Mr. Chairman, before making a few remarks about matters of a more general nature as far as transport is concerned, I should like to raise a particular matter arising from a question which was asked in this House some time ago. Round about the beginning of March this year a Nigerian journalist arrived by air at East London Airport, Ben Schoeman Airport, together with another journalist, and the two of them went into the restaurant to be served. After they had entered, the restaurateur told the Nigerian journalist that he could not serve him; that he was prevented from serving him by the contract between him and the Department of Transport. On 11 March the hon. member for Griqualand East asked the hon. the Minister a question in this regard. He asked him whether there were specific conditions in the contract between the Department of Transport on the one hand and the restaurateur on the other hand as regards the type of person who may be served in that restaurant. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that there were no such conditions in the contract. After further questions had been asked, the hon. the Minister indicated that it was not for him to rectify the matter. The hon. the Minister also indicated that the restaurateur at East London Airport could serve whom he wished. Consequently he is free to serve Whites and non-Whites if he wants to. Subsequently, more or less the same question was put to the Department of Community Development, and this hon. Minister, too, said that the matter did not fall under him.

Now we have the position where we have a city such as East London which in a few years’ time may be the gateway through which many foreigners will visit the Transkei, if everything develops normally, I want to use this example. I flew to East London along with an American non-White. During our flight we sat next to each other and got excellent service; we had a delicious meal, as one usually does on the S.A. Airways, and then we arrived at the East London Airport. Because he was a foreigner and I was a South African I invited him to the restaurant. There, to my distress, this man whom I wanted to impress with my country, was told that he could not be served there.

The hon. the Minister’s standpoint is this: He says that the matter is not affected by any contractual conditions. He says that the restaurateur may serve whom he wants to. However, I believe that it is not as simple as that. I want to put the matter like this for the hon. the Minister’s consideration. This is not an ordinary building or a private restaurant. If it had been a private restaurant in East London there would have been no problem. However, since we are dealing here with a restaurant which is the property of the Department of Transport, the hon. the Minister is obliged to adopt a standpoint of his own in regard to this matter. It seems to me that I am interpreting the matter correctly in saying that the hon. the Minister would like a man in that position to be served. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible to rectify such a matter, because I think it should be rectified. I do not think we can carry on in this way. We know that in the air we get service irrespective of colour, but when one lands at the airport, when one reaches the end of one’s journey, one finds that all kinds of discriminatory factors emerge. I think that is a mistake. It is not doing the S.A. Airways, the Department of Transport or South Africa any good. For this reason I think that I have every right to raise this matter with the hon. the Minister with the request that he as the person in control of the Department of Transport should adopt a standpoint on this matter. If he then finds that the restaurateur does not act according to his wishes, the hon. the Minister should lay down conditions in respect of the people who lease these restaurants, so that they will comply with the hon. the Minister’s wishes as far as these matters are concerned. I think this is a reasonable request, and I think it is a request which the hon. the Minister should consider.

I also want to say a few words in connection with road safety. This is a matter which also falls under this department. A few years ago South Africa was delighted to learn that there had been a decrease in the number of road accidents and in the resultant death rate on the roads because of the fact that we were forced to drive more slowly in an attempt to save fuel. A few months ago the nation was shocked to find that the decrease had not continued, but that the situation had in fact grown worse. We now find that the death toll on the roads is the same as it was before. One asks oneself how such a thing could possibly have happened. It is as if, for no reason at all, the motorist, the traveller, has developed a recklessness which did not exist two years ago. I believe that the recklessness is caused by the fact that the motorist in South Africa is no longer prepared to co-operate with the arrangement that a speed of 80 km an hour should be maintained on the roads of South Africa, on specific roads. It is true that this is the case in other countries; this may be the case on the continent of Europe, but because of the very great distances in South Africa, this abnormal speed limit has caused the motorist to experience an impatience which in my humble opinion has led to recklessness and which is now responsible for the increase in the number of road accidents. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister for his consideration again that although the matter does not fall under his Vote, he should talk to his colleague about this matter to see whether something cannot be done about this question of the speed limit. I think that as far as our highways are concerned, our long country roads, a motorist should really be allowed to drive at approximately 100 km an hour, for example. I do not think that is asking too much. I really think that this would at least be an attempt to obtain the co-operation of the public to support one’s measures in this connection. I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Parow. Unless we have the co-operation of public opinion, of the public, in regard to any steps which may be taken to save fuel and to keep death off the road, we shall not succeed. It is against this very background that I want to make this request to the hon. the Minister. I want to add that road safety is not a matter which can be handled in a casual manner, I think that the Department of Transport should take a much more active interest in this matter through the hon. the Minister. The department should take the initiative in training people in an attempt to remedy this matter.

In conclusion I just want to say something about urban transport, which to my mind has quite clearly become a problem which the local authorities can no longer handle. I was glad to learn that the Dries-sen Commission has reported and that proposals will now be made in this connection. I want to say at once that whatever the Driessen Commission may propose and whatever the proposals that are implemented, where the Department of Transport has adopted a passively regulating attitude up to now, it should now take an active lead in this matter. It must not be passively regulating; it must take an active lead. This is a tremendous national problem. We know what happens when we come in to town in the morning. We see the thousands of man-hours that are wasted on the roads every morning because the traffic cannot move. I want to tell the hon. member that I often get caught up behind a railway truck at 8 o’clock or half past eight in the morning. If I had waited a little longer before starting on my journey, or if the truck driver had waited a little longer, we would have had no problem, but for some reason every single person in South Africa wants to get to his work within the space of one hour. I know that the hon. the Minister and his department are giving their attention to the staggering of work hours, but here, too, we are dragging our feet. In my humble opinion, active steps must be taken at once. The bull must be taken by the horns, not only in Pretoria, but throughout South Africa, in an attempt to eliminate this tremendous problem, a problem which is waiting to be solved. I want to add that if we do not find a solution in the near future, it will cost us tens of thousands of millions of rand more to solve this in the distant future.

Sir, I am not going to follow the arguments of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because I should like to give my attention, in the short time at my disposal, to the question of planning which is done by the Department of Transport. Sir, it is the task and the responsibility of the Department of Transport to build and maintain our airports, to plan for the future and to make projections for the principal expansions so that we may be able to make provision for our future needs. At the outset, I want to congratulate the department immediately on the airports which we already have in our country. Our airports are excellent. These buildings are functional and meet our needs. We are really proud of the airports in our country. The bottlenecks which still exist, such as those at Durban, will also be removed in the course of time. Jan Smuts Airport has now, more than ever before become the gateway to the Republic as by far the largest number of visitors and immigrants to the Republic pass through this airport at present. The fuel shortage brought about increased use of our internal flights. As far as the average passenger growth rate of almost 20% is concerned, it was necessary to proceed with planning to provide larger and better facilities. The Airport Master Planning Committee was established about seven years ago with instructions to make recommendations to the Secretary for Transport in connection with the planning, the construction, the reconstruction, improvements and expansions of our State airports. Apart from the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works and the South African Airways also serve on this committee. This planning committee undertook an in-depth study with reference to the facilities at the Jan Smuts Airport. It also made a comprehensive study and an estimate of the anticipated growth and the demands which this expansion will make by the year 1980 and later. This committee produced a grand programme of planning. In particular, they point out to us the phenomenal growth in passenger traffic. I am only going to give you the grand totals. Sir, it is calculated that in 1975-’76, passenger traffic at Jan Smuts Airport will increase to 3 440 000; five years later, in 1980-’81, to 6 630 000; ten years later, in 1985-’86, to 12 million, and in fifteen years’ time, i.e. in 1990-’91, it is anticipated that the number of passengers will come to 21 million. On the basis of these and other figures, this committee makes an important recommendation, viz. that provision be made to enable us to handle 12 million passengers in ten years’ time. However, it is not physically possible to accommodate this enormous number of passengers and the aircraft involved. The existing loading strip to the west of the main runway is too small to make provision for this development. It is calculated that the present loading strip will be able to meet the needs only up to roundabout 1978-’80; by then it will have reached saturation point, and consequently future expansion will have to take place to the east of the existing main runway. Various factors determine the capacity of such a runway, such as the sort of aircraft which are to be used, the percentage of visual flights and the percentage of instrument landings, the design of the carriageways and the position of the flight beacons. If all these factors are taken into consideration and applied, it gives us, in maximum peak hours, 30 aircraft movements per hour and if instruments are employed, and 50 visual flights per hour, in other words, 30 aircraft movements with instruments and 50 with visual flights. The increase in aircraft movements is also calculated for us by this committee, and it points out phenomenal expansion in this regard as well. The grand total of aircraft movements at Jan Smuts Airport is calculated at 60 500 for the year 1975-’76. This total increases to 89 500 in five years, in 1985 to 128 000 and in 1990 to 185 200 aircraft movements at that airport alone. Therefore, on the basis of these figures, the existing main runway must inevitably reach saturation point by 1981-’82.

Who worked that out?

The hon. member is just being unnecessarily troublesome. Consequently, from 1982, provision will have to be made for another runway. The recommendation which the committee made, is that the second runway be constructed parallel to the existing runway, but yet far enough away, so that each of the runways may be used independently and separately. The cost of this runway is calculated to be approximately R12 million. This development therefore brings about that a new internal terminal will have to be built which will have to be situated between these two parallel runways. The planning committee found that it would be essential to decentralize the passenger as from 1982. In other words, the present international building should be maintained for that purpose, chiefly because of its prestige, and a new internal building would then have to be built From the point of view of air traffic control, this will also be better, because then the internal flights can be separated from the overseas flights. The existing runway will then handle the international, i.e. the northern traffic, while the new runway will be used for the southern or internal traffic. The new internal terminal building will be a satellite type of complex. That is, it will be a building which will correspond more or less to that planned for La Mercy airport. This type of building is suitable for handling passengers very rapidly, which is especially desirable when one is dealing with passengers who are transported over short distances, as is the case internally. To begin with only one of these unit complexes will be built, and only after such a complex has reached its full capacity will a new one be built and, if necessary, a third one will be built later. The first unit complex, it is calculated, will also cost approximately R37 million. The loading strip to serve that complex will also be provided with a service tunnel which will include the cables as well as the fuel supply pipes. This terminal will also be linked to the existing international building by means of an underground tunnel. The public will be given access by means of a new road system from north to south. Branch roads will also be built from this road to serve this complex. This central connecting road will link the different complexes of the future and will also provide the necessary relief to the existing road system which, as I have said, will already have to carry about 12 million passengers by 1985. The total cost of this development will be in the region of R70 million or more.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this occasion, and the Department of Transport and this planning committee as well, for the good work which they have already done in this respect. With this far-sighted planning which is intended to ensure that we shall be able to meet the demands of the time in the future, a great job of work has been done. The recommendations are imaginative and grand, and therefore we look forward with interest to their implementation in the near future. This envisaged planning will mean a great deal to Jan Smuts Airport and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to lift the veil a little further so as to give us an indication of when work in this regard will be commenced and when he thinks it will be completed.

Before I resume my seat, there is another matter which I should like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention. It is also a matter which relates to Jan Smuts Airport. I refer to our taxis there. I realize that this debate is not the only one for discussing this matter; I think it is a matter which should also be taken up with Tourism and Information. We bring our passengers from overseas to South Africa in the very best of conditions. We provide the best pilots, the best air hostesses and the best aircraft for these passengers, and then we leave them in the hands of people who are completely untrained. I believe that much can be done in this connection so that it may be ensured in future that our taxi drivers are properly motivated to render better service to the public than has been the case up to now.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired. I want to appeal to the hon. member to refer less frequently to his full notes, because it creates the impression that he is reading his speech.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who just read out somebody’s argument, probably had something interesting to say, but it was difficult to follow him. I do not believe he himself knew what the subject of his speech was. The person who wrote it, probably knew.

In the first place I should like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to complete my speech, which I started yesterday, now. I thank the hon. the Whips for this opportunity.

†In the first place—and this will make some of my friends on the Government side happy—I want to say that I am sorry I slipped up yesterday on a figure. In regard to third party insurance, I quoted the recommended increase of 50% instead of, the actual increase of 30%. I acknowledge that it was a slip of the tongue. My figures were irrelevant, because the motorists are paying 30% more, and, Mr. Speaker, whether the increase is 30% or 50%, when it is not necessary to pay anything extra, it does not make any difference in principle. It is simply a difference in degree. The principle involved is that the motorists did not require to pay more.

I want to deal with another matter in regard to third party insurance, namely the attitude of the Government towards claims and the third party. I want to say that the Government is setting a shocking example, in that when there is a claim against the State, the State almost always fights that claim. It hands the case over to the lawyers, and the matter is dragged out for year after year. Eventually half of the compensation goes to the lawyers instead of to the claimant. I challenge the hon. the Minister to tell this House what percentage of claims against the State has ever been settled without going to law.

The delay in payment is shocking. There are delays of 18 months to three years, and the State is the worst culprit. Their example is responsible for legal fees amounting to R4 million against the last R24 million paid in compensation. R4 million against an amount of R24 million was in respect of legal fees, because the State refuses to settle and goes to law in the case of almost every claim. I think it is time that that stopped.

Another aspect of this matter relates to the large percentage of this money which goes towards administration. Less than half of the compensation goes to the claimant in the form of compensation. The rest goes towards administration, legal fees, etc. I do not have the time to deal with this matter in detail, but I want to say that this fund is there to protect the public. Instead of protecting the public, we find that if a State vehicle is involved, they have to go to law. Whatever happens, those seeking compensation face delays and suffering, and in the end over half the cost—and I quoted figures to show this yesterday—of every insurance premium so far spent in the 10 years since 1965 is not paid out in the form of compensation. Less than half is in fact paid out by way of compensation. I have no time to deal with it now, but I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the latest edition of To The Point in which there is an article on the scandal of unethical lawyers. I do not have time to deal with it but I ask him to investigate this. We shall ask questions later on how far this practice of touting for third-party business following accident cases in ambulances extends.

I now want to return to the issue with which I was dealing when I ran out of time, i.e. air traffic controllers, their position and their pay. I had wanted to come to the other airport ground staff, those who handle the traffic on the ground, undertake the administration at the airports and who are responsible for the parking of the planes and for dozen and one other things which are required of them. This includes the fire-fighting services at airports. I want to say that the whole of the airport staff, and not only the air traffic controllers, have been left behind in the jet age. They are being paid as if they were in the ox-wagon age although they have to accept the responsibilities of the jet age. I ask the hon. the Minister to recognize the heavy responsibilities that are carried by these people in whose hands rest the lives of every air passenger in South Africa. The air traffic controllers are responsible for safety in the air. Do not treat them like clerks who have to work from 8 to 5 only filling in forms. They are people carrying responsibility for human lives, and they should be paid according to that responsibility. Let me take the position of the firemen. I asked the hon. the Minister a question about Durban airport, but he evaded it. I charge him with evading it by saying that if I was talking about recreation there are no buildings. I was talking about the facilities for the staff who are on duty as well as the staff who are off duty. Is he aware of the fact that the chief fireman in Durban uses the first-aid room as an office because he has no proper office? Is he aware that the firemen themselves have to use their change-room with one toilet and shower attached to it as a mess? They have one toilet and one shower in that building and there they have to sit whilst they are on a 24-hour duty schedule. Right through the day and night firemen are on duty. If it is not true, I ask the hon. the Minister to say that it is not true. Let us then go and have a look. Does he know that the two new fire-engines are standing outside for 24 hours a day? There is a shelter next to the new airport building, but they ran out of money before they could put a floor in. The result is that the fire-engines are standing outside. This group under the control of the hon. the Minister’s department are not receiving the attention they should be receiving. We have the spectacular airport building at Jan Smuts and we have the other attractive airport buildings. There is only one airport not participating in the progress of the civil aviation department, which controls airports —the progress which is necessary to keep up with the development of airways. That airport is Durban. Last Sunday evening the S.A. Airways experienced absolute shambolic chaos at this airport. I hope this was a farewell to this type of chaos. If the hon. the Minister could have seen how those men had to work, with every plane being delayed and with the airport jammed to such an extent that you could not move through the concourse without physically pushing people out of your way, he would understand the conditions under which he is expecting his men to work. If he expects them to work like that, why does he not pay them accordingly? I am not exaggerating. If any hon. member had been on Durban airport on Sunday, they would have seen that it was a total shambles. I hope the hon. the Minister and his department will do something about it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon, member for Durban Point tried again this afternoon to create the impression that there is an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the State towards the consumer in South Africa. The hon. member has just referred to the facilities at Louis Botha Airport at Durban. He should know better than I do that, in spite of the planning which is in progress, for Natal, this department is establishing facilities there, of which nobody need be ashamed, with exceptionally great haste and at an exceptionally high cost.

Haste? They have been busy since 1968—seven years already.

The hon. member made a fuss about conditions prevailing at Durban Airport on Sundays, but he forgets, or pretends to be unaware of the fact, that, as a result of weather conditions completely beyond the control of the South African Airways or this department, there were delays at the different airports. In spite of that, the passengers were brought to their destinations with the least possible inconvenience.

The hon. member also tried to create the impression once again that the State has no sympathy for the consumer. He also wants to create the impression here that there is no sympathy on the part of the State in cases where there have been accidents, but no compensation is paid. Surely the hon. member knows that this department, and the State, is always in favour of a settlement. Yet the department cannot deny the claimant the right to dispute a case.

Why do you dispute every claim?

Where the claimant prefers the case to come before the court, the State has no choice but to fight the case if the claims are excessive. The hon. member referred here to costs which came to R4 million. I think that, if one looks at all the unreasonable claims, this R4 million is really child’s play. I want to concede to the hon. member that when people go to such lengths as to canvass for claims, it is unethical and unprofessional. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that he should also show the responsibility which we expect from one of the main speakers on that side of the House.

This afternoon I should like to dwell for a moment on another subject. One cannot do otherwise than express one’s disappointment at the expulsion of South Africa from the International World Meteorological Organization. I think that this expulsion has once again revealed two important contradictions to us. In the first place, the OAU, who initiated this expulsion, is not sympathetic towards the developing states to our north, those states which do not have the technical knowledge and skill at this stage to maintain their own weather bureau services. In the second place, this organization has pulled world meteorology down to the level of politics. I think there are few areas in the technical field in which there is such a large backlog throughout the whole world. I think that once cannot do otherwise than to say that the field of world meteorology has become enveloped by a giant question mark. The international scientist has progressed to a level where one can speak of a whole series of probabilities, but as a result of a lack of statistical data, of scientifically grounded observations and descriptions of these observations, there is so much uncertainty that there still is enormous scope for the future in this field. At this stage one does not yet know what the actual resolution of this international organization was or what the effect thereof on South Africa will be, but nonetheless, I think that there is one facet which has become very clearly evident, and that is that we in South Africa now have no option but to accelerate our research in this field. As I have said, there are many questions in this field to which answers will still have to be found.

I do not want to allege that South Africa does not have the scientists at its disposal to make a world breakthrough in this field, but if we look at the numbers and the funds at our disposal, we must accept that South Africa will probably not be able to make such a world breakthrough. We in South Africa will have to ensure that we keep abreast of research in such a way that should a world breakthrough be made. South Africa will be in a position, with the available data, to adjust our scientific experiments accordingly and continue with them. It will also be a good thing for us to choose our priorities for this period during which we are to be excluded from the international organization.

One of the most important priorities, which can be of real importance to us in South Africa today and which can be carried out by this department, is to undertake research concerning the evaporation of fog and fog clouds over our airports. It has already been proved scientifically when one is dealing with so-called cold fog clouds, the cost of the combating or the evaporation thereof amounts to approximately one-fifth of the savings obtained from regular landings and from neutralizing the costs of diverting aircraft to other airports. We in South Africa have two different types of fog clouds which are found over our airports. We probably have the cold fog clouds and also the warm fog clouds.

In recent times, exceptional progress has been made in respect of the cold fog clouds, where success has been achieved by means of spraying or sprinkling such fog clouds with propane liquid from a certain angle of the runway. There are also other methods employing the so-called cold, dry ice crystals to be strewn on a runway at a density of approximately 2 kg per km. This results in the moisture contained in these fog clouds combining with these dry ice crystals and then precipitating ice flakes or ice crystals on the runway. The problem, as far as we in South Africa are concerned, is probably more that of the warm fog clouds. The most accepted techniques of combating these fog clouds over our airports, especially the warm fog clouds, consists of the spraying of calcium chloride liquids. These liquids have the disadvantage of promoting rust on metal products as a result of valency changes. One accepts that this method will perhaps not be practical for us in South Africa.

However, as South Africa has made a breakthrough in the last few years in respect of the cheap enrichment of uranium, I want to advocate that the question be investigated as to whether methods cannot be developed, with enriched uranium, converted into energy or heat, even if it is by means of the convection caused by the propeller of a helicopter, to bring about a change in the temperature and by so doing, a change in the valency of the fog particles, thereby evaporating the fog. I believe that it will be an expensive project, but when we consider the convenience which it can bring about, not only for the public, but also for the department and the different airways, it is an idea which is well worth investigating.

Finally, in spite of the fact that we experience the problem of fog at our airports, we find that the accident rate at our airports is one of the lowest in the world. One wonders whether this code of honour which has already been established by our airways and the Civil Aviation measures cannot be applied to our motorists as well. During the debate there were references to various facets of safety on our roads, and I think we should also look at the less pleasant or less popular measures which will have to be taken. I think the time has arrived when we in South Africa, too, should, as in the case of aircraft, carry out stricter and more regular roadworthy tests on our motor vehicles. In some European countries, biennial roadworthy tests are carried out. Perhaps the time has arrived for us to give attention to that in South Africa. In the same way, we should give attention to the regular relicensing of our motorists. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, transport matters are an interesting subject to discuss because in many respects they affect all of us. One thinks, for example, of national roads, road safety, airports, etc. These are all things which we deal with from day to day.

Look out! The United Party supporters also drive along the national roads!

Then they are on a good road! Perhaps they will even see the light if they continue to drive along that road. I welcome the opportunity to react and to discuss for a while a few of the subjects which were raised.

In the first place I should like to discuss the question of the increased bus tariffs, a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Green Point. It was not quite clear to me what the hon. member wanted from me. If I were to make a summary, it amounted in my opinion to only one thing, viz. that the hon. member wants us to be of greater assistance in determining the justification for the increased tariffs which are being charged.

Firstly, I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the Road Transportation Boards, as well as the National Transport Commission, are autonomous bodies. From the nature of the case it is no one’s task—and not mine either—to interfere in the activities of those bodies, and the hon. member knows it. There were various objections in regard to this matter to which the hon. member referred. In all honesty I want to say that the grounds of these objections were really so unsatisfactory that the entire matter was left hanging in the air. Inter alia there were four objections, i.e. that the old-age pensioners would find it difficult to pay the higher tariffs, that the central Government should help bus passengers and, thirdly, that bus passengers would find it difficult to pay the increased tariffs. Only the fourth objection was one about which one could argue, namely that the request for increased tariffs was unjustified. In fact this is, after all, the only consideration. As far as old-age pensioners are concerned, I cannot say that the Road Transportation Board is not a welfare organization. The application is submitted to the Road Transportation Board, which then has to consider it on its merit and according to the figures which have been submitted.

They are obliged to take the other matters into consideration as well.

Yes, but the Road Transportation Board is, after all, not able to take a decision on the question of whether the Government should subsidize the tariffs. It is only the last objection which I mentioned, which was of any value. In such a case the required particulars are then submitted by the company which is applying for an increase in tariffs. The assertions it makes have to be proved in some way or another. In this regard particulars are submitted by the company concerning the expenditure of the company and the income on the existing tariffs.

And that their expenses are going to increase.

Yes, that their expenses are increasing and that they therefore have to charge higher tariffs. The accounting division of the department then goes through the books of the company to establish whether the assertions made by the company in respect of increased costs, are justified. I beg your pardon, I am making a mistake. It does not involve only whether it is justified. It involves establishing whether the assertions made by the company are correct according to the books.

What about efficiency?

Efficiency is a factor which the Road Transportation Board has to take into consideration. If the company is completely inefficient and it can be proved, the Road Transportation Board has to take this into consideration. The deputy chairman of the Green Point and Sea Point ratepayers’ and occupants’ association stated that he was not in a position to refute any of the statements regarding the actual situation which had been made by the representative of the applicant.

Those are the arguments which I advanced.

I have already told the hon. member that the accounting division of the department goes through the assertions on the basis of the company’s books to establish whether the assertions are correct.

May Task the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of it that whatever was done by the cost accounts was not before the hoard, because the appeal body has now asked for that information to be put before the board?

That is further information which is now being requested. I think the hon. member is making a mistake. I do not wish to enter into an altercation with him about this. I shall return in a moment to the point which he mentioned. Be that as it may, I may just say at this stage that it seems to me as if there is a competition between the Progressive Party and the United Party.

[Inaudible.]

The Progressive Party is leading by a short head, for in the name of the Progressive Party they …

I wrote to you.

Yes, but that letter was another matter altogether. They appealed against the decision of the Road Transportation Board in the name of the Progressive Party itself. The matter came before the Road Transportation Board, but was then postponed to afford the respondent company an opportunity of preparing the particulars which it wishes to submit in such a way that they are acceptable to the NTC, the National Transportation Commission, and the appellants, and so that there could be no misgivings concerning the correctness of these particulars. In other words, it has to expand on and furnish more detailed particulars than those it submitted so that—so I assume—these people are able to understand it better. For that reason I maintain that this matter is in fact sub judice now, and as such is a matter which we ought not to argue about, or about which I am not prepared to do anything. I just want to tell the hon. member that when he said “The hon. the Minister is indifferent about this matter”, that was not the case. The fact of the matter is that it is an autonomous body and that these increased tariffs should be determined simply and solely on merit.

The hon. member raised another matter in regard to motor transportation certificates which have to be granted to non-Whites in regard to the expansion of services, even though there is another service which is able to provide similar services. The hon. member asked me to insert clause 17(2)(a)(i) of the draft Bill which is now before a Select Committee into the General Laws Amendment Bill, and put it into operation at this early juncture, The hon. member would probably agree with me that it would, after all, be presumptuous of me to refer a Bill to a Select Committee and then to excise a passage from the Bill and then simply push it through this year. There is most certainly no need for this, and I am really not prepared to do so.

The third subject raised by the hon. member was the matter of the National Sea Rescue Institute. A grant of R24 000 is being made to them. I know that they are doing good work and I shall give consideration to increasing that grant to them somewhat.

The hon. member for Tygervallei touched upon two subjects, one of which was also discussed by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The one subject which was discussed by both these hon. members, as well as by the hon. member for Bethlehem, who spoke a moment ago, was our membership of the World Meteorological Organization. In this regard I just want to say that officially we have not heard anything. Hon. members are probably aware that we did not attend the session of this organization this year. We were not there. But officially we have so far heard nothing about such a decision. All that we know so far is what we have read about in the newspapers. Consequently we do not yet at this stage know what the actual wording of the resolution is, so that we can analyse it and can establish what its implications are. The Weather Bureau here in South Africa relies extensively on weather stations in the Republic, in South West Africa and in the Antarctic, on Gough Island and on Marion Island, and we shall continue to collect information and to make it available to our neighbouring states—in fact, to everyone to whom it could in any way be of value.

The hon. member for Tygervallei asked me to furnish a little information on our intentions concerning the replacement of the ship, the RSA. I appreciate the hon. member’s great interest in this regard, I should now like to make the announcement that the RSA, although only 18 years old, no longer complies with the requirements which are laid down for such a vessel. Consequently it has become necessary for us to acquire a more effective vessel for that purpose. There is insufficient passenger space; there is insufficient cargo space; nor does it have the necessary facilities for all the work which has to be done on that vessel. The hon. member, who is obviously acquainted with the circumstances of this vessel, as I realized, suggested that there should be a helicopter landing pad and that provision should be made for all the other facilities which one will require. For that reason it has been decided in principle that a new vessel will be purchased. According to estimates this vessel will cost R18 million. We have already instructed marine architects and consultants to prepare a design for a new ship which will comply with all the requirements. As soon as this is available and as soon as a decision has been reached in regard to the details, we shall, in the usual way, call for tenders from shipbuilders here in South Africa and elsewhere. In the 1975-’76 financial year we are providing R4.5 million for the purchase of this vessel; in the 1976-’77 financial year an amount of R9 million, and in the 1977-’78 financial year an amount of R4,5 million. In other words, we are making provision for an expected cost of R18 million.

Sir, the hon. member for Boksburg, inter alia, discussed third party insurance, and he also referred to compulsory comprehensive insurance. I think the hon. member himself arrived at the conclusion that something of that nature was impossible, for there are an enormous number of problems attached to it. Comprehensive insurance is today being taken out by only approximately 40% of our motor vehicle owners. This means that we shall have to force a high compulsory comprehensive insurance, which would cost a very substantial amount, on the other 60% The hon. member for Boksburg is shaking his head. I know that he did not advocate it.

May I just tell the hon. the Minister what I did ask for. I asked that the balance of third party insurance …

I am coming to that. Sir, there are a great many reasons why we feel that compulsory comprehensive insurance is not desirable. The hon. member then, towards the end of his speech, asked for compulsory balance of third party insurance. Hon. members will agree with me that this is simply a rose by another name. There is very little difference between comprehensive insurance and compulsory balance of third party. Our third party insurance makes provision for physical injury, but I take it that what the hon. member means by compulsory balance of third party insurance is that it should also make provision for material damages which are suffered.

Only for the third party.

Yes, only for third party, but in essence such a scheme will contain all the disadvantages which could be enumerated by a person who argues against the introduction of compulsory comprehensive insurance. Inter alia, it would have the disadvantage that the assessment of the damage would have to be done by the garage people. At present we are already having problems with the assessment of physical damage which is made by medical practitioners. One of the problems is, therefore, that it will be difficult to establish what the real financial damage was. Be that as it may however, we are generally of the opinion that it is not desirable to go further than third party insurance. The hon. member for Durban Point has already objected in a dramatic manner here to the few rands which are being added to the third party insurance premium, and you can understand, Sir, what his reaction would be if we were to introduce compulsory comprehensive insurance. The hon. member advocated that there should be only one insurance company. I really cannot see the advantage of having only one company. At present there are a number of them—16, and in future 17—in that consortium. Therefore, there is a measure of competition, and the Fund maintains supervision, and it is very difficult for me now to understand why it should be only one which should then undertake all the third party insurance, in which case it would also be difficult to maintain efficiency in respect of the disposing of claims, and so on, and to draw a comparison in respect of efficiency.

The hon. member for Durban Point began with third party insurance, and then rectified an error here today which he had made yesterday with regard to the percentage increase in third party insurance premiums. The hon. member referred to an investigation which had been made by an official at the department, the Moodley transportation investigation, and he expressed appreciation for it. We appreciate that. The hon. member also referred to the inclusion of the firm S.A. Eagle, which had become well-known, and I should like to deal briefly with these few matters he mentioned. In the first place the increase in third party insurance premiums has for the most part already been dealt with by the hon. member for Welkom, and there is very little that I can add in that connection. I just want to sum up by stating that the actuaries recommended in 1973 already that the premium be increased. Now, it is true that the hon. member does not attach much value to the actuaries, but I should like to tell him that they are highly educated people. In any case, if one keeps a dog, one should not try to do the barking oneself. One should take cognizance of the people who have to furnish one with technical advice, and there is no one better than an actuary to advise one on these matters. In 1974 they again recommended a 50% increase. The Cabinet eventually decided that the increase in the premiums should not exceed 30%.

That was wrong.

No, it was not wrong. I shall quote a few figures to the hon. member in a moment which will demonstrate to him that this was not wrong. Reference was also made to accidents. Last year it was said that with the lower speeds there would be fewer accidents, but there is another factor which plays a very important part here. The hon. member for Welkom mentioned this, and I should just like to state it in one short sentence. This factor was the average claims, the average amount paid out in respect of claims, which in 1965-’66 amounted to R309 per accident and in 1973-’74 to R1 491 per accident. In other words, after eight years the average payment per claim had quadrupled —from R309 to R1 491. All the various factors mentioned by the hon. member for Welkom played a part in this. He referred to the comments made by judges, the decrease in the value of money, etc. The hon. member must simply bear in mind now that a claimant has a period of two years in which to institute his claim. After two years it becomes prescribed, except that when the claim was lodged before the time an additional 90 days are added. The hon. member must also bear in mind that in the case of minors, it never becomes prescribed, at least not until such time as the minor has attained his majority. For that reason it is necessary for us to make provision not only for claims which may perhaps be lodged this year, but also for claims which may be lodged at some time in the future —for example the claims of all those minors when they attain their majority.

There is another factor which I should also like to mention. This morning I saw a letter in Die Burger in which it was stated that the third party premiums had gone up, and that the premiums for comprehensive insurance had come down. That is not correct. Do you know, Sir, that the premiums for comprehensive insurance have increased by 72% during the period since the third party insurance fund came into operation and the consortium has been in existence? If one calculates this on a compound basis, one finds that the comprehensive insurance has increased by more than 90%. Last year, with the initial decrease in the number of accidents, comprehensive insurance was reduced slightly. But this was only done after comprehensive insurance had increased toy more than 90% on a compound basis. What is the case in regard to third party insurance? Hon. members will recall that When the insurance companies wanted to increase their premiums by 20% in 1965, the then Minister would not allow it. We then had those chaotic conditions, out of which the consortium was eventually born. That 20% was not added at the time, and since then third party insurance has not been increased. In other words, over this period, when comprehensive insurance increased by more than 90%, there was no increase in third party insurance. I am mentioning this simply to indicate that, in these times of inflation, a wonderful achievement has been accomplished with regard to these third party insurance premiums. The position is definitely not as bad as the hon. member made it out to be a moment ago.

The hon. member also said a moment ago that the Government is very inclined to dispute all the claims and take them to court. Sir, that statement is not correct.

I said they were disputed in virtually all cases.

But the Government does not decide whether or not a claim should be disputed. After all, the Government does not undertake third party insurance. It is the insurance companies that do this. It is the insurance companies which decide whether the claims should be settled by way of an agreement, or whether they should be taken to court in order to dispute them there. It is not the work of the Government, or of this department. All that we do is to supervise the fund. Before I forget, I just want to point out something in this regard which hon. members might not be aware of. When the Cabinet decided to raise the third party tariffs by not more than 30%, we felt at the same time that, in respect of the share which the insurance companies should receive from those premiums, their income should also increase by 30% as a result of this increase. Their income from this is quite substantial, because at that stage they were already receiving 23% of the premiums as income. A total of 23% of that income went to the insurance companies, of which they were supposed to pay their agents 5%. The insurance companies were therefore receiving 18%. We then negotiated with the insurance companies with a view to a reduction of that percentage. At the outset the insurance companies did not want to hear about this. After long negotiations they then stated that they would be prepared to accept a 1 % reduction. We then decided that we would not be satisfied with that, and that they should accept a greater reduction. We then told them: “Look, you must do it for 15% plus 5% for your agents. Those of you who are not prepared to do it for that figure, will simply have to leave the consortium.” In the end all of them agreed, with the result that we have now concluded an agreement with the insurance companies in terms of which the old 23% share has been reduced to 20%. Therefore the insurance companies are not receiving 18%, but 15%, and their agents, 5%. All things considered, I am therefore of the opinion that the hon. member may rest assured that we are looking after this matter very carefully.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made an interjection a moment ago. I do not know how much he knows about this subject, but I just want to tell him …

I only asked a question.

For the year ending 30 April 1974 the expenditure of the fund, together with the provision for outstanding claims, came to R125 million. At that stage the expenditure exceeded the income by more than R19 million. We had a reserve fund which we had built up over the years from third party premiums, and that reserve fund also stood at approximately R19 million. According to the best calculations that reserve fund would for all practical purposes have been wiped out in that year. If we had not proceeded to increase third party premium tariffs now, we would have had a shortfall in the region of R20 million during the course of this year. I think hon. members would agree with me that it would have been completely irresponsible of the Government not to have increased the premiums when it was necessary to do so. If we had not done so, and the fund had been heading for bankruptcy, the hon. member for Durban Point would have had a good reason for attacking me, and he would also have done so very effectively.

On what figures do you base your statement that the shortfall will be wiped out?

I have just told the hon. member that it is based on the expenditure of the year plus a calculation of outstanding claims. That is the only way in which the position in respect of obligations can be calculated.

Are the outstanding claims claims which may be lodged for all eternity?

No, not for all eternity, but claims which may be lodged in future as a result of the circumstances which I sketched a moment ago. In the first place a claim may be lodged for a period of up to two years after the accident, and for minor children for a period which could be even longer.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The actuaries calculated previously that the premiums had to be increased because it was necessary from their point of view, but it was not then put up. How is it possible that the fund showed a profit every year and that it still showed a profit at the end of the year s 1973-’74?

No, that is not quite correct.

It is.

If we want an indication of whether the fund is making a profit, we must, from the nature of the case, make a calculation of our obligations for the future. I told the hon. member a moment ago that according to the best calculations at our disposal we would have shown a shortfall of R19 million for the 1974-75 financial year.

It is pure guess-work.

No, how can it be guess-work?

There are no facts on which we can work.

Finally, I want to tell the hon. member that we are managing this fund to the best of our ability, and that we are keeping the companies on their toes. But this Fund does not belong to the Government. It belongs to the motorist. If the claims are not lodged and the guesswork is wrong, then there is still a credit balance, which is in the interests of the motorist. It does not belong to the Government.

You are juggling with the motorists’ money.

I am taking up a great deal of the Committee’s time, but these are important matters.

The hon. member also asked me according to what norms I allowed an additional member to join the consortium. No fixed norms can be laid down. I do not want to say this afternoon that a specific company qualifies on the basis of this or that norm, or that this or that is the capacity of the company, for if I were to do that, it would be to the disadvantage Of the companies which we have not admitted. I should not like to point out the disadvantages or shortcomings of certain companies here. If I understood the hon. member correctly, his argument amounts to only one point, and that is whether it is purely South African or not.

No, that was just by the way.

The hon. member told me that the company which has been admitted to consortium, viz. S.A. Eagle, is not a purely South African controlled company.

I simply mentioned that in passing.

If that is the case, we do not differ with one another very much. If the hon. member is satisfied that I admitted the right company, I leave the matter at that.

I have no complaint against that company. My question is: According to which norms are companies admitted to the consortium?

I weighed up certain aspects of these companies against one another, and let me now inform hon. members that several of the 16 companies which have already been admitted to the consortium, are not controlled by South African interests. I do not wish to mention the names of the companies, but one of them has no South African shareholders whatsoever. Another company has 59% South African shareholders, and four others have 24%, 17%, 30% and 60% South African shareholders respectively. The remainder of the companies, those I did not mention, are South African controlled. If it would be of any value to the hon. member. I should like to mention a few particulars in regard to S.A. Eagle. I may just mention what the position was, for the edification of the hon. member. When the request was put to me that a new agreement be negotiated with the insurance companies, I received applications from all the insurance companies which were not members of the consortium. All the companies that were not members of the consortium, wished to join. The easiest thing for me to have done would have been to sit back and leave the position as it was. If I had done that, this dust cloud would probably not have been kicked up. The hon. member would probably not even have discussed the matter with me today, and the companies that were not members of the consortium, would probably have been satisfied with the position. I decided, however, that since the matter had been submitted to me, I should give my attention to it. It is also a fact that if I feel a change should be effected, it is my duty to do so, even if I have to appear before the hon. member and give an account of my stewardship. This is in fact what I did. I considered the various companies that were not members of the consortium. I saw that in the case of S.A. Eagle 43,5% of its shareholding was in the hands of South African shareholders. This is, as I told the hon. member, not a majority. I drew further comparisons and saw that S.A. Eagle had a good distribution of offices throughout the country. In fact, it has so many agencies that we have allowed it to commence operations next year with only 500 agencies. I established further that in 1965, when this consortium was established, the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance underwritten by S.A. Eagle amounted to R1 799 000. I established that in 1973, i.e. the year before last, its comprehensive motor vehicle insurance amounted to more than R10 million. I also established that in 1965, when the old system came to an end and we made a start with the consortium, S.A. Eagle had at that stage been doing more than 8% of the third party insurance work, with the exclusion of Parity. In other words, S.A. Eagle had in 1965 been doing as much third party insurance work as three other companies, each of whom had also been doing approximately 8%. What is more, the financial extent of its third party insurance in 1965 was R1 998 000 or, for all practical purposes, R2 million.

Why was it excluded at the time?

The hon. member cannot ask me such a question. I do not wish to go into the history of the consortium now; it is a long and interesting story. Someone will probably write a book about it one day. The fact remains that it was not included at the time and, after consideration of these and other factors, I decided that it was completely justified that this company should be included, and that it ought to render a good service to the policyholders in South Africa.

Should there not be norms so that it cannot be said that A plays golf with B, and that he should be included for that reason?

If the hon. member thinks that there are norms which could be laid down, I should like to hear what norms he proposes. One cannot lay down any fixed norms. One can argue about this and try to gain a general picture, after one has investigated the norms, but one cannot lay down fixed norms.

The most important matter which the hon. member raised was in regard to the air traffic controllers (ATCs). At the very outset I want to say that I find it a pity that the hon. member allowed himself to be taken in two by newspaper reports. He raised this matter here today because, in the first place, it appeared in the Natal Mercury. This was followed by a report on air traffic controllers in the Cape Times, according to which they were not being treated very well. I have the report which appeared in the Natal Mercury in front of me and, honestly, there are so many absurdities in it, that I do not even wish to quote it here. They say, for example, that if someone were to take a look at what was happening at Louis Botha airport—

I have never found a cold place anywhere in Durban, yet they say “The floor is cold, hard linoleum”. They go on to mention a wall that was painted green, but this is the colour that had been selected by those people themselves. Mention is also made of a dirty refrigerator that was standing there. This is their own refrigerator which they brought in. We do not issue refrigerators to anyone. [Interjections.]

Why not?

Even if the Secretary for Transport were to open an office in Durban he would still not receive a refrigerator from the department to put in his office. No one receives refrigerators.

You cannot hide behind the Press. Deal with the essence of the dispute!

I shall deal with it; the hon. member need not be afraid. I do not want to go into the details of this report to too great an extent, but I just wish to say at the outset that we know nothing whatsoever of the so-called dissatisfaction of these people. These people have an organization which is called the S.A. Air Traffic Controllers’ Association, which acts on their behalf, and this is the body to which we shall gladly listen if they were to address representations to us. Here, however, an absurd report has appeared in the newspaper, with the hon. member in full cry after it. This is once again a competition with the Progressives.

I dealt with one aspect only, viz. their pay and conditions of service.

I shall come to their salaries. The fact of the matter is that these people have an organization. At a meeting of this organization in November 1974 it was decided what the salaries and conditions of employment of air traffic controllers should be. However, this decision has not yet reached the department, and we know nothing whatsoever about it. After having read this report, one is surprised that there are still people who wish to do this work. At present there are 105 posts for air traffic controllers, of which 90 are filled. At the end of the year those 105 posts will all have been filled, when certain assistant air traffic controllers have qualified to fill those posts. At the end of the year, therefore, we will in fact have no vacant posts in respect of this work group. The hon. member complained about the salaries. If the hon. member has a son, he would do well to recommend this type of work to him. Matriculants start there with precisely the same salary as is paid in the Public Service. They then undergo a training programme lasting four years. During the four years during which they act as assistants and receive training, they are paid in full. In other words, they are paid in full during the period during which they receive their training. After having received their training, they are called air traffic controllers. I do not want to mention the 1973 salary scales now, but only the improved salary scales for 1975. They begin on a salary scale which runs from R3 480 to R6 300 per annum. Hon. members should say so now if they think that this is an inadequate salary scale. They earn this salary after four years’ training, given to them by the department. They are not trained at their own expense. They can progress to the scale of chief air traffic control, which is R6 300 to R7 380, and even further until they are eventually earning a salary of R12 600 per annum. This is the highest notch, i.e. that of Chief Air Traffic Control, which they can achieve as air traffic controllers. I really think that such salaries are not to be scorned.

I said a moment ago that we have not yet received any representations from these people. What I take amiss of the hon. member is that he ought to know that this is not the way to do things. One does not echo newspaper stories. In addition the hon. member telephoned these people, but got a bloody nose for his pains. Yesterday the hon. member complained that when he telephoned these people, they did not want to speak to him. I think it is quite right that they did not want to speak to him, for they probably know themselves that their affairs should not be dealt with in such a manner. The report read as follows:

He got a bloody nose for his pains, but that was because he always runs with the newspapers. I want to tell the hon. member, in a very kindly spirit, that I take this amiss of him. I should like to call upon this House to consider the position with me. The hon. member submitted a newspaper report to those officials. I want to ask him: What did he expect? What made him do that? The only object he could have had in submitting those newspaper reports to the officials was to incite them to dissatisfaction.

I was merely looking for the facts.

The newspaper report states that these people ought to receive increased salaries, and that they are not receiving very good treatment, and that they are not working under very favourable circumstances. Does the hon. member expect an official to say that his salary is adequate and that he does not want any more?

Yes. [Interjections.]

It is far-fetched to expect that. If he had expected that, he would have had acquiescence in dissatisfaction, and that was what he was looking for. That is what I take amiss of him. I think it is time the Opposition acted with a little more responsibility. They should not, because of their race and competition and squabbling with the Progressive Party, do such ill-considered things.

The hon. member also raised the question of the firemen in the buildings. I am not all that conversant with that matter, but I shall have an investigation instituted. The report also dealt with the Louis Botha airport and the circumstances in the building, It also raised the question of the Virginia airport. They allege that the Virginia airport buildings have various shortcomings. I do not know whether the hon. member realizes this, but Virginia is not our responsibility. Virginia belongs to the city council of Durban, and I hope the hon. member will thrash out this matter with the city council of Durban.

But who controls the traffic?

We provide the air traffic staff at Virginia, but we do not provide the buildings or the accommodation at Virginia. The accommodation to which they are objecting is the responsibility of the Durban city council.

†May I ask a question? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether I mentioned a single word about any of these aspects, apart from salaries, in my speech. Did I mention any of the points which he is now hiding behind?

I am quite prepared to say that the hon. member referred to salaries. I replied adequately to that aspect.

You replied to the article.

I know what the hon. member’s source of information was. This is the article, and he himself knows that this is the case. He went to those officials with that newspaper report and asked them for their comment.

The hon. member for Welkom dealt with the question of third party insurance very effectively, and I do not wish to elaborate on it any further.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Parow on the speech which he made here on road safety. The hon. member expressed very stimulating thoughts here concerning very human matters, matters which irritate people on the roads, such as the way in which they are caught, and so on. No one likes speed traps, but if we are to enforce the law, we are compelled to find some or other method of doing so. I agree with the hon. member completely that we should allow the emphasis to fall on co-operation with the public. This is a very difficult task. How we are going to bring this about, I do not know. The hon. member for Maitland pleaded a moment ago for a higher speed restriction. He proposed that the speed restriction be raised from 80 km to a 100 km per hour. That would be a concession to the public. The people are not very happy. However, there are other factors which also play a very important part. To me one decisive factor—none of us can get away from this—is that nothing makes a greater contribution to road accidents than speed. It is all very well to say that we should not lay all the blame on speed, but no single factor makes a greater contribution to road accidents on our roads than speed, and for that reason we must take this into account.

I have already replied in part to the hon. member for Orange Grove, but he also raised a matter to which I should still like to reply. He said that we should allow non-Whites to serve on the Road Safety Council. I should like to point out to the hon. member what the hon. the Prime Minister said here in this House on 7 February 1975—

He said this to the Coloureds—

On this occasion the hon. the Prime Minister did not mention the Road Safety Council, but I think that this is a typical example of the boards which the hon. the Prime Minister had in mind. I do not want the hon. member to think that his is a new idea, because we are already giving attention to this matter. The hon. member also discussed the Road Fund and urban traffic. Not only he, but other hon. members as well, should rather wait a while until we receive the Driessen report. I should like to report that we have already drawn up a White Paper. The Cabinet Committee has caused a White Paper to be drawn up, which we are going to submit to the Cabinet. I hope to receive finality from the Cabinet within the next 14 days, after which the report and the White Paper will be printed and tabled.

The hon. member for Humansdorp also referred to planning on our roads. The hon. member made a very constructive speech. I also want to ask him to wait until we have scrutinized the Driessen report. I do not want to say that revolutionary recommendations have been made, but there are rather radical recommendations, which will be worthwhile.

The hon. member for Wonderboom discussed the Weather Bureau and advocated closer co-operation between the Bureau and the C.S.I.R. I should like to give him the assurance that this co-operation already exists. We are indeed co-operating closely with the C.S.I.R.

The hon. member for Maitland referred to the East London airport, and I should like to reply briefly on that score. At our international division at Jan Smuts airport there is no provision whatsoever for separate amenities. At the internal divisions of our airports, at Jan Smuts and at all our other airports, there are, however, separate amenities in respect of restaurants and places where meals are served—over and above ablution and toilet facilities. I want to emphasize that there are separate amenities only in respect of ablution and toilet facilities, restaurants and cafeterias. The same applies to East London. There is a restaurant for Whites, as well as a restaurant for non-Whites. These are the circumstances. I do not know much about what gave rise to the situation to which the hon. member referred. It was apparently a mixed party, and the person involved was probably being wilful. The hon. member will probably agree with me that this was merely a little wilfulness—just to see what was going to happen. We are simply going to leave the matter at that, since it is not a matter which we should settle here.

How is the hon. the Minister going to achieve détente, if this is the kind of thing that happens?

Be that as it may, it did happen. There were facilities for those people—Whites as well as non-Whites— at the East London airport.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I know that they are now two. As I said in my reply, our agreement does not in any way make provision that the restaurant should in fact be for Whites or for non-Whites, but this is in fact the case and everyone accepts that the one restaurant is for Whites and the other is for non-Whites. I know that we will encounter problems of this nature in future, particularly when we are dealing with mixed groups. We are living in a complicated country, as hon. members will agree with me we are. Therefore I just want to say that I hope that when we are dealing with mixed groups, we will have the necessary co-operation for all the people involved; that the necessary arrangements will be made in advance so that the necessary facilities can be arranged for them for meals or meetings or for whatever it may be. I think that with the co-operation of everyone this can in fact be done. I have already explained what our standpoint is in respect of the internal division of our airports, and I am not prepared to deviate from that standpoint, but there ought to be no problems if arrangements are made in advance for mixed groups. If important problems arise because the existing faciltities for non-Whites are inadequate, the necessary arrangements should be made in advance, and then we can see what we can do to provide the necessary facilities. Sir, in addition I just want to say that it appears that it is not necessary to issue permits in respect of an airport. There was a court judgment in which it was indicated that State buildings did not fall under the permit control of Group Areas. I hope that this reply will give the hon. member for Griqualand East in particular, who was interested in this matter, a greater degree of clarity in respect of the questions which he raised here.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? He has said that separate facilities are provided for Whites and non-Whites. Is there anything to prevent the proprietor of a restaurant from serving a mixed group in either the White or the non-White restaurant?

In fact there is not.

So the proprietors have complete freedom in this regard?

There is nothing in our agreement which prohibits the restaurant from doing this.

According to a Press report, the proprietor of a restaurant here said that in terms of his contract he was forbidden to serve Blacks. Is that not right?

According to the information issud to me—and I believe that it is 100% correct—there is no provision in the contract that only Whites should be served in a restaurant. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.

Sir, in addition the hon. member for Maitland discussed the matter of accidents, which I do not want to elaborate on.

The hon. member for Kempton Park discussed our airports with enthusiasm. I should like to endorse what he said about the Jan Smuts airport. I have also seen the master plan. In fact, I have it here in front of me. The master plan makes provision for tremendous future expansion at the Jan Smuts airport. It makes provision for other runways, for various terminals in the middle of the airport, between the two runways, etc. The hon. member also referred to taxi drivers. This is a matter to which I should like to give attention. I am not unaware of the problem he mentioned, but it is not an easy task because one cannot always obtain the correct, fruitful quality.

Lastly the hon. member for Bethlehem discussed the World Meteorological Organization. I have already replied on that score and said that we shall continue as we have done in the past. The hon. member went on to discuss weather modification. I do not think it is necessary to reply further to the hon. member’s allegations in respect of Durban airport. We discussed this matter here last year. The hon. member is aware of the expansions which are taking place. I know that in recent times we have had problems there, but the hon. member must realize that we are working on a big airport for Durban, viz. the La Mercy airport, which is going to cost many millions of rands. We have already made a start. It will be a major international airport, and from the nature of the case one cannot now spend too much money on the Louis Botha airport, which might not subsequently be fully utilized.

When will La Mercy be completed—in 1982?

It will take quite a number of years yet. Sir, I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members for the fruitful discussion we have had here.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 10, Loan Vote E and S.W.A. Vote No. 5.—“Water Affairs”:

Sir, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, we are dealing here with a department which spends one of the largest sums of money allocated to any of the departments in this country. I wonder whether people realize quite how much money is spent by this department and to what sums of money the Department of Water Affairs is committed. During the course of my speech I wish to indicate that I am quite convinced that hon. Members of Parliament by and large have no real understanding of and it is impossible for them in the course of their normal daily work to come to realize precisely what is involved in the annual Budget of the Department of Water Affairs.

I wish to make a specific plea to the hon. the Minister in that regard. Sir, the position is that in this year for which we have the Budget before us, the Department of Water Affairs is going to spend R101 million, but the problem arises that every one of those rands carries with it a further commitment, so that we cannot say at any stage of the spending if that R101 million which of the works on which that money is being spent is going to come to finality during this year. Probably very few of them will be completed. The total amount of money to which the Department of Water Affairs is committed stands at the figure of R1 193 million, of which an amount of some R684 million has been spent already. We are spending R101 million this year and there is an amount of R408 million committed today, i.e. the department is committed to spending an additional amount of R408 million at today’s prices. That is merely to complete the works which are mentioned in the capital estimates for this year. When one finds the rate of inflation running as it is today at something like 10% or 12%, or even 15%, one can understand that we must sooner or later come to a point where priorities are going to get sharper and sharper, or else the amount of money spent by reason of escalation will become higher and higher. And then one winds up against the fact that the physical capacity of the department to spend money is limited by the contractors available, by the staff of the department itself and other factors.

I think one must have a very close look at the amounts of capital involved in the spending of the department. I want to say, as an ordinary Member of Parliament in this House, that the present system adopted in this Committee whereby we discuss the affairs of the Department of Water Affairs for three hours is totally inadequate. The parliamentary system which was intended to give Members of Parliament, as the watch-dogs of the public, some idea of the scope of spending in a department such as this, is simply not adequate.

I wish to raise again with the hon. the Minister the point I raised before, namely that a Select Committee on Water Affairs be appointed by this House on which the Government have a majority and which, I believe, would be of immense assistance to the hon. the Minister himself in going through, vetting, approving and allocating priorities, the Committee having some sort of control over the spending of the department and bringing the members of this House, whose job it is to know what is going on in the department, into closer contact with what is actually happening in the department. Now, in terms of the Water Act there is no provision whereby this can be done. At this moment there are two provisions in the Water Act in terms of which matters can be referred to this House. The first is section 58 in terms of which the hon. the Minister lays White Papers on the Table of the House. I have in my hand the White Papers laid on the Table of the House for this year. These reports are laid upon the Table of the House for the information of members and they are required to be accepted. In fact, they are accepted by the passing of this Vote. There are also applications for irrigation loans which require to be passed by this House.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I intend moving a private member’s motion next year to the effect that these White Papers should be referred to the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters so that the sort of job which I believe members of this House ought to be doing can be done. The hon. members on the other side are in the majority, and I am not trying to put something across the hon. the Minister; I am not trying to attack him or the department or anything else. I believe that members of this House should be far better informed as to what is going on in the actual spending of money by this department.

If one goes through these White Papers, one sees that there are immense amounts of money involved. If one takes merely two or three of them and goes through them in detail, one finds all sorts of questions arising which it is quite impossible for the members of this House to discuss in a debate of this nature, since an ordinary member of the House has merely ten minutes in which to make a point to the Minister. It is quite impossible. If we were to sit down and go through them in detail and ask questions by means of either written or oral questions on the Order Paper, I think the Minister’s whole department would spend its time merely answering questions which would arise from the perusal of these White Papers.

I ask that the hon. the Minister should be prepared to consider the matter. I am making this appeal because I am convinced in my mind that Parliament as it was intended to function is simply not capable of functioning in the matter of White Papers and the approval of expenditure by the Department of Water Affairs. As I have already indicated, this year the department will spend R101 million and it is already committed to a further expenditure of R408 million in the future, and then there is also the further factor that in future every single water work and major Government construction is going to cost more and more money, not only by reason of escalation, but by reason of the fact that we have already built all the easy dams that are to be built; the hard ones are still coming.

We have been told by the hon. the Minister himself that by the year 2000 every single drop of water in this country is going to be committed. We shall therefore have to build dams and conserve water as hard as we possibly can. It may well be that in 10 or 12 years’ time this figure of R101 million on the Estimates will appear to be a very small amount. Our cities and industries depend on the storage of water and the shifting of water around from various catchments to other catchments. Immense pipelines and pumping works will be required. At present the Tugela-Vaal scheme is intended to take something like 60 million gallons per day over into the Vaal River from the Tugela. This involves the pumping of water which can be used to generate electricity, which in turn involves all kinds of engineering features. If one considers that this scheme is probably one of the easier schemes which we are tackling at this moment and that the ones which are to follow are going to be more difficult, more complicated, more involved and more expensive, then I believe that the present mechanism of Parliament, this system whereby we in this Committee are discussing the Budget, simply does not work at all. I, for one, am totally dissatisfied with the way in which it is being done, and, as I say, I intend moving a private member’s motion next year which I hope the hon. the Minister will consider sympathetically.

I wish to raise merely one very small aspect, one minor problem which we have come across in perusing these White Papers. It relates to a Government water scheme, the Miertjieskraal Dam in the constituency of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. This is not something for which the hon. the Minister is responsible, because the first White Paper, No. L of 1968, which put this on the Estimates of Capital Expenditure, was tabled before the hon. the Minister himself took over.

On page 6 of the White Paper which we have before us it is said that it is believed that if money from Parliament is made available it will be in the interests of the country to proceed with this work. An amount of R460 000-odd has been spent already. In 1968 the amount approved for the construction of the dam was R600 000. Seven years ago it was estimated that the whole scheme could be built for R600 000. Some R400 000-odd has been spent already, and it is now sought to spend a further sum of R700 000 in addition to that. The total cost is going to be R1 300 000, in other words, the estimated cost for that scheme has more than doubled over the last seven years. I believe that here we have a prime example of a case which must be referred back to the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters for reconsideration and I say this for various reasons. I have here a letter which was written to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs on 21 September 1974 by the secretary of the Brandrivier-boerevereniging. What is involved in the construction of this dam is that that river has now been declared a Government water control area. In other words, the rights of farmers above the dam site are controlled and they are no longer permitted to extract water beyond the amount which they are presently extracting, with a view to conserving water for people below the dam. That is the normal procedure and I have no quarrel with that procedure. It was, however, freely stated in the letter which I have here and by people who have come to see us in this House that the quality of water which will flow into that dam is such that it may become a white elephant by reason of the “verbrakking” of the water.

That is nonsense!

The hon. member says that it is nonsense, but I require a bit more than to have the hon. member for Mossel Bay saying that it is nonsense.

I know the place.

The hon. member may know the place as much as he likes, but we have had representations coming to us as members of Parliament to the effect that there is a serious danger that if money is spent to conserve water in that dam, it will render the ground below the dam no longer capable to producing by reason of the “verbrakking” in the water. Should that happen, the ground below the dam would have to be purchased. The land will have to be purchased and the interests and the rights of people will have to be bought out as well. We will then have a dam, the construction of which alone will have cost us R1 300 000. I believe that there is at least a case for a re-investigation of this particular scheme by members of this House. This scheme is a small scheme and the amount which is to be spent is one of the smallest amounts which is asked for under this Vote. If, however, the department is to be placed in the position where it will incur further expenditure to rectify something which was caused at some time before the present Minister took charge, I believe this House would be failing in its duty if it did not attempt to do something about putting the matter right. The problem is that money has already been spent, and should it turn out that the dam should not be proceeded with, a case of fruitless expenditure would be raised by the Controller and Auditor-General.

Who is complaining, the people who farm in the area above the dam, or the people who farm in the area below the dam?

The problem is that there is something like 2 000 ha of land above the dam which is suitable for irrigation whereas something like 200 ha is suitable for irrigation below the dam. That is the situation.

Read the White Paper.

Yes, it is in the White Paper. If the hon. member has not read the White Paper, I cannot help him, but that is the fact of the matter. There is ground above the dam where the water is sweet, which is totally suitable for irrigation and where farmers from the Boerevereniging can expand their operations without any trouble. Yet there is an amount of R1 3000 000 being spent for a matter of 200 ha below the dam, which I think is dubious, to say the least.

Where would you build the dam?

I think we face the situation where a Select Committee of this House could quite easily give assistance to the hon. the Minister and to the department in reviewing a situation such as this.

I do not want the hon. the Minister to treat this as something of a political nature. I may say that when the people came to see us, I was most careful to find out who of the members who came belonged to the United Party and who did not. It turned out that there were some United Party members as well as some Nationalist members. I do not want anyone to come along and say that in this case the United Party is having a go at the Nationalist Party and at the Minister because that is not so. I was very careful that we would not be led on to that particular track.

Politics do enter into the picture, all the same.

No, the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot get away with that.

There is another factor which perturbs me. I have mentioned already the matter of cost escalation. I wonder if-hon. members realize to what extent costs have increased. Let me briefly refer to just some of the water schemes in respect of which costs have increased. In the case of the Berg River, Saldanha region, the original estimate was R200 000. I realize that in many cases this is a sum which is merely put on the Estimates to have it “on the book” as it were, but in the case of the Berg River the present total cost estimated is R6 million. In respect of the Brand River, which I have mentioned before, the cost has doubled. In the case of the Elands River, Vaalkop Dam, the original estimate was R1 300 000, but today the total cost is estimated at R6 million. For the Gamtoos River canals, the original estimate was R5 200 000 and today the cost is estimated at R18 million. This is the sort of escalation that the department faces and from which it cannot escape because, as soon as money is appropriated for a particular scheme and the first concrete is poured, it has to go through with the scheme and complete it. This happened in the case of the Orange River Development Project for which the original estimate was R85 million while today the total cost is estimated at R490 million. We have to meet that because we are committed to the project. The scheme must go ahead and we now face a bill of R490 million.

I want to say again that I do not think members of this House are sufficiently informed; they do not know enough of what is going on in this department. I believe that the water affairs groups of this House, as well as the ordinary members, would benefit tremendously from the far closer contact with officials of the department which would result from a Select Committee of this nature. Members could then ask specific questions and they would also be involved in the question of priorities, because it is still going to come to priorities. I repeat: not only are the costs escalating, but the dams we are going to build are going to become more and more expensive as time goes on. I really believe that the members of this House would be well advised to take steps of this nature and to fake a greater interest in the affairs of this department.

While I am considering expenses and costs, I want to refer to an article I saw some time ago in the June 1974 issue of The Geographical Magazine which is available in the Library of Parliament. The article deals with schemes being mooted in Canada and the United States. It is suggested as part of this scheme that there should be a dam built in what is called the Rocky Mountain Trench. This would result in a reservoir 800 km long. The figure indicating the cost of this project has so many noughts in it that I just cannot translate it into words. I just do not understand it at all. I am just a simple farmer. It is too much for me altogether. I am merely speculating now, but it may well be that the transfer of water will be one of the fruits of the détente everyone is talking about in this country. That may well happen in time to come. People say it is not economic when they talk about the Orange River. I asked the hon. the Minister last year what was going to happen about the water of the Orange River. It is not economical today to bring that water to Cape Town, but who knows whether it will not be economical to do so in 20 years time? It might well then be economical to move water over those distances simply because there is no other water available.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He said that he would raise this matter again next year by way of a private motion. We can therefore discuss this matter again next year. In any event, his speech was a pleasant interlude and a change from the speeches and policy we usually get from that side of the House year after year. Usually the United Party expounded its five points of policy. I myself know those five points already. They said that we should first supply existing communities. Then we should institute a grid system. After that we should provide our own water. Then they had something to say about pollution and, lastly, the apportionment of water. As the Minister said on a previous occasion, one cannot really talk about a water policy. The primary issue is the requirements of the country and the development of its economy, the extent to which the department is able to provide that part of the infrastructure. That is the task of the Department of Water Affairs. However, I do not want to elaborate on this further.

The hon. member for Mooi River touched on a vital matter here today, viz. money and the control of money. On a previous occasion, this problem was stated here in far stronger language than that used by the hon. member today. It was stated by the former member for Orange Grove, Mr. E. G. Malan. This former member for Orange Grove also spoke about anything, until he went. I think the present hon. member for Orange Grove is going the same way, because he, too, speaks about all kinds of things. I now want to quote here a challenge addressed to the Minister by the former member for Orange Grove. I have before me Hansard, Vol. 39 of Wednesday, 3 May, 1972. The discussion concerned the P. K. le Roux Dam, which the hon. member also mentioned. In the course of the speech by the hon. the Minister, the following interjection was made by Mr. E. G. Malan (Col. 6346)—

The Minister then replied as follows—

The hon. member thereupon asked whether it would be according to the same specifications. The Minister replied in the affirmative. It would therefore be on the same specifications, calculated at the same cost to the State without use being made of Governmental advantages—e.g. cheap transport, etc. The Minister repeated that he would build the dam for R45 million. He went on to say that a variation of 5% either way would be fair. This is a serious challenge. This accusation was made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, because in the decision by the Department of Water Affairs to build this dam themselves, he detected something of the so-called creeping Socialism about which a great deal has been heard in this House this year. The reason is that the hon. the Minister said that he and his department could build the dam for R45 million. The lowest tender price was R56 million, and we can expect that the escalation would add a further substantial amount, as was the case in regard to all the other building projects, because it is impossible, in a contract with a private firm, to describe the underground structure exactly, and if there are changes in the rock formation, then there have to be changes in the price, etc. As the hon. member has just said, and rightly so, the amounts are so astronomical that no one can say that if the company is threatening to go bankrupt, it can stop half-way. It simply has to finish. That is why the hon. Minister said, even at that stage, that he had programmed the costs on a computer and that he could give us the cost calculation of the cost of the dam from day to day. However, unless there were unforeseen additional expenses, he undertook to complete it for R45 million. I think we should give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to tell us again this year how far he has progressed with his challenge which he issued to the Opposition and with an undertaking he gave to this House. I found it interesting that one could see in these last few weeks, what progress had thus far been made with the dam—-I think the hon. the Minister probably went to see whether his challenge could still stand—and that it was approaching the stage at which one could already see that this was a dam and that a major task was in progress there. All this work is being done by a team of engineers with the average age of 32 years.

Hear, hear!

To me this is an outstanding achievement and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department in advance, although I do not know whether they are going to come out on the money. However, I want to congratulate them on having progressed so far already. I had reason to congratulate them last year. Subsequently, massive flooding of, inter alia, the coffer dam occurred, and this delayed them for some time. In the first instance, I want to congratulate them on having tackled the dam, thus enabling their own young engineers to accept this enormous task and responsibility. This is an investment for the future that is worth many millions. It is on that score that I want to congratulate them, and not in regard to expenditure. That I cannot do at this stage.

In the few minutes I have left I should like to ask the hon. the Minister more about the apportionment of water. I know that on a previous occasion the hon. the Minister said that 25% went to agriculture and 25% went to industrial development, while 50% was held in reserve. Because it is in my constituency, and because the first part of the large river canal crosses my constituency, I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister to what extent and when he intends to go ahead with irrigation on the north bank of the Orange River. Does the hon. the Minister intend to go ahead with the canal system—I mean the main canal system and not the estimated canal system—and if so, when? Is it also, perhaps, the hon. the Minister’s intention to provide water on the Cape side by means of an underground tunnel under the river to the left bank of the river? I am appealing for a little water for my friend from De Aar, too.

Just a little?

Just a little to keep him quiet and then we can go on with the work. I should appreciate information in this regard from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, under these circumstances I should like to confine myself to my constituency, which is about 750 km across. Over the years this constituency has given rise to many problems and has always lagged behind. It has always been very demanding of the attention of the Department of Water Affairs and the Minister. The old schemes that existed there previously were established about 60 years ago. The later Buchuberg scheme was established about 42 years ago. It is understandable that at the time the irrigation schemes were unplanned. However, we have great appreciation for the Department and the hon. the Minister, who have contributed a great deal towards improving the circumstances and conditions over the years. The work that was planned and carried out in the past is obsolete. Great improvements took place later and that is why we very much appreciate the contribution by the department and the hon. the Minister.

There are a few matters I want to mention. We are pleased that the advisory committees, the appointment of which was postponed, were appointed by the hon. the Minister and the department recently. At the moment they have all been appointed. We know that where our people are involved in these matters concerning water approval, there is far more satisfaction when our own people act in such capacities.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister something. About six years ago the hon. the Minister appointed a planning committee to investigate the circumstances of the development of the Lower Orange River, from Buchuberg to the confluence of the Orange and Vaal Rivers. As far as we are aware, the idea was that there was in fact a great future for this part, particularly the area above Prieska, where there is about 28 000 morgen of land with a depth of 28 feet. We carried out tests there which proved that at Spitskop mineralization had been no more than 1 % in the more than 50 years during which irrigation had taken place. We believe that an area like this with so much potential does in fact deserve the attention of the department and the hon. the Minister. I want to express my appreciation of the decision by the present Minister of Water Affairs in accordance with which a commission was appointed. The commission was to have issued a report. I should very much like to know whether the report is to be published and if so, when this will be so that we may know what we can expect in regard to irrigation on that part of the river. We know that there is a lot of potential and we know about the representations addressed to you at the time, viz. that consideration be given to a weir to be built as a diversion weir below the confluence of two rivers. As far as I know, this matter enjoyed the attention of the department. It was certainly given favourable consideration. With a view to the development of that area in the future— something which is urgently necessary—I believe that it is time for the Minister to provide us with a little information so that we may know what to expect in the near future.

Then, too, Mr. Chairman, I should also like to know when a decision will be taken by the department in regard to the rate of abstraction. The hon. the Minister will realize that the people living in this large area of about 300 square kilometres would like to be sure about what they may expect in the future. There are many farmers who would like to tackle development works but they do not know how much water they will be entitled to, and these development works are therefore being postponed. I know that the department will give its attention to this matter, but we should like to have this information at our disposal as soon as possible.

To conclude, Sir, I should just like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister. We know that some time ago it was decided to stop work on the Orange River North canal in order that other important work could be continued with, but in spite of this the Minister and the Department later decided to proceed with this task and it is now near completion. We want to express our sincere appreciation for this.

Sir, just one last point: At the time when the hon. the Minister was appointed as Minister of Water Affairs, there was a great deal of dissatisfaction among our workmen, both White and non-White, at the Orange River. As a result of the action taken by the hon. the Minister and Mr. Kriel, whom I want to mention by name, things have changed to such an extent that today the workmen are very satisfied, and they have asked me to convey their appreciation to the Minister for the improvements he has brought about there, which have resulted in these people being very contented today.

Sir, I shall not react to the speech of the hon. member for Prieska. I found it interesting, but the hon. member raised matters which, of course, affect people in his own constituency. I know that part of the world— Buchuberg and the region along the river —fairly well. It is a very interesting part of our country.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the White Papers accompanying the report of the Secretary for Water Affairs, but because of the limited time I will have to deal just very briefly with only two reports which happen to affect the areas of East London and King William’s Town. I regret that we have not got more time to discuss these White Papers, because I believe, like my colleague, the hon. member for Mooi River, that what we have read in these White Papers is indeed very important. As has already been mentioned, I believe that the capital expenditure programme of the Department of Water Affairs is bigger than that of any other Department except the Department of Defence. It is a great pity, therefore, that more time is not allocated to this particular department to enable us to discuss all the moneys that we are spending on Water Affairs.

Sir, then I come to the report on the Middle Buffalo River Government Water Works (proposed transfer of the Laing Dam). This report states—

We experienced that during the last abnormal flood. The report goes on to say—

Is it because of new standards laid down by the Department of Waiter Affairs, or is it because there is a weakness in the structure of the wall of the Laing Dam? I know that a question was put to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for East London City on 22 April this year, and that the Minister gave a reply to the questions, but I am still not happy with the reply given by the hon. the Minister. You see, Sir, the flood took place in August 1970. Five years have passed now since the flood, and in fact nothing has so far been done, except for what is said in the White Paper we have before us, to make sure of the stability of the wall of the Laing Dam. Below the Laing Dam in the Buffalo River we have a new dam which was completed in 1968 and which was opened by the hon. the Minister, the Bridle Drift Dam. Further down the river we have the harbour at East London, and on the banks of the river we have a power station, the East London power station.

I might mention that since the completion of the Bridle Drift Dam, which is an enormous dam holding probably five times as much water as the Laing Dam, East London is now using water from the Bridle Drift Dam and very little is being used from the Laing Dam. In reply to the question put to the hon. the Minister in April this year, the Minister said there was no danger involved at the Laing Dam, and yet we know that the spillway of that particular dam could barely take the flood-waters of the 1970 flood. The harbour at East London was evacuated at that time, and I believe even the power station was in the process of being evacuated during that flood because of the fear of the Laing Dam breaking and causing damage to the Bridle Drift Dam. Can one imagine what would have happened if the Laing Dam had broken and the power station had been flooded by storm water? Can one imagine the chaos which would have been caused by power and electricity being cut off from that whole region? I am therefore very pleased that something is now being done about the Laing Dam. We have heard all sorts of rumours and naturally people are anxious about it.

I come now to the transfer of the Laing Dam to the Department of Water Affairs, which is also described in the White Paper, to enable the department to make optimum use of this water for the King William’s Town/East London area, and especially for the King William’s Town area. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether, in the case of a transfer of the dam from the East London municipality to the department, the amount which will be required to reinforce the wall of the dam, an amount of R1 750 000, will in fact be paid by the Department of Water Affairs. I naturally believe that this will be so.

Then I want to deal with the other White Paper affecting my area, the one dealing with the proposed extension of the Nahoon River Government Water Works. My time is very limited and I only want to touch on one item here. I see that a certain pipeline is to be extended. At the moment we have a pipeline from the Cyril Lord factory industrial area to take the effluent down to the sea. We have had so much trouble in the past about the effluent from certain factories in that area down the Nahoon River, and it was absolutely essential that this pipeline should be laid Now this is functioning and I am very pleased to see that a further pipeline, an extension from the Cyril Lord factory right up to the Berlin industrial area, is being contemplated.

I notice that an extra amount of R300 000 is being asked for, but now, with tenders having been received, the amount has risen to R800 000. It is also intended to install the effluent pipeline from the Berlin industrial area, past the Cyril Lord factory down to the sea. I am very, very pleased to see this. I can assure the House that this money, although small in terms of amounts spent by Water Affairs, will be very well spent, because it will be fatal if the effluent from those industrial areas is allowed to run down the Buffalo River into our large storage dams or even down the Nahoon River into the Nahoon Dam itself. To us in that area this is a very important project over and above what will be done to improve the position of the Nahoon Dam as such.

Mr. Chairman, South Africa is not richly-endowed with water, but owing to the outstanding progress that has been made by the Minister, his department and the Water Research Commission in recent years, I think that we have to a large extent bridged our water problems. We can now start thinking about using our inland waters for an entirely new purpose, viz. for the production of freshwater fish. It is interesting to note that the total surface area of the Republic comprises 122 million ha. Of this. 980 000 ha is taken up by dams. The 60 largest State dams account for 177 000 ha. It is confidently stated that about 3 000 kg of freshwater fish per ha per annum can be produced. Therefore the 60 biggest dams could provide us with 530 million kg of fish. It is further maintained that the wholesale price of fish is about 50 cents per kg. This means, therefore, that the potential revenue of the 60 dams is in the region of R265 million per annum. This is an astronomical figure—R265 million per annum from freshwater fish! Let us halve it. Then the revenue from fish, which would not require so very much additional expenditure, would still be well over R100 million per annum to be derived from the dams already built in the Republic. However, to me the money we should make out of these fish is not the most important factor, but rather it is the fact that we shall be able to provide essential rich food to a hungry world and a hungry Africa. A newspaper report entitled “Food Situation in the World not Rosy” reads—

Another newspaper report, entitled “Homeland can produce 2 000 tons of fish per annum”, reads—

Here we already have a homeland that is putting its house in order by making a start with the production of freshwater fish. They are prepared to incur additional expenditure for the establishment of 100 production dams for the production of fish. We already have those 60 large dams and the fish need only be bred and put in the dams and, as I have said, this can provide us with an additional income of between R100 million and R260 million per annum. I repeat that the money is not the most important factor, but through an attempt of this kind our hon. Minister and his department will be making a vigorous and constructive effort to provide food to a hungry Africa and perhaps to a hungry world. In this way the hon. the Minister and his department will in fact be assisting in developing further the hon. the Prime Minister’s efforts to bring about détente.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with the intention of suggesting a few ideas to the hon. the Minister in connection with the development of our Boland water scheme. In the first instance, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the research done into the possibility of establishing an underground sand dam on the Cape Flats in which we could store reclaimed water and storm water for re-use in the Cape Metropolitan area. In the past few years we have pointed out with the greatest success that this old Cape metropolitan area is becoming very much overconcentrated. We have pointed out that our labour in the Greater Boland is being absorbed by this metropolitan area. Today we have large squatters’ camps situated alongside the great Cape metropolis. We have also pointed out that literally millions of rand are being spent on the prevention of traffic congestion in the Cape Town metropolitan area and we have also pointed to the fact that the water supplies of the Greater Boland area are absorbed by the Cape metropolitan area. I want to say at once that I realize that when the Department of Planning undertakes advance planning, the Department of Water Affairs is not supposed to be the first on the scene. First a Saldanha project is announced, and then the Department of Water Affairs has to ensure that water can be provided within that framework. Looking at the metropolitan area as it has developed through the years, we find it is true that apart from the water potential of Table Mountain—which is utilized about 95% of the water in the Cape metropolitan area comes from elsewhere. The water is drawn from the Steenbras Dam and from the Wemmershoek dam in the Boland and in recent years it is Voëlvlei that has become the pole to which the water of the Twenty-four Rivers is channelled. The water of both the Klein Berg River and the Boontjies River is Channelled to the Voëlvlei Dam chiefly to meet the requirements of the Cape metropolitan area. As far as our future planning is concerned, work is being done on the Thee-waterskloof Dam—that is an excellent project—and on careful analysis of the situation we see once again that this is being done in order that water from this dam project may be diverted to the Voëlvlei project, from which it will be brought to Cape Town. On further analysis of the Boland water plan, we find that water from the Koeberg River and the Diep River is utilized for the Cape metropolitan area. Actually there is nothing wrong with that, and I think the hon. the Minister’s approach is entirely correct. In fact, we have to take our hats off to him and his department. The hon. the Minister has to ensure that people have water in those areas where there is growth and development. On the other hand, however, it is also true that over the past year we have had a great deal of success with decentralization in and advance planning for the Boland region. Today there is the Dassenberg project, the Mamre-Darling project, the Saldanha project and in addition, stimulus points are being provided as far afield as Worcester, where border area benefits are accorded. All this is being done to initiate the development of a Greater Boland. It is thanks to the Government, the Department of Planning and the co-operation of all the other departments that we are achieving this success today. But in spite of this new growth pattern, our planning still provides for 95% and more of our water to be absorbed by the Cape metropolitan area, and after being used once, this water returns to the sea. I am aware that since 1966, very important research work has been carried out by the Department of Water Affairs, the CSIR, the Cape Provincial Administration and other bodies to determine the potential of a large sand dam under the surface of the Cape Flats where we could store storm-water and reclaimed water and which we could then link to our Cape water system for use from time to time. I speak as a layman in this regard, but that is how the situation seems to me. As far as this situation is concerned, there are two aspects to which I should like to draw his attention. As a layman I am not quite able to understand them. Firstly: Assuming that that water can be re-used. Is it not possible for salt water from the sea to be pumped into the space that would be created in this way? What has been found in the course of the research done in this connection? Can this dilemma be solved? I think that the final result of this research work will have to be attained or proved in May or June. In view of what I have said, in view of the fact that our Boland water is still being absorbed, I want to appeal to the Minister to see to it that if this research proves that this project could succeed, it will enjoy absolute priority on our list of priorities for the development of the Boland water pattern. I understood that it had been proved that an underground sand basin of this kind had a potential of almost nine times that of the Steenbras and the Wemmershoek dams combined, in other words, this has an enormous potential that would assist in eliminating problems in regard to the future growth pattern of the Boland. I really want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the research done in this regard and the truly exciting and imaginative undertaking they are engaged in here.

What are the borders of this area?

It extends from Macassar Beach … But I am speaking merely as a layman; I cannot define the borders exactly. The Minister would be better able to do so. I think it is the area between Strandfontein Road and Weltevreden Road and extends from about the National Road to Macassar and Strandfontein. I hope this gives an indication of the approximate situation of the area. I therefore want to make an appeal to the Minister that if the facts prove themselves, this project should receive absolute priority in the future development of our Boland water situation.

Secondly, I want to make a plea here today that we should start considering the possibility of generating hydro-electric power at the Voëlvlei Dam, since various aspects are now being considered under the able leadership of the hon. the Minister, as our water plan begins to take shape, Whereas there are always new aspects to be attended to, I think it is really time for us to consider the possibility of utilizing the waters of the Voëlvlei Dam for generating power. It is a fact that the power supply of the Boland is carried on a line that passes close to the dam area. There may be dangerous times ahead, times during which we may have very serious power cuts on this supply line. I am also aware that at certain times there is an over-supply of power on the supply line. I ask myself the question—this has also been mentioned on occasion by Prof. Straszacker, the chairman of Escom—whether, when there is too much power on this supply-line to the Boland whether this over-supply of power could not be used to pump water of the Voëlvlei Dam to a higher level in the Suurvlak area. Subsequently, when the time comes when there is too little power on this line or that power cuts occur, the water of the Suurvlak could be allowed to flow back into the Voëlvlei Dam, actuating power-generated turbines. This power could then be linked to the supply line to the Boland. Attention has been given to this project from time to time, perhaps in theory only, but I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that we should consider this possibility afresh with greater seriousness.

Thirdly: We are aware of the fact that in the future, very major developments are going to take place in the field of mining in parts of Namaqualand and the North Western Cape. Over the past few years the Department of Water Affairs has not only investigated terrains where water may be stored, but has considered various other facets as well. I have in mind, for example, water projects for the watering of cattle and for domestic use. The schemes in the Lower Berg River and now in the South Western Districts, too, are to be utilized for this purpose. I think the department has very good ideas in regard to the practical utilization of our water potential at various levels. Certain parts of Namaqualand and the North Western Cape are really on the threshold of an exciting future. In the field of mining a new Vaal Triangle, as it were, will toe born here.

Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. member for Moorreesburg, obviously this whole question of a sand dam in the Boland is a most interesting one indeed and I would toe most interested to hear the reply of the hon. the Minister about these possibilities. I want to refer very briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River. I, too, suffer the same sort of frustration he suffers when it comes to the vast diversity of water schemes one talks about throughout South Africa. The opportunity to discuss these in a ten-minute speech is just not on at all. It is certainly very difficult indeed and I would support his idea that there should be some sort of standing committee to look at water schemes of this nature.

There are several matters which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister this afternoon. Firstly, I would like to raise a matter which I raised in this House last year, namely the question of the J. G. Strijdom Dam in North-eastern Natal. I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to clarify the whole situation in regard to this dam. There is still considerable speculation in the Press and elsewhere and several question marks appear to hang over the future of this dam. The answer I did not get from the hon. the Minister when I raised it last year was what the reaction of the Swaziland Government was to the whole scheme. How far is this water likely to push up into Swazi territory? Is the Swaziland Government happy about this? The last account I heard was that the dam was still being kept at well below capacity. In February, at any rate, it was still at only 10% capacity. Has this got anything to do with the Swaziland Government? Have we got permission to push this water right up into their territory? Certainly, it is quite apparent that work on the dam and on the irrigation system is proceeding very slowly indeed. I would like to ask the Minister when this work is likely to be completed. Mr. Henning Botha, the Water Affairs official at the scene, was quoted in the Press as saying that there was not much point in building up the reserve of water until the canals are constructed. Is this report correct? If it is correct, when are these canals going to toe completed? Work on this dam has been going on since 1967. Now, eight years later, the level is still at 10 % capacity and the scheme is not in operation. There is no doubt at all that there appears to be considerable tardiness in the way in which this whole scheme has been handled. I do not believe that this is satisfactory and I hope that the hon. the Minister will comment and get rid of this speculation once and for all.

The second matter that I wish to raise concerns the possible building of a canal right through the middle of the Etosha National Park. I understand that there is a proposal that an open canal toe built to convey admittedly much-needed water right through the park. An alternative possibility is evidently a pipeline. There is no doubt that this would be a much more costly alternative, but obviously relating to the total length of the canal—and it would have to be a very long canal to bring that water all the way down—the section which goes through the park is only a comparatively short distance. Therefore a pipeline rather than a canal is, I hope, going to get urgent consideration before any final decision is taken. There is no doubt at all that an open canal, possibly double fenced, according to one report, would be highly undesirable from every point of view. I think that we are all well aware of the urgent necessity of providing adequate water supplies for South West Africa and the obvious place to get it from is the Kunene, but before decisions are taken on a scheme as important as this, it is imperative that due consideration be given to the preservation, however costly this may toe, of the natural resources of wildlife which, if destroyed, are completely irreplacable. I gather that a very potent argument used—and I can understand it—is that the additional expenditure of providing a pipeline would seriously influence the cost of water to the ultimate consumers. I think that the hon. the Minister should give us some sort of guidance as to what these costs are and I hope that he will realize that the relatively short-term advantages in terms of costs would in no way compensate for the damage done to what can only be termed a priceless national heritage. There are various other considerations. Water that is conveyed through a canal is subject to the strong possibility of pollution and contamination. Even the possibility of infection in the water would have to be considered. I understand that infected water supplies is one of the main reasons for the high incidence of anthrax in the park. I am sure that there is no need for me to stress the dangers of this sort of infection being carried through an open canal—let alone diseases such as bilharzia and other insect-borne diseases. Quite rightly, conservationists throughout the country are up in arms about the whole scheme. They are very worried indeed. I think we should remember, when considering this, that up to 1971 Etosha was the largest game reserve in the country. I read that one of the parallels of its size was that it was very near the size of Belgium. The Odendaal plan cut this area down to about a quarter. The Kaokoveld, which is a semi-desert area, was removed from the park. The remainder included something like 12 000 square kilometres, which are simply arid salt pans and completely sterile. The suggested plan would cut off something like one-third, with two-thirds remaining on the other side.

A Press report suggests that the route that the canal is likely to take is from the Ondangua district to Kamanjab via Safari-hoek, which is probably the most direct route for the Kunene water to the grassveld area north of Windhoek, to the cattle farming area. It would, however, form an “impenetrable barrier”—according to one report—between the east and west sides of the reserve. The Secretary for Water Affairs is quoted as saying that the only scheme which is so far approved is to bring water from Ruacana to Ovamboland. We are all in favour of this, because the water has to be brought somehow, but I think that we have to look at the long-term advantages in terms of conservation of bringing it around the long way. I realize that this is a considerably greater distance and that it will be considerably more expensive, but I think that one has to weigh up this matter with due regard to the conservationists. Before this scheme becomes a fait accompli, I think that the hon. the Minister should let us know exactly what is going on. We have in the past frequently been faced with situations where decisions have already been taken and I believe that it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to make a full statement at this stage on what plans are afoot. I would urge him to consult, through all stages of planning, with conservationists and ecologists. A revised plan might well mean an initial monetary outlay of considerable proportions, but the preservation of what is left of Etosha is also of vital importance.

There is a further matter on which I would appreciate comment from the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of water shortages in the homelands. When one visits the homelands, one frequently comes across a village where women have, for miles, to carry cans of water on their heads for ordinary household use. This is a heavy burden on the inhabitants of any area. As the hon. the Minister well knows, many areas in our homelands are in a very serious situation indeed as far as water is concerned. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us in particular about the following areas where problems have shown themselves in the past.

Firstly, as far as Bophuthatswana is concerned, the water problems experienced in Ga-Rankuwa, Mabopane and Mothutlune need attention and I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he has plans for those areas.

Have you been there?

Yes, I have, in fact. Ngwelezana in KwaZulu is another case in point. With regard to Gazankulu, the water supply for the projected capital city of Giyani does not appear to be adequate, and I should like to hear whether there are any plans afoot in this regard. Finally, the whole territory of QwaQwa —that extraordinary future viable State with its external population of over 1½ million people—does not even have enough water to give each of those people a good glass of water to drink. It is in desperate need of a better water supply if the best use is to be made of its somewhat inhospitable terrain. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the whole question of adequate water for our homelands is really receiving the attention that it deserves. If we are to pay more than lip service to the whole question of viability of these future independent States, a good deal more will have to be done. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove asked a whole series of questions on a whole series of schemes, to which the hon. the Minister will probably reply in due course. I therefore leave him at that. I should very much like to make a statement this afternoon which I believe we will all agree. This is that it is an indisputable fact that South Africa has a very modest water supply and that water is therefore very precious to South Africa. Therefore our most important problem in South Africa is how to make the best use of our available water, and also how to supplement the water supply further. For that reason, I believe, there should be special appreciation, not only in this House, but also from the public outside, for the Herculean task which is being performed by the Water Research Commission. The task of this commission is to increase the assured water supply and also to take measures to decrease the demand for water. It is interesting to note that, to increase the supply, research is, inter alia, being carried out in quite a number of directions. I am for instance referring to plans which are directed at controlling the evaporation of water, at the desalination of sea water and, inter alia, at inter-linking river systems. I am also referring in this connection to an article in Hoofstad of 8 April 1975, by Dr. Wessel van Wyk, head of Scientific Services of the Department of Water Affairs. Under the heading “Water shortage necessitates new plans”, it is explained that these new plans deal with “the replacement of water in the underground sources at places where more water is pumped out than is replenished by rain.” These are all attempts which are being made, and research which is being done, to increase our existing supply. To reduce the demand for water, research is being carried out to develop the correct methods by means of which we can, inter alia, save water through irrigation and in particular through the reclamation of sewerage effluent and internal re-utilization of water by industry. Sir, you can therefore see that research is aimed at making the best use of our available water supply. But in spite of these major and expensive efforts, in spite of this persistent work by our researchers, many children grow up in South Africa without ever realizing what water means to us and what it is worth to us and that water in this country is precious. They think one can simply open the tap and that the water is there as a matter of course. I think this is attributable in particular to the urbanization process and to the fact that the largest percentage of our population is living in towns and cities today where the local authorities are responsible for the provision of water and where it is very easy to simply open the tap. But, Sir, among the informed, among those people who live in areas with a low rainfall, and especially in areas where production is dependent on irrigation, there is a realization that we are here faced with a real problem, and it is not only a problem in South Africa. I want to make the contention here this afternoon that water is a real problem for the world. In view of this, in view of the research which is being done, in view of the threatening shortage in the centuries that lie ahead, especially if circumstances remain normal and if the population growth continues as at present, I want to plead for and give my full support this afternoon to water information—information in regard to the use and the utilization of water, and in particular, information in regard to the various research projects. Therefore I am especially grateful that a national information centre for water has been created. I am also very grateful, and I think we should mention this with great pride, that we now have a scientific periodical on water in South Africa, namely Water S.A., and that we will soon be receiving a bimonthly newsletter on water. But, Sir, I believe we should go even further. I believe we should involve our children in particular in this matter, not only White children, but also non-White children. Every inhabitant of this country, every boy and girl in this country, should become aware of the value which water has for us. I do not want to add to the burden of our schools, but we have many splendid movements like the Land Service Movement which can be put to work in this regard. I believe that they, especially in their programmes, should make more provision to inform our children about the research which is done in regard to water and to stress that water is a science on its own. Then there are also our farmers’ associations. I think that farmers’ associations often discuss only those schemes that ought to be built in their immediate vicinity, and that there is sometimes too little discussion of the value and the importance of water and how water can be saved. Sir. I represent an area where people are aware of the value of water, especially as a result of periodic droughts. I do not believe that there is another part in the Republic which has over the years, suffered so heavily as a result of droughts as the Little Karoo. We have experienced terrible droughts there. I pointed out last year that here we are also dealing with one of the oldest irrigation areas in our country. I should like to express my appreciation this afternoon towards the hon. the Minister and his department for what has already been done for this area, and is being done at the moment. Sir, I do it from my heart if I say thank you for the sympathetic ear of the Minister, the local office of the section engineer of the Western Cape, the department and specifically Mr. Kriel, the Secretary. I believe that he is not only the most patient man in South Africa when irrigators approach him with their problems, but I believe he is one of the greatest authorities of water in South Africa, and possibly in the whole world. But, since I am now discussing our area, I want to repeat what I said last year, namely that we need a supplementation of water. Economically we are dependent upon agriculture; it is the basis of our economy. I also believe that the depopulation of the rural areas can be counteracted by the expansion and development of agriculture, but then water is necessary. I believe that the rural areas of the Cape can be further developed and that we can attract more people to it if we could only get the water there. Therefore I want to advocate in particular today that more be spent by the Government on our water projects. I believe that the country and the Government that invests its money in water, is not wasting that money, but is in fact making an investment for the future. It is making an investment for future planning which will assure our people of an existence and will establish our people in the rural areas. I therefore want to advocate in regard to the Little Karoo, which is an existing growth point, and a growth point with potential, that its socio-economic background will be taken into consideration, as well as the droughts which it has to experience from time to time, and that the socio-economic advantages will also be taken into consideration when we think of a supplementation of its water sources which will possibly cost a lot of money but which will be a great boon to us.

Mr. Chairman, all sorts of rumours have been doing the rounds recently. Fortunately some of them are just good-natured speculation. The rumours have it that water will not flow through the Orange/Fish tunnel because water supposedly flows in the direction opposite to that in which the earth turns. I do not want to talk about the technical details of the tunnel, but I think that if one proved to those people that the tunnel does in fact run uphill, they would get an even bigger fright. However, I just want to give the assurance that I had the privilege of being in that tunnel twelve days ago and seeing that the water finds its way to the opening of the tunnel quite readily. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is intended to allow the water to flow through the tunnel at full strength for testing purposes or whether the Minister will allow the water to flow through at full strength for the first time on the day of the official opening of the tunnel.

When one makes a study of the department’s activities and has the opportunity to visit the different construction works of the department, then one realizes that South Africa cannot but be proud of the people of the Department of Water Affairs. From the Minister and the Secretary of the department to the humblest employee, they give one the impression, when one comes in contact with these people and visits them, of tremendous enthusiasm and industry. Therefore I do not find it strange that miracles have been achieved in an exceptionally short time—actually the department is still a relatively young one—in water research and water provision and the accompanying construction works. The largest construction work in which the Department of Water Affairs is engaged at the moment, is the P. K. le Roux Dam. My colleague, the hon. member for Fauresmith, has already referred to that. He had the privilege of speaking about that first because he is my senior, but between the two of us we have that one dam in common. I want to mention that upon completion that dam wall will be 107 metres high, i.e. it will be even higher than the wall of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. One is filled with pride—and this has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Fauresmith as well—if one thinks that the P. K. le Roux Dam is being constructed by our own engineers. It is my privilege to have had quite a lot to do with these people, and I want to tell you that their enthusiasm and industry is contagious. It is a privilege to speak to Mr. Davies and his colleagues and other employees at the dam. I want to congratulate them on the fine progress which they have made with the P. K. le Roux Dam, for in spite of the abnormally high rainfall and the floods which we had last year along the Orange River, as a result of which the coffer-dam overflowed, those people worked at an exceptional pace and laid 27 384 more cubic metres of concrete than the programme demands. On 20 April this year, the total quantity of concrete which had been laid by that stage, was 711 814 cubic metres. What is interesting, is that that represents 68% of the completed volume of the permanent work of the P. K. le Roux Dam. In spite of the delay and the floods, the concrete construction is, at the present rate of work, only about 18 shifts behind the programme. That is truly a fine achievement for the people at the dam—only 18 shifts and these will quickly be made up!

While I am talking about the P. K. le Roux Dam, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for something else as well. At the P. K. le Roux Dam is the little town of Petrusville which had problems with its water supply. The Department was so kind as to bore test holes there and do research in connection with the provision of water. The first few holes were dry, but then we had the tremendous rain and the result was that when the holes had to be tested, all the holes in the shale of Petrusville had an abundance of water. We shall undoubtedly have a recurrence of the same problem in Petrusville, for in dry years there will again be a water shortage. I suggest that the department should consider expanding the water purification works at Vanderkloof so that Petrusville can be linked to that.

Various villages have been built by the Department of Water Affairs and in this connection I refer to Oranie, Vanderkloof, Oviston, Midshaft and Teubes. If one visits those villages, one gains the impression that there was thorough planning, because they are beautiful villages which effectively meet the needs of the people who live there. I am aware that these towns will have to be demolished when the work of the department has been completed. I am also aware that the hon. the Minister has offered these towns to certain Government departments. As far as I know this offer has not yet been accepted. Is it really true that we in South Africa have no use for these well-planned villages? They are villages with tarred streets, with lighting, with sewerage, with swimming baths, with floodlights at the sportsfields, and so on. Are there none of our departments that can make use of the villages? I think, for example, of certain categories of physically handicapped people who could be accommodated there to do protected work. I believe that we have a need for something like that. The villages have already been built, and can we now afford the waste which will be caused by their demolition? The necessary raw materials are there. There is wool there, and a wool scouring mill could therefore be established there. There are also meat, skins and hides and mohair there, and grain and vegetables as well. If the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture were to decide to give effect to the request which I made last year, to provide water from the tunnel at Venterstad, vegetable seed could also be produced there on a large scale. One could then use these people for the packing of the vegetable seed. There is the village of Oviston which, in my opinion—in fact, I am convinced of it—lends itself to tourism. Is there only going to be one recreational resort on the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam’s shore line of 520 km? Why can we not convert Oviston into a recreational resort as well? I ask these things, because it really breaks my heart to think that this beautiful village is going to disappear completely, especially since we are faced with a problem of the depopulation of the rural areas.

In conclusion, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for reacting to the request I made last year, and instructing his department to institute inquiries into the economic utilization of the water at the tunnel at Venterstad for irrigation purposes.

Mr. Chairman, modern civilization has come to realize with a shock that the natural resources of our planet are limited and that the overutilization, the wastage and the pollution of these natural resources could make the earth uninhabitable. One of the most important natural resources which sustains life upon earth is water. Although the earth is by volume made up of 3% water and while 75% of its surface is covered by water, so much of it is not available for use because it takes the form of atmospheric moisture or saline seawater or is tied up in the ice caps. Only about ½% of all this water is available for use. It has become obvious that we shall have to look after this available water very, very carefully indeed if we want to sustain and maintain future populations on this planet of ours. The question is whether we are doing our share in South Africa by conserving our water and by protecting it against pollution. The question is whether we are treating water after use in such a manner that it can be reused again and again. I do not believe that this is the case at the present moment. It is obvious that some of our rivers and dams are being polluted by sewerage and industrial effluent which in turn cause eutrophication turning these dams and rivers absolutely putrid. The Hartebeespoort Dam, for instance, is choked with water hyacinth and green with algae slime, with the result that the water is often unsuitable as drinking water further down. Other dams like the Rietvlei Dam, the Roodeplaat Dam, the Shongwesi Dam, the Johan Neser Dam and even the Vaal River barrage suffer very severely from this eutrophication caused by phosphates and nitrates which are being dumped and drained into the water. I believe that even the Crocodile River is so polluted that you will not even find a thick-skinned crocodile still living in it today. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs not only has the responsibility to impound water by building dams for irrigation and human consumption, but is also responsible for the whole fresh water concept. It is also his duty to combat water wastage and pollution and to prevent pollution from taking place at the start. I believe this could be achieved by reacting to the warnings based on overseas experience and thus he can anticipate the problems in this country. I hope that this will be one of the hon. the Minister’s objectives when he goes overseas. I hope he will also look into the possibility of the biological control of the water hyacinth in Brazil, which is its natural habitat and place of origin. There must be some vims, bacteria, insect or some other natural enemy to control water hyacinths. I believe it has become imperative that some method of natural control should be found for the water hyacinth which is growing so prolifically here in South Africa. We believe that biological control, where possible, is better than making use of “weedicides” which add their own pollution to the water and also to the whole environment.

The Minister could also step up his control of pollution by industrial effluent. During the last session of Parliament I raised the question of the spent pickle liquor emanating not from bars but from the galvanizing industry. It could be reclaimed economically by an existing private plant in the Witwatersrand area if the hon. the Minister would stop the spent pickle liquor being poured down the municipal drains and would persuade users in that area to have it reclaimed. Used motor-car oil as well as other machine oil should, I believe, also be reclaimed by refining it for re-use, especially in the light of the enormous cost to the country of importing scare and expensive oil from overseas. At the moment it is often poured down, municipal drains, thereby clogging up the sewage plants, and it is also poured out over the ground, thereby killing the vegetation. It is also being burnt, giving rise to black palls of smoke in the backyards of garages and engineering workshops.

Research is being done and should increasingly be done to keep up with the demands of the present as well as the future growth and development of South Africa. Industrial and population growth could become restricted in various areas such as the Witwatersrand and the Cape Peninsula by the year 2000 because of these water shortages. Excellent research is being done in various fields by the Water Research Commission under the chairmanship of Dr. J. G. Stander and also by the National Institute of Water Research of the C.S.I.R. under the chairmanship of Dr. G. G. Cilliers. I believe that the Water Research Commission has already approved approximately 28 projects. Funds allocated to these projects on contract periods of two to five years amount to a total of approximately R8 600 000. That is an enormous sum of money, but I believe it is an investment for the future in a worthwhile cause.

Members of Parliament recently had the privilege to visit one of the regional laboratories of the C.S.I.R. for the Western and Southern Cape at Bellville and were very gratified to see what excellent work was being done to anticipate future problems and challenges that we could be facing in South Africa as far as water research is concerned. It has become obvious that potable water from the conventional water supply will become more and more expensive and that reclaimed water will cost less than conventional water from about 1980, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister in this House on a previous occasion. It has also become clear that the use of brack water made potable by the reverse osmosis will become an economic proposition only by the year 2000. The distillation of sea water will for the foreseeable future cost about two and a half to three times as much as reclaimed water. Consequently, it appears that research is geared, to practical requirements such as the sampling of water for provincial administrations and for municipalities. In this excellent laboratory there is also an analytic service laboratory which makes use of conductivity tests, atomic absorption and sophisticated auto-analysers to assess the percentages of sulphates present in the water. Tests and techniques for the flocculation, filtration and chlorination of water are also done as well as for the reclamation of sewerage water. This research certainly impressed us as visitors to this institute. One of the most dramatic concepts of this research is, of course, the Cape Flats scheme in which it is attempted to assess the feasibility of storing water in the Cape Flats to provide water for after 1990, when our own resources will be completely committed. I am now talking about water coming from dams on Table Mountain, the Steenbras Dam, Wemmershoek Dam and the Voëlvlei Dam. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is carefully controlling the surface use to which that area is being put and whether he is controlling the dumping of rubbish, the digging of french drains and septic tanks as well as pit toilets in that area, which could contaminate and pollute the underground water. I believe that if this area with its underground reservoir is to be put to use for future utilization, controls of this nature should be applied forthwith. It has become imperative that something of this nature should be done. We know that research is being done in that area to assess to what extent rubbish dumps contaminate underground water. To date it appears to be minimal, but it is obvious that this water could become contaminated by septic tanks if they are allowed to be used freely. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what has struck me in this debate today is that it differs so much from the debates conducted ten or even five years ago. If we had listened carefully to the subjects raised here today and the way in which they were discussed by hon. members, we would have found in this the best indication of the wide range of the developments which have taken place in recent years. If one had listened carefully, one would have noticed that reference was made to research in various fields, to control measures, and that there were also signs of concern on the part of hon. members about our water position in the future. Questions were asked about the major projects which have not yet been announced but which are already on the drawing board. The general feeling one gets is that the Department of Water Affairs has succeeded, by means of its activities in recent years, in appealing to hon. members’ imaginations. Accordingly I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the discussion we have had here today.

Before replying to the questions put to me by hon. members one by one, I want to make a few remarks at the outset which may cover a great deal of what has been said here. A few years ago I had to state in this House, in consequence of a very intensive study which had been made by a very competent commission of inquiry, that if we did not do certain things, South Africa’s water supply would be exhausted before the end of the century. We gave a figure, a year and a growth rate. We also said what there was at the moment, what it would cost in the future and what was going to happen. On the same occasion, when we were discussing that commission’s report, I also said that we need not feel depressed about the future, because there were certain conditions which could be complied with which would ensure that at the beginning of the next century—it must be remembered that South Africa will then be a major country with a great economy—South Africa would be able to face the future with enough water, so that our economic development would not be impeded. On that occasion I also said that we would have to think of using our secret reserves. There are quite a number of these secret reserves. Secret reserve number one is water which is wasted. Using this reserve would mean that we would have to be able to recirculate these enormous quantities of wasted water. Another secret reserve is the water which is used non-consumptively and which can be brought back and used two or three times. I also told you that the third secret reserve was the utilization of those natural water supplies in the form of moisture in the air, sea water and brackish water. We shall just have to accept that we have now come to a stage where an engineer will no longer have the answer as regards the way in which it should be done today. Engineers and scientists will find the answer together in the years to come. We also said that one sets oneself certain ideals, certain objectives one wants to achieve within specified periods. I have before me the annual report of the Water Research Commission for the period 1 April to 31 December 1974. I want to tell hon. members that even though this little book is small and slender, its contents place South Africa in the lead in many fields of scientific research in the world today. We have now come to the stage where we can look back and say that some of the ideals and the objectives we put to hon. members have been achieved.

The first is to succeed, with so few scientists and with the limited capacity we have, in controlling so many disciplines and in integrating and co-ordinating them with this great scientific attempt. I want to say today that if ever there was a field in which every scientist of note who moved in this sphere and who was able to render assistance, was called upon to contribute to the enormous research effort, then it was this field. I want to mention an example to hon. members. I want to tell the hon. member that he was wrong. There are not 28 pilot committees, but 33. These are distinguished committees. These committees were initiated, and universities, provincial councils which employ scientists of this nature, such as the Cape Provincial Administration, large municipalities and councils such as the Rand Water Council, which employs a large staff itself, were integrated with it. I may say, therefore, that we have involved academics in this, that we have involved institutes and other bodies, that the C.S.I.R. has been involved and that in fact the scientists of many major organizations, such as the big companies which operate in South Africa—hon. members know that there are quite a number of them operating in the chemical industry—are also being involved in this. Otherwise it would not have been possible to spend R2½ million in a year’s time and to institute 33 pilot committees, the majority of which have not only been overseas already, but also have contacts, so that they know what is being done in these various fields throughout the world today. I have satisfied myself that this is the case. In addition, we have quite a number of committees of investigation which are also operating. The objective we have set ourselves, therefore, is to utilize South Africa’s resources within a few years in order to realize an ideal. I want to tell hon. members that in this year, 1975, we are able to recognize this here in a spirit of gratitude.

The second point is that we have succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of the public in so many fields. It is not always easy to obtain people’s co-operation, particularly if they think that it is something unnecessary, that it is just something the Government wants to do. I want to use the example of agriculture.

As far as agriculture itself is concerned, I want to tell hon. members what interesting things may happen. Have hon. members ever considered the fact that it cost us many millions of rand to develop the Vaalharts scheme and that it took us 30 or 40 years? When it had been completed, we found ourselves faced with a problem even greater than that of its construction, and that was to prevent it from being flooded. If we could plan scientifically, so that instead of bringing in new water from the Vaal River, we could drain the surplus water and start to recirculate it on the Vaalharts scheme, it would mean a great deal to us and save us a lot of money. I say that this is just a small example of many fields in which we could co-operate. We are especially grateful today for already having achieved the results of the co-operation in so many spheres.

In recent years it has been possible, for example, to co-operate with Escom on a brand-new project. We know that our country has a very limited supply of water. People never thought that hydro-electric power should be generated in South Africa. In the case of the Orange River scheme, work is proceeding on both dams. Work is proceeding on the installation of the Verwoerd Dam and the P. K. le Roux Dam. We have also been able to announce a Drakensberg scheme. We could go further.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred here this afternoon to an investigation which has already taken place and in regard to which there has been co-operation over a long period. The design for this was completed long ago. We have been working on this for five years. It is aimed at starting a pump water scheme even in the Boland, which has no water, with the possibility of generating half the capacity or the equivalent of half the entire Komati power station here at Voëlvlei. This can only be done if there is co-operation between a body such as Escom and the Department of Water Affairs. Then such things can be done and one can tackle imaginative projects. One can co-operate with Iscor, because they are able to do this today, as we are, and because we plan for the future and make projections together. We are now investigating the great Bushveld complex together with them.

Some time ago the newspapers had a great deal to say about a pipeline for pumping coal to the cost. As far as we are concerned, there is no intention to pump coal to the cost. Nor is it likely to be done, but what may in fact happen is that one may have a major development in that arid part of the Bushveld. Now we are faced with the question: How can one exploit these great riches of South Africa in a region which does not have much water? This is only possible if there is co-operation between bodies and departments. Only the fullest co-operation could make something of this nature possible. This has caused us to co-operate with other departments—I am thinking here of the Department of Agriculture. This was mentioned by one hon. member and for that reason I am now coming back to it. We have the situation here that the two departments are looking at the whole question of water consumption in agriculture. How can we do these things? We can institute training courses together for officials to receive the right sort of guidance, an aspect referred to by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn.

What is indeed gratifying today is not that one will have to spend an additional R101 million. To tell the truth, we shall have to spend at a higher rate than that in the future. It is true what the hon. member for Mooi River said, that we shall have to spend more and more because the cost of living is rising and things are becoming more expensive. What is gratifying is that we have come to a stage where one can tell South Africa that one is satisfied, that one has made a start and that one has obtained the co-operation and the financial support and has excited the imagination of so many people by being able to say that one is moving towards that objective. Against the background of everything that has been said here today I want to say that this is the kind of thing one has found, namely that we have come to a point where we can be very grateful.

I now want to say something in regard to the future. One of the hon. members mentioned the fact that I am going to the United States of America one of these days. That will really be on invitation, but the point made by the hon. member in connection with pollution there and what is happening there, that can be investigated. I want to tell him at once that this is the kind of thing one likes to investigate. We know, too, that South Africa is ahead of many countries of the world in this respect. They woke up very late as far as this matter is concerned. To tell the truth, few countries began to solve these problems in time. It is a fact that we have much better control over effluents and related things today than any other country in the world. There is not a single factory which may release a single drop of effluent unless it has a permit. The C.S.I.R. and the Bureau of Standards have said that effluents must conform to certain standards. Samples are continually being drawn and examined. If the sample deviates from the standard that has been laid down, the tap of the factory is turned off. You must not think that taps are not turned off. They are indeed turned off. I wanted to say this for the information of all the hon. members who referred in general to shortages of this kind and to things which may happen in the future.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member said that the money we are spending is assuming such proportions and that its application is becoming so complicated. He thinks that we should have discussions on this next year. For this reason I do not want to make any comment now on what the hon. member said. We shall wait for the discussion he spoke about. Let me just tell the hon. member the way things always happen.

Sir, if one wants to excite people’s feelings, one should discuss with them the siting of a proposed dam in their vicinity. There are always two camps. The hon. member referred to a place called Miertjieskraal. He said that we should build a dam at Miertjieskraal, and he said that there were many people who were dissatisfied because they said that the water in that dam would become brackish. I want to tell the hon. member at once that we know that story only too well. The announcement in connection with the building of the dam was made even before I became Minister. It is not a very big dam. The dam has not been built yet because there are so many other priorities which have claimed our attention. Sir, it costs a great deal of money to remove a big camp to a small place and then to re-settle it elsewhere again. The removal and settlement costs alone represent such a large percentage of the expenditure that it was decided only to build this dam when it would fit into our strategic planning, and for this reason we decided that the building of the dam would have to stand over until now, otherwise we would probably have had to postpone other important works. But I want to assure the hon. member that we never build a dam without first measuring the run-off in co-operation with all the interested parties and ascertaining that the water is of a good quality.

I can tell the hon. member what the position is at Miertjieskraal. Above the proposed dam there are a number of farmers who want to expand. They tell the Minister that the land there is brackish, that the water in the dam will become brackish and that he should rather give the water to the farmers below the dam. The farmers down below, on the other hand, say that the farmers above have enough water and that the dam should be built for the farmers below. They come into conflict because there is not enough water for them all. The farmers above do not want the dam to be built, and the people below are quarrelling because the Minister has not had the dam built which was promised to them by the department.

There is a local dispute about the building of the dam. The department has decided to proceed with the building of the dam. The quality of the water is good. It is continually being analysed by the Department of Agriculture, which is keeping a watchful eye all the time, as well as the Department of Water Affairs, which knows what the quality of the water is. It is not true that the water in the dam will become brackish.

Sir, the hon. member also spoke of the escalation of costs. I do not want to go into this matter now, for I take it that we shall discuss this further when he introduces his motion.

Sir, I come now to the hon. member for Fauresmith. The hon. member congratulated the officials of the department on the pace at which they built the Verwoerd Dam. I appreciate the congratulations he expressed to the department’s officials. I think they deserve it.

The hon. member also came back to the challenge which the department accepted by deciding to build the P. K. le Roux Dam itself. It was not easy for the Government to take this decision at that time, because the Verwoerd Dam was built by a consortium of contractors. You will remember, Sir, that I was taken to task in this House at the time by hon. members who said that we could not risk building this dam; that it would be much more expensive if it was built by the department. Let us just take a close look at the figures once again. This announcement was made a few years ago. We said that the lowest tender we could consider was one for R56 million. There was one tender which was a little lower, but there were so many conditions attached to that that the Government was unable to accept it. In any case, the lowest tender we could accept was R56 million. This tender document included a whole series of escalation clauses. At that stage we decided, with the approval of the Cabinet, that the department would build the dam, and I told this House that we would build the dam for R45 million, unless something exceptional happened. Sir, 68% of the concrete work has already been completed. We are watching the position very closely, and I want to stick my neck out by predicting here that we shall build the dam for R45 million plus a reasonable additional amount arising from the increased cost of material. If we take into account the depreciation of money over the past few years and the increase in the cost of material, then I want to tell you that I cannot believe that the tenderer who tendered R56 million would have been able to build the dam for less than R65 million or R70 million, if not more. In spite of the fact that we were twice held up for weeks on end by flood disasters and that there were wash aways and we had to start cleaning up again from scratch, and in spite of the increase in the price of materials such as cement, steel, etc., in some cases by 15% to 30%, I want to stick my neck out by predicting that the dam will cost us less than the lowest tender price we were able to accept at the time. Sir, this is a prestige project for us. It is not easy to say this, but with 68% of the concrete already cast, my people are satisfied that we shall be able to deliver the dam at less than R56 million. We shall report to you what the amount has been, but the increase will be a reasonable built-in and extraordinary cost increase on which we agreed with one another across the floor of the House.

The hon. member for Prieska has informed me of his absence. I just want to tell this hon. member, in connection with the planning committees he spoke of, that I have taken cognizance of the fact that the committees are working very well. He also asked what was going to become of this report. You know, there is a committee which I appointed a few years ago, and he asked whether the report would be tabled. No, this is a departmental committee and its report is only used by the department and we do not intend to make it available outside. The hon. member asked me about the developments at Prieska. It has always been the idea to develop that part of the Orange River. The hon. member also asked what the rate of withdrawal was. Sir, as far as the rate of withdrawal is concerned, I just want to say that this will be determined fairly soon, but it is also bound up with the allocation of the land. The departmental committee concerned, which has to make the calculations, cannot tell years in advance what the rate of withdrawal will be, because this is bound up with the area size, and area size is bound up with water costs and other things. In other words, only when we are drawing closer to the delivery date of the dam shall we be able to say approximately what the cost will be and consequently what the rate of withdrawal will be. But the hon. member need not be afraid; we shall do so in time.

†The hon. member for East London North asked me in connection with the Laing Dam, and he asked whether there was any possibility of trouble being experienced with the Laing Dam in future. I might tell the hon. member that it might be that we could encounter a flood much bigger than the one which already created problems for us and on account of that we have to know what the strength of the dam wall is. Apart from that, the hon. member will also know that when we took over this dam we indicated that we would have to lift the wall. This dam was not built by the Department of Water Affairs, but by the municipality. If we have to increase the capacity, naturally the foundations will have to be strengthened, and that is why we are at the moment investigating the possibility of strengthening the wall.

*The hon. member for Meyerton referred to the possibility of producing protein food in the form of fresh-water fish. It is true what the hon. member said and his calculations are theoretically correct. This is the kind of development which is taking place in the rest of the world in fresh-water dams. But there are two things we have to look at. The first is that we cannot build small dams for people to keep fish in on the farms, as many people want us to do. The loss of water through evaporation is too great. But what we can and shall do, and what every farmer should do, is to see how many fish he can breed in his existing storage dam. But that is not what the hon. member meant. The hon. member meant that the big dams, such as the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the Vaal Dam, are the places where we should breed fish and develop this into an industry. I consider this matter to be so important that I instructed the Water Research Committee a few years ago to undertake the necessary research, in co-operation with all the bodies concerned, to see whether we cannot get those thousands of tons of protein in the form of fish from our freshwater resources. It is important, of course, that the correct species of fish be bred and placed in these dams, for our indigenous fish species may not be able to yield such a high production. In order to ascertain which species should be bred, investigations will of course have to be conducted in other parts of the world as well. There is the question of sediment in the water itself, of course, as well as the water temperatures. So there are many factors which have to be investigated before we can start breeding fish. I should like to assure the hon. member, therefore, that the necessary research is being conducted. It is the task of the Water Research Commission to give us the answers we require within the foreseeable future, for the very purpose advocated by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the research presently being conducted on the Cape Flats under the guidance of the Water Research Commission with a view to developing a potentially enormous underground dam. We already know that the dam there contains enough fresh water at the moment to provide the whole Cape Peninsula for a period of four years. Therefore it is much bigger than the two smaller dams mentioned by the hon. member together. The research is concerned with the withdrawal and supplementing of water from that underground dam and with the question of the run-off, not only the run-off into the rivers of the Cape Peninsula, but also the run-off of sewerage works. We are in fact trying to find methods at the moment for reclaiming and recycling sewage water. The purity of the water before it can be recycled is of great importance in this regard. Furthermore the idea is that it will be possible to store here a part of the total run-off from the Eerste River, as well as that from the Diep River. If this can be done, we shall be able to create an underground dam which we can use as a safeguard. The hon. member asked what kind of action would take place if the sea water were to penetrate into this dam. It is a very interesting action, but the scientists will be able to tell the hon. member more about this, of course. Basically such a dam may be compared with a balloon, because when it is full, it pushes the sea water out of the area. As fresh water is withdrawn, sea water will pour in, of course, but there will not be too much mixing between the fresh water and the sea water. We find the same phenomenon when the waters of two rivers meet in time of flood. When the water of the Hartebeest River flows into that of the Sak River, the waters of the two rivers do not mix at once. The water of the one river is whitish because it comes from areas in which the soil contains lime, while the water of the other river is brownish, and over a distance of up to 50 miles, the whitish water and the brownish water remain separate, for the simple reason that the two types of water do not have the same density. The same happens in this subterranean dam, so we shall not have any problems with this. A fresh water barrier or wall arises between the fresh water in the underground dam and the sea water pouring in, and consequently the sea water will not mix with the fresh water. I do not want to take up too much time of the House with an explanation of this, but I just want to point out that this holds no danger for the future.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove inquired about the Pongola Dam. He wanted to know whether we had already reached agreement with Swaziland in regard to the use of the dam and the flooding of a portion of the land which extends into Swaziland. I can assure the hon. member that agreement was indeed reached and that we do not experience any problems as far as that is concerned.

The hon. member also referred to the Etosha National Park and asked whether we will try to prevent a subdivision of the park, creating an eastern and western part, and bringing in its wake an interference with the ecology of the park. I should like to inform the hon. member that the Cabinet has not yet made a decision in so far as the plan is concerned on which we are supposed to work. In any case it is not the intention to construct a canal which will interfere with the ecology of the Etosha Pan. The whole situation will be thoroughly investigated before any decision is arrived at.

*The hon. member also asked what was being done in respect of the water shortages in the homelands, whether we were working in that direction.

†The hon. member mentioned the Gazankulu homeland, an area which I know very well. I may tell him that a dam has just been completed by the Department of Bantu Affairs and that this dam is very near the capital of Gazankulu. The hon. member also mentioned the areas Ga Rankuwa and Mabopane, both of which are situated in the area north of Pretoria. Of course, these areas are in the supply area of the Rand Water Board. Water is being supplied at the moment and if any extension of this scheme should be advisable in the future, the Rand Water Board will see to it it is done timeously. I do not think the hon. gentleman should have any problems about the future supply of water to the area next to Pretoria. In any case we have abundant water for the foreseeable and for the far-off future. I think there will be ample water to supply the needs of the area of Ga Rankuwa.

*The hon. member for Oudtshoorn advocated that the agricultural sector be informed of the water extension service. I have already replied to him in part as far as that is concerned. The hon. member also said that we should look at the socio-economic problems of the Little Karoo and that we should never forget these. The hon. member need not be afraid— we shall never forget them.

The hon. member for De Aar asked whether the water which is going to flow through the Orange-Fish River tunnel is going to flow through the tunnel at full strength before it is opened. I want to tell the hon. member that the water is not going to be allowed through at full strength, because work is still being done on the tunnel and tests are being conducted. There are flood-gates which have to be tested and there is also certain apparatus which has to be tested. In addition, the tunnel has to be cleaned and a good deal of painting still has to be done. Concrete tests or pressure tests have to be conducted in the tunnel itself, but these tests will not be so much concerned with flow. I want to tell the hon. member that the water will be allowed to flow through the tunnel at full strength when it is opened, but subsequently it will be regulated according to need.

The hon. member, also asked questions in connection with the water purification works and the laying on of water from the P. K. le Roux Dam to the small town of Petrusville. Here we have a very interesting phenomenon in South Africa, namely that we always want water from the distant big dams, even though this water is expensive. Sometimes the smaller supply of water which is situated close by and which may be sufficient is cheaper as a result of the fact that it is situated much closer by. It is going to be cheaper today to utilize the available water rather than to lay it on over a distance of many miles by means of pipes. I can assure the hon. member that if that town shows any signs of growth, the P. K. le Roux Dam will be more than big enough to supply all the water that Petrusville could ever need.

The hon. member for Benoni referred to pollution and also mentioned quite a number of matters in which the Water Research Commission is involved. He mentioned, amongst other things, the problem of water pollution, a problem that has assumed enormous proportions in South Africa, a problem we are thoroughly aware of. We must remember, though, that South Africa has only become an industrial country in recent years. Brand-new industries are still being erected every day. The hon. member will know, too, that mankind’s scientific knowledge is increasing all over the world. Every year, an average number of 400 new chemical compounds come into being all over the world. This is what research is giving the world. Every time there is a new compound, the scientists have to see how poisonous its effluents are when they come into contact with water and the water flows into a river. This is precisely our problem. South Africa is growing rapidly, and hon. members know what an industrialist is like. He does not wait for the Minister of Water Affairs. He starts building first and the Minister may only come to know of it when his factory has been three-quarters completed. Because we do not want to hold up the development of South Africa, we are working as fast as possible in the field of research. But to prevent the erection of the thousands of factories along the many streams, one has to be on one’s guard if things are not to go wrong. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the big rivers of Europe and America have already been polluted. They can no longer prevent it; they now have to find a way of cleaning the water. At any rate that is what we are trying to do. I want to tell the hon. member that whatever one can do in a small country with few scientists to watch every factory which may pour dangerous effluents into our rivers is already being done every day in South Africa. That assurance I want to give you. However, I do not doubt that we shall encounter many problems in the future.

The hon. member referred to wool-washing. Wool-washing causes water to be polluted by fat. This problem is being experienced in Port Elizabeth, because the wool-washeries pour the fat into the sea. Consequently we have to find a way of removing the oil from the water so that it will not find its way to the sea. But we shall overcome that problem as well. I also want to refer to our metal industry, which is constantly using new alloys. We said a few years ago that we would have to create new alloys. These things are expensive and we need them here. However, they are creating tremendous problems for us. Some of these alloys have the most poisonous effluents. For this reason we have to keep abreast of almost every new development and to watch everything in order to prevent pollution. Our problem, therefore, is how, in a small country, we can keep abreast of industrial development which may involve a serious threat to our water resources. This is what we are trying to do. Nevertheless, we may pay tribute here today to the work which is being done by these men who, in the short period of four years since the act was placed on the Statute Book, have tackled this problem so resolutely that even abroad people are taking notice of what we are trying to do in order to prevent the dangerous effluents in South Africa in time.

I just want to refer briefly to what the Secretary for Water Affairs told me the other day. Every now and then new things appear. At the moment we are faced with the question of algae and the eutrification of our dams, as a result of which many fish die. Effluents of nitrogen and phosphates result in tremendous algae explosions in warm weather. We are even thinking of replacing the harmful algae with edible algae and initiating a natural process according to which small fish and big fish eat the algae, to see whether something which is a problem today cannot be converted into a source of food. In other words, we shall try to convert algae into protein. Research of this kind costs money, but nevertheless all these things are being considered. We shall not have all the answers in your time and mine, but I think we shall be able to say to each other that we did initiate the process in our time, so that our children will have the benefit of it.

Mr. Chairman, it is actually very difficult for me to take part in this debate just after the hon. the Minister has spoken. However, I take pleasure in thanking the hon. the Minister right at the outset for the announcement concerning the beautiful Sterkspruit Dam which is to be built on the Crocodile River in my constituency. Everyone in this House who has some knowledge of South Africa knows that the Barberton constituency is the most attractive constituency in the country. This new dam, apart from its economic value to the southern part of the Lowveld, will also enhance the beauty of the area and create fantastic recreational possibilities. In this connection, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, Mr. Raubenheimer, asked me to convey his thanks to the Minister on behalf of his constituency, the constituency of Nelspruit. In passing, I must just mention the fantastic service rendered in this regard by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development in his days as Member of Parliament, service he rendered on behalf of the part of the constituency of Barberton which I inherited from him as well as the zeal with which he did so. But, as is usual in these matters, we have had a minor dispute in that constituency, of which the hon. the Minister is aware. Some of the people in Barberton asked me to tell the hon. the Minister that they would be even more satisfied if he were to announce soon that his department had taken the final decision to build the Mountain view Dam as well.

During the summer which has passed, a small civil war almost broke out in my constituency between the tobacco farmers and the cattle farmers. The problem is that our tobacco farmers are particularly vulnerable to hail and that caused the whole issue of weather modification to be raised. A permit was given to a certain firm—the name does not matter—which carried out cloud spraying or cloud sprinkling operations on a contract basis for the Lowveld Tobacco Corporation at Nelspruit, so as to prevent hail. It so happened that the cattle farmers of the Lowveld then suffered a terrible drought, while we had an abundance of rain on the Highveld. The cattle farmers are of the opinion that the hail prevention action is directly linked to the poor rainfall which they had in the previous year. I find myself in a somewhat awkward position, because I have voters who are tobacco farmers and I have voters who are cattle farmers. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the dispute which exists there. The question of weather modification, however, is a tremendously interesting scientific subject. I am informed that research in this connection is being done on a large scale in America and Russia but that a great deal of research has not yet been done in our country. Some farmers allege that where success has been achieved with hail prevention, this has led directly to the disintegration and eventual disappearance of thunderclouds and their being robbed of their rain. Whether that is the case, I cannot say; it can only be established by means of scientific investigation. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, seeing that serious representations have been received in this connection, to utilize all the scientific assistance we can acquire in this connection in order to gain finality in this matter. The question of weather modification is a tremendously wide subject and embraces not only the question of hail prevention, but also the stimulation of clouds to cause greater downpours. According to my information only about 5% of the moisture in the air over South Africa reaches the surface. The other 95% which is normally present in the air, does not fall to the earth in the form of rain. That means that by causing a small additional percentage of the moisture in the atmosphere to fall to earth by artificial intervention on the part of man, a tremendous increase in the water supply of our country as a whole can be effected. I am informed that the present state of development does not have many possibilities for those areas of our country with a low rainfall, and that the real potential as far as the stimulation of rainfall is concerned, is in the high rainfall areas of our country since moisture is present to such a large extent in those areas. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee any longer, and therefore, want to conclude by saying that it is necessary for us, in order to satisfy both groups, to obtain scientific finality about this process as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. the Minister did a very good thing last year when he introduced the Water Research Bill which established the Water Research Commission, the report of which we have before us. This is a most interesting and informative report and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the commission on the production of this report. As was stated by my hon. colleague from Benoni, it covers a very wide field. There are 26 projects which are being researched at the moment including, I notice, certain projects in Natal for which we are very grateful. I also want to congratulate the department on the production of the journal Water South Africa because this meets a very long felt need. However, I feel that this journal refers to certain matters about which one would like some information in regard to the White Papers that have been submitted to us. The hon. member for Mooi River referred to these White Papers and also to certain questions which come to mind when we peruse them. I have no time to calculate from these papers how many of these projects fall into Opposition areas. I do not for one moment think—I hope it is not construed that way—that priorities in respect of these schemes are determined by political bias. If I am wrong I am sure that the hon. the Minister will correct me. However, I do not think that politics count. Joking aside, when one reads through these reports certain questions do come to mind. As an ordinary layman who has to answer certain questions put to him by constituents regarding irrigation matters and in regard to which those people feel there is a particular need for irrigation schemes, I wonder how one should tackle these questions. There are just one or two points I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. I do not suggest that the hon. the Minister must answer my questions. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the Josini scheme. One hears all sorts of rumours and tales about this scheme. One hears tales which emanate from farming groups relating to the pollution of dams and questions in relation to what is to happen to dams which are on the boundaries of the homelands and of White areas, who will have control of the water in those dams, who will have the task of combating pollution and in regard to various priorities in regard to these schemes. All these questions are put to one when one returns to one’s constituency. People ask: Why cannot we have a dam in our area? What is holding them up? We need a dam just as much as anybody else. I have read one or two of these White Papers. I am no expert; I am just a layman, but I have come across a question which the hon. the Minister touched on himself a few moments ago. I refer here to the question raised by the hon. member for East London North in regard to the Nahoon scheme. What worried me when I read through the report in regard to the Nahoon scheme was the high cost of the pipelines which are being installed to convey effluent to the sea. I see that an amount of approximately R1 million has already been spent on this pipeline up to the present. I also notice that there is a proposal to link a pipeline from the new industrial area to this particular pipeline in order to convey the effluent of that particular industrial area to the sea as well. The thought that occurs to me is this: What will happen if all the effluent from the Durban industrial area has to be discharged into the sea? What will happen to every other large coastal city if this is done? I cannot see why the effluent from the new industrial area should be discharged into the sea. The hon. the Minister said he was not going to license any new industry to discharge effluent unless that effluent passed certain tests and conformed to certain standards. Why has it been necessary to build this very expensive link with the existing pipeline in order to discharge this effluent into the sea? It seems to me to be taking the easy way out of a problem. Another thing that worries me about this, is the Cyril Lord plant which is apparently discharging an effluent which cannot be cleaned or refined, because it contains mineral elements which pollute the effluent to such an extent that it is impossible to purify it. That is what I make out from this report. If this is so, bearing in mind the terrific cost of this pipeline, I would like to know whether this is the correct answer to this sort of problem. Surely, this firm should not be allowed to continue discharging polluted effluent into the sea. They should make provision, at the cost of R1 million or R2 million—they have got plenty to play with—to try to investigate methods of purifying their own effluent or recycling the water which they are using in this plant. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why it is considered necessary that these people should get away with it, and why they are not being made to purify their own water. The question also arises—and there has been reference to it before—what is the effect of this pollutant on the sea life? According to this White Paper, it says that the effluent is being discharged out into the deep water and not just off the coast, so that it will not pollute the coastal area. I accept that it is being discharged into a current which is a long way out and that it is not affecting the coastline, but will it have any effect on the sea life, because it is such a poisonous pollutant? We hear and read that in Japan, where effluent was discharged many miles away from the coast, it was affecting the sea life. Mercury poisoning through the fish in turn eventually started poisoning the population.

Reading the White Paper on the Chelmsford Dam, one comes across the same question. The Chelmsford Dam is now being enlarged, which is a good thing —and I am not disputing it—to help in supplying the needs of the new Iscor. Iscor is going to use a terrific amount of water. It says so in this report, and one wonders whether Iscor is making provision for recycling all this water which they are going to use, or are they also simply to discharge their effluent? I have noticed that in steel plants in Canada and America they are forced to recycle all the water and effluent coming out of the plant. They have to purify and re-use it. Is the same thing to be done by Iscor? If this were done, would their need and demand still be as high as it is envisaged in this White Paper?

As regards the Brand River scheme I see for instance—it is only a question and it may have a very simple answer, but I am a very simple bloke so the hon. the Minister must forgive me—that we are spending R1 300 000 to benefit 11 riparian owners. This seems a lot of money to spend on 11 people. It also says that the accommodation for housing the workmen is going to cost R200 000, which is nearly R¼ million. It also sounds a bit high. The thing that frightens me most, is that the cost of water to the users in the end is going to be plus-minus R60 per ha per year. This is surely very high. Will these people be able to afford it? I was wondering whether this is a project which is really worth continuing for the benefit of 11 people. In the case of the Duivenhoks Rural Water Supply Scheme, we get the same thing. I have my reservations about the priority of this scheme. In my area we are told that we cannot have a dam— I am talking about the South Coast— because it is a high rainfall area. I know that Mr. Mitchell, my predecessor, always argued this and got that reply. I see that in this particular catchment area, the report says that the rainfall is 800 mm a year and over the whole area which is going to benefit by this irrigation, the mean rainfall is 500 mm a year. This sounds very good; it is a high rainfall. The South Coast, where I come from and where the rainfall is supposed to be so good, does not have such a high rainfall. One wonders if this is indeed such a high priority as to justify an expenditure of R7 million. The report goes on to say that the present supplies are adequate to provide for the future. I do not know if I read this correctly, but this is the way I see it. The report refers to the primary, secondary and tertiary advantages on page 12, but does not say what the secondary and tertiary advantages are. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could explain that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast expressed a great deal of concern, but now, just before supper, we want to wish him a peaceful supper, because we can give him the assurance that the hon. the Minister will set his mind at ease later in the evening.

The floods of the Vaal River already belong to history. However, the marks, the destruction caused by the water has not yet been eliminated. In this connection, I should like to express a few ideas with reference to criticism which has been levelled at the Department of Water Affairs, to the effect that the bad control over the contents of the Vaal Dam had supposedly been a cause of the damage on both banks of the river. Before I come to this view, we should first look at the real object in building dams in the Vaal River’s catchment area. The first, the primary object in building dams along the Vaal River is to provide water to the largest population concentration in our country and to the region where half of our industrial production takes place. The future development of the Eastern Transvaal highveld, therefore of Sasol 2 as well, is dependent on the provision of water from the Vaal Dam. The second object in building dams along the Vaal River, is the safety of these dams. Nothing may be done to endanger the safety of a dam. We cannot realize what the loss, damage or consequences would be if the Vaal Dam’s wall were to break. The primary task is, therefore, to provide water; in other words, the dams must be kept full, and then, in addition to that, there is the safety of the walls. In line with these two objects, dams can be used to control floods to such an extent that the primary aim is not neglected. This can be done, but in certain natural circumstances, which are beyond man’s ability to control, it can be very difficult to control. I can point out briefly here what happened earlier this year, in February, at the flood of the Vaal River. On 15 February, the flood strength at the gauging station at Standerton was 1 500 cumec. Three days later, on Tuesday, 18 February, the strength of the flow at the inflow of the Vaal Dam was 3 818 cumec—2½ times as strong in volume as it had been at Standerton. At that time, the discharge from the Vaal Dam was 3 664 cumec, i.e. a little lower than the inflow. It was thereby ensured that the dam would remain full, because the department could not foresee whether we were perhaps facing another drought. In the 20 years since the wall of the Vaal Dam was raised, that dam has only been full six times. This flood, at this rate and speed, could not be foreseen, regardless of the warning points in the catchment area—there are warning points in three main branch rivers: the Vaal River, the Wilge River and the Klip River. Regardless of the problems which arose as a result of the short duration of the flow of the water, we must congratulate the Department of Water Affairs, in co-operation with the Weather Bureau, for nevertheless being able to control this flood in such a way that the minimum damage was caused.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Sir, I want to conclude my short speech with two thoughts. In the first place, on behalf of this House, I want to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for clause 25 of the Water Amendment Bill, which establishes certain limitations in future in town planning or town development, in respect of the layout of towns within the high water mark of rivers. I think that it will offer our people a great extent of assurance and that it will, to a large extent, prevent problems which are being experienced at the moment. Those areas, which will be accessible for our people, could be converted into parks or other areas of traffic which could be more easily evacuated in the case of floods. We thank the hon. the Minister for this provision. In the second place, we want to request that the State and other relevant bodies give thorough consideration to the matter in future, by means of planning, before bridges are built over rivers in urban areas or near urban areas, where such bridges can obstruct the normal flow of water in the river, which could cause flooding of such urban areas. In the recent floods at Standerton, we found that there is a possibility that one of the old bridges which stood there could have aggravated the damming up, thus disturbing the flow and causing more serious floods in the business sector of the town.

Sir, I think that my constituency owes the hon. the Minister a large debt of gratitude for the water schemes which are being developed in that part of the Boland. We look forward to a condition in the next few years which will bring about a radical change in the agricultural activities of that area. Sir, there are problems with which we are struggling there, but we have the assurance that the Secretary of the Department of Water Affairs will soon accompany me on a visit to that area to see what can be done. But, Sir, tonight I should like to refer to the problem which we have with the mineralization of the land along the Breë River as a result of the extremely poor quality of the water in that river. As we are now going to develop a major scheme there and as the department is planning and routing the new channels, I want to ask whether the irrigation farmers’ water cannot be taken completely from that river, in other words, that the Breë River becomes a seepage drain. I want to tell you, Sir, that we have a tremendous mineralization problem in the areas alongside the river between the towns of Robertson and Bonnievale, where there are thousands of morgens of our best agricultural land. There is plenty of water, but the quality of that water is poor. Especially in the winter, when much rain has fallen, we find that the seepage from the upper reaches is very strong and that those farmers become worried in the summer months. I can show you vineyards there, which are seven or eight years old, which the farmers have to chop out. That is surely not an economic project. Therefore, I should like to know whether the department cannot consider developing the Breë River as a seepage drain. Then water for irrigation can be taken from the river, in the larger channels which are in any case, planned for that area.

Much has been said today about the scientific facet of the department, its research work. You will allow me. Sir, to say just a single word about that. I want to say this with reference to a television programme which was presented recently in West Germany. This television programme was entitled “Something left to salvage”. I am speaking now of West Germany, where a quantity of 200 000 million cubic metres of water is available each year. The people there have been told that scientific research has shown that if they still want to have fresh water in 20 years’ time in that country, it will have to be rationed soon. According to the German Tribune of January of this year, a scientist writes as follows. He says—

Sir, I want to apply this to South Africa in a moment. He says—

This is said of a country which has a water supply of 200 000 million cubic metres per year. Sir. South Africa is a much drier country. South Africa has an endless struggle for water. It is calculated that in the next 30 years, this department will have to spend almost R8 000 million for water conservation, water utilization and water purification. Now I want to ask why does there have to be this tremendous expenditure in the next three decades or more? It is because—and we know this— our country has great development potential. We know that the population growth in this country is tremendously high. I want to allege that South Africa’s future economic growth and its strength will depend on what is achieved in the years which lie ahead in respect of these projects which I have just mentioned. To me it is source of concern to learn that the gap between available supply and the estimated water requirements in our country is an ever-widening one. If the gap is not widening, then it is nevertheless upsetting to know that there is a tremendously large gap. I do not want to contemplate the dawning of the day when we in South Africa will also have to sell water by the bottle so that one can at least get good water. [Interjections.] Sir, someone here next to me remarks that we shall then drink good wine. Of course, I am completely in favour of that, but then we shall have to have good water in the Breè River and our channels so that we can keep those vines alive to produce the good wine. My information is that our water requirements double every 12 years. Now we can paint a very dark picture of the supplies in the years which lie ahead, but then we would be over-pessimistic; then we would be disloyal and we would have no faith in our Minister and his department and in the Water Research Commission.

Sir, one is overawed by the massive project programme of this department. This has been discussed this afternoon, and I leave it at that, but I want to mention one thing. I was very glad to read in the report, inter alia, of a study group which is dealing with water purification and reclamation and also a study group on irrigation water. In talking about the use of irrigation water, I think I can say that under the guidance of this department, the farmers in the Boland have become tremendously aware of the necessity of water conservation. I want to say that the Boland farmers, whom I know—I cannot speak on behalf of other farmers in the country —have incurred and are incurring tremendously high expenditure in order to employ correct irrigation methods, in the first place, and to save water, in the second place. It is true that agriculture gets 80% of all stored water today.

Order! Hon. members must not converse aloud.

Soon this 80% will perhaps drop to between 40% and 44%. Therefore, I want to break a lance for the farmers of the Boland tonight, specifically for the fruit and wine farmers who save water by means of correct and sound irrigation methods, who use water sensibly and also, from an agricultural point of view, in such a way that it does not cause the soil to become compact or impoverished. However, these projects are very expensive. It costs a wine farmer approximately R1 400 per ha to install the drip system in his vineyards. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be able to tell us sometime or other whether the department has reached a point where it may possibly subsidize the drip systems for the farmers. I do not want to take up the time of this House by elaborating on the establishment costs of vineyards, but an additional R1 400 per ha, for nothing more than effective irrigation, is very expensive. I feel completely at liberty to say that in the parts from which I hail, there are many farmers who have applied the drip system with the greatest of success. The results prove that this system has achieved tremendously great success in that part of the Boland and therefore I advocate tonight that attempts be made to help the farmers by paying a subsidy to them.

I want to raise a second point. We are continually told that we should save water. Serious appeals are made to the farmers to be more judicious in their operations. I think the farmer who is still wasting water today must be addressed in very strong terms. But in our cities, there are hundreds of thousands of people and I am worried about many of them accepting the availability of water purely as a matter of course. There are people who never think where the water comes from. They do not ask what expenditure is incurred in making water available to them. I have nothing against a lawn or a garden, but I think that the time has arrived for the people in the cities to make some contribution to the saving of our water as well.

I also want to break a lance for many of our industries. In an article I read about the methods which industrialists use to save water, I read about a certain paper mill which reduced its water consumption to 50 cubic metres of water per ton of paper, whereas it used to be between 70 and 75 cubic metres.

Tell us where that mill is situated.

It does not matter where the mill is situated, nor whether it is in the Cape Province or in Natal. Nor does it matter to me whether a United Party supporter is the owner of the mill. [Interjections,] The point is that those people are acting positively and they are reacting to the appeal that we should save water.

There is also a second example. Perhaps it is also in Natal; I do not know. It might be in the Transvaal. A certain steel factory reduced its water consumption per ton of ingot steel from 9,3 cubic metres in 1972 to 5,9 cubic metres, while another reduced its water consumption from 12,5 to 5,3 cubic metres per ton of ingot steel. I want to point out to the hon. member for Durban Central that to react to the appeal to save water is also a form of patriotism and that positive contributions are being made. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one always has some difficulty in entering such a debate after the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs has addressed the Committee in reply to some of the speakers. We all know that the hon. the Minister has the name of “Fanie Water” and when he replies to a debate, his words about water flow like water.

I believe that at this stage of the debate one should go into the history of water and its availability in South Africa. I believe this is a very important history because it shows how the industrial development of South Africa has taken place. I have before me a very interesting paper entitled “Wafer resources of the Cape Midland Region” drawn up by Mr. T. C. Minnie of the Hydrological Research Division of the Department of Water Affairs. There are very interesting figures in relation to the water which is stored in the larger schemes in South Africa, in other words the dams which cover above 100 morgen feet. When we became a Union in 1910 the total capacity of the larger dams was 46 531 morgen feet. By 1935 it was 502 653 morgen feet. Then, from 1939 to 1945 we had the war years and by 1945, in other words when industrialization began in South Africa, it was approximately 1 161 000 morgen feet. Just by the way, it is interesting to note that today is the 30th anniversary of the signing of the peace in Europe after the Second World War. [Interjections.]

To return to the water position, we had a static period which lasted up to about 1956 when we did not have a great increase in the capacity of the larger dams. As we entered the sixties and the seventies the industrial capacity of South Africa and the population grew very fast and at the same time we had to supply more water. In comparison with the 46 500 morgen feet in 1910 we now have a capacity of 6½ million morgen feet. It is envisaged that it will be over 7½ million morgen feet by next year. I believe that this is most interesting, but now I want to refer to the same figures for my own region, viz. the Eastern Cape. In the course of the time available to me I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to endeavour to increase the water supply in the area which is situated between the Sundays River—which will be getting water from the Orange River project—and the Great Fish River—which will also be getting water from the Orange River project—where we have a small vacuum and where a regional planning system is exceptionally necessary. No figures are available for the period after 1971. Whereas the capacity of the dams in South Africa is 6 300 000 morgen feet the capacity of the midlands area of the Cape is only 839 000 morgen feet. We believe that this should be looked at.

I want to come back to the availability of the water from the Orange River scheme. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister because there is a certain amount of apprehension in the Sundays River Valley as to what is going to happen when the water from the Orange River— for which the tunnels and canals are almost completed—arrives. We should appreciate it if the irrigation farmers in the Sundays River Valley were told in good time what exactly is going to happen there. Certain land in that area is not scheduled for water under the Lake Mentz scheme but which could become scheduled under the new scheme. At the present time the water is laid on by a furrow to the border of a farmer’s property and he has to distribute it over his own land. This is the normal practice in this type of irrigation scheme. If there is to be more scheduled land under the new scheme when more water from the Orange River will become available, the farmers would like to know at an early date which land will be scheduled so that they can start levelling and making their preparations for it. If a person gets this knowledge too late he falls into the hands of a few contractors, the price goes up and there is a long waiting list.

This happened in that valley when Esco power was supplied. There was a limited number of contractors and delays were caused because of the fact that the farmers could not get their wiring done properly as laid down by Escom. We shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could produce a White Paper well in advance of the time when the water from the Orange River will become available, to let the farmers from the Sundays River Valley know exactly what new land will be scheduled, how the water is going to become available and at what price the water will be supplied. If this is done it will assist them to plan economically and in good time for the future. I believe that this is an essential matter to those farmers and I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will comply. I appeal to him to consider these farmers because this is a very viable part of the interland of the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complex which we sincerely hope will grow industrially and which will need the products of that valley in future.

I want to come back to my own area, viz. the area stretching from Grahamstown through Port Alfred to East London. It is a strange thing that, though this is a high rainfall area which has many rivers, the catchment areas of those rivers are small, as statistics show. I want to say that there is an unusual feature to these catchment areas if one compares them with the average situation in South Africa. I refer to the fact that we do not have a 50-year flood there but a 10-year flood. Perhaps one should consider building reserve dams in these rivers to catch that 10-year flood so that places like Grahamstown can benefit from it. Grahamstown can get water from the Fish River. By way of correspondence and previous debates the possibility of transferring the Nuwejaarsdam to Grahamstown has been discussed. This dam belongs to the Department of Transport. I know that there is a pump factor of 750 ft. and that the distance from the dam to Grahamstown is approximately 24 miles.

The same factor applies between the Fish River and Grahamstown which is a distance of 19 miles. Then there are the coastal resorts. There is Pont Alfred; the Fish River has a small settlement; there are two municipalities at the Bushman’s River and Ken-ton-on-Sea. At the moment the Bushman’s River relies on a very good water scheme; they sink well rings into the sandhills and pump the water out. In this connection we have a difficulty.

The Department of Forestry, which is also this Minister’s department, is doing a wonderful job reclaiming these sandhills but I am just wondering whether this water scheme will last when the sandhills are revegetated because at the moment the water seeps through the sandhills and is stored on the bokkeveld sandstone under the sand. This is very similar to the situation at Walvis Bay There is no actual water scheme which has any permanence. There are property developers all along the coast and they are trying to sell their water to the department. I do not want to go into details as to what is happening at Kenton-on-Sea, because I have entered into correspondence with the department on this matter. There is a crying need for a regional water scheme there. I come back, as I always do, to the Bushman’s River. According to Mr. Minnie’s statistics the Bushman’s River has a very small regular flow but we have the factor of a 10-year flood. The Kariega River next door to it also has the factor of a 10-year flood. I have no statistics on the flow of the Kariega River whatsoever, but on both of these rivers there are ideal dam sites which could serve a new riviera for Southern Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany will excuse me if I do not react to what he has just said, because I want to deal with a different matter. From the outset the White settlement at the Cape was influenced by the natural supply of fresh water that was available. Even to the earliest settlers it was clear that irrigation during the summer months would be indispensable for agricultural production. As early as 17 December 1661, Jan van Riebeeck felt obliged to issue a placaat forbidding the use of water for irrigation purposes at the cost of the company’s mill and other activities. There we have the first legislation in South Africa regulating rights and claims in regard to the use of water. Since then efforts have been made from time to time to settle contradictory claims as to the use of water by way of legislation, until the present Water Act No 54 of 1956 placed the use of water for irrigation, industry and urban development on an equal footing, according to the various requirements of each.

This Act also invests the State with extensive powers and authority to dispose of previously unutilized water. As far as adjudication is concerned, provision was made that every dispute about water should fall within the jurisdiction of a water court to be presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court. Water courts, which have to decide on matters of fundamental importance both to communities and individuals, have been elevated to the status of higher courts, with a right of appeal direct to the Appeal Court. But in practice, water court cases have shown themselves to be extremely lengthy and costly, with the result that it is hardly advisable to take a dispute to a water court unless the rights or claims in dispute are extensive and valuable enough to justify doing so. However, section 170(1) of the Water Act provides, inter alia, the following—

1. (a) constructs, alters enlarges or obstructs a water work, or destroys, defaces or moves any level mark, beacon or other structure or appliance erected or made in connection with any such work;
2. (b) interferes with, or alters the flow of the water contained in or flowing in or from a water work, or interferes with, or alters the flow of the water of a public stream, or interferes with the distribution of any such water, or takes water in excess of the quantity he is entitled to take or at a time when he is not entitled to do so … shall be guilty of an offence and liable …

Compliance with the provisions of the Water Act and specific apportionments of water could therefore also be enforced in criminal law in terms of section 170. In his commentary on this section of the Water Act, the retired judge Mr. C. J. Hall, the well-known authority on water laws in South Africa, has the following to say—

However, probably on account of this, it has become the practice, particularly in our magistrates’ courts, that criminal hearings of accused persons standing trial on a charge of contravening section 170 of the Water Act have wrongly developed into civil cases on water rights. This was the practice until first Mr. Justice Bloch, and subsequently the Judge-President, Mr. Justice A. B. Beyers of the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, put a stop to it. In the case of Moelich vs. the State, Mr. Justice Bloch expressed himself as follows in regard to this custom—

This opinion was endorsed in 1961 by the Judge-President, Mr. Justice Beyers, in the case of Rex vs. Vosloo and Another in the following words (translation)—

The decisions in the two cases mentioned were followed in 1970 by Mr. Justice Van Zyl and Mr. Justice Steyn. I quote (translation)—

The effect of these verdicts has been that in practice little remains of Mr. Justice Hall’s Summary Prosecution and that parties rely for the most part on the ‘“more cumbersome and expensive procedure which a civil action involves.” When an accused stands trial on a charge of contravening section 170, he need only show a reasonable uncertainty in regard to the water rights concerned and rely on the three verdicts mentioned. In this way the provisions of section 170 are largely nullified or eliminated. However, it is entirely unrealistic to expect the parties to have recourse to the water courts to settle all their disputes about water rights. Not only is the time and expense involved not always justified, but water courts would scarcely be able to deal with all these disputes.

In these circumstances, I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister might do well to consider providing for an alternative procedure for the settlement of disputes about water rights of minor extent and value in order to ensure strict conformance with the provisions and the spirit of the Water Act and to protect established water rights. At the moment, the position is that when disputes arise in connection with water rights, rather than incurring the expense of going to the water court, people resort to all kinds of other efforts with the aim of circumventing the legal provisions and this, in my humble opinion, is not in the interests of the maintenance of law and order as expressed in the Water Act and implemented by means of regulations and apportionment. In my opinion, what we have here is a situation that has developed in our implementation of the Water Act which we would do well to investigate more closely with a view to an alternative arrangement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to confine myself to matters relating to the biggest State water scheme in the Republic. I refer to the Vaalharts scheme. Everywhere in this extensive irrigation area of about 128 000 ha are to be found small pieces of waste land still controlled by the Department of Water Affairs. Mindful of the pressing need for agricultural land and the necessity of greater food production for ourselves and our neighbours, I want to plead—I almost want to say ’’please”—that these pieces of waste land be released and put at the disposal of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for allotment to farmers who, in many cases, have to farm on very small plots of perhaps a little more than 20 morgen. They could utilize these pieces of waste land to great effect. However, throughout the length of the canal there are the so-called servitude strips reserved and controlled by the Department of Water Affairs in order to afford the departmental workers access to the canal. The total surface area of these servitude strips amounts to, if not thousands of hectares, then probably hundreds of hectares of good agricultural land. In this instance, too, I want to plead that the servitude strips be put at the disposal of the farmers, because at the moment, the servitude strips are in many cases nothing but weed-infested strips. Let me say at once that the department is doing everything in its power to keep down the weeds in these strips, but it is a hopeless task. If these servitude strips were to be allotted to the farmers, they could produce an extremely good yield. I want to recommend, too, that the right of access to the canal continue to be retained simply by imposing a servitude on this land allotted to the farmers and on the land of those farmers whose land borders on those servitude strips.

Owing to the abnormally heavy rainfall of the past two summer seasons, the problem of waterlogging and mineralization has been doubly aggravated in this area. On this occasion I have no hesitation in expressing my thanks for what the Department has done to afford relief to those farmers who are suffering most from waterlogging. At the same time, however, I want to make an urgent appeal for the digging of drainage and storm-water sloots to be expedited and for more machines to be put at the disposal of the officials to enable them to expedite the work. This is really an urgent and pressing need. Together with the question of draining and waterlogging, there is the question of the building of dams.

In this area every plot, every farm has its own original earth dam. There is now an opportunity for people to build cement dams. Loans for the building of these cement dams can be obtained from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Subsidies from the Department of Water Affairs of one-third of the cost of construction up to a maximum of R3 000 are available. I want to make a very, very earnest appeal that this maximum amount be increased. Owing to rising costs. R3 000, calculated as one third of the amount, is no longer realistic. These cement dams are in fact the guarantee that no further waterlogging can take place on the plot.

I want to mention another matter too, viz. that in this area we have plots varying in size from 20 to 30 to 66 morgen. Each plot is awarded a certain water quota. We have here the so-called “climate plots” as they are called by the farmers. These climate plots require very little water. I know of cases of a farmer only having to irrigate twice in order to harvest his wheat. On the other hand, one gets sloping plots and plots that do not have “climate”, as the farmers call it. Those farmers are most decidedly in a disadvantageous position compared with the people who do have climate plots. My plea is that the department be so kind as to investigate a system of differentiated water apportionment. In my opinion a system of this kind would afford a large measure of relief to the plots which are dry, which lie on a slope and which, owing to the nature of their soil, require more water.

I want to associate myself with the idea that has just been expressed by the hon. the Minister, and say that we should circulate water there, too. Just as we have a large supply of underground water here on the Cape flats, an underground dam, we have an underground dam at this irrigation scheme, too. I could mention to you that soil surveys were carried out before the extensive rains of the last two seasons. It was found that a total of 47% of the plots had an underground water table of less than 4 feet. Hon. members will be able to realize that a mass of water is available here. I hope and trust that with reference to what the hon. the Minister has just said, investigations will be carried out so that this water, which has in fact become a curse owing to the fact that the underground water table is so high, can again be utilized and put at the disposal of the owners of these plots, particularly when the years of drought and scarcity of water come again.

Mr. Chairman, we live in a country with unlimited possibilities for expansion. We live in a country with a potential for the Republic of South Africa and its people which reveals itself in every field, but if our country and its people have ever been faced by a threat it is the threatening shortage of water for consumption in all spheres. That limiting factor makes its presence felt, as was frequently spelled out here this evenign and this afternoon, in every sphere of our national economy. That is why I want to associate myself with what was said here earlier this afternoon, viz. that the time allotted for the discussion of the Department of Water Affairs and its activities, is very little, for one can wax lyrical about this department and its exceptional achievements over the past few years. In this regard I should like to add my gratitude to that which has already been expressed here this afternoon to the hon. Minister and the staff of the department. It is indeed gratifying to negotiate with this department, the hon. the Minister and the staff, in a joint attempt to deal with the interests of a constituency.

One gains the impression time and again that this department is concentrating its energies on the possible prevention of a problem facing us, i.e. the threat or our country’s economy as a result of a probable shortage of water. It is estimated that the Republic of South Africa will be consuming approximately 29 000 million cubic metres of water by the year 2000. When one has regard to the fact that the existing fresh water supplies yield 22 000 million cubic metres of water and that the remaining 7 000 million cubic metres will have to be found, one gains a realization of the task this department is performing, i.e. the constant promotion of the reclamation off water. In this we have the wonderful co-operation of various industries and municipalities. As was pointed out here earlier this evening, there are certain paper-mills and certain steel works with wonderful production levels whose consumption of water in this process is far below the world average. This is an indication to us of the fact that our people are intent on combating this problem. It is true that we have to contend with problems, not only the problem of the limited existing water supplies, but also the problem of the existing water supplies being threatened by pollution. It is indeed true that we are facing a threat of becoming poorer because we are becoming wealthier. The prosperity we are experiencing is a source of danger to us because progress gives rise to more pollution. It is alarming to see to what extent the pollution of our rivers and dams is increasing and how the deposits of industrial effluents which form in our dams as plant foods, promote mineralization. Sir, water pollution is a world-wide problem, and one would expect that we should be able to learn something from other countries in connection with this problem, especially strange enough the experience of the Americans is not much wider than ours. On the contrary, because of the wonderful progress and achievements of the National Institute for Water Research, ours is a leading role in this field. As the hon. the Minister said here earlier this evening this institure is playing a leading role in various ways in the world today because of its fine achievements. The institute is engaged in research into inter alia, the purification of water before use and the treatment of water after use, but is is also engaged in research into the pollution of water in dams, rivers, river mouths and even of water in the sea. However, the institute has a very small staff. It is important to take cognizance of the fact that this institute has been able to achieve these wonderful things despite the fact that it has a small staff of 209 members. It is true that the staff position was improved. There was an increase in the staff from 158 in the previous year to 209 last year. I want to advocate here, Sir, that this establishment be extended in every possible way, for we may never fail to recognize the importance of this institute. The extension of the establishment of this institute is imperative. We know that various universities and colleges are training scientific technologists and that they are indeed making progress in this regard, but in its report this institutes states that the shortage of saff has a hampering effect on its functioning in practice. For that reason the recruiting of research teams abroad may possibly be imperative as well. Sir, I say that research is being hampered by the shortage of scientific technologists Dr. Toerien, an official of the National Institute for Water Research, rightly mentions the fact that the scientific knowledge of South Africans of their dams is very poor generally speaking. I wish to state here that research into the contents of our existing dams is imperative, but that this research is being hampered, inter alia, by a shortage of staff. I am very concerned about the condition of the water in various irrigation dams, especially the Mentz Dam, as well as the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam in which a certain degree of mineralization occurs. I am very concerned about this aspect, because this dangerous situation involves such a large irrigation area below these dams. We now know that the department is keenly aware of this problem, but for that very reason I want to plead once more this evening for something to be done in this regard, possibly by means of research. We have already achieved such wonderful results; perhaps there is new ground for us to break with regard to this aspect as well. Sir, I am advocating this, particularly because I have in mind the training of staff, of scientific technologists in this field. Are we not able to stimulate and encourage that training in some way? Because of the wonderful results which the institute has already achieved it certainly remains worthwhile to seek new fields of training for scientific technologists who may be placed at the service of the institute. The prevention of the mineralization of existing dams, as the hon. member for Worcester also said earlier this evening, is of vital importance to us. The fact that we have water, but that it may perhaps not be possible to put that water to best use, causes research in this field to be a challenge for us, especially in view of the very limited staff of the Institute for Water Research.

Mr. Chairman, I too wish to express a few thoughts, with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Standerton, about the recent floods in the Vaal River and in the Vaal Dam area. These floods also had a serious effect on my constituency, Vereeniging, and people in my constituency are shocked about this matter and afraid of what lies ahead for Vereeniging and other areas in the vicinity. About 70 properties were seriously damaged and the damage has been estimated by the Department of Community Development at more than R600 000 in the Vereeniging municipal area alone. Therefore it is understandable that there should be shock about the situation.

Now I have received two basic reactions. The first is a somewhat irresponsible and emotional accusation made against the hon. the Minister and his department by a small group of people. Some of them demand that the Government should now purchase their properties; some demand a judicial commission of inquiry. Sir, one really is being emotional if one demands a judicial commission of inquiry before the United Party demands it in this House. I have explained to these people that in my opinion a judicial commission of inquiry cannot be considered, because there is no evidence whatsoever of negligence in any way. On the contrary I should like to testify here tonight that after detailed investigation, in which the department assisted me, I came to the conclusion, as did many of the people who had conducted the same investigation, that we should be grateful for the way in which the flood was handled. Within the framework of the policy with regard to the Vaal Dam, the situation was handled by the department with tremendous responsibility, expertise and understanding.

I should like to say more about the second reaction, the reaction which is more responsible, namely the reaction which says: “We accept that the flood was a natural catastrophe; we also accept the explanation of why the flood could not be prevented, but we humbly ask, with great anxiety, whether new possibilities could not be considered, possibilities which would provide more security for Vereeniging and its inhabitants and for other communities.” In this regard the reviewing of the policy so that the Vaal Dam can be maintained at a lower level during the rainy season is mentioned as one possibility. Secondly, the building of a dam below the Barrage is mentioned—Schoemans Drift is mentioned—a dam below the Barrage which will cause the level in the Barrage area itself to be lowered. As a third possibility the building of a dam or dams above the Vaal Dam is mentioned, and which will also have a greater capacity for flood absorption and which will create more safety.

This is a poor Government, isn’t it?

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister against this background whether he does not have some consolation and some encouragement for Vereeniging, one of our key areas in South Africa. Can they not investigate ways and means to provide the Vaal Dam area with greater protection against flood damage? I ask this in a positive spirit, and not in the spirit of the interjection we have just heard from the other side, as if it were the fault of the Government that we had so much rain, or that we had too much water and not enough room for storing this water. All is well in our area. But we also think of the future and my constituency has taken cognisance of the warning issued by the hon. the Minister that it could happen again. We seek consolation and encouragement.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate for me first to deal with the question of the Vaal Dam and then with the other matters that have been raised. The hon. member for Vereeniging raised a matter which many people in South Africa, and in particular in his vicinity were greatly concerned about. This concerns the fact that damage occurred during the recent flood, not only at Vereeniging, but also further down along the river. It also concerns the fact that considerable damage occurred during the past two or three years, not only in the vicinity of Vereeniging, but also along the Orange River, as well as at Hardap in the Fish River in South West Africa. Generally speaking all this was perhaps minor damage, but seen from a local point of view, it was nevertheless considerable damage.

I want to say in the first instance that I am convinced and quite satisfied that the utilization of dams as instruments to control flood-waters is not only sound—as a matter of fact, I do not think it can be done any better anywhere else in the world. I have evidence in this regard. Prof. Midgeley does not only have a very good reputation in South Africa, but he is also one of the leading members of the International Commission for Large Dams and has represented South Africa at international congresses on many occasions. He has also written a great deal about his particular sphere. As a matter of fact, he is being regarded as an expert in his field. Without being asked to do so, Prof. Midgeley wrote a letter of congratulation shortly after the floods, something for which I want to thank him now. He said that he and his students paid particular attention to the operating of the dam, because it was an excellent example of the particular field of study. He is convinced that we could not have done any better under the circumstances.

When speaking about the operating of a flood in South Africa and when trying to control it on account of the fact that we control certain structures, there are a number of factors which have to be taken into consideration. Factor No. 1 is the rate at which the flood is coming down. The area where the rains are falling during a flood is of particular importance. In this connection I want to refer to two examples. In the case of the Vaal Dam rain fell at two points this year. On one occasion it rained at Standerton and we were in a position to watch the flood-water for two days before it reached the Vaal Dam. On the second occasion it rained in the immediate vicinity of the dam and the flood-water reached the dam within a matter of hours. I also mention the example of South West Africa. A few years ago we had a heavy flood there on account of the heavy rain that had fallen immediately above the Hardap Dam. It rained during the night and the rate of flow of the flood was so high that it could not have been controlled any better than the department had done.

I also want to mention a second point. These things are not done in a haphazard way. The calculations are done with great care. The information that becomes available to us is fed into a computer. It is therefore not an official alone who has to judge. The computer calculates the rise in the water level in such a dam during the flood. One of the factors is, therefore, the rate at which the flood-water approach the dam. The other factor we have to take into consideration is when the dam was built. In this case the dam has been built many years ago, and hon. members will recall that the Vaal River has experienced quite heavy floods during the past 50 years. In addition, we also have to take into consideration the fact that when a flood comes down at a very high rate, there are two other factors which have to be taken into consideration. One of the factors is whether the structure which has to contain the flood-water can let it through. If the department tries to control the water, the following question arises, i.e. whether the control apparatus—in other words, the sluices—are not going to give way when the flood is too heavy. In other words, the computer has to furnish us with information about the rate at which the water is coining down, and also on the strength of the sluices. Then it also has to furnish us with information about the outlet of the dam, and all this information combined then determines the rate at which the water has to be controlled through the sluices. In other words, it is done scientifically. I want to thank the hon. member personally because I know that he went to great trouble to discuss this matter with the public at that stage and also subsequently, and that he fulfilled his task very ably in co-operation with my department. On such occasions people are very emotional and many people who knows nothing about the matter, want to have a say in a matter which is a very complicated and scientific one.

As far as the Vaal Dam is concerned, I just want to say that, with the best will in the world, we cannot exercise full control over floods, nor avert disasters, solely on account of the fact that it is physically impossible to do so. I want to quote a few examples. Hon. members will recall what happened in Port Elizabeth; they will recall what happened in East London, and what happened the other day in Natal at Umhloti. I remember myself what happened in my own constituency at that time. One remembers all these things and it is a fact that there are occasions when a disaster exceeds everything that can be done by human beings to avert it or to control the effects thereof. The hon. member asked me —and this was an important question— what consolation we have for the future. When I discussed the entire principle of the operating of dams and the variable draft operation principle four years ago, I said this was not something one can do in a haphazard way. A dam is operated with a view to its outlet and its capacity. The hon. member suggested three measures we could take. He said we could build a dam below the outlet of the Vaal Dam, which could be filled in order to avert the danger at Vereeniging. Unfortunately this cannot be done for very obvious reasons. The other suggestion he made was that we should let the water out. We had the example where the Vaal River was in flood in October. Any person would have expected at that stage that the river would still be flowing strongly in December when it had been flowing as strongly in October. One would have thought that the water could have been let out because it would rain in any case later on. However, do hon. members know what happened in that particular year? Those rains were the last proper rains we had. Had one listened to public opinion at that time, there would have been a crisis on the Rand and Johannesburg would have been without water. One cannot do these things in a haphazard way. Hon. members will also remember that we had a major crisis recently. The water consumption of the Witwatersrand increases at a rate of 7% per year. One of my predecessors tried to introduce control a few years ago when the water level was 28%. The demand increased to such an extent that he had to take fright when the level reached the 46% mark a few years later. We have even now reached the stage where we become frightened when the Vaal Dam reaches a level of 70% without any addition of water upstream. In other words, we cannot accede when the public wants us to let the dam run empty because we do not know when it is going to rain again. We might be on the eve of one of the most severe droughts South Africa has ever experienced. The rain we had last week might be the last we are going to get over a period of two years. Therefore, we do not know what the future holds, because we have no control over nature. That is why we cannot allow ourselves to be guided by people who try to be clever in this regard. These particulars are determined as scientifically as in any scientific discipline. When we have a reserve in the upper reaches of the Vaal River we can risk letting the Vaal Dam drop to a low level. That is why we are building a dam in the upper reaches, but the dam has not yet been completed. Once the dam has been completed, we can risk allowing the level of the dam to drop by another 3%, 4% or 5% or more by means of the variable draft operation principle and to store the water in the Oppermansdrift Dam since we would then have a reserve in the upper reaches of the Vaal River which could be added if necessary. This can be done, but we cannot do so before the reserve has been created in the upper reaches. Thus, the consolation I can give to the hon. member, is that we shall discuss the matter again when that day comes. I also want to say that people are often wilful. I do not want to suggest that the voters of the hon. member are wilful. But we have had two cases in which the public were specifically warned in certain towns not to live in a danger area. They were warned during a dry spell, but they did not heed the warning. However, the moment those areas are flooded, the department is blamed. I can quote to hon. members a case where I wrote a letter to a municipality to this effect. They ignored the letter and three years later, when we experienced the heavy flood, they blamed me for it because, as they said, we had not operated the dams properly.

It is therefore not only the fault of the Department of Water Affairs, but also of those people who, in spite of warnings, want to live on the pleasant banks of the rivers. We should also consider those aspects.

The hon. member for Standerton also referred to this matter and asked us to see to it that dwellings, factories, and so on are not erected in the danger areas. The hon. member is quite correct. I cannot discuss the legislation which served before the Select Committee now but, as hon. members know, it contains a provision which enables the Minister to require of the Administrator of a province to consult the Department of Water Affairs before approving a development scheme in order to ensure that no development takes place within a flood area. Therefore, we hope to rectify this matter in this way. I also hope that my friends in Vereeniging will know that what has been done, was done to the best of our ability and ask them not to attach all the blame to human agencies if the Creator should once again visit us with major floods.

I now come to the hon. member for Fauresmith. The hon. member put two questions to me. In the first place he asked me what progress is being made with the two channels below the P. K. le Roux Dam. The Rama canal, which will serve the first development, has been completed. The two departments have completed the lay-out and it will be put into commission in the foreseeable future. In the second place, the hon. member asked whether water could not be let through from the Orange River by means of a canal so that irrigation cam be undertaken on the opposite side. The reply to that question is also: “Yes”. As a matter of fact, it is a wise thing to do so. The plans for this project have been completed and we hope that those new areas will be the first to benefit by production.

The hon. member for De Aar referred to the large camps we construct and said it was a pity that the facilities which are provided and which are usually situated in pleasant surroundings should be demolished again. We receive representations all the time as to whether such facilities could not be transferred after completion of the project. We had a look at the area of the hon. member and I also know that he referred to Oviston. We visited Oviston, and the people of Oviston and also the hon. member know what the position is there, but I just want to repeat it here. The Department of Water Affairs is instructed to fulfil a certain function in respect of projects. The department then establishes a camp with a variety of facilities. When the department has to leave such a point again, it usually leaves the people behind to take care of the operation. If the province, or whoever has an interest in it, also have people there, such facilities are left behind for them, as has happened at the Verwoerd Dam. In that case a shop and dwellings were left behind for the people of Escom. But when a pleasant tennis court, or a road or whatever it may be have been constructed there and the department leaves that point, it is impossible for the department of Water Affairs to tell those people that it gives those facilities to the people free of charge and will still maintain them. What we can do is to offer these facilities to the province or other authorities, such as Escom. As in the case of Oviston, where a road and certain other facilities have been constructed, the obvious thing to do would be for the local authority to negotiate with the province. We then calculate what the costs amount to, do business with one another and, when we leave the area, leave behind such facilities as we can part with. That is the attitude of the Department of Water Affairs. But the people who are interested in those facilities should also co-operate. My department has made an offer with regard to a matter there, but the local authority was not prepared to accept the offer. In this case there is nothing I can do. In any case, this is the arrangement we have. We should like to see that the developments remain there, but as hon. members will appreciate, the Department of Water Affairs is not in a position to undertake the maintenance of the facilities concerned. With that I think I have replied to the request of the hon. member.

†The hon. member for Albany referred to the Orange River scheme and its effect on the Sundays River area. He requested me to indicate how the development would take place. In the first instance, when we let the water through, it will be to serve the existing development. The second stage wild be to serve the area under the existing canal which can be served without any further development. The third stage will be to improve, and the fourth to build additional canals for the full development. In other words, the development will take place in stages. At this moment I cannot indicate when we wild be able to give full particulars and all the information to all the people timeously to enable them to effect improvements on their part to be able to utilize the water when it becomes available. I can assure the hon. member that in conjunction with the other departments we will, in any case, timeously indicate what we are going to do. The hon. member for Albany also indicated that we have underground water reserves on the coastline in the Alexandria area.

I said that property developers were trying to develop these resources.

Did the hon. member not prevail upon me to look into the matter of the underground water availability in the area I mentioned?

Regional schemes.

Yes. It is very costly to develop a regional scheme where you have small communities that have to be served by long pipe-lines. The unit cost in such a case is very high. What will be feasible will be to investigate the possibility of underground water in this area because it may be much cheaper. I can assure the hon. member that I will investigate this possibility.

*I now come to the hon. member for Barberton, who referred to the Sterkspruit-dam, in respect of which a White Paper has been published. This is the dam which will serve the whole of the Crocodile River valley in the vicinity of Komatipoort. The reason why this dam is being built is, from the nature of the case, to render stability to an area which is developing very rapidly. There is a large sugar mill in this area, as well as major developments near Nelspruit. In order to build in this assurance, we were compelled to make a start some-where. The hon. member knows what I am going to say now, but I am glad that both of us are in a position to say it here so that his people can hear this. Of course, the development of the area has to take place in stages. It is the idea that since the Sterkspruit Dam will be completed in a few years’ time, there will be ample time in the interim to consider further development, one of which is the construction of the Mountain View Dam. The construction of this dam should in any case be part of the following set of priorities. The only reason why I think it would be unwise of me to say anything further about it now, is that we do not know, for obvious reasons, how much money we will be getting in future. After all, we do not know what is awaiting us. It would be unwise to make a specific promise about a date, apart from the promise that has already been given the public in the past.

The hon. member for Barberton also referred to weather modification. Weather modification is not an easy matter. It is a matter on which people can easily indulge in flights of the imagination. This happens particularly in the case of people who read about what is being done in this regard in other countries such as Russia and America. It makes peoples’ imaginations run wild to think that we need only fire rockets at clouds to be successful in certain cases. In no area where weather modification is applied, one can even carry out such an application successfully without proper research having been carried out over a long period of time. There is no such thing as the specific duplication of circumstances.

In South Africa also wild promises have been made particularly in areas where it is doubtful whether weather modification could ever be applied. I am referring here to certain dry parts of South Africa towards the west, where promises were made to people and where people were on the point of incurring considerable capital expense and to persuade farmers to endorse the scheme and to invest thousands of rand in it. For that reason it was essential to have some control. Control means that a committee consisting of scientists will decide by whom it should be carried out and under which circumstances it should be done. If one wants to apply weather modification to prevent hail, a person who is not interested in hail says that the rain is being driven away from his area. There are strong feelings in this regard, and I have received a great number of representations from that area. There are people who are annoyed about the fact that we have issued a permit for the application of weather modification. They say this is the reason why they are suffering from drought conditions. We cannot make deductions of this nature. All we can say, is that this aspect should be properly controlled. I have no intention either as far as this matter is concerned to deviate in future from the standpoint, which is a sensible standpoint, to continue with controlled research in this regard and, in any case, to accede willy-nilly to the requests of people who say that no research should be carried out and no action should be taken in this regard. It would be equally absurd.

The hon. member for East London North referred to the pipeline which was constructed at the Nahoon scheme. To questions put in this regard, I just want to say that we have to make certain provisions in this connection. This is as far as the development areas are concerned. This is the reason why one of the pipelines was purchased and why the pipeline to the Nahoon scheme has to be constructed.

However, the question arises: Why is a portion of this water not being purified and reverted to the source? Why is the water being let out into the sea? There is a division of water. It is very difficult to get rid of sodium salts in that portion of the water with a high sodium salt content. For that reason it is being let out into the sea for the sake of convenience, because it does not pollute the sea water. There are no other substances in the water that can pollute the sea water. In other words, it is not correct to say that all the water is being let out into the sea. Reference is also made to Iscor in regard to Chelmsford. Not only here, but also there it is being asked why Iscor is not compelled to use the water again. The people are using the water repeatedly. We are satisfied that the water is being reused, and not only by Iscor. Virtually all the heavy metal industries are made, through guidance, to use the water again in their own interests. On a previous occasion I said we already had the co-operation of four of South Africa’s major industries in respect of which there is a water intake of 35 million gallons per day and that the circulation is 600 million gallons per day. Therefore, this is being done already. It requires a protracted progress to be able to do so.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to water courts this evening. He advanced complicated arguments, for which I thank him. His speech dealt with the fact that water litigation is costly. Hon. members know that water litigation made of Oudtshoorn what Oudtshoorn is today. In the past there was some ill-feeling between people because some families were wealthy and some were poor. Oudtshoorn’s tradition of water court cases also created problems as far as the Department of Water Affairs is concerned. We had to give effect to the decisions of many judges over many years and not all of them were correct. However, the hon. member made a very important point. He wanted to know whether a plan could not be devised in the case of minor cases in respect of which there should be no litigation. He wanted to know whether we could not do this in an easier and less costly way. I am not in a position to reply to such a question across the floor of the House, but I can say that this is not a matter to which I am able to furnish a reply from this Bench at the moment. This is a matter which should be discussed with lawyers as to how exactly this should be done. Therefore, I do not want to express an opinion about it. Nevertheless, I want to tell the hon. member that it would be worth our while to discuss the matter and to see whether a plan could be devised in this regard. However, I cannot tell the hon. member now whether a plan could be devised.

The hon. member for Kimberley North referred to two matters in connection with the Vaalharts scheme. He mentioned the fact that we have a major underground water basin there. I have also referred to this matter earlier today. There is a water basin, and I referred to the 47% surplus water which is available as seepage water. I said we should consider whether it would be possible to have this water pumped back. The study in this connection has not been commenced, but we are quite aware of the position. In earlier days water was used so extravagantly that there was an outflow of up to 52 cusec. Year in and year out the water was let out into the dry river beds so that people even bought farms there. When we wanted to stop the outflow by means of improved measures, they accused us of depriving them of their water. We are applying this control because it is the intention to make the best use of this water so that there will be no excess water available. The hon. member also asked me whether the servitude strips of land could not be allocated to the farmers. My immediate reply is “no”. Could you imagine, Sir: One travels along the road and there are farms on your left and on your right. There is a canal and the strip of land which was kept clear for operational purposes, is allocated to the farmer so that his land can reach up to the canal. Two things would happen. It might happen that the farmer may subsequently obtain ownership of the water in the canal. If he and and his people, his livestock, his labourers, and so on, settle there, problems are going to arise. We have already parted with some of the land adjoining the strip for road purposes. I am stating the matter as I visualize the position, but if I am making a mistake and there is really land of this nature available, we can consider the matter. However, the position is more or less as I visualize it. The hon. member also referred to small pieces of land which he referred to as waste-land. I am not sure whether we have such pieces of waste-land. As far as I know there are only a few pieces of waste-land, and I do not know whether there can be a great many of them. In any case, if there are any pieces of waste-land which can be disposed of, we can consider the matter, but I doubt whether there are a great many of them. Perhaps I can ask the hon. member across the floor of the House: Are there many such pieces of waste-land?

I do not know how many pieces there are, but there certainly are.

Yes, as far as my knowledge goes, there are not many of those strips of land. The hon. member asked me whether we could not make differentiated allocations in that area. The position is as follows: In the early days, when we were still of the opinion that the Vaal River had excess water, we constructed the Vaalharts scheme. Now every drop of water is being pumped from Natal at very a high cost. Therefore, I cannot take away water from the one person to give to the other. I cannot give the person who has little water, more because it would be expensive water from the other side. I think the solution is to be found somewhere else.

The solution should be found in a different way. I think a sophisticated manner of water application would probably be better. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services should tell us whether they are in a position to make better use of the same water by this methods of application. I think this is rather an agricultural matter. Seen solely from the point of view of the Department of Water Affairs there is no question of an additional allocation. If I want to allocate water, I have to take it from somebody else, otherwise I do not know where it has to come from. I can discuss this matter with the hon. member again. Perhaps I understand him wrongly, but he is quite welcome to come to my office and discuss this matter with me.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Somerset East referred to the shortage of people in this great task we have to fulfil. I appreciate his point of view, and I want to tell him that it is not only the Water Research Institute but also the department itself that is experiencing this great shortage of people. We are training these people and are trying to get them, locally as well as overseas. We employ any person who is able to help us if only we can obtain his services. I appreciate the interest displayed by the hon. member in this regard.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Vereeniging. I do not think I have left out anyone. I want to thank hon. members for the pleasant debate which we have conducted.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 11, Loan Vote F and S.W.A. Vote No. 6.—“Forestry”:

Mr. Chairman, one almost feels that one is robbing the House of its fun on a Wednesday night in having two such orderly debates as Water Affairs and Forestry, but I must say that it is nice to have a nice, quiet House like this.

*I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to my hon. friends opposite for allowing me and the hon. member for East London North to make our speeches this evening because we shall not be able to be here on Friday. I hope the hon. the Minister will still have a chance this evening to react to our speeches.

†Mr. Chairman, earlier in the session when we were dealing with the Forestry Amendment Bill, I raised the question of the visit of the hon. the Minister to Japan recently, when the contract was renegotiated under which the Central Co-op. had agreed to export wood chips to Japan. I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would be able to tell us a bit more about his trip, about what happened there, and about the very successful negotiations which took place there. We have had no details given to us. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister wishes to make the details public. This may well be regarded as a private matter of the Co-op. itself. But, Sir, I was asked to convey to the hon. the Minister the appreciation expressed by the Timber Growers’ Association at its annual congress for the part that he played, and to say that he and Mr. Botha were outstanding ambassadors for the timber industry. Sir, it is not my job to give praise to the hon. the Minister, but I want him to understand that this comes from the timber growers. Where it was necessary to spend a few rand here and there on entertainment and that kind of thing, it will certainly not be regarded by this side of the House as money spent unnecessarily, but as money spent in the interests of the timber growers. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to say a bit more about his visit and about the negotiations which took place. Sir, I want to make it quite clear that this export contract is tremendously important to the timber growers of South Africa; there is no question about it. It has had a startling effect on timber prices, and the congress and every timber grower are unanimous in feeling that this has been the sort of spark plug that the growers of timber have been wanting for a number of years to improve the return that they get on their investment. Sir, the question of timber supplies is based entirely on the return on his investment which a timber grower can see over a long period of years. It is a minimum period of 20 years if you invest in timber on a large scale. The Minister has said himself that he requires at least 50 000 ha of new timber planted annually in order to be able to keep up with the demand that there is going to be in this country in the future. Half of this, 25 000 ha, is to be planted by the department and half by the private sector. I want to say that there was a mood of pessimism prevailing at the congress, because you are asking people to invest money in an industry which is long term, an industry against which every single factor is loaded—the escalation of the cost of land and the escalation of every single factor that goes into afforestation projects the timber grower has to contend with increases in fuel prices, in wages, in the cost of food for his labour and in the price of seedlings. The price of every single thing that is used for afforestation is increasing at a tremendous rate. It is estimated that over the last year there has been a net increase of some 22% in afforestation costs. Mr. Chairman, you are asking people to invest money over a long period of years and you are asking them to accept a return which is estimated today at something like 2% or 3%. Sir, the basis on which that 2% or 3% is calculated is wrong at the present time. It is not a reasonable return, because the basis on which the return is calculated is far too low. I think that the hon. the Minister and the timber industry as such and the Satga organization must put their minds to it to try to find some real incentive which is going to make the private sector go into the timber industry on a large scale. Sir, I reiterate the point that we make here every year: It is vitally important for the small grower— not the large forest owner involved in this, but for the small grower involved on the basis of the wood lots in a smaller area— to be able to maintain his stake in this industry. We have the problem of price-fixing. The State itself is a considerable factor in the timber market. The private sector requires a return of something like 10% on capital invested, but there is no mechanism other than the market mechanism whereby Prices can be fixed, and people are beginning to talk about a control board which I do not think will meet the needs of the timber industry, which has specialized needs, at all. But what progress can we say has been made towards a realistic price-fixing mechanism? The hon. the Minister has an advisory council and they have discussed the matter. It has been a bone of contention on that council for some years, if my information is correct, and I think that the Minister will find himself faced one of these days with the position where he will have to take an active part, something which he does not want to do and which I am not convinced in my mind is in the best interests of the department as such. He may nevertheless well be forced to make some kind of determination on prices in order to draw the private sector into this planting programme. It may well be that for the next four or five years the State itself will have to increase its share of this 50 000 ha in order to carry, as it did in the past, the burden of afforestation and to allow the private sector to recover the confidence which it had some years ago in timber planting, but which it has seen eroded away very much over the past few years. The new factors in this, of course, are the loans made available at a reasonable rate of interest. I think the Minister might tell us at what rate these loans are being taken up. In my area certainly this does not seem to be a very productive method to get people to afforest new areas. Of course we do have this problem in regard to permits for afforestation. I raised the matter last year about the Umgeni catchment area and the Karkloof area and the whole of the area in the Natal Midlands which is under control. I hope the Minister can tell us tonight that progress has been made in the delimitation of these areas to which afforestation permits are going to be granted on a more liberal scale. There is no doubt at all that in the catchment area of those rivers, in the Umgeni and Karkloof areas and the central Midlands of Natal, some of the best timberland in the country is available. It is easy of access, because it is close to the rail links and close to markets, and timber can be grown there more economically than in many other areas in South Africa. I must say that the private sector, the ordinary private farmer, does seem to be having a tremendous re-think as far as growing timber is concerned. You have the problem in the wattle industry that the bark quota which was increased last year, and which led to something of a surge of confidence and optimism in the minds of wattle farmers, appears to be on the downgrade this year, although the price itself appears to be holding up.

Like the wool farmers.

The wool farmers always have trouble! One of the problems is the basic cost to timber growers of the establishment and the cost of operation. The Satga organization are actively engaged at the moment, as is the department, I understand, in establishing real costs which will be a reasonable way of assessing returns. This of course has been, a bone of contention between the big companies, who are purchasers in the market, and the Satga organization representing growers negotiating for a price. I think the matter is being resolved in that there are at least grounds of argument, heads of argument, being put forward by the two sides. The private organization is coming with a set of figures which will at least be arguable and maintainable and I think we will find that there will be an increase in price provided that the buying sector is prepared to realize that it is essentially in its own interests to maintain supplies and to encourage private timber planters to maintain their stake in the industry as such.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation for the fact that I have the opportunity of taking part in the debate at such an early stage because of the fact that I shall not be able to be here on Friday. I greatly appreciate this.

†I want to confine myself to an area in the Eastern Cape which I believe is under the threat of being denuded due to no fault of our own, but because of force of circumstances. I want to speak of an area which I term “the sponge of the Buffalo River catchment area”. I believe this is a very, very important area of the Eastern Cape, because it happens to be situated in the well-known Amatola Range, namely the Peri Mountains. This area is affected by the Government’s consolidation plans and is to be set aside for Black occupation. This area is one of the most beautiful areas in the Eastern Cape; in fact, I know of no area more beautiful than this particular one which will unfortunately have to fall under Black occupation in the not too distant future. This particular area in the Amatola Range is an indigenous forest area. Over many years we have been proud of the fish hatcheries in those forests. The area has the highest rainfall in the whole of the Eastern Cape and, as I have said, is the most beautiful one in the North Eastern Cape. It is the sponge of the Buffalo River catchment area and also the sponge of the Keiskamma River. These are two great rivers in that area. We Eastern Capers are particularly jealous of the indigenous forests on the Amatola Range in the Peri mountains. This area is a sponge, the source of these great rivers and in the Buffalo River alone we have four of our principal reservoirs, namely the Maiden Dam, the Rooikrantz Dam, the Laing Dam which was discussed earlier this afternoon, and the Bridle Drift Dam. The Government has spent millions and millions of rand to conserve water in this river.

The Department of Forestry has done good work along the coastline to protect bush and trees. The department with its regional office in King William’s Town has done more than was expected of it to protect the areas along the coastline. We must now also consider the protection of our indigenous forests. I do not know what reply the hon. the Minister will give us tonight, but we are particularly interested to learn what is being done to protect the Amatola Range and the Peri forests against being destroyed by people who are not being taught how to protect our indigenous forests. We should like to know whether this area will be fenced off and the Black people of the Eastern Cape taught to appreciate the value of indigenous forests particularly as far as their value as a source of these great rivers is concerned. We have seen what has happened in other areas of our country. We have seen the silt in certain areas in the neighbourhood of the Tugela River. We have seen that silt is flowing into that river above the Spioenkop Dam during thunder storms. I have seen that myself. The silt flows from areas occupied by Black people. Some of the tributaries of the river are completely saturated with silt, while other tributaries of the river which flow through areas occupied by Whites are virtually free of silt.

In our area forestry is flourishing. It is a flourishing industry and we are proud of this fact. In the Eastern Cape there is a great demand for our timber because it is expensive to transport timber from other areas to the Eastern Cape. We therefore make great use of our local timber. We have Fort Cunyinghume and the Government plantations and afforestation there. An excellent job of work is being done there. I believe that we can compete with the best in the country in producing Pinus insignus, Pinus hylopantus, eucalyptus and wattle. The climatic conditions are suitable. In fact, I believe the climatic conditions for afforestation there are ideal. Timber plays an important role in our country’s economy as we all know and we have made great advances in our area as well. There is of course always the hazard of fire. In fact, not so long ago we had a large fire in the Fort Cunyinghume area and we have had other minor fires in areas along the Hogsback as well, but because of the efficient work of our staff and firefighters, the fires were effectively combated and extinguished before they could do much damage. Only last year we had the Green Heritage campaign and we too concentrated on the planting of many trees, particularly in the Hogsback area. This was done by the staff of the Fort Cunyinghume Government plantation.

I have nothing more to say in the limited time at my disposal, but I want to stress that the points I have made will have to be considered very seriously when some of our indigenous forests are to be handed over to our Black people. Even today one can clearly see the difference between areas occupied by Bantu and areas which fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry. We are very concerned and worried that if these areas are to be denuded of forests and other vegetation, the reservoirs on which we are dependent for our industries and the development of the Border areas will silt up in no time. We shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us some advice, some idea as to how we can combat this threat which I see is going to be a very serious threat if we do not do something in the very near future to train our non-Whites so that they will be able to look after what they are being given in the way of forests, etc. We are training our non-Whites in agriculture and other spheres, but to my knowledge nothing has been done yet to train them how to look after the forests which they will take over in the very near future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River raised the question of costs in the forestry industry and the whole problem of price negotiation. However, before I say something about that, I should like to refer to his remarks on my visit to Japan. I visited Japan, as the hon. member will know, on the invitation of the Sumitomo Company, the company which has this contract with South Africa. The chairman of the Co-operative Timber Company of Natal was also a guest at the time. The hon. member will know that when these negotiations started some time ago, we negotiated at a price of R40 million for the delivery of wood, chips on a ten-year basis. It was renegotiated afterwards, and the new price went up to R100 million. If we have the price fixed at the rate at which it is available in South Africa at the moment, the cost escalation will in years to come make this contract not as profitable as it might seem to be today. Therefore, I believe that the fact that we could renegotiate this contract to incorporate cost escalation in the future, means that the farmers will not lose from costs increases in the years to come. I believe this to be a break-through and although I cannot tell the hon. member what this will boil down to in hard cash—it might be a further increase of R50 million or R100 million or even more—I can tell him that we have established this contact with our Japanese friends. I think we can be very pleased that we have this amicable relations with the Japanese industry.

The hon. gentleman wanted me to say something about the timber industry in Japan itself. As the hon. member will know, Japan imports about 72% of its timber requirements at the moment. The fact that the Japanese have to depend on overseas supplies makes the industry in Japan a very vulnerable one. They, therefore, are concerned about the position just as we are concerned about the overall timber position in the world today. I hope to establish our position when I shall be visiting the United States shortly. With the exception of one single country, all the European countries have to supplement their local supplies. As the hon. gentlemen will know, even the United States of America imports about 13% to 15% of its requirements today. They import from the colder countries, such as Canada. Canada actually is the only big supplier in the West today. I am afraid that the Scandanavian countries as suppliers of pulp and wood are actually not very important at this juncture at which we are living today because their own demand and the European demand are very high at the moment. It stresses the fact that we in South Africa have to augment our own supplies at the rate of 50 000 ha per year, as we have indicated before, otherwise we shall not be in the position to supply our own requirements in future. I must say that I am very impressed by the general Japanese attitude towards scientific research. We actually adopted the attitude of affluent countries by gearing ourselves to a waste economy. We cut down the trees, run them through the mills and throw away all the fall-off material. Then we buy it from other people again but we are cutting off trees all the time. We cannot allow this position to continue. If a country has to import 72% of its supplies, it will naturally be very concerned about the way it uses the supplies it has. I am very impressed by the fact that the Japanese industry does not allow any waste at all. I could not see any waste at all; not even black liquor. They do not even have a problem with black liquor. Their scientists will find some or other use even for black liquor. I think, therefore, that if we are to look to future developments in this industry, we should not look to America though their developments may be very impressive. We should look to the Japanese where they do not have a lot to play with. I think that that is the sort of attitude we should adopt. We in South Africa should do as much as we can to further our own scientific research and therefore, I am very pleased to be able to report that our own scientific research done by the CSIR has opened up possibilities for the future which will stand South Africa in good stead.

I do not intend replying tonight on the point raised by the hon. member in connection with costs because I should first like to hear the arguments from the other side. Therefore I shall reply to that on Friday. If the hon. member will not be here then, he will find my answer in Hansard.

*The hon. member for East London North discussed another matter which is very important, namely the question of sponges. The hon. member is concerned about the Buffalo River area, and I agree with him that it is a beautiful area. Now there are certain things which are happening before our eyes. Many of these areas are being abominably neglected, destroyed and burnt out. There are actually three departments which are concerned with this. The Department of Agriculture has to prevent erosion, the Department of Water Affairs has to exercise the necessary control in order to supply water and the Department of Forestry has to administer mountain catchment areas and control areas. It is felt that all these things should fall under one department. Now the hon. member will know that we really go out of our way to have the areas which we want to protect declared forest reserves or even wilderness areas if we think it is necessary. As far as development in the homelands and the purchasing of farms for the new homelands are concerned, it will no longer be the responsibility of this department. Negotiations are being conducted with the homelands to try and create in any event a régime controlling catchment areas as well as managing forestry areas, a régime which will be parallel to that of South Africa. The Government decided a while ago, with a view to the future, to create a forest union for Southern Africa. We shall then be able to pool our knowledge and integrate things in such a way that our interests will run parallel. The hon. member will understand quite well that if we were to find ourselves in a position in 15 or 20 years’ time in which there is a complete world shortage of wood products, it will stand us in good stead and will be in the interests of everybody if we have already laid the foundations for the proper co-ordination of all the timber interests in Southern Africa. We are trying to do that, also as regards the Bantu areas. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration knows of this and we hope to create the necessary machinery, with the aid of advice from our side, to develop the potential and to offer protection in the future. The hon. member was concerned also about protection. For this reason he referred, for instance, to the upper reaches of the Tugela, where great destruction can take place. We are in fact beginning to protect our catchment areas for this very reason. Must is being done in this regard. Through the Forestry Council we have actually created a better machinery which will involve the private sector as well. Land is being purchased for forestry. In his area, too, land has been bought for this purpose, and we shall naturally plan and protect this. But, Sir, when it concerns matters which affect Bantu, it is the task of all of us, and we are indeed working at it, to let the actions aimed at protection and those aimed at development run parallel to such an extent that we can act as agents. By means of this co-operation we may integrate these two in the future—this applies especially to the Transkei, where afforestation is taking place on an enormous scale and where a processing industry is already being established. I just want to mention one of these new developments as an example, i.e. the factory at Stutterheim. Hon. members will know that we have established a factory there. If any one of us ever visit that part of the world, he will do well to have a look at it. One thousand Bantu wild be employed in this factory. A few million rand has been invested in this project. We wanted to use this factory for the harder type of timber. Some of my colleagues will know even better than I do that one finds the very hard iron-wood in the Knysna forests. There are thousands of cubic metres of this wood, but it is so hard that no one can or wants to do anything with it. Attempts are now being made to skin and veneer this iron-wood. This seemed so impossible ten years ago that nobody would have invested a cent in a project of this nature. This factory will start production in the near future. It will also be possible to process there other types of hardwood such as wild olive and tamboti. Here we therefore have example of the co-operation between this department and another department, where such an industry was initiated and in which both departments are involved. If this process is going to be applied in the forest industry in future it can only bring us success. Various areas which are going to look for an industry in which they can be assured of a livelihood will find such a livelihood in the forest industry. I just want to tell the hon. member that he need not be concerned. One soon gets a fright when one drives through an area and sees the destruction around one. We have accomplished a great deal during the past few years to try to eliminate destruction and create order. Just look at the way in which we combat fires. The Cape Peninsular experiences many forest fires every year, but we have already reduced it by half. In other words, the ideal situation is not brought about within a year or two. However if the machinery is established and it is applied with dedication, it makes a considerable difference over a period of years. All the hon. member and I can hope for, is that we shall see his area develop and that his concern will disappear in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to welcome the Secretary for Forestry to his first debate here. I hope he will have just as fruitful a period of office as did his predecessor, and hold office for just as long, too, although, looking at the colour of his hair, it seems to me as if he will not be here for quite as long. In any event, we wish him a very pleasant time as Secretary. I have another pleasant task, too, namely congratulating the Minister and his department on the very neat annual report. I was worried that we should not receive the report in time. Consequently I want to congratulate the department specially on the fact that the report reached us in time.

This evening I want to discuss the future afforestation of our country. The advance estimates compiled some time ago indicated that we were heading for a serious timber shortage and that we would have to expand our afforestation programme substantially if we were to be self-sufficient in the future. The figures indicated that the existing afforested area would have to be tripled if we were to meet the country’s timber requirements by the year 2000. To reach this target we should have to maintain a rate of afforestation of at least 50 000 ha per annum. That is not a target which will be easily reached, and the State and private industry will therefore have to co-operate and substantial preparatory work is necessary before that rate can be maintained. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about this.

The hon. member for Mooi River also referred to the profitability of a forestry enterprise, It is true that the interest earned on plantations today is very low, and that the accumulation of compound interest over a period of years that is necessary before one can fell that plantation can swallow up the entire profit. We passed an Act in Parliament providing that loans would be made available for afforestation at a low interest rate. I should therefore like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether these loans are in fact being taken up by the private sector and whether progress has been made in instituting this scheme. If we bear in mind that only 8% of the total surface area of the Republic is suitable for economic afforestation from the point of view of climate, and that much of that 8% is required for food production, it would appear to be very questionable whether we shall have sufficient land for this ambitious scheme to which I have referred, viz. the 50 000 ha per annum. I also want to put the question here tonight whether, as the hon. the Minister said, we make enough use of all the timber and waste products of the plantation. What I have in mind when I say this is the fact that I was in Switzerland recently, and I saw there that trees were not sawn off far from the ground but were sawed off virtually in the soil. Those stumps alone must contain an enormous amount of timber.

What about the reuse of timber products —paper, cardboard, wooden crates and so on? So many of these products are used once and then thrown away. Has the time not come for us to consider a little more carefully the reuse of timber products?

We must try to use to best effect the land available for afforestation. We must therefore attempt to obtain a very high yield from the plantation. We must try to ensure the best quality per surface unit. We can only do this by continuing to undertake purposeful research in this regard. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels satisfied that our research is entirely up to date and that we are doing everything possible to obtain the highest production per unit.

The second point I want to mention in this regard is the issue of marginal land. We shall probably have to begin cultivating marginal land. This is land that is not particularly suitable for afforestation. I know that pioneering work has already been done by our researchers in regard to marginal land. I know that if we want to, we can make a plan enabling us to produce good timber on this marginal land as well. Timber is a strategic material and consequently I want to make the appeal this evening that if the private sector should begin to cultivate marginal land, we should consider giving them a still greater subsidy. It would be in the national interest to develop marginal land in this way even though we should have to incur extra expense in this regard. We realize that we cannot establish plantations without planning. We call to mind our catchment areas in the mountains which we require for the catchment of water. We are fortunate that the portfolios of Water Affairs and Forestry fall under one Minister. In our wisdom we decided that we should require of people that before they could plant their trees on certain land, they would have to obtain afforestation permits. I do not have the slightest intention of giving the impression that this system of permits has an inhibiting effect on afforestation, but I should nevertheless like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has any misgivings in regard to the possibility that this system of permits perhaps restricts the rate of afforestation at this stage. It is clear to me that the Department of Forestry will have to harness all its energies in order to put into effect the envisaged expansion of afforestation. Every piece of State land suitable for afforestation will have to be planted. We so often find with regard to town development, industrial development and even farming development, that land which is suitable for forestry purposes is made available for purposes of that kind. I wonder whether the necessary attention is always given to these requests, to determine whether they are really so desirable. Should we not attempt to find out whether alternative land does not perhaps exist which could be utilized for these purposes? For example, I have in mind sloping and poor land which would perhaps be just as suitable for these other purposes so that any land available for afforestation could be retained for that purpose. I believe that if we take these steps, we may still reach those targets, but I want to tell the Minister that to me, these figures look high. I should therefore like to have some assurance from him.

Mr. Chairman, although perhaps not all of us are all that wide awake, I should like to tell you how wide awake the Department of Forestry is. [Interjections.] Someone has just woken up over there. I should very much like to stress the issue of occupational safety in the Department of Forestry. In the annual report for 1967, it is stated that the productivity of the department was being affected seriously by the large number of injuries on duty. However, the Department of Forestry did not want to hide behind a number of injuries as a reason for lower productivity, as the Tukkies hid behind the injuries they received on Saturday. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, hon. members are getting very excited now, but the score was only 26-16. The number of injuries in the department rose from 1 223 in 1957 to 1 844 in 1966. It was calculated at the time that these injuries meant a loss of more than R500 000 for the department. Statistics showed that about 75% of these injuries occurred between 9.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. and between 2.20 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. The number of injuries had then to be carefully studied. It had to be ascertained why those injuries took place and how they could be eliminated. This evening I want to pay tribute to the Department of Forestry for the fact that they succeeded in reducing this number of injuries to a very great extent. In 1973 there were 522 accidents. This represents a drop of 1 322 in the number of injuries since 1966.

Sir, here in the House we are so much inclined to convey our thanks to the senior officials of each department—and it is probably quite right that we should do so. Since we are discussing forestry affairs, I should like to convey my thanks this evening to the man in the veld. He is the man who keeps the industry going. I should also like to convey that thanks to both the Whites and the non-Whites, because this is one of the industries in which these people are exposed to injury to a very high degree. This is understandable if we bear in mind the work in the plantations themselves and if we bear in mind the work that has to be done in the State sawmills. I should like to make mention here this evening of the great effort on the part of the Department of Forestry to ensure that its workers are to go to work properly fed. It was ascertained that owing to the fact that forestry workers were not properly fed, slackening took place and injuries occurred as a result. I want to mention here this evening that the department provides its workers with, inter alia, food rations. In the larger regions, the department also has kitchens with the aim of providing its workers with a balanced diet. In this way the department has succeeded in eliminating enormous losses. This evening we should like to refer to the Blyde State sawmills which has set up a record for sawmills in South Africa by working 1618 000 manhours free of time-lost accidents during the period 1972 to 1975. I believe that these State sawmills deserve our thanks for this exceptional effort they have made. I also want to refer to the forestry district of Kluitjieskraal that has worked a whole year without time-lost accidents. Then there is the Elandsfontein State sawmills that has already been working for four years without time-lost accidents. A total of 36 State plantations have been accident-free for one year, 22 for two years and 14 for three years. In this way the man in the veld, both White and non-White, the officials of this department, have succeeded in establishing a high productivity. We want to congratulate the department and we believe that if this could filter through to all sectors and all departments in our country, we should be able to make a major contribution to the economy in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I seem, to have a very short time at my disposal to discuss matters in this Forestry debate, but II would like to comment on certain questions which I consider to be of considerable importance. [Interjections.] Firstly, I want to make the point very strongly indeed that South Africa is going to be confronted within the next 15 years with a very serious shortage of timber. At the present time not nearly enough additional land is being made available or is being put to timber. The annual programme of afforestation is not keeping pace with the additional market for timber. I think it is presently estimated that something like 50 000 additional hectare a year must be put to timber if we are to keep pace with the demand. Until last year it was estimated at 40 000 ha, but it has now gone up to 50 000 ha.

Demand for what?

The demand for timber. We are in fact not beginning to keep pace with this demand. During the planting season of the year 1971-72 an additional 30 000 ha was planted which at that stage was a shortfall of about 10 000 ha. In the year 1972-73 this figure dropped to 25 690 ha against a then planned requirement of 50 000 ha. During 1973-74 there was a further fall to 22 363 ha, or less than half the planned requirement. Together all the forests in South Africa yield just more than 10,3 million cubic metres of timber a year, while demand is estimated in the region of 12,5 million cubic ha a year. This will rise in the next five years to something in the region of 15 million cubic ha and by the turn of the century we should be using something like double that amount, and in no way are we beginning to keep pace with the demand.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.