage—taken out by the Rand Water Board was not up to standard on more than 100 days out of 365 days in the year 1971-’72? The total dissolved solids were too much on 25 days. The standard of hardness was exceeded on 102 days in one single year, in regard to the water taken from behind the barrage, and if that water had not been supplemented by purer water from the Vaal Dam higher up, the whole of the Johannesburg complex would not have had suitable water on one out of three days during that one year, and this position I believe is not improving.

It is time that it is realized that the great polluters of our water supplies are not necessarily the public who throw their empty beer cans and bottles into the rivers, however scandalous and reprehensible that may be, but they are represented by the big industrial complexes, by local authorities and by lack of control over sewage disposal and by some irresponsible industrial organizations. These are the bodies which are causing the pollution. Sir, there are different industrial organizations. There are those with a conscience who are doing their best, but there are those also at the other extreme, those who are doing nothing but in the middle there are those who are in difficulty. [Time expired.]

It is surely strange that some people must always turn clear water into mud before they can take a matter further. I shall leave the hon. member for Orange Grove at that. I am sure you will permit me, Sir, to associate myself with what the two previous speakers, the hon. members for South Coast and Piketberg, said in also expressing my thanks to the hon. the Minister for the invitation he extended to us, and for the fact that he made it possible for us to attend the opening of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. You will permit me, Sir, to say, even if I must repeat it, that I am of course proud that all those festivities could take place in my constituency. It was not an opening of a dam; it was a celebration. After the State President had opened the sluices and the water spewed forth down the Orange River, and the rainbow hung over that river, we knew that the blessing of the Lord also rested on this project. Because there over the river hung what only a Higher Power could give us, i.e. the rainbow of assurance to man that he who does his duty will not be left in the lurch. I say that we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister.

In addition I am sorry that this year we do not already have to hand the report of the Department of Water Affairs. I accept the fact this is because the hon. the Minister’s Vote was fixed in this House for an earlier date because he must depart on an overseas trip. I should very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister in any case—because we have a great interest in this—because we have also lent a hand and have tried to help, and because here we have all put our shoulders to the wheel to see whether we cannot help the Minister, a man who gives a matter all he has got in order to make a success of it, because such a person is someone who deserves the help of everyone in this House, what the true position is with respect to the engineering staff in the department. In last year’s report there was already a particularly encouraging sign of an increase in engineers who must handle this particular work in connection with water, which has already so frequently been described by everyone as the so-called “Achilles heel” of South Africa and its development. I should like to know from the Minister what the conditions there are.

Then I should very much like to exchange a few words about the possibilities, and pre-eminently the recreational possibilities of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the Orange River project. We in South Africa—a sunny country—know we are people who like living and relaxing in the open air, and in the country where drought is one of the problems, we know preeminently that everyone who wants to relax in the open air looks forward to some small stretch of water next to which he can relax. With an artificial lake created in the middle of South Africa’s heartland, about half-way between Johannesburg and Cape Town, beside the main road and the main railway line, with an airstrip already in existence there, and with a coastline which has been created there, the length of which is 586 kilometres—and to see this in perspective we can just mention that it is a coastline which in its creation is 30 kilometres longer than the entire Natal coast —we cannot fail to realize what the potential of that area is. And since the Department of Water Affairs has, in addition, kindly transferred the construction camp at the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, Oranjekrag to the provincial administration for the further development of a pleasure resort, the facilities for a proper pleasure resort already exist today, but there are much greater future possibilities.

This project than stands out and the United Party must take note that this is the way in which a Government, which knows what it is doing, is keeping people in the rural areas where it can keep them. And then the United Party must also know that this is a Government which plans for the future. Apart from the possibility of the pleasure resort project, which I believe will also be a great tourist attraction, and because I believe that the P. K. le Roux Dam with, in addition its exceptional natural beauty will present much better possibilities for tourism and recreation than even the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, the prestige portion of this scheme, is already doing, the project is now unfolding, and we who already know it well and have lived with it can see it developing in the direction of the Van der Kloof Dam, in the direction of Kimberley and over that border, the old Barclay border, which the English fooled us with at that time. This project now makes it clear that here there are people who live together and belong together and who cannot be divided by an artificial boundary. Therefore we can only see the planning of this area in regional terms. Here I just want to suggest that since planning boards have already been appointed to plan these areas, it is my considered opinion that a success can only be made of these matters if these planning boards are also equipped with the necessary financial means to plan the development to its eventual maximum potential in the form, as it were, of regional I. D.C.’s for the good of South Africa and for the good of that region which has lagged behind financially up to now.

Mr. Chairman, I have very little quarrel with the speech made by the hon. member for Fauresmith. I can well understand that he is proud of the fact that the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam on the Orange River has been completed, that it is full and that it has in fact overflowed. The hon. member knows that the Orange Free State is a landlocked province. Now he can proudly claim that he, too, has a sea. We rejoice with him in this achievement. He also spoke about the potential of this area in respect of holiday resorts which could be developed there. Again I concur with the hon. member. I do hope that that hon. member, when he proposes future development of recreational spots on the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, he does not forget the need of developing such resorts also for the Coloured and Bantu people.

I wish to associate myself with the words which the hon. member for South Coast uttered here yesterday afternoon and I too want to express appreciation for the trip that was arranged over the Orange River scheme. This was a most instructive and informative exercise. I believe it is well that such trips be arranged because the better Parliament is informed, the better the discussions we can have in this House. I do not think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg enjoyed the trip, because he baled out halfway. He thus did not have the benefit of this very enjoyable outing.

The points I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister flow very largely from what we saw on that trip. I wish to raise the points I have in mind more by way of probing for information than as criticism. As the hon. the Minister will know, one of the most important aspects of the whole Orange River scheme or undertaking is the tunnel. Although the tunnel is obviously not as spectacular as the dam, it will nevertheless, I believe, in some ways serve as important a purpose. I think there will be as much excitement when the first water emerges from the mouth of the tunnel as there was when the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam was opened and was overflowing. I am sure that a ceremony will be arranged when that occasion materialises.

I do not know if the hon. the Minister intends giving this tunnel a name. It is now referred to as the Orange-Fish tunnel which, I think, for all practical purposes, is perhaps a good name. However, if it is to be named, my request to the hon. the Minister is that, when the various names which can be considered are borne in mind, the name of Tom Bowker will be high on that list.

Flowing further from the question of the tunnel, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what planning is in fact taking place to use the water effectively and efficiently when it does become available for irrigational purposes. There is much good land in the Fish River valley that is available for irrigation. I hope that this hon. Minister will have some say in how the water, which he has played a big part in making available, will in fact be used. For instance, I have already heard it said that many thousands of apricot trees are on order to be planted in the Golden Valley area of the Fish River valley. I do not know whether this is a planned scheme or whether the farmers there are taking a chance, but I can quite easily see that if there is not proper coordination and planning as to the crops that are going to be planted, we will create surpluses, as the case will be with apricots, and will then seriously embarrass those farmers who are already established apricot growers. For this reason I pose the question to the hon. the Minister: Is proper coordination and planning being carried out in what way the irrigable lands will in fact be used? I say that if there is an unbridled planting of apricot trees we are going to create a very serious situation. This area is ideally suited for growing wheat. As the hon. the Minister knows we have a surplus of wheat at the present time. It is in matters like these, regarding the crops that are going to be grown, that he should see to it that there will be proper planning as to what kind of produce should be grown to get the biggest utilization of this water. I know that there is an experimental plot there, which is very well run and very well organized and where experiments with cotton and other crops are being carried out, but it is the co-ordination of what will be planted that really interests me.

There is also another problem. As the hon. the Minister will know the people in my constituency have a stake in the water that will flow, down the Fish River valley. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether the question of the salinity has been duly investigated. I think he knows as well as I do that deep down in the soil of the Fish River valley there is plenty of salt. If unlimited irrigation is permitted, there is every possibility that capillary actions will bring the salt to the surface. It may well happen that by the time this water reaches the end of the Fish River valley and runs through the Sundays River valley we in Port Elizabeth will be confronted with a serious brack situation.

A further matter I would like to discuss with the hon. the Minister, is the question of water being diverted into the Sundays River Valley. I know that the hon. the Minister has indicated before that that portion of the plan, which was originally part of it, has now been dropped. I know that he will say it is uneconomic to build another tunnel through the Wapadsberg mountains to bring the waters from the Fish River valley into the Sundays River valley. But since last we discussed these matters there have been two new developments, which I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, on our trip over the Orange River scheme, we were given the opportunity of seeing the mole drilling its way through the Bosberg mountains near Somerset East. I believe that that mole was a very sound investment. The purchase of this machine which cost some R7 million, proved to be a wise move. I think that in the course of time …

It cost R2 million; not R7 million.

The hon. the Minister says that the mole cost R2 million and not R7 million. It was therefore even a better buy. I was wondering, seeing that this machine is efficient and operates well, whether it would not be possible for the tunnel through the Wapadsberg to become an economic proposition. Furthermore, we will also have the situation where hydroelectric current will be cheaply available to operate the machinery in that particular area.

Then there is a further matter, which I have raised in this House before, namely the question of weather modification. This, apparently, now is becoming a reality and will be applied in practice. I can foresee the day when modification of weather is going to increase the river-flow in the upper reaches of the Orange River. The result will be—I think, and one must be optimistic in these matters—that the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam may well be filled to optimum capacity at all times. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I also want to mention here the exceptional development of this particular department, which has grown into one of the most important State arms of the Republic in recent years. We can describe the activities of this department as being phenomenal in extent. This also definitely attests to a Minister who, with the members of his department, means a very great deal to us, and to me personally, in that constituency which I represent. It is a great pity that this department, which does such outstanding work for the Republic, should also have to struggle with a manpower shortage.

This brings me to a phenomenon I have observed in this House amongst hon. members on the other side. We find members on that side of House who are continually occupying themselves with troubles in a neighbour’s constituency. I am referring here to the hon. member for Albany, who virtually devoted his entire speech yesterday afternoon to matters affecting my constituency. I am referring here to the remarks he made in connection with the Boesman’s River mouth and the Nuwejaar’s dam at Alicedale. I have just listened to the speech of the hon. member for Walmer, a man who represents an urban constituency, but who exclusively spoke about matters that actually affect my constituency. I am also referring to the hon. member for Newton Park’s habit of continually occupying himself with matters in another neighbour’s constituency, i.e. matters in connection with the Gamtoos River. This habit on the part of members on that side of the House indicates to me that that is a party which has reached political bankruptcy. Therefore it is continually preying on something that can be gained in concealing that political bankruptcy. Sir, you will again have that political bankruptcy illustrated in Brakpan, where the hon. member for Hillbrow is switching his position again. With this manpower shortage in the Department of Water Affairs I want to suggest that you employ quite a number of the members on that side of the House in this department. I am thinking, for example, of the hon. member for East London City. He can very easily be employed as the general of the riparian farmers. You can, for example, employ the hon. member for Simonstown in this Department as a representative fisherman. The hon. member for Hillbrow can effectively be employed as an astronomer who predicts the weather for this department. The hon. member for Turffontein can be employed to combat desert areas so that we do not have a repetition of the story of Skankwan van die Duine. That is just in passing.

I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. He told us that he has established a commission for water research. I should very much like to know how far this commission has progressed with its activities and whether we can expect a report on the activities of the commission this Session. Then the hon. the Minister also told us that in the future it will be made possible for students to study abroad, particularly with a view to specialization. I should like to know how far we have progressed in this connection. Then I should also like to know how the costs incurred by the department, for example at the P. K. le Roux Dam, compare with the normal costs incurred in that connection: by that I mean in the case of tenders. I should also very much like to know how the drilling at the Cookhouse tunnel is progressing. We know that an exceptional piece of work is being done there with a special apparatus which has been put into operation. I should therefore very much like to know how far the drilling at this tunnel has progressed. At the Orange-Fish tunnel we had the phenomenon of work on the tunnel having to be stopped temporarily because of the occurrence of methane gas. I should very much like to know when work on that tunnel will start again, and so on. I am now thinking here of the task of the department. With the utilization of stored water, the most important aspect is that of flood control, which is exercised by the construction of dams. I know that we have several dams that we can mention in this connection. I am thinking, for example, of the extraordinary function the Mentz Damserved in the August 1970 flood. If that dam had not been there, the damage below the dam in the lower Sundays River Valley would have been catastrophic. Likewise I am also thinking of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and of the special role it has played recently in the sense of flood control. If that dam had not been there, great damage would have resulted. Therefore I should like to associate myself with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Albany, who yesterday afternoon advocated a dam in the Bushman’s River. I can just mention that in recent times the Bushman’s River has come down in flood six times, causing great damage to those dwelling on its banks. Therefore the construction of such a dam is not only of value agriculturally, but also in the sense that with the construction of such a dam we can to a certain extent control the flood water in the Bushman’s River. Then I also want to advocate the construction of a dam in the Sundays River at the spot where the Melk River flows into the Sundays River. I know that to a very large extent the Mentz Dam is silted up, and therefore I should like to ask the Minister whether the construction of a dam above the Mentz Dam in the Sundays River would not be of great benefit, with respect to flood control as well. The Department of Water Affairs, with its members and its Minister, shows the Republic that challenges are still being met. Challenges confront the young men of the Republic with even greater challenges. I believe that such a department, which carries out its task in the Republic in such an inspired way, is also an example to me and inspires me not only to convey here my congratulations to the Department on its fine achievements, but also to wish the Department everything of the best for the future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all the hon. members who have taken part in this debate up to now. It was remarkable that, especially at the beginning, almost every member who rose, commented on the inauguration of the Verwoerd Dam. I think we will agree that it was a special occasion. I think we all of us here, and the rest of the country, are delighted that we could reach the stage where it was possible for us to inaugurate the dam amidst so much festivity, especially under the circumstances under which it was in fact inaugurated, something which actually made this dam a symbol of hope for the future. I think we are all very satisfied. I also want to thank the hon. members who attended that event for having shown the interest and accepted the invitation to attend the inauguration on 4th March.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast started this debate off. I must say that the hon. member for South Coast proved to be a very good student, and I have very great appreciation for a good student. The hon. member has now been listening to me for a couple of years and he was now in a position to formulate a policy. He stated that policy last year, and I then replied to him. But I want to give him the reply again this year. I am in agreement with the hon. member as regards the general principle in connection with our water in South Africa. I now want to come to the hon. member’s statement of policy. The hon. member referred, in the first instance, to the principle of safeguarding of supplies to civil communities. Of course, it is our principle that we should do planning …

Settled communities.

I am sorry—settled communities. The point is that we cannot proceed with water planning in this country if we do not provide for the future needs of all communities in South Africa. That also includes the non-European communities in this country. The hon. member will know that when we planned the big schemes that are now in operation, we did provide for the future development of the settled communities. I refer, for instance, to the oldest big development scheme, namely the Vaal Scheme. In planning the Vaal Scheme, we had to provide for the existing farming communities. We have the example of the old community near Kimberley; we have the example of the developing community around the Witwatersrand. Even now we do extend our pipelines up to Rustenburg.

In regard to the latest developments in the Boland, I want to say that the whole Boland development scheme is a scheme to all the communities. In other words, here we have the basic principle of water planning. The hon. member will know that according to our Water Commission’s plan, this is the basic plan for the future, namely a plan to provide for all the communities in the years to come. That is why we are going to plan for the future in such a way as to provide the necessary water supplies also for the Bantu areas.

I now come to the second principle. The hon. member said that we should first develop our own resources before engaging in foreign ventures. I agree with the hon. gentleman, but we have not engaged in any foreign ventures thus far. There is the possibility that we will come to an agreement with Lesotho. But the hon. member will agree with me, and we have already said so, that if we do come to an agreement of this nature in future, South Africa’s interests must receive priority. Therefore, if we do come to an agreement, it will not be the foreign countries’ interests, but our own interests that will prevail in any decision that may be made in future. The hon. gentleman will know that we have stated in the past that we have mutually investigated the possibilities and that we assisted in drafting a feasibility report. The feasibility report is not in my hands yet, but when it becomes available, I will lay it before the Cabinet. I am sure that the Cabinet will decide only on the best interests for South Africa itself, before we go into any agreement with any foreign country.

In regard to the third principle, the development of the grid system, I want to say that I told the hon. member last year that this was a dangerous word to use. I think it is the wrong word to use. It should not be called a “grid system”, because it could be confused with the grid system as it prevails now in the transmission of power. We feel that the correct way would be to speak of an integrated system of connecting rivers, the connecting of various schemes or various dams to supply water where it is most needed. The hon. gentleman will know that this is the essence of our planning, and the essence of our big plans that are now being developed. That is what we are doing with the Vaal/Tugela system; that is what we are now trying to do in the Boland system. That is what we are going to do when we start with the development of the Tugela Basin system. So, it is not a question of principle; I think it is a question of good planning. This is also the basis of the planning for the future as envisaged in the Water Commission’s report.

As for the fourth principle, the apportionment, as the hon. gentleman stated this year and previously, the idea of apportionment is also basic to our planning. It is the idea of an apportionment to the various communities and also to the various areas in the country. I should like to mention the latest scheme where this principle of apportionment is very well demonstrated in a rural area. I refer to the Mogol River. In the Mogol River there is only a limited water supply. When it was decided to build the Mogol Dam we also had to decided upon the future requirements of the mining community within the area, the stock farmers, the existing irrigation farmers as well as the future requirements of any towns that might emerge in years to come. We are geared to provide for future development now and to see that all the areas as well as all communities within those areas will be provided for. These are accepted basic principles. Those principles are built in to our whole idea of planning and from the basis of the whole planning structure as envisaged and developed by the Water Planning Commission.

The hon. member also referred to the question of enforcement of the law, especially in cases of water pollution. I fully agree with the hon. gentleman. We will have this discussion now and we will have another discussion next year. The point, however, is that we cannot bite before we can bark. I am not prepared to bark if I cannot bite. The point is that we did not have the necessary scientific personnel to attend to this problem as we intended to. Last year, when we had this discussion, my department was not very well staffed. In the meantime, however, our scientific staff has been increased to 23. We have engaged, amongst others, the deputy chief engineer of Durban City. At the moment we have the pipe-line students studying at the various universities. We are trying to better our staff position, and we hope to reach the point where it will be possible for us to watch every possible chance of pollution, every river, every township and each and every industrial user of water. The hon. member will know that we have issued permits to thousands of industries in South Africa. It is a very vast undertaking to watch them all, but we do our best. I cannot as yet foresee, at least for the next two or three years, that we will be in a position technically, to operate in this field as we wish to. But we are working towards that point, and I am sure that we will reach that point within a couple of years.

Apart from any watching which your own officials may do, if a case of pollution of a river is reported to your department, will they then forthwith take action as you are presently staffed?

We will take action. The point, however, is that in the event of a complaint from any area we must have technical people and scientists to watch the position and to take samples.

That is my point.

That is the point. But to take samples throughout South Africa, to watch South Africa from the Limpopo down to Cape Town and along the south coast hundreds of miles long, is a formidable task, particularly if you do not have the necessary staff. We are working towards a position where we will be better staffed. I hope we will be in a position to have in Durban as a major city, a properly staffed office. By that I do not mean a staff comprised of one or two officials. What I have in mind is an office for instance which will be able to cope with the problems in the whole of the Durban area. But it takes time to get to that point. We started a couple of years ago to engage the services of those people, but they are not readily available in South Africa. We have to train them. This is quite a new scientific development and it is not so easy to buy those people. As I have said, they are not available in South Africa. I think the hon. member can rest assured that we are working towards the stage where we will have much better control over the situation than we have at present. This year, I can assure the hon. member, our control is in fact better than that of last year.

*The hon. member for Piketberg spoke about the development of the Boland water resources. The hon. member touched upon a matter which is very important to the people in his area. It is also a matter which is very important to the department, namely what is going to happen to the water in the reserve river, i.e. the Doring River, upon which all eyes are fixed for future development. It is a splendid stream of water. In the past representations were made for a scheme to be developed in the Aspoort area. However, this was rejected. Then the hon. member asked me how we saw the position as far as the future was concerned. The Doring River is one of the few remaining major rivers of the Boland which should be kept as a reserve source of water for the future and included in the total resources of the Boland, and which may be utilized in the north-western part of the Greater Boland, either for use in the vicinity where it meets the Olifants River, or for taking it further north or in the direction of Cape Town. In discussing water, we should not be like a naughty child who will not rest until the last sweet has been eaten. Nor should we think that because we have money, we should spend all of it. We should rather see what the development is and plan our water requirements accordingly, instead of exhausting the water within a specific period. I do not think that we should think now of how the water is going to be used; we should rather see it as a reserve which may accrue to the Boland, for which we are very grateful. We should rather regard it as one of the resources on which we need not decide now, but only when circumstances necessitate it.

The hon. member also referred to the distribution of water over the largest possible area. The hon. member for Moorreesburg also associated himself with that. The idea is to distribute our water resources as widely as possible so as to supply water to all communities. The hon. member for South Coast referred to the supply of water to the various communities. The idea which the hon. member mentioned in that regard, is the same. Here we have a developed area in which there are various interest groups and various communities, and the intention is to apportion the water resources in such a manner that all the communities in this area will have a share of it. Furthermore, I want to agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg that we must accept that there are certain stock pasture areas in South Africa which are just as entitled to survive as are irrigation areas or new industries which are being established. This simply means that we must apportion our water resources in such a way that those areas which may be supplied in an economic manner, will get water, but we must be careful; we should not, at all costs, want to supply water everywhere by way of a pipeline or whatever merely in order to get the water there. If it cannot be taken there economically, then it ought not to be taken there; it should always be able to stand the cost-advantage test. To my mind that is the underlying principle in this regard.

†The hon. member for Mooi River raised the question of the Tugela Basin. He has referred to this before and I am glad he has raised it again. I must say that the figures given by the hon. gentleman were a little conservative. Did I understand him to say that the development of the Tugela scheme would cost R385 million?

That is for the seven dams for power generation.

I think that figure will be far exceeded when once we tackle this scheme. We must be very careful not to pin ourselves down to a certain figure at this stage. The hon. gentleman asked me whether I could hold out some hope for Natal with regard to the development of the Tugela scheme. My reply to him is that I would like to hold out that hope. We would have appointed a committee, as we have appointed a planning committee for the Boland and for the Lower Orange River area, but for various reasons we have not done so thus far. But in the meantime my department has made some progress with Escom in the formulation of a skeleton scheme. We do not want to divulge all the particulars of this skeleton scheme at this stage. The hon. member will know that quite a lot of planning and quite a lot of research work has been going on in the Tugela Basin. We will, of course, rely to a great extent on this available information. In the meantime we are proceeding with this, but I can foresee a stage where we will have to appoint a special planning committee for the Tugela Basin. I am not binding myself to any date now, and the engineering planning would not be done by this committee because that would be a committee to co-ordinate all the existing information in the area. As soon as we have the necessary staff available—it may be this year, or it may be next year—we will proceed to appoint this committee for the Tugela Basin.

*Sir, I also want to refer to the hon. member for Namakwaland. May I add how grateful I am for the fact that he could rise and make a speech here this afternoon. We are delighted that he has recovered to such an extent. May I also express confidence that his recovery will be of such a nature that next year, as of old, he will be able to use both arms here for emphasizing the points he wants to make. The hon. member referred to a situation that had developed in the Springbok area. For the information of hon. members who do not know what he was referring to, I just want to say that for many years there was in the Springbok area a development on the subsoil water in the Buffels River. Mines have developed there, and the town in which he lives has developed there, but the replenishment was simply not such that it could keep pace with the abstraction. Later on the stage was reached where there was a danger of that part of the world coming to a standstill. They were down to their last reserves. However, some rain has fallen in the meantime. I want to tell the hon. member that we are going to do our best. He said that the impossible was being done there; I agree with him. Now we simply have to hope that the good Lord will help us further, for if we do not get good rains, I do not think we shall be able to build the pipeline there in time, but we shall do our best. In the meantime we also know that the people there will do their best to use as little water as possible. The hon. member referred to the reserves of the Orange River by saying that we had to be very careful with the apportionment in the future. I agree with the hon. member, and I want to tell him that he need not be afraid. As far as the Orange River development programme is concerned—the dam which is there at present and the one we are adding—the reserve we are holding back for the future, is very extensive. At present we foresee that 25 per cent will be distributed for agricultural development; 25 per cent is being earmarked for industrial development, and on the remaining 50 per cent we shall not decide now, but only when we know what the future needs are. In other words, a very extensive reserve is being held back, and it is not being held back just for the areas along the upper reaches of the river; it is being held back for the entire area down to the sea. The hon. member is therefore covered for the future.

The hon. member for Albany referred to the needs of the Lower Bushman’s River. The hon. member touched here upon a scheme to which we ourselves are giving thought. Let me put the position like this: We have a broad framework for the Orange River development scheme; we did not say that that was the end of the story; nor did we say that there could not be any additions to what has already been effected there, for this is just a broad framework. The hon. member referred to the Bushman’s River. At the moment we cannot say that it will be possible to extend the scheme there, but we are going to look at that point and many other points as well. Time will show us what to do. At the present moment we are tied down to such an extent by developments to which Parliament has already committed itself, that it would be of no use to say now that we shall proceed to supplying water in the Bushman’s River one of these days. As far as the coastal towns are concerned, we know that a need exists there, but I think the hon. member should leave the matter in the hands of the Department, for this is one of the further points of development in respect of which time will tell us whether we shall get round to it, and, if so, when. I repeat: To supply water for irrigation purposes in the Bushman’s River area, would mean that the cost-advantage ratio would have to be correct. We cannot supply water there if the additional cost of supplying it is so high that the farmer at the terminal point cannot afford to buy it.

And what about the Nuwejaars River?

As far as the Nuwejaars River is concerned, I just want to say that the hon. member should not overestimate the capacity of that dam; that dam is very small. He should not think in terms of extensive irrigation schemes there. That dam can only be a help in time of need. Therefore I do not want to hold out any hope in that respect at all, and, what is more, in the meantime the hon. member should rather not rely on extensive new developments there.

The hon. member for Christiana referred to the needs in Schweizer-Reneke. Yes, that is a dry area. We ourselves know that that area does not have very great prospects for much water in the future, but the intention in taking over this dam, is to gain more effective control there. A great deal of water used to be wasted there; much less is being wasted at the moment. It is unnecessary to raise the wall of the dam now, but we shall attend to it in good time. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that as the needs increase, we shall do in good time what has to be done. He may be assured of that.

The hon. member also put questions in regard to our international co-operation, i.e. what it means and whether we are making any progress. I want to tell the hon. member that it is like this: Over the past few years we have gone to a great deal of trouble in order to enhance South Africa’s ties with foreign countries. I may tell you, Sir, that South Africa has developed into a country enjoying exceptional prestige in this sphere. Our international co-operation has brought us to the stage where, amongst other things, the international organization in regard to water pollution is being presided over by a South African, Dr. Stander, as the international president, and this year he was re-elected as the international president. Our own Secretary for Water Affairs as well other members are serving on the international commission on large dams, where they are playing a special, leading role, and I should also like to foresee the day when our own people there will also fill vice-presidencies or other positions of international status. Furthermore, I want to say that we have made a great deal of progress in our attempts at co-operation with other countries. We have established points of contact with quite a number of these countries; in fact, in recent years we have made such good progress that we are regularly paying visits to one another. I am referring inter alia to Israel. Israel has made a very great deal of progress in the sphere of water distribution, and especially in regard to irrigation engineering. A number of our people attended a symposium there and also took a course there, and they saw the whole country as well. Our co-operation is excellent and we have the best of relations. We have also built up good relations with Portugal. Portugal is a small country, but in the sphere of water affairs and dam construction Portugal is one of the leading countries in the world. We also have excellent co-operation in regard to the control of those rivers running from South Africa into Portuguese territory. So, we have these excellent ties. What is more, our people visit them regularly and their people visit us. Greece is a small country, and you would think. Sir, that it is not of great importance to us, but it is a country which, just as is the case with our Rand area, is doing a great deal of work in regard to subterranean water. They, too, have dolomitic areas and limestone areas. They have problems of the same kind as those we have on the Rand. It is a poor country, but it is also poor in water, and they have made a very great deal of progress in that regard. We have excellent ties with the Greeks in this sphere. Their people come here and our people go there. I may also tell you, Sir, that we have excellent ties with Spain. Dr. Nadal was here the other day. He is a man of international status. They have the Tajo-Segura project which they built there. They approached us and our engineers helped them. We are helping each other mutually. We have excellent ties with France. As far as the Verwoerd Dam is concerned, many of the model studies were done in France. Many of the studies on which we co-operate mutually, are done there. France is one of the countries that has made considerable progress. You know that they have the Baron Languedoc scheme, one of the world’s most beautiful water schemes, especially because inter alia they connected sprinkler irrigation to their pipelines under pressure. This Hex River project of ours is actually a project which our people saw over there. It is based on a model in France. In England we also have excellent co-operation, especially in regard to water pollution, and the same goes for Switzerland. That is a country we visit continually. The Swiss have made a special study in regard to high dams, and especially in regard to the risk involved in such dams, and in this sphere they are amongst the leaders in the world. We also have ties with Austria, a country which has made a very great deal of progress in regard to the study of the discipline dealing with the characteristics of water in motion, how it carries silt and how it deposits it, etc. In South Africa this is regarded as something very important. These are the countries with which we have dealings. I may therefore tell the hon. member that our ties are excellent. But now I just want to read out to you something, Sir, which will interest you. You may know that Prof. Wetstone was here two years ago. He is a world authority in his specific field. He was here in connection with the Water Year. Hon. members on both sides of the House will appreciate this. I regard our Water Act, which we once again amended this year, as probably being amongst the best water laws passed in the world. This is not a boast; it is a fact. I want to tell you that the Americans have also come here to see what our Water Act does. We are far ahead of them. But listen to what was said by a person such as Prof. Wetstone. He is from the Texas Technical University, and he wrote inter alia—

He went on to say—

He concluded by saying—

This is what we hear from a world authority, a person who was here. He has a good knowledge of South Africa. We invited him to South Africa during the Water Year and he was particularly impressed, especially in regard to the steps taken by us against pollution. The fact that we are still struggling to such an extent with the practical problems of pollution today, shows that we must accept that with our bare hands we can do no more than we can. I want to tell hon. members that the control we built into our Water Act, is of such a nature that it has to be acknowledged today as one of the best water laws of the world. All of us had a hand in it. Over the past number of years we have amended the Act even further.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the Boland water plan.

My three years on the Select Committee were not wasted.

The hon. member pleaded for an advisory water board. In that regard I want to say at once that there were representations to the effect that in the Boland, after we had decided on the Greater Boland plan, we were now to hand over this entire grand plan to another authority. Of course, that is nonsense. That cannot happen. From this extreme there was also the extreme that it was being felt that the development of the Boland plan had to be such that the necessary advice could also be obtained from the public. To that I immediately want to give the hon. member a reply in the affirmative. The Department of Water Affairs undertakes the planning and controls it as the need arises, I believe that the department will be able to manage very well with the advice of a body which is meant to co-operate and which is going to look after the various interests. Whether this will involve the entire area or only the area on the other side of the mountain —i.e. the area along the Breede River this side of the mountain up to the area along the Berg River—I do not know. I want to say at once that there is in fact room for proper co-ordination. We shall probably give thought to that in the future. In the meantime I want to add that in the planning of the area we are trying to maintain contact with the various bodies. We are co-operating with the universities, municipalities and with the industries. We are also co-operating with other scientists, including the C.S.I.R. and the provincial administration. What the hon. member means, however, is whether we should not co-operate with a recognized advisory committee which may serve as the mouthpiece. To that I want to reply in the affirmative; we shall look into it. We are still feeling our way, but we shall come to it in due course.

A moment ago I replied in regard to the stock-watering schemes. I just want to tell the hon. member in addition that, if we take the trouble to supply water for stock-watering purposes by way of this pipeline to areas where there is no water or very brackish water only, it is of as great importance to the department as it may perhaps be to those people to know what the results are. The hon. member should kindly tell those farmers’ associations that they themselves along with the scientists should come to us with proof of what it may imply. They should not guess, but make a proper investigation so that we may know what the effect of spending that money will be. We ourselves are interested in the extent to which it is going to succeed in other parts of South Africa.

The hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to know how much progress had been made with the P. K. le Roux Dam. It is quite correct that I rose here last year and told the House that we had decided to build that dam ourselves. We motivated it at the time, and I want to motivate it again. If the State comes forward with such a large project and the department can build it, and we think that we can save the State those millions which we do think we sall save, it is my duty and the duty of the House to ensure that South Africa’s money is spent in the best way. Let me tell the House at once that I did not say that, if the scheme were built under contract, it would cost more than R56 million, but the lowest acceptable tender was for that amount. I want to tell the hon. member that if we look at the escalation of prices and if we take into account that in regard to schemes that are under construction there have been increases of up to 100 per cent, it is very unlikely that this R56 million would not have become R70 million or R80 million.

Is it still going to cost R45 million?

I am coming to the R45 million in a moment. That is why I told the House last year that I was prepared to report to the House every year on how much we had spent on the basis of tender prices, in terms of which we know how much material we used, how much labour is being built in and how much soil has been moved. In this manner we may keep pace with the development and report on what it has cost to date and what it would have cost if we had not built it ourselves. In this regard I want to furnish a reply. We only started building a short while ago. Before we could do so, the construction camps had to be built, staff had to be recruited, storage places had to be fitted up, etc. In this regard, therefore, not much has been spent. However, I want to tell the hon. member that we have a special cost section in this scheme which ensures that this promise to the House is carried out. Now I want to tell him where we stand at the moment. I want to read from the report of the accounting section. That report states (translation)—

In other words, as far as that is concerned, we are actually slightly better off than I promised last year. We are therefore watching the situation very closely, and our cost-accounting section is continually engaged in making projections for the future. I still adhere to the view that we are capable of doing this work, and that we shall do it, unless exceptional circumstances arise. These calculations include the benefits which the State has. It has been done in such a realistic manner that it is no reflection on the private sector. It has therefore been calculated realistically, as though we did not have the benefit of the State. In this regard I am thinking of transport, etc. It has therefore been done on a real basis. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that I have every confidence that it can in fact be done. Hon. members will remember the clash we had here two or three years ago in regard to the question of costs in connection with these large-scale constructions. Hon. members will still be aware of the blame that was cast because we came forward from time to time with requests for more money than Parliament had voted originally. The accusation is levelled against us that we vote a certain amount for a scheme, and that that scheme subsequently proves to cost a great deal more. From the questions put by hon. members opposite, it is very clear that they want to know from us when the estimate was made, what the amount was, when the revised estimate was made and how much more it cost, etc., evidently to signify by those means that the department had made a wrong estimate. However, let me say at once that these are by no means comparable figures. In this regard I shall say no more unless the hon. member specifically wants me to do so. Some of the schemes have been changed completely. For instance, in respect of one dam an estimate may be made for 20 000 morgen feet, but then, after three or four years, revised estimates may again be drawn up in respect of that scheme for 80 000 morgen feet. Such a scheme would necessarily cost more then. These schemes are therefore not comparable; however, that is not the point; the point I want to make is that, irrespective of whether these schemes are comparable, the department, since it has been giving as much attention to proper cost accounting and proper advance planning as promised by me in this House, has refined this system to such an extent that at the moment it is already possible for the department to pay back into the Treasury the considerable benefit that accrues from it. The P. K. le Roux Dam is an example of this. I want to say at once, before I am misinterpreted, that I have the highest esteem for the private sector. They build well. These people know their work. I think that our private sector, as construction people, may be compared with the best in the world. I also have examples of how they tender against other people in the world. I must tell the hon. member this: When it comes to the construction of dams, canals and those matters with which my department has now been concerned for 50 years, there is no construction organization in this country or abroad which can compete with it on an equal footing by building at the same cost.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister a question? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that comparative calculation which he mentioned, is secret or whether it is being made available?

No.

May it, for instance, also be sent to the tenderers for their comment?

At this stage I am not interested in their comments. Why should I be? What concern is it of theirs?

But is not secret.

Of course. Anybody may use it. If they are interested, they may look at it. I repeat that our tenderers are good tenderers. It is, however, my duty to save the State as much money as possible—unless the hon. member tells me that it is his party’s standpoint that we should not build and should rather pay more so that the private sector may do it. If the hon. member told me that I should rather allow it to cost R80 million or R70 million and that the private sector could do the work, and that there should be no question of a saving to South Africa, then I would understand him.

I say you will not be able to do it for R45 million.

The hon. member says I cannot. Sir, here we have a challenge. I am told that we cannot do it for R45 million. May I repeat this: Unless something exceptional happens—I am not referring to normal escalation—I want to tell you, Sir, that we shall build it for R45 million.

On the same specifications, everything?

On these specifications, everything. May I add something to that for the benefit of the hon. member? Let us be fair. In the construction industry in the sphere with which we are dealing, it is accepted that a variation within 5 per cent is reasonable and fair. If I say R45 million, a variation within 5 per cent, one way or the other, is fair. But I have more to say to the hon. member. I want to tell him that after the attacks we had here, we took great pains to make a calculation of the extent to which the department was off the mark, from last year until this year, in all its schemes. Sir, here I have the figure. The total estimated cost and the cost to date differed by 0,95 per cent in 12 months’ time. Do you know of anybody who is able to match this? This is what the computer says. But I want to continue. There are a few schemes which we have handed over or which are in the process of being handed over, and in respect of which I want to furnish him with the figures. The revised estimate of 1968 for the Elands River scheme, the Vaalkop Dam, was R6 million. The estimated cost upon completion is R4,5 million. The revised estimate for the Kafferskraal Dam in the Komati River was R9 million in 1970. Listen carefully now. It is being handed over for R6 million. But now we come to the interesting dam, in which everybody is interested —you will remember, Sir—namely the Spioenkop Dam. Our estimate for this dam was R11 million; it was handed over for R9,2 million. This is the first time in our history that we are doing it so accurately and that we are beginning to give money back. Now, hon. members should not draw the conclusion—for it would be unfair— that previously the department did everything in a, haphazard manner. That is not the intention. The intention is as follows: Ever since the department’s estimates reached R100 million per year, it has been essential for the entire design machinery, the entire planning machinery and the entire construction machinery to be rationalized in such a manner that the increased work could be handled. For that reason we made a start by doing it on a basis in which I have the greatest confidence. I want to give full credit to the department under the guidance of Mr. Kriel for the fact that we have now reached a stage where what I promised three years ago—at that stage some if the hon. members opposite stared at me with unbelieving eyes—has come true. I have just read out to hon. members the results of the past three years.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would the hon. the Minister tell us something about the discussions that he held according to the Press statement he issued on 30th March, on discussions with engineers and so forth on the escalation of costs? I have the statement that he made with me. Have there been any results as yet?

No, wait a minute. That is something quite different. That is a contract that was concluded a very long time ago for the construction of a dam. The contract was entered into quite a long time ago with private people for the construction of the tunnel. In the meantime the costs had risen and we started discussing the matter with one another. After all, when a contract is concluded for R57 million and people tell one that the cost will be closer to R100 million, one would not simply write out the cheque. One would argue about it. What we are doing at the moment is to look at the costs and to smooth out the differences with one another, point for point. The Department has been instructed only to pay out, according to the contract, those tender claims which come in and for which there is proper motivation. It goes without saying that we argue. Sometimes one argues about such a tender claim for months. In this case a situation resulted later on where we started disagreeing with one another because the costs were very high. Now, all that happened, was that these people approached me in this regard from time to time. I admitted that it was a difficult situation, and I went to the Cabinet because it was a difficult situation, and I did not want to pass an opinion by myself and have my department take all the blame. We suggested that there should be a committee, i.e. a committee specially appointed for the purpose of looking at those points on which we could not reach agreement with one another. This committee consists of a person who is in a position to pass an opinion on wages, since the differences of opinion are mainly concerned with wages. Professor Steenkamp, who was chairman of the Wage Board for years, is a member of this committee. Another member of this committee is a person from the private sector, a person who is in a position to pass an opinion on construction, i.e. the chairman of Cementation, Mr. Garrett. Then we have a member from the Attorney-General’s office, a member from the Treasury and a member from my department. These people are therefore in a position to pass an opinion on those matters on which we cannot reach agreement in the meantime. They are in a position to advise the State on such matters. That is what is involved here.

Are other contracts involved as well?

No, standing contracts are involved. When we cannot reach agreement, I do not take sides, but ask my people, who in my opinion are authorities, to help us to judge. The Attorney-General is represented, and therefore nothing can go wrong. Then we also have a representative of the Treasury, a private person from outside, and a person who has knowledge of the wage structure of South Africa and who himself used to be the chairman of the Wage Board. They confer so that they may advise the Minister one way or the other. Therefore, apart from the department and its consulting engineers, this committee advises the Minister as well. I think that it is fair and that it has also been appointed in defence of the expenditure of the department.

The hon. member also referred to pollution, but I do not want to pause at it for any great length of time. As far as pollution is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove at once that we should not try to make a political issue of pollution. If he would consult the chairman of his group, he would know what a difficult question something like pollution is in South Africa. There are the bodies over which we are exercising control, bodies such as town councils and major industries which have effluents and for which they must obtain permits from us. But there are millions of people who are polluting the environment. Our problem is to keep our streams clean as far as possible. We are doing our best in doing so. We have the co-operation of the Bureau of Standards and we have already built up a staff, which has been enlarged considerably and which will still have to be enlarged much more in order that we may gain control. We are struggling to get the right technicians, but we shall get them in due course. We are trying to gain control over the pollution situation, but it is a very difficult situation. For instance, we find that a dam breaks in Swaziland, a dam in which all the poisonous substances and the effluents of a pulp factory are accumulated. That dam breaks and water flows down the river, posing a threat to the flood plains of the Lower Pongola, where fish life has to be protected. This kind of thing happens. I want to tell the hon. member that if he wants to create the impression that we do not know what is going on, he is making a very big mistake. He wants to create the impression that if rivers are polluted, the State is to blame. I want to say this to him: It is true that the department has an Act; it is true that the department has a duty and that we want to retain it. But I want to add that the millions of people in South Africa also have a duty to keep the country clean. It is not only the State that has a duty. Everybody has a duty. In addition to the fact that this is our statutory task, there is also such a thing as an educational task. In that respect the hon. member can help.

Oh no.

What I mean is that there are schools in that hon. member’s constituency, and that he should urge his children and his neighbour’s children to refrain from polluting their environment. He should educate them. The point is simply that it is also an educational task. Whether a person pollutes a football field or a river, it is one and the same thing. I think everybody will agree that the fact should be brought home to the people in the country that, in addition to all the other things, we are striving after, and all the other fine things we want to achieve, we should also keep South Africa beautiful and clean.

The hon. member for Fauresmith referred to the dam and also put a question to me. He wanted to know what had happened to our engineers and what progress was being made with them. I want to tell the hon. member that from last year up to now we have had an increase of 8 per cent in the number of engineers. We are very grateful for that. We think that this increase will be augmented as the men who are in the pipeline, complete their university training.

The hon. member also referred to the recreational possibilities at the Verwoerd Dam. The recreational possibilities of the Verwoerd Dam are tremendous. I want to tell the hon. member that we have now agreed with the provinces that in cases where in the past we either did not have any development or did not have orderly development, and where the provinces only took over certain dams and then, perhaps, did not undertake development on as ambitious a scale as we thought should have been undertaken there, we now have an arrangement that a planning committee, which is a sub-committee of the Prime Minister’s Physical Planning Committee, will pay special attention to the development of our dams. The Department of Health, the Department of Sport and Recreation, the provinces themselves, the Department of Forestry and the Department of Water Affairs will also be represented on that committee. We hope that a proper development plan will be drawn up in respect of every dam. We hope that this will also be the case with the Verwoerd Dam in the future. Although the development of the Verwoerd Dam has already been investigated by such a planning committee, we hope that it will also be developed on this basis. The hon. member for South Coast will be interested to know that we have developed the Chelmsford Dam in conjunction with the relevant bodies in Natal. I am of the opinion that provision should also be made for animal life and fish life and for all the bodies interested in using it. These big dams in South Africa can become beautiful recreational spots in this country of ours. Although we must protect the water surfaces, and our prime object must be pursued, i.e. irrigation or human consumption, I feel that another purpose may also be served, and that is the use of those surfaces by millions of people in our country for week-end recreation and other purposes. This is just as important an object that may be pursued as is the use of the water itself.

†The hon. member for Walmer referred to the allocation of land in the Fish River area. Of course, my department will have a say in the allocation of water. There is an investigation and a very careful study being conducted in the area in regard to the availability of land and the proper use of land and water. But as for the other problem that the hon. member posed, namely the salinity in the Fish River area, I want to say that that is of course a problem in South Africa. We foresee conveying the water by means of canals and therefore using the river basin as a flood canal and also as a drainage canal. But in the meantime we will have to use the Fish River as a transmission canal for our water. The future planning will be fitted in to watch this problem very carefully. I am very perturbed about this problem, because it endangers a very vast area of our irrigable land. The hon. member also referred to the machine that we bought. The machine with all its spare parts cost about R2 million on arrival in South Africa. The purchase price of the machine was R1,6 million. But it was delivered and installed on site for about R2 million. Unfortunately, even with this machine, we cannot proceed with the Bosberg scheme.

*The tunnel through the Bosberg will cost too much. In the light of the cost-advantage ratio we simply cannot proceed with this scheme. We investigated the matter very thoroughly. There would be no point in saying now that if the tunnel can be dug by machine, it may as well be dug. If it cannot be constructed, then it cannot be constructed. The hon. member must remember that it is not a question of what it will cost, but in fact a question of what it will cost the person on the other side. It is he who says that he simply cannot afford it.

The hon. member for Somerset East wanted to know what progress the Water Research Commission was making, and I am glad he asked that question. As the hon. member knows, the commission actually started its activities only last year. The commission asked me whether it was necessary to issue a report now. My reply to them was that I did not think it was necessary. I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for South Coast, for he also referred to this commission. The first task which the commission set itself, was to obtain an absolute evaluation of the water problems in South Africa. This is being done in conjunction with all the bodies concerned in the matter, i.e. universities, private bodies, scientific bodies, etc. I have had access to what they have already done. At the moment they have a very wide evaluation of what has to be done. They are engaged in negotiations in order to draw up the priorities of projects. I told the commission that to my mind it was not necessary for them to draft a report this year. Whatever has to be said, I shall tell the House, and a proper report will be brought out next year. In that way it will be possible for them to inform the House as to precisely how much progress they have made.

The hon. member also wanted to know what progress was being made in regard to students studying in foreign countries. From time to time we sent quite a number of students overseas. They are doing excellently over there. We send our students overseas in order that they may specialize in various fields, and there are in fact numerous new fields in which students may specialize. We have had particularly good results. For instance, we sent a student overseas to study at the Federal Bureau of Reclamation in America. We received a report to the effect that he was doing first-rate work. We were congratulated by the Federal Bureau on the quality of our students. Then there was another student at the Institute of Technology. I should have liked to read out a letter to the hon. member, but unfortunately I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment. The Institute of Technology wrote us a letter in regard to a brilliant student from South Africa. They said that once that student completed his studies, there were at least seven universities in America which would be waiting for him. However, he will return to South Africa. The principal wrote to tell us that he was one of the most brilliant students they had ever had in America in this sphere. There are quite a number of students who go overseas, and we receive praise in regard to their achievements over there. The policy is to send people overseas to study in specialized fields as far as possible, so that we may be ready in all spheres with a view to the future.

The hon. member also wanted to know how the tunnel was doing. The tunnel is doing well. Hon. members will be interested to know that the fire in the Orange-Fish tunnel was extinguished by approximately 8 o’clock yesterday morning. However, it is still terribly hot in the tunnel, and it will probably take a few months before everything has cooled down properly. However, the engineers have a plan for preventing the fire from starting again. We hope they succeed.

Then I want to say something about the rock mole. Approximately 55 per cent of that part of the tunnel has been completed. Now, it may interest hon. members to know that the day we bought it, the Americans told us—and we also had our calculations —that if we could have the rock mole working at an average rate of 77 metres per week, it would mean, calculated at the cost at that stage—the costs at present are even more favourable for the mole—that we would be more or less level with the costs entailed by the conventional methods. When we started, our progress was slow. By March last year the progress was only something like 47 metres instead of 77 metres. However, there has been a steady increase in this speed, and during the past 10 weeks it has been working at an average rate of 97 metres per week. In other words, we are exceeding the American standard by far. With the poor performance at the beginning and the excellent performance now, we have almost reached our target. We have now achieved an average of 71 metres over the entire period. If we maintain the progress we are making now, we shall surpass our best expectations, and there is no doubt that we shall build at a much cheaper price than those quoted in tenders we received from other quarters.

The hon. member also referred to the Bushmans River. I think I have already given the hon. member a reply to that matter. The hon. member also wanted to know whether we did not want to construct another catch-dam above the Mentz Dam. According to calculations that have been made, the answer to that is in the negative. We already have a flood weir in that river. In any case, it will now be possible for us to bring additional water from the Fish River. The water need is therefore no longer a problem. However, this is a point as far as flood moderation is concerned. At this stage we do not think it is essential that a second one be built.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a game of ping-pong for the last couple of years between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for South Coast in relation to United Party policy on water affairs. We have got an ace to which the hon. the Minister has no answer. I have here the comments which were delivered by Oom Jim Fouché in 1967 when the policy of the United Party was first enunciated in this House by the hon. member for South Coast. We are comfortably ahead of the hon. the Minister at the moment and the score is now 40/30. I was indeed very interested in what the hon. the Minister had to say about the cost and the very close estimating done by the department. From our side of the House we would like to congratulate the department on the fact that they were able to deliver the dams at a figure which is substantially lower than the estimated cost. I am interested in the figure and I want to raise this matter with the hon. the Minister. I asked one of the questions to which he referred concerning the total estimated cost of dams which were costing R1 million or more, and the capital costs he expected to recover during the course of a period of 40 years. In the Estimates which we are now passing, an amount of R79 million has been allocated, but the total amount to which we are committing South Africa, and have committed South Africa for some years past, on merely the projects which are mentioned in answer to my question, is something like R693 million; that is the scale on which the Department of Water Affairs is operating. It seems to me, for my own personal satisfaction as a member of Parliament, that we ought to give a great deal closer scrutiny to the Estimates which come before this House in the form of White Papers which are delivered to us every session, because I wonder how much longer we can go on, with the limited capital resources that we have at our disposal, committing ourselves to a figure of over R693 million at this stage, because these are merely the most important works, when we know that there is an escalation cost factor of at least 5 per cent per annum, and when in the last year, as we are told by the department in every single White Paper, the escalation factor was 10 per cent. Sir, 10 per cent added to R700 million is R70 million, and if this is to go on every single year we will not be able to continue at the tempo at which we are now going to meet the water requirements of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically whether it is not possible for these White Papers to be delivered to the Select Committee on Water Affairs, with the charge to that Committee to go into those White Papers and into the projects which are referred to therein, with the specific object of allocating priorities. Because, Sir, I believe that we are going to have to allocate priorities before very long. Here I want to raise just one particular case. I do not want to mention the name. If the Minister wants me to do so, I will. I want to make it quite dear that I am not knocking this particular scheme and that I do not want it scrapped from the Estimates or anything like that. It is not a political issue that I am trying to raise; I want to raise it as a matter of principle. This particular scheme was brought to this House in 1968, and according to the White Paper it was to cost R1,5 million. It was accepted by the House. It must have gone through the Committee at the time and it was accepted by the House and brought on to the Estimates. But this year we have had another White Paper which states that it was found on further investigation to be impossible to build the dam on the site for which the money had been appropriated, and it was therefore necessary to move the dam some 2 km further downstream.

The foundations were wrong.

The foundations at the site of the dam wall were simply unsuitable and the wall could not be proceeded with. The White Paper says—

In fact, the cost today is estimated to be R3,5 million. This is merely for the construction of the wall, and then there are the ancillary canal systems which have to be constructed, which will probably raise this figure to about R4 million. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Select Committee on Water Affairs to be charged by the Minister with the duty of asking detailed questions as to the amounts to be voted and as to the structures of dams and that kind of thing. It has been mentioned before during this session that in the House of Commons they have a Select Committee on Science and Technology. It is apparent to everybody that ordinary members of Parliament —we as we sit here—are not competent to ask questions at face value, as it were, on matters of complex science and technology.

The experience in the House of Commons was that as they progressed over a number of years, they built up a corporate knowledge, a body of knowledge, in that Select Committee, which enabled them to understand and to ask searching and penetrating questions on even so complex a matter as nuclear power generation in Great Britain. Sir, I am convinced that those of us who are interested in water affairs, if we were to be a Select Committee, charged, as they are in Great Britain, with the investigation of this sort of thing, would be able to be of considerable assistance to the hon. the Minister in allocating the sort of priorities which he is going to have to allocate. This particular scheme has to serve an area of 1 500 ha. Now my arithmetic may be wrong because I am not a decimal man, but I think that is something like 4 000 acres and it will cost R4 million, and the State will subsidize it to the extent of 80 per cent for the whole of that scheme. I am not arguing on the merit of that scheme because it has already been accepted. It is on the Estimates here and as soon as the Chair puts the Vote we will vote the money. But I want to suggest to the Minister that a Select Committee could be of immense benefit to him and to South Africa in saving money and in making sure that a case like this does not arise again; because if there has been detailed investigation and we had been satisfied on the Select Committee that the ground was suitable for a dam to be built, then the revised Estimates should not have come before us and this Parliament should not have been asked to vote money. I would urge the hon. the Minister to accept this.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he could give us certain figures. In so many of the items I have asked him about, for instance the Tugela/Vaal scheme, which is going to cost something like R25 million and the aqueduct which will be R19 million and the Sterkfontein Dam R9 million, that will be recovered to the extent of about 100 per cent because the water will be stored and lifted over the Berg and then made available to the Rand Water Board, and the cost will be recovered over a period of 40 years. But there must be a considerable sum of money which comes back to the Treasury every single year by way of interest and redemption on the capital cost of dams which have been constructed over a period of years. I would be interested to know from the Minister what that figure is for this year, and if he does not have the figures for this year, then for last year and how much money comes in in the course of a year. We have the Minister’s Department spending about R90 million odd this year, and there must be a considerable sum that comes back to the State coffers from works which have been built in past years.

Then I would like to raise one other matter which concerns my constituency. When a White Paper is tabled, as happened with the Albert Falls Dam, the area then becomes known; it is known within certain limits that that area will be flooded by the water stored in the dam. I would like to know whether there is anything in the Water Act or in the administrative procedure of the department which prevents a proclamation being issued setting out the boundaries of that dam within which no further construction or development work can take place. In 1969 we passed an amendment to the Water Act, allowing the Minister to delimit certain areas in which no development could take place. In the Umgeni development has been taking place since the White Paper was issued and it was only proclaimed on 16th March this year. I should like to know why that happens and what the reasons for it are. [Time expired.]

I just want to refer briefly to the third supplementary report on the Vaal-Gamagara Government Regional Water Supply Scheme, a scheme which serves a large portion of my constituency. The reason mentioned there is that it has become necessary for this amount to be put at R7 million, the additional amount of R1,750 million which was consequently approved this year, having become necessary. I want to thank the Minister and his department for the fact that the scheme has progressed so far for this particular area of the North Western Cape. If we think of the fact that this area had no future, as far as development is concerned, unless this scheme could be established, we are grateful. Between Postmasburg and Sishen there is a potential of 1 000 million tons of iron ore that can be mined, and there are manganese deposits of 20 million tons, and we think that this contributed greatly to the development which has already taken place there. We want to express our appreciation for the fact that that area, Postmasburg, Sishen and Olifantshoek, has expanded tremendously in recent times and could not have done so without that scheme. I know that the Government made a tremendous contribution and incurred costs in order to develop that area. We also know that there was a tremendous demand on the pipeline, which was constructed with that scheme, for watering places for livestock and that thought is also being given to providing these people with those facilities to a large extent. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it will be possible in future to provide the Kalahari with watering places for livestock, because that far-off and distant part of our country still has a great potential as far as our agriculture is concerned. We owe the Minister a debt of gratitude for this plan and the additional supplementary report according to which he has laid plans reaching as far ahead as the year 2000. I think we should praise the department and the Minister for their farsightedness and for the fact that all these projects are not being tackled on a short-term basis, but on a long-term basis in the interests of the development of South Africa.

I think that that area has really benefited from it and that in the future we can look forward to other projects which we hope will also be established. I also want to express my thanks for the fact that over a short period we have begun with tremendous development in my constituency. Great development has already taken place there. In a short time the department has succeeded in also providing the copper mines at Prieska with water. This has all been completed and I trust that the appreciation from our side will inspire the hon. the Minister, since he has done so much for us in so a short a period. We are glad the Verwoerd Dam could be completed in time, before the floods came. If the Verwoerd Dam had not been completed the damage which the recent floods could have caused could have assumed unimaginable proportions. In the past year we have had stability unparalleled in the history of the lower Orange River, and our farmers there are already doing a great deal of rehabilitation work because they now have a steady stream and something which they can build on financially for the future. Because the completion of this dam prevented the recent floods—we have heard so much of floods in the past—it prevented at least R1 500 000 to R2 million in damage which the farmers would have suffered if the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam had not been completed.

I briefly want to refer the Minister to the planning committee of the lower Orange River. The report on the functions of this committee was completed some time ago and I know it is in the hon. the Minister’s hands. As far as I know that report has not yet been published, but we are eager to hear what is suggested in that report, particularly in respect of this region which I serve. The area over which I preside is probably about 150 miles in extent. That part above Prieska, below the confluence of the Vaal and Orange Rivers, as the hon. the Minister and the department know, of course, has come to a standstill since it was proclaimed. Although those people beside the Orange River want to develop, they do not know how large the economic units are going to be, or how much water they will be entitled to. There are many people who are, in fact, able to develop in that region, but who must wait, at this stage, to see what is going to happen. I should like to ask the Minister just to give us the assurance, in that connection, that the opportunity will be created for these farmers to develop further, as they are in a position to do. I have no doubts about the productivity and the potential that does exist, but one cannot keep it back for many years, one’s life is too short. Those people who were developing when the area was proclaimed are now also at a standstill. Then I also want to express my thanks. I have been in this Parliament for six years and I know that the problem that has been facing the farmers in the lower Orange River area is that most of the time they did not have enough water for irrigation. And when they do get water again, it is in the form of a flood. Under these circumstances the local officials working in my constituency have been through a difficult time. I wish I could mention their names, but I want to tell the Minister and the department that all these people, from the engineer to the officials in the water bailiff’s office, went through a very difficult time. In the six years I have represented this constituency I know that they have been very severely blamed for certain things they have not been guilty of at all, because our farmers simply are like that—if it is not our fault, it is someone else’s. I want to thank them for having been so willing, throughout those years, to shoulder that blame and do their work in that competent way. Today everyone is satisfied. I also want to thank the Minister for his erstwhile visit when he cleared up certain matters which the officials and the various parties were not satisfied about. I think the Minister’s visit, the standpoint he adopted and the work done by the department there, are such that everyone is today grateful to the hon. the Minister and his department. I consequently convey to the Minister the thanks of the farmers in the lower Orange River area. We have been privileged to survive the difficult times and now to be able to greet with gladness the benefits the future holds for us.

Mr. Chairman, recently the Department of Water Affairs announced schemes and completed projects which not only the department, but also every citizen in this country can be proud of. Reference has already been made to the formidable H. F. Verwoerd Dam, but I think that in practice the grandeur of that scheme only comes into its own when one considers that 9 000 new farms will come into being as a result of this scheme. If we look at the Western Cape we can place the Boland water plan on almost an equal footing, as far as achievement is concerned, with the H. F. Verwoerd Dam when it is completed in a short while. Not only has it gripped the imagination of those in the Boland, but throughout the country it has given people confidence in the future of the Boland. Humanly speaking the future of the Boland is ensured because that plan was announced. We all know what confidence means to any area.

With this set-up as a background I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister and his department the needs of the area which I represent here in part, i.e. the Southern Cape. As far as this area itself is concerned, it has always managed its own side of things very well. Just look at what happened 14 days ago at Oudtshoorn. One can just see what kind of material one is dealing with. But what my argument actually amounts to is that the Southern Cape, and particularly the coastal regions, has not yet woken from its economic hibernation. There in particular one has a depopulation of the Whites. Where one does not have economic progress one is faced with the difficulty of people leaving so that eventually a vacuum develops. The areas round Mossel Bay, George, Knysna and Oudtshoorn were declared future growth points fairly recently, and the door has been opened for the further development of those areas. That is something we are very glad of. I must now say, however, that the opening of the door will not mean very much. Quite a bit of preparation work has still to be done. If in this debate I am just to refer to the industrial settlement in a few words, let me say that I see the Western Cape, Johannesburg and then the development along the East Coast down to Port Elizabeth. It is therefore development more or less in the shape of a horse-shoe. The bottom two points are far apart. Between them there is no development. For our proportionate development we shall therefore also have to pay proper attention to the Southern Cape. If you now ask me why the Southern Cape is lagging behind in this sphere, why it does not wake from its economic hibernation, I must tell you that it is because the infrastructure for the development of that area has not yet been established. If one analyses the position further one can probably say that the transport services are not what they could be. But what it actually amounts to is that we need water in that area. With that in mind I now want to ask the Minister and his department whether a water plan cannot also be announced for the Southern Cape, as for the Boland. I realize that the Southern Cape’s needs differ completely from those of the Western Cape. There it is still chiefly a matter of an agricultural economy; the area is still awaiting its rightful industrial development. The physical conditions are totally different. The rainfall is different. The terrain, the mountains, the water catchment area are also totally different. I also realize that the Minister and his department have a great shortage of the kind of people who have to do that class of work. But I nevertheless feel that if a water plan is announced for the Southern Cape the possibilities of this area will come particularly strongly to the fore, that this will create confidence in that area, that industrialists will look at it anew and that this would be of tremendous value to that area.

Sir, I think I can safely say that this Minister and his department have, for the first time, placed waiter affairs and the provision of water in South Africa on a scientific footing, that they have harnessed science as it has never been harnessed in this country before, as far as water is concerned. I should now like to hear from the Minister and his department when this “scientific aspect” is going to be applied to the Southern Cape as far as the provision of water is concerned what the plans are and what the results would be.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the many speakers on this side of the House who have already thanked the Minister for the privilege we had of attending the opening of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. I want to go a little further than that. I should like to give credit where credit is due, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the diligence and dedication with which he and the department have devoted themselves to this portfolio since he joined the department is something that does not pass unnoticed. We do take full cognizance of it. We know that he made a thorough study of his department. We want to congratulate him on that. He is one of the few Cabinet members on that side of the House to have made such a thorough study of his portfolio.

I am sorry the hon. member for Somerset East is not here. I asked him to remain in the House, because I just want to respond briefly to statements he made here and comment on the stones he flung at this side of the House. He accused several hon. members on this side of trespassing on their neighbour’s territory, speaking on behalf of another person’s constituency, or of being urban representatives and speaking about water matters. I just want to tell the hon. member for Somerset East: People who live in glass houses should not be so ready to throw stones. He jumped from the pulpit into politics, and from politics he has jumped here into the Water Vote. Now he is slinging mud at this side of the House. It would have been more fitting if he had rather given a lecture on why one should not let things take their course.

I should also like to speak about my constituency, about the water supply there, and about East London in particular. This is not the first time I have spoken about this, but the matter is already gaining greater urgency because it appears to us we are now coming closer and closer to independence for the Transkei, independence which will also come to the Ciskei at a later stage. When I listen to Chief Matanzima, it seems to me as if the Transkei could be gaining its independence even before the end of the year! I state that East London and the Border area there, where border area development must inevitably take place because it is a decentralized area and because there are almost two million people in those two Bantustans, the Transkei and the Ciskei, is inevitably a point that ought to be developed. Iscor has purchased thousands of morgen of land there, and I will not allow myself to be told that they do not have plans for the future development of heavy industries in that area. East London harbour must serve that area where at this stage almost two million people are living. My statement is wrong. There are many more living in that area, and I think there are nearer 2½ million people living in that area. That harbour will have to serve that area, and I have confidence in the future and hope that a bigger harbour will also be built, a harbour that can serve that whole area between Durban and Port Elizabeth. With a view to that, I allege that the East London area is going to suffer from a water shortage within the foreseeable future. At this stage they are dependent solely on the Buffels River and the Nahoon River.

Then there is a question I want to ask the hon. the Minister. Last year, while the Water Research legislation was being discussed, I asked the same question, but the Minister thought it was not the function of that research body to investigate these aspects. I now specifically want to put this question to the hon. the Minister. I want to refer to the rivers that run from the Amatola Mountains and the Drakensberg Mountains through the Eastern Cape and the Transkei. I want to mention these rivers by name, the Black Kei and the White Kei which link up to form the Kei River, the Xuka, the Bashee, the Tina and the Kenegua, which later becomes the Umzimvubu, and the Umzimkulu. These four important rivers are situated to the south of the Tugela. We all know of the development being planned for the Tugela, and how it is planned to divide its water to either side of the mountain range. We are also aware of the sums of money already set aside for that purpose, and also of the sums of money which are going to be set aside for that purpose in the future. While we have those four big rivers that run through the Transkei, rivers which run their full length through that area, I want to ask again whether there is planning for these rivers which will be carried out before the Transkei gains its full sovereign independence. Problems can crop up when water is taken from those rivers to the East London and border complex after the area gains independence. Is there any planning for the damming up of the water higher up in the rivers and then conveying it to those areas?

Then I also want to deal with the Ciskei. With the consolidation and the consolidation plans we heard of recently, there are also other problems that come to the fore. The main sources of the water in the border areas and East London is the Keiskama which, up to now, has been reasonably undeveloped and which is bordered on the one side by the Ciskei, and on the other side by the White area, and the Buffels River which has its source at Hogsback in the Drakensberg. The Buffels River runs for a great deal of its length through the Ciskei. Are there any plans for the further development of the rivers and for ensuring that there is an additional water supply that can be registered before we also eventually give the Ciskei its independence? There has also been so much talk about the pollution of rivers and the pollution of the water and the air. If the hon. the Minister accompanies me to see what is happening on the banks of the Buffels River, the river which must feed the Bridledrift Dam and other dams, and if he looks at all the ploughing and the erosion of the vegetable earth there—and now I am not talking about pollution, but simply of the ruination of that area—he will see what I mean. It is a bad thing for the water catchment areas if they are ruined in those respects.

Then there are still two more questions I want to ask the hon. the Minister. The one is a question I have asked the hon. the Minister before. Are there any plans to convey water to that particular area from the Orange River scheme, and in particular from the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam? Can we look forward to plans being devised whereby this can be done? In his reply the hon. the Minister said a short while ago that no final decisions have been taken at this stage about the Verwoerd Dam and about conveying water. I want to accept the fact that this is not final. As this part of the world develops there will be other areas to which water will be conveyed. Water will perhaps be conveyed De Aar, and I hope this will also be the case as far as Middelburg is concerned. This is a very big project, and when I speak of those places, I am not referring to small towns. Are there thus far any plans, or have they any plans up their sleeve, whereby water supplies can be conveyed from the Verwoerd Dam in the direction of East London? While we are speaking about the conveyance of water, I also want to say something in connection with my home town. The tunnel passes fairly close to a place called Schoombee which is closest to Middelburg. Middelburg has been declared a growth point, and everything is being done to develop it as such. Since this is not yet being planned, they must see whether there is any possibility of a feed from the mouth of the tunnel to Middelburg in the Cape. From there it can serve Somerset East and other areas in the vicinity.

For irrigation or domestic use?

If possible, for both purposes, because the most fertile land lies there at Conway and its environs. We know that the water reaches Grassridge and that it will be used south of Grassridge. To the north of Grassridge lies a wonderful part of the world which is very fertile. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister would reply to these questions. He should reply, in particular, to the question of the conveyance of water from the existing Bantu areas and from the rivers we have there. Those are some of our best rivers because we have the highest mountain range there, and of necessity the water flows to the east. That area is close to the sea. That part of the world is precipitous and hilly and not much use is made of the water from the point where it comes together in the Kei River to the point where it flows into the sea. In fact, there is very little development in that area. I cannot see much development taking place there either, because that part of the world is precipitous. The hon. the Minister would do well to tell us if there is any planning to convey some of that water to the East London area where, the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do, a large industrial area with a large population will develop if matters take the course which we expect them to take.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for East London City said and also to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department for the wonderful work they are doing in this fine country of ours. We are grateful that we have a young Minister who is inspired and displays diligence in the handling of this gigantic task. In this I include the officials of his department, from the highest to the lowest ranks, who give the hon. the Minister such fine support in this gigantic task. We are glad that he has already achieved such fine results. The congratulations the Minister received from the Opposition side also attest to the appreciation there is for his work.

Water is one of the most important matters we can raise in this House, if not the most important. Everything depends on water. Nothing could exist on this planet if we did not get water. Without water we cannot accomplish anything. Therefore a big task awaits this country in the future, not only as far as the present generation is concerned, but also with respect to our descendants, i.e. that we must and will do everything in our power not only to protect our water sources against pollution, but also to use them judiciously. South Africa has become a big industrial country, and will probably still expand tremendously in future in the sphere of industry. Here we find one of the biggest problems we are faced with, i.e. the pollution that accompanies industrial development. Much of the waste material flows back to our water sources. All of us sitting in this House today, and I include myself and the Chair, have probably transgressed by having been, at some time or other, party to the pollution of water. We see the danger, but without realizing it we are a party to this almost every day, polluting these water sources we have received from our Creator.

I now also want to refer to the beautiful H. F. Verwoerd Dam which we opened the other day. A previous speaker said here that we held festivities there. I wish everyone in this House could have seen what the dam and the river looked like. On the one hand we are grateful and we celebrate, but on the other hand we pollute our water. I therefore say that all of us, myself as I stand here and you who are sitting there, are implicated in this matter. At some time or other we have contravened the Act. None of us can say today that he has never done so, because the person who has never told a lie would be telling one at that moment. I believe that stricter laws will have to be made in future. I also think that stricter action will have to be taken against industries, local authorities and the mines on the Witwatersrand in particular, which contravene this law every day by polluting the water in the area in which they are situated. Water flows by way of little streams or pipelines and eventually reaches our large rivers.

However, there is another point I want to bring to the Minister’s attention today. I am now not specifically going to ask for something for my constituency. I want to refer to the pollution of our sea water, and I do find it strange that this does not fall under the hon. the Minister’s jurisdiction. I wonder whether the time has not come, particularly now that we have experienced the large-scale pollution of our sea water along our coats, for this aspect—and I say this with all due respect—to be taken away from the Department of Economic Affairs or the Minister of Economic Affairs and placed under the Department of Water Affairs. It is that department’s work. I am not saying this because I think the Department of Economic Affairs is not doing good work. We acknowledge that they do nothing but the best work. However, I believe that aspect should also fall under the Minister of Water Affairs. I have the utmost confidence in the fact that his officials, like the officials of the Department of Economic Affairs, will also furnish such fine and positive results in that connection.

I now want to thank that department, and particularly the Minister, very much for the tour we were able to go on in November last year. Both sides of the House went on the tour; it was a very informative one. There we really saw what a gigantic task is carried by the hon. the Minister and his department. There I saw some of the finest pieces of work being carried out in this country. There I also saw the water that falls on the Muluti mountains and in Basutoland, destined by the Almighty for the Atlantic Ocean, being diverted so that the people of Port Elizabeth could also drink the water. Water intended for the Atlantic Ocean is being diverted and now flows to the Indian Ocean! We want to congratulate the department, and I say to them: “Good luck, may it go well with you.” Next to Defence, the Department of Water Affairs is the biggest department in our country.

Mr. Chairman, as one who has always been very interested in the Orange River project, and particularly the tunnel running from Venterstad to Theebus, which will, when completed, be the longest tunnel in the world, I was naturally very interested to hear the hon. the Ministers’ announcement this afternoon, that the fire caused by methane gas in shaft No. 4 has not only been arrested but in fact extinguished. This has been of considerable concern to myself and others who have been watching the building of this tunnel with great interest. I do not know how they succeeded in extinguishing the fire caused by this deadly gas, but I hope to read the reports thereon at some later date.

The hon. the Minister will recall that only two years ago we were faced with the problem of sealing up shaft No. 2 which was flooded by very strong subterranean water. That was not really as serious a problem which we have just had in arresting the fire caused by gas. I was interested too to hear that the hon. the Minister believes that we will soon be up to schedule as regards the time factor in the construction of this tunnel.

While discussing water affairs we naturally plan for apportionment. The hon. member for South Coast earlier on mentioned this as one of the four points in our policy.

What concerns me today is more parochial—my own area, namely the Border area. As hon. members know, we are busy discussing and deciding how much land will be consolidated for Bantu occupation in that particular area. Naturally some of our finest farmland in South Africa will be taken up for Native occupation. It is quite obvious that we will then only have the White corridor or the strip of land which runs down from the hinterland towards East London between the Ciskei and the Transkei, more or less between the Great Kei River and the East London railway line running to the north. The hon. member for East London City rightly mentioned that we should consider harnessing as much as possible of those waters which flow into the sea. He mentioned a number of rivers and he even asked the hon. the Minister about converting water from the mouth of the Orange River tunnel towards East London. It is quite obvious that as regards agriculture and the productivity of the Ciskei and the Border, particularly the White corridor where more and more White farmers will want land to produce food for the growing population in that area—which already exceeds 2½ million people—we will have to develop and plan to develop intensively. Farming in that area in future will have to be done intensively. We will no longer be able to develop horizontally, but vertically; in other words, perpendicularly. We will have to develop more and more with much less land, and for that reason we want more and more water. I believe that at the present time we have rivers in the area that could be harnessed without undue cost. Just a little more than two years ago the hon. Minister, in opening our largest dam in that area, the Bridledrift dam on the Buffalo River, mentioned in his speech that a survey was being conducted on the Keiskamma River and the Kubusi River. These are the two rivers which we have in mind at the moment. These rivers are permanent rivers which take the flow of much water to the sea every year. If we can harness the rivers by way of reservoirs, dams or barrages or weirs, we would be able to make available more land for cultivation by farmers who would want that particular land now that they will be selling their farms for Bantu occupation. They will need every inch of available land and we will need every drop of water to be able to produce more and more food. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with the survey of those two rivers. There are farmers, who are particularly interested in water and in land along those two rivers, who have asked me to put this question to the hon. the Minister. With water they will be able to produce fresh produce like vegetables and citrus, as well as pastures and lucerne, which will enable us to produce more milk and butter. But all these products, as you know, require permanent water. We will no longer be able to rely on seasonal rains there; we will need a permanent water supply. Land is obviously going to become expensive in that area by virtue of the fact that farmers, who are today farming successfully on economic units will now have to sell their Units to this government for Bantu occupation will want new land and they will want more water to produce the food which will be required by an increasing population in that area. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could give us some indication here this afternoon as to what progress has been made with the survey of the Kubusi and Keiskama rivers.

I think the hon. the Minister has set up a record in the sense that thus far in this debate there has been no criticism of the activities of his department. I think that is indeed a record. In recent times the Department of Water Affairs has achieved a great deal of success, especially if we think of the successful “Water Year” we had last year which was followed by probably one of the best and most blessed years our country has ever experienced, thanks to the wonderful rains we had. Subsequently we could witness the wonderful spectacle of the opening of the Hendrik Verword dam. What had been mere wishful thinking in the past, became a reality when the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam was opened. Sir, it was indeed an experience which will not be forgotten easily.

Since the announcement of this Orange River scheme in 1962, the entire project has serve as a stimulus to industrial development, which has reached exceptional heights in the past 10 years. We heard at that time that we could not become an industrial country because we did not have sufficient water. After the announcement of that gigantic project every industrialist realized that there would be enough water available for development, and that it would be possible to generate cheap electric power, which are two of the most important basic prerequisites to industrial development. The whole of our country will benefit from that gigantic hydro-electric power development, which is transmitted even as far as here in Cape Town, and by means of which thousands of trainloads of coal will be saved annually. Sir, we all realize that matter is our life-blood. Water is indispensable to our everyday existence; all forms of life must have water in order to exit, and especially in South Africa, with its limited water resources water is of cardinal importance. We have heard a good deal here about air pollution and water pollution. In most cases air pollution may be observed with the naked eye. but water pollution is in fact invisible, and that is why it is so important that research be carried out to prevent water pollution and. where pollution has taken place, to purify that water to make it useable especially for our industries. Dirty water need not be thrown away; it only has to be purified. In this respect we have already made a great deal of progress. There are various places, where polluted water is reused after having been purified, especially in our industries. We feel that in future much greater use will have to be made of this water.

Sir, I want to confine myself particularly to polluted water flowing into our dam basins. I want to point out in particular the load of sediment being conveyed to our large dam basins by rivers, where silting-up then takes place. Mention has already been made here of how Lake Mentz has been silted up to a very large extent. We know there are numerous similar examples. We realize that we have very few suitable dam basins in this country, and therefore it is of the utmost importance that we should do everything in our power to prevent this silting-up process. The latest report of the Commission of Inquiry into Water Matters indicates that at Jammersdrif the load of sediment carried by the Caledon River, which flows into the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, is no less than 1,02 per cent. We know that the Welbedacht Dam has been built in the Caledon river below Jammersdrif and that a large quantity of this silt will be caught up there. But even in the case of the Caledon River it is of the utmost importance that we should do everything in our power to prevent this silting-up and to ensure that our dam basins are not silted up and rendered useless. After the recent rains I saw some of the streams, polluted with thick muddy silt being carried down by our rivers. I am thinking of, for example, the Kraai River and other streams. This is in fact one of the two matters I want to plead for this afternoon, i.e. the prevention of that silt. I also want to mention that in the past we bought out the dam basins; that was the practice, but these banks which bring in the water are not yet under the full protection of the State. I want to plead that all banks of feeder streams or rivers, side-streams or even marsh-lands should be protected and fenced in and that all lifestock should be withdrawn from there. We have a withdrawal scheme in our country and after the wonderful rains we have seen the results of that. If these banks were withdrawn and fenced in, so that the vegetation could become lush again, we would reclaim the veld, which would be of very great benefit. Furthermore, more erosion works should be undertaken, because it is of the greatest importance to us that the wonderful dams we have built and on which millions of rands have been spent should not become silted up again. Therefore we should build retaining walls. I am even concerned about the Welbedacht scheme. The water feeding the dam has a large silt content which will silt up the dam. I therefore feel these precautionary measures should be taken. We should withdraw that veld from grazing. Recently again I saw that where lands are situated above a stream, the loose soil is washed down during a flood and silts up the bed of that dam. I want to plead that this should not be allowed to happen.

The second matter I should like to mention is one which is of particular importance to me. It concerns the Welbedacht scheme, which has virtually been completed. We have achieved a tremendous amount with this. I still remember that two years ago, before Welbedacht’s water reached Bloemfontein, severe water restrictions had to be introduced in Bloemfontein. As a result the beautiful gardens of Bloemfontein simply became desiccated. Shrubs which had been nursed for years simply withered away. I want to say that the importance of that scheme is to ensure Bloemfontein’s water supply in future, as well as to supply water to the smallholdings round Bloemfontein. On behalf of these people living round Bloemfontein, the occupiers of smallholdings, who were virtually heading for a catastrophe, I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

In the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to refer to a matter concerning our subterranean water. As we all know, our subterranean water level has dropped alarmingly in recent years, as a result of, on the one hand, protracted droughts and, on the other hand, excessive abstraction, or should I rather say injudicious abstraction. In my constituency in the Western Free State, as, I believe, elsewhere in the country, it has been the experience of many farmers that their boreholes have either dried up or decreased in output, in many cases from several thousand gallons per hour to a few hundred gallons. This phenomenon has given rise to a feeling of uneasiness about the future, in fact to such an extent that the Government has quite rightly issued warnings. This was also an aspect that was particularly emphasized during the Water Year. Even farmers’ district unions did their share. I am aware of appeals that were made to large abstracters rather to get rid of pumping engines. I do not want to suggest that a water emergency has arisen in the sense that farms are without water. Where water problems have in fact arisen, is in many of the small towns that are dependent on boreholes for their water. This is the position in my constituency, for example, in the case of the small town of Hertzogville, which for a long time looked forward to getting water from the Bloemfontein Dam, but unfortunately they had to abandon that because the cost involved was too high and it would have been beyond their means even if they were assisted by means of a subsidy. The department was extremely sympathetic to their representations for financial assistance, but suggested as an alternative that they should rather make use of the services of the geological division to search intensively on the town commonage or if necessary, even in the district, for a source from which they could obtain water more cheaply. That offer was accepted and a reasonable quantity of water, enough to supply their needs in the immediate future, was found by sinking a borehole. But this matter aroused a measure of uncertainty among many members of the public because, as they saw it, the same authority which had issued warnings against it, was now apparently prepared to allow subterranean sources to be tapped —instead of the available surface water being used—because of economic considerations. This gave rise to uncertainty about the line of action to be taken in regard to our subterranean resources. This uncertainty and the accompanying concern are understandable, of course, if we consider the special role played by ground water and its relative scarcity. Of the 983 000 morgen under irrigation in 1965, no fewer than 123 000 morgen, or slightly more than 12 per cent, were irrigated from boreholes, while the same boreholes had to supply approximately 18 000 morgen-feet of water for stock-watering purposes. In regard to its scarcity, I want to refer to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Water Matters, which states, inter alia—

This, of course, is the obvious thing to do with a scarce commodity, i.e. to control it and to plan its development and use. But against the background of the experience over the past number of years, the question has now arisen whether and for how long such a source will last. Although I am referring to a purely local matter here, I do believe that it is representative of a reasonably general feeling of concern among our people in the rural areas. It is clear that the answer to this question of how long such a source will last, lies in determining the safe output of the source concerned, which, in turn, is related to the storage capacity and natural recharge of that particular subterranean water compartment.

To my mind, two key questions arise from this. The first is: How accurately can we locate subterranean sources with the aid of scientific techniques today and measure their capacity and the rate of natural recharge? In spite of the fact that geohydrology is a relatively new field of study, I must accept that these things can in fact be done. In fact, I read inter alia, the following in the report I have mentioned—

I do think it would be reassuring if a reply could be given to this question which could eliminate that uncertainty and contribute towards ensuring anew the right attitude towards our subterranean sources.

Then there is the second key question, namely to what extent we are equipped to carry out such a tremendous task as the location and measuring of subterranean sources? I fear I do not find the reply to this very encouraging. I want to quote again from page 109 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Water Matters—

I am the last person who wants to plead for something which I know it would not be possible to do. In addition, since we are all aware that, in spite of the limited financial resources and manpower resources at their disposal, the Department of Water Affairs is continually determining priorities rationally and in the national interests, one feels hesitant also to offer an opinion. But in view of the fact that we shall have to fall back on our ground water to a much greater extent, in future, I do not want to take the liberty to plead for the extension and intensification of the activities of the hydrology section. Because we know that in this large country of ours there are numerous places and regions which rely and will in future have to rely on subterranean water, it is also clear that a great deal of research will still have to be done before we will know everything, or at least enough, of our subterranean sources in order to be able to make optimum use of them with safety.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winburg has been talking about underground water. I think I must leave him with the hon. the Minister in that regard, because I want to talk about water above the ground, water we can see. I want to come to the subject which was also dealt with by my friend from Bloemfontein District, the question of pollution. However, I do not want to deal with the question he dealt with, namely that of silt. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply to him and I hope he will make the necessary representations to his colleagues in the Cabinet to take the necessary steps asked for by that hon. member.

I want to deal with pollution and come back to what the hon. the Minister said this afternoon in reply to my friend, the hon. member for Orange Grove, that we must not imply that he is not aware of what is happening. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of what the hon. member for Orange Grove said to him earlier when he quoted the hon. the Minister’s own words where he said he had the teeth, the powers which were necessary to control pollution. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he is not doing so. We have had incidents in Natal. The hon. member for South Coast yesterday pointed out cases. The hon. the Minister knows what is going on there by his own admission. He says he has the powers to act, but he is not acting.

Oh, please; you are making a noise now!

I want to say that I must give him one bouquet—someone said that that bouquet must contain only one flower—in view of the prompt action I got with regard to the pollution by oil sludge in the Valley of a Thousand Hills. I want to thank him and the department for the assistance which was given. But when is the Minister going to tackle the question of Sterkspruit stream? When is he going to tackle the obvious pollution by industrialists at Hammarsdale? When is his department going to tackle the obvious pollution by overflowing and other mishaps from the purification and sewerage plant at Hammarsdale into the Sterkspruit stream?

Will you mention the name of one such industrialist at Hammarsdale?

Do the hon. the Minister and his department not know who the industrialists are?

You accused me …

No, I am not going to accuse the hon. the Minister. I do not have the scientific resources the Minister has at his disposal, but I say that his department knows who the culprits are. His department, not only as far as Hammarsdale is concerned, but in other cases in Natal, knows the names, the times and everything else in connection with certain cases of pollution, up to the point of who actually pulled the plug. This information has been given to the Minister’s department before, but they still fail to act. Why?

Why must we accept that you are telling the truth?

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member allowed to say that?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I asked why we in this House must accept that the hon. member is talking the truth.

The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. the Minister and his department know about this, because this information has been given to them. But still they have not taken the necessary action. The Minister says he has the power, but it does not seem as if he wants to use the power. I want to appeal to him to do so and particularly in regard to what is happening to the Shongweni Dam. This dam is not under the administration of this Minister’s department. We have had a report that recently, in order to try and clear the pollution from Hammarsdale in the Shongweni Dam, 107 metric tons of copper sulphate and 27 metric tons of chlorine had to be added to the dam to try to get this water somewhere close to a situation where the Durban Corporation could purify it and make it fit for human consumption. I want to say now, before there is any panic, that the Durban Corporation is purifying it and that there need be no fear for the citizens of Durban in regard to the quality of the water they are getting. But why should it be necessary if the hon. the Minister’s department can apply the Act and force industrialists to comply with the standards that are laid down, standards which I believe are right? Every industrialist should be forced to comply with these standards.

I also want to talk to the Minister in regard to his reply to this debate when he spoke about the escalation of costs. He has now given an undertaking that he believes that the cost of the P. K. le Roux Dam will not go very much over the R45 million mark. The Minister took us to task for querying increases in prices and costs, and he quoted that in the last nine months the escalation had been only 0,95 per cent. But he mentioned the Kafferskraal Dam in the Komati River and said that, taking these figures into consideration, the Estimate was R9 million, but that the completed figure was R6 million. I think I understood the Minister correctly that he gave these figures. But why did the hon. the Minister not tell us the whole story? Why did he not tell us what the original Estimate was? The original Estimate was only R4 million. So now we have a compounded error on the part of the department. We started with an Estimate of R4 million, then we had a revised Estimate of R9 million, while the completed cost was R6 million. Does this show efficiency on the part of his department?

Why did you not listen to what I was saying?

But I did listen. What did the Minister say? This is exactly what he said. He said that the estimated cost was R9 million, and that the completed cost was R6 million. He pointed out that he actually saved R3 million.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. the Minister can reply when I have finished. My time is limited. Does the hon. the Minister accept that the original Estimate was R4 million, or does he say that this is not correct? But let us go further. In a reply to a question given a month ago, the Minister gave figures showing that the total cost of projects was originally estimated at R141,8 million. These are projects undertaken over the last 10-11 years. The revised Estimates now total R541,9 million, 400 per cent more than the original estimated cost. Let us take the Orange River project away, where the price has escalated from R85 million to R385 million—more than 400 per cent. One is then still left with projects totalling R56,8 million, which have escalated to R156,9 million—300 per cent more.

For the same work?

For the same work, Sir, The hon. the Minister said “for the same work”. I know that he has made the point that the whole scheme was changed in some cases.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but what sort of planning is this on the part of the department? They come to Parliament with a White Paper—this is the point made by my hon. friend from Mooi River—having made all the investigations, ask for certain moneys, and then scrap the whole lot to start all over again. This is the whole point we are making. Let us have some sign of efficiency in the planning and estimating of this department.

I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice another matter. It is a letter received by one of the members on this side of the House in connection with the Vaalharts irrigation scheme. It appears that there is a water tax of R30 on 30 morgen per year. For that a certain quota of water is allocated to the farmer. But recently this quota was reduced by 10 per cent. Half of that was subsequently replaced, so that the farmer ends up now with a net reduction of 5 per cent of his quota of water. But there has been no reduction in the rates that he is paying, and he is still expected to pay the full rate, although he is only getting 95 per cent of his quota of water. At the same time what has happened now, is that the department has made available to these farmers extra water if they want it, for which they must pay R10 per day. This is the information I have at my disposal. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether this is correct? Is this the situation, as I have put it to the Committee this afternoon? If the information is correct, can he tell us why, firstly, the quota is not filled if there is surplus water available which can be sold at R10 per day? If there is sufficient water, why has the quota not been filled, and why are the farmers being required to pay for the extra water for which they are asking?

In conclusion I want to draw the hon. the Ministers attention to a reply he gave me to a supplementary question asked him on 28th March, when I reminded him of an advert that had been placed by his department for certain qualified and unqualified Coloured and Bantu workers. He replied:

I wonder whether he has investigated this matter and whether he is now in a position to advise this Committee of what the position is exactly with regard to the use of non-White labour in skilled jobs. How many people are being used? How many have been recruited? What wages are being paid to those people, and in what capacities are they being used?

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister is probably keen to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. Consequently I am not going to follow up what he said. The only thing I feel obliged to say is: What a discordant note after that on which the debate commenced yesterday!

I should like to associate myself with other hon. members who expressed their appreciation, particularly of what had happened in connection with the Orange River project. I do not want to dwell on this matter.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to inform the hon. the Minister and his department of the appreciation of many people in my constituency. I speak particularly of those involved in irrigation. In its present form this probably is one of the constituencies which will have one of the largest irrigation schemes in our country in the foreseeable future. I say also the people involved in that have appreciation for what is being done. Unfortunately for the hon. the Minister he is never completely rid of me as far as these problems are concerned. In passing I should like to thank him for the information I again obtained only yesterday, although there are a few matters on which there has evidently been some misunderstanding, but which we are not going to discuss here now.

I have already mentioned that my constituency is one of those in which a tremendous amount of irrigation takes place. In addition to that we may not lose sight of the fact that as the Orange River project develops irrigation will increase more and more. When I read the latest report on this project, it seems to me as though the present constituency of De Aar will probably derive most benefit from the P.K. le Roux Dam. I may be mistaken, but we are not going to argue about that either. As regards the latest report, I just want to mention that the hon. member for Colesberg is one of the only members who has had time as yet to say anything about this report after its publication. I think he spoke on behalf of a large section of the people on the southern bank of the Orange River when he intimated that there was disappointment. This is so; there is disappointment. I had opportunity to attend various congresses of various nature in recent times. Even there is dissatisfaction about it. I am not going to deal with that today. I am merely mentioning it in passing. I think the hon. the Minister and his department rightly found that good relationships existed between us in respect of this matter. This matter has not been brought to finality, and we shall be grateful to the hon. the Minister if he will pay a visit to that area.

Then I want to come to another matter of serious importance. I think it was in 1969 when certain places in the Cape Province, places such as the Kimberley area, De Aar and Beaufort West, were designated as locations to which industries could be moved with a view to decentralization. The position is that in cases of this nature places are decided on after a committee of the Cabinet has gone into matters. I may be mistaken and perhaps the hon. the Minister will correct me, but I think the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Planning, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are involved in this. If I am right in saying this, we must accept that many factors were, in fact, taken into account. The infrastructure, or the possible infrastructure, must lend itself to the designation of such a centre. Since De Aar and its immediate vicinity were also designated in this way, I should like to bring a few facts to the attention of the hon. the Minister. These facts will not be entirely new to him, but I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister may possibly be in a position to give me further information in regard to this matter after all the opportunities they have had for discussing it. The infrastructure in the De Aar region lends itself specially to industrial development. There are railway links in all directions—to Cape Town, to Port Elizabeth, to East London, to South-West Africa, to the north, indeed, in all directions. I do not believe housing is the biggest problem. Labour is not the biggest problem either. In the immediate vicinity of De Aar there is the Hydra power station which supplies power for a very large area today. Industrial development in De Aar is like a well-trained racehorse. It is ready to go. At the present moment this cannot happen, because that horse will suffer from thirst before it has gone very far along that track. De Aar derives all its water from subterranean sources. This is not only an expensive process, but also an unsatisfactory one. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that the town council is virtually flooded by inquiries concerning the matter of locating industries there. But time and again the prospective industrialists come up against this problem, i.e. that there is no assurance that there will be sufficient water in the future. We are grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister and his department have rendered assistance in many ways, for example, by investigating subterranean sources and trying to exploit them. Some success has been achieved, as the department itself knows, but the lack of sufficient water remains a bottleneck in that area. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he sees his way clear at this stage to throw more light on this matter. To me personally it would seem as though those searches for subterranean sources, which would eventually prove to be insufficient in any event, could possibly be a waste of time as well as money. As far as I am concerned, there is one solution if one wants De Aar to have its rightful share in development, especially in the industrial sphere, and that is that De Aar must get water from the Orange River. And De Aar must get it soon. If something is withheld for too long, all life disappears from it. Consequently De Aar will have to get this water soon. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether water will be apportioned to De Aar if it were to decide to tackle this matter on its own at tremendous costs, and to what extent the hon. the Minister and his department see their way clear to accommodate De Aar. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Aar was making a commercial for De Aar in advertising for industry and the many advantages it had. I must say that we in our well-watered areas must sympathize with him because water is so very short in his area. I should merely like to point out that considerable research was done by the French in North Africa in relation to underground water. By boring to a depth of some 15 000 ft. in the Sahara, they found water. There appeared to be a flow of fresh water across the African Continent from the east side to the west side at that depth.

An abundant supply.

There is a great plenitude of water at that depth. Whether that will meet the hon. member’s need or not, I do not know. They will have to start boring very early to get to the water in time.

I wish to return to the question of the augmentation of the water supply to Durban. I raised the matter of the Albert Falls Dam with which a beginning has been made this year. As I understand the plan of the department, there is a site still to be built at the gorge in the Umgeni River which will provide water till 1985. Beyond that, the water is to be introduced into the catchment, and the proposal that I mentioned yesterday to bring the Mooi River in, is one which I believe would be a mistake for the development of the Tugela River. I believe that the resources of the Mooi River should be counted in as part if the Tugela development and maintained on that side. I believe that the Town and Regional Planning Commission in Natal has produced a report which postulates a dam in the Umkomaas River which would allow water to be lifted over somewhere to the South of Bulwer and brought down into the Umgeni catchment. I cannot say how much it is, but it would certainly be adequate to meet the needs of Durban for, I think, the present century. I just cannot remember the figure that was quoted in that report. But, Sir, if planning is going to be done then I think we have to take cognizance of the fact that there are sites in the Underberg area where large dams can be built, where the evaporation factor is going to be very low indeed because it is a very high area; it is cool, and I do not think that evaporation is going to play a major part in the storage of water in that area. Sir, I would welcome some investigation being done in the area about Bushman’s Nek; I cannot remember the name of the farm; it is Noupoort or something like that, but there appears to be a very favourable site there, just looking at it. One never knows, of course, what the geological formations are and what the foundations might be like. I believe that this is something which could quite well be investigated, and I think that Durban’s future water supplies will inevitably come from the Umkomaas River, with storage higher up to give a double storage to ensure the future of Durban. Sir, I mentioned yesterday the report which was produced by members of the Minister’s department, Van Robbroeck and Pullen, and two others from other departments. Sir, I must confess that I was most impressed at the symposium at Mooi River to hear that this report had been produced by these two gentlemen in their own time, not as part of a commission which they had been given by the department; they went into this matter in their own time, together with two other officials from other departments, and I think it is something which is deserving of the highest praise when you have people who are prepared to make this sort of investigation and to produce a really impressive and thought-provoking report in the way that they did. One of the things that impressed me was the fact that it would be possible to use the water resources of the Tugela, as I mentioned yesterday, by means of a pipeline along the coast, inland, but that mention was also made of the possibility of piping water under pressure by means of a plastic pipe in the sea. Because the water pressure in the sea is the same as the water pressure inside the plastic membrane which encloses the fresh water, you would not have to incur the tremendous cost of a concrete pipeline, and that kind of thing. Sir, I think this is the sort of thing that we in South Africa should investigate. I think this offers us the chance to initiate new developments and to save ourselves a tremendous amount of expense. I must say that this was something that really tickled my fancy; I hope that it will also do the same to the Minister and that he will be able to investigate this, because it does offer a solution to the needs of Richard’s Bay and other areas, up and down the coast, from the mouth of the Tugela River.

Sir, I wish to return also to the question of the Orange River and the question that I posed to the hon. the Minister in relation to the subsidization of irrigation. I am just taking a cursory glance at the answers that I received to questions that I asked the hon. the Minister. The figure of R235 million is involved in some of the works here, of which 31 per cent is going to be recovered over a period of 40 years. Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell me what the policy is in relation to the subsidization of irrigation. It is obviously going to become more and more expensive as time goes on, because we have done all the easy jobs; the Minister himself said so a couple of years ago. Dams have already been constructed on all the easy sites, and from now on we face the fact that irrigation works which are erected in the future are going to become more and more expensive. If we look at them on a cost-benefit analysis basis, what sort of figure and factor do we have in mind when we are encouraging people to come to the department and request irrigation works in the future? I have said already that the capital that we have available is something which is going to become a limiting factor as far as dam structures are concerned, and more and more emphasis has to be placed on the provision of water for industrial purposes and for urban and stock-watering and domestic supplies, as opposed to irrigation.

“Boerehater”.

Mr. Chairman, I am told that I am a “boerehater”. I am not a “boerehater”; I merely want to know that when people come with plans to the department, they have a reasonable hope of success and that there will not be a continual procession as there is today to the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters asking for this amount and that amount to be written off. I think that the Minister must have a very realistic figure in his mind now as to how much longer we can go on with irrigation works, as opposed to the massive works which we are doing, such as the great Usutu River, for example, which is going to supply the two power-stations in the transvaal. Then, Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister just a minor question. I understand that on the Midmar Dam there is at the moment a highly scientific boat which is equipped with electronic equipment for depth sounding and that kind of thing, and which is being used for studies as to the siltation of dams, etc. I would be interested to know if the Minister could give us some more information on this project and tell us whether it is something that we developed here ourselves, or whether it has come from overseas, and what the principles are on which it operates. I think it is a vitally important tool. If we have got this thing, then I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us a bit more about it, because obviously siltation is going to be a tremendous factor in the storage capacity of our dams in the future.

Then just one last point in connection with the Tugela Basin. There has been a proposal made that on the heights above the Steenkop Dam a regional water supply corporation should be established, which would supply purified water to the towns and cities in the Tugela Basin area. Already there are towns like Ladysmith, which are having tremendous difficulty right now in meeting their purified water needs, and it does occur to one that it might be possible to take one bold step and to build a purification works there which will meet the needs of all the people in that area and at the same time rid all the municipalities of the increasing costs that they are going to face in the future.

Perhaps I should begin with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He asked quite a number of questions, and I am afraid that I might forget some of the questions he asked. The last question he asked concerns the possibility of beginning, as in the upper reaches of Spioenkop or of the Tugela, to supply purified water on a regional basis. We must be very careful in this regard. We have quite a number of these regional water supply schemes. A regional water supply scheme can only work if there are sufficient organizations participating in it, and if the cost, delivered at the various points, is reasonable. In that area this kind of co-operation does not exist yet, nor is there the kind of pressure required to get all the interested parties to participate in it yet. In other words, the time for this is not ripe. This does not mean that we will not perhaps, within the foreseeable future, find ourselves involved in a development which includes factories and various towns and other departments as well. I know of one scheme, for example, in which some organizations do not want to participate, and if that happens then one also has a problem. It is a question which one has to study on its merits, as the situation develops, and then decide whether or not it can work.

The second point the hon. member raised was in regard to the vessel we have on the Midmar Dam. This vessel is a small research craft. We called for tenders for this. The instruments came from overseas. The intention is to be able to take silt measurements. The further we progress the more we will be able to undertake this kind of study ourselves. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. member further particulars off the cuff now, but the important thing is to determine the sediment load of the water. The hon. member also asked what the possibility is of predicting at this early stage what the requirements of Durban are going to be. What we are doing at present is to develop the Umgeni. Once that has been done, by the year 1990, we will come forward with the next plan. That is why I told the hon. member on a previous occasion that the entire study of that area is a long one. In any case we have at least 15 years now in which to see what the next step will be. Fortunately we have enough time. That is why we are undertaking that study now. But I did not want to say here what the possibilities are. We are all aware of those things the hon. member mentioned. But if I said now that I thought this or I thought that, and we had to alter the plan at a later stage, a dispute would arise. I want to assure the hon. member that we are aware of the problems. The hon. member also referred to the enterprise of two officials of the department who undertook research under their own steam and came forward with plans. I just want to tell him that these are young men who work with great enthusiasm. They are very competent officials and they are very interested in the problem. It just shows with what enthusiasm they tackle their task.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the development scheme for the Boland and he then asked what the chances for the Southern Cape are, i.e. that part of the world where he comes from, and further down towards George and Knysna. As the hon. member will recall we instructed, quite some time ago, a committee of engineers under the chairmanship of Mr. Keyser to investigate the situation. The area to which the hon. member referred cannot, as he himself admitted, be compared with the Boland. It has other characteristics. The characteristics of the rivers, for example, are quite different. There is no question of having the same kind of development there as in the Boland. We sank quite a number of boreholes and spent quite a lot of money on this. The Keyser Committee has already made a compilation of all the work which was done. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the only thing delaying us from finally disposing of a specific area is that we have to work at many places at once with few people. I want to give him the assurance that we will probably, within the foreseeable future, be able to go further than we are able to go today in forecasting the possible development. The same applies to the Hartenbos area, and further along to the vicinity of George and Knysna, and inland from that area towards Albertinia. The hon. member also brought various deputations to see me. I said that in due course we would come forward with further decisions. I did in fact give the hon. member a decision the other day in regard to one of the projects. But I want to tell the hon. member that the important thing is that we know that water is urgently required in that area, and if a large community has requirements, we will supply shose requirements of theirs soon enough. Perhaps I can take it a little further next year than I did today.

The hon. member for East London City referred to the Kabusi and the Kei Rivers, and, in fact, to quite a number of rivers there. I have said on a previous occasion that we know what East London’s problems are. We know that it has a large community, and we know that it will run out of patience one of these days, and we know that the Buffalo River already has many dams along its course which do not fill up every year. We have plans ready for the development of a few of the rivers, such as the Kabusi and the Kei, and also in the vicinity of the Keiskamma. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will come forward with the next set of plans before the crisis occurs. The same applies to the other hon. members who have asked what progress has been made with the plans. You will note that what we have done up to now, and what we shall also continue to do in future, is not to state publicly what we are going to do before we are ready, and are able to come to you with a plan, for we have learnt a hard lesson. When we announce a plan, they exert pressure on us from all sides, and if we find ourselves subject to financial restrictions or if we do not proceed with the work immediately, they say the Minister has cheated them. For this reason we say nothing before we are ready. But I want to tell the hon. member that we have plans ready.

The hon. member also put a further question in regard to erosion in the catchment area, and he asked whether we are going to convey water to the Middelburg area via the tunnel. That is the area in which the hon. member himself is interested. From the Theebus outlet to Middelburg is a distance of approximately 40 miles, or between 40 and 50 miles. At present there is neither the need nor the ability to use the water at the furthest point at a high fixed cost, but what I now want to tell the hon. member is that when that need does exist, and when it does in fact become necessary, the possibility of taking a pipeline out to that area does exist. We can hold out this prospect The water is there. We will not keep it back. But on the other hand there must at least be consumers who are prepared to utilize the water. We must be careful. The hon. member knows what I mean; I do not mean this in any unfavourable sense, but because some of our towns are situated near the Orange River, they have started insisting that it has now become necessary to get Orange River water, and they want only Orange River water at all costs. I know of one case where the cost will be R9 per 1 000 gallons to supply the water to that area. I am not referring to De Aar. De Aar is one of the places to which we shall in future have to give consideration in any case. I asked the hon. member whether he meant irrigation water. I think we must forget about irrigation water. In any case soil studies there indicate that the mineralization of the soil is so intensive that one cannot practise irrigation there. The same position applies in regard to the Brak River. We cannot risk it. The only possibility is to bring water within reach, where it can be utilized economically when required for watering cattle or for domestic or industrial use.

May I ask a question? I asked whether there was any plan now to convey water from the Verwoerd Dam to East London.

Let me tell you, in the order of merit, what the position is. In the first place, we can carry on for a little while longer with what is now available in the East London area. Then there is other water which may be made available from the rivers I have just mentioned. But there will come a day when our successors will have to decide on the growth points, of which East London is one. At that stage they will have to decide what will become of the large reserve capacity of that dam. But that lies so far ahead that I do not want to say anything further about it now. If the hon. member were to ask me whether it is within the bounds of possibility, I would say that I do not know, but if the requirements make it necessary and South Africa’s interests make it necessary, it will be possible to convey the water to East London. I do not want an incorrect conclusion to be arrived at or that it should be said that a priority has already been given to this matter, for that would not be true.

The hon. member for Stilfontein referred to the pollution of sea-water. The hon. member expressed the idea that we should bring all pollution under the Ministry of Water Affairs. One could think along those lines if one had the idea that all water was the same, except that the one was salt and the other fresh, but the fact of the matter is simply that the problems encountered in sea-water pollution are completely different to the problems encountered in fresh-water pollution. What is precipitated in this country and runs down to the coast is under the control of the Department of Water Affairs. We have control over that pollution. But what happens in the ocean is pollution caused primarily by way of surplus and leakage from ships, and is primarily oil pollution. The Department of Transport, for sea transport falls under their jurisdiction, and also the Department of Economic Affairs deals with that. The Departments of Transport and Economic Affairs are the two departments within whose cadre this matter falls. These are the two departments whose clients undertake the work in connection with pollution. For this reason the nature of the problem which arises is so different to ours, that it will function more easily if it remains with those departments which have up to now been dealing with it very well. I can refer, for example, to the fact that the Department of Transport has large tugs. If a ship should strand somewhere, the oil leak out and steps had to be taken, the Department of Transport is far better able to tow the ship away from where it had been stranded, as has already happened around our coasts, than the Department of Water Affairs. Up to now there has been no need for that, nor do I think that it is necessary that my department should deal with that type of pollution. But I do thank the hon. member for having spotted this and made an observation about it, and that he has the confidence in my department to think that my department would be able to do it well. I also want to thank the hon. member for the friendly way in which he referred to certain work which is being done by officials of the Department of Water Affairs.

The hon. member for East London North asked me what progress we had made with the research on and survey of a number of rivers. These rivers were also mentioned by the other hon. member. I can tell the hon. member that we have a great deal of information in this regard. Since we gave the undertaking a few years ago to look into this matter, our people have done a great deal of work there, and we have quite a good deal of information about this. At this opportunity I must say —and I am mentioning this for the information of both members whose concern this is—that we are now considering the entire matter of the future of the rivers and the utilization of that water. This is a matter involving scientific utilization. I think that the same principles which are in force between South Africa and other neighbouring countries will also, in the end, be the valid principle on which the division of these rivers has to take place which will result in the greatest possible joint utilization, but then with entrenchment of the specific rights of each participating country in the rivers itself, because these are rivers which countries share.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein District discussed the silt problem. He mentioned the possibility of our controlling the banks of the rivers in the same way as we control the dam basin. He suggested that this might constitute a major saving, and could also be a major protective measure for our dams. Let us consider carefully what a river bank looks like. Some banks are as flat as a pancake and miles wide. If we had to apply that principle it would mean that we would have to buy out all our fertile riparian areas, i.e. lucerne lands and farming strips along our banks will have to be fenced off and protected with a covering of grass. I do not think it is going to work, but I know what the hon. member means. He means that we should afford protection against silting up, where the banks are injudiciously allowed to be washed away. We must guard against the soil ending up in the river; that is what we should afford protection against.

Yes.

I agree with the hon. member on that score. That is what should be done. I think that the role—I am saying this deliberately—which soil conservation has to play from now on and in future is extremely important. We do not have many dam basins. Those we do have, we have dammed up at great expense. We are going to reach a stage where our best dam basins in South Africa will have been silted up. Once this has happened there are no others at which we can construct dams. That is the tragedy of it all. At some places there are no alternative dam basins. In other words, we shall have to consider this very carefully. That is why the department on its part is taking a considerable amount of trouble to encourage people and also to intensify our own research, with which we have recently made good progress. This question of silt and pollution is also one of the many new directions to which the department has recently been devoting attention as far as research is concerned. I think that with a view to the protection of our dam basins we will, and ought to, get far better co-operation in future from other departments. I think we will, too. In addition, our entire plan of action will have to be extended over a wider front. The basic plan for achieving this has already been drawn up. In spite of what the State does, the great tragedy is that so many of our people do not care two hoots whether their farm washes away or whether the State dam silts up. The tragedy lies in the lack of responsibility of so many of our people who allow these things to happen under their very eyes without lifting a finger to prevent it.

The hon. member also referred to the water from Welgedacht which will be brought to Bloemfontein. I want to tell the hon. member that I am pleased that we are able to do so. I also realize what this will mean to the owners of smallholdings in the vicinity of Bloemfontein. The hon. member can go and tell them that the privilege of buying this water is a contribution by the State which we gladly make to them.

The hon. member for Winburg referred to subterranean water and mentioned Hertzogville. Hertzogville is an interesting example. It is a small town and if it had not been possible to devise a plan, that entire town would have had to be evacuated. There were six boreholes of which only one was eventually supplying water. That one was also drying up rapidly. Hertzogville then wanted us to supply them with water from the Vaal River. It would have been an expensive transaction, for by the time that water reached Hertzogviïle it would have cost approximately R1-70; if I remember correctly, that would have been the price of the water. I then felt that if the water was so expensive the people would have left the town in any case. A geological survey was then made, and in the end we were successful in providing Hertzogville with water again.

Arising out of this the hon. member then made an important point in regard to our subterranean water situation. He said that on the one hand we say that the subterranean resources should be used, while on the other hand we warn that the subterranean resources should be protected. This is of course true, but the golden rule in this regard is that we use the subterranean resources where it is cheaper and better to utilize such a local source first, before an expensive outside source is utilized. That is in any case what we must use subterranean water for. The present consumption of subterranean water is heavy. I think it is something in the region of 600 000 morgen-feet of subterranean water which is being abstracted annually in South Africa. We have calculated that the total available volume of subterranean water could be anything between 1,4 million and 12,5 million morgen-feet. We do not know precisely how much there is. It is not simply a matter of establishing how much there is. There are other problems as well. One problem is to determine the rate of replenishment. Once one knows what the total volume is and at what rate it is replenished annually, one can decide at what rate the water may be abstracted. If the water is abstracted at a faster rate one is living off the capital, and that cannot be done. This study is a major task. It is not a one-day task, but one which will take years. It takes years and even generations to do something like this. It also means the utilization of different disciplines. That is also the reason why the department encourages such studies, and has had a chair of geohydrology established. Without those people we can forget about solving the problem. This chair of geohydrology at the University of the Orange Free State will also train geohydrologists to carry on with this specialized study in South Africa. We can buy specialized services in different countries of the world, but it is very expensive. The problem is simply that if one brings in people from outside to do such studies, it takes them a few years to find their feet before they can begin to work. However, if we do all the work in South Africa ourselves, we can make very great progress. We have the services of the Division of Geological Survey. However, they cannot even come close to meeting their own needs, not to mention ours. Hence we have now begun right from scratch, i.e. by organizing our own department’s division of scientific services in such a way that we are able to provide services of this kind, which is an enormous task.

The hon. member asked with what certainty we are able to trace water resources. If one has the people and the money it can be done. I want to mention an example. Only a short while ago we were able to establish that between Warmbaths and Nylstroom there was a subterranean basin, an area which we thought had a storage of plus-minus 32 000 morgen feet. It took a long study in order to determine this. We were able to determine that in certain areas on the Springbok Flats there are certain quantities of water. It took a long study to establish this. If we have the people we can today determine the precise volume, as well as the rate of replenishment. This can therefore enable us to arrive at these conclusions, but as I said, it is no easy task. It is a task which requires a great deal of time, for protracted observations are necessary before one achieves the final results. The question was also to what extent we are technically equipped to be able to do this. We are not, and we are trying to equip ourselves technically in such a way that we can reach some specific point. At the present moment we are still far away from our goal. Our goal is to be in fact able to reach that point, and it is still going to take a good deal of time. The hon. member also asked for the intensification of the activities of this division. Yes, we shall do so if we have the people to whom these matters can be entrusted. The more we are able to find, the more we will be able to do that. But I can tell the hon. member now, if hon. members, who are listening to me here today, can help us to find one student only once in five years from each of the hon. member’s constituencies to study geohydrology, it would mean that we would probably fill our needs to such an extent in our department that we would be able to make a considerable difference to the situation in future. The chair has now been established. The courses are being introduced. The professorate is being filled, and the studies done. Everything is in progress. All that we have to do now is to help make a start with this matter, otherwise it will all be of no use. We can in future conduct one debate after another on what is happening in the subterranean strata of our country, but we shall simply be unable to achieve the end result if we do not do what I have just mentioned. In passing I just want to tell hon. members this: Three-quarters of the surface area of the Republic of South Africa is dependent on subterranean water, and not surface water. The whole of South-West Africa, except for small patches, is dependent on what one finds underground, and not what one finds flowing on the surface.

The hon. member for De Aar referred to the situation in his constituency. I now want to tell the hon. member across the floor of the House that I shall pay a visit to De Aar. We can then discuss the problems there, as the hon. member invited me to do.

I am not talking about the general situation; I am talking about De Aar in particular.

Yes. We shall be able to pay a visit to De Aar in particular and go into the matter further. At this stage I just want to mention that if water is supplied to De Aar from the Orange River scheme, it would cost approximately four times as much as it would to develop local resources. The consumers at the furthest point will increase in numbers up to a point and this reduce the unit cost. Surely that is not what the hon. member wants. Now we shall have to decide whether we are in the meantime going to bear the increased costs, hoping in that way to attract the industries and development and bring down the unit costs; or we can in the meantime develop other resources until the consumption is so heavy that we can bring in more water at lower costs. That is therefore what we have to consider, but I also want to tell the hon. member that if we are able to supply the water from the Vanderkloof canals, it will be a different story. The distance will also be considerably less. I shall be able to take this problem further with the hon. member. In general I want to say to the hon. member that the costs as they are at the moment will be four times greater to do that than it would cost to develop local sources. That could be too expensive for the local people. The alternative is not that we are not going to do anything, but we will have to negotiate with one another on this alternative and see whether we can help one another. I think that is what the hon. member wants to know. I think that I have now replied to everything to which I had to reply.

Then I want to refer to what the hon. member for Prieska said. He referred to the development in his area. The hon. member can be satisfied that there is no more difficulty now below Prieska, at Karos. The matter has been cleared up now, not so? Then we had a problem with the area situated along the Orange River above Prieska. There is excellent soil in that area which has already been developed. Some people are pumping the water out and others are diverting it by means of small furrows. Some of the very best soil is situated in that area, and it was expected in that area that we would continue with the plans as announced at the time, the plans for the Torquay Dam. Hon. members will still remember the Torquay Dam. According to the original plans there would have been three dams, i.e. the Verwoerd Dam, the P. K. le Roux Dam and the Torquay Dam. As far as structure is concerned the Torquay Dam would have been as big as the P. K. le Roux Dam. I can repeat that the Torquay Dam is no longer going to be constructed. Since it has been decided that the Torquay Dam will not be constructed, it means that something else will have to happen. Now the people around Prieska do not know what is happening. They want to know whether absolutely nothing is going to be done or whether something else is going to take the place of that dam. The answer is that something else is going to take its place. To be able to supply these people with water, it is not necessary to build an anormous dam such as the Torquay Dam. The water can now be drawn from the river in two ways. It can be drawn from the river by means of a small! transverse embankment in the river, from which the water can be diverted by means of canals or pumps. There will be an alternate plan and the hon. member need not be concerned about the matter. The hon. member said that there was a second question to which his people wanted an answer. They want to know what is going to happen to their rights. Suppose there are a group of people irrigating on a large scale, and now the hon. member’s people want to know whether we are going to maintain the rights of these people irrigating on a large scale, or what is going to happen to them? If the hon. member consults the explanation I gave last year, he will find the answer to that. The answer in brief is that the farmers who had developed riparian areas, will retain them. Nothing will be taken away. People who did not have any developed areas, will receive them according to a formula which we have already laid down. The hon. member can read it up, for if I were to explain it now, it would take too long. All the particulars are available. The hon. member can therefore go back and inform his people that they need not be afraid even though we are not going to construct the Torquay Dam. They will in any case be able to irrigate every inch which they are now irrigating. It is just not necessary to build such a large and such an expensive dam after the P. K. ie Roux Dam has been completed. I think that that is the answer in full.

Can the hon. the Minister give us a reply to the questions I asked about Vaalharts, please.

Is the hon. member referring to the remark he made or is he referring to the question he put just now?

To the remark.

The hon. member was fulminating here just now, and I do not intend reacting to it. He was wrong in everything he said, including Vaalharts. He ought to know what the principles are on which we base our procedure at Vaalharts and the other settlement schemes. These are, namely, that as far as irrigation is concerned, we work according to a sliding scale. The sliding scale means that a person pays per morgen for a basic quantity of water which he receives. If he uses more water, he pays for the next unit, or number of inches, per morgen on a scale which is more expensive. For the next quantity which he uses, he pays even more. In other words, the more he uses, the more expensive it becomes per unit. If there is a drought, and there is no water to supply, it automatically works out in favour of the irrigator, for then he only uses the first quantity of water in respect of which he pays the least. The principle is therefore that if there is a lot of waiter and the irrigator uses a lot of water and farms well, he pays a lot. If there is not much water, he need not automatically pay a lot. That is how it works. It does not happen in any case that the State deprives a person of anything without compensating that person for it. This has never yet happened. Only in one case which occurred years ago was it found necessary to pump in water everywhere. That was prior to 1967 when the Witwatersrand was facing a crisis. The State then decided not to supply the farmers with a certain percentage of water. But that water was not simply held back; those farmers were paid more than a million rand as compensation for what they could have produced if they had not been deprived of that water. An assurance was given to the effect that the State would in future not deprive people of such water without compensation. It simply does not happen. In other words the insinuation that this could allegedly happen, is incorrect. The scale on which payment is made is R2 for the first 20 cusec hours, thereafter 10 cents more for the next 20 cusec hours, then 15 cents more for the next 24 cusec hours and if someone wants to buy even more, and the Minister has the water to supply to him, he will have to pay even more for that. In other words, the more he uses, the more expensive it becomes.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister deal with the drainage into the Shongweni dam from the industrial area at Hammarsdale where there is an overflow from the cesspits in the nightsoil disposal area and industrial effluent?

Mr. Chairman, we must not refer only to the industrialists at Hammarsdale; we must refer to all the industrialists in South Africa. What procedure is adopted if a person has a factory and he wants water? That person must then receive a permit for the abstraction of water. On that permit it is clearly indicated precisely how much water he may abstract, and at what rate. It also tells him that the effluent from that factory has to comply with certain standards. He does not guess at what these standards are. For these standards the Department of Health and the Bureau of Standards are consulted. They determine what the standards should be. Then a permit is granted, which lays down precisely how the water is to be administered and precisely what conditions have to be complied with. I peruse each one of those permits. I can inform the House that some of those permits lay down as many as 30 conditions. Some industrialists are absolutely discouraged when they look at the conditions. We have examples of cases where industrialists gave one glance at the conditions and said that they would be bankrupt before they had complied with all those conditions. They say that if they had to meet those conditions for purifying the water used by the factory, they would prefer not to erect a factory at all. This has in fact happened. But now we must be fair. It could happen that a leakage could happen at night from a factory. The machinery could break down; the other day there was a question on this matter on the Order Paper. It is of course true that there was a leakage, and that that water flowed into the ocean and caused very unsatisfactory conditions. But no specific person was deliberately responsible for that. When we investigated, it was found that a leakage had developed. This machinery can break down, in the same way as one’s motorcar can. I want to say that if that hon. member is making the allegation that the industrialists of Hammarsdale are deliberately contravening the Act, and deliberately allowing water to run off in order to cause pollution, he must, if he does not want to do it across the floor of the House, come to me and give me the names of those industrialists. Then he would also be playing his part in bringing those people to book. But I want to suggest that that hon. member is guessing. He is making an accusation at random, for my department went several times to see what was going on there. If I get to hear of something like this, I send out the officials of my department. The Bureau of Standards also investigates such rumours. The situation is constantly being watched. If the hon. member therefore wants to make a general accusation, I expect from him, as a responsible member of this House, as a person who is as concerned about anti-pollution measures as I am, to come to me and to say that certain factories are acting in such and such a way. I ie need not say it in this House. If he comes to me, I will not mention his name either, but I shall take steps. But the hon. member must not make a general accusation here against the factories of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, we now move to Vote No. 37, Forestry. There are a couple of matters which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. However, I am not proposing to take the half hour. Therefore, in the short time at my disposal, I shall get down at once to the first issue. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the private sector in the timber growing industry is meeting many grave difficulties because of the trouble in marketing this product. At the moment I am not going into all those difficulties. I merely want to say that in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of the timber growing community generally, i.e. the private grower, we must get together with the Department of Forestry and find a common purpose and common front for the purposes of marketing our timber. When I am talking about the private sector, the private grower, I am not dealing with the big timber companies, the big consortiums of timber companies which buy up whole farms and go in for timber growing a commercial basis. They can afford to tie up big sums of capital and wait for an opportunity to market, and if they do not market their timber this year, they can wait another year or two. I am not talking about those growers, but about the man who is growing timber as a livelihood. When his timber has reached its maximum commercial value, he must sell it because he has to earn an annual income. He has to live. Like other people who get a salary, he has to receive his income year by year.

Our difficulties in the private sector are compounded because we cannot find a working arrangement with the Department of Forestry. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister and I want to emphasize it. It has been a matter of discussion in the past, but today it is becoming a matter of very burning consequence to the people in the private sector who are growing timber, the individual grower. The forestry people sell timber on contract today. That is particularly the case when we are dealing with pulpwood. They sell on contract for a certain number of years at a price. That price is not known, it is not published. In fact, the period for which the contract is entered into, is not known. However, the position arises that the people who get those contracts use those contracts as a balancing factor and they merely get their additional supplies from the private grower. If they can beat him down, they beat him down. If he does not like it, he can lump it, because they can get their supplies from the Department of Forestry. The bulk of the timber of the Department of Forestry, which is always there for these purchasers to rely on, is therefore the balancing factor which allows them to squeeze the small man until, because he needs an income, he must sell.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the time has come that we, the private growers and the Forestry Department, must sit down round the table to hammer out a marketing system where the Forestry Department will come in as the major grower in South Africa, but their market will be our market and our market will be their market. They must allow these contracts to drift to an end and when they are finished, then their contracts will be our contracts and our contracts will be their contracts. The principle of co-operation between the Forestry Department and the private grower is necessary if we are going to keep a healthy timber-growing establishment in South Africa. Without that the economics will kill the small grower. They will squeeze him out of the market. How can we on the one hand ask the Government to advance money to allow small growers to plant trees, but on the other hand the arrangements are such that he is in fact unable to sell at a lucrative price because the Government, through its Forestry Department, is the balancing factor for the big purchasers on which they can fall back to use it as a lever to squeeze the small man out? It is a completely untenable state of affairs.

It does not mean that there must be hostility or difficulty. On the contrary. It means there must be the closest agreement reached by the Forestry Department and the private grower sitting together round the table and hammering out the troubles and difficulties. Arrangements for orderly marketing should be made so that the big buyer of timber, the end user or whoever he may be, shall buy in a market in which there is the closest co-operation between all growers, of which the Forestry Department is the largest. The small private grower can then fit into the scheme and play his part as the little producer— not under the wing of the Department of Forestry, but in co-operation with it.

The net amount of timber produced for particularly the pulp market should be the amount of timber which is available for sale and the price should be regulated so that whatever the price may be that is agreed upon, the timber is sold to the buyer at that price. The Forestry Department and the small grower should get together so that the big purchaser cannot bring economic pressure to bear on the small grower and force him virtually to take what price he is offered, because owing to his weak financial position, he cannot stand out. He must take what money is offered to him. This kind of pressure, this economic pressure is breaking the small grower. It is now reaching such a pitch because of the fact that the big purchasers fare relying upon the fact that they can fall back on to supplies from the Forestry Department to see them through in the event that the small growers, whom they try to squeeze out, decide to withhold their timber supplies. They cannot withhold their timber supplies sufficiently long to embarrass the big purchaser. That is impossible. Sooner or later they are forced to their knees, they are forced to take the price the big purchasers are prepared to pay. Under those circumstances there is no future for the small timber grower.

However, it is only common sense and I believe the time has come now that the industry should be able to say to the hon. the Minister: Please, let us be reasonable people and get together round the table in the spirit of co-operation to see whether we can hammer out an orderly marketing system which is going to play fair and give a price to the small grower as well as to the big grower and to all growers marketing their product, pulp wood or whatever it may be, in a market where there is going to be the same price for all producers in that market. Under that system the big purchasers should not be able to play the small producer off against the Department of Forestry. I do put this to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast discussed the problems of private growers. They have my sympathy, but I nevertheless want to say to him that these matters may, to my mind, be very fruitfully discussed by the newly appointed Forestry Advisory Council. This will apply in particular to matters such as price decreases and orderly marketing. I think the advisory council should be able to solve these matters.

I want to discuss something quite different. Compared to other countries, South Africa is lagging far behind as far as protecting our trees are concerned. When we hear that, in a country such as Spain, nobody is allowed to cut a tree and that farmers in a country such as Holland are compensated for leaving trees on their land, I think it is time that we in South Africa became more aware of trees. We should therefore give serious consideration to promoting greater awareness of trees among our people. For this reason I want to advance an earnest plea for purposeful attempts to make our people more aware of the attractiveness, usefulness and indispensability of trees and shrubs for our country. Firstly, I want to say a few words about the aspect of attractiveness. Trees and shrubs are attractive; they are pleasing to the eye; they make the environment more attractive and offer shade and protection to man, animals and birds. Trees enhance the beauty of the landscape. Residential areas look more attractive when situated among trees. Trees have brought fame to cities. We think of Cape Town where we have the Avenue and the Public Gardens; we think of Paris and its Champs Élysées; we think of London and its Hyde Park. And we also think of a farm with its plantations and wind-breaks; the shade trees at the homestead give an impression of care and tranquillity. Sir, the regions in our country abounding in trees such as the Tsitsikamma, Natal and Eastern Transvaal, are attracting many tourists.

We come now to the purposes which trees serve. They provide a habitat for animal and bird life. To the city dwellers they enhance recreational facilities and offer a place to escape to from the rigours of city life. They also afford sufficient protection while the humus ensures that the water run-off is pure and clean. Trees create the best climate for dispersing smog and polluted air.

Finally, Sir, trees provide us with timber. Timber consumption is increasing all the time. At one time we thought that substitutes such as steel, concrete and plastics would replace timber. At one time we thought that one could manufacture anything out of any kind of material, but we find that timber consumption is increasing all the time. Pulp for paper in particular is in great demand and for that reason we shall have to continue in our endeavours to increase our timber production. According to calculations we shall have to increase the extent of land under timber threefold over the next 20 years. That is why I ask for a progressive afforestation policy. We have to find new areas on which to undertake afforestation and we have to make greater use of the unproductive land on private farms. It is the policy of the Government to make money available to farmers who want to undertake afforestation. I just want to point out that very easy terms are available to farmers who want to borrow money. What it amounts to, is that they can obtain a loan of R50 per morgen to prepare the land and thereafter R5 per year for maintenance at a very reasonable rate of interest of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. These have to be fair sized plantations of at least 40 ha and not more than 1 235 ha. This money will be available for new afforestation and for re-establishing and financing existing plantations. Certain conditions have been laid down. The scheme has to be recommended by the Department of Forestry. It has to be cultivated in terms of a prescribed works programme and the farmers will be compelled to take out insurance cover for these plantations. Sir, I hope our farmers will make full use of these facilities which have been made available to them.

I want to deal with another aspect of our forests, however, and that is the pleasure and recreation these can give us. In these days of pollution and awareness of the environment, forests play a very important role. It is therefore only natural for mankind to turn more and more to forests to escape the rigours of life, and for recreational purposes. Here in Cape Town it is remarkable how many people are making use of our forests. When wanting to get out of the cities, one has trouble finding a picnic spot under a tree. Much is already being done by the Department of Forestry to make forests more accessible to the public, and I appreciate these attempts. For all these reasons I want to ask that the department should make energetic attempts, firstly, as far as the planting of trees is concerned and, secondly, to make our country attractive, to try to obtain the co-operation of all parties, such as private people, municipalities, and all other bodies and to make purposeful attempts to make our people more aware of trees by means of a publicity campaign in the near future.

There is one other matter I want to deal with briefly, and this concerns the question of wilderness areas. We adopted legislation in this House in regard to such areas which I know was welcomed by both sides of this House. We have not had sufficient time to develop these areas, but even at this stage we know that these areas are going to be a great asset, not only to us, but also to prosperity. It is a fact that there are private properties adjoining State-owned land, which have been declared to be such areas, and it will be necessary for these private areas to be included when these areas are being planned. I am sure that the majority of the owners of these areas will be only too pleased to be included in these planning schemes, and for this reason I want to ask the Minister whether he will consider providing for these matters in an Act, if necessary. I know the Act does provide for control to be exercised over these areas for the purposes of water conservation although not for the purposes of nature conservation and recreation. Since these wilderness areas have, in the first place, been established to preserve for posterity part of nature as our ancestors knew it, I want to advance this plea, and that is for private properties to be included in the planning of these areas.

Sir, the hon. member for South Coast raised a matter to which he will return, and that is the question of the fitting together of the private sector and the public sector in the marketing of timber. Sir, this is something which, of course, is of the utmost interest to all of us who are engaged in commercial timber production. The hon. member for Humansdorp mentioned the loans which are currently being made available, in terms of legislation passed this Session, through the Department of Agricultural Credit. Sir, we have this one problem that the shortage which is looming in the forest industry in this country appears to be pulp-wood. If the hon. the Minister is going to use the credit facilities which are being made available to encourage the private farmer to grow timber on the wood-lot basis, there has to be a very positive incentive to make sure that people go in for the growing of pulpwood. This is the least remunerative of all the ways of utilizing timber.

The hon. member mentioned Europe. In Germany and other places trees are marked individually. Every tree in a person’s wood-lot is known. They are culled selectively; they are marked down for some 20 years before they are felled. I think that the loans which are being made available should be used for the growing of timber on that basis—highly selective and long term—to ensure that the best possible standard of timber is grown, rather than to cater for the mass market, which is the pulp market. I am interested to know how the hon. the Minister himself sees the wood-lot scheme operating, because I cannot see it functioning on a satisfactory basis on the pulpwood market, which is essentially a mass market with a low return and short rotation. I would be pleased to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about this.

I have been trying to get some idea in my mind of the forest estate as it is today in the hands of the Department of Forestry. This is an area, if my figures are correct, of some 560 000 acres of plantations in the State’s hands from which the State derives an income of approximately R13 million, according to the last report I have, which is for 1969-’70. The returns of the State was something in the nature of R13 million as against an expenditure of R12 million on Loan Account and R2 million on Revenue Account, making a total of approximately R14 million. It would seem to me that the State could increase the amount it receives for timber and the sales of forest produce if they were able to come in at the same rate as the private sector because the information we have is that the State is selling its timber, particularly for pulpwood, at a lower figure. But to get confirmation of this appears to be very difficulty.

And another thing which appears to be very difficult is to find out on what basis State plantations are being maintained, whether it is on a basis of sustained yield or whether the State is growing out its forests to achieve a maximum of potential saw timber over a longer period. I wonder whether it is not possible for our forestry group to get into touch at some time with the Secretary for Forestry to discuss in detail the various plantations and the stages through which they are now going, so that we can get a detailed and accurate idea of what is happening to the forest estate in the hands of the department. I feel that on the figures I have been given the mean annual increment in State forests is of the nature of 5 million cubic metres and the eventual yield from those 5 million cubic metres is of the order of 3,5 million cubic metres of timber which is used, and somewhere or other there is a shortfall of just over a million cubic metres, which is either going to waste or is not being used efficiently, I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could give us details of how the income to the State is made up, the amount of R13 million which is shown in the last report; and also whether the State is now orientating itself, because they are planting large areas of trees, and whether this is now going through the pulp market, with the looming shortage, or whether this is going to be run over a long term and whether the Minister’s department is going for the maximum use of sawed timber.

In the Forest Department, as I am able to establish from what I have before me, you have some 300 diploma foresters and 100 graduate foresters, which is a very impressive figure, if I may say so. I think this is a very highly qualified staff in the hands of the Minister, but then there are one or two things I would like to ask on the subject of the staff of the department. In the Accounts Department for last year under “Other staff” the total has fallen from 64 to 47. I think this is most serious. It is one of the branches of the department which I think has to be kept under very close scrutiny. Again on the works studies the number has increased from 14 to 33. This is obviously something which has to be done and I am very pleased to see in the report of last year that plantations have been grouped together in order to simplify administration and to cut down the overhead costs of administration. Then under “Timber utilization” there is a director of timber utilization the same as we had last year, a deputy director and a chief professional officer and the staff has gone up from one to eighteen. I would be interested to know what sort of people these are. They are obviously not labourers. They must be trained staff of some sort. I am very pleased indeed to see this, because I do feel that one of the things which has been lacking is a sharper and more efficient timber utilization by the department, and if they can get this better utilization on a much more practical and efficient basis, I think we would really be achieving something which is very much to be desired. One always has this feeling, and I put it to the Minister no more severely than that, that when you have a State department the essential profit motive is lacking. and this brings us back to the private forester who has to make a profit on his operations. Here you have a vast amount of timber in the hands of the State where the essential spur to efficiency of profit is simply not there. I feel personally that it is part of our job as members of Parliament to apply that spur where necessary, and to attempt to find out what exactly is going on. For that reason I have asked the questions I have asked, and again I reiterate the request that we might be given a chance to meet the Secretary of Forestry as a group to go into the detailed administration of the department, the way timber is being dealt with by the department, etc.

I want to come back to what was said by the hon. member for South Coast in particular when he referred to the idea of the Department “squeezing out the small man”, as he put it, in co-operation with the big grower. In fact, I think that at present the Department of Forestry is the best partner for the small grower as this department is able to apply the entire pattern for the industry in a very decent, stable and profitable way. Where the hon. member says, furthermore, that “there is no future for the small timber grower”, I differ from him in as far as I believe, especially on the basis of what the department has done in recent times under the guidance of this hon. Minister, that the small grower in fact has a more promising future as far as his industry is concerned than he has ever had in his entire existence or in the history of the country.

However, there are two particular matters I should like to put to the Minister. Firstly, I want to ask him whether he can furnish us with details in regard to the progress which has been made, if such progress has been made, in regard to the possible marketing of wattle chips in Japan. We understood that an agreement was in the stage of being negotiated, and in view of the difficult times in which the wattle industry finds itself at the present time, I believe that such a market would be a real godsend to this industry, and especially to the growers.

The second matter I want to raise, is this. In view of the general position of the wattle industry, and the fact that quotas are still being reduced and that it is difficult to find suitable markets, I should like to ask for a very thorough investigation to be carried out by the Department in order to determine what the future holds for the wattle industry, whether these growers should be advised to resettle or whether they should be told that the industry as such holds no future for them and that they should rather change over to growing other types of trees, such as maligna and pines, etc.

As far as the general position of the industry is concerned, the development has been phenomenal. When we compare the figures, we find that in the year 1960 the quantity of soft wood, sawn logs, amounted to 54 million cubic feet; in 1972 it was 100 million cubic feet, and we expect that in the year 2000 it will be as much as 200 million cubic feet. In other words, there is going to be an increase of 100 per cent. The anticipated shortage is going to demand long-term investment and planning. That planning will involve the protection of our soil, the withdrawal of land as well as the utilization of other land, and investments by the State as well as by the private sector. I believe it has become essential—and in this respect I agree with the hon. member for South Coast—that here we should move in the direction of a very scientific and effective control of the entire industry. We should stimulate the position especially from the side of the Government, so that people will enter this field on a large scale, particularly professional people, who will invest large sums of money in the industry. In recent times the Wattle Growers Association has made very important proposals in regard to the necessary control. Those proposals are supported by the South African Timber Growers’ Association. The gist of these proposals is mainly that the demand for timber should be divided equally among all timber growers. I think—and I think this is correct —that there is much to say in favour of the idea of creating machinery to meet emergency situations which may arise, such as those which arose recently in regard to the marketing of wattle timber. Furthermore, I think it should be done in the interests of the small growers, in view of the fact that they should be ensured of a market and that when they sell they should also be ensured of having a good market at their disposal. What we particularly have in mind here is that they may in fact be exploited by the larger growers who, in many areas, are the only buyers and at the same time producers as well. On the other hand, we also realize that we may not smother or discourage development. However, we also realize that the big capitalist who enters this industry, is in fact the person who is going to provide us with the expansion we need so desperately in this sphere, although we are also fully aware of the valuable collective contribution made by the small growers, with due regard to the fact that the 2 000 growers we have, comprise 86 per cent of the total number of growers.

In this regard I want to recommend a few guide lines: The first is that our timber industry is a utility industry which we should approach as such. It occupies the same position as our steel industry and our oil and petrol industry. In view of the necessity of timber, I think we should approach the industry from that direction and deal with it in that way. In this regard the State has a very real interest and responsibility to ensure that there is efficient control and a good supply, because as far as this valuable industry is concerned, it is the task of the State to ensure that monopolies and manipulation are totally eliminated as far as the stabilization of production and the long-term and short-term demands are concerned. The creation of an artificial surplus of supplies, such as that which we experienced in the wattle industry recently, must be eliminated as well. I believe that with its balanced entry into the industry, the State should determine the course, pattern and direction and plant trees on a large scale, although not in competition with other growers. Therefore I believe that there is much to be said for the request for control made by the Wattle Growers’ Association, especially in respect of controlled marketing. However, we realize that control cannot be exercised only in respect of marketing. It would be completely unrealistic to expect that the planter, grower or owner may simply plant whatever he like, when he likes, where he likes, as much as he likes and subsequently approach the Government or the department and say that they must ensure a market. Therefore I believe that if we want to control it, we should control it completely. We should control it properly as regards planting and distribution. I had been suggested by the Wattle Growers’ Association that what they call a “Timber Board” should be nominated for the purpose of considering co-ordinated planning, supply and demand, etc., and incorporating it in an orderly way. I believe that we should channel the Forestry Advisory Board, with the powers, experience and facilities at its disposal, in this direction as well, not necessarily as a board of control, but in order that it may examine these matters which could place this industry on a very sound and scientific basis.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to what he said about the export of wattle chips, but I hope he will forgive me if I come back to the point I am trying to put to the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Mooi River dealt with one aspect of what I was trying to put to the hon. the Minister, when he explained that we are in the dark regarding the precise policy being followed overall by the Department of Forestry in so far as the growing of timber is concerned. I believe that the department is growing saw-logs. We can ignore eucalyptus and wattle, because we are now dealing with the soft woods, the conifers. I believe the department is growing saw-logs. When they thin their plantations and get their pulpwood it is a by-product. There was a time years ago when that by-product was allowed to lie and rot in the plantations, because there was no market for it. But as the commercial factories came into being that pulpwood acquired a value. The hon. member for Mooi River said that it was the lowest priced timber on the market. But it is bulk timber and is nowadays used by the commercial factory. It has become a very important article of commerce in South Africa. As far as I know, this is, however, still a by-product as far as Government plantations are concerned. They get what they can for it and sell on a sealed contract. The private grower has to sell in the open market for a price which is known and determined by certain economic laws, mostly the law of supply and demand. When the purchaser buys on a sealed contract from the Department of Forestry, and nobody knows what price he is paying, nor the total volume for which he has tendered, he is then in a position to bargain and barter with the private grower for a price which he can command in the open market under conditions where the buyer is sitting with this hidden asset of an undisclosed volume at an undisclosed price which is going to be a sufficient throughput for him to enable him to carry on with his milling operations. These two forms of sale of the same commodity to the same purchaser is bad in principle. It may well be that for a Government department the idea of having to sell by tender is the accepted system, the accepted formula, but this may have to be altered. It was made by man and it will have to be altered by man if necessary. The necessity of having orderly marketing with the co-operation of the growers and the department to my mind is absolutely essential. From here I move on to the second point I wish to make.

As the development of the Bantustans and the Bantu Governments go ahead so are Bantu authorities and Bantu Governments acquiring plantations which, I believe, in every case were planted by the Department of Forestry for the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. As the Territorial Authorities are established they take over the areas in which those big plantations have been established and it becomes their property. There are going to be, in other words, new Governments coming into the market with pulp timber to sell. It is not only our own Government with its Department of Forestry who sell from pulp timber to saw-logs on the basis of a sealed or closed tender, but there are also going to be also the Bantu Territorial Authorities with timber to sell. And it is no small amount. I do not know what the total acreage is, but it will be easy enough to get this figure. I do not know if the Minister can tell us off-handed. Our Department of Forestry has acted as an agent for the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the result is that they have planted tens of thousands of acres of conifers coniferous. That timber, for proper sylvicultural processes and practices to be established in those plantations, must be thinned. At a certain stage these thinnings are pulp timber. They come into the market so that you have the position that you can have at least two of the Bantu Territorial Authorities, our own Department of Forestry and all the private growers as individuals taking their produce into the same market, but under totally different marketing conditions. We cannot deal with those Bantu Governments, but our department can. I want to say here tonight in the clearest language to the hon. the Minister: The timber growers of South Africa in the private sector are looking to him because one word from him will put the matter right. If the hon. the Minister will get up tonight and say “I am satisfied that the reasonable, the proper economic way of dealing with this particular problem in the best interests of the private sector as well as of the Governments concerned, will be for a conference to be held, so that we can hammer out a system of orderly marketing, with all pulp wood and all saw logs going into one market under one set of marketing conditions”, the problem will be solved. There will be a wave of optimism throughout the length and breadth of South Africa: if the hon. the Minister will tell us that tonight. The power is in his hands; he only has to recognize the necessity. Because he is the controller of the biggest single supplier of saw logs and pulp wood in South Africa, he holds the whole issue in his hands. Apart from that, he has the whole Government behind him. So I do appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to view this situation in an overall sense, to take an overall view of the Bantu Governments, our own Department of Forestry and the hundreds of private people who are themselves timbergrowers.

I want to come to those timbergrowers for a moment, because my hon. friend who sat down just now, and I think also the hon. member for Humansdorp, referred to the Government loans to timber-growers. It is a fact that the Minister has made arrangements for financial assistance to private timbergrowers so that they can plant trees. But they cannot plant wood-lots and small timber plantations on their farms with a view to growing logs. What they grow is something which in eight or nine years can be clean felled and processed as pulp wood. Then they re-establish and go through the process again, because they must have the money. They cannot wait for a 30 year rotation until they can grow saw logs. What man of 30 and 40 years of age today can plant timber with a view to felling it when it is 30 years old? It is out of the question. For those people who want loans we have found that the Department of Agricultural Credit will not make loans available to them. I hope the hon. the Minister is getting the point. The Department of Agricultural Credit will not make loans available to those farmers if they have a bond on their property. We have to get over that difficulty, because it is no good the Government saying it will make money available through the Department of Agricultural Credit to farmers who want to use that money to plant timber, and when they go to do it, they find the farmer has a bond on his farm and they refuse to give him that loan. There must be a means of getting round it, even if it is to advance money to co-operatives, so that they can lend the money to the farmers, and obviate the difficulty in that particular manner, or arrange with the Department of Agricultural Credit to take over existing bonds and then make the money available. Sir, we are being thwarted in the main purpose and intention at the present time because of this barrier which prohibits a man with a bond on his farm from taking advantage of the loan which the Minister of Forestry is prepared to make to him so that he may grow more timber. Here is a real practical difficulty that has arisen and I hope the Minister will apply his mind to it and see whether through the use of co-operatives or through the industry itself, for example, an organization like the South African Timber Growers Association or some organization like that, a means cannot be found of obviating that difficulty. I put that up to the Minister; I hope he can find a way of overcoming this difficulty.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast stated a case here, and I am convinced that if he spoke on behalf of the producers, and the producers were to address a reasonable request to the Minister, there would be no reason to doubt that this Minister would adopt anything but a sympathetic attitude in that regard. Indeed, it seems to me there are indications already that our producers are beginning to look up to our Minister of Forestry and that there is a stirring in the right direction. Consequently he will pardon me if I do not follow this up any further.

In my constituency I am fortunate to have no fewer than three forestry stations. There is Grootvadersbosch at Heidelberg, probably one of the best known tracts of natural forest in the country. It is in actual fact a portion or the remainder of a onetime large forestry area. Today there is still some natural growth of stinkwood there, and the department is doing everything in its power for its conservation. At Swellendam, too, there is a forestry station which is wonderfully situated close to one of the most beautiful of ravines and the mountain slopes. It certainly is one of the natural attractions of the Southern Cape. It is a forest which is situated on the slopes of the Langeberge and indeed in a region of the Langeberge where the mountain is at its most beautiful. Then, of course, there is a forestry station at Die Mond near Bredasdorp as well, where a fine job of work has been done in connection with the reclamation of land which was taken in by drift sand. It may possible interest hon. members to know that drift sand reclamation by the Department of Forestry dates back to the time before Union. Because this is not a spectacular job, I should like to pay tribute to the department and to the officials concerned in this matter. Indeed, it is a job of work which has reclaimed and perpetuated large sections of our coast, it prevented those sections from being completely covered by drift sand. It is not a pleasant job, and I personally have experience of that. In the vicinity of Waenhuiskrants the Department of Forestry completely reclaimed a very large area within a very short period, and one may virtually say that one can no longer detect the conditions which used to prevail there as the reclamation was so complete that the reclaimed area compares favourably to the natural veld. This fine piece of forest at the last mentioned forestry station is situated at the mouth of the Heuningnes River which is a very popular fishing spot. This, in point of fact, brings me to the plea which has caused me to rise. What I want to say is that it gives me pleasure to see that the department has decided to allow the public into our forests. I think this is a very fortunate decision. It is very fortunate in that we are planting more and more forests and are afforesting regions which usually are beautiful parts of the country. This is usually done in areas with a high rainfall which have a powerful attraction for the ordinary public. As our population grows—the present population is approximately 20 million and expectations are that it will be double, or slightly more than double, that figure at the end of this century—places of recreation will become fewer and fewer. I feel the decision which has been taken at this early stage, i.e. to allow our public into our forests, is a wise one. The beneficial effect of recreation, especially on those people who have to find their way in the jungles of steel and concrete today, coupled to the feeling that it is possible for them to seek recreation in a forest, must be something very special to these people. It must be a very special pastime to these people. I feel that more should be done even at this stage, especially since there is not such a heartfelt need to do so today, to foster in our people a feeling of love for our forests. Already at school a love for forests, which our children in reality do not have today, may be fostered in them. South Africa is poor in natural forests. The increase in the number of cultivated forests and the lack of natural forests have the effect that forests do not really occupy a warm place in the hearts of the public and that we do not find them beautiful. That is why we do not regard them as something precious, as a heritage and as something beautiful which is created. That is why I feel that this should definitely be inculcated into our children at school already so that a sense of appreciation, a sense of preservation, a sense of beauty, etc., may be fostered in them.

In the vicinity of Swellendam there is a beautiful ravine—I have already referred to it—which bears the beautiful old name of “Hermitage”. I understand that plans are afoot for establishing a special place in this vicinity to which people will be able to come for some relaxation. I am not sure to what extent this resort will be developed, but I do want to advocate that it should be developed to such an extent that people may visit it not only for an afternoon to roast meat over an open fire, but to stay there for a bit longer. Consideration should also be given to the possibility of going even further and of establishing facilities which will allow people to stay overnight. I want to say that I have personal knowledge of the beneficial influence it has on one and of the pleasure one derives from spending a night in the open. I feel that if it is possible for facilities of that kind to be created as well, our young people—I want to qualify that by adding that I am excluding the type we should not like to have there—will be very keen to stay over at such places and to make use of those facilities on a large scale. I also feel that Die Mond is a very beautiful place at which something of the same kind may be established. To a certain extent facilities have already been created there for officials. There is definitely occasion for creating something of that kind there. I feel that this direction in which forestry is moving will establish something which will be appreciated by the public in general. I am convinced that it will make a contribution to the sound development of the spirit of our people.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much have liked to continue the line of thought pursued by the hon. member who has just sat down, but there are two matters of local importance which I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice. The first concerns the Alexandria district and the second concerns the Bathurst district. In regards to the Alexandria district I want to say that I hope the hon. member for Somerset East will not blame me again for talking about this district. I just want to mention that Alexandria is my home district and that matters concerning that district are important to me.

We are dealing with a problem here which does not really concern the growing of timber. It is something which concerns the provision of an access road through forest land along the coast. Several years ago a Coloured beach was marked off at Put-se-Vlakte in a part of the Alexandria district known as Paardekloof. There is no trouble with the access from the private farm which is situated on the land side of the strip of forest land. It is a strip of dune bush and sand dunes. Apparently negotiations by the divisional council and the Provincial Council were not conducted directly with the Department of Forestry, but through the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. They were notified by this department that the Department of Forestry will be prepared to consider the provision of the access road on condition that the divisional council provides the Department of Forestry with a suitable plot on the land side in order to avoid drift sand. I quite understand the reasons of the Department of Forestry. They want to avoid a wind tunnel which could be formed by such an access road. The divisional council of Alexandria has a limited sum of money available for the provision of facilities for Coloured people at that beach. The land on the land side is very expensive grazing land. They feel that the cost of expropriation to make this land available to the Department of Forestry is not within their financial means. They feel that they cannot afford it. I just wonder whether the Department could not contact that divisional council directly in order to advise them on finding a solution to this matter, so that these access facilities may be made available to the Coloured people. I want to point out that the difficulties arise on holidays, because most Coloured people come to those beaches. They come by car from Port Elizabeth, Grahamstown, Uitenhage and the surrounding areas. They come to the farm of a private owner where no difficulties arise. In order to cross forest land one needs a permit. They only come for one holiday and then the forest officer—I do not blame him for that—is also off duty on that holiday. They are then arrested there by a subordinate of the forest officer and have to pay a fine because they are on the land illegally. This results in some friction and I should be very glad if the hon. the Minister’s department could come into contact with the divisional council of Alexandria directly in order to find a solution to this matter in the interests of peaceful race relations in the district and in the eastern area there.

†The second question is of a similar nature. This deals with the White holiday resort at the Fish River mouth in the Bathurst district. This is also, I believe, on Forestry ground. It is what is known as a divisional council camping site where, for quite a number of years, many people have been going traditionally for their holidays. In some instances this has been the tradition of more than 100 years. People are allowed to put up a temporary structure there, a wooden house on piles for instance, for which they pay a small lease.

Where is that?

At the Fish River Mouth, on the western bank of the Fish River mouth, in the Bathurst district.

I was informed yesterday by some of the owners of cottages there that suddenly, since approximately March last year, every spring tide has been encroaching upon the sand adjoining this holiday resort. The encroachment is getting worse and worse with every spring tide and it is beginning to threaten some of the cottages. The owners have done their best to preserve the bush. They say that in fact not only sandhills have been swallowed up, but some of the natural bush that they have tried to preserve, has gone with the tide. Neither they nor the divisional council of Bathurst can afford to do anything there. However, I believe that in co-operation with and with the advice of the Department of Forestry on whose ground they are camped and whose ground they have over the years endeavoured to protect, because it is an asset to them as well as to the Department of Forestry, something can be achieved by the owners of cottages there and the divisional council of Bathurst to stop this perpetual tidal encroachment which is threatening this holiday resort and which can take a beautiful and well-loved area completely away. I believe this is a very bad encroachment which is taking place.

I wish to express my appreciation generally to the department for the reclamation work which they have been doing near the Sunday’s River mouth. They have done some terrific reclamation work there under the Ferestry officer of Alexandria and his assistant, Mr. Niemand. They have even managed to get blue-gum trees established on the sand there. I think this is quite a remarkable feat. At the Bushman’s River mouth they have also done remarkable reclamation work with these dune grasses. However, I should like to recommend in the reclamation of sand the use of the common “ghoukum” which has been used by the village management board of Bushman’s River on certain sandy grounds which belong to it. The “ghoukum” seems to grow magnificently in sand and it stands up to wind and as it gets covered up, it comes through again. I believe that this can be used to a very large extent in the reclamation of sand.

It makes a lovely jam.

Yes, if you can pick it before the Bantu do.

The reclamation of sand along our coast, especially in the Algoa Bay area and along our southern coast where the westerly wind perpetually moves the sand, is something of very great importance. I must express appreciation for what has been done there, but I hope that more work will be done in this connection in future.

Mr. Chairman, I think I can quite justifiably say that the Department of Forestry has over the years made a very important contribution to the development of timber production in our country particularly with a view to our own requirements. If it had not been for the plantations which the Department of Forestry has over the years established with a view to the future requirements of our country and particularly our building industry, we would probably, during the past few years of rapid development and tremendous demand for building timber, have experienced many problems and would have had to spend a great deal of money if we had been forced to import this timber from abroad. It is with a feeling of pride and gratitude that one gladly mentions that the Government of one’s own country had the vision, many years ago, to see that because of the limited afforestable areas in our country, with its relatively low rainfall, we would have to establish as many artificial plantations as possible to be able to meet the needs. In our time, and particularly during the past few years, it has been confirmed time and again that this was definitely a far-sighted deed.

I therefore want to mention with appreciation the research which is being done by the department in regard to the use of South African timber, the improvement and methods of treatment and quality of our building timber. I think that the S.A.B.S. has consistently played a very important role in this and where—not very many years ago—a prejudice against South African timber used to exist, this has to a large extent been eliminated today, and we are now intent upon using South African timber as far as possible.

If we consider the Western Cape, we know that the possibility of establishing new plantations and the land which is available is very limited, particularly because we would not like to see harm being done to our water catchment areas through injudicious afforestation. I nevertheless made enquiries, and I myself feel, that in various areas in the Drakenstein Mountains the Olifants River Mountains and the Cedarberg, there are still considerable possibilities for expanding our State forest plantations. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the possibilities are and whether his department is devising any positive plans for further expansion on any considerable scale. I know that in the Cedarberg an extension of the Algeria forest plantation is in progress, and we hope that more can be done in that direction because, when we enquire what the future demand will be, and are then informed that in the next 30 to 40 years we will have to build as many houses as have been built in the previous 300 years, we realize that the demand will increase tremendously in the near future. Whatever other materials we may develop, we know that timber will always continue to play a very important role, and I should like to enquire from the hon. the Minister whether there are further possibilities for considerable expansion in the Western Cape; whether there are areas, taking into consideration our water requirements and the protection of our river sources, where there are still reasonable possibilities of expanding in this direction.

Then, Sir, I should like to mention with appreciation the work of the Department in combating driftsand in the Western Cape. This is a problem which is assuming greater proportions than people, who do not see these areas, usually realize. Particularly in the Vredenburg, Hopefield, Piketberg, Clanwilliam, Vredendal and Vanrhynsdorp areas, driftsand, more especially along the coast but also in areas further inland, has assumed tremendous proportions. We have noted, during the past few years of drought, that in a district like Vanrhynsdorp a tremendous amount of wind erosion occurred. In many parts there the vegetation is very sparse and grows very slowly, so that it will take a long time for those areas to recover. We are grateful for the work the Department of Forestry is doing—which, I almost want to say, is a negative part of their work, but nevertheless an important part—to prevent ever-increasing quantities of our soil from being blown away and being replaced with driftsand. I have been informed that there are parts of the Piketberg/Clanwilliam district where driftsand is found over areas up to 2 000 morgen in extent. With the prevailing winds, particularly in summer, the tendency is for those driftsand areas to keep on increasing in size. Sir, the coastal area of the entire Western Cape is an area where the vegetation is relatively meagre and sparse. We should very much like to ascertain whether the department should not, through greater publicity, acquaint our farming community with certain types of trees and shrubs, whether indigenous or otherwise—I am thinking now of an area like Redelinghuys, the north western part of the Piketberg district, where one has a reasonable good supply of subterranean water and where trees, once they have been established, grow reasonably well—by means of which we can by means of long-term planning counteract that wind erosion and prevent the encroachment of driftsand on ever increasing areas. We are grateful for what is being done there, and I sometimes have the impression, precisely because there is so little vegetation, and because the department has such a difficult time establishing certain types of trees in certain areas, that it is in many ways a very ungrateful and fruitless task. But I think that we should do more to get landowners themselves to play an active part in helping to counteract that problem. I can mention that there are some of our young farmers in the Clanwilliam District who have already discussed this matter with me and who are very concerned about the wind erosion problem becoming too much for them. This became particularly clear in the years of abnormally low rainfall, such as in 1969, and again in 1971, when very little rain fell in those areas. There are people who see and appreciate this problem, who are concerned about the sparse vegetation and who are concerned about the wind erosion of our soil, and we should very much like to see the Department of Forestry being present at farmers’ days to demonstrate the types of trees or plants which they may have developed to the farmers to help them to establish windbreaks and other plantations which will help solve this problem. We are grateful for what the department has already done, and we have every confidence that this department will in future continue to play a very important role, not only in providing a large quantity of the timber which we require, but also in helping to combat this problem of the destruction of our soil through wind erosion, particularly in the Western Cape.

During this short debate we have listened to speakers discussing our problems with regard to forestry on South Africa’s coastline; we have heard speakers discussing our problems relating to forests, trees and plantations, and I want to go to the Hinterland and discuss the areas which I believe to be very important land in the Republic of South Africa, and that is South Africa’s main watersheds. When I talk about our main watersheds, I mean the areas which separate the waters which flow either to the Indian Ocean or to the Atlantic Ocean. These are the areas which I do not think any member in this House will deny are being sadly neglected.

In what way?

I will tell the hon. member in what way. He comes from South-West Africa where they have had a very good season and where they have plentiful grass coverage and where they have no main watershed. I want to talk about the main watersheds of the Republic of South Africa, beginning at the southern point of the Drakensberg Range; this starts—I know the area very well—in the Aasvoëlberg, east of Hofmeyr, which was commonly known as the Murraysburg district, ranging through the Molteno district, Dordrecht, Indwe, Barkly East and Maclear, right up into the Drakensberg. All this land divides the water which flows to the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. We know that the Department of Forestry is responsible for all this land more than 6 000 feet above sea level. I am now speaking of land which is in fact more than 6 000 feet above sea level. I know that the hon. the Minister will immediately say, “Yes, but this rests with the Department of Agricultural-Technical Services.” This is correct, but his department has now assumed responsibility for this land as regards forestry. I regret to say that to date, although the hon. the Minister has not had much time to do anything as it is only in the last two to three years that the hon. the Minister has held this portfolio. The Department of Forestry has not done anything to preserve the denuded land in that area. Sir, I come back to the point that we are now dealing with South Africa’s main catchment areas; comparatively high rainfall areas, South Africa’s sponges. It is one of the few areas in which we have had snow during the last week—a considerable amount of snow. But that snow fell in some places on barren, denuded land, so denuded, Sir, that you will not even find a tree there today, and I am prepared to take the hon. the Minister and the Secretary of his department there at my own expense to see for themselves. This is how concerned I am. One finds few trees and little grass, very few birds; hardly any wild life; there is no partridge, no guinea fowl, no pheasant, no fauna, no flora. Why? Because they are still people farming on that land who have not volunteered to have their farms planned under the Soil Conservation Act, nor have they applied to reduce their stock under the stock reduction scheme.

*We know it is a voluntary scheme. The farmer can voluntarily apply to go in for this scheme. But everything in that watershed remains voluntary. [Interjections.] Yes, but we do not want to talk politics now.

†This is the point. We are getting very close to the political issue, but this is what concerns everybody in South Africa. We must now face facts. I know the hon. the Minister well enough to realize that he may consider taking the issue in hand. We should now visit those areas.

Compel the farmers to have their farms planned.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinett says we must compel the farmers to have their farms planned, I will go further and say that once they have had their farms planned, they should seriously consider applying for the stock reduction scheme. One-third or two-thirds, or total but nothing is being done on too many units, let me assure you, Sir, Where there are conservation conscious farmers—and fortunately there are many—who are practising the stock reduction scheme, they have produced wonderful results. There you will find plenty of grass coverage on the veld, and a variety of wild life and, what is more, a sponge is in the process of being formed on parts of South Africa’s main watershed. I realize that the Minister in his reply will say that there is a shortage of staff. I appreciate this. These are all problems which you and I have to solve.

From South Africa’s main watershed I want to return to the coastline. My colleague on my right mentioned our coastline. This is another tremendous problem facing the Department of Forestry and facing all those people who own holiday resorts along the coast, of which we have many. I have had to deal with this problem personally. The Department of Forestry, as you know, controls all our beaches and up to approximately 100 to 150 yards inland from the beaches. Anyone owning a holiday resort is responsible for the erection and maintenance of a fence between his resort and the Forestry land. If the owner of the holiday resort wants access to the beach through the forest bush area belonging to the Department of forestry, he or she has to maintain a footpath, either a concrete footpath or a wooden ladder, and also, unless the holiday resort owner maintains or keeps the sand dunes away, and in doing so he has to plant grass to cover the sand dunes, and unless the holiday resort owner stops all wind erosion and, as I say, keeps the sand dunes away, his licence is taken away and those holidaying on his property will not be allowed access to the beach. I acknowledge, having had dealings with this problem, that the department has done everything in its power. The Departmental Regional officers do all they possibly can to solve this problem, but we have been able to solve it only up to a point, through dialogue. This is something we will have to consider seriously. It is a great problem, because there is misunderstanding between the Department of Forestry and all those people who own holiday resorts along our coastline. As I say, unless the people who owns holiday resorts can maintain the standard laid down by the Department of Forestry, their licence is taken away and once this happens the holiday resort is not worth a cent. I appeal to the Minister and his department to seriously re-consider this problem. I submit it is a difficult problem, but the present arrangement is not satisfactory. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for East London North, who has just resumed his seat now, referred to the main catchment areas in the Drakensberg and said that there were problems because that part of the world had been denuded to such an extent. I just want to point out to the hon. members that it is not really possible to establish forests in those areas because they are in the Drakensberg, and if afforestation were to be applied there, the winter snows would most certainly destroy those trees; very few of them would remain. I think it is impracticable to refer to those areas in regard to afforestation. The parts further to the west of where the hon. member stays, near Molteno, are suitable for afforestation, but I think it is impracticable to establish forests in those areas owing to the dry climatic conditions.

However, I should like to refer this evening to one, namely our Department of Forestry. According to a book which I have in my possession, Forestry and Forest Industries, our Department of Forestry is about 100 or 102 years old this year, although the department itself disputes this and calculates that by 1984 the Department of Forestry will be approximately 100 years old. Our forest industry is a young and dynamic industry and not only does it provide work for many people, saves us a good deal of foreign exchange. It saves us approximately R380 million in foreign exchange annually, not only in the form of timber which we need not export, but also in the form of paper which is manufactured in South Africa. This is of course a very important matter. I cannot specify here this evening how much timber we are still importing to South Africa at the moment, but I should like to agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp that we should triple our afforestation in South Africa as quickly as possible, and when I speak of tripling it, I mean that in the true sense of the word. If we consider that the number of acres—I am saying acres, for I do not have this in hectares—which is under afforestation in South Africa today is 2 946 572; it includes the indigenous forests which have always existed as well as the forests we established ourselves. These plantations comprise 2 475 000 and the indigenous forests 471 000 acres. It is very important to note this. For local consumption we are establishing many foreign varieties of trees. In a book entitled Look Beyond the Wind, written by Olga Leeman, there is a short biographical sketch of the late Dr. Hans Merensky. The late Dr. Hans Merensky proved—he was from the North Eastern Transvaal; I think from Tzaneen somewhere—that non-indigenous trees harmed our subterranean waters. Where he had had the non-indigenous trees felled, the subterranean waters began to increase again after the first rains. Yesterday we passed a Bill here to combat injudicious afforestation. I want to make the point tonight, and ask what portions of the total number of morgen at present planted to trees in South Africa, are to be found at places where this should not have been done, in other words, where trees were planted injudiciously in the catchment areas of our rivers. It is important to note that Dr. Merensky, who came from a family of five generations of foresters, proved that a river on which 15 or 20 farmers were dependent—I think he was referring to the Boontjies River—in the course of years stopped flowing. Those farmers subsequently had to fall back on and rely on boreholes. That is fatal. We cannot in South Africa allow non-indigenous trees to affect our subterranean water.

I now want to make a second point, we in South Africa are engaged in the improvement of non-indigenous tree varieties. In that respect we have three improvement stations in South Africa. The one is the D. R. de Wet station and another is the Futululu Tree Improvement Station—that is a terrible name—in the Eastern Transvaal and Zululand respectively, where improvement work on conifer varieties is being done. There is also the Somerkoms Tree Improvement station near Tzaneen.

I want to make the point that we have beautiful stinkwood trees in South Africa growing in natural forests. We know that they do not make heavy demands on the subterranean water. We also have yellow-wood trees, ironwood trees, etc. I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister tonight that positive research work should be concentrated on improving that type of tree in South Africa. I feel that, since we are saving R288 million in foreign exchange, we could in fact be earning another R288 million in foreign exchange in this respect that if we could improve our indigenous trees and establish them in plantations, it would mean that those much sought after varieties of timber could subsequently be exported to other parts of the world. At present they grow too slowly. A yellow-wood tree can only be used after 70 or 80 years. These varieties of trees therefore grow too slowly and it should be ensured that research is done in regard to improving those types of trees so that they could in future be an asset to South Africa. Then, and then alone, will our natural forests be an asset to us, and also earn foreign exchange for us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Aliwal who has just sat down, raised a very important point in connection with the breeding of trees and the method by which our return from the acreages planted can be improved. I am sure he will agree—in fact, he said so himself—that the available area we have for afforestation simply will not permit that we should plant these very slow-growing species of timber. The hon. member for South Coast suggested last year at the Timbergrowers Conference in Pietermaritzburg that use should be made of atomic radiation in treating types of trees, as has been done with the breeding of wheat in Canada as a result of which it was possible to advance the area in which wheat could be planted some 500 miles, I think it was, north into the snow and frost zone in Canada. Thus an immense area was opened up where wheat could profitably be grown.

Two hundred miles.

Yes, the wheat growing area could be advanced by 200 miles northwards. This was simply because people took the trouble to treat wheat seed with radiation and to try out all the different varieties for hardiness, etc., to find the right sort of mutation which would meet the particular conditions pertaining in that area. I think there is obviously an immense field for research in this matter. I think it must be one of the most heartbreaking and long-term processes and projects anybody can ever undertake. I will be interested to know whether there is in fact a tree-breeder, a professionally trained tree-breeder, in the department. One hears all kinds of stories as you go round the country. I heard that there was one, that the department had a tree-breeder, but that the immense amount of time involved in this process before seeing any kind of return, so discouraged this man that he decided to give it up. He then went to the Department of Agriculture and became a strawberry-breeder. I do not know whether this is true or not, but I can certainly understand the motives if that were the case. I was interested to see in the last report that two officials went to Mexico for a year to collect pine seed. As a result of a year’s work they were able to return with only 4 lbs. of selected seed from selected trees in Mexico. Now this seems an absolutely minimal amount, and one can say that these people wasted their time and that they spent more time lying under the trees than looking at them, but the difficulty in collecting this kind of seed is immense. I think the fact that they returned with so little is an illustration of the fact of how difficult it is to do this. Obviously, it is far too early to ask what kind of results have been experienced from the seed which was planted, but I mention this because I do believe there is a very fruitful field for study in this particular direction.

I also want to ask the Minister a question which really relates to his previous Vote, namely Water Affairs, in connection with the pulp mill which was supposed to be started at Mondi. For many years the hon. member for South Coast and myself battled with the Minister as Minister of Water Affairs to ensure that a pulp mill was not started at Mondi because it was going to pollute our rivers, but now we are in a position where we can ask the Minister of Forestry what steps are being taken to ensure that a market is created at Mondi by means of a pulp mill for the people who grow timber in the Ixopo/Donny-brook area. I raise this with the hon. the Minister in order to have a progress report, more than anything else. We are still absolutely at one that pollution will not take place in the Umzimkulu River for the 100 miles it runs to the sea from there.

I wish to raise one other matter which arises out of the research done at the Leather Industry Research Institute which I think is in Grahamstown. I am referring to the question of the Liri-tan process. It is encouraging to note that this process which has been evolved in South Africa is now being propagated and encouraged and is, in fact, catching on in America, particularly from the point of view that it cuts out such a great deal of the pollution that takes place in the normal tanning process. I think it is very heartening for us to know that we have evolved this kind of process in South Africa, a process which is going to eliminate, if it is adopted on a wide scale, one of the worst forms of water pollution, namely from leather tanning. It is one of the most difficult forms of pollution to clean up because of the completed animal fats and hair which are contained in the water which comes from the tanning process. I think it is very encouraging indeed that this is a process which is going ahead.

I now come to the other side of the Minister’s forestry nature, namely the conservation side. I refer to the control the Minister has in connection with our catchment areas, which was also dealt with by the hon. member for East London North. I was most interested to see in that document sent out by the South African Timbergrowers Association, a report of a journal of forestry, it was No. 75 of 1970, I think, by Prof. Wiid, raising again the question of afforestation and its effect on water supplies. The Secretary of the department, Mr. Malherbe, was chairman of a committee which went into the whole matter and decided that a well-managed grassland was the best way of maintaining the maximum water run-off but if correctly used afforestation will not be that much deleterious to water run-off and to water management. The point that is made, which is very much to the heart of every single person who farms with timber, is that it is openly questioned in this article whether it is now necessary in afforestring a certain area, to leave all the little streams, the small streams that flow through that area, with a strip of grassland not planted. The point is very well made that always in the denseness of the shade the natural grassland which was there before tends to die out and is replaced by other sorts of growth, usually dense growth. If it is grass, it is a very heavy sort of grass. Anybody who has had to burn fire-breaks through stands of timber of that nature will know that you sweat blood from the minute you put the first match in until it is burnt out. I would be interested to know whether this is something which the departments are investigating further. I think it is generally accepted that streams have to be left, but what size streams? I would like to know whether research is going on into this field to determine whether the dangers from fire and the denudation of a hillside that can take place when a forest is in fact burnt off, which can happen from these stands of grass running up into the timber slopes, is in itself not more disadvantageous than to retain all the small, little streams running into the forest.

Lastly, I want to come to the question of the management of this mountain estate, which now falls under the Department of Forestry. One wonders whether it is not possible to provide controlled hunting in these areas. This area, I believe, is one which is going to have to be exploited somehow to give a return. It is going to be an optimal tourist area. I think we are agreed, and I think the hon. the Minister himself stated that these wilderness areas will be retained as much as possible, even to the point of not putting in jeep tracks and this kind of thing, firstly because of the danger of the friability of the soil at those high levels, because of which erosion can start so very easily, and, secondly, to retain them as perfectly natural areas, without the traffic and the volume of people that traffic would engender. But it does seem to me that in these areas hunting can be provided. I must point out, as I did on another occasion, that in America the cash income from hunting is something which exceeds $1 000 million a year in licences, ammunition, arms, and this kind of thing. Hunting is one of the prime objectives of all the States’ management committees, which are liaisons between the forestry committees and the game management committee. I think that we have here in these higher berg areas a chance to provide a crop of game which would give a return to the department and at the same time create a source of recreation and pleasure to the people who take part in hunting as a sport.

Mr. Chairman, to listen to hon. members opposite one would say they were all master foresters and that they know everything about the subject. I wondered whether the hon. the Minister and his department would not like to give them each a job so that they can then show what they are really capable of in practice. It seems to me they have actually missed their calling. I only hope they do not make as much of a mess of the Department of Forestry as they have done of politics.

I would just like to refer to an aspect which was cited by the hon. member for South Coast. He referred to the question of marketing. The hon. member for Mooi River spoke about that, and so did other hon. members opposite. It is strange that they are always in some way suspicious of the department. The hon. member for Mooi River claimed that there is no “efficiency in certain aspects of the department”.

Utilization.

A characteristic of the other side, generally speaking, is that they always sow some kind of suspicion about certain activities of the department. But the accusation is always made from the opposite side that we are steering the national economy in the direction of socialism. In the previous debate the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke of a “sneaking socialism”.

A “creeping socialism”. *

What is the difference between a “creeping socialism” and a “sneaking socialism”? I think they mean the same thing: there is no great difference between “creeping” and “sneaking”, because in the performance of both acts one is on one’s knees. Here we now have an aspect of our national economy in connection with forestry matters which is actually largely a socialistic tendency. In connection with other aspects of the national economy the hon. member spoke of the tendency, on the part of the National Party Government, to increasingly apply State control. The hon. member for Pinetown mentioned it on certain occasions, and other hon. speakers on that side of the House have been complaining repeatedly about that, from a few years ago until today. in another context, that of economic affairs. Here is a Government department which more than any other has control over all maters concerning forestry, and I want to say that I expected hon. members at any time to repeat the accusation that it is a socialistic department. Hon. members have not yet done so, and I foresee them still doing so as forestry activities increase. Other members said there must be greater expenditure and an increase in the activities of the department, but some time or other the accusations will be levelled about this being a socialist party Government.

I actually stood up to say something in connection with another matter. I want to refer to the combating of driftsand. The hon. member for Piketberg spoke of the meagre vegetation in the vicinity of Redelinghuys along the West Coast. I can assure the hon. member that if he wants to see more meagre vegetation he must go and look at the far northern parts of the West Coast of South-West Africa and the Namib Desert, and also at Walvis Bay and the Kaokoveld. Then he will see that there is actually no vegetation and that the choice of the word meagre is not applicable to those areas. It is interesting to note that as far as the combating of driftsand is concerned, only R10 000 has been voted for the whole of South-West Africa, which is a very large area. At the same time an amount of R240 100 has been voted in the Loan Account for the Western Cape for the combating of driftsand. For the Eastern Transvaal region an amount of R265 400 has been voted for the combating of driftsand. For the Humansdorp area an amount of R554 800, which was included in the grand total, has been voted for this purpose. With respect to the amount of R10 000, which has been voted for driftsand reclamation in South-West Africa, I want to say that it is a minimal amount, and I want to lodge a serious plea for more attention to be given to the problems of driftsand control in the South-West Africa area. Hon. members know that a mechanical method is employed, with a row of sticks being planted on the sand dune at a certain height in relation to the crest of the dune. This prevents the sand from moving further because it piles up against the front of the structure. It costs a great deal to transport that wood from say the Eastern Transvaal to Walvis Bay, for example. When the economic aspects of this method are calculated in relationship to other methods—I do not know whether attention has already been given to other methods—I wonder whether the mechanical method cannot be replaced by other methods. I am thinking, for example, of the experiments conducted by the Walvis Bay municipality in this connection, They have a greater amount of expenditure with the methods they employ. They flatten dunes and then transport stones and other solid materials to cover the dunes. By that method a solid bank is created which consolidates the sand dunes. I want to ask for more intensive research in connection with the combating of driftsand in the vicinity of Walvis Bay. The combating methods in the vicinity of Alexandrië, or here in the Western Cape and in the Humansdorp districts, cannot be applied in the vicinity of Walvis Bay because one is dealing there with totally different climatic conditions. To try to fight this by planting vegetation, as requested by the hon. member for Piketberg, would be ineffective and yield poor results. This has already been tried in various ways. I know of experiments with the planting of salt bush in the vicinity of the Kuiseb Mouth, but it appears to me as if we must try to combat this by chemical methods. There is a great deal of sodium chloride—ordinary salt—in the vicinity; there is calcium sulphate—gypsum—and also calcium carbonate—the limestone layers that appear everywhere. One sometimes wonders whether saturated solutions of similar compounds could not be sprayed on to the top of the sand dunes to see if it would not crystalize with the sand to form a solid bank. There is even the practice of mixing ordinary cement with the sand so that a solid bank can be formed. I am now thinking of the tarred road between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay where the wind no longer flings its load of sand on to the road because the height of the road has been so calculated by experiment that the wind cannot deposit sand on it. In various parts of the world experiments have been carried out in connection with road construction through dune areas. I am now thinking of North Africa, where similar experiments have also been carried out in connection with road construction through dune areas. One wonders whether these methods cannot furnish a more positive contribution towards safeguarding an area like the Walvis Bay area, for example. The Walvis Bay area is actually a vital artery to us in South-West Africa because of the industries there and because of the fact that it is virtually our only big entrance and exit harbour with a particularly adequate depth. [Time expired ]

Mr. Chairman, I am always pleased when the hon. member for Etosha comes into a debate. He brings what you might call a fresh breath of desert air which is very welcome. I have a matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, but I cannot allow the hon. member for Etosha to get away with the question about the difference between a creeper and a sneaker. I do suggest that if he has a couple of pots on his stoep, he should plant a creeper in the one and a sneaker in the other. I am sure that it will not be long before he will not need any scientific dissertation as to the difference between the sneaker and the creeper. If he has a look at the two types of trees that grow in his constituency, he may find that one of those is already a creeper and the other may be a sneaker.

What about the socialism in the economy …?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raises a very important point, but you will not allow me to answer him, and quite rightly so. I will have to give him education outside this House.

In the very short time that is left to me, I want to raise a question which, I think was also under discussion yesterday when we were dealing with water affairs. It is the question of what is now happening under the impetus of the new development techniques which are coming about in the field of weather modification. Yesterday, Sir, we stressed the importance of this to the farming community. I am going to leave out the other communities for the moment; I am going to deal with the farming community and the timber-growers, the Forestry Department and the private sector. Mr. Chairman, there are vast acres in South Africa which are today deemed to be so arid that they fall just short of the necessary requirements in the field of rainfall to grow timber, that is to say, timber suitable for any commercial purpose. If that ceiling could be raised, even by small amounts per annum, it could bring those areas into the area where timber could be grown commercially, economically and advantageously. I think we have to take note of this development. We are not the only country in the world which is experimenting in this field, although we have had some quite appreciable success. I think that one of these journals which describes these scientific experiments from time to time, could well put out in a popular form a statement of the kind of success that our scientists have had in South Africa in connection with weather modification, that is, artificial rain-making, for our purpose. But there are other countries all over the world where vast sums are being expended on experiments because of the economic benefit to any country that can find a relatively cheap method of giving a substantially increased rainfall; in fact, we had evidence on the Select Committee recently which indicated that rainfall was being produced at the cost of R3 per acre foot. That is incredibly cheap, Mr. Chairman. That is actually being done, and that is a scientifically controlled experiment, not one of these guess-and-by-thumb sort of arrangements. I think we may one of these days have to take a fresh look entirely at the areas where the Minister and his department may have decided that they do not want forestry because it is in an area of low rainfall, or a catchment area for a big dam or something of that sort. The point I want to make tonight is that the principle is there; developments are taking place. We are using satellites for another purpose altogether, but with the use of satellites and with the experience being gained in other countries, this development can mean untold millions of rands in terms of increased economic benefits to South Africa if we are able to achieve a breakthrough in that direction.

The most important matter raised by most speakers in this discussion of the Forestry Vote this evening, was the whole question of the marketing of timber, the demand for timber which may develop in the future and the problems experienced in recent times. But before I come to that, Sir, you will allow me first to say something else in regard to an observation that has come from various sides and which was mentioned by, amongst others, the hon. member for Humansdorp. The hon. member for Humansdorp asked me whether it had not become essential for the whole question of the planting of trees and forests to be promoted on a proper scale, and he said the department might perhaps participate in it. You will be aware of the fact, Sir, that in recent years the timber industry has been greatly diversified; that it has started playing an important role in the economy in general; that a great deal of money is involved in it; that many companies have entered the timber industry, and that we are beginning to develop new directions for forest products, and that South Africa, is becoming more and more self-sufficient in this regard. Then there is the need not only to promote the planting of indigenous varieties of trees, but also to try to improve the quality. Hon. members have also asked that the part that our plantations and trees and forests could play in encouraging cleanliness should be stressed; that we should try to incorporate an educational function into this; that we should foster in our children a love of wood and a greater knowledge of the various kinds of wood. All these things have emerged from the discussion this evening. Perhaps this discussion is in actual fact a culmination of discussions which have been taking place over a very long period of time in the private sector as well. You will be aware, Sir, that attempts have been made by the private sector to promote timber production. From time to time specialized shows are held in this connection as hon. members will know. In recent times negotiations conducted in my office in Pretoria in which the private sector stressed the necessity of having a specific promotional programme and expressed its own willingness to participate in such a programme. They are prepared to spend a few hundred thousand rands in this connection, and to seek the co-operation of all the various sectors in the private sector. The Department of Forestry, which has been engaged on this for quite some time and which has made various films, held discussions with them and gave an undertaking that a committee would be constituted which would launch such a promotional programme next year. At the same time a name was decided upon. The name of the promotional programme, which will commence at the end of the year in co-operation with the private sector, which will in fact bear the major portion of the cost involved, will be the Green Heritage Programme of South Africa. In this way it will be possible to bring to the attention of the public the role played by timber plantations in South Africa, the need for timber and the beauty of trees and forests. It will consequently be a promotional programme. It will be a programme in which the private sector will participate. The private sector itself has undertaken to make a large contribution. The department will co-operate with the private sector; various educational bodies will also co-operate, and the name of the programme will be the Green Heritage Promotional programme. I thought, the hon. member would be interested to hear this, Sir, because he also participated in the discussions.

This evening’s discussion on the position of the industry makes it necessary for me, pursuant to representations for better control, to tell this House once more what the position in South Africa is. If we appreciate this, it will be far easier for us to understand in what way the situation is to develop in the future and what the task of each of us is. The forestry industry—and now I am speaking about the timber industry in particular—has become one of the largest industries in the country. The industry is expanding every day, because the stage has been reached where forest products are being supplied and used in ever more sophisticated forms. Secondly, a start is now going to be made with using the forest product as a raw material in the chemical industry. It is a very important raw material. The forest product itself is used for the production of ray on, apart from the fact that it is used for the production of various forms of paper, whether mechanical paper or ordinary rough paper which is manufactured in South Africa. Now, what is the sum total, the significance and the extent of this? I have set out these things in the past and I shall do so again. If South Africa did not have this industry, it would have had to import forest products to the value of R4 000 million in the next ten years.

I am now referring to forest products manufactured in this country today. This is the extent and the sum total of it. At present the in take of timber in South Africa, in round figures, is 330 million cubic feet per year. As you know, Sir, we started making projections a year or so ago. As a result of surveys conducted in terms of the Forest Act by the department in cooperation with the private sector, we know exactly what the growth rate of the demand as well as of future production will be. We also know now what the demand will be from the various facets of the industry. We know what the pulp mills and saw mills and other concerns will need; at this stage we also know that by the year 1990 we shall be needing 714 million cubic feet of timber, as compared with the present consumption of 330 million cubic feet. This represents a considerable increase of approximately 114 per cent or 115 per cent. In other words, that is what we shall be needing. But now we must see what area is covered by timber plantations. Approximately 1,4 million ha are covered by conifer varieties today. But South Africa’s conifer requirements will be 4,4 million ha by the end of the century.

This represents a considerable increase. As against the just more than 1,3 million ha covered by leaf-wood varieties at present, we will have to have 2 million ha covered by them by that time. In actual fact we do not have the space in South Africa to produce that quantity. It will be very difficult for us to double or treble the present area covered by forests by the end of the century. We need the same area of land for supplying water and for producing foodstuffs. So, this is how the need will grow in the future. As far as conifer varieties are concerned, our surveys show that by that time we will have to have a production in South Africa 3,2 times greater than that of today. You will therefore appreciate, Sir, that that is what we will have to produce.

There is the fact, though, that not all the areas covered by plantations at the moment are in full production as yet. Many of them have not yet reached maturity. In other words, the average quality we can produce per unit can still increase. But it will not increase to such an extent that we shall be able to meet the demand. We shall not be able to manage that. As far as future requirements are concerned, we shall henceforth, as against the target of 30 000 ha per year which has been set, have to maintain a sustained programme of afforestation at the rate of 120 000 ha per year. This represents a considerable increase.

The department thinks it will be able to do its share. The department still has some land that it can use for afforestation. It can also buy additional land. However, the department has also set itself a target. It thinks that it should have such an increase in its own afforestation in the future that by the year 1982 it will have to afforest at the rate of 60 000 ha per year. We leave it to the private sector to make up the balance. We are of the opinion, however, that the private sector will in any case, have difficulty in afforesting at a faster rate than the rate envisaged by us. Hon. members must bear in mind that there are certain parts of the country which can be afforested but where we cannot allow afforestation to take place. Consequently it is not such an easy task to achieve this goal.

Now, if we look at the situation, what do we see? We see that future requirements will grow at a much faster rate than we shall be able to keep up with our production. We are therefore entering an absolute buyer’s market. The problem, as the hon. members also mentioned, is mainly that of pulp-wood. There are other problems too, but the pulp-wood problem is the major one. This is where the tanning-wood people, the wattle-bark people, have on hand large quantities they have to market. This is where there are weekly and monthly bottlenecks, about which they then come to complain to me and to hon. members. The fact of the matter is that at the moment pulp-wood production actually gives rise to marketing and price problems, but this is merely a temporary phenomenon. It is true that the Department of Forestry sells thinnings by way of pulp-wood, but it is also true that in future it will probably have to make provision for afforestation for pulp-wood purposes. But what is the position now?

The factual position is that since 1967 we are committed to the companies for a figure of 14 000 000 cubic feet of pulp-wood. Hon. members must now realize what this means. At that stage we should have liked to have had a change over to greater pulp production in South Africa, for a very good reason. We cannot import simply our newsprint from abroad. We are going to reach a stage when we will have to have it and will not be able to buy it. Newsprint is something which is not always going to be available in abundance in the world, and its price is rising enormously. What is more, it is the kind of product which we shall want to buy at a given stage and will find we cannot obtain. Then we shall simply not have enough paper in this country. It is very dangerous for a country to be dependent on imports. That is why the State has adopted the attitude that it ought to encourage the pulp industry in South Africa. If we could have a strong pulp production policy here, we would at least be assured of having a large market for wood, of having a market for thinnings, and of being able to do something with wood we would normally have had on our hands, but especially of at least having a production of this kind of key material. Perhaps paper does not sound so important, but the day one does not have it, it may become a strategic material. Hon. members will appreciate that for this reason we had to start promoting the pulp industry.

But how does one induce people to invest millions and millions of rands in an industry if, the day they start manufacturing paper, they have no certainty that wood is available? Consequently the department had to commit itself to supply a quantity of wood-pulp from its own forests over a long period, so that the pulp mills could make a living. I should like to give the figure in this regard. We are committed to supply 14 000 000 cubic feet of pulp-wood. The 1972 intake is 62 000 000 cubic feet. If one subtracts 14 000 000 from 62 000 000, it leaves 48 000 000 cubic feet of wood-pulp to be supplied and produced by other persons and to be supplied by the smaller producers. I should like to be corrected if I am wrong, but my information is that the miller-planters are not supplying more than about 10 per cent at the moment. The target is 25 per cent. If this is not the case, I should like to be corrected.

Hon. members will now appreciate that there is a large quantity of wood to be absorbed from the small planters. However, this is not the end of the story, and this is not how I explained it either. The inference is not that we therefore need not do anything; by no means, but despite the fact that we are running into a shortage of pulp-wood, we find happening what happens every day, and what was mentioned across the floor of the House this evening, i.e. that one fine day the small forester has difficulty in disposing of his quantity of wood. At a given time the wattle people have difficulty in disposing of their product to the mining companies which buy it and use it in the mines. In other words, there is this game of playing see-saw and stealing marches on others, something which, in the midst of the whole situation, still causes the small man to feel aggrieved and the big man to say: “This is a free economy, we shall take everything that is available.” And this gives rise to a very big problem. On the one hand there is the man who comes forward and complains that they are not buying his product and that the Minister should intervene.

On the other hand there is the man who says: “But that is not true; there is a shortage; how could we refuse to buy it?” We must now try to find a solution to this. Sir, you will recall that I made a speech in Pietermaritzburg a year or three ago. I think the hon. member for South Coast was present. You will recall that on that occasion I levelled an accusation at the industry and said: “Look, if you do not set your house in order in such a way that we can negotiate with an organized industry on a proper basis, then you are doing harm to yourselves. You ought to be organized in co-operatives, so that you may speak as one.” Then, if an arrangement has to be made, it will be with an organized body with which negotiations can be conducted. That did not get far. Despite that, things continued as they had been. But there was better support from the cooperatives. Things continued in that way until, as a first step, I put forward the idea that we should establish an advisory body, on which all the parties concerned would be represented so as to meet for the first time in history round a table to discuss their problems with one another. That was a very good thing, even though it was only a first step.

In the meantime there was, on the one hand, representations not to introduce control. On the other hand there was the indication that we should perhaps make something of this attempt at getting an advisory board and that some good would come of it. Sir, this did not happen. I instructed this advisory council to solve their problem among themselves. I said: “This is where you must solve the problem and from where you must come to me and give me the assurance that you are able to arrive at a solution. It this uncertainty continues long enough, I shall have no option and then we shall have to introduce control.” The advisory board considered the matter and came to me with two opinions. They were divided on the issue. In other words, we have made some progress, but not as much as we wanted to. I have referred this matter back to the advisory board.

I hope—and I am now addressing myself to the advisory board as well—that the advisory board will as soon as possible produce proof that it is capable of finding an answer to the two questions now and that it wants to do so and is going to try to do so. The one question concerns the price. It will have to be able to prove that it can come forward with a plan—because this is what if is an advisory board for—so that we shall be able to get satisfaction in that respect as well. Secondly, the advisory council will also have to come forward and prove to me that it is able to suggest a plan to give all those people who feel aggrieved the assurance that they can sell their product if they want to do so. At this stage I do not want to go any further than this. We shall now await the advisory board’s reply. But I want to say now that if the advisory council is not able to do this, it will oblige me to think further. We shall have to understand each other very well about that this year. Hon. members will also concede to me that it would be unfair to go further than this at this stage. This is the biggest problem in the forestry industry. We have been battling with this for years and generations. We have done everything in our power to get the different parties together. So far this has been to no avail, but we have now created the opportunity to discuss this problem. If the two parties do not want to do so, one will have to start looking at quite a number of other things. One will have to investigate where the problem lies, and then one will have to consider various proposals. I shall tell you what proposals there are. I do not want to say that we are going to accept it, but one of the proposals is that we should establish a control board. I am making it very clear that I am not saying that we should accept it, but one of the proposals is that a control board should follow. There are other proposals as well, but if the advisory board cannot see eye to eye and cannot solve this problem to our satisfaction, we shall, for all the reasons mentioned to this House, have to bring the matter to the fore and look at the situation de novo, in order to see whether we cannot proceed with it. Linked up with this …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If a control board were established, would the State Forestry come under that control board, just as the private sector?

The fact that the department is a big planter, is linked up with this. I did not say that we should establish an advisory board, but I did say that the entire problem will have to be looked at. The department, which is also a supplier, will not shy away from a problem, but it is not for me to say exactly how it is going to be solved and what stand the department is going to take. All I can say is that the department fulfils an extremely necessary function by supplying the timber which has to be supplied to South Africa. I think the day will come when we, together with all the parties concerned, will have to take a look at the whole situation. Then we can come forward with a plan that will give general satisfaction. This is a reply to the hon. members who feel concerned about this whole situation. The hon. members will understand that we have now reached a point where everyone has been warned about what we are going to do further.

The hon. member for Humansdorp spoke about a planting policy and asked what our planting policy is. I think the planting policy of the department flows forth automatically from the exposition of the situation as it exists in South Africa. In the past the department have adopted the attitude that it makes projections for the future and that it tries to plant at a certain rate in order to reach a target. At one stage the rate of planting was 6 000 ha, while the present rate of planting is 30 000 ha. I told the hon. member that we will have to plant at such a rate that by the end of the century we shall reach the point of at least being able to meet our own needs. In other words, the Department of Forestry will keep on planting. In other words, it must plant and it still has land on which it can plant. As far as the department is concerned, I may say that it will not withdraw from planting. There are some cases where it in any case has to take the initiative in planting. It is still not its intention and its aim to be the largest supplier of timber in South Africa. Secondly, it states it as a policy for the private sector that it should continue planting, and that is why we are encouraging it. That is why it is also part of our policy to say that we must now give South Africa an indication where future timber supplies for South Africa are to come from. This has led to our appointing a committee to demarcate the surface area of South Africa into forestry priority areas. From these areas, or the larger part of them, our timber production for the future will have to come. When we discussed the Act yesterday, hon. members also asked questions in this regard. I then told hon. members that, as far as priority is concerned, we rather state the matter positively by saying where planting has to take place, and do not act negatively by saying where planting may not take place. Having said that we are going to try utilizing that area for forestry in the future, we find that there is still a heavy shortfall and backlog. We shall make up this shortfall from quarters and sources that we think will be able to supply it to us. Where are these quarters and sources? They are our neighbouring territories. That is why I say that the Department of Forestry has identified a need. This is that in the years ahead we are going to become a very big buyer of wood. I do not think we shall succeed in ourselves producing as much wood as we want, unless that factor which the hon. member mentioned, comes into play. At this stage, however, no one can say for certain. With the scientific methods by which precipitation can be increased, such a precipitation may be brought about over new areas that these areas may be used for planting. However, that is something for the future. I say that we shall need a considerable amount of extra wood in the future. We will have to find it. If we cannot produce it ourselves, we will have to buy it. The whole world has a shortage of wood. We are therefore of the opinion that the southern part of Africa is the natural supply area for South Africa. I may tell the House that representations in this regard have come from Malawi. It is a country which has a good rainfall and which has the potential. We have been asked whether we can give them the necessary technical advice on the planting of trees. It is far from us, and at the moment there are all kinds of transport problems, but those problems can be eliminated. I mention it as an example of a country which has approached South Africa and has sought our co-operation, and to which we can give our co-operation in an attempt to develop a new means of livelihood for them out of forestry. An industry can be developed there that will be viable and that will provide it with a source of income which it does not have at the moment. The fact that we have made such progress in this field, that we have made such progress in the field of research and development, may also help others. This is a field in which we can render assistance to others. We may become a buyer in the future. Therefore we lay it down as the policy that the Department of Forestry can play a part and that it will also offer its goodwill. It has in fact already offered it to certain countries. We are of the opinion that, as far as the production of wood is concerned, we should not look to South Africa, but in fact to Southern Africa. This applies to all our neighbouring territories which have the right climate and which have the potential to produce. I have merely given an indication now of our afforestation policy for the future.

As far as planting by small farmers is concerned, I want to say that the House knows that it is in the hands of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to develop the machinery and make available the funds for the planting of timber by small farmers. The hon. member for Ermelo referred to this, and I just want to tell him that the figure we have agreed on is a minimum of 48 ha and a maximum of 500 ha. The hon. member spoke about 1 250, but he probably confused acres with hectares. We are not only encouraging afforestation by providing financial assistance, but we are also giving technical advice, and we can also supply saplings. At the moment we can supply 12 500 saplings per year to farmers for farm improvement works. That is not many, and a good deal more could be supplied. However, when the figure of 12 500 was decided on in the past, we did not yet have the policy we now have. I foresee that we shall review these figures when the farmers start planting. We shall perhaps lay down what the maximum number is that we can supply to a farmer. We will have to adapt under certain circumstances, but at the moment we can supply 12 500 saplings per year.

The hon. member for Humansdorp also asked whether there was any possibility of private property being included in wilderness areas. I must tell him that, as the Act now reads, it cannot be done. In terms of the relevant provincial ordinance such property may be declared as reserves and then included in that way. I think that is what the hon. member had in mind.